Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 29, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning July 29. 2004 Page 3 of 44 Zaremba: We have no Public Hearing to close, so I'm ready for a motion on the recommendation. Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of VAC 04-004, request for a vacation of a 20 foot strip of property extending from the Creason Lateral north approximately 810 feet for Salisbury Subdivision No.2 by Woodside Properties, LLC, west of North Meridian Road on the south side of Ustick Road, with all comments from staff for the meeting date of July 29th, 2004. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: It has been moved and seconded to recommend to the City Council. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Public Hearing: AZ. 04-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 and C-N zones for proposed Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson - 4205 North Locust Grove Road: Item 6: Public Hearing: PP 04-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 28 single-family residential and office building lots and two (2) common lots on 9.8 acres in proposed R-8 and C-N zones for proposed Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson - 4205 North Locust Grove Road: Item 7: Public Hearing: CUP 04-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for reductions to the minimum requirements for lot area, rear building setbacks, street side setbacks and minimum street frontage for proposed Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson - 4205 North Locust Grove Road: Zaremba: Next I'd like to open three public hearings that are Items 5, 6, and 7 on the agenda, AZ 04-011, PP 04-017, CUP 04-015 and we will begin with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is for Alexandria Subdivision. There are three applications. The first one is for the annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres. It's currently located in the county and has RUT zoning. They are requesting C-N zoning for a proposed commercial component, which is on the eastern edge of the subject property and they are proposing R-8 zoning for the remainder of the subdivision, which will be residential. The second part of the application is a preliminary plat for 28 building lots and this includes the four commercial lots, which will be zoned C-N and also the existing home, which will be on a lot in the subdivision, which will be zoned R-8. And there is also a CUP for a planned development and they are requesting the planned development to obtain reduced setbacks, reduced lot sizes, and reduced frontage and they will be providing 10.2 percent open space as an amenity and Meridian Planning & Zoning July 29, 2004 Page 4 of 44 also two gazebo and picnic areas there in the two open space lots of the subdivision. I'll go back to the vicinity map. This property is located -- it's too bad we don't have a Comprehensive Plan map. It's located in one of the - the neighborhood centers that have been designated through our Comprehensive Plan. This is sort of at the northern part of the neighborhood center and so the designation is officially mixed use neighborhood center, which is one of the -- which is the lowest density of the three neighborhood centers called out in our Comp Plan. There are three different types. This is the lowest density. And I wanted to go ahead and just briefly address an issue that should be noted. There -- in the Comprehensive Plan there is a cap of ten acres on commercial uses, but July 13th, 2004, City Council approved Brockton Subdivision, which had a commercial component and with the approval of that subdivision, the acreage has gone up so we have now 11.21 acres of commercial uses in the neighborhood center. So, it's been exceeded and Council went ahead and let that happen at that previous hearing and that was, again, July 2004. And if this application is approved it will further exceed that. But I just wanted to give you that background information. Staff feels this project still meets the intent of the Comp Plan. The commercial uses and the proposed CoN zoning meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for that area and I also wanted to note that the R-8 portion of the subdivision, while the entire property -- the entire residential component of the project will be zoned R-8, including the large lot with the existing home. The density is actually relatively low, it's below -- it's -- actually, it's almost four units per acre. It's lower than typically we'd like to see in a neighborhood center, but that's because of the large existing lot with the home and we are assuming that at some point that will be redeveloped and the density will go back up. The remainder of the subdivision is fairly dense small lot, almost patio lot type -- type home layouts and I will go through -- they are planning for a detailed conditional use for the commercial component and they have some elevations they have submitted for the commercial part. Just to give you an idea what that looks like. And, let's see, one more issue I wanted to go through briefly, but because of the proposed road section, there are several parking issues. Our -- Joe Silva, our deputy fire chief, has -- is recommending that there be no parking allowed in the court and no parking allowed on Green Haven, which is that road that runs east-west in the southern part of the subject property until that road -- until that road section is completed with the development to the south. So, there will be no parking until that road section is completed. And, then, parking on one side of the street will be allowed for the remainder of the subdivision. So, staff is recommending approval of the proposed project. We feel it meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and these smaller lots and patio home size type lots are going to add to the diversity of housing types for the City of Meridian and we support the project. Do you have any questions of staff? Zaremba: Commissioners? Moe: Yes, I do, as a matter offact. