Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 4, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 2 of 76 Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Before we go into the remainder of the agenda, we'd like to tum a few minutes over to Mayor de Weerd. De Weerd: Thank you. Do I need to give you my name and address? I just wanted to welcome our two newest members of the Commission and restate, I guess, the appreciation of the Mayor and Council to all of you. We know that this is a time commitment and you add great value to our process and to the planning of our city and we appreciate what you do and welcome Mr. Moe and Wendy, I have only known you as Wendy, so I get caught up with this Newton-Huckabay -- Huckabay -- Huckabay. But welcome. We do appreciate your commitment and your acceptance of this appointment to the Commission. The six-year appointment. Moe: Boy, I don't remember that De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me make those comments and, again, welcome to the new members and just to again restate, we appreciate all you do and the commitment you have to the city. Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 03-038 Request for annexation and zoning of 21.38 acres from C-2 to C-G zones for proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: Item 5: Public Hearing: PFP 03-007 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 4 commercial building lots on 21.38 acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northeast comer of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: Item 6: Public Hearing: CUP 03-071 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the construction of a combination feed store and gas station /convenience store on one of the proposed lots and to allow the existing commercial and residential uses to remairi and the property for Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: Borup: Thank you, Mayor. Okay. The first item is concerning the Mussell Comer Subdivision. We'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-038, the request for annexation and zoning of 21.38 acres from C-2 to C-G zones for the proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers. Also like to open Public Hearing PFP 03-007, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 3 of 78 request for preliminary final plat approval of four commercial building lots and we'd like to open Public Hearing CUP 03-071, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development to allow construction of a combination feed store, gas station, convenience store on one of the proposed lots and to allow the existing commercial and residential uses to remain on the same property. Again, all three hearings are open at this time and we'd like to start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applicant is concurrently applying for annexation and zoning, preliminary/final plat and Conditional Use Permit approval for a planned development that includes four build-able lot on 21.38 acres within the proposed C-G zone. The site is located on the northeast comer of Victory Road and Kuna-Meridian Road, also known as State Highway 69. This property is currently zoned C-2 in Ada County and is designated on the city's Comprehensive Plan as commercial. The site is currently being used to grow and store materials for the commercial landscape nursery. There is also a sprinkler irrigation business. A drive-thru, expresso shop. And asingle-family residence that also serves as the landscape office. To the north of this site is Edmonds Subdivision, which is right here. Large -- it's zoned RUT in the county. There is also a vacant big -- large vacant parcel that's -- there is some storage going on on this site and it's vacant right now. To the south is a 143-acre here that's medium density residential in the city's Comprehensive Plan. There is a single family home that's not on this screen here on the site. Most of this is used as agriculture at this time. To the east is Observation Point Subdivision. There is one single family home on this lot here. This is all one large lot and, then, the rest of Observation Point. And to the west are some single- family homes on large acreages as well. Also zoned RUT in Ada County. On one of the four parcels proposed for building is a new combination feed store, gas and convenience station. That is right on the corner -- the northeastern most -- well, the southwestern most part of this site, but the northeast comer of the intersection. Another one of the proposed lots is for a future stand-alone commercial building, which is just to the north of that lot there here on the second lot. The remaining two lots and the majority of the site are the existing commercial landscape business. There are the existing structures. This is -- the home office is in this location here. The sprinkler irrigation business and some other buildings that are on site -- there is a large pond in this general location. A CUP PD application is required, because there are multiple buildings proposed on a single parcel and because the existing residential use is prohibited in a proposed C-G zone. The subject development is eligible for a combined preliminary/final plat application, which you see here, because the proposed subdivision does not exceed four lots. There are no new streets being dedicated or widened and this development is not located within a flood plain or hillside, or the like. The planned development application requests that the existing single family home be approved in a C-G zone as a use exception, as allowed by city code. The applicant has not submitted detail plans for Lot 2 and is requesting only conceptual approval at this time. The submitted site plan and landscape plan do depict the required 35-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to Kuna-Meridian Road and a 2Q foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to Victory Road. However, except for the landscaping adjacent to the proposed gas feed store in Lot 3, the applicant is requesting that the landscaping Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 4 of 76 requirement be waived until these lots redevelop. The applicant is proposing to utilize the open space provided by the commercial nursery as one amenity and a meandering sidewalk adjacent Kuna-Merl ion Road as the other. There is the elevation for the proposed feed, convenience - or feed store on that lot on the southwest side of the property. Staff is recomme ding denial of the proposed annexation and zoning and development of this property t this time for these main reasons: The site lies outside the five-minute response zone goal of the Meridian fire department. Municipal sanitary sewer and water systems are of readily available to provide service. The applicant is not proposing to bring the exis ing uses that are to remain, signage, landscaping, public infrastructure, screening, drive aisles or parking into compliance with current city code. The proposed access point to Kuna-Meridian Road do not meet the location requirements of ITD or action tem two in Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed building setbacks, landscape waivers, and lack of a frontage road or accounting for additional right of way on State Highway 69 does not meet the policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and Meridian city code. The applicant did submit a response letter a couple days go, I believe, and I believe all of you should have a copy of that. I did want to touch on a couple of those, answer a couple of questions that the -- respond to a couple of the q estions and, then, also ask a couple of questions of the applicant or have a couple of espouses anyways. I also did want to make sure that everyone got a copy of the I tter from Cloyd and Bonnie Nelson, dated the 23rd of February. They had some co cerns with an alteration of a drainpipe. They are on the west side of the state highway -just on the other side of the state highway from this site and did have some concerns t ere. They have contacted, to my understanding, ITD and ITD was supposed to sedan engineer out there to look and see what type of alterations has been done, but I did want to make sure you all received a copy of that. Sorry about that. Get back t the site plan here. In the applicant's response letter there is -- they stated that the will be eliminating the middle curb cut on Victory Road per the highway district's requi ements. I can't exactly see it. It's somewhere in this location here, though. And tha they will also be installing curb, gutter, sidewalk and full roadway improvements along he frontage. This is a good step, I guess, and I do support them in reducing the urb cuts. That is something that's encouraging. I wanted the applicant, maybe, to clarify what type of improvements, because in the submittal they stated that they eren't going to do any roadway improvements adjacent to the existing landscape business. So, I wasn't sure if that included landscape -- a landscape buffer adjacent to th t lot and irrigation business or not, so I just wanted to kind of find out a little bit more rom the applicant on that and the applicant also states that they are willing to correct he past issues and uses on the site and I didn't know how that was going to be done, what they are proposing in the development agreement may not be some past action in the county doesn't really seem to be seem to be applicable -- may or may not be applicable to the city and removing buildings or signs or lighting that's been installed wi hout county approval. Some of the uses on the site haven't been approved by the county, so I just didn't -- wasn't sure what type of improvements they are willing t do, if we decided that this is in the best interest of the city to annex and it's developed. I did want to point out a couple of things to you that -- even if ITD decides to approve access points, that doesn't necessarily mean that the city has to allow the developme t to utilize those access poihts and they have certain Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 5 of 76 criteria -- they do have jur sdiction over those roadways, the same with ACHD roadways. And we also hav ' policies that we can restrict points and if we don't think it s in the interest of the ci development, so that's somet y to utilize those access points, we can restrict that ing that I wanted to point out and a couple of times in the letter the applicant stated that ACHD's recommending approval of access points to the state highway and, really, that s not stating what ACHD policy is, if this were an ACHD roadway. Now, ACHD does of have jurisdiction over any roadways that are 55 miles an hour, so I would doubt tha if this were an ACHD roadway that they would approve access points, you know, con istent with their locations, they are