Loading...
2009 08-20Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 20, 2009 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 20, 2009, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe. Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Joe Marshall, and Commissioner Tom O’Brien, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay and Commissioner Michael Rohm. Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Pete Friedman, 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 Marshall __X__ David Moe - Chairman Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for August the 20th. At this time I'd like to open the meeting and ask the clerk to call roll, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Moe: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Commissioners, there are no changes to the agenda, so could I get a motion to adopt the agenda? O'Brien: So moved. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of August 6, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. Commissioners, there is one item on that, that would be the approval of the meeting minutes of the August 6th, 2009, Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 2 of 32 Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting. Any comments, changes, or anything to that? Newton-Huckabay: None. Moe: If none, can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? O'Brien: So moved. Marshall: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Although we don't have a real large audience, I will go ahead and at this time I'll just kind of give you the -- the Reader's Digest version of how we will go about tonight's proceedings here. I will open the public hearing and which, then, the staff will give a brief overview of the project and explain the conditions and whatnot that were put forward. After they are done I will ask the applicant to come forward. The applicant will, then, have 15 minutes to discuss the project through. After he is done there are sign-up sheets in the back, if someone in the public would like to speak in regards to the projects, anyone coming forward will have three minutes time period. After anyone that's signed up has spoke, I will, then, ask one more time if there is anyone else that would like to make comment and they will also be given three minutes to do so. After that I will, then, ask the applicant to come back up and, basically, answer any questions that may have come up in the public hearing portion, after which, then, we will, then, close the public hearing and, then, the Commission will deliberate and vote. Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 09-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.52 acres from RUT in Ada County to L-O (Limited Office) for Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital by Rich Shackleford – 2600 S. Meridian Road: Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 09-007 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 1,504 square foot addition to the existing 2,112 square foot veterinary hospital in a proposed L-O district for Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital by Rich Shackleford – 2600 S. Meridian Road: Item 6: Public Hearing: CPA 09-004 Request for Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation on 2.52 acres of land from Low Density Residential to Office for Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital by Rich Shackleford – 2600 S. Meridian Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 3 of 32 Moe: Having said that, then, I would now like to open the public hearing on AZ 09-002, CUP 09-007, and CPA 09-004, for the Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital and ask staff to start. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission. The first application before you is a request for annexation and zoning of 2.52 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the L-O, Limited Office District, in the city. Another application, a Conditional Use Permit, for 1,504 square foot addition to the existing 2,112 square foot veterinary hospital and a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the future land use map designation on this site from low density residential to office. There is a zoning map in front of you and it shows the location of the property. The property is located at 2,600 South Meridian Road on the east side of South Meridian Road, State Highway 69, north of Victory Road. Surrounding uses. Property to the north is office, zoned L-O. To the east is rural residential property, zoned R-8. To the south is Edmonds Court, the street. And to the south of that is rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada County. And to the west is a church, zoned C-G. The existing veterinary hospital was approved by Ada County on this site in 1984. Two cell towers approved by the county in 2005 and 2007 also exist on the undeveloped portion of this site. The applicant wishes to expand the veterinary hospital and Ada County would not let them expand without hooking up to urban services, so, therefore, the applicant is requesting annexation into the city. The future land use map -- actually, let me back up here for a minute. This is an aerial view of the property and showing the surrounding properties. This is a future land use map. The one on your left here is the current designation of low density residential for this site. The map on the right is the proposed office designation. You can see that, how that correlates with the adjacent properties. The applicant has submitted a site plan showing the existing structure. The proposed addition. Two driveways to the site from State Highway 69, Meridian Road. Associated parking, landscaping, and trash enclosure. Only a portion of this site has been developed. The remainder of the site will develop at a later date. Currently it is one lot there, but only a portion of it's developed. A cross-access easement is recommended to be provided to the property to the north for future interconnectivty and to reduce access points on State Highway 69. The UDC, Section 11-3H-4B, prohibits access to State Highway 69 with expansion of the use. Upon expansion of the site, the applicant is required to take access from Edmonds Court to the south, which borders the south boundary of this property. A variance has been requested by the applicant for two temporary access driveways to State Highway 69, as shown on the site plan that are existing, until such time as the remainder of the site develops. At that time the existing accesses will terminate and access will be taken from Edmonds Court. The variance will be heard by City Council concurrently with this application when it goes forward with your recommendation. The applicant has submitted building elevations, showing the proposed improvements to the existing structure, as well as the addition. Building materials consist of painted CMU, stucco, stone veneer, and corrugated metal siding with asphalt shingle roofing. Staff is recommending a development agreement are listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. Written testimony. The applicant has submitted a letter in response to the staff report, requesting the provisions of the development agreement be clarified -- modified as follows: The landscape buffers along the east, Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 4 of 32 south, and undeveloped portion of the west boundary, including the ten foot wide multi- use pathway noted in provision 1.2.E, will not be required with construction of the remodel addition to the veterinary hospital, but will be required in the future when the remainder of the site develops. Staff is okay with this clarification, so we can go ahead and add those stipulations to the development agreement. Provision 1.2G, Exhibit B, requires a cross-access easement to be provided to the property to the north, with the expansion of the veterinary hospital. The applicant requests, instead, that it be required when the remainder of the site develops, as the ultimate site layout is unknown at this time. Staff recommends the provision remain as it is, the only requirement for an easement. The location of the actual access will be determined at a later date when the remainder of site and the property to the north develop further. Staff just wants the applicant to grant an easement for cross-access to the property owner to the north, a blanket easement. The location does not need not be determined at this time. Staff is recommending approval of this application, with the development agreement provisions listed in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Moe: Thank you very much. Any questions? O'Brien: Yes. Mr. Chairman. Moe: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Sonya, I -- maybe I'm a little confused here, but they want to have two accesses currently with -- with some of the site not being developed fully; is that correct? Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, the two access points they are requesting are existing and they are just requesting they be retained. O'Brien: Okay. Because I was -- Watters: Because the UDC prohibits access to the state highway for expansion of a site -- the applicant is requesting a variance to retain those accesses as temporary accesses, until such time when the remainder of the site develops. At that time they will extend the driveway access out to Edmonds Court. O'Brien: Yeah. I'm sorry. I was curious, because there -- there is the access point -- the single access point after it's developed is -- it's going to be more -- more traffic going through one entrance, instead of what it would be with two, so I was curious how that happened, but I think you explained it pretty well. Appreciate that. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 5 of 32 Moe: Commissioner O'Brien. Marshall: First off, since this is -- also includes a change to the Comprehensive Plan and we can only do that once every six months, I'm assuming this has been timed, because it's actually six months and one day since our last and we have no others to bring forth at this time and this is a good time to do it and -- Moe: We actually have one -- eight and nine are also -- when we get to a point where we are going to make a decision, we will continue this hearing to the end of the meeting this evening and, then, we will act on both at that time. Marshall: Double-checking on that. Thank you. Second -- so, did I misread -- and the city's recommendation was to limit the accesses to one access or to -- staff's recommendation. Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner Marshall, staff recommendation is per the UDC, that upon expansion of the site, those two existing access points, you know, be closed and that access be taken from Edmonds Court. However, the applicant has requested a variance to retain those two accesses on a temporary basis. Staff's recommendation on that variance will most likely be that only one of those accesses remain. Marshall: So, I did read that correctly. Watters: However, the Commission -- or, excuse me, the City Council will make a determination on that variance application. You're welcome to forward any comments you may, though, on with your recommendation on this application for the variance. Marshall: Appreciate that. Thank you. Moe: Okay. Any others? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Please state your name and address for the record. Erickson: Ross Erickson, 9543 West Emerald, Boise, Idaho. Moe: Thank you. Erickson: I'm here tonight representing the applicant on the three applications that Sonya just described. The nature of the request for all three applications is -- is -- Sonya kind of touched on it, but, really, what the applicant wants to do is add about 1,500 square feet to an existing 2,100 square foot veterinary hospital. As Sonya mentioned, the hospital is currently a permitted use in Ada County and it's functioning with both accesses to Highway 69, which we are proposing to retain with the application. With regards to the Comprehensive Plan amendment, I don't think there is a lot of contention. I think staff pretty much agrees with our proposal as far as the office land use designation. The nature of our request was to permit an L-O zoning Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 6 of 32 designation, so we could, then, submit a Conditional Use Permit for operation of the clinic within the city. So, that's kind of how the string of applications was generated from the get go. Sonya had gone through our response letter of August 29th that, basically, went through some of the items that we wanted clarification on to the staff report and I believe you guys probably have that in your packets. Do you? Okay. So, items one and two were addressed. It sounds like she's just going to add -- or recommending to add a clarification to the development agreement to clarify which portions of the landscaping will be required with the remodel expansion project. Item three was the variance request that will be heard by City Council, I guess, unless you guys would like to provide some comments as well on that. And, then, item four, with regards to the cross-access easement, the reason why we were requesting that this condition of the development agreement be modified is that we really don't feel comfortable dedicating an easement if we don't know where it's going to go. If we were to dedicate some sort of a blanket easement to the property or to the north, we can't just go take that easement back when the property actually develops and we know where a future access road might align to Edmonds. At this point we really don't have a clue as to how the balance of the property will develop with regards to service drives, parking lots, building pads, et cetera, and it could be very well different, you know, five years from now when the property develops or ten years, based on market demand, than it would be today. The current owner really doesn't have a desire to develop this ever, they just want to get their remodel done and continue operating their -- their veterinary hospital until retirement, at which they will probably sell the property and fund their retirement, so that's probably about it. And, then, just one additional item that we had coordinated with Public Works and that's item five on that letter. Just as a point of clarification, it's our intent to bring sewer service from the termination point of the existing sewer main that is located in the easterly side of the Highway 69 right of way. We are not proposing to construct the sewer main and manholes, which will drastically reduce our cost to service the -- the building with the addition. Other than that, I didn't have a whole lot more to add. For the most part we agreed with staff's report with respect to the conditions that I just read that were noted in that letter. And with that I'll stand for any questions that you have. Moe: Any questions of the applicant? O'Brien: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: I'm just curious and maybe, Sonya, you could help. So, in previous situations where a cross-access needed to happen or -- because of the conditions -- things were going to be developed later, I think -- what I'm thinking about is the parts and wrecking supply over here on Fairview and Locust Grove, that the concern was where do we put this access and I think that that is a concern of yours as well, is that I think we left it up to the developer who developed it first to put the access -- cross-access where they wanted to, what made the most sense, and if it needed to change and the developer -- they came afterwards, if it needed to change it would do it at their own expense. Does Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 7 of 32 that make sense that they could go ahead and build an access -- a cross-access where they feel best serves their purpose? Watters: I think in answer to your question, excuse me, Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, I believe you're asking about if it makes sense to construct an access to that property to the north right now at this time. We are not requiring the applicant to construct that access right now, we simply would like the access -- or the -- excuse me, the applicant to grant a cross-access easement to that property owner to the north for future interconnectivity and any access. O'Brien: Okay. Watters: Upon further development of the site. O'Brien: Makes sense. Thank you. Rohm: A follow up to his question. Can't the applicant so designate the specifics of the cross-access, just say we want to have it at this location and they can develop it at such time as that adjacent property develops, rather than have it a blanket easement all along the -- their north line. Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Rohm. We certainly understand where the applicant -- what the applicant's concern is. And we were trying to balance this out, trying to figure out the best way to do it, because we -- in our discussions with the applicant and representative we have a pretty good understanding of what their plans are and their current development plans. One of those questions for us is a question of opportunity and the timing of the opportunity to obtain the access and the easement and recognizing that we don't know how the property to the north is going to develop, we don't really even know how the property -- this property developed. I mean we have some ideas how it might develop given what's currently existing on the property. So, I guess staff's recommendation for the easement was that it would be granted now and, really, what you would have would be the -- you would have, essentially, the two legal parcel descriptions and so forth and, then, when such time comes that development does occur in either one of the two properties, then, we can nail it down at that point. It doesn't require any further action by the Commission or the City Council, it's an administerial action of relinquishing and re- recording. So, ideally, it doesn't get the applicant what they want. We recognize their -- again, their concerns. We are just kind of taking -- looking at the opportunity we have now, because it could be as Ross had indicated, I mean it could be five, ten years from now and, you know, if we weren't fully diligent at that point in time we might lose that opportunity if for some reason someone wasn't able to check the -- the trail or the chain of the conditions and that sort of thing. Either that or, you know, we are going to have Sonya here monitoring the whole thing ten years from now. So, that's -- that's the basis of our recommendation. Moe: Uh-huh. Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 8 of 32 Erickson: Mr. Chairman, Commission, if I might, the -- we are not -- and maybe it's a point of clarification. We are not contesting dedicating a cross-access through the site. We just don't think now is the time to do it. We think that a provision in the DA more than accomplishes what the goal of the city is to provide cross-access through the property. So, say we provide a blanket access easement to this property and the Shacklefords are tired and sell the clinic and someone wants use the property for a different use and never develops it, now they have got a cross-access easement over the entire property to the people to the north and it's just not the right time to do it. It's my feeling that a better time to do it would be triggered upon future development of this site, because at that time we know where it should go. We know how to define it. We know what -- you know, where it can access, how we can do the operation and maintenance for the access. At this point it's just too premature. So, we are not -- I just want to clarify that we are not contesting the cross-access easement, we are just saying that it makes more sense to do it with future development and I personally don't think it's -- it would be fair to condition the property just to -- you know, so that an oversight isn't made down the road. I think that, you know, the condition could be in the development agreement that development agreement should be referenced at some future date when the balance of the property develops. Moe: Okay. Mr. Marshall, you had a question? Marshall: I did for staff real quick. Pete, hasn't this been somewhat common place? Haven't we done this a number of times with blanket