Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 29, 2004 P&Z MeetingMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 16 of 100 it should be 2004, as modified by the staffs memo of -- for the hearing date of April 19, 2004, with the following changes. On Page 5 of the revised staff memo for April 29, Number 2 we have agreed that the reduced front setbacks may be as the applicant has requested. Item 3 the applicant has stated that the two required amenities will now be a community swimming pool and a nearby cabana. End of CUP motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7. Continued Public Hearing from March 18, 2004: AZ 04-004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 34.6 acres from RUT to I-L, L-O, and C-G zones for proposed McNelis Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC - northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Ustick Road: Item 8. Continued Public Hearing from March 18, 2004: PP 04-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16 commercial building lots and 5 common lots on 34.6 acres in proposed I-L, L-O, and C-G zones for proposed McNelis Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC -northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Ustick Road: Borup: Okay. Thank you. That concludes that item. Okay. Our next project is Item Numbers 7 and 8. Again, both continued hearings from March 18fh, AZ 04-004 and PP 04-004. Both concerning McNelis Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC, northwest comer of North Ten Mile and West Ustick Road. I'd like to begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As mentioned, the site is on the northwest corner of Ustick and Ten Mile. It's blocked-out there in the black. It's currently white. Just south of the wastewater treatment plant, which is right here. This item was deferred to this hearing date mainly because the sewer issues were unresolved. I'm going to let Bruce give you an update on how they have accomplished sewering this site, just real briefly, and, then, I will get back to my staff report. Freckleton: Thanks, Craig. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, this project is similar to the last one you just heard. The applicant did go back to the drawing board a little bit, changed their routing of the sewer. They are going to be doing a little bit of filling; but they have been able to provide the necessary cover over the sewer to make this a viable project, so I'm satisfied with what they are proposing and have no additional problems. Hood: Thanks, Bruce. The requested zoning for this property is split into three different zoning designations. They are asking for 16.64 acres to be zoned L-O, Limited Office, which is in the middle section here in this general area. There is 14.67 acres that will be I-L zoned, Light Industrial, and, then, there is a little piece of C-G, two lots right on the Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission Apol 29, 2004 Page 17 of 100 corner here that they are proposing 2.76 acres to be C-G. Their requested zoning designations -- there aren't any residential zoning, if you notice there, that they are all commercial and industrial, as called for in the Comprehensive Plan for no new residential uses. There have been some residential uses proposed in this area in the past. Again, the wastewater treatment plant is here. There are some storage units just a little bit further to the north. Idaho Power has a transmission line in this location. To the east is the Hartford Subdivision and I did want to point out there is a home here that takes direct access to Ten Mile and that will be important here when I talk about access points to this development here in a few minutes. There is another single family home on these 75 acres that's yet to develop that is zoned RUT in the county. To the west are a few single-family homes with R-2 zoning. One of them is zoned R-2, one of them is zoned C-N, another one is RUT in the county. There is a single family home on this site currently in this location right in there. A majority of this site you can see is used for agricultural purposes. Ten of the lots that Ijust -- the 16.64 acres of the L-O, ten of those are for office, four of them are I-L, and two of them are C-G. Light warehousing storage, contractor's yards, and similar uses are anticipated for the I-L lots. Staff has in the staff report spent a pretty good deal of time working out a list of uses that the applicant submitted with their application, uses that they thought would be appropriate as permitted uses, Conditional Uses, and not allowed with each zoning designation. Staff kind of tweaked their recommendation, used existing code as a guide, and circumstances with the residential being around and the wastewater treatment to the north and kind of tweaked that a little bit: We could talk about that if the Commission so desires in a little bit, but I'm going to continue on with a couple of the other things in the staff report. Usually, the city relies on ACHD and ITD on state highways to approve access points. Staff recognizes that the applicant is proposing access points that meet ACHD's requirements. ACHD is allowing two driveways, a right in, right out in this general location of full access to the north and, then, this street that loops back down to Ustick and, then, there is one driveway that they are approving that aligns with the street across Ustick. The city does not have, as the applicant points out in the letter dated today, (believe -- actually, it's dated yesterday, but I just got a copy of it today. The applicant does point out that the city doesn't have any -- how does she state it? Technical access standards. This is true. We do, like I said, rely on ACRD, usually, and ITD to approve access points. However, we do have Comprehensive Plan policies that calls for the city to restrict access points to arterial streets. Staff believes that the number of driveways is too many and that numerous driveways in close spacing limits the ability of traffic to merge efficiently onto roadways. I did just want to point out, too, that this site is -- they have 935 feet for frontage on Ten Mile and 935 feet of frontage on Ustick and have one more driveway was here than over there. I just didn't -- it didn't seem necessary to have another driveway. It seemed like you could do the same circulation, have a couple of driveways for the office lots. They could share two driveways, something like that. Leave the location up to them and something that ACHD would approve. I will leave that at that. That is site-specific condition number two in the Preliminary Plat section. Speak about landscaping briefly. Here is the landscape plan that the applicant submitted. Meridian City Code requires all commercial, industrial, and office developments to provide afive-foot wide buffer adjacent to any planned pathway in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the park Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 18 of 100 systems master plan. Just to kind of back up, I guess. This site, unlike the last application, actually has two multi-use pathways that it abuts. There is one along the Five Mile Creek and one along the Nine Mile Creek. The applicant is showing that 10- foot wide pathway with afive-foot buffer from the edge of the asphalt to the property line in both of those locations. Staff is recommending that they construct these as proposed, with the exception of a little stub over to the west property line in this approximate location, so a future crossing can be made of the Nine Mile Lateral. The issue, though that the applicant raises in their letter dated yesterday is that they do not want to install landscaping. As you can see here, they aren't proposing any landscaping adjacent to the pathway, nor do they want to maintain that landscaping. The Parks Department does not maintain landscaping on private property, for the most part, and does not like to maintain landscaping adjacent to multi-use pathways. I have not run into this situation before. I do not know how the city addresses it when something like this comes up, but the parks does not have the manpower to maintain the landscaping. It's a standard condition of the city that you maintain landscaping adjacent to pathways. Now, the Parks Department will maintain the pathway after it's constructed, but not the landscaping adjacent to. Speaking of the pathway, the applicant also in that letter requested that they not have to comply with the cross-section standards for the pathway. The Parks Department has a pretty stringent requirement for their street -- their pathway section as it's they claim more strict than the street section, which has been confirmed that it's a pretty good cross-section. Borup: That's what I was going to ask. Could you elaborate on the requirements for a standard subdivision street section? Hood: I don't have those in front of me. Borup: Perhaps the applicant can address that. Hood: Yes. Borup: Okay. Hood: I guess the staff had a -- maybe something just to throw out there for discussion. The Parks Department will, from time to time, run their vehicles. Nampa-Meridian may use this to run their vehicles. It should be -- the pathway or whatever section, at a minimum, should be able to handle the gross vehicle weight rating and engineered to handle trucks, anyways. HS20 is an engineering weight load that I believe would work. Just a couple other things that the application -- again, just kind of referring to their letter -- rebuttal letter to staffs report. Meridian City Code does require a 10-foot wide gravel shoulder abutting right of way for unimproved portions of the right of way greater than 13 feet and road widening is not in ACHD's five-year work program. Neither Ustick, nor Ten Mile, are in ACHD's five-year work program or in their 20 year CIP program at this time. Again, this is a standard requirement and staff would just let you know just that, I guess, and leave it at that as well. The warrants are met for requiring that, according to city code. The landscaping, I guess, real quickly, too. The applicant did not show any Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 19 of 100 landscaping on the internal roadways. City code does require a 10-foot wide landscape buffer on either side of that road. They are willing to put that in, as well as the 25 foot wide on both Ustick and Ten Mile abutting this site. In the staff report I had asked the applicant to clarify the fencing types adjacent to the multi-use pathway. They say the fencing -- chain link fence will work in this location. That's fine. I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't going to be a tunnel, basically, is what we were trying to avoid is a tunnel pathway. I believe those were the major points that I wanted to touch on. I will let the applicant do everything. If you have any questions for me I'll sure answer them for you. Borup: Okay. Questions from any other of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? McKay: Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'm representing the applicant in this matter. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this piece of property is a unique piece of property. I'm not sure how many of the members that are on the Commission now were here -- I'm sure Mr. Borup was -- when it came through as Utility Sub and it was proposed to be a solid waste transfer station and a Meridian School District kind of bus depot. Many heated hours of testimony took place on that and that's what kind of prompted the staff and the Council to come up with this wastewater treatment plant -- some type of a plan as far as what was appropriate out in this area and what is not. There have also been some residential applications that were denied out in that vicinity. Since this property backs up to the plant, just north of it you see is the Five Mile Creek and the wastewater treatment plant is right here. It's unique in the fact that we have to find some uses that are, one, compatible with the plant; two, compatible with -- there is a residence here and another residence to the west there. There is residential to the south of us and residential over here to the east of us and it's difficult, because we are walking a fine line. Now, your Comprehensive Plan talks about mixed use in that wastewater treatment facility overlay and that's what this property is. It talks about light professional office, flex space, light warehousing, no residential uses, some small scale retail uses, mini storage uses, and so we took that out of the Comp Plan and that's, basically, what we have brought before you. We have got two lots that we are asking for C-G. The remainder of these lots would be L-O. We have placed L-O here on the western boundary. This would be like a mini storage facility, because it does go back quite a distance and it is the closest lot to your treatment plant, therefore, you know, we have minimized the amount of time that people would be spending on that lot and so this is -- would be I-L and, then, these lots here would be I-L. The other thing we have to contend with is this is a future Idaho Power substation, so whatever we propose would have to be able to coexist with that. We did hold our neighborhood meeting. We got a lot of comments. We got some positive comments. We got some criticisms. We have tried to hit a balance and it's impossible to, obviously, satisfy everyone, but I think with this internal roadway we are creating our own commercial type collector. We have proposed some external accesses, but that's, basically, just to make the project work, because the Ten Mile and Ustick are minor arterials and, therefore, that exposure, in order to have a viable project, is important. I criticize the staffs condition to restrict the access even further than what Ada County Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 20 of 100 Highway District standards specify. We have met all Ada County Highway District standards and they even complimented us on this commercial collector, because, as you well know, that does add capacity to an intersection, because it allows someone to avoid the intersection and go different directions, just like you find out at R.C. Willeys from Franklin to Eagle Road. I will jump right to -- into the staff report. I'd like to comment about some of the things that were in there. I guess, first, let's take the multi- use pathway. The multi-use pathway I think is an excellent idea. My client has agreed to construct that multi-use use pathway and when I look at the park's comprehensive plan, the only one designated is this one right here. The other one, from what I can tell, based on the map in the comprehensive plan for the Parks Department, goes on this way, to the north side of the treatment plant, running along what appears to be the Creason Lateral. We show the pathway coming here and linking back like this. Pathways are kind of a hard sell for projects, to get the applicants to agree to them, especially these multi-use pathways. I got into a discussion with Doug Strong of the Parks Department based on those standards that Craig indicated. They, for some reason, have excessive standards in their policy manual that exceed that of a public street and I asked him, well, how did that get in there? Well, he said I'm not sure. I said, well, you know, to try to convince the development community to build a pathway to these standards is just -- I mean that's a hard sell. And he says, well, I guess, you know, what we want to make sure is that we get a good path and I said, well, you know, if it's engineered so that it has a proper base, it has a proper asphalt depth, you know, we usually take R values out at these sites to determine what our street sections are going to be and that's based on the soils and compaction rates and so forth. You know, can we use some of that data to determine what is an actual appropriate width and on the multi-use pathway at Champion Park, we came up with that standard and it was based on, obviously, the site conditions and the type of use that would take place. Nampa-Meridian has like ahundred -- in excess of 100 feet that they own in fee simple where they access Nine Mile Drain here, so it's not like we are providing Nampa- Meridian any vehicular access. I think Commissioner Borup asked what -- for like a public street, what are the standards. They would be 12, four, and two and a half, which would be 12 inches of pit run, four inches of road mix, two and a half inches of asphalt. That's -- you know that, obviously, varies based on your site conditions and soil typologies. Borup: Do you know what the standards are that the other pathways have been built in Meridian, say the one from Meridian Road to Linder'? McKay: I do not. I do not. Borup: Okay. That was built by the city. McKay: But I bet you ten bucks it's not 12, six, and two, because I think that would be cost prohibitive. We have agreed to modify our landscape plan, obviously, to comply with the landscape ordinance. The one item that I guess bothered me was the issue of landscaping along the pathway. The way Craig has that referenced, he has it referenced that we would provide five foot of landscaping on both sides of the path. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 21 of 10D The way your landscape ordinance reads, that you shall provide alive-foot wide minimum buffer. If the pathway were on the perimeter, then, the five foot would be on that side and I guess my client -- I brought that up to him and. he said, you know, the path is one thing, but the landscaping, my gosh, you know, what if I spend all this money and I put all this landscaping in and, then -- you know, this is not like a large homeowner's association, he said, and, then, they don't take care of it and they let it die. He said I have had that happen and I'm concerned about that. I guess my position is if the landscaping is mandatory, then, this segment of the pathway should be eliminated, because on the plan, if Craig can pull it out, it goes up here and Ihave -- I have got it right here and Iwill -- you can't have my book, but -- do you have the park's plan? Borup: No. This is the Comp Plan. McKay: Okay. This is the official Meridian Comprehensive Plan, dated August 2003, and it does state developer should be encouraged to provide and build pathways. It doesn't mandate it. Commissioner Borup would look at that and tell me what he thinks. Borup: I've got it. What page? McKay: The map. Borup: What page are you referring to? McKay: It would be -- Borup: Down at the bottom right-hand corner there McKay: Right behind page 3-4 or -- yes. Yes. In pathways. Now, maybe I just need glasses, I'm not sure, but it looks like to me that that pathway is going along the north side of the plant. As one individual said to me about this property, we have to find some type of a use that's appropriate, some type of use that can coexist with what's out there. I do believe we strive to provide that and it's right next to the sewer plant, so, you know, it has that hurdle to contend and the plant does -- does burp odors and I heard from people that have been on construction crews out there that it's not a pleasant experience. We have got to find some uses that are appropriate. Or I guess the other option is the city buys that whole section around the plant. I don't know what else to do. I would like you to -- did you get a copy of my comments? I would like you to take a look at those and look the items that I have bolded. Some of them are, obviously, repetitive, because the conditions continue to show up as the analysis takes place. Do you have any questions? Moe: I am a little curious as far as the C-G area. What kind of uses are they anticipating in that? McKay: I guess, probably, the most likely use at that direct intersection, since it is two minor arterials, would probably be some type of convenience store or gas station. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission Aprll 29, 20D4 Page 22 of 100 There isn't one along that corridor of Ustick. We are getting quite a bit of residential development in the north Meridian area. The homes are going up fast and selling fast and so that need is going to arise. Some other uses may be something like a -- you know, some of the more neighborhood type commercial that would service neighborhoods. It's only, what, two -- two point some odd acres we allocated, so we kept it very small scale, 2.7 acres, and keeping it small scale, that's going to, obviously, dictate what types of uses go on it. Moe: Okay. Borup; Becky, yes, maybe -- your letter addressed it, but could you maybe address the item on the gravel along the roadway. There we go. McKay: Along the pathway? Borup: No. On Ustick and Ten Mile. The shoulder. McKay: Oh. Oh. I'm not opposed to the condition, Mr. Chairman. The only thing is we have had a couple of projects that that condition was specified and, then, when we went in and did our decel lanes and our appropriate tapered lengths, then, we did not exceed the 13 feet and so it didn't apply and so it just kind of puts us in a crux, so I guess my recommendation is I'm not asking you to eliminate the condition, I'm just asking you to word it in a fashion that in the event that there is greater than 13 feet, as specified in the landscape plan, that, then, they would landscape within that right of way. I'm not asking for any type of relief from that, just that it be applied appropriately, because we don't know until we get into design how long those tapers are going to be, how much asphalt we are putting in there. We typically work with ACHD design staff to determine that. Borup: Craig, isn't the main concern that that area stays somewhat esthetically pleasing and not a weed patch and et cetera? Hood: Mr. Chair, that's the idea with the landscaping in the right of way, yeah, the gravel shoulder, because you don't -- it's going to be awhile before that roadway is widened and if someone needs to pull off there is at least a gravel shoulder. Borup: But the distance is -- I mean the parameters that Becky had mentioned sounds appropriate and -- Hood: Yes. What the applicant is proposing is what would be required and is appropriate in this situation. Borup: Okay: Questions from any of the other Commissioners? McKay: One last thing, Mr. Chairman. When you mentioned gravel, you have got your statement in your landscape plan that mandates this buffer -- five foot landscape buffer Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission _. April 29, 2004 Page 23 of 100 next to a pathway, but the park's comprehensive plan says we will -- we will construct six foot of gravel on both sides, gravel shoulders. So, we do have a conflict. Hood: And, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just -- there are a couple of differences between the park's comprehensive plan and the Comprehensive Plan future land use map.' On the future land use map, the pathway is shown in both locations. The parks plan shows here and also adjacent to the Five Mile on the south side of the wastewater treatment plant. There is a little discrepancy in both the plans. I have yet to see amulti-use -- ten foot wide multi-use pathway with six feet of gravel on either side and I don't know what the idea was behind that either, but maybe that condition, condition number one on the Preliminary Plat, can be modified to state just that, six foot gravel is not required on either side of the pathway. And as far as the landscaping goes, I guess, the way that it's worded 12-13-12-9 states that you should buffer the pathway. Now, it doesn't say one side or the other, buffer your land or buffer both sides, so I was interpreting it to be both sides of the pathway. I think that if they planted a tree on their side of pathway, a tree every 35 -- now, the maintenance is going to be something that sounds like it's going to be a problem either way, but I believe that it could be interpreted as the applicant has stated and on the creek sides of the multi-use pathway additional landscaping maybe isn't appropriate and isn't necessary. There is a lot of open area there and there is some existing grass and trees and it's my understanding that there is some, you know, animals that run through there and things, so maybe it's improved enough and would be appropriate if they put a tree on their side of the pathway. Borup: Is that more what the developer had in mind? McKay: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, he wasn't too happy about landscaping in general. I guess if -- you know, if -- the lessor of the two evils, the five- foot on one side would be better than on both sides. I don't know how to deal with the gravel issue. Borup: You mean the -- oh McKay: The pathway. When I asked Doug about that requirement and how that arose, he made some statement that in the event that they took large vehicles down a pathway, that they'd have that gravel on both sides. That was kind of his explanation to me. I'm not sure if that's where -- how it was derived, but that was his thought. Zaremba: I don't know if it's still valid, but the park's director that preceded him gave us an explanation one time and that was that the heavy equipment they use for weed abatement and insect abatement has swing out arms and in order for them to drive down the center of the pathway and have those arms swung out, they hang out five or six feet over either side. Now, if the new director isn't operating that way or doesn't see that necessity or doesn't have to swing the arms the whole way out, maybe they operate only partially out, if he doesn't see that as a requirement, I think I understand why the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 24 of 100 previous parks director was doing it that way, but if the current one isn't operating that way, I'm not that stuck on making that requirement. McKay: Okay. 'Borup: I think some of it may depend on where the pathway is, where it's proceeding to, and anticipated use. You know, in a residential area you're going to have a lot more pedestrian traffic, I would assume, than in an industrial area. I would -- has there been any design standards discussed on the pathway itself, other than 18 inches of gravel is probably not appropriate? McKay: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, in the conversation that Doug and I had on the last multi-use pathway to be incorporated was that he would look at it on a case-by-case basis. Borup: How about from an engineering standpoint from your side? McKay: My engineer told me it would depend on the soil conditions. I mean I'm sure Boise city probably has some standards that possibly we could research and look at and maybe somehow when we do the work on the ordinance, incorporate some of those standards, but these are just absolutely out there. Borup: See, I don't know why this wasn't discussed when -- earlier on when these were adopted, but I certainly agree it's not practical. Yes. Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Borup: I mean we are not running 20-yard dump trucks and fire trucks over these roads. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just wanted to maybe talk a little bit about in their redesign for their sewer system. This multi-use pathway is going to be over the top of two segments of sanitary sewer as well. The maintenance equipment that the city has for maintaining the system, we have trailer-mounted equipment that we pull with a truck and typically we require a 14-foot wide path. If we could work with a shoulder, even if it was two feet on each side, that would give us our 14 feet, but in the design, too, we need to take into consideration that there could be some fairly heavy loads on that when you start looking at traffic indexes and R values for the soils that are out there. It just needs to be taken into consideration that there will be truck traffic on there or there potentially could be truck traffic on there. We need to look at that when we are looking at turning radiuses and that sort of thing as well, so -- Borup: Well, it sounds like on this pathway is something, obviously, less than a public street and more than -- Freckleton: Certainly Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29.2004 Page 25 of 100 Borup: -- and more than a residential sidewalk standard or pathway through a subdivision. Freckleton: Absolutely. Borup: So, somewhere in between. I assume that's what we are looking at. McKay: These should be beefier than a micropath. Yes. Borup: Okay. Comments from any of the other Commissioners? Thank you. Do we have any testimony from the public on this application? Now is the time to come forward. Weber: Steve Weber. My address is 3139 West Pedeau Court and I'm part of the Hartford Estates Subdivision and I am speaking in behalf of a few of the homes around that area. I don't know if you want them to stand or if -- there a few here. Borup: Okay. Yes. If you're as a spokesman for them, then, that would be appropriate. All right. Thank you. Weber: So, I'm here to represent some homeowners of the surrounding area of the Ten Mile and Ustick residents, the residents of the City of Meridian; and we are gathered together against the application of Falcon Creek for this annexation and rezoning and