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 29, 2004 Page 5 of 44 Moe: Wendy, on the staff report it -- the last sentence in the application summary it talks about an R-15. Is that just a typo in there? Kirkpatrick: That's a typo. There is no R-15. That is a typo. Moe: Okay. Kirkpatrick: Sorry I missed that. Oh, initially, while we are going back and fixing things, in my surrounding properties I had inverted east and west when I was doing the description, so where it says east it should be west and where it says west it should be east. Moe: Okay. And the only other thing -- and I would just say that because I'm fairly new, okay, that is basically we are showing that CoN zone, but on the plan I was noting it L-O. I assume L-O is -- Kirkpatrick: With their original submittal it was L-O and we encouraged them to do CoN, because it's actually more compatible with that neighborhood center designation. Moe: Okay. And, then, one other question. In regards to the parking for the court, are we speaking of street parking? Kirkpatrick: Right. That's just on-street parking. So, no on-street parking allowed that in court. Moe: And I'm assuming that it's just going to be by signage only to avoid that? Kirkpatrick: Usually, we do signage and, then, the curb is also painted red and the fire department regulates that. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Would the application care to make a presentation? Wardle: Before I commence, let me hand out some colored exhibits that will help. Commissioners, for the record my name is Mike Wardle. My residence is 4910 Knollwood Avenue in Boise. This is, actually, the last project that I have designed in Meridian, but do you -- do we have -- okay. We are going to put on these same exhibits that I provided to you. We had them in Powerpoint form as well, but the project that we are talking about, as noted on that first sheet that you have in front of you, lies just south of the recently approved Razzberry Subdivision. Since this particular graphic was put together there has been a lot of change out there. The entire area behind this proposed subdivision is now fully improved lots for the Copper Basin Subdivision. The streets are in,utility stubs, and they are starting to build homes back there. My previous activities in this area were the Heritage Commons project to the south, Settlement Bridge to the northeast, both of which have been approved and well under construction at Heritage Meridian Planning & Zoning July 29. 2004 Page 6 of 44 and just under construction at Settlement. But I'm pleased. that the character of this very small and fairly tight piece of ground, as staff has noted, does conform to the Comprehensive Plan in that it does provide actual commercial zoning, whereas in Razzberry Subdivision they have an L-O and in Heritage Commons they had the office uses by exception and not by zoning. And so it really affords the opportunity to get the mix of uses, not just offices, but appropriate retail uses scaled to the character of a neighborhood. If we can look at the next slide, Brad, I'd appreciate it. The next sheet, which is simply the site plan in simple form. And I guess I wanted to make one comment about the parking issue. As soon as I do the form disappears. The reason that the parking is an issue here -- there will be, actually, more roadway improved than what shows, but it will not be a fully improved roadway, it will give all the necessary frontage and access way and so there are some constraints initially and when it talked about no parking, as I read the staff report and the recommendations, it relates to the turnaround area, but not necessarily to the street, which would probably be parking on one side and there would be parking on one side of the other streets and these streets match those that came out of the adjacent subdivision as approved in Razzberry. What really stands this project apart is that even though it's small and fairly formal in its appearance, with the exception of the two center lots on the turnaround stub street, every lot within this project has direct access to what will be a very highly amenitized open space area. Also would note that the large home that -- this is the home of Lonnie and Karen Johnson that live back here and it's their property that's being developed. That home will remain. There is a large barn and a swimming pool and the home. There are three other lots that would be developed in and adjacent to that. but each of these homes will have access to a fairly enclosed area that will have on one side what we would call a grand tot lot, because we expect that these homes will be more related to, you know, the 55 and older and the empty nesters, but because they have grandchildren we needed to have facilities that would be appropriate for that use. And, then, on the other side there would be an enclosed -- a covered picnic area. So, it really affords a very closed, but accessible amenity for each of the residents within this area. And these are, obviously -- could be highly - well, the quality of the homes are expected to be very very high, but they are smaller lots, with the intent that there is a lot less maintenance to do that afford a little bit more freedom and flexibility as people change their lifestyles from one where they spent a lot of time in the yard to where they might spend a little bit less. The last slide and the last sheet in your packet simply shows the landscape elements in a little bit more detail and kind of the intent for the intensity of that improved area behind