looking at, you know roadways that are usually 3 , miles an hour, thereabouts. Another thing that the applicant asks if a gas station ' doesn't make sense on arterials, where do they. And I guess staff doesn t necessaril -- I'm not necessarily opposed to a gas station in this location. Again, it's more kin of the access point and the design thereof. I think if access were taken from Victo Road, which is a collector roadway, I think that a gas station does make sense in th s location. It's more the design of kind of what's going on there. So, some of those ' oncerns could go away with better --abetter site plan It wouldn t have as negative . n impact, I don't believe, if it were on a roadway with lesser speeds. The applicant also asks why it's not in the city's best interest to annex the home office and because he applicant was not proposing to bring that site up to current city standards, I didn't t ink it was in the best interest and this site has had some history and just -- if it were a v cant piece of ground, the city does often allow phases to go in and you install landsc ping when that phase goes in. This is an existing commercial business that will ntinue to be utilized and we don't know when it's going to and I doubt the applicant o his representative knows when it's going to redevelop. So, if we don't get some of th se improvements at this time, that landscape business could be there for 20, 30 -- ho ever many years. I mean we don't know that. So, that was an issue that I wanted to 'ust point out. And, then, also the vacant parcel 143 acres there to the south and t , ere is a neighborhood commercial designation also on the Comprehensive Plan. The a will be -- there aren't a lot of people around here now and the applicant's correct in t at. It is county ground pretty much all the way around this parcel, but in the future th re will be people here, so we just -- I was just making sure that these uses are the us s that the city wants to see, if that's the way that the city decides to go, there will be eople around here when you look at when it's fully developed, not just existing re idences in this neighborhood, but future residences as well. And, in conclusion, I'm a couraged by some of the things that were stated in the rebuttal letter and especially ab ut the developer's willingness to develop this project in line with the city's requirements, but for the reasons listed in the staff report, annexation of this site does not seem to a in the city's best interest at this time. So that will conclude my report and I will sit , or any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from any of tF{e Commissioners? Powell: Chairman Borup, if I uld add some testimony just on a staffing -- it's not zoning related, but I did want t provide testimony. This site doesn't -- this property owner, as documented in yo r staff report, doesn't have just a short history of noncompliance with Ada Count ,they have a longstanding history of noncompliance Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 6 of 76 with Ada County. It takes their code enforcement officer quite a bit of time dealing with this property, as well as the prosecuting attorney's office. I would encourage you to consider whether it's in the best interest of the city for this reason also, because I mean the City of Meridian prides itself on being kind of lean and mean as far as staffing goes. Or staffing is stretched to the limit. Is this really an area where we want to have to focus a lot of our attention as far as code enforcement and the attorneys. I mean there have been -- I heard today -- and I don't know all the particulars, but I heard that there was even an issue regarding the irrigation district that went all the way up to the Supreme Court on this property. So, you're talking about somebody -- and the county standards aren't even --aren't that great -- you know, they are not that onerous to begin with and I really fear that this will become a staffing concern in the future and that it -- I strongly believe it's not in the interest of the city at this time to accept the property until we have a full development plan where everything is going through all at the same time and we can get this site developed as it should be. I question the -- just the timing of annexation and zoning. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Dave McKinnon. I'm representing the applicant tonight. My address is 12552 West Executive Drive. I'm representing Pinnacle Engineers, but on behalf of the applicant tonight, which is Double D Feed and Seed and not Tim Mussell, the owner of the property. I guess I betterjust start off with where Anna left off there talking about some of the issues that the owner of the property has had with the county and just address those really quick, so that we can talk about that. You should have all received in your packet a letter from the county stating five different violations that have been on site and the ongoing issues that they have had with Ada County and in my rebuttal letter I responded that we have talked with the owner of the property about this and he said -- he has stated that he will take care of those problems before we get to the point where we do building permits and in my rebuttal letter I recommended that prior to the annexation or prior to the signature of the city on this project or for -- or prior to the issuance of a building permit, that all five of those issues be resolved prior to the city signature. So, there is a way that you can do this and some of the questions that Craig brought up about whether it's appropriate for the city to be able to handle it that way -- I can answer that in the affirmative that, yes, the city can handle it this way, because an annexation itself is a legislative function of the city, you have to determine whether or not this is something that the city wants and if the city wants it, under what conditions does the city want this. If the city wants all of the conditions completed by Tim Mussell prior to annexation that is something that the city can require prior to the annexation. So, there is a way for you guys to take care of the issues with the county for the county and for the city before this property is brought in. The issues that Anna addressed earlier about the issue of the irrigation district going all the way to the Supreme Court, Tim Mussell did settle with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation Company -- I heard the long story and to make a long story short, Tim had to pay a lot money and it's mostly going to be handled through insurance money to correct the problem that was there and it was a tiling of the ditch and they went ahead and piped it and Tim fought the payment and so Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 7 of 76 that's why it went to the Supreme Court, but it's, actually, been settled now. So, there is a way for the city to be able to control what happens on this site through the legislative process of annexation. I'm going to jump just right to -- in talking a littler earlier tonight, I talked a little bit with Mike Rohm and he told me how much time he wanted to spend on this tonight and I'll keep my comments brief. I'll just start with the staff report that Craig Hood had right from the beginning.. His major reasons that he stated for the denial of this project was, number one, that there was a -- that we are outside the five minute response zone for the fire department and, Craig, if you can go back to the overhead. All right. That's great. Let me show you all the projects that are outside of the Meridian five-minute response areas that have already been approved by your board and the City Council. Observation Point, which is actually further away. Meridian Greens. Bear Creek. Still outside of the five-minute response zone for the Meridian fire department is Kentucky Ridge, the adjacent subdivision to the site. When the Wal-Mart, ShopKo, and Crossroads Plaza was approved that was outside of the five- minute response area. The northern Meridian -- north Meridian -- the majority of north Meridian was outside of the five-minute response area. There is a lot of projects that have been approved outside of the five-minute response area and while I believe that that's a very good goal to have to have everybody within five minutes of the fire station, based on limited resources and the amount of growth that has happened in the City of Meridian, it's not always possible. I have had a chance to talk with Joe Silva about that and Joe Silva has stated that -- one, that if it was all to be a fire sprinkled building he wouldn't have as much of a problem with it and we are intending on fire sprinkling this entire building. So, the fact that the response time can go down, if the building is sprinkled is something that he said he could live with. So, there has been a precedent set by the city of Meridian to take pieces of property and approve properties outside of the five-minute response area. To take a stand at this point to say that nothing outside of the five-minute response area could be approved, there is a number of final plats that should not be approved until additional fire stations as well are approved in the City of Meridian. So, it's a great goal to have, but it's not one that continues to allow for growth in the City of Meridian. The second issue was dealing with sewer and water and the availability of -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. David, before you go on, I would only comment that none of the ones that you mentioned are gas stations. McKinnon: They are not gas stations. Zaremba: That may make a difference. McKinnon: Okay. Well, the gas station response is typically the automatic shutoff and there is a requirement to meet all the Uniform Fire Code requirements for the gas station. Those are all things that have to be done with the fire station. I could probably -- I didn't get all of the fire -- all of the gas stations that are outside of the one and a half mile radius of the fire department, but the fire department's itself area is much greater than the City of Meridian itself and there is a number of fire stations -- a number of gas stations in the Meridian fire district's response area that are outside of the five minute Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 8 of 76 response area as well. So, one of the major concerns that they have in the five minute response area is typically tied to life safety in regards to if someone was to have a heart attack, they need to get to that person in that amount of time. It's not typically associated with the fire, especially for a sprinkled building. Back onto the sewer and water issue being the second reason for the recommendation for denial, that it's not located conveniently with this site. Just to point out where the