Loading...
2011 09-01E IDIAN~--- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING i D a H o COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Roll-call Attendance Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. 1. _X Tom O'Brien X Michael Rohm X 2. 3. 4. City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho _X Steven Yearsley X_Joe Marshall Scott Freeman -Chairman Adoption of the Agenda Approved Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of July 21, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Approved Action Items A. Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2011: AZ 11-001 Ten Mile Annexation by Janicek Properties, LLC; Fedrizzi Ten Mile, LLC; and SJJV, LLC Located West of S. Ten Mile Road and North of I-84 Request: Annexation and Zoning of 80.62 Acres of Land From RUT in Ada County to C-G Zone Recommend Denial to City Council B. Public Hearing: CUP 11-002 Walmart -Overland/Stoddard by Walmart Real Estate Business Trust Located Southeast Corner of W. Ovelrand Road and S. Stoddard Road Request: Conditionla Use Permit for aDrive-Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of Another Drive Thru Facility, a Residential District and Existing Residences Approved -Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law C. Public Hearing: CUP 11-003 Llfe Church by Life Church Located at 3225 E. Commercial Court Request: Conditional Use Permit to Operate a Church from an Existing Building in an I-L Zoning District Approved -Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, September 01, 2011 Page 1 of 1 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting September 1, 2011 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of September 1, 2011, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Scott Freeman. Members Present: Chairman Scott Freeman, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Tom O'Brien. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Pete Friedman, Sonya Wafters, Bill Parson, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Steven Yearsley X Tom O'Brien X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall X Scott Freeman -Chairman Freeman: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the date of September 1st, 2011. And, Machelle, can we begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Freeman: Thank you. Before we get going I just want to let everybody know we are having technical difficulties. We knew coming in that the monitors would not be working, so we are going to be working off of hard copies, boards, today and the mikes don't work either, so we are a bit handicapped, but we will get through it. Please speak up when you do come to the front, so that it can all be heard and we will -- we will continue on as normal otherwise. The first order of business is the adoption of the agenda. Could I get a motion? Rohm: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of July 21, 2011 Planning and Zoning Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 2 of 31 Commission Meeting Freeman: First item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we only have one item on the Consent Agenda, that being the approval of the minutes of the July 21st, 2011, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Are there any changes that need to be made to that? Could I get a motion? O'Brien: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: All right. The next segment is the public hearing on three items on the agenda. Before we open a public hearing on the first item I just want to review briefly how this process works, so everybody is aware. We will open each item independently and, then, we will get a report from staff first. After we get the report from staff we will have the applicant come and speak to their application, their request, and they will be given 15 minutes to do so. Once the applicant is finished, then, we will take any public testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back for each item, so if you do wish to testify, please, sign up on one of those sheets. If somebody doesn't that's okay, we will ask if there is anybody else that wants to speak. Each person who wants to publicly testify will be given three minutes to do, so unless you tell me when you come up that you are testifying for a group of people, then, we will take some hands from the audience, so we can verify the group of people and, then, in that case you will be given ten minutes to testify. Then we will close the public hearing when all testimony has been heard, we will deliberate amongst the commissioners and normally we are able to conclude with a recommendation of some sort to City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2011: AZ 11-001 Ten Mile Annexation by Janicek Properties, LLC; Fedrizzi Ten Mile, LLC; and SJJV, LLC Located West of S. Ten Mile Road and North of 1-84 Request: Annexation and Zoning of 80.62 Acres of Land From RUT in Ada County to C-G Zone Freeman: Okay. With that at this time I'd like to open the public hearing for the first item on the agenda, which is the continued public hearing from the July 21st, 2011, meeting, AZ 11-001, Ten Mile annexation and we will begin with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 3 of 31 Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, before Sonya delivers the body of the staff report I just want to kind of preface how we got to where we are tonight in terms of this annexation request, staff recommendation and so forth. So, as the Commission will recall, we adopted the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan just a few years ago. That plan was a departure from our typical Comprehensive Plan that we had in place, because it went into greater detail in terms of articulating the kinds of vision that both the Commission and the Council had for this specific area. It didn't just apply colors to the map, it actually talked about the quality of design, it talked about laying out a road and transportation system -- again, sort of general, but at least to give us a starting point to build upon when we had actual development applications come in. We knew that in the area that's up for consideration this evening on the annexation that getting, essentially, ali the property owners to come to the table and work on a road alignment would be certainly a challenge and a few months ago we started meeting with the property owners' representatives, started talking about potential road layouts and, again, these are general alignments that you have in the package tonight, but we felt that in the public interest it would be appropriate to kind of incentivize moving forward with an annexation. So, the city waived the annexation fees in order to facilitate both coming to some agreement on that road alignment, as well as facilitate the implementation of the plan. So, we sat down, we worked with the applicant, the representative, and talked about all the various options. We vetted the proposed alignments out through ACRD. There were some questions on access. We gave a little bit on a couple access points. The others we had recommended that they wait until we actually have an actual development proposed, because no development is proposed with this application. So, the application came in and, again, our goal was to not only facilitate the goals of the Ten Mile plan with respect to transportation, but also with respect to land use and so in analyzing the application from a perspective zoning standpoint, it appeared to us the application itself was not consistent with the land use designations of the plan and, therefore, that was the basis for our recommendation of denial. So, I just wanted to set the stage for you on that. And, again, we don't have a specific development application proposed. Our concern is that if the annexation were to be approved with the zoning as requested, at least the C-G zoning, then, the city would be in a tough place to actually tailor specific developments to -- to the conscripts of the plan, because the zoning would be in places, there would be an entitlement in place, and so it would be, essentially, what the zoning would allow. Being an annexation it normally is our tool to be able to work cooperatively with an applicant and tailor the best development. We don't have that opportunity at this time, so, again, that is the basis of our recommendation. So, at this point I think Sonya will deliver the balance of the staff report and the recommendation and, then, we are here to answer your questions, either at the end of our presentation or at whatever point in the proceeding you feel is appropriate. Marshall: Mr. Chair, can I ask Pete areal -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 4 of 31 Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Sure. Marshall: -- quick question? Pete, (just want to clarify a little bit. You mentioned that the Ten Mile Specific Plan was the Commission's and the Council's vision, but wasn't that really the public's vision as well as there was a lot of committees, a lot of years of work, so it was really the city as a whole. It's not our vision. We agreed with it -- Friedman: Commissioner Marshall, Members of the Commission, that's -- thank you. That's a good point. It's -- it was the work of a lot of people. There was a very intense public engagement process. A lot of people participated. A lot people had some ideas of how they wanted to see the future use of their property. As in any of the type of planning process like that, did everybody achieve exactly what their goals at that time might be? Some maybe yes, some maybe no. I guess just a point of clarification when I said it was the city's vision, meant strictly because it has now been adopted, so it is the policy document and vision for that area plan. But you're very well -- Marshall: I just wanted to get that on the record, Pete. Thank you. Marshall: Yep. Freeman: Sonya. Wafters: All right. Chairman Freeman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is annexation and zoning request for 116.25 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. The subject property consists of three individually owned parcels, totaling 116.25 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, and is located at the