cross-access easements in cases like this? Friedman: We have had -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Marshall, I know in some cases we have it depends on the situation and the application. No specifics come to my mind right now. Maybe Sonya or Bill can think of one. We did have one that we have been working with where the -- we did have an access -- cross- access easement -- well, we are actually still working on it -- required. There had been a schematic site plan that had been attached to the easement. That development has not transpired and so we are still trying to negotiate that easement back and forth and that ultimately will probably be a blanket easement at this point until the two properties on either side of the subject property actually develop. Watters: I think this is kind of a unique site in that only a portion of it is being developed at this time. Typically when we, you know require cross-access easements, they are constructing that actual access at the time of development. So, this is a little -- a little unique in that sense. Marshall: But isn't it -- at that time we are actually defining exactly where that cross- access easement is and I know we have seen a number of conceptual plans that have come through where there is -- there was blanket cross-access easements required to be nailed down once the site came through. And -- I mean can -- isn't that typically Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 9 of 32 done when we change the zoning, that we try to require that cross-access whenever we change zoning within an area, don't we try to nail that down? Watters: Annexation is the time with the development agreement that we typically, you know, try to do that. As well as platting the property. We have done it both ways in the past. You know, we have had -- we like to get metes and bounds legal descriptions with an exhibit map and that's what Ross is, you know, referencing that he'd really like to do on it, as would we, but it's just not -- Marshall: Right. Watters: -- it doesn't make sense in this situation. Marshall: We can be flexible and -- Watters: They could come back in the future -- Ross asked me this question earlier this afternoon and I talked to our city attorney about it and I have yet to get back to him on that, but asked if they would have to go back before City Council to vacate that easement and our city attorney advised us that they would not, because that easement was not approved by City Council, it's just a private agreement between the two property owners, so it would not require Council approval to vacate, is what I understand from our attorney. So, if Ross has questions on that, he may direct them to -- Erickson: But we would still need to get the grantee to resign that easement, if you ever wanted to give it up, if the site never developed, and, then, you would be kind of at their mercy. Watters: Maybe the city attorney has some suggestions on language that may be able to go into that agreement that would allow them to define an exact location at a later date. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the language that we are looking for in this blanket easement would just say at a location to be determined in the future, this easement is expected to be vacated and replaced with a specific location by agreement between the two parties. You know, it -- I think what the Commission and staff is trying to do here is actually cut you a break. They have the power now to tell you to put it in a spot and, then, to undo that is even more difficult down the road. So, it's not just that we are trying to prevent a staff oversight from a DA condition, we are just trying to put future owners of both parcels on notice that there is an attempt to have a cross-access at a point to be determined in the future. Erickson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we are fine with that. That would trigger -- so when the property develops the easement will be granted then; correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 10 of 32 Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, assuming that you want that question answered -- Moe: Yes, I do. Baird: It is to grant a blanket easement now with specific language in that blanket easement that it would be replaced with a more definite easement in the future. We have done this many times before. The situation that Commissioner O'Brien referred to was at the Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision and they were required to put it in a specific spot, again, not knowing how they were going to develop in the future and if they need to change it they still need to yank the existing easement and replace it with another one. Again, it's up to the Commission to decide how you want to do this. We could go back and forth all night, really. Erickson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I don't know if the city's attorney could help us smith some language to maybe define it in such a way that, you know, if the applicants don't develop the site that the blanket easement goes away, like if they were to sell this property to, you know, a user that didn't intend to develop it, yet maybe they wanted to use it for something else and not plat lots, that that easement could go away and, then, that would take the right away from the owner to the north to have ingress-egress through this site. Rohm: I don't think that's the intent of a cross-access agreement. I think -- I think the issue here tonight that we are kind of struggling with is everybody, including yourself, agrees that a cross-access needs to be placed at a later date, but your property owners that you're representing want to be a party to that decision making process as to where it specifically placed at such time as the property to the north develops, as opposed to it being a blanket easement and let them chose where they want it at any point along that property line. Is that kind of your position? Erickson: Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, in a sense it kind of is, but it's more -- I guess I don't understand why the easement -- because, you see, our -- my clients aren't developers, they are -- they want to do an addition on their vet clinic. Rohm: Right. Erickson: So, they are not trying to figure out, you know, how they are going to plat a lot down the road or where all this is going to -- all this is going to work. They are trying to keep their costs as minimal as possible to get their vet clinic expanded, so they can continue to operate out of it. So, we hate to encumber their property unnecessarily, although we are not against committing to encumbering it in the future when the time is appropriate. And that would be triggered by a provision in the DA for the cross-access. And, then, you know, in the future if this property were to sell and a developer come in and pick it up, there would be a DA provision that says cross-access needs to be provided to Edmonds and, then, on that plat for that development it would say blanket Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 11 of 32 cross-access through the service drives. So, that's how we have handled them in the past. I'm not -- I guess I'm confused why we are not doing it that way this time. Marshall: If I may take a shot at this. Moe: Yes, Mr. Marshall. Marshall: A concern is that if an easement is not granted at this time, there is no easement on the books, and your owners are not planning on developing this area to the south here and the area to the north does develop, the problem is they are going to say, look, we don't have access to Edmonds, there is no access there, so you have to grant us access to the highway, which is what we are trying to avoid. We are trying to limit the number of accesses to the highway. There is a lot of reason behind that. It's so that the traffic flows at designed speed. So, we are trying to assure that that area to the north has access, so that when it does develop up there it -- down the road your owners sell the property and somebody else is saying, no, I'm not going to grant access to that, I don't plan on ever giving easement access to that. And, yet, the people to the north are trying to develop, then, that forces the only way for that to develop to go access to the highway and we would prefer to see that go to Edmonds, so that the flow on Meridian Road continues for the good of the entire city. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just -- it sounds to me like we are kind of getting into a little debate on what Mr. Erickson and his client would like to see and what the city would like to see and I don't think that's what we are here to do to debate that. The city has laid down -- or staff has laid down their conditions of approval, I think you have laid down your position on why you disagree with those conditions of approval and I think as a Commission now we are responsible for debating those and making a decision and recommendation to City Council and, then, you can go -- I don't think standing here and arguing over what you want and what the staff wants is going to do anything but take another 15, 20 minutes. Erickson: Sure. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Huckabay, that wasn't my intent to argue. I was trying to just provide you some clarification and just, in addition, the property to the north, they come in in 2005 and it was annexed and it was approved for reconstructing the existing building to function as a real estate office and within the conditions of approval for that site, they indicated that that property could continue to utilize access to Highway 69 to a point when the site did develop in the future. But they were going to permit that site to convert to a real estate office and still utilize that existing access point, so for what it's worth. Friedman: Yeah. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, just as a follow up on Ross's point there, when that was approved the annexation on that parcel to the north, that's the Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 12 of 32 Irwin property, there wasn't providing that they provide cross-access both to the piece north of them and to the applicant's piece of property and that prior to the issuance of any CZC for that property is when the easement has to be recorded. We can't find record of a CZC being applied for or issued for that property, therefore, that access easement has not been executed as yet. In addition, those conditions of approval said that the vehicle access to that site was to be restricted to those approved by ITD and the city access to Meridian Road was to be on an interim basis only and would terminate within six months of alternate access being made available to that piece. Moe: Thank you. Thank you very much. Erickson: Thank you. Moe: On the sign-up sheet, R.L. Shackleford. Okay. From the audience he has no other comments. Other than that, there is no one else signed up. If there is anyone else that would like to speak to this hearing? Seeing none -- okay. Well, Commissioners, any comments? Discussion? Newton-Huckabay: I have made a couple notes. Give me a moment to -- I recommend we close the public hearing on AZ 09-002, CUP 09-007 and CPA 09-004. O'Brien: Second. Moe: Motion to close the public hearing on AZ 09-002, CUP 09-007 and CAP 09-004. All those in favor say aye? Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Any further comments, Commissioners? And, again, depending upon that, if anyone's making motions, it needs to be a motion to continue it to the end of the hearings tonight and we will act on that -- on both of the comp plan changes at the same time. Newton-Huckabay: When we make our motions to continue, Mr. Chair, do we go ahead and modify any conditions at that time? Moe: I think we can do that when we are making the motion at the end of the evening. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Just has an opportunity to be fresher in the motion maker's mind now. Okay. Moe: I understand. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I get that. Moe: It's a Comp Plan amendment, so we have to wait. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 13 of 32 Newton-Huckabay: I have a couple questions, Mr. Chair, on the sewer service. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: It does make comment that the city is okay with that change. I just need to know how we would modify the condition in the motion. Steckline: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I don't believe that we would need to make any clarifications in any of the notes. The notes state in there -- and if you give me a second to flip to -- it clearly indicates the difference between mains and services. It says if there is any mains, then, we will require easements, but since this is a sewer service, I don't believe we will have to do any clarifications to any -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, it was just a wording difference between the two -- Steckline: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: -- understanding? Okay. So, no changes there. And am I correct in that the comments and the notes from staff regarding the landscape buffers along the east, south, and undeveloped portion of the west boundary would replace 1.2E? Let me try asking my question. Would I replace 1.2E with the statement saying that the staff and the city has no -- no concerns with that? Watters: I think the existing provision can just be -- I think there can be a provision added that only those requirements apply to the portion of the site that is developed. The other one's just a clarification, but you can just say as recommended by staff per the applicant's request would probably be sufficient to cover that. So, on the second one, the 1.2G -- wait a minute. Moe: That's in regards to cross-access. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I'm thinking of the wrong -- I just want to make sure that I am referencing the correct condition, so 1.2E, a ten foot wide detached multi-use pathway is required to construct within public use easements. Which condition is the landscaping one? Watters: There is not a condition. He's just asking for clarification in the development agreement pertaining to the landscaping, but there is not a provision specifically that states that, that's why you can't find it. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. I see. Okay. Including the ten foot -- Watters: The DA provisions were to apply only to development of this portion of the site. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 14 of 32 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Watters: The applicant's just wanting to clarify in writing that that is the case and that they don't apply to the remainder of the undeveloped portion of the site. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And, then, what I am wondering is -- one of the reasons why on this cross-access we would lose potentially if we don't require it now, the opportunity to connect to Edmonton, which is -- or Edmonton -- Watters: Edmonds. Newton-Huckabay: Edmonds. Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the opportunity to connect to Edmonds Court is actually for the property to the north, so we are wanting the cross access to be able to insure that we have a flow of traffic from the property to the north through the site to connect to Edmonds Court. Newton-Huckabay: This only has a potential if we don't make sure that we are getting an easement agreement to prevent that to the northern properties in the future. Friedman: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, we already have a requirement to the property to the north to grant this property owner cross-access to their property, so now we are just trying to, you know, kind of add the belt to the suspenders to get the cross- access agreement from this property to the one to the north to be able to initiate that cross-access to Edmonds. Moe: Mr. Marshall? Marshall: I have one concern that just occurred to me. Some of the wording on the cross-access easement on the property to the north stated something about within six months of having access granted to them that they had to, then, withdraw their access to Meridian and, then, follow the new access. So, would a blanket access across this property kick that into gear and they have to take access across this property? Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Marshall, I'm not sure that's the case, because -- if I may read to you the specific conditions. Marshall: Please. Friedman: And this is, again, from the Irwin annexation development agreement -- or conditions governing development agreement. The first one, with respect to cross- access is that the applicant shall provide cross-access to the parcels to the north and to the south, which is the applicant's, prior to the issuance of this certificate of zoning compliance for any future use, excluding the existing home, which is to be converted. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 15 of 32 So, I think that contemplated that something beyond -- if they converted the home to an office. The next stage they would have to take out a CZC and, then, execute the cross- access agreement, but further it says the vehicular access to the site is restricted to those approved by ITD and the city. Access to the site from Meridian Road shall be on an interim basis only and shall terminate within six months of alternate access being made available to the site. Now, on this case, because we are merely granting the access easement, but since the parcel to the north hasn't initiated development so that they can determine where an access way or a drive aisle might be, nor does our applicant in this instance have an idea of where -- how the rest of the site would develop. It's going to be a matter of timing. So, really, once -- you know, if the property to the north for some reason decides that they can put a cross-access agreement in, a cross-access, they -- to line up with the drive aisle that's to the west of the cell tower on this site, then, they should -- they can take access from it, but the access still doesn't exist to Edmonds Court. That's -- that's the kind of -- Marshall: The easement's there, but the access did not exist. Friedman: Correct. Marshall: Thank you. Moe: Okay. Questions? Any other comments? Yes. Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Mr. Chair, just a -- I wrote down in my notes when I was reading through this. Is there still a -- regarding the hours of operation, there was a comment that currently it was is 7:00 to 7:00 and they wanted to change it to 6:00 to 10:00? Is that -- was that a question? Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, that is a UDC standard for the L-O district. O'Brien: I had down 7:00 to 7:00, but I -- Watters: You can restrict it further to the times they have proposed for their business if you would like, but the L-O standard is 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. in the district. O'Brien: Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. Thank you very much. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we continue the public hearing for AZ 09-002, CUP 09-007, and CAP 09-004 to the end of this meeting. Marshall: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 16 of 32 Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 09-002, CUP 09-007, and CPA 09- 004 to the end of the meeting. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Public Hearing: RZ 09-003 Request for Rezone of 5.02 acres from R-8 (medium density residential) to L-O (limited office) zone for Bainbridge Brighton Corporation – south of Chinden Boulevard on the west side of N. Ten Mile Road: Moe: Okay. Thank you. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on RZ 09-003 for Bainbridge and start with the staff report, please. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a rezone request for 5.02 acres of land from R-8 to L-O, limited office, for a church. The property is located on the west side of North Ten Mile Road just south of Chinden Boulevard. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is vacant agricultural land, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the east is Ten Mile Road, which borders the property. Single family residential properties and a city park, zoned R-4 to the east across Ten Mile. To the south is platted, but undeveloped single family residential property, zoned R-8 and rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the west is platted, but undeveloped single family residential lots, zoned R- 8. This is an aerial view of the property. This is the site plan proposed by the applicant. It shows one access point to Ten Mile Road and one access point to Broadbent Drive. Thirty-five foot wide landscape area is required adjacent to Ten Mile Road, an entryway corridor. A 25 -- or, excuse me, a 20 foot wide buffer is required adjacent to Broadbent Drive on the north and a 20 foot wide buffer to residential uses is required along the west and south property boundaries upon development of this site. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is medium density residential. However, the future land use category and their locations on the map are conceptual in nature. The property directly across Ten Mile and a site where a church was previously planned to develop on the south side of Chinden within the Bainbridge development, are both designated for public/quasi-public uses, such as a church. Therefore, staff does not believe a map amendment is necessary in this case and believes that the applicant's request complies with the Comprehensive Plan. This property was included in the annexation and preliminary plat for Bainbridge Subdivision in 2005. This site was previously designated on the preliminary plat for single family residential lots. No elevations were submitted of the future church building for this site. Outstanding issues for the Commission are regarding access on this application also. The access proposed to Ten Mile Road, an arterial street, and, then, the other access proposed is Broadbent Drive, a collector street. UDC 11-3A-3A requires access to be taken from the local street when available to insure the safety of motorists entering streets, unless waived by City Council. Access to a local street is not available. However, Broadbent Drive carry significantly less traffic than Ten Mile Road. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 17 of 32 Additionally, a goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to limit access points onto arterial streets. Therefore, staff is recommending sole access to the site be provided from Broadbent. Additionally, the development agreement for Bainbridge prohibits access to Ten Mile Road, other than the public street accesses approved with the preliminary plat by ACHD. There was not an access approved with the preliminary A direct access to Ten Mile Road for this property. The applicant submitted a letter in response to the staff report requesting that access to Ten Mile Road be allowed as shown on the concept plan. Staff is recommending approval of the rezone request with a development agreement per the provisions stated in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Moe: Thank you. Any questions, staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Turnbull: Thank you, Chairman Moe and Members of the Commission. I'd like to thank the staff for their presentation and their staff report and as Sonya mentioned, we only have one point of disagreement now and that's -- Moe: Name and address for the record, please. Turnbull: Oh. Excuse me. David Turnbull. 12601 West Explorer Drive, Boise. Staff recommended conditions prohibiting access to Ten Mile Road is something I'd like to address. In the citations in the staff report that Sonya presented, she references the Comprehensive Plan, Page 114, Objective D, and I believe Sonya is referring to action item number two, which says to restrict curb cuts an access point on collector, then, arterial streets. Now, I don't think -- you know, the term restrict does not mean prohibit and it's -- this provision applied to both collector and arterial streets. As was pointed out, Broadbent is a collector street as designated in the Comprehensive Plan for north Meridian. So, I guess I would differ with the interpretation of staff on that provision. I'd also go -- you know, the term restrict means typically to limit, to set within bounds, and I think we have done a pretty good job of that. You will notice on that site plan we put the access onto Ten Mile as far away as possible from the intersection of Broadbent and Ten Mile and we put the access on Broadbent as far away from the intersection with Broadbent and Ten Mile. So, we have tried to create spacing for those access points, so there won't be conflicts with the intersection. Now, if we were to have -- this site will require two access points and if we had to put both of them on Broadbent you would have one that would be very closely in proximity to the Ten Mile intersection, which we believe would be a less safe condition. In the citation to the UDC 11-3A-3, it says the following standards shall apply unless waived by the City Council, but we don't believe that this is a standard that applies, because it says -- first of all, the intent of these standards is to improve safety and we think that the layout that we have provided provide the best safety for this site. And, then, in the following paragraph it says: Direct access to an arterial and/or collector roadway. So, it's referring to arterials and collectors. Both of these roads apply. It goes on to say where access to a local street is available and Sonya correctly pointed out that access to a local street isn't available. So, we would submit that, you know, we understand staff's position. I think perhaps the Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 18 of 32 interpretation is probably overly strict and could be interpreted the way I'm interpreting it here is we are dealing with arterial and collector streets. We had taken the measures to create the safest possible access points that work for us that the use proposed and we all recognize this is going to be primarily a Sunday use when traffic is less heavy on any arterial or collector street. Ten Mile Road is similar to Meridian Road where just last year in 2008, September of 2008, we had another church site approved with similar layout with access to the collector street Producer and access to the arterial street, Meridian Road. Both Meridian and Ten Mile Roads, essentially, dead end at the rim or at Chinden and so they are not major access roads all the way across the river and so I believe that the plans currently call for three lane roads on both of those arterials. So, we think this is an appropriate application. We ask for your support of the access points as they have been depicted. We did have past meetings with ACHD. This is not at this time a development application that's coming before them when the specific site plan is submitted by the church, then, they will -- they will make their findings on the access, but our staff level discussion with them said that they would support this access, as they did on the church site on Meridian and Producer in the Paramount Subdivision. So, I will stand for any questions. Moe: Any questions of the applicant? O'Brien: I have one question, Mr. Chair. Moe: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Mr. Turnbull, on the way out of the site, that access road on the south side of the property -- I think that's the south side. You have parking stalls, et cetera, that seem to be very very close to that access to Ten Mile and I'm concerned about the flow and interference, if you might say, of vehicles coming in and out of that access point and people that are parking or trying to get in and out of the parking stalls, it just seems like that's a bottleneck right there that has safety concerns. Turnbull: I didn't bring my pointer with me, so let me retrieve that. Are you referring to this access point -- where am I? O'Brien: On the bottom right-hand corner -- Turnbull: Well, the access on Ten Mile Road. O'Brien: Yes. Turnbull: And you're saying that the parking stalls are too close to Ten Mile Road? O'Brien: Yes. Turnbull: Okay. I think that that's something that we can address in a detailed development application and if a few stalls need to be eliminated to provide more of a Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 19 of 32 throat to Ten Mile Road -- I think what you don't see there is that that -- that access probably will extend further out before it meets the curb line of Ten Mile Road. What you're seeing there right now is just the right of way line, which is significantly wider than the actual curb line. O'Brien: Okay. Turnbull: So, I think that's something that can be addressed. O'Brien: Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just wondered if we had an aerial of this in the presentation. I just want to -- you can carry on while I -- Marshall: Just -- Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Marshall: A little food for thought. I know that the City of Meridian traffic task force has forwarded on to the City Council a recommendation to prioritize making Ten Mile Road a larger north-south collector -- or arterial and enlarging that and highlighting that as a priority for the city, because of a potential commercial growth and the like along that road as well and other developments that have come forth and have been approved. Moe: Okay. Marshall: Something to think about. Moe: Any other questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Thank you very much. There is no one signed up in the public to speak. If there is anyone that would like to make comment, you're more than welcome. Seeing none, Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 20 of 32 Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the public hearing on RZ 09-003. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on RZ 09-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.? Newton-Huckabay: We don't have -- Mr. Chair? Sorry. Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: We don't have this map with an overlay of everything that's approved all around this, do we? Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, we don't have that map. I do have a copy of the preliminary plat of Bainbridge, if that would help you. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Friedman: It's not a great one, but there is one here. Newton-Huckabay: May I look at it? I'm sorry, I didn't realize you have to bring out the other technology. So far so good. Marshall: I appreciate the question. I'd like to see it as well, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Could you give me some direction here, perspective? This is Chinden on the top? Watters: Chinden on top. To the right is Ten Mile Road. You will see a triangular piece of property that's vacant there, that's the out parcel. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Watters: And, then, just right to the north of that is the subject property. Newton-Huckabay: On the side of the road. Watters: Where Bill's big old finger is. Friedman: Where Bill's finger is. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 21 of 32 Friedman: Across from that square. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, this is the -- is the collector here? Watters: Broadbent is not shown -- well, it's not shown in its currently location. Newton-Huckabay: Is that -- is that road that's there also Broadbent or is that another road? Watters: I don't know. We don't have street names listed on that little map. Pete said it is. Newton-Huckabay: Maybe it's farther south, but isn't the property to the south the one that had the rezone and the C-G and -- am I farther north of that intersection? Moe: I don't remember. Marshall: I believe the one Commissioner Newton-Huckabay is referring to was another mile south of this. Newton-Huckabay: It was McMillan and Ten Mile. Marshall: Right. On the south side of McMillan, I believe. Newton-Huckabay: I thought it was on the north. Marshall: It was on the north. So, it is directly south of this. Newton-Huckabay: Bill looks like he might know what I'm talking about. Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, you're correct, that was the Comprehensive Plan amendment you acted on last August. It was Voltera commercial CPA and Mr. Variel came in and rezoned some of that property C-G, C-C, L-O. I think if Sonya goes back to the zoning map, vicinity map, you can see that zoning and how it relates to this property. Newton-Huckabay: I guess that's what I'd like to see. I'm trying to get an idea of -- if it's not obvious, how many accesses we really are talking about from McMillan to Chinden onto Ten Mile. Watters: It looks like there is one collector access at the mid mile currently between McMillan and Chinden. Newton-Huckabay: And that's Broadbent? Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 22 of 32 Watters: Broadbent is proposed on the west side of Ten Mile. West Lost Rapids Drive is on the east side. Friedman: You also have Heroes Park that maybe take access -- Heroes Park taking access onto Ten Mile south of Lost Rapids Drive. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Moe: That access they are looking for is a full access, too; is that correct? Onto Ten Mile? Watters: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Moe: Okay. Watters: ACHD stated in their report that the applicant's proposed driveway locations would be reviewed with the submittal of a future development application and that the city should consider the need for cross-access among driveways on Ten Mile Road to reduced access points. Just a little additional information from them. Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, we do have another exhibit that I don't know if you will be able to make it out or not. It's kind of how that applicant has laid out the church in relation to the balance of the subdivision, so -- Marshall: Is there any intent for that strip between the church and the outparcels or -- intent to be some type of pedestrian access through there or something like that or -- there is a strip between the church and the outparcel and if the outparcel develops separately or never develops or does something else, that strip I'm wondering what it could be used for or what it's intended use is for. Yeah. Right there. All the way to Ten Mile. Watters: The applicant will probably have to answer that. I -- you have closed the public hearing, haven't you? Marshall: We did. I think we did. Moe: Are you wanting to get an answer on that? Marshall: No. I'm okay. Moe: Okay. Any other comments, Commissioners? Motion, Commissioners? Marshall: I'll make a comment. Moe: Please do. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 23 of 32 Marshall: I am concerned about granting accesses to these major arterials and Ten Mile is an arterial and going to become a larger arterial in the future, as is predicted by City of Meridian. At the same time I'm torn a bit, because a church of this size, when you have got that much parking, to even get people in and out, I'm not convinced it makes it unusable, but it does make it difficult to get everybody through one choke point, if there were one access up there. You just -- it's got to have a second to have that many people coming and going all at one time when church disperses. The fact that it is a church and almost all of its traffic -- the vast majority of its traffic will be on Sundays does put it in a different light than a commercial project. A commercial project at this place I would be pretty adamant against an access here. But seeing how this is a commercial -- or a church and that the access will be utilized mostly on Sundays and not during the work week or after hours, not during the working day. I have a tendency maybe to lean the other way and to -- and possibly grant the access, to agree to it. O'Brien: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: So, similar situation. We had that same concern on a church on Highway 69 between Overland and Victory on the west side. We -- they wanted to have access to the state -- almost same -- similar layout. We denied having that extra access, because they used a road much like -- I forget the name. The road just -- was it Broadbent? No. Similar to that that they used access and they hadn't had a problem with that filling up -- almost the same size. And it worked out pretty well, because Meridian Road is quite heavily traveled there and one of the concerns was, well, I'm not concerned -- one of the statements that the applicant made was the hours of operation, which I think was on a Wednesday evening and also Sundays. So, the traffic was not a big issue having access to that particular situation and this is similar to that. I don't know if you remember that -- that application or not, but I think it worked out quite well what happened at another -- another access and I'm concerned about not only this development now and the traffic flow on Ten Mile, but it's an increase like Commissioner Marshall mentioned. So, I'm inclined not to have that extra access to avoid certainly future issues when that road does have more traffic on it, so that's my thoughts. Moe: Okay. Well, a couple comments I would make. I somewhat agree with Mr. Marshall, with the site the way it is and whatnot, it definitely is going to be in need of two access points, quite frankly, and to put them both over there to the north, I think you will have a bottleneck and cause more problems in traffic than you would trying to spread it out. I guess I'll just take the example of the church just south of Cherry Lane that they have and there are two access points into Ten Mile Road there and you got a major arterial there at Cherry Lane and Ten Mile Road and traffic seems to flow fine. You also have an Albertson's store -- there is a lot of activity there and it does not, you know, seem to be a problem. So, therefore, I guess what -- what I would think about maybe not granting a full access, but maybe doing a right-in, right-out onto Ten Mile Road might be something to think about, but I really do believe you do need another access Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 24 of 32 point and it is far enough away from the other one to the south that I don't see a real problem putting it on Ten Mile, although I realize what the UDC says, but I think in this case I think that the access onto Ten Mile Road would probably be appropriate. O'Brien: I like the idea of a right-in, right-out. I think that would solve half the problem, but I'm concerned about a full access. Newton-Huckabay: Can it solve the problem like it does on Eagle Road right there by Schuck's where we all go left in the right-out or the right-in. Moe: Any other comments, Commissioners? Do we have a motion from anyone? Baird: Mr. Chair, before we take a motion, if I may address the Commission and remind you that the discussion of the access is actually just -- you're giving input to the City Council, but the variance isn't before you. I just wanted to remind you as you craft your motion to avoid granting anything in particular, but you're certainly welcome to make your comments to the City Council on that. Moe: Thank you, sir. Friedman: Mr. Baird? Baird: Yes. Friedman: And I agree, the waiver in this case is not before the Commission. Certainly their opinions go forward to the Council that if they are inclined to express their opinions, it isn't appropriate to -- if they feel -- right now the recommended condition of approval is prohibition of access to Ten Mile Road. That was the recommended conditions of the development agreement. If they feel there is some other type of access that they might want the Council to consider, is it appropriate to recommend a different development agreement condition or shall we just leave it at the conversational level? Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I would entertain that in sort of a separate motion in the form of a recommendation, rather than part of your -- what's before you tonight is the rezone and that condition of approval can't be changed except by the City Council. So, there are a number of different ways you can do it. There is a lot of ways to skin the cat, I guess. Moe: There you go. Well, I will -- I will wait for one of the Commissioner here that's going to make the motion and we will see how we go from there. Marshall: I'm afraid I'm still a little confused here, because if part of the development -- there is no development agreement, it's just a rezone, but the staff report is recommending no access, yet we are either approving or denying recommending Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 25 of 32 approval or recommending denial to City Council based on the staff report, wouldn't we want to suggest modifications to our approval or denial recommendation? Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Marshall, if that is your desire, have at it. Am I missing something? I'm getting looks over here -- Friedman: No. I think, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, Mr. Baird, the action before the Commission tonight is a rezone and similar to many of the rezones staff has recommended that there be a development agreement and we have recommended that as part of that development agreement there be a condition that prohibits access to Ten Mile Road. As we got into earlier, there is not even a variance before you and, in fact, a variance in this instance is not the appropriate vehicle, pardon the pun, to address access. It may be a consideration of a waiver by the City Council, that's the specific language of the UDC. So, when your recommendation, whatever it is, goes forward, depending on what you recommend -- again, if it's not to the applicant's liking, they can certainly at that point ask for a waiver on the prohibition to the access to Ten Mile Road. My question to Mr. Baird was if you were inclined to -- through your discussion think about something other than prohibition, you could just simply delete -- I mean if you feel that -- again, we are not dealing with the site plan, we are dealing with a rezone. If you don't think the access prohibition is appropriate, you could move to delete that from the development agreement or the recommendations -- conditions of approval for the development agreement. My other question I think to Mr. Baird was if you think there is another configuration of what that access might look like, could that be included as a development agreement condition also. Baird: Right-in, right-out, is what -- Friedman: Yeah. Some other configuration. If that's the pleasure of the Commissioners in their recommendation. Or if you feel that -- you know, as I say, you want to -- Moe: So, basically, we could act on the rezone, basically -- I'm just going to say -- deny the -- the access within the DA and, then, after the motion, then -- but making a recommendation, then, to Council on what we might want to see as an access; is that what you're saying? Friedman: I'm saying that you have a range of possibilities in the proposed development agreement conditions. You could -- you could just take it flat out and say, hey, you know, we think -- you know, without saying it, you could just simply strike B that prohibits any access to Ten Mile Road. Newton-Huckabay: I'll take a stab at this. Moe: Great. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 26 of 32 Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and pubic testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number RZ 09-003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 20th, 2009, with the following modification: That DA provision 1.2.B be removed from the development agreement and handled through some other vehicle. End of motion. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to move onto City Council approval of RZ 09-003 with the modifications as stated. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: CPA 09-005 Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation from Office to Commercial for approximately 6 acres for Macha Retail Plaza by Armstrong Consulting – south side of E. Franklin Road, approximately 600 feet west of Eagle Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 09-003 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.95 acres from Ada County RUT to C-C (Community Business District) for Macha Retail Plaza by Armstrong Consulting – south side of E. Franklin Road, approximately 600 feet west of Eagle Road: Newton-Huckabay: And, then, I would just go on the record on behalf of the Planning and Zoning Commission that we would be -- or some number of us are in support of alternate access, such as right-in, right-out or possibly only right-out of the -- onto Ten Mile. Moe: Very good. Thank you, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: You're welcome. Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CPA 09-005 and AZ 09-003 for the Macha Retail Plaza and start with the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you tonight is a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and annexation for properties located on the south side of Franklin Road, approximately 600 feet west of Eagle Road. You can see here there are three parcels that are proposing to change from office to commercial, the two parcels labeled as -- or owned by Macha, the other property or parcel is owned by Mr. Holloway. Here is the aerial of the property as you Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 27 of 32 see it. Surrounding the site is rural residences to the north, zoned RUT in Ada County and undeveloped commercial property zoned C-G. To the east is an office complex, zoned L-O, and rural residences, zoned R-2 in the county. To the south rural residences zoned R-2 in the county and to the west is rural residences zoned R-1 in Ada County. Here is what the applicant is proposing tonight. As you can see, the site is currently designated office on the Comprehensive Plan and on the right-hand side I have highlighted the two parcels, how that would relate to the rest of the commercial land use designations surrounding the property and its relationship to the county residential property. The applicant has submitted a concept plan. The hashed -- the dashed line represents the property not proposed for annexation and that, again, is the Holloway property. So, really, the only concept plan and some of the features that staff has recommended in the DA pertains to the Macha property, which are the two parcels that I referenced earlier. Keep in mind that when -- Mr. Holloway's intent to annex into the city we will expect some -- try to keep track of it and try to have some expectation that this site develop in a similar fashion, but at this time they are not proposing annexation, so we have not recommended any DA provisions regarding this portion of the concept plan. So, what the applicant has done is conceptually proposed ten buildings, totaling approximately 64,000 square feet. Similar concept designs that staff is in favor of, of course, is the fact that all the parking is internal to the development. One access point currently, as you have heard on earlier applications tonight, the UDC does restrict access to arterial streets, but in this case this property has no side streets to it and, therefore, the only access it can have to this property is from an arterial, so staff is supportive of the one full access point from Franklin Road, with some additional provisions that staff is recommending that the applicant provide a cross-access in the future along the west boundary and also along the east boundary as shown in the concept plan. It makes sense -- some of that county property to the west may redevelop in the future, so we might as well try to get some of that cross-access. Speaking with the applicant on the phone, the property owner to the west of this site has indicated to him that he may want to redevelop that and change the zoning on that property, so it certainly makes sense to have that cross-access and the applicant's in agreement with that. It's my understanding that this building located here in the southeast corner will be an outpatient surgery clinic for Mr. Macha and his doctors. The applicant is proposing several plaza areas, a connecting pathway around the property. Also one thing I'd like to point out as well is the applicant's agreed with the surrounding neighbors to provide a CMU wall that would extend from -- if you can follow my arrow here -- from the eastern property boundary going west and terminating about 120 feet along the western boundary, which is at the edge of that southern Ada County subdivision zoned R-2 at this time. The applicant -- on this concept plan the applicant has shown a 20 foot land use buffer. The UDC does require a 25 foot buffer based on the zoning that they are requesting. They are requesting C-C zoning. Keep in mind that this property is zoned office. It would -- with that zoning designation or that land use designation it would allow for medical and professional offices to be developed on the site, but the applicant wants to have some supporting retail that would front on Franklin, so the intention is really to have more of your office and professional services along the southern boundary and have more your -- more intense commercial and retail uses along Franklin Road. Because this site is also adjacent to an entryway corridor a Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 28 of 32 35 foot landscape buffer is required along that buffer as well. And the applicant has complied with that requirement. Staff is recommending approval of the subject CPA and annexation with the DA provisions listed in the staff report and with that I'll stand for any questions Commission may have. Moe: Thank you, Bill. Any questions of staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Armstrong: Good evening. My name is Jerry Armstrong, 4813 Lake Front Place, Boise, Idaho. First of all, I'd like to thank the staff in preparing their report. They did a very thorough job and we are in agreement with all the conditions of approval that are in the staff report. I do have a real quick Powerpoint that I'd like to share with you and if we can go to the next slide. We do on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, we meet all the criteria for this amendment. The current designation is for office use and we are proposing a change that allows a broader mix of uses on the site, including retail, office, and service uses, as well as we would like the zoning to be compatible with the main intersection there at Franklin and Eagle. Next. Land to the north is -- has a C-G designation on the current -- or future land use map and it actually runs the entire length of Franklin from Eagle passed Locust