water is at and the fact this would be developed or borne and it's also in accommodation with the city's master plan for water. The city plans on having water brought from Observation Point along Victory to State Highway 69 -- actually, across State Highway 69 and continue over. In talking with the Public Works Department originally with this project, they asked us if we would provide an easement for the water and sewer at this location, so water and sewer can be brought to this site and across the front of that site. We are annexing -- requesting annexation of this entire site. Water is less than a quarter mile away from this site to be brought to this site. It's not as though we are dragging the water miles to this site. There is several projects that have had to have water brought to them and the developer is paying for the expense to drag the water to the side, in accordance with Meridian's requirements. The sewer is a little bit tougher and I spent quite a bit of time with Brad -- Brad Watson and Bruce Freckleton concerning the location of the sewer and how sewer can be handled. In your staff report you received from staff there is a recommendation for a four inch lift station, essentially, to pump this sewage all the way up to a gravity sewer location -- I'm indicating approximately a half mile north. Currently under the City of Meridian's master plan for the sewer system there is plans to bring a sewer in line down along State Highway 69 with a diversion structure someplace in this location; is that correct? More or less. Bruce is nodding. A diversion structure in this location. Then, continue down and provide another structure at this location for sewer. The sewer from this site would be able to accommodate -- it would be able to go into this site, but prior to tonight's meeting, in talking with Brad Watson, they haven't been able to do the modeling yet to determine what would be the most appropriate location and whether or not the four inch is better than bringing the whole thing down. The applicant would prefer to wait -- in talking with Brad Watson he said probably about a month's time he could have better modeling that would show where it would be -- where the sewer should come from down through here to the site. The applicant would rather do it once the right way, rather than construct a pressure main for a half a mile, then, to be able to hook onto gravity within several years. The developer is willing to bear the expense of this, with late-comers fees, obviously, but to bring sewer down that location in accordance with Meridian's requirements. So, the idea that we will continue to work with the Public Works Department, we may need some extra time for that, so at the end of tonight's meeting we will probably ask for a continuance in order work this issue out. The third issue that Craig brought up that said that we are not bringing the existing uses into compliance. This is something that's an interesting item to discuss. We are dealing with an existing site -- existing commercial uses and there is no intent right now of the commercial nursery to change what they are doing. They have been there for a number of years and, then, to automatically require a landscape nursery to provide landscaping and curb, gutter, and sidewalk a full quarter mile, essentially, north of this site -- it's a little less than a quarter mile, but we will call it an eighth of a mile north of this site and landscape that when they are not planning on doing any Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 9 of 76 redevelopment to the site, seems this is not the appropriate time to do that, but, rather, when this site redevelops. I happen to know that Tim is working with other people for future sites along this property and, to be quite honest, he probably will not be the owner of this property for many years to come, he will probably continue his use until the land becomes valuable enough that he can redevelop. The issues along Victory Road, as Craig pointed out our letter, we are actually going to build the full length of Victory in accordance with ACHD requirements. You all should have received a copy of ACHD's report with ACHD's requirements for all of the improvements, which include a sidewalk, in addition to a bicycle path lane, and the striping. Craig, if you can go to the site plan that's just below this one, the next one. ACHD has previously acquired right of way for the signalization of this intersection. Within the next two years this intersection will be signalized. The right of way has already been secured at this location for -- the right of way for the widening for the right turn lane at this location. Craig, if you can go back to the next -- to the previous picture again. There was some discussion about which driveway we are eliminating and Craig wanted us to point that out. There is currently a driveway right where this red line is and that's the driveway we will be keeping and that driveway goes directly into the gas station off of Victory Road, approximately 185 feet from the near edge of the existing pavement back to the gas station. So, there is an access to this site off of Victory. The existing access, for those of you that have ever visited the Victory Greens, there is an existing access point right here that's right next to the house between an outbuilding. That's the access that we will be closing and so there won't be any access to the existing office house off of Victory. We will have to come in from this curb cut further down Victory that's in accordance with ACRD or this curb cut that's 185 feet off of State Highway 69. So, those are the -- that's the curb cut we are closing. It's the middle one in this location. The issues dealing with ITD, we are still in discussions with ITD. I have spoken at length with Matt Ward and Dean Golden and Dan Kuntz and, basically, what we have boiled this down to at this point is we have received a deed that states -- from ITD back in 1987 that we have three deeded accesses to State Highway 69 from this parcel. You should have all received a copy of that deed with the accesses in my letter. So, there is three accesses that have been deeded to this property owner from Idaho Transportation Department. We are working with them to try to get those accesses. Just to address the final comment that was made by Craig concerning ITD, that even if ITD grants these to us and ACHD recommends approval of this, the fact that you don't have to grant these to us is absolutely true. This is an annexation. It's a legislative function. However, bear in mind that just a half mile north of this site you have recently approved a project with two curb cuts just south of Overland Road off of State Highway 69, which is a more congested intersection. The application for that was approved by the City of Meridian. However, Idaho Transportation Department did not approve those accesses and they are currently in litigation with ITD to be granted those accesses that were approved by the City of Meridian. This is not as congested a site as that and we would ask that we be granted the ability to continue working with ITD in the future. And, again, we will probably ask for a continuance of the hearing tonight in order to continue working with ITD to gain access. The fifth item that Craig had had to deal with the right of way and the building. He just wanted some clarification. I think I have addressed some of those issues already. I'll just move down through a few other things. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 10 of 76 In response to Cloyd and Bonnie Nelson's letter, I spent a couple of phone calls with Cloyd -- in fact, I'm the one that put Cloyd in contact with the Idaho Transportation Department to find out about the ditch that runs underneath I-84 and just in accordance with state law, we will continue to allow the water to flow from his property through this property and we will work with him on that. Design issues regarding that ditch haven't been addressed. It's typically addressed with the final plat construction drawings, which have not yet been constructed in our office. It's a long report and there is a lot of issues that have been brought up. Just to wrap things up -- I know I will have a chance for rebuttal and I know there is some other issues that need to be addressed with this tonight, but you might have some questions. Just to wrap things up, we are really looking at -- Craig, could you go to the picture of the gas station. This -- essentially, what we are looking at having approved tonight. The annexation of the property is in the interest of the city for a number of reasons. One is that we are trying to do it in accordance with the City of Meridian's master plan for utilities. It's adeveloper-borne cost, rather than acity-borne cost. You will be annexing a large piece of property into the City of Meridian, which will increase the commercial tax base of the City of Meridian, rather than keeping it in Ada County. You will see this comer improved fully with landscaping and curb -- or sidewalk and you will see Victory Road completely improved all with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. And you will see an increased viability in this area, because other developments will be able to spring up if the sewer system is brought through. So, it is in the interest of the city to see this area developed, rather than to let it remain as is. It's been mentioned that this has had problems with Ada County. This is going to clean up some of the problems that are with Ada County. If it's not annexed into the city and not allowed to develop, it will sit and remain as is with no improvements for a number years to come, possibly. So, it is in the interest of the city to annex the piece of property, to gain the tax base, and to gain the improvements for this area and to gain the infrastructure improvements for the area. The major area that we are looking at developing through the Conditional Use Permit alone is what you see on the ovefiead right now. We are looking for approval of a gas station. We know that we have some issues that are still outstanding with the Idaho Transportation Department concerning gaining access and we'd ask that you continue this meeting tonight to allow us to have the additional time to work with ITD to gain those access points and determine where the access points are best left. Ada County Highway District had mentioned that they recommended approval. Craig had some concerns about the recommendations for approval. One thing that needs to be pointed out that with ACHD's recommendation for approval that included acceleration and deceleration lanes, it wasn't just coming off a 55 mile an hour road onto this site, it was to include acceleration and declaration zones for the accesses. We know that this access will have to be removed. It doesn't even meet Ada County Highway District's request for a right-in, right-out. Their request was a 220-foot offset from Victory. We know that that right-in, right-out would possibly be moved and we believe that we can live with it to be eliminated if we would have shared access in this location. This is what we'd like to see approved tonight. The annexation is the only way to get this to this .point. The preliminary plat separates this lot from the remainder of the lots, so that the owner can sell this property. We have worked with the different agencies to try to get to a point where we can approve this project and I'd ask if you have any questions. at this time. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Paga 11 of 76 Borup: Questions from the Commission? Could you elaborate on the acceleration, deceleration lanes, where they were planned for? McKinnon: Sure. Craig, could you go back to the aerial again? Typically, on a 55 mile an hour road, Idaho Transportation Department requests a 250 foot long deceleration lane and that's typically one lane wide, which would be 12 feet wide, where a vehicle could pull off of the main areas of travel, it's a five lane road, so that the external lane, the lane that's closest to the property, will have 250 feet to slow down out of traffic before making aright-hand turn into the site. In addition to that, an acceleration lane is the same thing, but just on acceleration, then, where they have a period of time to speed up and catch up with the existing traffic. The acceleration-deceleration lane is something that we would need to workout with ITD, but one thing to keep in mind is we are dealing with a controlled intersection in the near future and we will be putting a stop light in this intersection in the near future. The best guess -- the best guess that ITD had for this area for this traffic light was two years -- within two years and they have got it scheduled -- well, two years ago they had it scheduled for two years, so it could happen anytime between six months and two years from now. So, there is the intent to control this intersection, as well as the intent on our part to work with ITD for acceleration and deceleration lanes for this project. Zaremba: Clarify for me the same subject, if you would, that would be in addition to the current lanes and this, actually, would add to the right of way coming out of your property? McKinnon: It would come out of our property. Craig, could you go back to the site plan? Next one. That one. What we would do is create a little bit of reconfiguration of this site, where we would have to drag the deceleration lane -- this is the edge of the right of way right here. We'd have to drag that onto our property, basically 12 feet in, with a curb and asphalt, to bring that in to be able to pull off and come in on our site, but that 12 feet would be basically an additional lane of traffic that would be striped to go into this site. Zaremba: Then, your 35 feet of landscaping would be inside of that? McKinnon: Inside of that. That's correct: Borup: That is on Highway 69? McKinnon: That would just be on Highway 69. Victory Road, there was no requirement for acceleration or deceleration lanes at this time from Ada County Highway District. Borup: Okay. Moe: I understood as far as developer cost for the water, you went into the sewer -- I understand that should be developer borne as well. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 12 of 76 McKinnon: Correct. Moe: But what are you anticipating doing early on on that sewer? McKinnon: Early on on that sewer`? If you could go back to the site plan that showed -- one more up. There we go. The sewer is currently at this location at the end of Elk Run Subdivision. It would be to bring it -- I believe it's across the street, isn't it, Bruce? Bringing it to the east side of State Highway 69 and, then, bringing -- I think it's a 22- inch pipe down to this location. It would be a diversion structure, so that in the future when the Black Cat Trunk comes through they would be able to access this diversion structure. That 22 inch pipe after that diversion structure would continue down to Victory and at that point I'm not sure where it goes and Bruce could better answer that, but that's something that we are willing to work with on the site and, actually, to put that in order to develop this site. And so it hasn't been completely worked out with Public Works. They have been very busy, as you well know. You have had a lot of site plans in front of you and a lot of projects that have been moving on and they have been working with that and they haven't had a chance to model that, but they have been working with their consultant and their consultant's best guess at the time of the writing of the staff report was that a four inch pressure main would be the most appropriate at that time, but we'd rather do it right the first time and we can wait a little bit of time to make it done right, rather than do it wrong and have to connect to gravity within a year or two. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: I need to have you run something by me again McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: The existing conditions that don't currently comply with county ordinances and in their current condition wouldn't comply with city ordinances either, the logic to me is they should be fixed before we even recommend annexation. Run your argument by me again for why we should move ahead. McKinnon: Okay. The way you could move ahead with this is through the use of a development agreement. The development agreement says these are the certain conditions that have to be done prior to the city doing what need's to be -- prior to taking any further action the city wants a development agreement that can limit our client or myself to do certain things before the city will allow certain things to happen. And Jill could probably go into it a little bit more. It's a legal document between the applicant and the owner and the city saying we will do these things, as long as the city allows us to do these things and so you could set up a development. agreement that would say these are the issues that need to be resolved prior to signature on the final plat or prior to Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law being done. Typically, a development agreement is done after those issues have taken place, but -- after the Findings of Facts Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 13 of 78 and Conclusions of Law have been adopted, because those are usually inserted into the development agreement, the conditions of approval. So, what you do is make a legal document that says these are the things that need to be done prior to us issuing a building permit for this site and if you do that, then, the only way that we can get a building permit is to make all of those conditions be made. Zaremba: But wouldn't it even be better faith to complete all those things before we even apply for annexation? It certainly would show good faith to have them done. McKinnon: It would show good faith to have them done. I think it would also show good faith on the city that if we were to do those things that the city would annex it and the recommendation wouldn't be for denial based on those issues that are outstanding. If - - Iknow that Mr. Mussell has been working with the county for years and I guess they have had some of their battles and I haven't been at the county when those battles have happened, but I have heard stories and there is some things that need to be done that haven't been done on this site and he's assured that -- our applicant tonight, Double D Feed and Seed, that those things will be taken care of and we can have that limited by the city doing a development agreement. If this isn't approved and there is no development agreement, he may choose to continue fighting with the county. This may be the way to get these things corrected, rather than allow it to continue in the future. Borup: I'd like to discuss that a little bit more, too. It looks to me like there is -- the issues are the storage trailer with the sign on it. McKinnon: Right. Borup: Storage areas without screening, mercury vapor light, and an overhead line. Those look like things that could be handled in a couple of weeks if someone diligently worked at it, couldn't they? McKinnon: They could. Borup: So, I mean that could be taken care of by the time that you worked out the details with ITD. I think that would -that would address Commissioner Zaremba's question. I mean that looked to me like the issues, unless there is some others that weren't listed here. Is that your understanding of those items? McKinnon: That's my understanding. There are a few things in here that, you know, although they are out of compliance with Ada County, that doesn't necessarily mean they are out of compliance with the City of Meridian. Borup: Well, those are -- I mean, you know, taking care of lighting and overhead line and -- you know. McKinnon: Those are things that can be taken care of Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 14 of 76 Borup: I would think the nursery could find some screening pretty easy. McKinnon: Uh-huh. And number four and five -- in fact, if you take the mercury vapor light and, number five, which is the power line for that mercury vapor light, that's really one thing. Take out the overhead line and the mercury vapor light is no longer good. Those are things that can be done and taken care of and those are things that can be taken care of within the time frame of us working with ITD and working with the Public Works Department to come to an agreement on the issues of access and utilities. Borup: So, does that sound like a reasonable solution, to just go ahead and get those items taken care of? McKinnon: I think so. Borup: Other questions from the Commissioners? Anything else you think we ought to discuss while Mr. McKinnon is up here? Hood: Mr. Chair? Borup: Yes. Mr. Hood. Hood: I had a question, I guess, on the first one that the county has listed there and how the city -- what the city would like to see good faith, if you will, how we are going to move -- if anything, with number one, how -- the illegal uses that are presently on the site, how would we like that cleaned up? Borup: The illegal use being the rock storage? Hood: Well, there is some landscaping -- my understanding there is some landscaping, some rocks, that are not put on the site in compliance with the county's code and also the expresso stand; I believe, was never approved as part of the master site plan for this site and maybe the irrigation sprinkler business, too. Dave may be able to clarify that, but I think there are a couple of illegal uses that are also on this site that have never been approved by the