many homeowners around the intersection moved to this area to get out of the city somewhat and get away from some of the businesses and we petition this Commission to take our concerns into consideration for -- against this rezoning. First of all, we are strongly against the lots zoned C-G and we ask the Commission to not allow these lots into our residential area. With these lots we expect that -- like they mentioned, a convenience store or commercial buildings that would be a car wash or gas station, and we get this information from the article they posted, plus what was talked about tonight. There was a posting in the Business Review on March 15f. We stress, again, that we are against this because of some of the following issues, like traffic that would normally pass through, would now stop at that corner in the intersection. The ground pollution that includes, but not limited to, oil and fuel leaks from vehicles and fuel trucks, as well as the extra noise and the lights and traffic 24 hours a day. The trash and litter that is commonly associated that comes with commercial lots and development, as well as the crime and aggression, which is a major concern. We are aware -- we are all aware of the target that convenience stores are when it comes to crime, such as robbery and I'd like to mention armed robbery. I have an article here out of the Monday's Idaho Statesman that an assailant robbed a convenience store at gunpoint and fled on foot and we just don't want that kind of stuff entering into our neighborhoods where are children currently play safe. Even if the convenience store is what they are proposing, we just -- we want to -- we are completely against the C-G because of the types of business it could bring to our neighborhood. With additional lots planned for the I-L and the L-O, the area homeowners are also worried about the extra traffic and congestion Meridian Planning & 7Aning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 26 of 100 bringing to the area. Along with this we don't -- we are against the visual appearance of commercial and industrial businesses that it would bring. Currently our property value and the country setting is enticing to potential buyers and we are worried that the rezoning would diminish or decrease that visual appearance. A local realtor told one of our neighbors that -- that is in the home -- one of the homes that back up against the Ten Mile and it's east of the proposed C-G lots is to move now and that was a little alarming. Local homeowners rallied together and collected at :least 174 signatures against -- against this whole rezoning of the whole rural area and we have also collected at least 25 signatures of what we are calling an acceptance letters of proposed suggestions and ideas that we would kind of like to see coming to the area and I'd like to provide those to you guys as well. Borup: Okay. If you want to give those to the clerk. Zaremba: Can you summarize the things that you are suggesting? Borup: Yes. I was going to ask the same thing. Weber: Okay. Some of the things that we are suggesting and -- we are not real familiar with the reasons why the water treatment plant is -- puts out the odor that it does, but some thought that it was the sludge beds and we don't know if there is a proposal that could be made to have that sludge taken out, so that the smell wouldn't emit and allow either residential areas up closer to the corner and maybe that road still through there and, then, some businesses or industrial park behind to kind of -- Borup: Now, you realize the city is not -- has not been approving the residential in that area? Weber: Right. Borup: So, that would not be one of the options. Weber: Because of the odors right? Borup: No. Because of the Comprehensive Plan designation. Weber: Okay. The other one that was suggested was a neighborhood park of some kind and we also put on there limited office space for the entire property or limited office space for the back perimeter and we put residential for the front, as well as maybe like a PAL soccer field or something like that, that people wouldn't be there for eight hours during the day or whatever, will be something that is -- would be a concern, I guess. So, that's, really, all I have. Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the Commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 27 of 100 Zaremba: Specifically on the two lots that are currently requested to be C-G, if those were L-O like the lots around them, would that be more acceptable? Weber: Yes. Zaremba: The much lighter use than C-G is. Weber: Plus it wouldn't be a 24-hour thing most likely as well. So, yes, very much so. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Thank you, sir. Did we have anyone else? Borquist: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Dana Borquist I live at 3125 Wilder. That's a property that is in the Hartford Subdivision. I was here a year or a year and a half ago when we talked about the utility plant also and I worked hard on my house, got some sweat equity in my house, like many people do. Knowing that the sewer treatment center was there, although I was told that a park would be built in that location by the Hubble Home developer, I found that was misleading information at the time. It's kind of you know, get me into that subdivision and, then, show me later that that's not the case. I can live with that. What I can't live with is the thought of having a convenience store right on the corner. As a law enforcement officer I know too well what comes with those. Right here in Meridian we have responded to several convenience stores, we have had to shoot people with less lethal ammunition in the convenience stores. There are numerous robberies and you can look at the -- any convenience store in the City of Meridian and look at the surrounding neighborhood and realize that if that goes in this location, most of these properties will have to become rental properties, because you cannot raise a family and have the type of living atmosphere that we enjoy right now with that type of activity going on. I realize the need for things like this, but we know the city is growing extremely rapid and property is being consumed rather quickly, but I truly do not think this is the appropriate location for a zoning of C-G, especially in this 2.7-acre space that the applicant is talking about. Another issue I'd like to talk about is traffic issues. All of us can look at ACHD and realize they are in over their heads with all the growth and the developers rely on what their standards are and just say, yeah, we are meeting their standards. I applaud the city for going above that and saying, you know, you need to cut down these roads -- or these access roads, because, again, as a law enforcement officer, traffic is probably the number one concern of every city in this valley right now and we aren't doing anything to help it. This arterial road will definitely be a much greater help for traffic relief, but when you have two other access points on Ten Mile and another one on Ustick, that's going to cause a number of crashes, which will draw your resources of law enforcement and more congestion, more standing vehicles. You also look at this map, all the red areas are residential, I believe, all the little red blocks. We, basically, take up three comers of Ustick and Ten Mile. There is one left and I know that's prime land, but it's just definitely not a place for a convenience store. I am -- obviously I'd love to see a park there. I mean every person that testified would love to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 28 of 100 have a park in their backyard and I know that's probably not a reality, because of the money and you hear of all these sports complexes going in, the ice rink and things like that that are supposed to be going in the city and they are farther out, you know, on McDermott Road. Why not build things like that closer to the community, which will have a better impact on the community than a convenience store and put the convenience stores a little bit farther out and, then, let the people choose to build a house around those, instead of the other way around. When it's all said and done, you know, I am definitely against the C-G zoning. I would love to see a park, but I know that's probably not reality with this type of property. My proposal would be that you limit it to light office space. I don't know your codes, but whatever it would be to have a business that shuts down around 6:00 or 8:00 in the evening and, then, starts back up in the morning and insist that the applicant do the things on the walkway. I can't believe that they are balking at that when, in reality, it's not going to cost them a whole lot more money on the money that they are going to be making off of this property. I think -- I would hope that you would hold them to a standard to develop this area, so that the city and taxpayers don't have to continually upkeep it and if they want to continue to build, then, they should know that that's something that they need to do. Thank you for your time and I'll answer any questions if you have any. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Ma'am, earlier you said that Mr. Weber was speaking for you. Did you change your mind on that? Snell: Well, no, I am a resident and I'm a stay-at-home mother. The concerns are the same, but I just wanted to express -- Borup: Okay. We are going to need to start limiting the testimony. We gave him some extra time, because it was stated he was speaking for the neighborhood and we find that's not the case, apparently. We need your name and address. Snell: My name is Isabel Snell and I live at 3137 West Padeau Court and I'm not going to get redundant here and take up some of your time, but as a parent, obviously, you have heard that we all have young families, raising our kids. We just ask that when you consider Annexation and Zoning in that area -- because it's inevitable, we know that Meridian is growing, it's a great community, it's a great place to do business, that you not just have the attitude to throw anything up there just because there is a sewer plant right behind the considered area. We do ask that you consider our needs. There is, obviously, a concern. We have 250 signatures and that if you could, please, do that for us, we'd appreciate it. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Did I see someone else? Edwards: My name is Y. Scot Edwards. I live at 3486 West Angelica Drive in the Inglewood Creek Subdivision directly to the south of the development and I would actually like to propose testimony in favor of it. It's nice to see development come that will give people opportunity to actually work closer to home. I know -- I'm an architect Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 29 of 100 by trade and I have been keeping track of the developments around the town and I have noticed that Ten Mile is a potential access to get from the interstate to Emmett and it is going to get to be a busier street, it's inevitable, it's going to happen. The concept of being a rural area is going away. We are being surrounded. It is becoming the city. I am not opposed to development. I wasn't planning on testifying here tonight on this matter, I'm here on a different issue, but I just wanted the Commission to know that not all the residents in the immediate vicinity are opposed to this development. Borup: Okay. Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Wilder: I'm Janet Wilder and I live at 3340 North Ten Mile Road and we have a circle drive that would be just almost where one of their driveways is proposed on the other side of the road. Our road -- our circle drive is on the east side of Ten Mile and their proposed driveway would be on the west. That does concern me for us getting in and out of our driveway. The other thing that I wanted to talk about is it was my understanding when they zoned the property as mixed use wastewater treatment plant, that their primary concern was to kind of buffer the residential areas from the sewer plant and my feeling on them putting commercial on the corner is that they are bringing the sewer plant closer to us, because we'd have more noise, more lights, more -- you know, all that that is over in the field now and it would be right on the corner across from us. I'm against that -- the commercial on the corner. We could probably live with the office use there. I just want to put my vote in against commercial. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Crane: My name is Charles Crane. I live at 3600 West Ustick Road. I'm the little triangle property on Ustick just to the west of the -- yes. Right there. That little triangle. I, actually, support this project. I think it's meets and bounds above the other proposed uses we have had in the past for it. Considering that residential is off the table for these people to develop, I think they have made a great effort to layer the development from the sewer treatment plant to the houses. I do have reservations about the two commercial -- the C-G corner units, because of the traffic and the crime situation with those entrances and the fact that the homeowners want to sleep at night and if we have 24 hour operations right there next to their homes, in addition to the traffic going through, it's going to make life different than what people moved to this area for, which could affect the values and the lifestyle that we have. The pathway, I would like to -- I have walked around there a number of times and I have lived there for years next to that. The landscaping on the back corner, my preference would be not to have trees or bushes, but to have just flat grassy areas for safety reasons, to have it visible from the neighborhood, so it wouldn't be a place where crime might be enticed to go. As far as their landscaping on the back corner, I would recommend that they are not required to put in bushes or trees, maybe take the bushes and trees and move them farther up the path, maybe up towards the front or move that additional landscaping up where it's already being watered and maintained. Maybe just a gravel area next to the path, something that could be mowed and maintained would work out well for that area. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Apol 29, 2004 Page 30 of 100 Borup: Okay. Questions for Mr. Crane? He's spent some time seeing the progression of this property over several years. Newton-Huckabay: Are you talking about the northwest corner? Crane: Yes. The northwest comer -- the lowest part of the property where their water runs in that direction. Actually, trees would probably grow without any watering, because there is a lot of moisture in that area. Right now it's just a horse pasture and, naturally, it stays pretty green, even without irrigation in that corner, because of the slope of the land in the area. I think if they just flatten that area and maybe put some top soil next to the path and kept it mowed -- you know, they wouldn't have to do extensive landscaping, but just, you know, mow it a couple times a month or something, so that the waste treatment plant does the same kind of thing, they don't have extensive landscaping, but they go out there and they mow the natural grass and keep it down and that looks pretty nice. Borup: Thank you. Did we have anyone else? Mrs. McKay, have you got any final -- Hood: Mr. Chair, while the applicant is coming forward, I would just like to refresh your memory and maybe answer some of the questions that are in the audience that have been raised and what's in the staff report right now. If approved as proposed with C-G on the property, any use would have to come back before this board and there would be a Public Hearing on any proposed use on either one of those two lots. That would be -- that's right now written up in the development -- the proposed development agreement for this site. Just because the zoning may be approved as C-G, doesn't necessarily mean that a C-Store could go in there right away. There would have to be another Public Hearing for any use and just, you know, maybe -- I don't know if this helps or not, but some of the other uses that are allowed in the C-G zone, such as banks and clinics, those type of things that aren't maybe as intense as a convenience store or a gas station, are also normally allowed in a C-G zone, but, again, anything would have to come back in for another Public Hearing and have to be posted similar to what is out there today. The other thing -- and I apologize to Mrs. Wilder, that the access -- I want to talk just briefly a little bit more about that. I had touched on it in the first part of my presentation. She does have the driveway on Ten Mile and she doesn't have access, like everyone else in that subdivision, to internal streets and she takes access to Ten Mile right in between the two driveways that the applicant is proposing. Her circle driveway is right in here -- Borup: I think it's just a little bit north of that. You were on the subdivision, weren't you? Hood: Okay. Well, it's right in here. I can't exactly see it from this location, but it's actually in between their two driveways that -- I'm not quite sure. Maybe we can clarify how ACHD's policy is even met in this instance, because their policy of a 45 mile an hour roadway is 240 feet offset from any driveway on that side or across the street, so I'm not even sure that those driveways do meet ACHD policy and there is no way that those driveways can go away. That properly is always going to have access to Ten Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 31 of 100 Mile Road. There are those potential conflicts there and I just wanted to point that out and I apologize, because I did speak with Mrs. Wilder on the phone and I didn't bring that up before and I apologize for that so, just a couple clarifications. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Hood, I don't think you addressed that in the summary and I may be remembering wrong. When the last application was denied, did City Council have -- did they elaborate on some suggested uses that felt the city would deem appropriate? Is that something that's handy or -- and maybe Mrs. McKay has the information, too. I don't know. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, what the end result of that was was that the city would undertake further analysis of the noise and odor effects of the wastewater treatment plant, we'd try and get some scientific data, we would, then, take that to the community and reexamine the orange guerilla -- that was probably the quote that was used for that night. T that effect, we just met with the odor consultant Buz Rush, the other day, who was in town, and we did meet with him and he talked about the methodology and kind of what they would be looking for. The Public Works Department has started that analysis and will bring that back. They have basically said we khow we don't want residential right ,now. We don't know what the long-term use is or the long-term viability of residential uses in the area, it was more of the suggestion and they didn't feel they needed to solve it right then, that we could do some additional work on it, but it was mostly centered around the residential use. Borup: Okay. I was remembering back to the bus bam, transfer station, you know, rejection. I think that was kind of the results of that. No to residential, and no to heavy industrial. Maybe Council didn't elaborate beyond that. That's one of those things where they expressed what you can't do and maybe not much what you can. Powell: Right. I think that the current mix that's set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, I didn't -- they didn't express feeling uncomfortable about those mixes, other than maybe the quantity of that wasn't viable, which was always the former applicant's argument in wanting residential. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Director Powell, I would only clarify as part of that discussion, that the consideration of what's appropriate in this neighbofiood is not just this property, but it's about a third of this square mile is included in that whole thought and discussion of what's appropriate to surround the -- it does include this property, but it's not only focused on this property. I just wanted to clarify that. Borup: Right. Okay. Correct. Becky? McKay: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I will be brief. It looks you have got a lot of people waiting to talk to you later on. Just a couple of points I'd like to make is, one, I think Craig has done a real good job as far as trying to list out acceptable uses Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 32 of 100 and everything along that perimeter that, obviously, has the impact on the residential will be a Conditional Use and I brought up a C-Store, but Craig makes a good point, you know, there are banks, there are beauty shops, there are video stores, there are different things. C-Stores are not necessarily 24 hours. I have done some Kit 66's in the past and they closed early. I have a Chevron just down the street from my house at Beacon Light and Highway 55 and it closes like at 11:00. They are not necessarily a 24 hours type nuisance. I believe the Conditional Use process is intended to -- you guys have restricted hours of operation, you have turned Conditional Use applications down when you felt the use was too intensive for what adjoined it. We are not asking for cart blanche. The whole purpose of this wastewater treatment plant overlay is that all uses are scrutinized here and make sure that they co-exist with not only the treatment plant, but also what's around it, and we believe that we have done a good job doing that. We have to provide some type of neighborhood commercial. They talk about traffic. When you provide some mixed uses, such as office, some light industrial like mini storage and some limited neighborhood commercial, you reduce the number of vehicle trips on the arterial. If none of those facilities -- we all got to gas up our car, we all run out of milk, they have got to go out to Fairview and if we can provide some essential services that can coexist, we, in reality, reduce trips. The I-L, like the mini storage and the other I-L lots, we have placed next to the treatment plant, those are extremely low generators and those are -- from a traffic perspective, ACHD has always said they are preferred, especially in areas that are highly congested. We think we have got a good project and we think that this will benefit this area and it with, I believe, try to set some type of a standard and a balance as far as what development is going to take place, especially when it's right adjoining the treatment plant. Some of those other properties that are designated with the overlay don't -- I don't think they abut it, they may be within a certain distance of it, but this one it's unique. Oh, one other thing. It was talked about PAL soccer. We did look at that option. We pursued that option. I met with those people multiple times. I even did, with free of charge, a rough concept on how many ball fields could be done on a portion of this property and they attempted to try to obtain financing and could not and so that was disappointing to me, but we have exhausted a lot of avenues trying to figure out what is an appropriate use for this property. Thank you. Borup: Unless there is any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Moe? Moe: Yes. I was a little bit curious in regard to access off Ten Mile Road in regards to the property across the street. Are we going to be able to anticipate doing some shifting of the access points? McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, on that access drive I haven't had them go out -- usually what we do is have them go out and stake where our locations are and, then, try to adjust. Craig mentioned ACHD standards. Under some conditions there was one instance where they looked at a driveway for the one single residence and the staff told me their words were as a temporary use or a temporary driveway. Now, in that instance the property was a little bit larger than this one, so I don't know what potential that has for redevelopment, if ever. 'But I will take a look at that driveway and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 33 of 100 see if we have a conflict. I don't want to cause them any heartache and have, you know, the access ways conflicting, so I will try to work with her. Borup: Are we referring to the same access point? You're not referring to this, are you? McKay: I'm referring -- I think that -- Borup: These down here. McKay: Yes. Borup: Okay. Those are the ones that would be near her property. McKay: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other Commissioners? Final comments from staff? Zaremba: Yes. I would ask one more, just -- Becky? Mrs. McKay. Sorry. Slow on the uptake here. McKay: I don't know if I'm on the hot seat or if it's really hot Zaremba: Would this project be not viable if the two C-G lots were L-O, instead of C-G? And my thinking is -- I think the alternative would be you provide it -- or together with staff provided a list of things that would be prohibited. My alternative would be to include in the prohibited C-G's a gas station at this location. McKay: That would be within the purview of the Commission if they felt that that particular use would be too intensive. To answer your question, it's a -- you know, the parcel is 30 -- what, 34 acres in size and there is only so much demand for office, so much demand for mini storage and light industrial. I was trying to create some type of a mixture to, obviously, appeal to a wider variety of uses. I can't, I guess, honestly answer that question. I mean I'm not a realtor, I just know that there is typically a threshold of office and if we have too much, then, you know, you can't market it. It sits and -- I don't know. It may make it unviable. I couldn't directly answer it. As far as the C-Store, if this Commission feels that's inappropriate, you know, there may be like a bank may be a better use and 9:00 to 5:00 or something like that. Zaremba: Thank you McKay: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Commissioners? Rohm: Chairman Borup, the comment that I'd like to make on the two commercial lots is they are, in fact, required to go through a Conditional Use Permit process and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Aprll 29, 2004 Page 34 of 100 Conditional Use is just that, conditional, and if, in fact, there is a proposed use of a give lot and there are people that speak out against it, then, that at that time will sway or will have an impact on the decisions being made and that isn't a decision that has to be made tonight, because at such time that those applications are made, anybody that is here tonight will have an opportunity to speak at that time as well, so if a C-Store is something that's just inappropriate for that location, then, more than likely these seats will, then, again, be filled. Borup: And I think along that line, probably the only way to really make an educated decision on something like this is to see the project. Rohm: Exactly. Zaremba: Well, I thoroughly agree with you. The only hitch that I would put in that is that we have had applicants come before us on other projects and flat out say this is a C-G zoning, this is permitted in a C-G zoning, and you can put conditions on it, but you can't flat turn it down, because it is allowable in a C-G zoning and that's a struggle for -- you know. Borup: But -- so we have had anywhere they got what they asked for with that attitude? Zaremba: I just think we could save ourselves and the public some trouble if we made a couple of decisions that -- we already know a gas station and a convenience store aren't going to be acceptable and we could add those to the list of things that are going to be prohibited. I agree there are some other C-G uses that probably could be there. I wouldn't have a problem with a bank and it didn't sound like other people in the audience did. The staff and the applicant have taken time to make a list of things that would be prohibited in the two C-G lots and I think we could tonight add gas station and convenience store to that list and not have to put everybody through it again, because we know it's going to draw a crowd in opposition. I'm comfortable deciding that right now. Rohm: And I'm not against that either. All I'm saying is if, in fact, there was an application for a C-Store and there was opposition to that, it would -- that testimony would heard at that time and more than likely it would go that direction, but if you want to limited it even at this juncture, I don't have any problem with that either, because it's obvious that there is enough people in the audience that are not in favor of those two specific -- Borup: Well, then, why even have a Conditional Use if we are going to handle everything right now? Zaremba: Well, we are not handling everything. The other possible uses would still come for a Conditional Use, but Ithink -- Borup: Right. But you're saying one of those is objectionable. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 35 of 100 Zaremba: These two I think we know are going to be objectionable. Rohm: I think that it just provides the developer with some insight as to what they can make application for in the future, as opposed to bringing something in that would be denied anyway. All it does is it gives them a clearer picture of what they potentially can develop on those two lots. Zaremba: Well -- and I would add that I have been here for a couple of the previous applications on this property and I'm aware of applications that were made before I was here. On the whole, this appears to be an answer to 90 to 99 percent of the objections that were raised to previous projects proposed here. Granted, it's in the county and the city isn't forced to annex if things come before us we don't like, but some use is going to be made of this property at some point and, to me, this answers an awful lot of the objections that have been raised before. We still have, to me, just the one detail of that corner being a little too intense under this proposal. I am fully supportive of the entire project. The only limitation I would put on it would be we know right now that we aren't going to want a gas station and a convenience store. Then, the only thing that would leave hanging forme is a discussion about how many accesses on Ten Mile. Frankly, I like this proposal. I think it's a very fine proposal and when you compare it to the ones that I have seen and heard about, it's a good edition. Moe: I happen to agree 100 percent. Zaremba: I guess we know how I stand. Moe: Yes. Yes, we do. Quite frankly, I would agree but my biggest concern was -- and that's why I asked the question early on, was what -- what exactly was planned in that C-G. I'm very concerned about convenience stores and gas stations in that area and so, therefore, I happen to agree with that, if that can be a prohibited use for both convenience store and service stations, I wouldn't have a problem at all with this project. Rohm: I think we are getting pretty close. Zaremba: Are we ready to close the Public Hearing yet? Borup: It sounds like it. Zaremba: We have a direction. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on -- is this two items or three items? On these two items, AZ 04-004 and PP 04-004. Moe: I'll Second. Rohm: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 36 of 100 Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Let's see. The hanging issues are the pathways, whether it's going to have landscaping, whether it's going to have gravel, and some discussion of access to Ten Mile. Moe: Also, basically, the design of that pathway correct? Borup: Do you mean the engineering design, as far as -yes. I don't think we are going to answer that question tonight. Moe: No. Zaremba: Well -- Borup: But maybe some direction. I mean I think we can offer some direction and opinion. Rohm: I still wouldn't think that the pathway should exceed the standards for a public roadway, I mean as far as -- Zaremba: Well, you know, somebody might want to land a 747 on it sometime and that might be the only open space. Rohm: What was I thinking? Zaremba: Sorry about that. Rohm: Okay. Moe: Quite frankly, the only thing that I would defer on that was I don't know why you would need six inches of base. Four inches would be fine. I really don't have a problem. Borup: It wasn't six inches of base, it was 18. Or -- Moe: Well, you're going to need 12 inches of pit run material for a structural base there, probably, depending on what they come up with the soils report and four inches and two inches is fine with asphalt, two and a half isn't required either. I don't know that we are that far off from what you're going to need. I don't know if you worded it such that maybe use this as a guideline, 12, four, and two, unless the engineers come back with something other. Borup: Well, the 12, four, and two is a public roadway base Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Aprll 29, 2004 Page 37 of 100 Moe: In some, yes. Borup: So, I would like to see what is required in -- you know, what has Meridian built on the other pathways that are already constructed and maybe what surrounding cities are doing. It may be appropriate. I am really puzzled how these standards ever got in there to start with. It doesn't seem to be based on anything of -- appropriate or logic. Moe: Would you be wanting to change it a little bit, because Bruce has already stated that there are areas that they are going to have to access across and whatnot. Borup: Yes. Actually, it needs to be more than a micropath standard and I think it's -- Bruce was saying that five feet with maybe two feet of gravel on each side would work for the city maintenance. The only thing would be on that is maybe the base. I don't know if we need to -- I don't know if tonight's the time we are going to solve that. Moe: Who is the wordsmith that's going to tell us how we go that route? Bruce, it's given to you. Borup: Maybe we don't need to say any more than that we agree that the present park standards do not seem appropriate. Newton-Huckabay: Excellent suggestion. Rohm: Well, I think the civil engineers can determine what the specifications should be, so short of that, you know, we have to fall back to some ambiguity. Is that the right word? I think Zaremba: Well, I'm not sure it needs to be ambiguity, but I would be comfortable saying there is -- and maybe it's part of the Development Agreement, that standards or something will be worked out between the applicant and the staff that satisfies the Parks Department and -- Rohm: There you go. I like that. Zaremba: You know. Rohm: Yes. Zaremba: I wouldn't just leave it vague, but I would empower to the staff and the applicant and the Parks Department to come up with an engineered standard for this property. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, if you like, I'll take a stab at it. How about we just say HS20 loading standard or a negotiated standard with staff of Parks Department and Planning and Zoning, Public Works. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 38 of 100 Borup: Could you explain what HS20 means? Freckleton: It's the loading characteristics and you establish the base section. It's based on soil characteristics, the gross vehicle weight, and what you're going to put on it. Borup: Okay. That would vary depending on -- Freckleton: Yes. It depends on what. kind of soils you're dealing with out there. It seems to me like it's probably a more appropriate way to establish this section. They are going to be doing these soils investigations to establish their street sections anyway, so it would be a piece of cake for them to come up with a section for this road or this path. Borup: Oh, I think that makes more sense than establishing a -- Zaremba: For us to decide -- to establish an engineering standard. Borup: Well, for anybody for this specific thing, because it's going to vary with the soil conditions. Newton-Huckabay: Just leave the access off of Ten Mile Freckleton: Mr. Chair -- excuse me. If I might add to that. If we could get that two-foot shoulder on each side, so we have a total 14-foot wide pathway, 10-foot hard surface and two feet of side gravel. Borup: Yes. That's what I meant. I think earlier I said five, plus two on each side and I meant 10. Thanks. Maybe the access points, I don't know if we would want to address the landscaping on the pathway. I don't know. Also the right of way area on the two public roads, but it's still in the staff report. I believe. Zaremba: Well, we have with other applications tried to follow the principal that on arterials we need to limit the accesses. I think we have the additional consideration here that there is what will probably not be a temporary driveway to the home on the other side of the street, there has been no move to give that piece of property access to the subdivision that's behind it and I would not anticipate that that's anywhere in the near future that something like that would happen. That further complicates this driveway situation. Rohm: Maybe it's appropriate to have one ingress and, then, cross-access between the two C-G lots. Zaremba: That's the direction that I would go Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 39 of 100 Rohm: Yes. That seems like it addresses -- Zaremba: In what appears to be approximately the same distance, there is one access to Ustick and I would think the same would be appropriate along Ten Mile. I do appreciate the internal road. I think that's a very good stroke. Then, as you said, the cross-access. Then, there seems to be a consensus. Newton-Huckabay: I agree. Zaremba: Landscaping along the pathway. Anybody have an opinion? Rohm: I don't think that there was a significant objection by staff to the adjustments in the landscaping along that pathway. It seems -- weren't they going to just eliminate the buffer on one side of the pathway? Isn't it agreed -- that was agreed to? Staff would accept that? Borup: That was my understanding. Rohm: Yes. Think that -- Borup: Well, they would still like to see some trees. Rohm: Right. Zaremba: Okay. Let's see if I can sort through where these notes would go Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I did just want to apologize. The page numbers got removed from the staff report somehow. I promise you they were on there at one point in time, so it may be a little more difficult to reference pages and conditions and I do apologize for that. Zaremba: I will sort through my paragraph numbers, I guess, if we can. Well, let me give it a stab and people chime in if I'm going off track. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 7 on our agenda, AZ 04- 004, request for Annexation and Zoning of three point -- I'm sorry -- of 34.6 acres from RUT to I-L, L-O, and C-G zones for proposed McNelis Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC, northwest comer of North Ten Mile Road and West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their memo of -- for the hearing date of April 29, 2004, received by the City Clerk April 26, 2004, with the following change: Under Annexation and Zoning, special considerations, paragraph A, refers to a development agreement. I would leave that in the whole, but add in that development agreement it includes a list of things that would be prohibited in the C-G zone. I would add to that prohibited list a convenience store and a gas station. I believe that's the end of the annexation issue. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 40 of 100 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our agenda, PP 04-004, request for Preliminary Plat approval 16 commercial building lots and five common lots on 34.6 acres in proposed I-L, L-O, and C-G zones for proposed McNelis Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC, northwest comer of North Ten Mile Road and West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of April 29, 2004, received by the City Clerk April 26, 2004, with the following changes: Beginning on -- under Preliminary Plat special considerations, paragraph A, can include the statement that the pathway will have shoulders that make -- give it a total width of 14 feet and shall be designed to the standards of HS20 or as agreed jointly by Planning and Zoning staff, the applicant, Public Works, and the Parks Department. Parks. Parks Department. Paragraph B, we shall allow one access on Ten Mile -- one driveway access on Ten Mile, in addition to the roadway access to Ten Mile. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, just to clarify, you are working on site specifics one and two or paragraphs A and B. They reference the same thing, but the conditions are actually site-specific conditions one and two and it would be easier, since that's what gets actually forwarded to the City Council, to amend those. Zaremba: Okay. I'm sorry. I was in the wrong place. Site-specific conditions are what I'm looking at right? Or should be looking at. Okay. Let's review, then. Paragraph 1 under site specific conditions, Preliminary Plat, we will end up saying that the pathways will include shoulders that give a total width of 14 feet and be designed to standards of HS20 or as agreed by -- agreed jointly by Planning and Zoning staff, the applicant, Public Works, and the Parks Department. Borup: Number 2 probably just as written by -- in the staff report, isn't it? Zaremba: Let's see. Well, this appears to eliminate the driveway access to Ustick, which I don't have a problem with a single driveway. Borup: No. It's got one full access approach and one public street. I think that stays the same. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: And, then, they are saying the same thing on Ten Mile, which would eliminate one of them. Zaremba: Okay. There is no change to Paragraph 2. Under site-specific conditions Preliminary Plat, three asks for recorded access agreements,' and we want that anyhow. Four is landscaping discussion and we would -- I've lost what we were going to add to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Apol 29, 2004 Page 41 of 100 that. Did we decide on trees and stuff? This is getting to be a complicated motion. I'm song. We are starting and stopping. Borup: This landscaping buffer is, I think, along Ustick and Ten Mile that it's referring to and in four. Well, no. The last bullet point. The last bullet point is a pathway. Zaremba: Okay. Paragraph 4 we will leave all bullets the same, except for the last one and .are eliminating the trees or ask them to move somewhere else? Alternate compliance. Borup: I think it mentioned they'd like to stay with the one for 35 feet. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Just on one side. Borup: On one side. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: But we haven't discussed that very much, but if that sounds appropriate -- Zaremba: That would work for me, instead of along both -- the same requirement, except along both, along the eastern side. Borup: Yes. Or the interior. Either way you want to word it. Zaremba: Yes. Interior. Okay. Re-continuing with the motion, under site specific conditions Preliminary Plat, Paragraph 4, the last bullet shall be changed to read: Provide a minimum five foot wide landscape strip with one tree for every 35 linear feet along the interior sides of the multi-use pathways. In parenthesis it says those pathways are on the west and north sides of the development. The rest of the paragraph stays the same. Borup: Did we want -- I'm sorry. The bullet point at the top of the page talks about landscaping within the ACHD right of way. Moe: Yes. Zaremba: So, this is under Paragraph 4, site-specific conditions Preliminary Plat, the fourth bullet, which starts out construct a 10-foot wide gravel shoulder. That can be modified to read that after acceleration and deceleration lanes have been established beyond the right of way and the remaining portions that needs to be graveled will be graveled. What was the 13 feet about? There was some discussion of 13 feet. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 28, 2004 Page 42 of 100 Hood: That's the unimproved area from -- that's how the code is worded right now. It's a future roadway outside of the sidewalk is more than that distance and you have to gravel that. If it's less than that, then, you're let out of that requirement. It will apply -- Zaremba: That's already in the ordinance? Hood: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. I will consider that included and I have run out of things to say, I think. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Yes, counsel? Gabbert: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you did not address the maintenance of the landscaping within -- on the interior side of that path. I .believe that that was a concern and -- Zaremba: That may be covered by ordinance as well, isn't it? If you install landscaping, you have to maintain it? The idea would be that the business owner's association would be responsible for it. Let's ask staff. Thank you. Hood: That is in the ordinance in certain places, specifically, on multi-use pathways. I don't know that that's spelled out. I do not have that section of code in front of me right now. Zaremba: Let's do this: Under site specific conditions, Preliminary Plat, Paragraph 4, the final bullet, the previous modifications to that bullet stand and we will add a paragraph that said landscaping shall be maintained by the business owner's association of this project. Rohm: End of motion? Zaremba: Now end of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Good job, Commissioner. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we take a short break. Meridian Planning $ Zoning Commission Aprll 29, 20D4 Page 43 of 100 Borup: Okay. This would probably be a good time to take a -- we will take a short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 9. Continued Public Hearing from March 18, 2004: RZ 04-002 Request for a Rezone of 7.48 acres from L-O to R-15 zones for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development -east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue: Item 70. Continued Public Hearing from March 18, 2004: PP 04-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 52 residential building lots and 1 common lot on 7.48 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development -east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue: Item 11. Continued Public Hearing from March 18, 2004: CUP 04-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of a mix of residential and commercial uses with reductions to building setback requirements for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development -east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue: Borl.ip: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening and begin with our next hearing on RZ 04-002, PP 04-005, and CUP 04-006. All three of these are Continued Public Hearings from March 18th for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development. We'd like to start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. I'll start out with just a brief overview that will touch on all three and, then, go through the Rezone plat and CUP in particular. The site is currently zoned limited office. The Comprehensive Plan does designate the property as high density residential. The property is bounded by Meridian Friends Church to the east in this rectangular parcel here Pine Street on the north, there is Pedmont, Navaro, and Clarinda Subdivisions on the north side of Pine Street. Union Pacific Railroad, a 200 foot right of way that abuts the south and Tramore Subdivision apartment complex is here and I think a couple of the Commissioners will remember that. Roundtree Subdivision was proposed on the south side of Tramore. The senior apartment complex is on the north lot and that's complete and occupied today. The southerly portion for Roundtree Subdivision was denied by City Council, as noted in the staff report a couple of months ago, and the reasons for the denial are outlined in the staff report, but, essentially, it comes down to three things. One was the concerns about the senior complex and the high density apartments and the traffic -- particularly the density and the traffic that would be associated with the apartment complex on the same -- essentially the same parcel as the apartment complex that was -- that was one of the issues for denial. Another one had to do with open space and the way the floor plans were proposed on Roundtree