Grove to the north side and, then, there is substantial amount of land on Eagle Road, both south and north of Franklin that's already designated C-G. The idea of going in with a C-C was to have less impact on the adjacent residential and that it reduces height and it also requires maximum building sizes, so it restricts us to smaller buildings. You can see what the current future land use map looks like. In the red are the C-G zones. You can see our site designated there in the purple, which is current office or L-O. The land use map to C-C, we think it will enhance the vitality of the City of Meridian. The mix of uses we were planning on the use of restaurants, coffee shops, outpatient surgery, offices, and a certain amount of retail. We want to compliment the surrounding residential and commercial and also the idea that there is medical facilities at St. Luke's and already medical services being planned across the street. You can see from this -- this is what the future land use map, if you so approve it this evening, you will see the site there designated in red, which will compliment the rest of the uses in that particular area. The conceptual development plan, we are kind of proud of that. We have worked with Mr. Holloway in developing the plan for Dr. Macha and they are in agreement, so, therefore, they agreed to come through with the Comprehensive Plan change at this time. We think it's important to have that cross-access to both the east and west to our neighbors. We also at our neighborhood meeting -- one of the objections to this proposal was the fact that they wanted the eight foot high CMU wall, so that's the reason we had it added in as one of the conditions for our development agreement to have that eight foot decorative CMU wall placed on the southern border and approximately 120 feet along the west where the Yoder -- I believe it's the Yoder parcel, which is residential as well. We anticipate that in the future there will be additional need to extend the retail and office complex to the west and so this allows for that -- that transition. We have been through Ada County Highway District, they have approved the access off of Franklin Road as a two way in and out and were very complimentary in their comments that we got from them, because we, actually, are dealing with two separate parcels and this reduces the Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 29 of 32 number of accesses from two down to one. So, that's a giant step forward. We are also proud of the site plan in that we are incorporating interconnected pathways throughout the site, as well as water amenities were also parkway access off of Franklin Road, as well as water features and hardscape. So, we think all in all to date we have already had interest just from the sign that's out on the site of two office users who have the need for office buildings approximately 3,000 square feet each, plus another building of approximately 5,000 square feet. In addition to that, Dr. Macha's also planning a surgery center on the site, which will be complimentary to -- to be located next to -- or close to at least St. Luke's. So, with that I'll conclude my remarks and if you have any questions I'll stand for those questions at this time. Moe: Okay. Any questions of the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Well, thank you very much. Armstrong: Thank you. Moe: There is no one signed up, but if there is anyone that would like to speak to this hearing, you're more than welcome to come up at this time. Well, everybody's fairly comfortable here, so there is no one that wants to come up. So, Commissioners, any comments? I guess my only comment would be that I happen to think this looks fabulous, quite frankly. It's -- I hope that it moves forward quickly and develops well and I think for the conceptual development it would be a great project. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I think that the development agreement provisions do a pretty good job of outlining the expectations based on their concepts, so I'm pretty comfortable with it. That was my only concern is that we were covering -- you know, being it is only a concept plan and a CPA and AZ, you know, I -- Marshall: I must say it does appear that they have worked well to try to address any concerns of the neighbors and seeing that no one is here to speak against it, it appears that they have done pretty well with that. O'Brien: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes, Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: I move to close public hearing CPA 09-005 and AZ 09-003. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 09-005 and AZ 09-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 30 of 32 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Any other comments, folks? Here, again, this is a comp plan amendment and it is the last one here before we do the other one continuing, so we can go forward and make a motion. O'Brien: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number CPA 09-005 and AZ 09-003, with no modifications. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to move onto City Council recommending approval of CPA 09-005 and AZ 09-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 09-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.52 acres from RUT in Ada County to L-O (Limited Office) for Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital by Rich Shackleford – 2600 S. Meridian Road: Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 09-007 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 1,504 square foot addition to the existing 2,112 square foot veterinary hospital in a proposed L-O district for Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital by Rich Shackleford – 2600 S. Meridian Road: Item 6: Public Hearing: CPA 09-004 Request for Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation on 2.52 acres of land from Low Density Residential to Office for Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital by Rich Shackleford – 2600 S. Meridian Road: Moe: At this time I would like to reopen the public hearing for continued on AZ 09-002, CUP 09-007, and CPA 09-004 for the Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital for the sole purpose of discussion and, then, action by the Commission. Any other comments, questions, Commissioners, in regards to the Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: At the risk of just sounding like I'm not getting it -- and I'm just not getting it, I don't understand why -- I'm not making the connection between why the applicant is so dead set against this and the staff wants it and why they are so far part, because this doesn't seem like an encumbering issue to me. So, I feel like there is this Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 31 of 32 pink elephant as information or something that I don't have that I'm not -- what am I not getting here? Why is this such a contentious issue? Moe: Well, if you're asking my opinion, all I can tell you is this and that is that on past projects one of the main directives that we have always done is to verify that we get cross-access. Therefore, staff is recommending the cross-access. I agree with staff, it's needed now. I think there has been a lot of leeway simply because we are not making them set a location. It can happen when they are ready to make it happen and they can discuss that with the neighbor to the north when all that happens. I think we are giving them a lot of leeway here and, therefore, I guess my point is is that I'm in favor of this project and I'm in favor of the staff report the way it's written. Did I answer your question? Probably not. Newton-Huckabay: No. Moe: But at least I gave you my opinion. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Thank you. And your opinion in valid. Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, there is -- you know, clearly we have made a recommendation and agreement. I don't think it's -- there is not that much contention, really, between the applicant and the staff, it's just kind of a difference of sequencing and timing. So, again, from our perspective it's better to -- you know, strike while you have the opportunity. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, that's how I understand it, so I guess my last comment would be Mr. Erickson at City Council maybe can do a better job of making your case against and with said I will go ahead and make this very length motion, unless one of the other Commissioners would like to do so. Moe: I believe everyone's been waiting with bated breath to listen to you. Marshall: She is so good at these. Newton-Huckabay: Cowards. Okay. Please bear with me, this one will take a little while. Marshall: Understand. If I were to make an attempt it would probably take seven attempts. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 09-002, CUP 09- 007, and CPA 09-004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 20th, 2009, with the following modifications: That in the DA provisions it is clarified that the landscape buffers along the east, south, and undeveloped portion of the west boundary, including the ten foot wide multi-use pathway as noted in provision 1.2.E, will Meridian Planning & Zoning August 20, 2009 Page 32 of 32 not be required with construction of the remodel addition to the veterinary hospital, but will be required in the future when the remainder of the site develops. No comment or change is needed to the sewer service and no comments, changes needed to the cross-access easement. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to move on to City Council approval of AZ 09-002, CUP 09-007, and CPA 09-004, as stated. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Commissioners, there would only be one more thing to do. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: We adjourn at 8:37. Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:37 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ______________________________ _____|_____|_____ DAVID MOE – CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST:_____________________________________ JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY CLERK