county, so -- Borup: You mean the other business -- Hood: Yeah. McKinnon: Well, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Craig, you bring up a couple good points. Let me address those. The coffee kiosk, actually, was approved by the county and Ada County Highway District. In fact, that's why this third curb cut was approved originally, the one that we are going to be utilizing. It was approved through the use of that coffee kiosk when it came through ACHD, that's when that access was actually created. The existing -- Meddian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 15 of 76 Borup: And that will be abandoned - McKinnon: It will be abandoned when it's gone. Yeah. That's -- you all know Jesepe, if you have been in the city for a while. He's here quite a bit. Poor Jesepe will be looking for a new place for his coffee kiosk that -- the sprinkler system and the nursery, both of those are permitted uses in that zone and they have been approved in that zone. The issue is dealing with the rock storage and that was the one use that they are saying was not a permitted use by the county. I think Craig makes a really good point there saying what would you like us to do with the rock storage. This is a landscaping nursery business, part of the landscape nursery typically includes landscape rock and I believe the landscape rock is mostly located along State Highway 69 in this location. I'm not sure as to how you would like us to address that. That is a portion of his business that goes along with the remainder of his business as well. Borup: Mr. Hood, is it the city's feeling that the landscape rocks would not be in compliance with -- with Meridian ordinance? Hood: Well, the rocks may not be in violation, but the landscaping there adjacent to the highway would not be in compliance with the city code for the landscape buffer adjacent to the highway and that's something else that the applicant is not proposing to do is not proposing to bring any of - I mean as you can see, two-thirds of that frontage into compliance with current city code and it is an existing business, but it's an existing business in the county and the city didn't come to the applicant's door and knock and say, hey, bring this up to code, they are coming to us saying let us in the city and if you want to come into the city these are our requirements, so you meet those requirements as stated in the letter and that's -- you know, maybe some of those rocks could be worked into a landscape plan, but they are not proposing to do any additional landscaping along that frontage. Borup: Mr. McKinnon, do you know about how far that acceleration lane would -- I mean I realize you said it's preliminary, but is there an estimate on how far that acceleration lane is going to go? McKinnon: It's typically 250 feet on a 55. Borup: Two hundred fifty beyond the entrance there? McKinnon: Yeah. So, if we have an entrance at 440 feet, which would probably put us about this location, basically 250 feet up, 250 feet back to have your acceleration and deceleration lanes. We won't be -- Borup: So, you're saying 440 plus 250? McKinnon: Yeah. That's typically how it works, but -- Borup: And what's the length of the entire property? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 18 of 76 McKinnon: The length of the entire property is approximately a quarter mile. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I need a clarification on the coffee kiosk. When you were talking about that, I thought you said that the access that was granted for the coffee kiosk is the one you will be closing? McKinnon: That's the one we will be keeping open. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: It was created when the coffee kiosk was approved. And, again, Commissioners, we realize that we are bringing in an existing business, but, you know, typically, you see development happen in phases. You don't see it happen all at once. The idea that it's coming into the city doesn't automatically mean that there is a lot more money for the development of this site. There is a lot more money for the development of this site, because as this develops there is going to be more money to be gained from that. By bringing this into the city, there is not a great deal of money to be put into this, because it's not being redeveloped. The use is staying the same. With a preliminary plat you approve a project for a single phase, each final plat as it comes in, you don't require all of the improvements from the entire preliminary plat to be completed prior to the first phase being done. Essentially, what we are looking for is phase development. We are asking for this portion to be allowed now and the remainder as it redevelops to be brought into compliance. Moe: But you have also stated that the landscape business has planned to be there for quite sometime, so, therefore, the improvements on the highway side probably would not be done. McKinnon: Well, let me correct that. This portion here is the. more expensive portion, because of the frontage and the owner is currently trying to locate people to move to this location for commercial uses. But the landscape business could remain for some time, just like you see many businesses in the City of Meridian that don't meet code, but out of code, and they remain out of code until such time as they redevelop. Redevelopment is usually what kicks in the requirement for the additional properties, not annexation. Zaremba: That brings up another issue, partially, which staff has mentioned. This is a nice, large piece of property and in a perfect world we would see a plan for the whole piece of property, rather than do little pieces here and there and leave some the way they were and nonconforming and create some new ones that may not be exactly what we wanted if we saw the whole project. I know you have already resisted saying when the landscape business would change, but the development along the frontage, is there a push for that to happen soon? Any concept of what might be there? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 17 of 76 McKinnon: Sure. Craig, can you go ahead and go up to the next -right there. You can see what we have got in the conceptual layout for this is actual two commercial building pads. Well, there is one commercial building pad north of this site already. That remains just the -- you know, this section to be developed and I have talked with the representative of this piece of property here and they'd like to develop in a residential manner, they'd like to take access from State Highway 69 in some manner to get back to this project and so there is a push for redevelopment in this area. In talking with the City of Meridian Public Works, that they have received other requests for development in this area, so there is a push for that. As to whether or not -- there hasn't been resistance to say when this is going to move, it's not that I know and I'm not telling you, I really don't know. But I have had discussions with people concerning the development of that property, but I don't know the time frame for it to redevelop. And, like you said, Commissioner Zaremba, if it was a perfect world I would have a wondertul, complete site plan for the entire project, but this project is not ready to happen at this time. The owner is not willing to redevelop his entire site at this time, but he is willing to work with Double D Feed and Seed to put a portion of his property into -- bring the whole project into the City of Meridian, but to develop a portion of it at this time and without this project we would see no improvements in this area. Borup: And that aspect is not very much different as -- than what we see with a small parcel being annexed into the city and, you know, the adjoining parcel is un-annexed. Still county property and undeveloped. I mean I realize that's -- I don't know if that's a good example, but -- because this is all under one ownership. And this is one parcel; is that correct? McKinnon: They are the same parcel right now. There was a record of survey that was performed, but it was never recorded to split the property, so it still remains as one piece. Borup: Okay. I don't know if we have discussed everything we need to, but if there is nothing else -- McKinnon: I think there is somebody else that has come tonight to testify. I saw a name back there, so -- Borup: And that's what I meant, are we ready to move on for other testimony? McKinnon: Okay. Thanks for your time. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have someone that would like to testify on this application? Come forward. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Tim Hepper, I reside at 448 West Victory, which is immediately -- well, not immediately, it would be the second parcel to the west of this property across the street and the next one over. Approximately two or Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 18 of 76 three hundred yards to the west. I don't believe I necessarily have any opposition to this, but I do have a couple questions. I thought I heard the representative from Pinnacle say something about bringing in the sewer line, maybe a possibility of a four inch pressurized thing that maybe they'd put a lift station at the north end of the property as an option that maybe there could be either a 22 inch mainline brought in or I thought maybe he said a four inch pressurized line or something. I just wanted to make sure that that would be a 22 inch main, so that the other properties -- the original master plan for the city to bring the sewer is to bring it down the Meridian-Kuna Road and, then, tum west on Victory Road and so that those parcels on Victory Road could later tap into that main line and be able to develop those properties. Borup: We will get some clarification. I believe that he said if they went -- one option would be to put in a pressurized line up to here. They were talking about bringing it -- the main trunk line down as per the master plan, which you were talking about. Is that your understanding, Bruce? Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the temporary solution is what we are talking about, Tim, with the -- dead laser pointer. The lift station at their north boundary. That was just a temporary solution until we get figured out how we want to serve that south end. If you remember the -- our facility plan showed sewer kind of going out through Kentucky Ridge and out that way. Our consultants JUB that did the original master plan for us is right in the middle of reevaluating about a four or five square mile area right here as to which would be the best way to route the main trunk lines through here. So, when Dave talks about things kind of being up in the air, that's why they are up in the air, is because we are trying to figure out the best way to serve these properties. So, the ultimate build out is to still take the trunk down through there to provide that service, but the temporary solution would be a lift station. Hepper: With afour-inch line to this property? Freckleton: Well, the pressure line would go -- have you got a pointer? See if we can make this work. The lift station would be located somewhere up in this area and, then, the pressure line would pump back north on Kuna-Meridian Road to the existing gravity sewer that comes out of Elk Run Subdivision. So, it's just the force main that pushes it north. Hepper: Okay. And that would have the capacity to pick up the other properties to the west if they -- whatever developer, that's just a temporary solution for the -- Freckleton: Temporary solution for this project. Borup: Mr. McKinnon said they want to wait and do it right by bringing the sewer line down here. I wasn't -- I don't know if I understood what size sewer line they were proposing at that point. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 19 of 76 .Freckleton: Well, that's what our consultant is going to be telling us, too, as part of their study that they are conducting for us right now is what size and where it runs. Borup: That would be -- Freckleton: And that's the ultimate. Borup: That would be the trunk line. Freckleton: Yes. Correct. Borup: Which is, I think, Mr. Hepper's question, so if that's -- if they wait and bring that in, then, it would be the permanent trunk line that would be going in. Hepper: Speaking of the findings of the study, we really don't know where the mains are going to be located in the future. Freckleton: Well -- and it's our concern as well as we want to do it once and we want it to be right, so -- things have changed quite a bit out in this area and that's why we wanted to reevaluate it. Borup: But right now this applicant would like to wait and find out what needs to be for the permanent and, then, work with that. Hepper: Yeah. Okay. And, then, my only other concerns would be maybe a -- Borup: Is this your property here? Hepper: No. It would be right -- right here. Borup: Oh. West. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah. Hepper: And the only other concerns would be lighting, make sure the lighting is shielded. There is other gas stations around Meridian, particularly one across the road from the hospital, that has just extremely bright lights. I know the city has lots of complaints about the amount of light that's emitted from that and I'd like to make sure that we don't have something like that sitting on that corner. And also the sinage be -- that's all commercial property on that corner. I don't think we need a big neon flashing sign that says Pepsi $1.99. I think just a regular sign -- lighted sign would be fine, but it doesn't need to be -- I'm not really sure what the city ordinance is on signage, but I know that we have got quite a few of the flashing light signs and I don't think that's necessary there. That would be my only other concern. So, thank you. Borup: Yeah. And the city's got the same concern on that. I think maybe one of the signs you're talking I don't believe would meet current sign ordinance. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 20 of 7fi Hepper: All right. Any questions? Borup: Questions of IVIr. Hepper? Hepper: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Mr. McKinnon McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I do -- I'll just share one thing. I do live across kind of up on a knoll on the opposite side of that large Texaco sign and while I don't like it, it is somewhat comforting at night to see how much Dr. Pepper is, so -- just a couple things to wrap things up. We want to do this right and we want to do it right the first time, but we are going to need a little bit of time and so we want to work with the staff and we want to work with ITD to make this work. There is a demand for this type of use in the area. There is a lot of vehicles that are traveling between Kuna and Meridian every day and those vehicles are stopping for gas at different locations throughout'the area and we think this is a great location for that and we'd like to have the opportunity to do that and request that you approve this project tonight and thanks for your time. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner, I think this probably warrants some discussion. Anything else -- comments from staff? Powell: Just that you don't have findings for approval for tonight, so --and conditions. Borup: We understand that. And the applicant has requested a continuance. Powell: Well, now, he just asked you to approve them tonight, so I just wanted to clarify it if you can. McKinnon: We'd request that you approve it at some point, but a continuation tonight. Zaremba: Well, I do agree, I certainly don't think it's ready to be approved tonight and I'm not totally convinced that it's ready to be denied tonight either. So, I would steer towards continuing. There are a number of things I need to see fixed. Borup: And that's what I was going to suggest. I think we --. Zaremba: I would stick to the applicant doing the good faith of fixing the things that the county says need to be fixed and the city says need to be fixed, I would like to see those done before we recommend annexation, not to recommend annexation first and say, okay, there is some other carrot farther down the line to getting these done. I would rather see the good faith of them being done before we annex. The amount of time that that would mean continuing this would also give the applicant time to get some final resolution from ITD. I would still like to see a bigger part of the project come to us all at once, but I suspect that's not going to happen. I guess my question for staff is if Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 21 of 76 we continued this, could there be some conditions worked up, if we were to approve it, and the conditions would be -- I mean at sometime in the future, conditions for approval, and the conditions would assume that the current deficiencies are already fixed, because my personal opinion is I would not annex it, they are not fixed. Borup: And Iwould -- the only thing I would add to that is -- at least on the copy of the letter from the county, items two through five, it looked like were fairly simple solutions, other than number three we don't have any detailed information on what areas need to be screened better than they are now. Item number one is probably the one that maybe I'd like -- I mean I asked Mr. Hood that a little bit, but what the city would like to see and I'm not sure how other Commissioners feel. I mean there is a lot of material out there. To me it's not unsightly, it's -- if it's any type of hazard is because it's interesting to look at and maybe people have a tendency to slow down. I don't know. But I guess it depends on what -- what interests people. So maybe -- Zaremba: Well, it is a rock yard and when you drive by it appears to be a rock yard, which out in the country is somewhat appropriate, but if it continued in its present state for another five years it probably wouldn't irritate anybody. If it continued that way for another 20 years, the area is going to be pretty well developed around it and it's going to be an eye sore. I mean once the -- once the surrounding properties don't look just like it, which they currently do, then, it becomes a problem. But right now they all look the same and whether it's a rock pile or whether it's an unimproved parcel next to it that looks like a rock pile doesn't make much difference today, but if there is no target for changing it, then, I definitely would lean towards screening it and I agree with staff, the rules are the whole frontage needs to be landscaped. Borup: Maybe something -- some type of time frame, which is hard to enforce, maybe. I don't know. Moe: Well, but the biggest point that I would make there is a time limit would probably be the way to go for the simple fact the applicant already made the statement that they are looking to sell off that portion to do something other than the rock area there. Zaremba: Which could be suggested in the development agreement, right? That we could put a time frame in a development agreement? That's a question. Powell: Sure, you can put time frames in the development agreement. I did want to get -- I have been thinking about the first question you posed, if I might get back to that, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. You asked if staff could come back with conditions of approval. Basically, you would be asking us to write arecommendation -- a new staff report recommending approval on this any appropriate conditions for approval attached to that. We generally don't have two do reports. It -- we typically just do one. If new information comes into the public record, such that you feel comfortable recommending approval of the project, then, we come back to you with your Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 22 of 76 recommendation for approval and the attached conditions of approval. So, I'm reluctant to have staff write a new staff report for approval until you make a decision for approval. Zaremba: Well, I would agree that under the current conditions denial is appropriate. The applicant, I think, has indicated that the owner can be prevailed upon to fix many of the reasons for which it would currently be denied. Powell: Well, just as a reminder, the applicant has agreed to several conditions of approval for -- since 1995 and agreeing to conditions of approval is a lot different than meeting conditions of approval. Zaremba: And that's why I'm saying, we'd have to see that they had actually been completed before we would vote -- Powell: And that would be new information in the public record and, then, that would go toward your recommendation. But I think the staff reports are just based on the information before the public hearing and I think it's best for now just to keep -- there is -- there gets to be some confusion if there is multiple staff reports in the file as to which one -- you know, what was going on and I think the history has been we do one and only one staff report for each project and we can add memos and things like that and if you'd like -- I guess we could do a clarification memo or a position statement, that might be a possibility. But he's going to have to come back after you make the decision to approve it with the conditions of approval. We could provide a listing of those conditions of approval, but we are going to need to come back with your findings after you make your decision. Borup: I think that would be appropriate. I'm wondering if we could discuss maybe some of the -- they are numbered, but -- the bullet points under the reasons for denial. And I made notes on most of them. The one I'm down to -- and I feel most of the others have been addressed, at least to my satisfaction, I don't know about other Commissioners -- I'm down to the one on the single family home not a permitted use. Thoughts from staff on that item? Is that something that could be handled under the conditional use or -- Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Yeah. With a planned development you can actually ask for use exceptions and that single family home also serves as an office, so wether the office is accessory to the single family or a single family accessory to the office use, I really don't know. It does a fairly good business, the landscape nursery does, so, you know, for a commercial zone it is a single family home with an office. So, I'm not so concerned about an office; but it is a single family home in a commercial zone, so -- but, like I said, with a planned development use exceptions may be allowed. And with redevelopment -- potentially redevelopment of the site I will concede that it won't be a single family home forever. Moe: Was that not noted to be a caretaker living in the house now? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 23 of 76 Hood: I believe so. The owner actually occupies that home and runs the office out of that as well. Moe: Okay. Borup: Okay. The next item was -- mentioned is a -- not proposed bringing existing uses into compliance. But I thought maybe that got answered to as far as sidewalks and bike lanes, at least on Victory. On Highway 69 is still to be determined. So, is then= any specific things there that are still a concern? Is signage maybe the one? And, then, landscaping on the north end would be the other'? Hood: Mr. Chair, those are two good ones. I guess the main ones -- I'm still unable to make -- you know, none of those findings -- the bullet points above are not changed. You know, those are facts that really don't change much. And some of them were just - - you know, may or may not be, but they are -- you know, the proposed development, there are some -- the big ones, I guess, that would still be outstanding is ITD and their access points and what they are going to approve. I mean that's going to have a significant impact on what we look at and if it's just a lot developing at this time, where is that access point going to be? It may only be -- and we have a letter from ITD, we don't have anything else. I don't doubt that the applicant's talked with ITD, but we have two letters from ITD saying, you know, access to -- type four access to type four roadways are at half miles. So, I --and they have -- before we granted those, you know, at other locations, but they do try to limit them and so where their access points end up playing out -it's almost like ACHD -- I know this body oftentimes defers action until ACRD has a chance to act on an item just to see what their requirements are going to be or maybe it's denied, maybe just stick with the original letter and they say, no, only at the half mile. We see you have three deeded access points, but you're not getting them. I don't know how that's going to play out. Borup: I think the Commission -- I mean assuming we are all in agreement that that is something we need to see is -- is their report and what they approved or recommend. Hood: And it's just -the other big thing -- and you touched on some of the landscaping things. I guess the bullet -- the letter from the county, I don't know their code, and so maybe something from the county saying he has done -- you know, he's now in compliance with item two, three, four and five, something like that. Or, you know, these are still the outstanding things, but they have cleaned up this or that. You know, something like I guess I would feel a little bit more comfortable and that would change at least that part of the staff report, that part of the finding, you know, if we had something in our record from the county saying, you know, now they have done this to -- Borup: In my mind, the only thing of those items that you couldn't tell just by driving to the property would be their screen -- screening requirements and -- because that wasn't specified what that was referring to. In the county letter I'm talking about. The only other question I saw was the next to the last bullet point and that was proposed building setbacks -- your reference to a frontage road, which, again, that would be addressed by Meddian Planning 6 Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 24 of 76 ITD, I'm assuming. And you're talking about not meeting Comprehensive Plan policies, but I didn't see any elaboration on that. Well, maybe there was, but -- is there anything there that would be pertinent to mention at this point? Hood: Not necessarily. I mean it's just kind of going along with ITD's action. Borup: Okay. Okay. Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Do we know is the north end of this property at the half mile point or is it somewhat south of that? Borup: He said it was about a quarter mile Zaremba: Oh, yeah. Okay. Borup: I looked on the plat and it looks like there is, what 12 or 13 hundred feet. I don't know that Mr. McKinnon mentioned how much time ITD is going to need. Can you clarify that? Or how much time you're going to need in talking with ITD. McKinnon: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. In response to that we, have -- in order to get access onto ITD, you have to make application with ITD. Part of the application requirement is a traffic study. The traffic study is not complete yet. We wanted to find out a little bit more about this project before we went ahead with the traffic study. We have a quote and a time frame from the traffic study from the time we say go to having that complete will be two weeks. That's when the application can be made to ITD. In talking with ITD, they have stated that once they receive that, because they have already issued those letters, they will more than likely reject that and, then, it becomes an appeal process and goes to headquarters and that can be handled rather rapidly or it can take a number of months to take care of. One thing that we have going for us on this, it's just a very similar situation just to the north of this project. They are dealing with the exact same issues on the exact same stretch of State Highway 69 on the Ross and Mitchner property that was recently approved by I think the Land Group. Dave Koga brought that to you. I can't remember the name of it. Do you remember the name of that? Hood: Southern Springs. McKinnon: Southern Springs. Thank you. And so once a precedence is set, it may actually, go much quicker and that's nearing the end of their appeal process and it looks very favorable that they will be granted access as was approved by the city. So, as far as a direct number, the only direct number I can give you is it will take two weeks for us to get the application in and, then, from there it's in ITD's hands. Borup: The reason I asked, if we are going to be looking at a continuation, we need to also figure out a date. Do you think a month and a half? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 26 of 76 McKinnon: If we could go for -- we'd love to have two weeks and have it all resolved by then, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen, unfortunately. If we had a month and, then, if we needed to continue it from that, I think that would be preferable, because, then, we'd have a chance to have the issues worked out with Public Works within that month time. That's what we'd like to see happen. As short a process as possible, but if we need to go further -- Borup: You're saying there is a chance that it could happen in a month? McKinnon: It could. If the precedence is set and they already have made the same determination on one site, they could just say we have already made a ruling that this is the way we will determine this on these types of accesses and we can move forward with it. It just depends on how quick ITD moves, but there is a possibility that that could happen. Moe: And, then, within that same period all items that the county is wanting to be taken care of would be taken care of as well? McKinnon: Correct. Zaremba: My comment on the access would be that the City of Meridian, as well as ITD, wants to limit the number of accesses and, if I remember correctly, the project that you're referring to -- I felt our recommendation of approval was based on prior approval of ITD. I thought they had already approved it before we recommended approval. We McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba and Members of the Commission, similar situation. There were two deeded accesses. Those two deeded accesses were there. When they finally made application to ITD to do work in the right of way, they were rejected. It's the same process that we are going through now, rather than going through the city and getting approval, it would be the same process that we are going through. We will make application to ITD to create those curb cuts and, then, we deal with whether or not they will give us the access for those three deeded accesses that we have. So, the same process is being done, it's just being done in a different place. There was a letter from ITD -- from ACHD in the file for Southern Springs that says they had checked with ITD about those accesses and it was in their statement from ACRD that, yes, there were two deeded accesses. So, there was just some confusion in place. Those were not approved accesses, ratherjust deeded accesses. Zaremba: Well, the precedent that it would start has impacts for Meridian all up and down Eagle Road, as well as Meridian and Meridian-Kuna Road. If ITD is going to establish a new precedent of reversing themselves and allowing extra driveway on the high speed, I don't see that as in the best of interest of Meridian. I think Meridian agrees with ITD to limit or refuse accesses. Meddian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 26 of 76 McKinnon: Members of the Commission, response to that. One, the, city determined be a commercial piece of property and if Commissioner Zaremba, just two things in in their Comprehensive Plan that this should the only access for a commercial piece of property that is a quarter mile can only be taken off of Victory, we are not asking for a full three curb cut for this sight, we are looking to restrict the accesses as well, but to allow one access at least on this site. It's a quarter mile long in length with an acceleration-deceleration area for that. We are not asking for all three curb cuts or additional curb cuts. There is a restriction on that. ACHD on a 50 mile an hour road will allow you to do a curb cut 250 feet back from the intersection on an arterial, which is what this is determined as -- by the City of Meridian as a major arterial. So, we agree with the limiting, but, at the same time, the city has already said this should be a commercial piece of property and to limit it to the half mile that we don't have access to a half mile makes it impossible for this property to develop commercially, which is what the City of Meridian has designated this to develop as. Zaremba: And the mitigating fact of that is you've offered to do acceleration and deceleration. McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: And just one other thing of clarification. We are dealing with a precedent setting. These are. legal issues and if ITD is granted these accesses unrestricted, then, ITD has to honor that. They can't come behind that and say, oh, sorry, we were just kidding, it's a recorded document, but we are not going to let you have it. It's something that has to be litigated out and so it's not precedent setting in itself, but those are deeded accesses that have to be worked through. It's not as though we are asking for something that we don't have. Borup: April 1st we have six projects. Actually, one subdivision and the others are all smaller projects, but it's a fairly full schedule. I mean there is 13 items, but there is six - - six projects. One of those is a city Comprehensive Plan amendment. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, do we have to continue to a specific date? Borup: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: Otherwise, it has to be re-noticed. This is a noticed hearing. Rohm: I see. Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Do we run the risk of having to continue again if we don't resolve these four issues here? Would it not be better to -- or these five issues. Ask for these Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 27 of 76 five issues to be resolved and, then -- I may be out of line here, but ask the process to -- to apply again? Zaremba: Well, the mechanism for that would be to deny it tonight. Newton-Huckabay: That's what I'm saying, you know, in the interest of not having to go through this exercise three or four more times, if we are going to next time ask them to -- make sure all these five -- you know, rather than risking denying it again a second time. Am I -- Zaremba: Well, that's the choice that we are discussing -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. That's my -- Zaremba:' -- deny it tonight or put it off a month and saying at that point either everything is fixed or it's likely to be denied, then. The question is do we want to give them the opportunity to try and remedy some of the -- Borup: Historically, if the Commission has felt something could be corrected and remedied, then, it's been to continue it. I mean the application process is fairly extensive and expensive. Commissioner Rohm, it looks like you -- Rohm: Well, I just have two comments. The first one being, obviously, we have to have the time on the agenda to add it, number one, and we can't take something that's already proposed for that meeting and put it off. So, if, in fact, we have time, we should make that offer to the developer. But, secondly, if, in fact, they would prefer to continue it say six weeks, as opposed to the four, then, it would be something we could settle on based upon those two conditions and if, in fact, all of the issues from the staff report -- and, as a matter of fact, you did a very good job on this, it lines out the issues that need to be resolved very well, and I think that as long as in that four week period or six week, depending upon the developer's position, we will hear it at that time. That seems appropriate. Borup: Our agenda on the 15th is -- well, it's still filling up, but at this point it's -- well, there is two items. Rohm: I guess that's my point is we have to make sure that we don't over fill our agenda, but at the same time, if, in fact, the applicant is willing to continue for the six weeks, then, we have an unfilled agenda and that gives them ample time to respond and that seems to address both sides of the equation. Borup: Okay. The only thing I'd add to that, I think we need -- if that's what we are going to ask for, I think we need some clear intention of what it is that needs to be corrected. In my mind, that items two, three, four and five is probably easy enough to understand, other than I'm not sure what they are referring to on this screening. It's the first one on the rock storage that maybe we need some direction. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 28 of 76 Rohm: And it's my belief that the applicant and staff can work through that issue over the course of the next six weeks and come to some resolve that addresses the point in this staff report with an appropriate response from the applicant. Zaremba: Or I think the suggestion was made that the response that we are seeking from the applicant is a letter from the county that says they have complied. Borup: Well, see, the county -- at least the way I read this, the county wants them to have the whole site -- site plan amended and approved. I don't know how much sense that makes on something you're ready to annex into the city. We should be more concerned about what's going to -- what the city would want it to comply with than what the county wants it to do. Rohm: Just a comment on that. I think we have approved for annexation other parcels that have not been fully defined as to how they will be developed, so I can understand the applicant's position on that as well. Zaremba: You mean not have an entire site plan? Yeah. I don't think we have accepted things that were in material noncompliance with ordinance. Rohm: Good point. Zaremba: We didn't have a full site plan. Rohm: Exactly. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we can work within that six week time frame. I happen to know Mike Williams, the code enforcement officer from Ada County, and I can work with him to see if we can secure a letter from him for items two through five. I think, Chairman Borup, you make a good point that that first item is requesting that the items that were brought in were not a part of the approved site plan and it should be amended for that. I think that we can work with staff to try to figure out a way to figure out what Ada County's requirements would have been for the screening of that rock area and to address that as part of the conditions of approval for this project, rather than have this brought back through Ada County. And that could be something that could be addressed through the conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Borup: That was my problem. Maybe there could be some screening along that area without doing the full curb, gutter, sidewalk landscaping berm on something that was not developed yet, but there could maybe be something -- an interim type of thing. Zaremba: Even if they took a row of trees that's officially for sale and lined them up along the property line? Is that what you're saying? Line them up along the street? Meddian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 29 of 76 Borup: Well, yeah, that or go ahead and plant them and remove them later or -- that wouldn't be up to us to determine. McKinnon: A solid sight obscuring fence, something that would meet ACHD's needs and something that would meet the needs of the City of Meridian. That's something that we could work out as soon as we get approval. Borup: To me a site obscuring fence is -- I don't know, maybe that's -- I'm different. That's not an improvement. Zaremba: I'd rather see trees. McKinnon: Okay. Borup: I mean I don't see -- it's that objectionable to be right now the way it is Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Other than maybe cleaning up a little bit. McKinnon: I would be happy to work with -- Borup: Is that enough direction? McKinnon: That's enough direction. If we can -- the sooner we can get together with staff and get a memo kind of detailing the conditions of approval, then, we'd have a better go at it, too, just so we can see what the staff would like, too, so -- within that time frame it would be nice to get that. Okay. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Do we have a motion? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we close the Public Hearing -- Borup: Well, no -- Rohm: Continue the Public Hearing -- Borup: Well, maybe I shouldn't speak too soon. I guess it depends on what your motion is going to be, whether you want to close it or not. Rohm: Well, I want to continue it. Excuse me. Borup: Okay. Yeah. Then we need to keep it open. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move to continue the Public Hearing on AZ 03-038 and continue that to -- what was the date? It would be -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 30 of 76 Borup: The 15th. April 15th. Rohm: April 15th. Zaremba: Fine day. Rohm: And -- can we do all three of them at the same time? Zaremba: All three hearings are open. Rohm: All three hearings be continued to the April 15th Planning -- regular scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 04-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 24.45 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Roseleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 3615 South Locust Grove Road: Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 04-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 98 single-family residential building lots and 7 common lots on 24.45 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Roseleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 3615 South Locust Grove Road: Borup: I think we are ready to move on to our next item. The next item is Public Hearing AZ 04-002. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and also Public Hearing PP 03-001. And that is it. I'd like to open both these hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Bonap, Members of the Commission. Brad Hawkins-Clark with the planning department. These two applications -- the first one, annexation and zoning and the second one preliminary plat for 98 building lots. I'll just quickly touch on this first item. The general location is on the west side of South Locust Grove Road. Victory Road is about a quarter mile to the north. Tuscany Lakes Subdivision is here to the east. Phase one is -- the final plat is shown here. They have come in with a couple of other phases in addition to this one, since this map was done. It's zoned R-4. Tuscany Village is not shown on this map. I think we did include --just go down to the -- yeah. Here is a plat of Tuscany Village, which is immediately to the north. So, the subject property we are talking about tonight is this parcel to the south. This does not reflect the exact final plat approval for Tuscany Village. This short stub, as I will touch on in just a minute, is not -- was not final platted. But,