those lots and as it also relates to the commercial at the front. Mr. Johnson is here, if you had questions. Joe Canning, B&A Engineers, who has done the design here as well. We would be happy to answer questions, but in conclusion would simply express our desire that you adopt and approve the annexation and zoning, the planned development, and preliminary plat application with the conditions as noted as recommended by staff. And I would be happy to answer questions or anybody else would as well. Newton-Huckabay: What goes on Lots 1, 2, and 3? Are those on the west side? Wardle: On the backside over here? Meridian Plannln9 & Zoning July 29, 2004 Page 7 of 44 Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Are those houses? Wardle: Oh. Those are home sites as well. Those are home sites, but they just happen to be -- this street had to lineup with the street coming out of Razzberry Subdivision to the north and as a result there was some pasture area outside of the Johnson's home that has the opportunity to have probably one fairly large home and, then, two other homes as well. So, there will be three homes west of that road, aside from the Johnson's. Newton-Huckabay: All three of them have a common driveway? Wardle: Two of them would share a common drive. Wouldn't necessarily have to, but, actually, the way it is, one of them is a flag lot, the other has direct frontage to the road -- the other two both have frontage to the road, so there has been no design of them, but they all have the appropriate required frontage. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thanks. Zaremba: Let's see. I saw somewhere in the presentation some elevations for the commercial buildings. Wardle: Yes. Zaremba: And I guess my only question is since -- I wasn't real sure which direction some of them were facing, so my question is assuming their entryways are facing the parking lot, the two buildings that are actually on Locust Grove, the side that faces Locust Grove hopefully won't just look like the back of a building. Is there some treatment to those? Wardle: Mr. Zaremba, obviously, at the point that buildings are brought forward for design, it would have to go through the appropriate process to look at siting issues and so forth, so I'm assuming that that opportunity still exists in the future to be certain that that doesn't occur. Zaremba: Okay. Wardle: But that's a good point to put in the record. If no further questions, I appreciate the chance to visit with you this evening. Zaremba: Thank you. This is the opportunity for any public comments, anybody that cares to say one way or another their comments about this project, and if you will come up and announce your name and address and, then, state your comments, please. Rambo: My name is Stacy Rambo and I live at 1760 Star Lane, just west of this proposed project. And I just need some clarification, just from lack of knowledge. It Meridian Planning & Zoning July 29, 2004 Page 8 of 44 was my understanding from talking with the other residents that this was going to be light office professional up front, but am I hearing that it has the possibility of being retail? Zaremba: That's a good question. Rambo: Like a video store -- Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, they are planning for CoN zoning and we can limit it through a development agreement, they could do it through their CC&Rs, but if we want to have those uses restricted, we should address that now, because potentially they could have retail in a CoN zone. Rambo: If that's a possibility, then, that's what I want to speak against. Kirkpatrick: And if there are, you know, specific uses, say like a gas station or convenience store that we are concerned about, we should go ahead and address those now. And we may want the applicant to speak to that also. Zaremba: After everybody has a chance to talk, the applicant will come up. He makes notes and he will answer questions like that. But since they originally applied for an L-O zone, which is only offices, I suspect he would be satisfied if we said it is a CoN zone restricted to L-O uses, but we will ask him that. Rambo: Okay. Sounds good. Just to put a basis back onto that, when Razzberry just to the north of that was going on, both Planning and Zoning and City Council -- and I apologize for not having those with me, because I thought it was going to be office, light office -- both mentioned that they strongly agreed that that area right there would be professional light office and I would like to see that continue, especially with the residential intersection with Star Lane just right to the east of it. It's going to be -- the traffic with the retail merging with the residential is going to be -- it's tough enough as it is right now. I'd hate to see the added conflict at that point in the roadway, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. Anyone else care to comment? Graham: Laird Graham. I live at 1491 North Locust Grove Road, just on the south side of the project, and I also had a question about the zoning, very much along the lines of what she just brought up and I guess we determined how we are going to address that going forward tonight. And so I'll wait to hear on that. I'm a bit conflicted on it, because, obviously, I have an identical property and I'm not exactly sure the ramifications of restricting one or the other might be for me. It's a little bit hard to determine that, you know, right at this time, so -- but I am interested in that topic and I had it here to talk about, but we will just defer until the applicant has a chance to speak to it. Rohm: I'm curious, what is your position? How would you like to see it go, so we are clear on that. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 29, 2004 Page 9 of 44 Graham: I have been under the impression it was going to be light office and we still -- we live there and we intend to stay there and we would prefer to see the activity cease at. office hours, normal office hours, 5:30, 6:00 o'clock, allowing for some after hour activity as might happen for like late appointments and so on and so forth. But when I was reviewing the application a couple days ago and was looking at the - the narrative, it used the term mixed use neighborhood. Is CoN and mixed use neighborhood the same -- the same thing? Kirkpatrick: Mixed use neighborhood is a Comprehensive Plan designation and the CoN zoning is compatible with that Comprehensive Plan designation of mixed use neighborhood. Graham: Okay. The mixed use neighborhood -- you know, some things that caught my eye were grocery stores, drug stores, coffee, sandwich shops and so on. And to answer your question, as I stand here tonight -- and I'm sure my wife feels this way -- that that's not the kind of activity we would like to attract to the area while it's still our home site. I would be interested in seeing Reederman Street or Avenue, which cuts in front of the applicant -- the property owner's home and stops just short of ours, not be a through street. I would prefer that it be only as long coming from the north as necessary to serve the three lots that are just to the east and the north of the existing home site. The reason for that is I would like to discourage traffic. For 13 years we have lived a thousand feet off of Locust Grove Road and now we are bringing the traffic closer to us, which we understand is happening. Rohm: Would you mind using the pointer that's up there and -- just so that I know exactly where you're talking about. Graham: Right there. Our home is right here. And I would like -- I would like to see this street not go through. I would like to see it stop. Rohm: Not go through -- Graham: Right. Right in this area. I'm thinking that the folks that live here, they naturally, anyway, will go out to a street that comes up here and out the exit. These folks here have no need to come around here. But, at the same time, it is going to allow for, you know, traffic, whether it be people lost or whatever, to be circulating right through here and if that didn't go through that would stop that circulation. Newton-Huckabay: How would the people get to the homes on the south, then? They'd have to come through -- Graham: Here. They will come down Green Haven, out Madison Avenue, and out to Locust Grove. And these people here -- I mean they won't want to use it. These people won't want to use it. I guess I don't see a current necessity for it and would like to see it not built, at least not at this time. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 29, 2004 Page 10 of 44 Rohm: Not to speak counter to your position, but, generally speaking, I think that this Commission and just subdivision development supports roads that will circulate throughout the development and get from point A to point B internal and external. So, my personal position would be that that would - that would stop short of meeting that desire if you were to cut that road off and not be able to access Razzberry Sub to the north. That just seems that way to me. That's the reason why we require stub streets from one subdivision to the next, so that you can have that availability, but -- to respond to your query. Graham: Well, you probably see my point that I would refer not to have that traffic circulating near my home when it's not necessary. There are -- anyone in the subdivision has full access to Razzberry up Green Haven, across Madison Avenue, or going north on Reederman. Rohm: Well, I can appreciate your position. Graham: Okay. Or, if that weren't possible, to maybe have some traffic calming devices, like speed bumps in there, that would discourage people from wanting to travel that way. Zaremba: Would it help you for the time being -- I'm assuming there will be some time where you consider converting your own property to a project similar to this, but for the time being to have a barricade that would prevent anybody from missing that corner and going beyond into your property? Graham: That might not be a bad idea. It's my pasture and so it's not like they would be heading into my yard or my house. So, you know, if it was done, you know, in a manner that looked compatible with the surrounding landscape and so on, that would be fine. That's really not so much my concern, as it is just to have traffic moving around. Zaremba: One of the difficulties, as Commissioner Rohm was pointing out, both the city and the ACHD are very much in favor of connectivity and -- not planning what your development is going to be, but in visualizing what the future of the two properties south of this current one might be, they may consider that an important access. This has already been through an ACHD hearing. Graham: Right. Is it possible to consider it for not develop -- not completing the street now and completing it later? Zaremba: We will have to ask the applicant. That's usually a cost issue and I'm sure it's cheaper for them to do all at once than to bring the equipment back for a couple hundred feet later, but we will ask. Rohm: Another point to that discussion -- and you had mentioned traffic calming. One of the things that when you have a short street such as this, the traffic is naturally Meridian Planning & Zoning July 29. 