northwest corner of Interstate 84 and South Ten Mile Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is agricultural land approved for the future residential uses in Baraya Subdivision, zoned R-8, R-15, and R-40 and agricultural land zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south is Interstate 84 and agricultural land approved for future commercial, employment, and residential uses, Meridian Crossing, zoned R-40, C-C, M-E and H-E. To the east of agricultural land zoned RUT in Ada County and to the west is agricultural land approved for future commercial and employment and residential uses in Meridian Crossing, zoned R-40, C-C, M-E and H-E. A summary of the applicant's request. The applicant requests approval of annexation of all of the subject property with a C-G zoning district, a conceptual development plan is not proposed at this time, but a layout for collector streets within the site, based upon the transportation system map contained in the Ten Miie interchange specific area plan, has been submitted that is consistent with the plan. The plan -- the Ten Mile plan collectively designates the subject properties for medium high density residential, mixed use commercial, mixed use residential, green space and park land and high density employment use as follows: The Janicek property, which is the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 5 of 31 northern parcel, is designated MUR. That 40.7 acres. Medium high density residential, 2.22 acres. Mixed use commercial 30.17 acres. And park 6.8 acres. The Fedrizzi Ten Mile property is the central parcel. It's designated high density employment, 2.14 acres. Mixed use commercial, 1.04 acres. And park, 1.77 acres. The SJJV property is the southern parcel. It's designated high density employment with 28 acres and mixed use commercial for five acres. Staff is of the opinion the proposed C-G zoning is not consistent with the future land use map designations for these properties, but as an alternative staff has provided a recommendation on zoning that is consistent with the land use designations for this property. If you will see Exhibit A-2 of the staff report there is a map that staff has included with the proposed boundaries of the zoning districts. No specific uses are proposed at this time, as no concept plan is proposed either. Written testimony was received from Brad Beau. He was concerned about the proposed road alignment in relation to the approved concept plan for this property. Kevin Schreeve submitted a letter in agreement with the staff recommended zoning as of H-E and C-C for the SJJV property. Richard and Patsy Fedrizzi submitted a letter in agreement with the staff recommended zoning of C-C for their property. Staff is recommending denial of the annexation with the C-G zoning as proposed by the applicants. In the alternative staff has proposed zoning consistent with the future land use map contained in the Comprehensive Plan that could be supported, but would require agreement by all of the applicants and continuance to a subsequent meeting in order for staff to prepare the staff report accordingly. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Freeman: Sonya, I just want to clarify. I think what I heard you say is the -- the two properties from the southern -- the southern owners have agreed to the zoning proposed by staff. Wafters: That is correct. Freeman: But there is another property owner, the northern part, who has not agreed to that at this point. Wafters: That is correct, Chairman Freeman. But as the applicant stands -- or application stands, they are requesting C-G zoning at this time. So -- Freeman: Okay. Wafters: -- there would be significant changes. Freeman: This is still one application, so -- Wafters: Yes. Freeman: -- unless everybody agrees we need to address this application. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 6 of 31 Wafters: That is correct. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff? No questions. Okay. Would the applicant like to come up to the mike. You can speak clearly -- not into the mike if you wish. Marshall: Dean can hear them. Freeman: You can hear them. Good. McKay: You're the only one. Freeman: Please speak into the mike. McKay: Lucky you. Freeman: Good. McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, business address 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm representing the applicants on this particular application. To kind of give you a little bit of background, this Ten Mile interchange has been part of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan since 1978. It was identified in every plan that it was the desire of the city that at some point in time this would be a full interchange, that it would be a major commercial hub for the City of Meridian and in my 21 years of -- as planning I'm on my fifth comp plan, if we include the Ten Mile Specific Plan, dating back clear to '78. So, it was always, you know, kind of a known factor. As far as when it would happen nobody knew. Obviously, when -- when the monies were allocated everyone was extremely excited that it finally would be constructed after waiting for 30 some years. I have been working on this particular project for two years now. I was retained to be an expert witness, because these three properties were significantly impacted by the interchange as far as having to dedicate right of way, provide drainage easements, utility easements, et cetera. Idaho Department of Transportation condemned the right of way off of the three properties and I think if you will turn -- sorry I'm a little cumbersome, since I have got to -- the front page shows you the -- the interchange. The second page shows you the vicinity map, shows the three properties. As Sonya indicated there is approximately 116 acres total there. If you turn to the third page, that shows you the ITD right of way that was going to be taken from the Janicek property. Initially ITD was condemning any access along Ten Mile. These properties, even though they had direct access to Ten Mile, they would no longer be allowed any access to Ten Mile and ITD was going to provide what they called farm access road number three and it would consist of a gravel road. The property owners found that very objectionable and so this whole condemnation process started to -- to develop. So, the number one issue was, obviously, value, but the impact on the properties and their lack of access Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 7 of 31 and what was going to happen with this area. We -- we started a dialogue with Department of Transportation, Ada County Highway District, the City of Meridian and the affected property owners and we identified what the major problems were and the problem, obviously, is the transportation system and when the Ten Mile Specific Plan was approved in June of 2007 -- started in '06, so this plan is about five years old from -- if you count from its very beginning. I testified and objected to some of the components of the plan and one of the primary things that I was concerned about is the transportation, that it designated these major collectors and properties would be dependent on other properties to develop before they could have any access and some of these collectors had restricted access. So, you know, that was kind of a known factor. Now, one of the things that we tackled by getting all the parties together was, okay, how can we solve the condemnation issue, solve the transportation issue, and make it so that no one particular property is dependent on another property for their access in the future, because we don't know in which order they will develop. So, if you look at page four, the transportation plan, that shows you that is a street that is part of that Ten Mile Specific Plan. As you can see it's a complex network of collectors, with intermittent rotaries, providing major interior connections out to signalized intersections and what's before you today as far as our collector layout is consistent with this plan. It's stated in the staff report. We did provide a traffic study -- a detailed traffic study to Ada County Highway District where they reviewed what the potential build out would be. We are very aggressive in our traffic estimates, because of the -- the multiple unknown factors on exactly how this area will develop in the long run. If you -- one of the big issues with the Janiceks is their property is encumbered by all the collectors. The signalized intersections will be on their property. The major collector artery into the interior is on their property. They have two rotaries and, then, another north-south collector and so, you know, they were always concerned about how much area those collectors would consume and they will consume approximately nine and a half acres on their property and if we look at the price that ITD had estimated as far as value, that's about 1.2 million dollars worth of property will be consumed by the collectors. So, obviously, when the staff recommended the least intensive zone on their property, they could not agree to it. The other two property owners, Mr. Fedrizzi and the SJJV partnership, they have agreed to this city's recommendation and I did submit in writing comments from them to that effect. The Janiceks understand that the estimate is 37,000 vehicle trips per day on that major east-west collector at build out and so, obviously -- and a signalized intersection with a seven lane intersection as -- intersecting with Ten Mile. So, obviously, this is going to be a major major transportation corridor and they felt that the TN-C zone at deficiencies that would really make it difficult to develop their property. If you turn to the land use map, unlike most -- unlike the other comprehensive plans who also had land use maps that accompany them, this one really segregates the properties -- segregates it by location of collectors and, obviously, the plan recognizes that the location of these collectors will vary as these properties are developed, but it made it really difficult from a planning perspective kind of get a handle on how this logically could develop. For Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 8 of 31 example, the Fedrizzi property is a little bit less