2004 Page 11 of 44 calmed by the fact that it's not a long street. We try to limit blocks to -- what's the -- within code what's the footage of a single block, Wendy? Kirkpatrick: A thousand feet is the maximum. Rohm: And this is like -- looks to be like three or four hundred feet. So, the point being is there is already traffic calming built into this design, based upon the length of the block, because you have got -- where it ties into the property to the north and, then, obviously, where the subdivision ends to the south. And so, you know, there is already some of that built into this design, based just on the length of the block and just trying to Graham: Sure. I understand. I don't know exactly how long that street actually is, how far it goes into Razzberry, but perhaps -- Razzberry is only another three or four hundred feet wide, so it couldn't be any longer than that, I guess Rohm: Right. Well, it's just one lot depth into Razzberry before there is another street, so you have got the width of this subdivision, plus one lot. So, we are -- not even come close to the thousand foot and so that in and of itself provides significant calming. Graham: I have a question as to where the sewer hookup is for Alexandria, coming from Razzberry and where it will be dropped or where the property to the south would hook up, if, in fact, it wanted to at some -- if it developed -- redeveloped at some point in time. Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Uh-huh. Freckleton: The sewer design -- everything is going to come through and out at this location. It will sewer north into Razzberry at this point. The sewer main, as they have it shown, is on the south side of the common property line across the bottom. Graham: And is there enough fall left by the time it gets to our property to sewer our property without a lift station? Is that assured? Freckleton: That's kind of a tough question to answer at the table here tonight. Not having a survey to look at of your property and that sort of thing, I can't really answer that question. Graham: Okay. Freckleton: Perhaps the engineer for the project could give you some ideas of the depths and that sort of thing. Graham: Okay. That's alii have. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 29, 2004 Page 120f44 Zaremba: Thank you. Good questions. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to go ahead and readdress some of the issues associated with the CoN zone and I wanted to point out that several of the uses that the public is concerned with ina CoN zone would be conditional uses. If someone were to put in a restaurant, that would be a conditional use, it would go through the public hearing process. Any retail would be a conditional use in CoN, it would go through the public hearing process. An automobile service station would also be a conditional use going through the public process and, actually, any drive-thru would automatically be a conditional use and go through the public hearing process. So, hopefully, that will alleviate some of your concerns on that. Zaremba: Well, I think you have clarified -- my suggestion was going to be that we say it is a CoN limited to L-O uses, unless they do a CUP and you're saying that's already covered. Kirkpatrick: Have to do it anyway. Zaremba: That's the way it happens anyhow. Okay. Rohm: Can we, then -- can we approve it up front, though, with the limitations on what can be put in, so they wouldn't have the availability of a CUP at a later date for restaurant -- and I'm not saying that that's the motion that would be made, but just as a question. Can you limit that up front or is it best to just take it at the time of application? Zaremba: We have on other projects -- often we were adding to a list that the applicant had already provided of what things that normally are allowed in the zone, they would prohibit and we have added to lists like that and in this case the developer has not offered such a list, but we could make one. Rohm: And maybe the best thing is let the developer speak to that and, then, we will go from there. Zaremba: But it is possible. Newton-Huckabay: I would think that it would -- that would be unnecessary. If you're going to have to have a Conditional Use Permit for any retail use in there, why not give the citizens that live around there the opportunity to decide -- you know, contribute at that time and not limit what their choices might be. Zaremba: I think our reasoning in the one case that I'm thinking of where I know we did this, there was quite a bit of public concern about a gas station specifically, which would have been allowed in the zone that was - Meridian Planning & Zoning July 29. 2004 Page 13 of 44 Newton-Huckabay: Well, that was zoned CoG. Are you talking about out there by the wastewater -- Zaremba: Yes. Yes. And we, just as a guidance to the applicant, said there is no point bringing a CUP for a gas station, because it's not going to pass. But we made that part of the -- and I guess the question would be here if we identified some things that there is no point in presenting a CUP for, we certainly have the right to do that, but -- Kirkpatrick: Yeah. Chairman, Members of the Commission, /, actually, want to make sure we brought that up. If they are approved for a CoN zoning, a professional office would, actually, also be a conditional use. So, that's something that through the development agreement we could allow them to do professional offices without going through the conditional use process. So, I would recommend that you go ahead make that allowance, so it's not overly difficult for them to do those professional offices. Zaremba: Okay. Anybody else care to comment? All right. We will ask Mr. Wardle to - Moe: You'll need to come back up -- Rohm: I think Mr. Graham wanted to -- Graham: Laird Graham, 4191 North Locust Grove Road. In staff's presentation earlier they referred to exception for the commercial acreage to allow the -- to allow it in this project and my question is does that preclude our property or the property to the south of us from having any of that commercial acreage? Because it sounds like you're max'd out plus now. Or would you make an exception in that case, too. Typically. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission this neighborhood center is actually the first one we have had where we have met the maximum allowed acreage for commercial uses, so this is kind of our test case, but with Brockton they allowed them to go over the 11 acres. We don't know what will happen with this project at Council and we don't know what would happen with your project coming through, but we have exceeded the cap at this point. But I can't tell you what Council would decide. I think they would be looking at, you know, does this use fit, it is compatible with the neighboring uses, does it fit the intent of the neighborhood center, but no guarantees. Graham: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, Mike Wardle, for the record. It's interesting the discussion that we have on every project, essentially, is the same. This one is unique in the sense that this is, as staff has noted, the first opportunity to see the character of a mixed-use neighborhood center come to fruition in Meridian. When we went through the as yet un-acted upon, un-adopted North Meridian Plan, we dealt with Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 29, 2004 Page 14 of 44 similar concepts looking for ways to make the neighborhoods more diverse and provide services closer, so that people in this particular case wouldn't all have to go down to Fairview Avenue for services or up to Chinden and -- either McMillan or -- Chinden -- well, Chinden and Eagle Road and McMillan and Eagle Road for services, but some services of a discrete nature really do belong in neighborhoods. The more traditional neighborhood concept design suggests that you start to mix your uses and by doing that you create a neighborhood, rather than just another subdivision that has virtually all the same housing, all the same demographies, same economic status. The other thing that the neighborhood center concept in the Comprehensive Plan strongly suggests and requires is the connectivity and as has been noted here, this is not and never will be a through situation. This doesn't connect to even out of Razzberry in a long sense where it would ever serve as any kind of a cut through. That road needs to connect, it needs to form the element of a neighborhood, so that there is no need to backtrack or go through another neighborhood to get to your property with the inability to communicate within the neighborhood by having to go back out and around because of the cut-offs and barricades. The other thing that's interesting, we have proposed the narrowest streets allowable under ACHD standards that still allow any parking on them at all and the irony, having looked at this issue literally across the country, east coast, west coast, and almost everything in between, is that even ACHD standards are above and beyond the standards that are being adopted in the most forward thinking projects in this country that allow parking on both sides of streets narrower even than what we are proposing here. The point is these streets will be as calmed by their own character as you can possibly do them and there is no -- I just would doubt that you would ever see on any of the streets in here the need to take any calming activity such as a speed bump. Now, that's an action that ACHD deals with, but it's not a predetermined issue, it's if you found that the neighborhood did connect and suddenly people were looking for a shortcut and started buzzing through another neighborhood, they will start looking for these solutions, but that's not something you predetermine. As to the retail, there will be a development agreement and let me just read through very briefly the list of uses that are allowed in this particular zone and, then, the ones that are conditional. Allowed would be accounting services, administrative services, which, frankly, is kind of an interesting thing, it calls professional offices as a conditional use, but accounting services and administrative services are both allowed, so I suspect that those are off- setting. A bakery store is an allowed use. A child-care center -- a church is an allowed use. Excuse me. A child-care center is a conditional use. A clinic. A medical, dental, or optical clinic is an allowed use. A convenience store is an allowed use. A laundromat. And a library or a museum. And, then, they have a catch-all of planned commercial development and, then, a neighborhood shopping center. Some of the uses that we will not probably put into the list out of the conditional uses that would be possible under the zone would be, for instance, a drive-in theater, not likely that we are going to include that in the development agreement. Let's see. A bar or an alcoholic establishment is not going to be an allowed or even a conditional use in the development agreement. And a gas -- a service station will not be. But what we don't want to do is preclude the opportunity for the right types of services to be discussed in the future by limiting it beyond what the CoN does, other than those just noted. The fact that they have to -- many of them have to come back means that there will be an Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 29, 2004 Page 150f44 opportunity to discuss them, but to say that we would never have anything but limited office in this area means that all of the services that may be appropriate for a discrete neighborhood like this would have to be trips down the road at least two and a half miles to the south or several miles to the north and east. I think it is a good project. The zoning for that CoN is not a general commercial zone, it will not be a negative, and the uses discussed can be incorporated into the development agreement, so that there would be some additional assurance. I think you had one question about the sewer and I will ask Mr. Canning of 8&A Engineers to come and discuss that. J.Canning: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Joe Canning with B&A Engineers. The address is 5505 West Franklin Road in Boise. And I can't answer the neighbor's question exactly. I do know what the sewer is doing in our project. It is coming from Razzberry Crossing. We are extending the sewer lines at minimum grades through our project and, as I recall, at that southwest corner, that road intersection, I believe the sewer is approximately six feet deep. It's not deep. As we extend from there back toward Locust Grove, I believe at the end at the commercial area we are about three and a half, four foot of cover, something like that. So, it's not excessive depths in this area. So, if someone is looking to put basements in, we have some problems. But I would also like to point out that the way our project is laid out we are actually sharing water and sewer with the neighbor to the south, so we think that's quite an advantage to this particular layout. Razzberry Crossing, of course, has an interior road that goes to about the middle of the project, no opportunity for connection of any other property, really, to that one, other than the stubs that are being provided to this project. I'm not -- regarding mapping on the neighbor's property, I'm not sure exactly the elevations that are over there. I have been on the site, looked at it, it's approximately flat. I'm sure grade's about the same way. The southeast corner is going to be the high spot, northwest corner is going to be a low spot. So, at least the land is as great as possible for that sewer line, so - but I -- it's not overly deep. Moe: I think I read in here somewhere -- was staff requesting information on storm drainage as far as retention areas and whatnot for this development? Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, I believe that question has been resolved. In the applicant's narrative they talked about how they are handling their storm drainage and it will be in the common areas, in the common open space areas. It will be shallow depression where they will handle their storm drainage. Moe: Thank you. Freckleton: So, we are satisfied. Moe: And, then, only one other question. It was brought up in regards to the parking in the court area. Is that -- is that correct, that they will be able to park at the street on one side? Kirkpatrick: I'm sorry, can you repeat that? I was talking to Brad back here. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 29, 2004 Page 16 of 44 Moe: I'm back to the parking in the court area. Is it a fact that the road leading in, that there will be parking allowed? Kirkpatrick: I want to check that with Joe Silva, because I'm not certain of what his intention was. I think -- I think it's also fairly narrow through there and I want to make sure we can get the trucks through. Moe: I agree. Kirkpatrick: It's something we could have as a condition to have that clarified before Council from the fire chief. Rohm: Good idea. Moe: Thank you. J.Canning: Thank you. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, if I could ask a question of Mr. Canning before he gets sat down. Zaremba: Sure. Freckleton: Joe, I just was wondering if you could maybe provide some details on -- on the southern boundary you're showing sewer -- in Mr. Graham's property you're showing an existing 30-foot access easement. I'm just kind of wondering how you plan on handling the -- having the public sewer in there if you're going to be getting a public -- public utilities easement from Mr. Graham for that and, then, how are you going to handle the drainage off of that 12-foot of asphalt that will be on the other side of the line? J.Canning: Yes, Mr. Chair and staff, the plan is -- there is an existing 30-foot easement, ingress-egress easement that runs along that south boundary. Half of the 30 feet is on this particular project's land and the other half, of course, being on the neighbor's land. What has been discussed with the neighbor so far is that simply convert that 30-foot existing easement to public road right of way. So, in other words, 15 feet of his property would be dedicated to the public, 25 feet on our side we would go ahead and provide full width improvement on our side. So, there is really no need for an easement there, because it would be public right of way. Now, obviously, that's up to the neighbor to go ahead and grant that to the highway district and I'm sure part of the process will be getting this project approved and, then, getting that finalized. And regarding the storm drainage along that south road, we have been working with the highway district on that and it appears as if the best solution is going ahead and installing a curb on the south edge of that road at this particular point in time. There really isn't enough room to put a barrow swale in, we don't really like what they look like anyway, so it appears as if the best solution is go ahead and install a curb and gutter along that side and not sidewalk. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 29, 2004 Page 17 of 44 There is not enough room for the sidewalk on the south side. But at least installing the curb and gutter and, then, go ahead and collecting that and putting it into our storm drainage system. Freckleton: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. J.Canning: Thank you. Zaremba: I'm looking at the fire department comments and on page 14 of the staff report, item 11, starts out no parking allowed on Green Gable Court, which would mean that the fire department's impression is that not just the hammerhead, but the whole -- the whole thing is not parking, so that -- I think we would -- we would deal with it as if that's the existing condition and the applicant can discuss that with the fire department and the City Council. Was there a place in here where we needed to reference a development agreement? I don't remember seeing -- Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, Brad was researching this while we were speaking. We can actually do this through the planned development and address it as a use exception. Zaremba: Okay. Kirkpatrick: So, we can do that rather than through the development agreement. Zaremba: Okay. Okay. Anymore questions for the applicant? Moe: Mr. Chairman -- Zaremba: Shall we close the hearing? Moe: I'm working on that. Zaremba: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: All three hearings? Moe: Yes. All three. Excuse me. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 5, 6 and 7. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. The hearing is closed. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 29, 2004 Page 18 of 44 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Any further discussion or questions for staff? Rohm: Well, I think I'd like to just speak to the Conditional Use Permit for people in the audience that don't participate in this process that often. A Conditional Use Permit is just that, it's based upon conditions being accepted by those neighboring properties and -- and they don't even really have to be people that are neighbors, they can be down the street and there is always an opportunity for testimony for those pieces of property that want to be developed as a conditional use. So, even as we finish up tonight, those projects as they move forward you will have an opportunity to speak to any conditional use application at that time and your comments will always be welcome. So, I wanted you to have that assurance that that's the way the process works. Zaremba: Yeah. I would only add to that that when it is a CUP there is notice given that such a thing has been applied for. The same kind of notice you probably got for this meeting. Street signs and letters to anybody that's within 300 feet -- or yards -- feet. And published in the agenda and I believe in the paper also. Moe: Okay. Well, having said that, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-011, request for annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 and CoN zones for proposed Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson, 4205 North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments and conditions of the hearing date July 29th, 2004, and received by the clerk July 26, 2004. Rohm: I will second that. Zaremba: Okay. I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. All opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PP 04-017, request for a preliminary plat approval for 28 single family residential and office building lots and two common lots on 9.8 acres in proposed R-8 and CoN zones for proposed Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson at 4205 North Locust Grove, to include all staff comments and conditions of the hearing date July 29th, 2004, received by the clerk's office July 26, 2004. Rohm: I will second that as well. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. All opposed? The motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 29, 2004 Page 19 of 44 Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-015, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for reductions to the minimum requirements for lot area, rear building setbacks, street side setbacks, and minimum street frontage for proposed Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson, 4205 North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments and conditions of the hearing date July 29th, 2004, and received by the clerk's office July 26th, 2004. Rohm: Second that. Zaremba: All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? This motion carries as well. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Election of Chairman: Zaremba: Thank you aI/. Our meeting is going to continue with a bunch of in-house items and, of course, it's an open meeting, open to the public, but this was the last public hearing, there will no further public testimony, just discussion among ourselves. Thank you all for coming and your interest in the process. The next item on our agenda is election of chairman and I would like to do a little bit of discussion before we actually perform the election. I have noticed by going through the notes that I could not find any procedure that this Commission already had in place for performing elections and I have passed around some suggested bylaws. I will ask legal counsel for this, but it is my opinion that according to the state regulations, that this Commission can make our own bylaws and it says elect a chairman and other officers. I'm suggesting that we elect a vice-chairman as well, and what I would like to have confirmed is that these bylaws are solely up to us and don't necessarily need to go through anybody else's review or approval, as long as they don't conflict with state law. Holinka: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, yeah, I believe as long as there is no conflict with state law -- and I read through them and it doesn't appear that there wouldn't be any problem with adoption of such bylaws. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Do they have to be read like multiple meetings before they can be adopted or is that -- Zaremba: Since it doesn't really affect the public, my opinion would be no, but, again, I'll defer to legal counsel. Jill. Holinka: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm actually not entirely sure, but I would tend to believe that it's something that doesn't - it's just internal procedures for this Commission to follow, that as long as it's presented at the public hearing -- or the