than five acres. It has three different land use designations on less than five acres. The SJJV property has two different designations and the Janiceks have four. They have mixed use residential, mixed use commercial, medium high density residential up in the far northwest corner and park and the park zone is like a greenbelt that runs along the drain there, so that really, you know, is not of issue. I also took a look at what happened with the Meridian 118 or the Meridian Crossing annexation that came through in 2009. They had the same mixed use commercial designation, they also had medium high density residential, and they were given the C-C community business district on 42 percent of their property and when I read the staff report, which Sonya wrote, I found a unique clause, it said the lines on the land use map are flexible. These lines should adjust and evolve. And that's the way comp plans are. We know they are guiding documents, they are not set in stone, they have to have some type of flexibility in order to work with market conditions and to be a living document that can last any significant amount of time. ITD in part of the negotiations is going to put trust fund money together -- or at ACHD that any one of these property owners can access and utilize to build this major east-west collector. So, that was, obviously, something that everyone was excited about, instead of wasting monies on substandard facilities or not building them at all, these monies would be put forth towards this major collector network and so that -- that's kind of part of what's going on with all of these different parties in making this thing come together. One -- the part the city had on this was they said bring in an annexation application, we won't require a site specific plan, come in with some type of a collector network and we will process that and they did not charge a fee. That was kind of the city's part to this. ACHD said bring in a traffic study, we will look at it, try to determine best we can where the access points will be, what intersections could be potentially signalized, which ones wouldn't, in order to kind of have some of these unknowns identified for these people who kind of felt a little bit victimized through the system. You know, they are not developers, they are farmers, they are land owners, they are doctors. So, we are trying to kind of take care of these unknowns. If you go to the next page after the transportation map, that's the zoning district compatibility matrix and that's a key component in the plan and with the Janicek property the bulk of it is the mixed use residential, mixed use commercial. Obviously, if you -- if you look at this I have highlighted you see the C-C, C-G, TN-C, they have little checkmarks. The checkmarks are best choice, possible choice, marginal choice, but it does allow for choice. It's not dictating that the only zone we can approve is TN-C. It's saying, well, C-C would work or C-G under the right circumstances. And so I wanted to, obviously, bring that to your attention and this same matrix was used in the Meridian Crossing as far as to determine what zones were appropriate for them. The next page gives you the existing and proposed zones. The -- the pink that you see along the -- where it says Meridian 118, hopefully you can read that, along the south side of the collector and on the west side of the Janicek property, that was the area that I was identifying that was mixed -- designated mixed use commercial and medium high density residential. So, they were given the C-C, R-40, M-E and H-E. Nowhere do you see any TN-C on that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 9 of 31 property and it was about 115 acres. I also included the H-E on the SJJV property and the C-C on the SJJV and Fedrizzi, so you can see kind of how those zones look if we put them all together. The blue is north of that collector and that is the Janicek property, with the exception of the southwest -- or southeast corner that's next to Ten Mile Road. So, you may ask, well, why is TN- C not appropriate? Why -- what are the objections? Well, the next page kind of gives you a comparison of those zoning options. Obviously, C-G is best, C-C is better, and TN-C would be the least attractive and the limitation of that TN-C zone is the fact that maximum square footage is 20,000 square feet. Now, you can get a Conditional Use Permit for -- to go over 20,000 square feet, but you cannot do that for any retail component. So, in talking with some of the experts -- commercial real estate experts and in my two years working on the condemnation case of the -- for these three properties -- oops. I will finish up. Sorry, sir. Freeman: Thank you. McKay: We met with commercial real estate experts, appraisers, and commercial developers and they all said the same thing, to think that you could have aproperty -- there are 64 developable acres, if we take -- if we take out the right of ways for the collectors, if you think you could have a bunch of 20,000 square foot or less pads on the property and a single family component, it makes no sense. Until you get -- you would need some anchor-type component and, then, you would, obviously, be able to have some spin off, some pads, maybe 20,000 or 60,000, but we -- you know, in order to develop a property of this magnitude you have to have some type of flexibility. We can do multi-family in the C-G, we can do multi-family in the C-C. It requires a Conditional Use Permit. So, I guess I'm asking the Commission to -- to kind of think about this property and if it were yours and you had 37,000 trips a day going to be coming by it, would you put single family right there or -- I see apartments in the western portion. I see office. I see retail. This is going to be major. And I will finalize, because I know I'm out of time. The Ten Mile Specific Plan has some problems with it. The floor area ratios have -- I have always struggled with them, so has everyone else, because they are so high. To give you an example, if you took Hewlett Packard's corporate -- or campus, you took Micron's campus, or you took St. Luke's at Eagle interchange, they could not meet the four area ratios that are listed in the Ten Mile Specific Plan and I guess to me to think that Meridian would turn away a major corporate campus doesn't make sense if one wanted to locate here. And so we just need some flexibility. The zoning is the first step to attract people, businesses, a major developer. My hope is that someone comes in and they put them all together and we have a very nice cohesive plan and there are parties out there that are looking to do that. But if we have a zone that is so restrictive and doesn't make any economic sense, that's not going to happen. Thank you -- Freeman: Thank you, Becky. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 10 of 31 McKay: -- for the extra time. I appreciate that. Freeman: And I may not have mentioned that after we hear public testimony if you would like to respond to any of that you will have an opportunity. McKay: Okay. Thank you. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I have got a quick question of Becky. Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Becky, are you arguing that the land is now less valuable now that the interchange is in? McKay: No, sir. Marshall: Okay. Just clarifying. McKay: No. I'm arguing that because the interchange is in the intensity of the uses will be greater than -- Marshall: Right. And I understand that the owners did not want all this happen, they just wanted to farm there, but it happened -- McKay: It happened. Marshall: -- and now the land is -- you are agreeing that the land is significantly more valuable than if the interchange wasn't there at all. McKay: If they have proper access and if they were to have proper zoning approval, I agree with you a hundred percent. Marshall: All right. Thank you. Freeman: Okay. I do have one person signed up to testify. Chris Penland. And when you come to the mike, please, state your name and address for the record. Penland: Chris Penland. Rocky Mountain Development, 2700 West Airport Way, Boise, Idaho. 83705. First, I appreciate your time today. Our development company is based here in the Treasure Valley and we focus on office, industrial, and retail products. The Janiceks asked me to review the challenges presented by staffs recommendations if TN-C zoning, specifically with regard to the 20,000 square foot limit on building footprints. The Ten Mile interchange represents one of the best economic drivers the City of Meridian has. Its proximity to I-84, provides excellent connectivity to the entire Treasure Valley. This coupled past Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 11 of 31 and future residential growth in north and south Meridian make it an outstanding development site. TN-C zoning, with its neighbor focus, does allow similar uses to C-G, but attempts to limit the intensity of large commercial uses are unsound. To clarify what we are talking about, these large commercial users are large employers. These large employers are critical economic drivers, because they create jobs and increase tax revenue. Furthermore, they will bring more businesses, since other companies look to locate around them. This is critical. Large tenants bring small tenants. Now, the 20,000 limit can be increased for nonretail uses through the conditional use process, but why delay projects or create this hindrance for any use? Why not create the best, easiest place to do business to help bring large employers. A C-G designation would aid this. If large users don't come, you can always revert to your strategy of smaller uses. The delays, expense, and inconvenience of TN-C zoning are a few of the many challenges in the Ten Mile plan. When combined with other concerns, particularly the floor area ratios, development becomes increasingly unlikely. The floor area ratios will probably require parking structures. The high cost of parking structures will create extraordinary high lease rates and may prevent development, besides, for quite some time. Together these impediments could dissuade great large companies from coming to this area. They will choose Nampa, Utah, or Texas where it's easier and cheaper to conduct business. Now, one could argue that parts of the Ten Mile plan allow more intense uses, but if those parcels are controlled by only a few parties, their land prices could be cost prohibitive for an employer to locate here. More C-G zoning supply equals lower land prices, the more opportunity for businesses and community. For these reasons I encourage you to allow the C-G zoning on Janicek's property. This will help give the Ten Mile interchange the opportunity to be an amazing economic driver for the City of Meridian. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. Any questions of Commissioners? Anybody else that's wanting to testify on this item? No? Would the applicant like to address anything that was said in the public testimony? Give you three more minutes, if that will do. McKay: That's all I need. Freeman: Get ten more? Okay. You can have ten. McKay: Oh. i don't think I need ten. I just want -- I don't think that I -- I laid out all the -- everything that's part of this cooperative plan. If all of this comes together, all the condemnation cases will be settled. Part of the cooperative plan that the property owners would provide the right of way for these future collectors to ACHD and the right of way for these rotaries, so that anybody could exercise that at anytime when -- as properties were to develop. ITD is going to put the trust fund money, about 280 to 300 and some thousand dollars -- it's still being negotiated between ACHD and ITD -- as far as what would be an adequate number to build that first collector to get access to these three properties that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 12 of 31 were -- are so affected. Also the third component is designating the possible access points, so there is some known factors there. And, then, this fourth component, the key one that we are here tonight to discuss is the annexation and the rezone. Get these properties annexed. We understand they are going to be subject to the Ten Mile Specific Plan. They have the design review. They will have to come back in a development agreement -- Sonya indicated it would include a provision that a development plan for each of these properties would have to come back with site specific information, obviously, information on how these buildings would be oriented, you know, and their -- we don't dispute the Ten Mile Specific Plan as far as its goals. Highly visible, easily accessible, esthetically pleasing streetscapes, pedestrian friendly -- we embrace all of that. The plan has some really great ideas and in no way am I trying to dis the whole plan, it's just that there are some weaknesses in the plan that we -- especially with what we see in the marketplace and what's happened at the other interchanges they have built over in Nampa, if you look how they developed and we just don't want to hinder any potential for these properties to develop and so I guess I leave it up to the Commission to kind of weigh these different zones and -- and make a recommendation that, obviously, would -- would help the Janiceks out and, like I said, the other two parcels are in full agreement with the staff. So, that's -- that's the only one outstanding issue. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. O'Brien: I have a question, Mr. Chair. Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Becky, the Comprehensive Plan's intent for the City of Meridian to exercise or promote quality of life and by changing this plan toward the build out of C-G, how would you say the quality of life for that area would improve or not improve based on your intention trying to get this passed? McKay: As far as the C-G, I look at that zone as not just strictly retail, I think you would have probably a multi-family component, you would have an office component, I'd love it if there was a corporate component, and retail. I think that will, obviously, enhance that area as far as drawing potential development to it. This is going to be a major hub and single family is not -- I don't believe is really going to be a component right there at that interchange, just right smack there. The visibility, the traffic volumes -- over the years we are going to see the intensity increase and as the economy heals I -- I don't see the C-G zone as hindering the goals that the city envisions. You can still require some type of a mixed component, because -- I mean it's still referenced in the plan. I'm not going against the plan, I'm just looking at one of the alternative zones that is allowed under the plan. Did that answer your question? O'Brien: ! -- yes. Yes, you have. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 13 of 31 McKay: In a round about way. O'Brien: Yes. No, it's important that we understand that this -- this Ten Mile Comprehensive Plan is based on lessons learned of other areas and I think the intent here for the City of Meridian is to avoid the mistakes we have made before and that's why I asked that kind of question, how would that change if -- if at all by bringing in these -- this type of a commercial -- McKay: I don't see that changing, because the bar is still set higher than what we have seen at the other interchanges. We have design review guidelines and we -- the components of that plan still apply and the staff is going to look at them when any development plan comes in and that's how that project is going to be based. All we are asking for is some type of a reality component placed in there, because I don`t see it developing in a little narrow tunnel like -- kind of the planned box some of these properties in and I don't think took into consideration traffic volumes and reality and I don't think this is going to degrade the quality of the development there, because, like I said, the bar is already set up here. The city knows what it wants to see, but we have got to be given something that is viable. If it's not economically viable it will sit. No one will come in. O'Brien: Thank you. Appreciate that. That's all I have. McKay: Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Well, at this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing on Item AZ 11-001 ? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on AZ 11-001. Yearsley: I'il second that. Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item No. AZ 11-001, Ten Mile annexation. All those in favor? Opposed? O'Brien: Aye. Freeman: Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: The public hearing is closed, so we can now discuss this item. Who is first? O'Brien: I had a question. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 14 of 31 Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: I had a question that I wanted to ask staff about -- Freeman: We can still do that. O'Brien: Okay. I would like to know where the gas line lies, if it intersects any of this property. Maybe -- might not be able to answer it. I'm not sure. I know it's near there, but I don't know if it's on the east side or the west side of Ten Mile. Friedman: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien, that's a very good question. To the best of my knowledge it does not lie on this property, it is to the west and it is located on what's call the Meridian Crossing or Meridian 118, LLC. If I had the ability to give you an overhead I would do so, but that project when it was annexed into the city, they did take that into account in laying it out in their concept plan. So, it's not -- to the best my knowledge none of it's located on any of the subject property. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Marshall: Pete, is that the pipeline there on the land use map? Friedman: Yes. That's correct. O'Brien: Has it shown up yet? Marshall: It's the long straight piece that's the park. It kind of -- the yellow. O'Brien: Thank you. Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, if it will help -- Freeman: Yes. Friedman: -- I have an exhibit I can just walk past you if you want. Freeman: I think we have it located. Friedman: Are we okay? Freeman: We can see it on one of the applicant's maps. O'Brien: Thank you, Pete. Freeman: Okay. Anyone else? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 15 of 31 Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: I guess I will take a little stab at this. Okay. First off, my first comment -- and you will probably hear this again and again from me. I'm absolutely against C-G against residential area. And I think some very good points were made tonight that doesn't necessarily all have to be TN-C and maybe there is some areas that might be appropriate for C-G if the right development came along, but I'd like to see the development tied to it. I'm not anxious to approve any C-G in this area. The idea -- and this is my take on it, my personal opinion on the Ten Mile Specific Plan, was that we have an opportunity here as a city -- what lunderstand from the other committees and everything that went into this, my take is that we have this opportunity to do something different than what we have done at any other interchanges. All the other interchanges -- vast majority of them go high density commercial, big box stores, C-G, you know, 185,000 square foot and a lot of little outliers, we back them right up to the houses that were already there existing and we have heard time and time again that's somewhat problematic. We have got a bunch of that. They are -- we really really need an opportunity for a high density traffic interchange with the interstate to supply for employment opportunities, some type of employment center, and, yes, corporate headquarters or something like that and something comes through and see a development and the only way we can get that to build is go C-G, okay, but I am -- I am scared to go C-G, because I don't want to see, you know, this interchange go the way of all the other interchanges, because really I think that's the intent of the city is to do something different with this interchange. I think it is highly valuable land. I don't think -- I understand people don't like what happened, but, you know what, I think they are making money off of it. They are going to. And it may not develop overnight, it is something new, it is something that hasn't been tried before, but we got to do something different than what we have been doing, and I'm not -- to be honest, I'm not happy approving any C-G here without a development plan and keeps it away from that residential. I would be very upset to see any C-G abutting residential. And I think we buffer residential with lower intensity uses. I do believe that maybe we could mix this up some, maybe it doesn't have to be all TN-C, that was just an idea that staff came up with. It could be split up differently. But, again, I would like to see it move more away from retail and more towards employment opportunities, not shoe stores and Targets and Walmarts and -- you know, just to throw out a generalized group of stores, away from a retail and more towards insurance companies and doctors' offices or something else -- employment where people got to work and not retail where we go to sell. I do know -- and I agree and think it was pointed out that there are some -- some problems and we are going to have to be flexible and work with that. I agree. But, again, my -- without any kind of development tied to this I do not -- I'm against C-G here, guys. Sorry. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 16 of 31 Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner Marshall. Anyone else? Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I will go. I have a tendency to agree. I am very leery without a development -- proposed development of going to the -- the C-G. I would consider the C-C on the front portion of it and maybe the TN-C on the -- the west side of it as an option, but I don't know if I would give them the full reins without know at least what they are proposing. Freeman: I have a few comments. You know, f hear the concerns. I hear the concern about limitations. I hear the concerns about economic feasibility. But I have to balance that with a vision that the City of Meridian has put a lot of effort into and I'm not inclined at this point to compromise that vision to this extent. I think that there are ways -- and that came up during the testimony. We can -- you know, there are exceptions to the 20,000 square foot rule. If we have a good development that otherwise complies, that's a real possibility, but I can't see at this point, as much as we have planned for the future development of this area, compromising that so substantially at this point. And I think it was recognized by the people who went in to putting that plan together that we could do a couple of things, we could -- we could bring in businesses as fast as they are willing to come and maybe compete with the Utahs and other cities or we can designate an area to be something very very special and we chose the latter. We want the area to be very special. And maybe some of these zones right now aren't real feasible, but this is a long term future plan for Meridian. At some point I believe they will be and if at some point they are not when the area begins to develop, then, maybe we take another look. But right out of the gate with the interchange just built, this is not, in my opinion, the time to be compromising our special area plan so substantially. I think there are other ways to accomplish this, if you go through the channels and the zoning allowed, there is flexibility built into this. There is flexibility. Nobody's telling you where the lines have to be, exactly where the zones are, but if you're willing to work within those zones, I believe that you will see flexibility by staff and where those zones can be and introducing maybe less of one zone, more of another, and making that work. So, that's my -- that's my two cents. I'm inclined to decline this as it is. I do understand that two of the property owners are -- are amenable to the suggestions by staff. We can't divide up this application, we have to treat this as one application with all three and perhaps after this point, if it does get denied -- and I don't know that yet until we vote, but if it does I can see maybe the different property owners going at it separately or coming back to the table and seeing what they do within the designations -- the zoning designations that have been provided. That's it for me. Anybody else? O'Brien: I just have a quick word, Mr. Chair. Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 17 of 31 O'Brien: I'm inclined to agree with all that's been stated and that was one of the questions I brought up to -- to the applicant about what our intent was for the city for that Comprehensive Plan and I think it's -- if anything, we need to approach the -- or go to the approach that we are taken. What is here that's being taken is, you know, vote on it or be cautious of what we do now, so that we are not bitten later on. So, if we approach this thing with this kind of a plan in place, just to see how things develop and I think we can be flexible, but there is a lot of unknowns out there right now that we don't have anything that we could really say here is something that's going to be cast in black and white. So, I'm glad we are taking that route as -- or at least what is here on the side of caution and that's my take on that. So, thank you. Freeman: Okay. If there are no further comments, could someone provide us with a motion? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Oh, geez, I -- just a second here. Thank you. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to City Council of file number AZ 11-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 1st, 2011. Mostly for the reasons as stated in the staff report that it does not meet the guidelines of the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan. O'Brien: Second. Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to recommend denial of AZ 11- 001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. B. Public Hearing: CUP 11-002 Walmart - Overland/Stoddard by Walmart Real Estate Business Trust Located Southeast Corner of W. Ovelrand Road and S. Stoddard Road Request: Conditionla Use Permit for a Drive-Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of Another Drive Thru Facility, a Residential District and Existing Residences Freeman: Okay. The next item on the agenda -- if I can find my agenda. Here we go. -- is CUP 11-002. I'd like to open the public hearing at this time, beginning with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Freeman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a Conditional Use Permit request for adrive-thru Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 18 of 31 establishment in a C-G zoning district. The site consists of 16.66 acres of land, is currently zone C-G, and is located on the southeast corner of West Overland Road and South Stoddard Road. Adjacent land use and zoning -- to the north is commercial property, Mountain View Equipment, Roaring Springs, Wahooz and a veterinary clinic, zoned C-G and C-2 in Ada County. To the east is commercial property, Lowe's, zoned C-G. And to the south is single family residential property in Bear Creek Subdivision, zoned R-4. And to the west is vacant future retail and commercial storage units, zoned C-G. A little history on this property. In 2007 the site was annexed with a C-G zoning district. A development agreement was required as a provision of annexation. In 2009 a modification to that development agreement was approved that amended the conceptual development plan and certain provisions of the agreement. And another modification to the agreement was approved just last week pending approval of the findings that, again, amended the concept plan and certain provisions of the agreement. Summary of the request. The subject application is only for approval of the drive-thru establishment use. The proposed retail store is a principal permitted use in the C-G zoning district. The applicant proposes to construct a 156,883 square foot Walmart store as allowed in the C-G zoning district. A drive-thru pharmacy with two service areas is proposed on the south end of the building. Conditional Use Permit is required in a C-G zoning district for drive-thru establishments when they are located within 300 feet of another drive-thru establishment, a residential district, and existing residences, all of which apply in this case. There are specific use standards listed in the Unified Development Code for the proposed use, all of which the site plan addresses. Security lighting is required to be provided on the south side of the building for the drive-thru consistent with the standard for outdoor lighting listed in UDC 11- 3A-11. A photometric test report for the site lighting will be required with the certificate of zoning compliance application to insure lighting does not trespass onto adjacent residential properties. The hours of operation for the pharmacy drive-thru are proposed to be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. Staff recommends the hours of operation of the drive-thru be restricted to the hours proposed by the applicant. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is commercial and the proposed application is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code. Written testimony was received from Lori McBride, George and Laura Webb and Shalia and Terry Honeycutt. Ada County Highway District submitted a letter requesting the city defer action on the subject application until a new traffic impact study can be evaluated. The city's response to ACHD was that we would proceed with the hearing and condition any approval to comply with ACHD's comments at the time of certificate of zoning compliance. Staff is recommending approval of the application with the conditions in the staff report. Additionally, staff recommends the following conditions be added: Signage is required at the drive-thrus that asks customers to turn off their vehicles and turn down the volume on their stereos while waiting in consideration of the adjacent residences. And second condition is to comply with all Ada County Highway District's Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 19 of 31 conditions of approval for the subject application. And a modification to condition number 1.1 in Exhibit B to read: The general configuration of the drive-thru pharmacy depicted on the site and landscape plans prepared by Packland, dated 7/1/2011 is approved with the comments and conditions in this report. That's all staff has, if the Commission has questions. Freeman: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Sonya -- thank you, Mr. Chairman. Was there any discussion about putting this drive-thru on the north side of the building? Wafters: Commissioner Marshall, the site plans that have been submitted have always showed it on the south. It's the garden center. Marshall: And nobody discussed -- can you move that to the north? Because -- mean that's right up -- how far away from residences is that? Wafters: I believe it's 85 or -- no. Friedman: Commissioner Marshall, Members of the Commission, one thing to point out, on the original site plan that was modified by the Council in action last week, the approved site plan that was in effect until that time had the loading docks up against that entire area where it interfaces with the residential development. So, from our perspective we believe that drive-thru pharmacy is probably a better fit -- not an ideal fit necessarily, but a better fit than the loading docks that might have been developed with a different applicant. Marshall: Then -- excuse me, Pete. Then are those the loading docks on the north side or on the west side? Friedman: They are on the west side now facing Stoddard Road. Marshall: What's on the north side? Friedman: That would be the garden center. I think at one point here, Members of the Commission, I would let the applicant kind of address those questions in terms of their choice of a layout and that sort of thing. Marshall: Yeah. Trying to visualize here. Thank you. I appreciate it. Friedman: You're welcome. Freeman: Any other questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward and, please, state your name and address clearly into the mike. We do have a functional mike after all, so please speak into it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 20 of 31 Butler: Thanks. Joann Butler, 251 East Front Street in Boise representing the applicant, who is the contract purchaser of this property, which is now owned by Idaho Banking Company. Nick Taylor, civil engineer from Packland is here with me as well and he will go over some of the details on the -- on the site plan. As Sonya said, the drive-thru would normally be an accessory use to the -- in this C- G zone to allow retail stores, but because of our closeness to the residential district we have to show you that we meet both UDC requirements for adrive- thru and the conditional use criteria and the staff report has gone through in detail, as did our application, as to how we meet the UDC requirements and the conditional use criteria. We have had two meetings with neighbors -- two neighborhood meetings. We have had a lot of a-mail correspondence going back and forth and we are also continuing to work with the neighborhood association to the south in connection with details on the fence and that's as requested by the City Council at our meeting last week where we went through a modification of the development agreement. The development -- the existing development agreement was adopted I think in 2007 and modified in 2009. Had a very different site plan. The major retail store was backed up to Bear Creek Subdivision to the south, loading docks were in the back, and so on. We have come back in with a modified site plan that's not for tonight, but that's what we went through with the City Council last week to modify the development agreement to show a very different site plan with loading docks very much away from the neighborhood. The issue about the drive-thru pharmacy and the garden center was discussed in great length in our neighborhood meeting and I believe the neighbors also talked about that a little bit at the City Council hearing. In any event, their comment was they would much prefer the pharmacy at this location than the garden center and the automotive center. So, this was discussed at the -- at the neighborhood meeting. At those neighborhood meetings we discussed a little bit about the fact that -- we talked about the planning process that the city had gone through and they made -- there is a C-G zone near the residential and recreational uses in that area, an idea of trying to make people have the ability to now live, work, play, recreate in there -- in one area. Staff pointed out in their staff report that the Comprehensive Plan talks about items such as pharmacies, health-related services, being in close proximity to residential areas. That's one of the reasons that we meet the Comprehensive Plan. Sonya's already gone over the issues with regard to the UDC and how we meet that. With that I'm going to turn the podium over to Nick, who can talk a little bit more about the details of how the site operates -- the conditional use operates. Can everyone see this? I'm sorry, we didn't bring small -- okay. Thank you. Freeman: I assume I need Nick's name and address, too, once you get a microphone. Taylor: Thank you, sir. My name is Nick Taylor. I'm with Packland. I live at 5504 Cross Creek Lane Northeast in Olympia, Washington, and I'm the civil engineer for the project representing Walmart. I will give you a brief rundown of the drive-thru pharmacy operations that are proposed and, then, some of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 21 of 31 associated site features. As you're well aware, the proposed drive-thru pharmacy is on the south side of the store. Access to the drive-thru pharmacy will come from the west and from the east internal drive. As you can see there is significant stacking distance provided. Approximately 280 feet of stacking distance is provided from the right of way, although that stacking distance is not typically required for these operation. Typical operations include approximately four vehicles per hour. It's a rather low volume. As you can see, there are two service locations proposed. I won't call them service windows, but service locations, because there are no actual windows. These service locations consist of a communication system and a vacuum operated tube for sending things back and forth. Each one also has a canopy over it, primarily for weather conditions when people are accessing those. As you can see there is a bypass lane or it's sometimes called an escape lane. The intent there is in high volume situations to alleviate some of that stacking if necessary. It gives each individual the option to drive right through, park, and, then, use the internal pharmacy, which is operated by the same group of folks inside. As you can see, the exit is to the east and to the south of the drive-thru pharmacy. There is a median. The median is intended to promote safety and to keep those two lanes from conflicting. That median will be planted -- it will be planted with shrubs. It will have lighting in there to meet the photometric requirements of the UDC. To the south of the proposed drive-thru you will see there is a proposed 25 foot buffer. This is a landscape buffer. In it's proposed conditioned it will consist of coniferous and deciduous trees and I -- significant coniferous trees above and beyond the UDC as requested in the development agreement. Also existing there is a vinyl fence. Part of the development agreement is also to work with the neighboring Bear Creek residents to reach a consensus on whether or not they want to replace that existing fence with a taller fence and we are working through that right now. Inside that median area that's where the lights will be contained to meet the UDC requirements and as far as the individual transactions, those are typical transactions as if you were going into a normal pharmacy inside. That's the length. The proposed operation will be -- someone will drive up, ideally they will idle for one second, stop, they will turn off their vehicle, complete their transaction, turn their vehicle on again and, then, leave. And these are two individual service stations. It's not like they drive up, pay, go to the next one, pick up your prescription. Each one operates by itself. If there is any questions I can answer them now. O'Brien: I have a quick one, Mr. Chair. Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Thank you. Nick, I have a couple. So, these are like kiosks? Taylor: Yes, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 22 of 31 O'Brien: Okay. And this is probably not related to pharmacy as much as it is with the decision to put the docks on the west side. So, were the backup alarms ever discussed as far as what type they are going to use? They have strobe versus alarm -- audio alarms on trucks and forklifts. Do you know what they are going to use? Taylor: On the trucks specifically we know they have -- audible backup alarms are typical. O'Brien: Okay. What about forklifts? Taylor: I'm not certain on the forklifts, sir. O'Brien: Okay. Taylor: And those forklifts are -- they are operated on the west side primarily. O'Brien: All right. So, another -- one question is the vinyl fence. The store on Fairview Avenue in Meridian, Boise, the fence between the residential area and the south side of the store is brick, I believe, and it's quite tall and I thought that was pretty nice, because I think it looks good, too. But vinyl only stops visual observation, but not noise or audio. So, just to throw this out here, I think it should be considered to use a more formidable sound barrier, like concrete or something similar to that then -- than vinyl. That's all I -- but you can respond to that if you like. Taylor: If I may respond, sir. The primary concerns voiced by the Bear Creek residents were of visual disturbances and that's -- that is why the vinyl fence at eight foot height has been the primary item that has been negotiated and discussed. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Taylor: Yes, sir. O'Brien: That's all I have, sir. Freeman: Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you. I don't have anybody signed up to offer public testimony. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to testify? No? Marshall: Well, then, Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I move we close the public hearing on CUP 11-002. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 23 of 31 O'Brien: Second. Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on CUP 11-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: Any discussion? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I'm going to try to take two minutes and get on my soap box. I know. will make it quick. I saw some grimacing. Gentlemen, this is -- this was -- this is one of the many examples of exactly why I'm on here and why I will never agree to C-G next to residential. Now, that's not a bad layout. It's a nice development plan. I like it. But it should not be next to residential. A buffer is not a berm and a bunch of trees. A buffer is lower intensity uses. I-L, you know, like offices and things like that. Lower intensity offices. Places that open up at 8:00 and close at 5:00. It's quiet when I go back in my backyard and I have a barbecue. Now, that being said, I can't do anything about that, this is a done deal, and it was zoned C- Gbefore Igot here back in 2007, I believe. Now, that's -- but, please, remember this the next time I rail against C-G against residential. That being said, I'm very disappointed that we didn't have residents here telling what they wanted and didn't want with the drive-thru. I agree this is appropriate. I like the design. appreciate that the developer is going to the lengths that they are to try to buffer and work with the residents to some type of fence, taller if they want, and I appreciate the additional conifers and buffering there. Again, I don't think it's appropriate, but it is the way business has been done for a long time and I think that needs to change. But beyond that I'm probably going to find for this, void of -- you know, the letters were mostly against Walmart -- not wanting Walmart there, but that isn't the decision. Walmart is there. It's going in. The decision here tonight before us is should the drive-thru go on the south side right there -- I appreciate the fact that the loading docks were moved and void of any residents telling me, no, I'd rather have the garden center next to me, I guess -- and with the applicant saying that the community said -- the local residents that were there said they'd prefer the drive-thru over the garden center -- okay. Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner Marshall. Anybody else? Yearsley: If you don't mind. Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 24 of 31 Yearsley: I have to agree. I like the new layout. I agree that putting the drive- thru on this side is probably the best alternative, because if you put the garden center on the south side you actually get the tire -- the mechanical facility on that same side. So, I think you would have more noise that way. So, I think this is your best alternative. One recommendation that I think I would make -- I know the homeowners were wanting the -- the eight foot vinyl fence. I think in the -- in hindsight they would be better served with a -- more of a higher brick fence or a -- you know, more of a solid structure to block out that noise and for safety would think. But I'll leave it up to them to decide what type of fence they want, so -- Freeman: Thank you. Anybody else? O'Brien: Yeah. Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Just to reiterate, Commissioner Marshall and Steve -- I agree with Commissioner Marshall on big box stores next to residential and I don't remember this particular one when I first came on board, but it's too late for that, but I have to agree with -- with putting these kind of stores -- without some kind of transition between these stores and a residential area. And there is none. Just a wall. And that to me is not good enough. I do agree that we should -- that they should reconsider the type of fencing that goes up back there. They will -- they will certainly be thankful in the long run if they had something better -- better served for the public. I have a question for staff. Was -- was the zoning approved together with the residential and the C-G at the same time or was one following the other? Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, the actual C-C zoning accompanied the Queensland Acre annexation -- O'Brien: I can't hear you. Friedman: C-C zoning was put in place with the Queensland Acre annexation in 2007. The Bear Creek Subdivision actually predated that by a number of years. So, the subdivision was there prior to that property coming in for annexation. When that property did come in for annexation initially there was quite a bit of concern, as you can imagine, by the adjacent residents. That developer worked with the residents and the neighborhood to come up with certain standards in terms of limitation on uses it interfaced with a residential area. In fact, surprisingly the initial development agreement had a masonry wall required. That was modified in 2009 to go to the eight foot high vinyl fence and, of course, as part of that development agreement modification it necessitated a meeting of that developer at that time with the neighborhood and so it wasn't done sort of in a vacuum, I mean there was a consultation in terms of, you know, the original Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 25 of 31 masonry fence versus an eight foot vinyl fence. So, a long way in answering your short question is the residential area predated the annexation and the commercial zoning of this site. O'Brien: So, I don't blame them for being upset on some of these issues, so just want to get that on the record. It was not something that I would vote for in the future. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Freeman: Okay. Any further comments? Okay. There being no further comments, could I get a motion? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 11-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 1st, 2011, with no modifications. Yearsley: Second. Freeman: And further -- Marshall: Oh. And further to direct staff to prepare the appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on September 15th, 2011. Yearsley: Second. Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve CUP 11-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. C. Public Hearing: CUP 11-003 Life Church by Life Church Located at 3225 E. Commercial Court Request: Conditional Use Permit to Operate a Church from an Existing Building in an 1-L Zoning District Freeman: Okay. At this time I would like to open the public hearing on CUP 11- 003, Life Church, beginning with the staff report. Parsons: Good evening, Chairman, Members of the Commission. Pleasure to be back in front of you this evening. It's been awhile. The application before you tonight is a Conditional Use Permit to operate a church in an existing I-L zone. The property is approximately 4.22 acres and is located at 3225 East Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 26 of 31 Commercial Court. To the north we have -- we had a previous equipment rental business, zoned I-L. To the south is railroad tracks and basic commercial property, zoned C-G. To the east is vacant industrial property, zoned I-L. And to the west, of course, is Eagle Road and, then, also the redevelopment of the Scentsy campus. In 2001 this property was annexed and zoned into the city with the I-L zone. It was originally used for the Coors distribution center, so it was office and light warehouse. And, then, in 2009 a change of use came before staff as well with a certificate of zoning compliance to use the property for a sound studio. Now, the building sits vacant and the applicant is in process of purchasing the property. Give you a little history again. The property -- the comp plan designates the property for industrial. That is not the -- one of the proposed uses for that zone. But the comp plan does encourage adaptive reuses of property of in-fill development. And given the fact that this property is on the periphery of the industrial -- industrial uses going on around it, staff generally feels it complies with the comp plan. So, basically, tonight we are just here to discuss the use: In the staff report I did attach some future development plans that the applicant is proposing. Phase one will -- had some facade improvements and also some limited site work. The major portion of the site work will be the fire department turnaround, of course the exterior facade improvement with the 2,164 square foot foyer --glass foyer I would mention and, then, also the 35 foot landscape buffer and ten foot multi-use pathway along Eagle Road. And, of course, phase two will come in later, but I did want to at least get it before you and have you look at the plans and at least make it clear to you that those improvements will be reviewed at staff level -- will come in with future certificate of zoning compliance and administrative design review. My understanding is the applicant wants to move quickly on this and so we can anticipate seeing some -- if everything goes well tonight, we can anticipate some construction activity very quickly on the site. Staff did not receive any written testimony on the site. The applicant is here to testify on behalf of the application. Again, staff is recommending approval of the application with the conditions in the staff report and with that I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Freeman: Thank you, Bill. Any questions of staff? O'Brien: I have one question, I think, Mr. Chair. Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Bill, was this the same one we looked at here not too long ago that was near a railroad tracks that wanted to have a church from -- church from I guess an industrial warehouse? Wasn't there one here recently? This must not be the same one, then. Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien. Was there something we looked at with Scentsy on the other side of Eagle Road that abuts the railroad tracks? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 27 of 31 O'Brien: It was on -- I believe it was closer to Meridian Road or Main Street think. In that area. It was past -- it was -- Freeman: It was an existing building. O'Brien: Yeah. Freeman: It was a conditional use that we approved. O'Brien: Yeah. It was an existing warehouse that they turned into a church. t just didn't want to get confused between this one and that one. Parsons: Commissioner O'Brien, the last one that I recall would be the one that shows the facility with the YMCA and that was off of 10th. O'Brien: Okay. Parsons: And that was Vineyards church. O'Brien: All right. Thanks. Forgot all about that. Freeman: No questions. All right. Would the applicant like to come forward and present your application? Please state your name and address into the mike for the record. Thowless: Good evening. My name is Wayne Thowless. I'm with LKV Architects. Business address 2400 East River Walk Drive in Boise. 83706. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you for hearing the request of Life Church this evening to get conditional use approval for this existing building and its conversion to a new church facility for the church. Life Church has been in the Treasure Valley for a number of years. Presently has a facility which they have outgrown on South Maple Grove Road in Boise. This site was attractive to them, primarily because of its high visibility. They are not a traditional church in a lot of ways and high visibility location suits them and their vision for growth of the church in the future. As mentioned by staff in the staff report, though this may not be a conventional location for a church facility in terms of the surrounding uses, the church will primarily be used when the industrial and commercial enterprises in the vicinity are not in use and vice-versa. So, there should not be conflicts between the uses, because they won't be in operation, for the most part, at the same time. The existing warehouse building is just over 40,000 square feet in size and it's all one level, except for a small administrative area on the north side of the building and the church plans a phased redevelopment of both the property and the building. Phase one, which is what the church would be applying for a certificate of zoning compliance on in the near future, would consist of converting the northern half of the warehouse to a church facility, about Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 28 of 31 26,000 square feet, and leaving the rest of the building as it is for the present time and as the church grows, moving in into that remaining undeveloped portion of the building. The amount of paved area on site is adequate to more than meet the city's parking requirements and to meet the church's parking needs initially. As the church grows and additional parking would be developed in the lawn area north of the building between the building and Commercial Court. The access won't remain unchanged. The driveway to the site is off Commercial Court at the -- or near the northeast property corner and that's the only access which will exist. As mentioned by staff, a ten foot pathway will be developed along Eagle Road in conformance with the city requirements and curb, gutter, and sidewalk will be developed on Commercial Court in compliance with city requirements, as well as ACHD. The building is a large split faced concrete block building and we intend to change the colors on the building, add some accent materials by way of the white metal panels on all of the different facades, though that particular element wouldn't be developed or added to the south facade of the building until such time as that portion of the building was converted to church. But the entire building would be repainted, so that the color scheme would be uniform as a part of phase one and the main additional element on the exterior will be this new foyer area that will face northwest toward the intersection of Eagle Road and Commercial Court and that will be a large two story high foyer space, which would be the focal point and the very welcoming entrance to the church facility and very visible from the intersection of Eagle Road, et cetera. So, I would be happy to stand for any questions. Neil Jansen with Life Church is also here if you have questions that pertain more to the -- their ministry or the operation of the church. So, either one of us would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Freeman: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? No? Okay. Thank you very much. Yearsley: Actually, I do. Freeman: Oh. Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Actually, I have some questions on the usage of the facility. I'm assuming there is going to be more usage than just a Sunday service; is that not correct? And, if so, what other uses are you planning on having? Thowless: Do you want to address that, Neil? Freeman: If you would, please, state your name and address for the record. Jansen: Neil Jansen. 15 North Ruby Road in Boise and I'm on staff at Life Church. We have currently Saturday night services. We have a Saturday night and two Sunday morning services for our weekend fellowships and, then, we have a Wednesday night service and that's when our youth meet. So, really, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 29 of 31 Wednesday from 5:30 on cars will start arriving, so pretty much after 8:00 to 5:00. So, we will -- you know, we will really not be in the commercial zone. Yes, we would be competing with retail traffic in that -- on Eagle, but, of course, I'm sure you're going to make us right turn only like it is right now off of Commercial, so we know we are going to get our congregation in the habit of going over to Pine and going that way. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. I don't have anybody signed up to offer public testimony on this item either. Is there anybody that would like that opportunity? No? Okay. Could I get a motion? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 11-003. O'Brien: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on CUP 11- 003, Life Church. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: Discussion? Marshall: Do you want me to get on my soap box again and take another 30 minutes? Rohm: No. Marshall: Okay. I like it. Rohm: Oh, that's perfect. Yearsley: I have a -- Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead. Yearsley: I have a question for staff. Was a traffic study requested for this project or was that not necessary? Parsons: Commissioner Yearsley and Council -- I mean Commission, I did get ACHD's staff report and in there it was not required to do a traffic study. Yearsley: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 30 of 31 Parsons: The only site specific condition was the curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Finish out the road section. Yearsley: Thank you. Freeman: My comments are I see this as a great opportunity for adaptive reuse. I'm for it. And if there are no other comments, could I get a motion? Yearsley: Actually, Iwill -- this will be my first motion, so if you don't mind I'd like to try it. Freeman: We will give you an extra minute. Yearsley: After considering staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 11-003 as presented in the staff report for hearing date of September 1st, 2011, with the following conditions to the -- I guess with no -- Freeman: Right. We won't have any additional conditions. Yearsley: -- modifications to the conditions. Freeman: Uh-huh. Yearsley: I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing date on September 15th, 2011. Marshall: Second. Freeman: Thank you. I have a motion and a second to approve CUP 11-003, Life Church. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: I think we just need one more motion. Pete? Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, before you adjourn just a heads up. Contrary to your past few agendas -- our September 15 agenda will be quite full and quite heavy, so plan accordingly. Wanted to let you know that. O'Brien: I have one comment. Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: I hope that we are not faced with another technical difficulty as we have this evening. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 Page 31 of 31 Friedman: No. The IT Department and their director will be informed of all the nonfunctioning hardware down here. Marshall: It's not part of the lawsuit that we -- Friedman: Yeah. You never know. O'Brien: Mr. Chair, move to adjourn. Rohm: Second. Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: We are adjourned. Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:35 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON BILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) DATE APPROVED ATTEST: ./ ~ JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY CLERK ti~~ ~ N ~ ~'yb -••1 .+ a~~~"~ O ~ti t!~ ~ o Ally' e+ ~~ID ~ ~O~ Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: September 1, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 3/q PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approve Minutes of July 21, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: September 1, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 4A PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 11-001 ITEM TITLE: Ten Mile Annexation Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2011 -Annexation and Zoning of 80.62 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to C-G zone by Janicek Properties, LLC; Fedrizzi Ten Mile, LLC; and SJJV, LLC -west ofS. Ten Mile Road and north of I-84 MEETING NOTES ~ 4n--~.e -~ ~l e off- -~^ c/C 6%/!, v" " "1 ~ S-p CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: September 1, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 4B PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 11-002 ITEM TITLE: Walmart -Overland / Stoddard Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit for a drive thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive thru facility, a residential district and existing residences by Walmart Real Estate Business Trust -SEC of W. Overland Road and S. Stoddard Road MEETING NOTES ~ppr~~e oP ~-'w~'7o .S-~O Preptu~e ~i r~ n~~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: September 1, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 4C PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 11-003 ITEM TITLE: Life Church Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit approval to operate a Church from an existing builidng in an I-L zoning district by Life Church - 3225 E. Commercial Drive MEETING NOTES ~~epa,~e ~nol.~~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS