Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1 October 4 & 18, 2002Meddian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting October 4, 2001 Page 2 Norton: I second. Borup: Motion second, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT Item 11. Public Hearing: AZ 01-015 Request for annexation and zoning of 34.60 acres from RUT to I-L zones for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC - 3365 North Ten Mile Road: Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 01-0t7 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 34.60 acres in a proposed I-L zone for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC - 3365 North Ten Mile Road: Borup: Okay. Before we get into the other, I might mention we have -- there are a couple of applications and we don't have a big crowd, so I don't know if anyone is here for those, but Wendy's and the Utility Subdivision application have asked for a later date, so were you folks here for either one of those? You were? Okay. Utility Subdivision is waiting for the ACHD -- Ada County Highway District report and -- Commission, maybe -- should we look at a date right now, so we can tell these folks, so they don't have to wait until the end to find out the new date? Nary: Mr. Chairman, I think Utility Subdivision has requested the '~8th of October to be set over. It doesn't appear that we have a very huge agenda that night. We could probably do that. McKinnon: That was the date that -- Nary: I think that was the one that requested the 18th. The other one, the Wendy's requested after the 24~ of October, because that's when their appeal before the ACHD is. Borup: And it may or may not have an answer by that date. Nary: Right. Borup: But we could still go ahead. Okay. Do you want to make a motion now or wait until we get to that on the agenda? Nary: We could probably take it out of order, since we do have folks here and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting October 4, 2001 Page 3 Borup: Okay. Let's go ahead and open -- we will go ahead and open the Public Hearing on AZ 01-015, request for annexation and zoning of 34.60 acres from RUT to I-L for the proposed Utility Subdivision and also Public Hearing PP 01-017, request for Preliminary Plat approval of seven building lots and one other lot on the same project. Because of request from the applicant we will open up Public Hearing and dispense with the staff report at this time. I think, and -- Nary: I think, Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would simply move that we continue those hearings until -- both of those items until October 18th for public comment and the applicant can be here and hopefully we will have the ACHD comments at that point. Norton: I will second. Borup: Motion second all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT Item 8. Public Hearing: CUP 01-028 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a fast food restaurant with drive-thru in a C-G zone for proposed Wendy's by Wenco, Inc. - northwest intersection of Corporate Drive and East First Street: Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from August 2, 2001: AZ 01-012 Request for annexation and zoning of 70.72 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development - northeast comer of East Ustick Road and North Meridian Road: Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from August 2, 2001: PP 01-015 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 214 single-family lots, 4 future office lots, 23 common lots and 3.43 other lots on 69.79 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development- northeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Meridian Road: Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from August 2, 2001: CUP 01-026 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 214 single-family dwellings, 4 future office lots and 23 common lots to include a neighborhood park and pedestrian pathways in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt - northeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Meridian Road: Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 13 Borup: Okay. The next item is a Continued Public Hearing. This is another we just -- I believe we just opened and really didn't get into it and that is AZ 01-015, request for annexation and zoning of 34.60 acres from RUT to I-L zone for proposed Utility Subdivision and the accompanying application is a request for Preliminary Plat approval for seven building lots and one other lot on the same project by Falcon Creek, LLC, at 3365 North Ten Mile Road. I'd like to start with the staff report at this time. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. This is a proposed industrial subdivision near the intersection of Ustick and Ten Mile. You can see the air photo on the screen. The subject property is roughly circled. It kind of follows these lines. It is adjacent to the Sewer Treatment Plant, which you see north of it in this location. You actually see things a little better spelled out on this, maybe. The subject property is hatched and you can see the Sewer Treatment Plant to the north and the surrounding residential subdivisions. These are some existing site photos. This would be just north of the property along Ten Mile looking -- looking southwest. In the foreground, this area, is part of an Idaho Power project, is actually excluded, but the remainder of the property surrounding it is part of the project. Southeast to existing subdivisions, so I'm going to kind of go through these kind of quickly. You can see kind of the general rural character in some of those, although there are existing subdivisions adjacent as well. Englewood is to the south of it. Hartford is being built just east. This kind of gives a rough layout. You can see the proposed subdivision here. They are proposing -- is it seven lots? Yes seven industrial building lots and one common lot so two very large ones and five that are along Ten Mile Road. You can see Dakota Ridge Subdivision, Wood Creek Estate and Candlelight. This says unplatted but it's Hartford and north of that also says unplatted, but it's the unbuilt, but approved, Bridgetower Crossing. These are some photos that were submitted today by citizens, I think he's here tonight, Charles Crane, went ahead and worked them into the presentation. Show you some of the surrounding properties, Candlelight Subdivision, Englewood Creek and Dakota Ridge. This is looking into the subject property. Mr. Charles Crane, his own yard, which is directly adjacent to this project, and these would be -- I think they were submitted as what you might expect. These are existing photos of Western Recycling today. Pacific Recycling today in Boise. Sanitary Services Corporation trucks. The school bus office and where they park all their school buses today. And that's the extent of the photos. I'm going to put it back on the site plan for a minute and go through some comments. You should have a staff report dated October 12, 2001, by Dave McKinnon and Bruce Freckleton. He makes it a point to show that the proposed uses, specifically Meridian Joint School District bus repair, service, parking and storage, Sanitary Services Company for their trucks, Western Recycling, recycling facility, and a waste transfer station. So we can presume that for -- those uses will take up four of the lots, three remain unknown. At the same time, though, this is not a development application and even if this were approved we wouldn't be guaranteed, necessarily, that those are the uses that would go there. There is not a Conditional Use Permit for a waste transfer station, et cetera, before you tonight. This is the annexation and it's the plat. The first issue under the annexation is the zoning. The applicant has requested an I-L or light industrial zone. That zone is technically not in compliance with the currently adopted future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan, which shows this Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 14 area as agricultural slash rural residential, but we also feel that this alone doesn't necessarily kill the project, I mean that it's out of harmony with the Comprehensive Plan, because there is evidence in the text that is on both sides of this issue, both for and against it. I don't believe you have had a chance to read through that. Dave has summarized that on pages two and three of the staff report. A couple of things I would like to point out is under Finding E, which is actually on Page four, we would find that additional roadway improvements will be required to handle additional traffic generated from all these -- all the buses and Sanitary Services vehicles, if the uses, in fact, do go forward. The Ada County Highway District -- I just received just before coming to this meeting a copy of their final -- the final ACHD requirements. I'm not sure if that was given to the clerk in time to get a copy to you or not, but one of the issues that were contested or was kind of a hot topic was the idea of an extraordinary impact fee. They did -- the Highway District did require that the applicant enter into a Development Agreement and that any development that occurred on this site after the extraordinary impact fee, which is currently in process of being determined, once it is determined they will be subject to that. That said they did approve this project at the Highway District with conditions. One of the major issues you're going to deal with tonight I'm sure in testimony deals with whether this use will be hazardous and disturbing to existing neighboring uses and we have determined that it will and -- but another question is whether the Sewer Treatment Plant being in this location has set enough of a precedent to allow other such impactful industrial uses to coexist in the same area. The use will bring more noise, traffic, fumes, etc. into the area and have an impact on surrounding properties, but it is adjacent to the sewer treatment plant. So you're going to have to weigh both sides of that issue. Specifically under annexation and zoning comments there is an issue with the legal description that needs to be addressed by the applicant. There is -- if l understand the problem correctly, there is some property ownership that's in dispute along Nine Mile Creek. The right of way was deeded from the Bureau of Reclamation to Nampa Meridian and the deeds I guess have not been signed yet, so we need to determine who actual ownership is in that area, because it's part of this annexation. The only other thing to point out specifically in the annexation is that we would request that a Development Agreement be entered into, if approved, in that all uses within this subdivision would require a Conditional Use Permit, so that they would have to come back and that anything going into this subdivision would receive additional Public Hearings related to the design, because there is no design-related issues that we can specifically consider tonight. Under site-specific comments for the plat on Page 6, just a couple of things to point out. Item 2, the sidewalks shall be detached and not attached as they are currently proposing. And perhaps the larger issue, a multi-use pathway in Number 3 along both Five Mile and Nine Mile Creeks. I believe you should have some testimony -- or something submitted from the Parks Department, Mr. Tom Kuntz, this issue. So I will just let his memo stand with that. I'd point out in Item Number 4 that their proposed Landscape Plan is not approved and that any modifications that are required need to be addressed and that ten copies of the revised plan need to be submitted prior to the City Council per Item Number 4. Moving to the end of the recommendation, there are policies that will support and do not support this. The Commission needs to weigh both sides in the hearing tonight. Specifically the following issues are unresolved -- the pathway improvements. I think Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 15 the roadway improvements are -- we may be able to consider those resolved now that we have ACHD's letter, but we may have the applicant address that. And then the compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as already noted. That's all I have at this time and stand for questions. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Steve, you mentioned a requirement for a CUP. So then your comments in your staff report wouldn't necessarily be true. I mean if we are going to approve the use, we don't know what the use is going to be. I mean we are talking about an annexation and plat map period. Siddoway: That correct. Centers: Right. So-- Siddoway: A condition of the annexation that any use be required to go through a CUP. Centers: Right. So your comment in the staff report regarding inharmonious and noise and odor and fumes and smoke is not necessarily true. Siddoway: Not necessarily. They have -- they do have proposed uses and they have based their traffic impact studies on those uses and everything is kind of centered around those uses, so we can't ignore the fact that that's what they intend to do. Centers: Do we know their proposed uses? Siddoway: Yes. Centers: Okay. The other question I had, this area on a map that I have shows an R-4 zone and these areas, prior to annexation, what was the Comprehensive Plan for that area? Siddoway: Single-family residential. Centers: Okay. And the Comp Plan for the proposed site was single-family? Siddoway: The proposed site is agricultural rural residential. Centers: Okay. And this was straight single family residential, R-8, R-47 Siddoway: The Candlelight Subdivision was shown as existing urban in the '93 Comp Plan and the area west of the Ten Mile Road was single-family residential. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 16 Centers: And this was single-family residential? Siddoway: Single-family residential. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I'm looking at the Comp Plan of 1993, which we have to comply with at this point, and where this is being planned it says there is supposed to be a park there. Siddoway: Yes. Norton: And around the park is supposed to be agriculture or rural residential. Siddoway: Yes. That's what I said. Norton: So why the huge jump between this and Western Recycling, school bus barn, and what was the other?. Siddoway: Sanitary Services. Norton: Sanitary Services. Siddoway: And a waste transfer station. Norton: Yes. Why is there a huge jump from a park to this? Siddoway: That's a question for the applicant, not me. Norton: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Any other-- Siddoway: I could point out that the draft Comp Plan, which, as you point out, is not in effect right now, but it does show this area as industrial in that -- in the draft Comp Plan. It's not yet adopted and can't regulate land use by it, but I assume it's in response to that direction that that Comprehensive Plan was going. Norton: I see. Borup: That was my assumption, too. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 17 Centers: Well, Mr. Chairman, the comment that Commissioner Norton made regarding the '93 Comp Plan is kind of my point earlier. I mean she -- Commissioner Norton mentioned that we have to comply with. I don't think that's the case, is it? I mean you can deviate from the plan -- Norton: Oh, yes. It's just a point of-- I'm sorry. Borup: Yes. I think we are -- Centers: The new plan coming up was part of my -- Borup: Well, but I don't know that we can base it on the new plan coming up. I guess, obviously, that's only -- that's going to be an influence. Centers: That's right. Borup: Because it's public knowledge. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Steve, wouldn't we have to do a Comp Plan Amendment? That's the Land Use Map that's on the -- the plan that's in place clearly says this is not an industrial zone. Wouldn't we need to do a Comprehensive Plan Amendment as well? Siddoway: Well, as staff report points out, the -- it is in conflict with the Land Use Map. Nary: Right. Siddoway: We felt that there were text policies on both sides of the issue, so we didn't think the Land Use Map by itself necessarily killed it on its own. If you disagree and think it does, I mean you can certainly give that direction, but we felt it was possible for it to move forward, but there were -- there were policies on both sides of this issue in the Comp Plan. Nary: I guess, Mr. Chairman, I mean my concern would be that the intent of the map and the plan is so that if a person looked at that, they have an understanding of what at least is proposed to be there. It's not written in stone and it's not concrete, it certainly can be changed. But that's what the process is for change, is that there is a Public Hearing beyond just an annexation, but that there is a Public Hearing to amend this plan and that all can be done at certain periods of time and things like that. For this level of change I guess it's my thought that this level of change should have a Comprehensive Plan Amendment before we have -- I mean we can do them together, we have done that before where you do one and then you do the annexation and then you do the plat or something like that. So it can be done together, but I guess I'm going Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 18 to have a hard time thinking why we shouldn't be doing it. I understand why the staff comment was it's hard for us to tell for you. So I'm not faulting you, I understand exactly what you're saying. I guess for our responsibility is interpreting the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and whether or not amending it is the appropriate way to handle that would be really our decision, so -- Siddoway: If we did process a Comp Plan Amendment at this point, it could delay the adoption of our new Comp Plan, because we'd have to wait for another six months for that to happen. So that's something else to think about. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I have a question for Bruce. Bruce, where exactly -- could you -- do you have a little pointer -- where the sewer plant is? Centers: It right there. Siddoway: It's pointed right there. Norton: Oh. Okay. Thanks. And I think Commissioner Borup and I were the only ones on the Commission that went out and had the opportunity to tour the sewer plant. Did you guys go -- okay. It's a great field trip. Nary: Beautiful facility. Borup: Apparently the sewer plant didn't need any -- Steve, the Sewer Plant was in existence in '93 when -- and this was shown as a rural agriculturel at that time, is that -- Siddoway: Yes. It was done, in my understanding, anyway, is it was kind of a buffer zone to keep higher density residential development out from the sewer -- right around the Sewer Treatment Plant, within that square mile. Borup: Okay. That's why I was wondering why the sewer plant -- why that was zoned for the Sewer Plant. Siddoway: It was done with the 10-acre minimum residential lot sizes. Borup: Okay. Siddoway: To avoid impacting lots of people with odors. Borup: Yes tether than looking at some other type of buffer. All right. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission? Okay. If the applicant, representative would like to come forward. Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 19 Forrey: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Wayne Forrey and my address 701 Allen Street in Meridian, 83642. And with me tonight are several of our team members that will be talking about -- Wendell Bingham is here from the Meridian School District. He's one of the people involved in this project. Also Steve Sedlacek with Sanitary Services, the waste contract company that picks up our trash day in and day out here in Meridian. Steve is here tonight. I think Bill Gregory -- okay. Bill is not here, his partner. Rick Gilliham with Western Recycling, he may join us, but I don't think Rick's here right now. Also Larry Peterson is here. Larry owns a portion of this site. His home is on this property. Leon Blaser and Ed McNelis of Falcon Creek, they are here. And Lynn Brown, the architect, I think is here. I guess he might be walking in a little late. He had another commitment a little earlier tonight. Anyway, as we go through the presentation if there are specific questions that may pertain to the school district or Sanitary Services, they are available, if I can't answer the question, make sure -- and they may or may not participate. First let me say, though, thank you for continuing our Public Hearing from two weeks ago, the 4th of October, to tonight, because we were able to have a technical review session with ACHD. Their work was kind of balled up because of the North Meridian Planning Area effort and then yesterday at noon we did meet with the full Commission at ACHD and they did approve this project. So we are very happy about that. So thank you for giving us that opportunity. I know you have got a full agenda tonight and this particular hearing right now is on the annexation and zoning, so I'll stick to that, but I would like to refer to the plat a few times, only in the geographical sense, to show you locations of uses. Borup: And we are -- we have been combining both -- testimony on both hearings at the same time. Forrey: Okay. We will do that, then. I prepared a booklet to keep our presentation concise. May I hand that out and just leaf through the booklet and keep it moving that way? Okay. Well, if you look at the cover you will see that sign there, the future substation, and that's in existence right now. Of course, that wasn't there in 1993. Let me -- because staff did bring that up and -- let me go back a bit to '93. I'm an Urban Planning Consultant and in 1993 I was retained by the city to help draft the Comprehensive Plan update. And the thinking at that time -- and I know it very well, because Larry Peterson and I met at his home to talk about this very site and the buffer to the Waste Treatment Plant. That round circle that you see on the '93 Comprehensive Plan says regional park and at that time the City of Meridian did not have a regional park. We had Storey Park and you had the Recreation District and the city really wanted to have a major park in the community and the thinking was that the city would acquire that corner of property out there and that would become a regional park and that's why that symbol is there. We thought it would be a good buffer for the treatment plant, it was out, the city hadn't grown nearly that far yet, and we thought that was workable. Now I have since learned, though, from talking to Parks Department people, that the city contemplated acquiring that land for a regional park and passed it over, because of the fear of the odors from the waste Treatment Plant and, instead, identified a site two miles east, acquired that site, and now we know the rest of the story, that was Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 20 to be a regional park for the City of Meridian. So there was a shift in internal policy of the city in terms of locating a regional park and now we have a whole set of new circumstances there in terms of buffering. Now there are industrial uses with the approved Idaho Power site and Meridian Storage next to the treatment plant, which is right across from the Five Mile Creek from this site. And, of course, the proposed Comprehensive Plan. That's just a little bit of a background. Okay. We are going to talk tonight about essential community public utility services, sanitation, school bus, energy, recycling, vehicle services and business. Now you might say, well, you know, vehicle services and business, that may not be essential public services, but sanitation, school buses, recycling, and energy, those are essential. Okay. Go to the next page. Here are the uses that we envision. This is -- as a buffer to the Treatment Plant and as compatible with that electrical substation that will be constructed on Ten Mile. Community sanitation services, this would be sanitary services. Public school bus facility for the Meridian School District, recycling services provided by Western Recycling, a large vehicle wash which may be contract services between each of those government agencies or quasi-public with a private contractor to wash the school buses and the trucks and possibly neighborhood services, commercial services. That is undefined. On the next page -- let's start with Sanitary Services. The photo -- have you got that photo, Steve, of the Sanitary Services? That photo was good, because it shows all the trucks jammed together. If you drive up and down Franklin you know how jammed they are and what an inadequate site. They are severely restricted. They are probably 3 deep and maybe 3 or 4 trucks across. Just imagine getting a truck out of the middle or trying to maintain or service a truck in the middle of that. So they need to expand. They want to apply a transfer station for the community. The community residents have been asking for a transfer station. If you work in your yard on Saturday and get half of a pickup load full of yard waste and you would be able to take that to the transfer station and all the citizens can do that and when they have a big enough load then Sanitary Services bundles that up and takes it to landfill. So it's a very good community service here. They are going to build a new state-of-the-art facility and it makes an ideal buffer for the waste treatment plant. The next page you see the recycling trucks that they use. They have to provide recycling, that's a contract mandated service that's essential. They are going to build a new shop facility. It will look good, it will be good for the community and it will really help Sanitary Services. Next you will see the existing Meridian bus facility and if you have been at the end of Lanark Street you will see those buses are crammed in there as well. They can't even park an additional bus. Now the school district tells me they -- because of growth and demand they have ordered 20 new buses, they arrive about Christmas time, and they don't have a place to park them. I overheard one of the shop superintendents 3 days ago tell me that the first shipment was coming soon and it was a shipment of 6and they may have to park them in Caldwell. So, you know, we have all had experience in growth in the community and, you know, the school district is growing, too, and the buses -- we need a place to park those buses. The next page you see the maintenance shop. Inside it's extremely tight, but there are only five buses that can go in for maintenance into that at current. It's well managed, it's clean, it's not noisy, it's a great shop, but they need to expand. On the next page you will see the outside of the existing Meridian bus shop. It will hold only 5 buses. It's not efficient. It's site restricted. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 21 they really need to grow that facility. The next page Western Recycling. That's another user that will be coming into this Utility Business Park. This is their facility on South Cole Road. There is a Worthen-Craig Insurance Company, I know one of the agents, Scott Worthen, he has his insurance office in the front and in the back of that building is Western Recycling. They want to be right out on Ten Mile Road in an attractive building and it will definitely be compatible, it will be very near that Idaho Power facility. Now the next page you see what their main facility on South Cole Road looks like for Western Recycling. Now this is a center and -- yes. These photos were taken -- this is in the back and this is kind of a regional processing facility for Western Recycling. Borup: Is this the same facility or are these 2 different facilities? Forrey: It's 2 different -- what you're seeing in the picture here is the shop building, but this is in the back of the site. Borup: Same site? Forrey: It's the same site on South Cole Road but what they are going to be building in Meridian is a satellite indoor center. Not a processing center, but a collection center. And customers want that. They have been asking for it for sometime now to get a recycling center like this in Meridian. They envision a 10,000 square foot facility indoor, would support your objective for recycling, also a contract that Sanitary Services had from the City Council to recycle and, gain, it's a very good neighbor. Borup: So it's entirely indoors, entirely enclosed in the building? Forrey: It's my understanding it would be, yes. Now these buildings aren't air conditioned, though, Commissioner Borup, and so in the summer those bay doors can be opened. In fact, if you look at that photo I have got in the booklet you see the bay doors are open there. You don't really see that too much off of Cole Road. So that's an architectural siting kind of an issue. All right. Go to the next page and you will see the plat layout and maybe, Steve, can you put that plat up as well. Okay. On the handout that I have given you, if you look at the number one, that is an approximate 10-acre parcel, Lot 1, and that is where Sanitary Services would develop their facility. And that's right next to the Waste Treatment Plant. From Hartford Estates, from the closest home at Hartford Estates, to the scales where the trucks would enter into the Sanitary Services site, is 700 feet away. Lot Number 2, that's right there, that's about a 17-acre site and that is reserved and designed specifically around the needs of the Meridian School District. Now from the closest home in Hartford Estates to the edge of the closest bus parking would be 550 feet. On the south side of Ustick going north -- yes. From about -- about the center -- well, right below the R there of read, from the back of that house right there to the parking area for buses is 500 feet and from the home of Charles Crane -- yes. Right in that area there -- to the edge of the shop area that's proposed in that area would be about 300 feet away. So we have tried to be very sensitive -- and I'll show you here a layout of a suggested concept of the school needs. We have tried to be very sensitive to buffering and neighbors and distance and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 22 transition area, recognizing that we are right next to a Waste Treatment Plant, an area of where -- when we first started this project and we had some interest in an employment center and we contacted the city and asked how do you feel about an employment base in this area, in terms of neighborhood employment and a large business here, and the city came back and said there is too many fumes out there, we don't feel that's appropriate for a major employment center. So that got us rethinking. So now we come through with a parking lot, basically. It's a large parking lot. I mean we have to have a place for these essential public services school buses, the sanitation trucks and recycling facilities. So we tried incorporating that into this site. If you look on the next page Lynn Brown, an architect, is working with the school district to conceptually organize how that lot would lay out for the school district. In the lower section of that layout you see the office and the shop facility that's to the west side of the school parcel. On the east you see that parking lot that would be the employee parking. That would 245 parking spaces for employees, the bus drivers and workers in the shop, that would be parking and it's more in the center and to the north of the school site, parking for 230 buses. And each of those stalls would have block heaters that are on timers that come on at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning and warm up the engines, so you don't have a lot of -- on a cold winter morning to start those engines and let them idle, they are warm, then they -- you know, the timer it shuts off at 6:00 in the morning. So the driver comes in at 6:00, it's pretty easy to start the bus. So we have tried to incorporate, again, in terms of sensitivity to the neighborhood, but make this a workable site for these public services. Also on that layout you see where Idaho Power is, Sanitary Services is on the north, Western Recycling up there on parcel number three. Okay. Turn the page again. This is a conceptual layout of Sanitary Services. The new shop facility, scale, transfer station, covered parking, good landscaping, and, again, a good workable site for them. And then on the next page it shows some anticipated elevations of their office administration and shop. And I think it will blend very well with the Treatment Plant in terms of the architectural style and the colors and it would be a nice looking industrial type building. Okay. Now back to some discussion. The next page, titled Utility Business Park. This is a quote from the staff report, that light industrial, it's compatible with city desires. That's information we have operated on in terms of scoping this project, thinking about this project, working with the city, and understanding what's good for the community and providing these services. We have full ACriD permission approval yesterday at noontime. We have a good staff report. We have city staff support, as noted, and as discussed by staff tonight. We have support from various neighbors. Mr. Husky, a neighbor to the east, I believe there is a letter in your packet from Mr. Husky. Hubble Homes recently acquired Hartford Estates. Hubble Homes of Boise supports this project. And, in fact, this project was planned and organized before Hubble Homes acquired Hartford Estates and our engineer on this project is Hubble Engineering. We went into Hubble Homes and Hartford Estates with their eyes wide open knowing what the neighbor was going to be. It's totally compatible and it's not going to affect our marketing. And we have talked to Mr. Ed Hughes of Meridian Storage, which is zoned industrial, across the drain, Five Mile Drain or Creek. And, of course, he supports this project. And we want to have continuing coordination with the Crane family. We have met several times, we have been discussing alternatives and rearranging and screening and buffering and we will Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 23 continue to do that. I think it's going in a positive direction. This is a good buffer to the Treatment Plant. You know, arterials do define neighborhood boundaries and we are at the corner of two arterials, Ustick and Ten Mile. And then we have got a Treatment Plant right behind it. We hope we are on the right track here. We think we are doing the right thing for this community by putting these types of uses at that location. And you have got some good people that will develop this with, you know, public funds to do this the way you need it done. Let's talk about pathways a little bit. That's the next page. In the Parks Department my understanding is that Mr. Kuntz was under the impression that Falcon Creek and all of the team members owned a portion of the Eight Mile Drain -- you know, the city calls it Nine Mile Drain and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District calls it Eight Mile Drain on their legal description. I think Mr. Kuntz was under the impression that there was ownership along that drain and ownership along Five Mile Creek. There has been a land transfer and it has been recorded and I can provide a copy for the city of -- they switched between Bureau of Reclamation to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and so this map is outdated now, but you see that dog leg there? Yes. Okay. That now is all in ownership by Falcon Creek and all of the land along the drain right now is in ownership of Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District with a public easement to the City of Meridian, because there is a trunk sewer line up through that area. Now that swath of land that's owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District is at least 50 feet wide, in some cases wider, from the center line of the drain over to the edge of their property and on Five Mile Creek, the same situation, it's at least 80 feet wide from the center line of Five Mile Creek to the south before you get on private property. So we have got two excellent locations here for pathways on good public corridor on the Eight Mile Drain and on Five Mile Creek. And you have got a License Agreement that Nampa Meridian and the city have negotiated and here is maybe one of the best places to use that and I think we should also be discussing trust funds. The city talked about a possible bridge crossing here and pathway development and so we have got the land here to do it, we have got a license agreement that provides the mechanics to make that happen and we have got a develop group here that is talking about trust funding as this area develops having funding to get that to happen. Okay the last page. We talked about the regional park thinking about nine years ago. At one point the owner of this ground contemplated R-4 development and hired an engineer, Collins Engineering, they came to the city and they were discouraged from R-4 development in this area, again, because of the Waste Treatment Plant. We initially thought about an employment center and the city discouraged us again because of the Waste Treatment Plant. So that led us into thinking and seeking out ways to accommodate public services. These are essential services, they are totally compatible and authorized and allowed and committed in a light industrial zone. The city has right now in your ordinances sufficient development review authority to review any of these projects as they come forward in the Building Permit process. We don't believe that the Conditional Use Permit process is necessary. If you agree to zone this land light industrial, all of the things we have talked about here are permitted uses and you have development review authority through the Zoning Certificate process and development review, plan review, to look at things like fencing and landscaping and height and colors and orienting bay doors and that type of thing. So we hope you won't look at this as a way to have Conditional Use Permits. These are the types of public services that are in our neighborhoods, in front of our homes Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 24 every day. Every day there is a school bus, there is a sanitation truck, or a recycling truck in our neighborhood and the people think, well, I don't want that in my neighborhood -- they are there and we would be very upset if they weren't there. You know, two weeks without services and -- it disrupts things. So -- and public agencies have to plan for the future knowing that they can move a budget forward without uncertain things like Conditional Use or speculative type things. It's different in the business sector, but in the public sector we expect to set a budget and stick to it. Our Preliminary Plat complies with all of your policies, but let's go to the bottom, the bottom check-off note that I have on that last sheet. We are asking that you would modify several things in the staff report. Modify Annexation condition Number 4. Let me turn to that. It's on Page 5, Item Number 4, and we would ask you to remove the second sentence. We agree that a Development Agreement is appropriate and that would give you the assurance that the Meridian School District is, in fact, going to develop at this site. The assurance that Sanitary Services is going to development on that parcel next to the Treatment Plant. And we are very open to that. But then the second sentence says everything has to be done through conditional Use. And because these are essential public services and community services, we just don't feel that's appropriate. We have enough authority to control that development as it comes forward in the Building Permit process alone. Okay. The other thing we could ask you to modify is specific Condition Number 3 and that's at the bottom of Page 6. And we would ask you to remove the last sentence. We do want to work with the Parks Department, but because we don't own the land that Mr. Kuntz assumed we did and because it's already in public ownership, let's not say that we have to come back with ten copies of our revised site plan showing everything. I think he was assuming that this was easement land and it's actually fee simple for the public. So if you could remove the last sentence on specific Condition Number 3. And then the last clarification would be Condition Number 4. In the middle of that condition it says that we have to provide a solid site- obscuring fence and we'd like that clarified, because it may be appropriate for sight- obscuring fences in certain locations and we would want it, as well as Mr. Crane. In fact, we talked about that extensively and we agreed in concept to that. The materials and the height, let's work that out. But there are other places, like in the back of Sanitary Services right next to the Waste Treatment Plant maybe chain link is okay. So that would give some flexibility to say where we are going to put that. Now out along Ten Mile and Ustick there is extensive landscaping. In fact, your ordinance requires a 25-foot landscape strip along these arterials. If you notice, we have provided 35 feet. I don't know if you have not/ced that or not -- because we want this to look good. We want this to feel good. This is community public utility. We want people to say, boy, that's a nice utility park. That's where I take my pickup truck full of yard waste. That's where my kids get the school bus. That's where I recycle. That's the Idaho Power substation. And be proud as part of the community. Be happy to answer any questions and perhaps the other folks that are here tonight, if yOu have got some further questions, could help as well. Borup: Commissioners? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 25 Nary: Mr. Chairman. I guess I have a concern and I think it's more of a question to the staff, but since you're probably going to also, you can stay here. But I'm looking at the 1993 map and it appears to me -- and I hate this term, but it appears to me that the Urban Service Planning Area as is shown on the '93 map does not encompass this entire property is that correct? It's outside -- part of this project is outside the Urban Service Planning Area. Because it looks like it comes right around the park and this area is where the park would be, is it not? Or am I looking at the wrong corner? Siddoway: I think you're looking at a pathway line. The Urban Service Planning Area line is contiguous with the impact area in the north area. Nary: So it -- so it isn't -- it isn't the -- this is the line that just details right around the park, sort of an L shape, which is the same line that's on the current proposed map that shows the Urban Service Planning Area in the same location? So the '93 map and the current proposed map are different? It's just really small. I can't see it very good. $iddoway: It is different. Nary: Okay. Siddoway: The Urban Service Planning Area is the impact area in the -- Nary: In the '93? Siddoway: -- in the '93 plan. There is kind of an X'ed -- a line that's made up of X's in that area and it's a pathway line that follows the creeks. Forrey: Actually, it's a sewer boundary. Siddoway: Oh. There is also a sewer mainline. Maybe that's what you're looking at. Nary: Yes. Like I said, it's so small and then the symbols are very similar, it looks like - - like I said, I looked at the current proposal and it's on the same line, so -- $iddoway: It may be the sewer trunk that you're looking at. Nary: Well, the reason I ask is because the Meridian City Code says if it's outside the Urban Service Planning Area they have to have a Comp Plan Amendment. So what you're saying is it is within inside the Urban Service Planning Area of the '93 map. Siddoway: It is. Nary: Okay. So what was the section you were saying that there was some language both ways on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, besides this one here on 11-16-37 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 26 $iddoway: The policy that would support it would be -- include 3.5. Industrial development should be encouraged to locate adjacent to existing industrial uses. 3.6, industrial area should be located within proximity to major utility, transportation, and service facilities. 3.10, industrial uses should be located where adequate water supply and water pressure are available. Fire protection needs those. The main one that's -- that it has a conflict with would be 3.4, which says industrial uses adjacent to residential areas should not create noise, odor, air pollution and visual pollution greater than levels normally associated with surrounding residential structures. Nary: So it wasn't an ordinance you were referring to, it was just the Comp Plan policy that are listed, you weren't talking about an ordinance that required a Comp Plan Amendment? Siddoway: That's correct. Nary: Okay. I have no other questions. Borup: Any other Commissioners at this time? Okay. Forrey: Are there any other of the team members that want to supplement? Okay. Borup: If some of them want to come up now or they can wait until the end. Okay. Thank you very much. Forrey: And if I didn't say it, why I think -- I'm really hoping that you will help these community services and approve this project and provide annexation and zoning and a plat and help us keep working together. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward to testify in this application? If so, come forward. Crane: My name is Charles Crane, I'm the landowner -- this is my house here, 3610 West Ustick Road, Meridian. I am aware of the dilemma that we have with the property, because we have the R-4 zoning with subdivisions and then we have the Sewer Treatment Plant and we have that land in between that some -- we don't want to restrict them from being able to use the land, but I'm opposed to the industrial zoning, because I think that's too drastic. I feel bringing the industrial Sewer Plant right up to the residential and there is no buffer at all when they do that. In these pictures this is my house and my living reom window -- in this picture this window and this window are my living reom windows and they face directly out where the school buses would be. They are big four-by-five foot picture windows, so when I sit there and I'm sitting on my couch this is what I will be looking at would be an industrial zone. So there would be a pretty large impact in my life and I think the neighborhood -- like this is my backyard looking out towards the land where the school buses would be. So that would be the shop and the school bus parking would be out there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 27 Borup: So that bottom part was facing east? Crene: Yes. Borup: That's the view out your living reom window? Crene: Right. And this -- the property that is proposed to be annexed right here. And I went through the rezoning process myself before this board a couple years ago. I have a two-acre piece there and I got it rezoned so I could split it -- do a one-time split into two one-acre pieces. And at that time the Commission's feeling and also the City Council is they wanted to limit the development in that area, because it was land -- I had originally applied for an R-4 zoning and they said that I could have an R-2 zoning, because they wanted to do a gradual buffer between the Sewer Plant and the subdivision. So my feeling is that they could find a better use for the land. I don't want to restrict them from developing it, but maybe more of a gredual change in zoning, maybe start out as R-2 near the road and do some gredual zoning changes up to the sewer plant with mixed uses. Another thing is that for the last 8 yeare the entire neighborhood has been following the Comp Plan with the subdivisions, it's all been developed as residential. Most people have tried to comply with the directions from the Comprehensive Plan at that time. Many of the neighbors I have spoken to expected some kind of park-like area to be developed over in there. And there is a new grade school also in this subdivision. So my feeling is our neighborhood is a residential neighborhood with grede school kids and families and it just doesn't seem to fit to have an industrial park put in the middle of it. And also one other concern was the plans that were submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department seem to have minimal landscaping and buffer areas. On the original Landscaping Plan there was no buffer at all on my border. They were just going to put the parking spaces right up to my buffer, or to my border. And we have had some discussions about moving the borders back, but nothing's been committed, no amendments to the plan, so at this point it's all just been conversation about what might be done. So I'm a little leery that this would start with the minimal borders of the residential area, that if it does get approved that kind of changes could be done, especially if they don't have to go through any kind Public Hearing like a Conditional Use Permit, if they don't have to go through that procedure, what voice would the neighborhood have on what is developed. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mr. Crane, could you put out which one is your home with your pointer?. Crene: My property is this little triangle right here and the existing house is right about there and I was preparing to build a new house on this lot right next to the Nine Mile Drein, so I was going to have a new house one of these days. It was going to be my dream house. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 28 Norton: Thank you. Borup: And that was the property that you had split was in the triangle piece? Crane: Correct. Borup: Okay. The applicant stated that Five Main Drain he thought was about 50 feet, in that area, I think? Is that your understanding also? Crane: From my understanding the original 110 foot easement here, it was -- Nine Mile Drain was put out of the easement when they built it, they didn't put the actual physical ditch in the easement, they just decided, well, we'll just go straight. So they went through here. So they put the ditch where there was no easement and they have been trying to straighten it out for a few years with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation and the Federal Government and get the borders around. So what they have done -- the physical ditch is right next to my property about 10 feet to the center of the ditch, but there is no easement on my side, but they have -- they have made arrangements to swap this 110 foot easement for a 50 foot easement from the center of the ditch toward their property. So the total is about 60 feet here. So they were originally proposing to put parking spaces and the shop right up to the border of this 60-foot to my property. So if this was approved, then, I hope you guys would make them give me some more distance. The thought of us having to 230 diesel engines start uP at 2:30 in the morning every day worries me a little bit. Borup: 2:30? Crane: He said the automatic start-up machines -- Borup: No. He said the block heaters would come on. Crane: The block heaters? Borup: Yes. So they just turn them on when they come and not have to warm them up. Crane: At about 4:30 or 5:00 then. Anyway, those were some of my concerns and I have talked to a few of the neighbors and a number of them weren't really aware of what was being proposed over here and I think I noticed a few of them in the audience, they might have a couple of comments as well. Borup: Have you seen -- Mr. Crane, have you seen the new -- have you seen the proposed layout? Crane: I have seen one -- Borup: Where it shows the buildings and the landscaping and -- Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 29 Crane: Yes and the school buses and the shop. Borup: And that was the one that you were referring to that you had some concern on the parking along -- Crane: Correct. Borup: -- that area? Crane: I don't think we have a diagram of it, but -- Borup: No. I don't think we -- we had it in our packet. But you were saying you'd like to see something different along -- could you elaborate on that? Crane: Well, the basis of the industrial zoning in this area -- Borup: No. I meant -- you said a different buffering along the property line. Crane: Right to my property. Borup: Yes. Crane: In addition to the 60 feet of the ditch right of way, I would like to see probably 45 or 50 feet farther -- there was a public pathway. This request was based on the fact that the new Comprehensive Plan indicated an industrial zone in this area, but also it indicates a public pathway in that area and so I feel that if we make an exception to not use the current Comprehensive Plan and use the possible future one, we should also include the pathways in that future plan and shouldn't let them pick and choose which parts are beneficial for them. Borup: Any other comments other than just increasing the distance? I mean would you rather see the building perhaps along there? Crane: Mr. Forrey and I discussed about rotating the building so that the shop wouldn't be next to my house. Borup: Oh, so it would not be. Crane: So the office would be, but the shop would be away from my house, so that the air tools and the industrial noises wouldn't be -- Borup: Right now this is -- the one we have shows the office to the south. Crane: Okay. And then it would show the shop to the north. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 30 Borup: Okay. So you would not like the building running parallel to the ditch after the buffer then, you would rather-- Crane: I would like to have the office between me and the shop. Borup: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Crane? Okay. Thank you, sir. Maybe a -- Commissioners, I just have a couple of comments on the pathway. I don't think I have got it straight in my mind, but I would like to hear from Mr. Kuntz, on a little bit of -- Tom, could you come forward and maybe elaborate what the parks department visualized as far as pathways. Kuntz: President Borup, Commissioners. Our new parks -- Borup: Yes I'm sorry. We need to get your -- I'm sorry -- full name and -- Kuntz: Parks and Recreation Director. My office address or home address? Borup: Either one. Office. Kuntz: 11 West South in Meridian. Borup: Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Kuntz: Our Parks Comprehensive Plan, which we are hoping to be adopted as part of the city's overall Comprehensive Plan, new plan, calls for a major pathway along Five Mile Creek, as well as a major pathway along Nine Mile Creek. We would prefer that it be on the southern boundary of Five Mile Creek, that's on the opposite side of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and on the eastern boundary of the Nine Mile Drain, so that the two paths would actually intersect in the northwest corner of that property. We have also recommended that there be a 10 foot pedestrian pathway, then, that would cross Nine Mile Drain so that the path could continue up the south side of the Five Mile Creek. We were not aware that this was not owned by the developers, but now that it's been brought to light, that it is owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, it would be very similar to a path that was built this summer at Blackstone Subdivision, which is at the corner of Cherry Lane and Black Cat. And that is on Nampa Meridian Irrigation District property. It was built by the developer of Blackstone. It's a 10-foot wide hard surface and then we have a buffer zone of about 10 feet on either side. So we would still like to include that in our comments or recommendation. Borup: So is there adequate easement area or area to do that and what's your understanding is being proposed at this time? Kuntz: Well, if I understand --. If we are going to talk to the Five Mile Drain first or the Nine Mile? I'm sorry. What I understand is that it is 50 feet from the mid point to the back of the property line for the developer. I would want to make sure that we had at Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 31 least 30 feet from the top of bank to the back of property line and I have not actually gone out and physically looked at the site. Borup: Is that what you have got on the Five Mile Pathway? Kuntz: The Five Mile Pathway varies anywhere from 80 to 60 feet on that aroa. Borup: On that one did you have the 30 feet from the -- Kuntz: Yes. From -- well, in some points it's higher. I mean you let it go with the lay of the land a little bit. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Kuntz: Then Five Mile Creek, it sounds like if there is an 80-foot easement or ownership by Nampa Meridian to the middle of the creek that should be sufficient. We just want to make sure that our measurements aro being taken from top of bank. As far as the 30 feet buffer, we'd like to see the 10-foot path and then the 20 foot buffer area. The statement about us having a License Agreement with Nampa Meridian, we do have a Master Pathway Agreement with Nampa Meridian, but we would need to enter into a new License Agreement on each development that would affect that master plan and that this would be one of them. And we certainly would be willing to do that on behalf of the developers. Borup: Okay. And I wonder if there had been some discussion with the developer on this project on -- Kuntz: No. Borup: Not at this point? Kuntz: No, sir. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Kuntz? Centers: I have a question. Mr. Kuntz, what is the main purpose of that dedicated pathway? Is it for open space or is it for walking? Kuntz: It's for walking. Centers: Who is going to be utilizing that Five Mile Path? Kuntz: We are hoping that the community will. Centers: You know I haven't been out thero. Maybe Commissioner Norton could tell me. Would it be -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 32 Norton: It's really pretty. I mean there was no odor when we, odor when we toured it and you can't believe how --I mean that Sewer Plant was great. Centers: I haven't been out there. Norton: Oh, you should go out and check it out. There is a lot of trees, you know, it's pretty nice, except there isn't anybody living in the area that would want to go out there and -- I mean you can't take your dog unless you have your dog on a leash, I assume. You know, maybe those people in the housing district might want to take a little stroll. Kuntz: Commissioner Centers, I wonder if l could answer it also. I have actually hunted the property as early as last year and I was surprised, one, at the lack of odor from the Sewer Plant. To the west of Nine Mile Drain in that corner is actually a dairy farm and there is more odor created from that than there was from the Sewer Treatment Plant, but it's varied trees along the Five Mile Creek, it's a real attractive setting. Borup: And just -- Commissioner Centers, with the pathway the way they are proposing, I could visualize a person going up and looping around and coming back on the sidewalk that would be put in on Ten Mile -- Centers: With a loop? Borup: Yes because it won't be dead-ending. Centers: Right. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: The 30 feet that you talk about, I know in discussions that I've had in the past when I was on the parks and recreation with John Anderson needing the vehicle ability to maintain those ditches, is 30 feet plus our 10 foot pavement, is that ample room for him to get his trucks and everything down that ditch? Kuntz: Commission Shreeve, I think Nampa-Meridian actually prefers a little more space than that, but the space they prefer is from the edge of the path to the top of bank. What they would like to see as far as their equipment, trackhoes, spray rigs, they would like to see anywhere from -- I believe it's 15 to 18 feet, somewhere in that area. And I know that, because we met out at the Blackstone Path this summer and they indicated what they would like to see is that distance from top of bank to the edge of path. So the answer to your question, I guess we are suggesting a minimum of 30 feet. If we can get a little more than that, we can give us little more latitude to work with Nampa-Meridian to accommodate their needs and that type of thing. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 33 Shreeve: But, again, the minimum of 30 satisfies their minimum of 187 Kuntz: It does. It means that their trackhoes when they actually clean that, which is not often, that means their trackhoes are on the asphalt path, which can create some problems. Shreeve: Because now if we needed 40 feet, now would be the time, certainly, to get that. Kuntz: I understand. I was trying not to be greedy. Borup: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Kuntz? Thank you, Tom Kuntz: Thank you. Borup: Okay. I just wanted to clarify some questions Mr. Crane brought up and then let's proceed along with the other -- come up, sir. Come on up. Hroma: Hello. My name is Paul Hroma. My address 3136 North Burley Way. That's Meridian, 83642. Actually, on this plan I'm the one right underneath the read there, which is just -- basically backs right up to that proposed changing area there. You know, my concern is basically like everybody else stated early on is just the drastic leap. We were the second house in, you know, our particular area that was built and when we built our house we were under the understanding that there was going to be some sort of park going to be going in there eventually and at this time there, you know, a nice farmhouse over there with some horses and, actually, my son's -- my son's reom backs up to Ustick there and the reason we made that his reom was because he could look out at the horses and it was just, you know, a nice thing and, you know, now he's got this -- Borup: Could you clarify this -- did someone tell you that a park was going in? Hroma: Well, we had heard when we asked, you know, about the area and everything like that, they says, well, they are talking -- you know, our builder had mentioned that, you know, there was thoughts of some sort of park going in the area and -- Borup: I guess I missed hearing about that. I've been familiar with it for a lot of years and I was just curious. Hroma: So you know, so we lived there with the understanding that, you know, if -- you know, if nothing else we at least had more confidence in the understanding that it was residential agricultural, you know, and there is a big difference there between industrial and residential agricultural. And, you know, we have been talking about the buffer zone and how there is really nothing they can do with that area, you know, considering you have the Waste Management Plant there in the back and there is buffer zone there, so Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 34 they are saying, well, the park kind of idea got thrown out, because, well, you know, we don't want to have a park that close because of the odor. I have heard from two people since I have been here tonight, from yourself and from the gentleman that was just up here, that, you know, it's a nice area and the odor is not that bad, there really is no odor, you know, when you're out there and I mean I live there and I will give you that, yes, sometimes at night, especially late at night, you know, sometime you do get that odor, it comes through about, you know, about 9:00 -- 9:00, 8:00 at night and we'll get that odor floating through, you know, for about an hour or so, but, other than that, we never notice it. I mean it's not something that's there constantly on a constant basis that would interrupt if they were to put a business park of offices there or something like that, you know, if that were the case. You know, something like that, I don't see why that would be a problem, because during the day I have never had a problem with any kind of odor over there. So the -- you know, things -- the lack of -- you know, there really is a lack of odor there, it just kind of makes our case that -- you know, that -- that does take away the argument of we can't do anything else with that property, because there are other things we can do with that property. You know, and then -- you know, the comments that are made about -- about that in the respect of, boy, you know, we are kind of in a dilemma, because the -- because the Waste Management Plant is there, there is not much we can do, that it's almost like, you know, we are taking the attitude of, okay, well, that Waste Management Plant is there, so since these people already have that nuisance there, why not just bring it a little bit closer, you know. I mean that's what I'm getting out of it. And that is frustrating to me, because it's like, you know, we don't want it any closer and we don't want trucks and we don't want -- you know, Mr. Crane brought up a very valid point about, you know -- he may have been off on his time, but, you know, buses starting up early in the morning, you know, a bunch of diesel engines starting up early in the morning, that's frustrating to anybody and, you know, I get up early as it is and if they are getting up earlier than I am and they are starting those buses earlier than I am, I'm going to be a little frustrated. And, you know, the other gentleman that initially brought up the nice proposal with the booklet and all that stuff -- I don't have a booklet, but, you know, the fact of, you know, looking -- these things are in our neighborhoods already and people are glad to have these things in the neighborhood, well, the particular locations that I'm aware of that do this already, those recycling places, the school bus, they are not necessarily in residential areas where they are backing up to homes and houses, they are in industrial areas and commercial areas. The ones that I'm aware of, anyway. I could be totally wrong there in some respects. And, you know, the walkways -- you know, the walkways, great, it's like, okay, but I mean, yes, you're saying that's a really nice area out there. Well, is it going to be a really nice area to walk -- you know, walk by a recycling plant, walk by a -- you know, buses and garbage trucks and, you know, that's -- you know, a walkway doesn't really serve its purpose at that point. It's just walking by an industrial area. You can do that downtown Boise or downtown Meridian, which, you know -- so that is basically the point I wanted to make is that I -- you know, I just -- I'm pretty much just strongly against it. I -- you know, in my mind right now there is just nothing that would be accomplished that would -- that would make it worthwhile to me but you know, that's my opinion. I just wanted to make sure that I did come here and at least state that. And, you know, in the letter we did get of the notice of hearing originally the one what we got in the mail -- you Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 35 know, and Mr. Crane was nice enough to take the time to come through the neighborhood and let us know what was going on, because I did get the letter, but when I saw it, you know, it was just like -- you know, because we had a couple of these other letters that Idaho -- the Idaho Power thing and storage units that went in there and it's like, you know, you just -- you try to get through these things and then you bm ught this up and when I read this it said Ten Mile Ustick Business Park vicinity -- vicinity map. So my initial reaction was business park, so it wasn't like a shock like, oh, my gosh, what's going in there. You know, it was just like, okay, they may be putting offices in there or something like that and that would be -- you know, that's not something that would just -- that's not something that would cause me great alarm, you know, like, okay, offices are going in there and that's just -- you know, that's something I could live with at this point, you know. But then when he came over and showed me the pictures and told me what they were planning, you know, I was just blown away, I'm like, well, gosh, that's not at all the impression that I got from the letter. And, yes, this is, you know, a really nice booklet. Shreeve: I have a question to ask you. Hroma: Yes. Shreeve: Hypothetically speaking, you know, we have got those seven lots on the side of the property, those five lots, I guess. If they shifted those and put that, obviously, along Ustick Road with some nice office buildings and then, of course, redid whatever they needed to do for the other services them, would that be a possibility? Hmma: The only thing I have with that, I mean like if it's just offices, that's one thing, but if it's offices accompanied by fumes, noise -- I mean more so than the waste management plant which we have now, which, you know, at night you get whiff of some stale air, you know, for an hour or so night, and that's it, you know, that's a big difference to having diesel engines in there constantly coming through them and then they am talking about a truck wash or -- a big truck wash, you know, is that going to be something that, you know, the people are going to be running 18 wheelers in there to wash their trucks or, you know, you're saying it could be an independent deal doing that, I mean there is a question for you. Centers: I have a question. I think you have definitely made your point. I guess I would agree with you that other uses could go in there. We would be in agreement on that. Would you agree with me that it wouldn't be residential use, though? Hmma: I would agree with you that -- yes, I mean that -- yes. Centers: That's just-- Hmma: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 36 Centers: Because who's going to develop that for residential? You're not going to want to move across the street into a house over there if it were developed, if you wanted to. Hroma: Well, you know, I don't necessarily agree with that either. I mean I think that it could be residential. I mean I think -- you know, like I said, I mean we live right, so, you know, it's a huge -- Centers: Yes. Maybe this portion could be right here. Hroma: The front half there or -- you know, I don't think that that would be -- probably they wouldn't have any more of a stench than we get from the Waste Management and, like I said, with it not being an ongoing thing, you know, an everyday, you know, occurrence, there are some days where we don't smell it at all, you know, ever. So I don't agree that it could not be used for residential, I think it could be used for residential. But, you know, like I said, that's why it didn't shock me too bad with the notice that it might be offices or something like that, because I'm like, you know, I can live with that, because it's quiet if it's offices and it looks nice and, you know, like I said, it was -- with this book -- I'm not trying to, you know, make any, you know, judgments or anything, but the booklet -- like, yes, everything looks nice and great, but as we know as time goes by, you know, things that look great when they are brand new don't look great 3 years, 4 years down the road and, you know. Bus stations are overcrowded now and buses are really crammed together. The dump trucks are really crammed together, because looking at it 5 years from now and that's not big enough for the buses. That's going to be crammed together and it's a never-ending cycle. But I think there are probably better locations, other than in this residential cluttered area here for this to happen. I just don't like the attitude if they have already got one nuisance there, let's bring it a little bit closer and make it a little bit bigger. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Hroma, before this evening did you know that that corner in the new proposed Comprehensive Plan was going to -- is designated as light industrial? Hroma: I did not know that. Well, I knew that when Mr. Crane brought it to my attention. Nary: But before this whole project came about -- Hroma: No. Nary: Because what's being looked at is 6 months from now, if nothing changes in the proposed plan 6 months or eight months or whatever it takes to get it done, that's exactly the use that's going to be done on this type of property. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 37 Hroma: Okay. Nary: And through all the hearings we have had not one person from any of those subdivisions came here to testify that that was not an appropriate use for that corner. Not a person. So I just wanted you to understand that that's -- I have some concerns about what the current plan says, but getting passed that, what the proposed plan says is this is exactly the kind of use that we were looking to put there. Hroma: Okay. Nary: And not a person has come in before this to say that that was not compatible. So that being said, I understand what you're saying with the corner, but you have --. I guess my concern would be is trying to fit more residences and a 2 lane road at Ustick, at least the current 2 lane road at Ten Mile, doesn't seem to be any better, because it would just create more traffic and more congestion and just adds more to the problem. Light industrial sort of takes away from some of the problems and changes it to some degree. Whether you agree, it seems like if you put the corner with more homes it's just going to end up being more crowded than it is now. Hroma: I don't you know, with the limited, you know, knowledge of all that's going on right now that I have right now, I'm just now getting into the thing, I'm kind of -- you know, when -- since Mr. Crane came over and talked to me, I -- you know, it just kind of re-sparked something and then, yes, you know, it may not be conducive to, you know, the residential area can go in there, but I'm not saying it's impossible for residential to go in there. And, you know, I like said, if a push came to shove and we had to do something with that that wasn't a residential or agricultural project, what this proposed or what I got from this thing being proposed being an office center or something like that or a business center, that, to me, you know, would be something that would be a little more presentable in a residential neighborhood, rather than the proposed just a whole lot of trucks, noise, and pollution. Borup: Just a matter of clarification. The letter that was sent out stated that it was proposed for light industrial. Hroma: Of course. Yes. Borup: It didn't say office buildings. Hroma: No, but the map that came with it -- Borup: Right. But there is a letter that accompanied the map. Hroma: Yes but that doesn't-- Borup: That's the one they threw away and didn't read. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 38 Hroma: No. I got that one here, too. Borup: Okay. Hroma: But this one, you know, when I just look at it and I look at that and I'm just thinking, you know, when it says Ten Mile - Ustick Business Park vicinity map -- Borup: Right. That's saying it will be a business - a light industrial type business there. Unidentified Speaker: The letter doesn't say light industrial. Borup: It says I-L. We do need to move on and give some other people a chance to testify. Nary: One other question I had for you. One of the testimony -- part of the testimony from the applicant here is that from approximately where your house is to the nearest -- I think the front section there was the bus area is that correct? The 700 feet or 500? Hroma: 500 was the, and I don't know that that's accurete or inaccurete. I haven't measured. Nary: I mean that's about a football field and a half. That's a long -- that seems like a pretty long way to me, 500 feet away. I mean did you measure that distance -- Hroma: I have not measured it. Nary: -- how close that would be to you? Hroma: I haven't, but I know that you can hear cars -- you know just normal cars driving around and I'm just thinking of the number of buses and trucks that are going to be in there starting engines and all that stuff, that's my concern, is not necessarily the -- you know, just exactly how many feet it is form my house, but what's going to be there. It's going to be loud. It's going to be noisy. It's going to be -- Nary: Well, I mean I can hear the speedway from my house and I don't live very far from where it is, but -- I can hear the speedway occasionally, but that doesn't mean that 500 feet is not incompatible I guess is what I'm -- you know, it's still a long way away from where you're at and I just didn't know if you had measured that out or -- Hroma: No. That was the first time I had heard that number was tonight, so -- Nary: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Thank you, sir. Who would like to come up next? Come on up. You need to state your name and address for the record. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 39 Madsen: Mark Madsen, I live on 3168 North Valam, which is in Englewood Creek Estates. I also face the property in question. If I walk over here I can show you. I'm right here on this corner. The only clarification I wanted to -- I'm getting there. The clarification I would like is where the buses would be entering in the proposed plan and then where is that in relationship to these homes is the only question I'd like to submit. Borup: The buses would be entering right up here on this street. Madsen: That wasn't my understanding Borup: Okay. Well- Centers: I see on here the -- Borup: Right. Okay. Yes. I'm sorry. There is one shown right there and here. Madsen: Yes. That was not mentioned in the initial presentation. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I believe there are two driveways along Ustick and there is the cul-de-sac road that comes in and there are also -- how many driveways off of Ten Mile? 3? 4? 3. Yes. There is a public road and two other driveways on Ten Mile Road. So there are two on Ustick. I believe they are right in, right out? Forrey: One is right in, right out. Siddoway: One is right in, right out, and one is full turn. Borup: Okay. The one was in this location the other would be access to this lot. Centers: Oh, yes yes. Borup: Okay. Is there anyone else that would -- come on up, ma'am. Wilder: My name is Janet Wilder and I live at 3340 North Ten Mile Road. And unlike any of the other neighbors I haven't heard from any of the developers. We live in the house just across from the -- looks like Number 5. Borup: Right there? Wilder: Yes. And I am kind of like the guy before. I'd like to know where the driveways are going to be there for their proposed development. Borup: There is right now --. Presently it's showing one access here in this location and one down here at this location. Wilder: And that will be for those lots or -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 40 Borup: Just for those lots. Right. And then this up here was a public road. Wilder: And where is the transfer station? Borup: For the Sanitary Services? Wilder: Yes. Borup: Here on this lot. They are showing their -- their office building would be along here, the transfer station is down over in this area. Wilder: I know they are saying that there will be less traffic with this, but I'm thinking with people coming out there for the recycling and their transfer and the school bus drivers and everything there is going to be quite an impact with traffic. We live so close to the corner there that we never notice the traffic. So -- Borup: I don't think anybody said there would be less traffic, but -- Wilder: I thought they said that's what the Highway Department said, it would be less of a traffic impact than a subdivision would. Borup: Oh. Okay. Which is still traffic impact. Wilder: And I don't know how you compare those, but I'm thinking there is -- Borup: They are compared on the number of trips per day and a residential use has a lot of back and forth, whereas I'm assuming they are saying here the employees come and park and then leave, not maybe as much back and forth, but that would be highway's -- the ACriD study. Wilder: Yes. We do get an odor from the Sewage Department. It kind of depends on what way the road -- or the wind is blowing and it is noisy at night. So I'm kind of like the rest of the neighbors there, I hate to compound a problem that's already there. So I guess -- I guess that's all I can say about it, but I'm not really in favor of more industrial there. I guess my vote can count, so thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Sedlacek: My name is Steve Sedlacek, I work at 722 W. Franklin. I'm the Business Manager for the Sanitary Service Company. I just wanted to make a few brief comments. I know it's getting late. First of all, I wanted to say that we want to be next to the Waste Treatment Plant. It's a great -- we feel it's a great use and compatible with what we want to do in a facility. 2 comments I wanted to make. One is about the transfer station. In your plot plan you show a transfer and then a future transfer station on our property. There will be no future or second transportation. That's completely Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 41 unnecessary. We are working with Lynn Brown on that. The size of the building that we have put on there, if we put it on there, is adequate to handle the needs for the community for many, many, many years. The transfer facility and the construction of that facility hinges on whether or not the county continues to operate the Ada County Landfill. If they close that landfill in 5 years or so, we will be shipping waste out of this town to the tune of currently about 40 million pounds a year somewhere and we have to have a transfer facility to do that. In an I-L it's an allowed use. And which I guess gets to my second point. Sanitary Services is a captive contractor of the city. 99 percent of our revenue comes from the City of Meridian. If the City Council or the Mayor suggests something to us, it gets done. You know, we are different than, I guess, any other business. You know, we have a long-term 16-year contract with that city and we are not in any way going to jeopardize that contract. That's our livelihood. So you have tremendous control over us. We work very closely with the city. We have a Solid Waste Advisory Committee. Mr. Borup's been on that Committee in the past. So I guess I would suggest to you that requiring a Conditional Use Permit on something that you essentially control seems a bit overdone to me. But that's your decision. And I guess in closing we hope that this goes through. We very much -- we very much need something that we own. Currently we rent land on Franklin, a number of parcels. We are at risk of losing those properties as the area is developed. Right now we are just across the street from an apartment complex and just a few hundred more feet to the west is a subdivision. We don't get any comments on the noise or anything like that, but we would just as soon be hundreds of feet away from everybody on the back part of this parcel next to the Wastewater Treatment Plant behind the substation as where we are now. Where we are now just isn't working at all. So thank you for the time and we hope this goes through. Thank you. Borup: Any questions? Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mr. Sedlacek, do your garbage trucks have an odor?. Sedlacek: At times. Norton: I mean like do you park them overnight with trash in them? Sedlacek: There is -- our policy is to take anything -- if we have a quarter load on, a partial load, a very small load, we can come to the yard and park it. Norton: Okay. Sedlacek: Now if it has more than that, we are supposed to -- we drive it to the landfill. Now you have to understand that getting to the landfill and back is an hour and 20 minutes. There is a tremendous cost for us to drive it out. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 42 Norton: I know where the landfill is. Sedlacek: Yes. Norton: And then you said there is going to be a fee. Do you know what the fee is going to be and is it going to the city or to you. If people want to take out their truck -- their pickup trucks and dump them? Sedlacek: Oh. Norton: It says there is a fee. Sedlacek: Certainly. When you go in and you weigh in. Norton: To your place. Sedlacek: Right. Norton: All right. Will it go to you or will it go to the city? Sedlacek: That's up for future discussion. There is no fee schedule set, there is no indication as to -- you know, certainly if we own the facility and we have a capital investment, we are going to be taking the majority of the money to pay for that capital investment. Norton: Okay. Sedlacek: Now would there be part of the fee go to the city? That's certainly possible. Norton: Okay. Sedlacek: I don't know. Norton: I have another question and that is if -- I guess it -- well, yes, it does. For the recycling program we have to pay for that now. Sedlacek: Part of the mandatory service from -- Norton: Right. We have to pay for that. Sedlacek: Right. Right. Norton: And then if another recycling center goes in where we can actually get paid to us for recycling, what do you think that's going to do to the city recycling program? Do you have any idea? Meridian 'Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 43 Sedlacek: It shouldn't do anything to it. Our program is extremely convenient. You simply set your recycling out -- Norton: I know. I do it. You don't have to explain all that we are just trying to get through this real fast. Sedlacek: Okay. Norton: Okay. Sedlacek: I don't think it will. I'm just trying to point out the fact that our program is very convenient and for some people to actually drive their recyclable to a recycling center, some people won't want to do it, some people will. Would it reduce somewhat our recycling load? Yes. Somewhat. Norton: Okay. Sedlacek: Now that doesn't change the fee structure with the city, though. Everyone would pay for it. Norton: I understand. Sedlacek: Yes. Norton: What time do your sanitation trucks tune up in the morning to get going? Sedlacek: They start picking up waste at 7:00, so they started about 6:30. Norton: How many trucks start at 6:30? Sedlacek: 9. Norton: 9? Sedlacek: Yes. 9. Now we have 2commercial trucks that start earlier and I think they start at about 5:30, so they start picking up around 6:00. Norton: And they are diesel? Sedlacek: Everything we have is diesel. Norton: Okay. Thank you. Sedlacek: So that would be 2 earlier a little bit. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 44 Norton: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I just want -- Mr. Sedlacek, you understand that part of the Conditional Use Permit, the rationale to have it isn't for our benefit like you stated, but for these people's benefit that sit behind you. Sedlacek: Absolutely. Norton: They have the opportunity to come and tell us what they feel about it. Sedlacek: Absolutely. Nary: Okay. I wanted to make sure we were clear on that. Thank you. Sedlacek: Okay. Borup: Thank you. I thought I saw another hand. Bingham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Wendell Bingham, representing Joint School District Number 2. To provide just a little bit of insight, to go back to some earlier discussions that Commissioner Nary had, ironically while you were advocating for no conditional use in approved zones to expedite development within the community, the same scenario applies to us. If it is zoned and an approved use within that zone, I question the need for a Conditional Use, because it, too, hampers our process. We are not looking at this to circumvent appropriate input from the neighborhood, but in many instances we do look at it to lessen the extraction capability the neighborhood that have upon us. So I appreciate your interesting dilemma and I do appreciate the value of conditional use, but I bring it up, because the same advantage for approved uses applied to school district and all the public sector entities. The second item quickly. I'm not totally familiar with the whole North Meridian Planning Area as you currently have it designed. I do attend all of those meetings. I'm not familiar with any discussions regarding light industrial zoning within the North Meridian Planning Area, in that 8 to 12 square mile area. So if this wouldn't be an appropriate location, I guess I would ask the simple question where might 5 disjoint activities like this occur in the North Meridian Planning Area? Because the buses are needed there and so is the Sanitary Services. So whether we deal with it in this one instance, we may deal with it on seven specific instances, and they will all be near residential properties and affect the plan of the whole North Meridian Planning Area. Again, I feel your pain, I guess, in that respect. Our choice -- the school district's choice for this area was not to locate near the sewer plant. Our choice was bus routes and efficiency trying to reduce the 3.2 million miles a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 45 year we drive delivering kids. As the growth in the area progresses from east to west the schools will get denser and if you'd like a number, the 8 square mile in the North Meridian Planning Area is 9 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, and 2 high schools within that 8 square miles. What that means is many of those students will walk. Based upon that our routes are moving west, they are moving south of the town, Ten Mile overpass gets us across the freeway and on and off the freeway. The Ten Mile connection is probably going to cross the river at Star -- or, excuse me, the Star-Eagle area. Ten Mile Road -- I can't remember what their current 2015 land use is, whether it's 5 to 7 lanes at the intersection of Ustick and Ten Mile, so traffic is coming whether this development occurs specially in this area. But we choose it because of route efficiency and the simple logic that we should probably try to associate with our own kind. Yes, our own kind is garbage trucks, recycling trucks, the need for commercial fueling and the need for commercial wash facilities. So we felt this would probably be the highest and best use for this land in this area. Lastly, the drawing that you have in the packet presented by Falcon Creek tonight for the school district site, we had a discussion as to whether or not we really needed to provide that to you tonight and show are intent for that layout on that site. That layout was developed simply so we could determine how many acres we need to carve out to accommodate our need. Having said that, those -- the 3 salient features of that layout probably will be adhered to by whatever design we come up with. First, the majority of the bus parking is north on the common property line with Sanitary Services. 2, the parking lot is on the south and the east side of site to accommodate access to any commercial activity that may occur on the property, such as a Maverick store or -- taking a guess at something. Lastly, our shop facility is on the southwest corner of our lot. Approximately 250 buses will be stored out there. We are currently buying buses a year. We have 186 buses. It's not hard to figure out we will fill this lot up in the very near future. We cannot handle any more than 250 buses at one site. They leave the site approximately 6:00 A.M. to 6:15. They leave in probably about a 20-minute cycle. There is probably about two- thirds of the buses will go north and out onto Ten Mile and traverse Ten Mile either north, south, or east of the intersection of Ustick and McMillan and head east towards Boise. The other percentage of the buses will come out to the south onto Ustick Road and some may go east again, some -- the majority of them will go to the west with the size of the district on into Canyon county. They are diesel buses, they will make some noise, but they are usually out of the lot 5 minutes after they are fired up. Prior to 6:00 a.m. they are going to have 250 cars coming up. Again, we need to remember what that intersection is going to look like in 5 or 10 years, whether we are there or not. The 250 cars at that intersection is probably a moot point, but while I appreciate that's hard to view now, that is what's probably coming. So I'd like you to know that we didn't choose this because we felt it would be easier, we chose this because it would be the most appropriate site for our routing, our transportation needs, and to meet the highest and best use of our dollars. With that, stand for any questions. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 46 Nary: I just had 2 things, Mr. Bingham. One of the things I heard the developer or the applicant say is not only did they not want to have conditional uses placed on this property initially as a requirement, but they didn't want a develop agreement either. And I guess my concern is -- Borup: Let me just correct that. They did not have a problem with the Development Agreement they didn't want the Development Agreement to state -- Nary: Require the Conditional Use Permit. Borup: Right. But they were okay with the development pretty much. Nary: And limitation of uses? Borup: He didn't clarify that. But maybe we could get some clarification. Nary: I guess it was my impression that they said they didn't want limitation of the use on there and that would be my concern is that being as close to residential as it is, the concern for this Commission and City Council is we want to make sure that the people there have some idea of what's going to be there, whether it's because they get a notice and come in every time someone wants to do something or we set it up at the outset saying here is the definition. But that was my understanding. Now am I incorrect? Bingham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner McNary, I believe your understanding is probably correct. My comment is, again, I go back to if the use is approved why a conditional use. I can stand here tonight without exception and say we can come forth with a school site no matter where, what nature of school site, and it's an approved use and we will be required to a conditional use. In most instances it would be much easier, in my mind, for the Planning and Zoning Commission to simply say every use is a conditional use. If it is a concern about either the appropriateness of public comment -- and I understand that appropriateness versus the ability of staff to render a staff level recommendation and decision and the community at large, the development community and the staff to know that there is a chance of that moving forward, we are going to have to find a way to reconcile conditional use versus approved use, because right now I can look at everything and say it's an approved use, but in the back of my mind I know it's a conditional use and I won't get that determination until such and such and it presents a real planning -- Nary: And, again, my concern is simply, like I said, it's one or the other. When you're that close to a residential community like this is, that you're either going to have to agree up front that certain uses are going to be eliminated that are going to be there, because this is just an annexation and zoning and a plat, which although we can all talk about a conflict of what it's probably going to be, realistically 6 months from now it may not be. And that's what I think the neighbors have a concern with and a legitimate concern to know what that is. So I guess that would be my only concern. My second Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 47 thing, which you referred to me as McNary and it's just Nary and for the next 2 and a half weeks that really matters to me. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I just had a question regarding -- do you put snow tires on all those buses? Bingham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Norton, I don't know. I don't believe so. I don't recall seeing a warehouse with 2,000 tires. No, I don't believe so. Norton: Okay. And then you're making a repair barn. How many buses do you think you want to put in there? Bingham: 12. Norton: And how many mechanics does the school district -- Bingham: 4 to 6. Norton: Can they handle 12 buses in a bus barn? Maintenance. Bingham: Yes. The procedure is the drivers a lot of times are responsible for cleaning the buses. Many of the buses are in there and are simply stored there while the axles are pulled out and the brakes are replaced, so any given mechanic would be working on 2 or 3 pieces of equipment. Having said all of that, whether I think -- you know, whether there is 6 or 12 mechanics in there, the salient fact of the matter is there is 250 buses and 250 cars and I think that's really the germane thing. I mean we want to be very forthright with that statement that that's it. We do not rebuild our own engines. Is it, by and large, an oil change facility and a vacuum shop. Norton: And tire maintenance? Bingham: Yes. Norton: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else? Simunich: I'm Joe Simunich and I live at 955 W. Ustick Road, which is about a mile and a half east of this proposed site, which looks to me like it takes about 40 acres. This site is proposing for school buses, garbage trucks, and a recycler. These are all heavy trucks. There will be semis coming in there hauling waste out from a recycling plant and 250 buses in and out twice a day, that's 500, the employees that drive them that's another 500, some of the buses will come back in the middle of the day, we'll have Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 48 several garbage trucks, so you're putting a lot of traffic on Ustick and Ten Mile Road. Most of that traffic will all go probably south on Ten Mile and east on Ustick. There is nothing confirmed to develop Ustick Road yet. I was talking to the highway department. It's a 2 lane road, it's very narrow, at the Uptmor Subdivision there isn't even room for 4 lanes, because the subdivision is too close to Five Mile Creek for about a half a mile. And the berm and the sidewalk are right up adjacent to the road. So I have lived there for 30 years and I don't think we need this kind of a facility out in a nice residential area. You have got the Bridgetower Subdivision, you have got one on Wilder's place and you have got several across the street. Just because the Sewer Plant is there, I don't think you need to move all this other stuff in there just because the Sewer Plant's there. It can be a nice residential neighborhood and I don't believe we need a 1,000 trips or 1,500 trips with heavy vehicles down Ten Mile and Ustick. These school buses and this other stuff should be in a heavy industrial area maybe down near the railroad track, not out in a residential area. If people want to build this residential area one of the nicest in the area, that north section and all of a sudden we're coming up with garbage trucks, school buses, and recycling plants, and if you go near any one of these facilities you will see what they -- how they operate and you might want to change your mind, if you're in favor of it. Garbage trucks have an odor. Cranking up this many trucks in the morning you will have a rumbling noise you will hear for a mile. So I think the Commission should take a good look at that. Thank you. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Simunich? It sounds like you're saying you -- you would not be -- you do not think that any industrial development north of Ustick would be appropriate then? Simunich: At least not of this kind with these heavy diesel trucks and maybe 1,500 trips or more from this one 40 acre site. Ustick is only a 2-lane road. Borup: Well, I mean that whole 8 square mile area. Simunich: Well, I think there could be some type of light industrial there, but I don't know that it needs to be this condensed in one area. Borup: You got to spread it out? Simunich: Well -- and I don't know that anybody would want to live next to garbage trucks or 250 school buses running in the morning. I'm surprised this room isn't full from all those people in those nice subdivisions south of this place. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else? Do you have something new, ma'am? Okay. Please state your name again. Wilder: Janet Wilder. 3340 North Ten Mile Road. And there was a couple of-- or one thing I wanted to say that I forgot about. They said that they had some of the neighbors that were approving this. They listed Leonard Husky, but he hasn't lived there for several years. He doesn't live on that property. And Larry Peterson has moved from Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 49 his property that is on the property they are wanting to develop. So I don't know if it makes any difference or not, but they are saying there are people for it, they don't live there. Norton: Mrs. Wilder? Wilder: Yes. Norton: We have a letter that's a very nicely typewritten letter with Leonard Husky's name. Did they go -- is he in a nursing home or where is he? Wilder: Well, he's here tonight. Norton: Oh, he is? Wilder: But he does not live on that property. His house burned down several years go and he-- Norton: Where did that come -- 3639 Ten Mile Road. Wilder: He doesn't live there. Norton: Okay. Thanks. Wilder: He lives with his sister. I don't know his address, but it's in Boise. Norton: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Did the applicant have some final remarks to make? Forrey: Yes. Thank you for the chance to provide some rebuttal comments. And I'll go through each of the folks that testified. To Mr. Crane, when you take the school site plan, which is a beginning with the architects and school district, from his home it's 300 feet away to where the buses would start parking and then it goes farther away, because it's going north towards Sanitary Services and the Waste Treatment Plant. And I do think we can orient that shop to move it. We sat down in his living room and, he's right, he's got two nice windows right there that look that direction to the east and we talked about moving that and explained that with the school district and they are open to that. They recognize -- and when we first submitted the application Mr. Brown was still working on the site plan and things are coming together now and I think we can work very well with fencing and a screen and orienting that site to work with Mr. Crane and his family. We do - Borup: You're talking about what? Moving the building you're saying? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 50 Forrey: Well, the shop. I think it could be reoriented there so maybe those bay doors -- so that he wouldn't be looking -- he would be looking at the office, rather than the shop. There is some architectural ways to deal with that. Borup: Well, the other related factor on his is if you have enough buffering you don't even have to look at the shop. Forrey: Right. I remember in his testimony or his comments he said he wanted the office between himself and the shop and I think that can be accommodated. Borup: Well, I think -- well, maybe I shouldn't put words in his mouth. I guess I was assuming he was thinking that the site view is going to stay as it is now without a lot of screening. Forrey: Well, we intend to provide that screening. Borup: Pardon? Forrey: Have additional screening. Certainly we will do that. Okay. And then the school district did talk about when the buses start, about 5:30, 6:00. Mr. Kuntz. Yes, I do believe there is 30 feet from the top of bank, because that is really steep, on the cut bank on that Eight -- Nine Mile Drain. So I do think there is 30 feet there. Borup: Can you clarify on that? In your presentation you made some comments on the pathway. Forrey: Yes but there is at least 50 feet. Borup: Well, but you had some talk about trust funding and things like that. But I don't know if my mind is made clear if this development was going to participate in that pathway on the development of it or anything at all or -- could you elaborate on that? Forrey: Yes the condition that I referred to -- let me turn to that. Centers: Well, you specifically asked that it be removed. Number 3. Forrey: Well, what I asked to be removed was the last sentence. Centers: Right. Forrey: But the first sentence says work with the Parks Department to determine location, landscaping, other improvements associated with multiple pathways along both Five Mile and Nine Mile Creek. And also in the staff report -- Centers: Wait. Wait. That didn't say anything. If you're agreeing to that, what does that say? Work with the parks department? Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 51 Borup: That's what I was asking for clarification on, because what he's saying is the pathway is out -- is off site, it's outside their property. Forrey: There are already adequate public lands to accommodate that path. Borup: Right. Forrey: But also in the staff report it asks for a pedestrian crossing. That's also a recommendation. And that could be a trust fund item. And there could also be perhaps in trust fund financing for this future development of that path. Right now we may not have a need, but 5 years from now we may have a need to develop that pathway and this project may have contributed some amount of financing that's held in trust specifically for that development of pathway. That's very common. Borup: So that's what you are proposing to do? Forrey: Yes. Borup: Is a trust fund for development of the pathway? Forrey: Yes. And that's where we could work that out with the Park's Department. Mr. Kuntz. Centers: Or do you want to do it prior to the development? Forrey: Well, I don't know if it's needed right now. I'll speculate, Commissioner Centers, in terms of the usage, if it would sit there unused. In other words, through Englewood Creek Estates there is no connection. In fact, that is all fenced off. There has to be a comprehensive approach area to open that corridor up and then use those funds, you know, to get that path in there that maximum -- in other words, it needs to go to somewhere to make those connections. But the way to do that I think is through trust funding. Developers do that day in and day out with ACHD. To Mr. Hroma's comments, we did identify uses to the city in our cover letter. We were very up front with that, because I have been in their Commission Meetings several times when developers have come forward with a plat and you ask them what's intended and they say, well, we are working on this and that and I sense frustration that you want to see what the users are and the school district is correct, there is a risk when you submit a site plan and have everyone pick it apart. You know, we are still working on that. But, yet, we knew that you wanted to see something. So we came forward with users and business people that are here tonight to make the commitment to locate, on lot 3 Western Recycling, the school district is on lot 2 , Sanitary Services on lot 1. Truck wash probably on lot 4 or 5. That is undefined, but that's a potential use, depending upon if we get the school and trucks and the recycling, then we have got something we need to wash, so then we will need a truck wash. Also to Mr. Hroma's comments, you know, we have to look at the community in terms of community development and we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 52 need a mix, we can't have sterile sections of ground where just one type of housing can go with just one type of use. Neighborhoods are a mixed use, so while everyone would want to have exactly their kind of house next door, in a real community and setting it doesn't work that way. We do live next to public services. We have to accommodate essential public services. To Mr. Madsen's comments, I think Mr. Bingham from the school district did discuss the routing of the bus traffic. Our treffic study was extensive, it was approved by ACriD, and we are not adding that much to the existing traffic system. The traffic is really coming from Bridgetower and another project called Keltic Heights that is really contributing quite a bit of traffic in the residential development. To Mrs. Wilder's comment. The access near her home would be right across the street and it would be on the north side of Mr. Larry Peterson's current driveway. Possibly. That's undefined. We don't know if it would be on that lot or not, but the access would be on the north side of this front driveway. Borup: And you said that there would also be access from the school bus lot to the truck wash? Forrey: Absolutely. Borup: So all the school trucks would come in from -- Forrey: From the back. Yes. And with ACHD we negotiated an internal cross-access easement. So we wouldn't have buses coming out onto the arterials to get into the truck wash. That would be kind of an internal business-to-business movement. Borup: Okay. Forrey: To address Mr. Simunich's comments about traffic. Again, I'd just restate that we went through an exhaustive treffic study. ACHD likes the way this was laid out and approved the project unanimously. This north area of Meridian is going to grow, that's where the sewer is, that's where the investment is being made by the city, that's where the planning is taking place, that's where people will live and that's where we need to have those services. Then the last thing Mrs. Wilder I just noted -- I guess she stated Mr. Husky is here. The question was asked where is he. Nary: The question was where does he live. Forrey: Oh. Okay. Nary: Does he live there. That's his address. He said I live across the street from this project. Forrey: He said he owned it. Nary: Well, he said I'm a neighbor. I guess it sounds to me like he's saying I live across from this, therefore, it seems okay to me. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 53 Forrey: Okay. I'm not familiar with that. Nary: Okay. You don't know if he lives there. Forrey: Well, I understand he lives with his sister in Boise. But I know he did live there for many years, it was a family farm. Several generations. And then, Mr. Chairman, we have got Commissioner Nary's comment. Yes, a Development Agreement. Most certainly and my comments, we didn't negate that, we don't want to negate that, and that's where we could make that commitment about what occurs on lot 1, lot 2, lot 3, et cetera. If you have got some reservations on 4, 5, 6, 7, then that's where we look at some alternatives perhaps. That's why we are not coming forward with specific reasons. I can't tell you if the truck wash will be on lot 5 or 6 or 7. If we get 1, 2, and 3, then we are going to need a truck wash. That came out of this team effort that we have been talking about here. So, you know, that's I think what we should be talking about in the Development Agreement. I hope we get to that point. Be happy to answer any other questions. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Just so I'm clear, you don't have a problem in the Development Agreement limiting the uses and having at least on some of those that you haven't identified, those might be a Conditional Use Permit. I mean limiting them in the Development Agreement -- if we look for a table of uses for an industrial zone, there is uses that probably are very conceming to people that probably aren't going to happen, but that probably would be a problem limiting the Development Agreement, truck stops are allowed and -- Forrey: Right. Nary: -- a vadety of things, light manufacturing, firearm manufacturing, there is a lot of things you can do in an industrial zone, but you probably wouldn't necessarily be limited, though. Forrey: I think that's fair. Nary: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? Mr. Forrey, a couple questions I had was, again, on -- well, not again, but on the buffering. As you stated, you have a -- a very generous landscaping easement along both arterials. Forrey: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 54 Borup: Have you heard any discussion on a substantial berm or fencing along that area also? Forrey: Internally among our team members we have talked about making this a very attractive feel to the business park. Borup: Your proposed landscaping shows fairly extensive, but a lot of the testimony has been concerned on the things on the site and -- sight and noise. Forrey: Right. Borup: That's why I wonder if there has been discussion at all on a fairly substantial berm that could lessen -- Forrey: But we did not ask yet Hubble Engineering to make any design or cost estimates on that. We discussed it internally as we would probably want to do that. Borup: Is that something that would be feasible for you to look at and to what extent -- I guess I'm thinking something major. I don't know. You know, something along the line like Bristol Heights Subdivision there on Eagle Road has -- Forrey: Of course, you know, that type of berm is there to aid in marketing of a residential unit and we want to screen esthetics and -- Borup: Well, I was thinking more of the height. Forrey: Right. Borup: And the size and type of-- Forrey: Function? Borup: Yes. Forrey: Certainly. Borup: Okay. The other -- the other thing I don't know -- and it looks like on your layout that you do not have a lot of room -- at least for the present layout to buffer Mr. Crane's property. Forrey: Well-- Borup: There has been other developers come forward and done some off-site buffering, you know, from some landscape trees and such on the property -- on the neighbor's property to help the site buffer and I don't know if that's something you discussed with him or not. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 55 Forrey: We didn't discuss that specifically, but he and I did discuss taking out the service vehicle parking and moving that north away from his property and then making a landscape buffer through there. We talked about that. Subsequent have the school district, they thought that was a good idea. We asked the architect to revise that parking lot to do that. Then I want to take that drawing back to Mr. Crane and make sure he's comfortable with it. Borup: The only reason I mention it, just -- several others that have mentioned that to accommodate their site better, to do buffering off site for the neighbor and accomplish the same thing for both parties, but -- Forrey: Okay. Borup: Maybe something --. Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Shreeve: Just one more question. You mentioned somebody on the east side of Ten Mile that was going to develop that business. Who was that again? Forrey: Hubble Homes. Shreeve: Hubble Homes. Yes. Forrey: Hartford Estates. Shreeve: And it's a residential R-47 Forrey: Yes. Borup: There are homes under construction there now. Shreeve: Is there? Okay. Borup: Okay. Any final comments? Forrey: Hope you can move this forward. Borup: Okay. Thankyou. Shreeve: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Commissioners. Which direction would we like to go? Nary: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess I can start it if that's all right. Borup: Please do. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 56 Nary: I'm looking at our Comprehensive Plan and I'm looking back on Page 75 and it says the policies of the Comprehensive Plan establish a frame work for the Zoning and Development Ordinances and the zoning map. It goes on to talk about existing land uses and about creating a pattern of development and creating compatible arrangement of land uses and all this. This has nothing to do with quality of the project. I really don't have any real bad feeling about the quality of the project that's being proposed. When I read down further on the second full paragraph it says it's the Planning and Zoning Commission's duty to review all new development proposals to make sure compatibility with the Zoning and Development Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. It doesn't take a very smart attorney to figure out if I don't like this project, the best way to go is to appeal to the District Court and delay this project further. That doesn't benefit anybody. It doesn't benefit the applicant, it doesn't benefit some people for a delay -- this is going to probably be a light industrial zone in the new Comprehensive Plan, unless something changes significantly. But it's not a light industrial zone in this Comprehensive Plan and that's what we are required to review. This tells me that we are supposed to look at what you're proposing in relation to the plan that's in existence today and see if it's compatible. Compatibility in my mind is if it was an 13,-4 zone and we are proposing an R-8 zone, we can decide of that's compatible enough to not have to amend the plan completely. Well, it's rural residential to industrial, those are not compatible zones in anybody's book. When I read further in here it says after we make that decision as to whether or not it's compatible, we make a recommendation to the City Council and they make a decision. Idaho State Law goes on to say -- requires that if it isn't, we have to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Our own ordinance in 11-15 says the same thing. You have to amend the Comprehensive Plan if it's not a compatible uses that you're looking at. That concerns me, because if we ignore it, the District Court will make us do it over, because we are required to do it in these types of circumstances, in my opinion. If you look at our ordinance and you look at the plan, it says if they are not compatible you have to change it. It could have been done before today. We could have asked -- you could have asked for that. ,And I understand the staff's concerns about that this is not clear direction to the staff on how deal with that, but there is clear direction to us. It is our duty to review it and make that decision on whether or not it's compatible or not and whether or not the plan has to be amended before we can do it. And if I read our ordinances properly, it says you can, under 11-15-7, you can appeal our decision to the City Council and let them make the decision, because when they get sued, they get sued, not me. They can deal with that. But I can't read our ordinance any other way, except that this -- this is -- there is no way that anybody would believe that this is a compatible use in the existing plan. Therefore, the plan has to be amended before we can approve this. If we don't do it right, we'll just do it over and we will be doing it next year instead and that will make it even longer before you can do something. If we look at the rest of our ordinances, it's not complicated, it's just a process. It's a note -- it's just a process. We have heard a lot of the reasons about the project, but it is a process that has to be followed before you can get to the zoning change and the annexation. You can't do it without the other. So we can talk about the project if we want to, but just so everybody knows, it's my view of reading this -- and this is pretty easy reading to me Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 57 -- to anybody, I think we have to do it that way. I don't think we can do it differently. If you don't do it right, the court will make us do it later and that doesn't help anybody, because it just pushes it down the read and makes it worse. Just a couple comments on the project. I don't live very far from there, but I certainly live a little further away than the people that have testified, but I don't live very far from there. I think it's not an incompatible use overall. I think it's a good idea. I think it's an okay idea to have there. There could be better things, but I think we can limit what's going to be there. Pushing the sanitation trucks up there next to the treatment plant was a great idea. That is a good place for them. That's perfect. Right now Ten Mile isn't -- there is probably fairly heavy traffic for Ten Mile, but it won't be for very long. Placing the school buses there, again, it's probably a heavy capacity for now, again, it won't be for very long. I mean I think this really is a pretty good project. By limiting the use of the Development Agreement, by creating Conditional Use Permit requirements for those other uses, so that we have some assurance to these neighbors that they are going to have some notice and know what's going to go there and have an opportunity to comment. I think all those things are reasonable. I think the last comment that Mr. Forrey made was exactly true, we need these uses and that's just the reality of living in a city. You're not going to have house after house after house. You got to have something else. You're going to have a store. You're going to a car wash. You're going to have uses like this. This is really a big parking lot. That's really what it is it's a big parking lot. It is for noisy vehicles, I would agree with that, but it is just really a big parking lot. Those are things that can work, buffering, landscaping, those things can all make this work and make it liveable for people. It's not ideal, it's not an open field, it's not an open view to the mountains, but it is compatible. The project itself doesn't concern me. But it does concern me to move forward without amending the Comprehensive Plan. I don't know how long that would take to push this aside and set it over for a period of time to make sure we get that done, because the law is pretty clear you have to do one. Then you do the other. Then you do the plat and that's how it works. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I think it's really bad timing. We are bound by the Comprehensive -- well, the Comprehensive Plan of 1993 is a guideline that we are supposed to follow. If this came in let's say a month when we have a new Comprehensive Plan or I guess even -- it has to go through City Council -- you know it would be easy to vote for this. But this is a guide that we are supposed to follow. According to the Idaho Statesman, we haven't done a real good job in following our own Comprehensive Plan in the past. I think it's bad timing to bring it up to us right now. Moore: Chairman Borup, I'm right here. Borup: Mr. Moore. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 58 Moore: While I agree with Commissioner Nary that it would be necessary to change the Comprehensive Plan, both the State Law and the court decisions made based on that law say that a Comprehensive Plan is just that, it's a plan, it's not written in stone, it can be changed. Our own statutes say that if this body determines that they want to change the use of the land it could be done at the same time as when you approved the annexation and you approve the change in what that land is to be used for. I don't see it as, I guess, as great a problem as what Commissioner Nary sees it as. I see it simply as a decision made by this body to do so if they feel it's appropriate. Borup: And maybe for Commissioner Nary's clarification, I took from what you were saying -- and maybe you didn't state it that way, but that would be more successful perhaps to a lawsuit being successful, rather than be automatic, that someone may have a little more grounds for a lawsuit, rather than the -- I mean the -- the court's not going to come in and do anything without somebody initiating it. Nary: No. Procedurally what would happen is that if someone petitions to review this to the District Court from the Council's actions, because we are making a recommendation to the Council and say, for example, they agree to annex this property and rezone it and approve the plat and all of that. If a person wants to, what they do is they ask the District Court to review that and see if we followed our process and the District Court makes that decision. I agree with Mr. Moore. Maybe I --. I didn't want to sound overly dramatic. It's a serious problem in a sense that if you don't do it properly, you don't know that until a district judge tells you that, which might be 6 months from now. What they will tell you to do is do it over and that pushes it out a year from now. I think process wise -- and, again, Mr. Siddoway can probably answer this better than I can -- I don't know how long it would take to simply put this in the right process order like it's supposed to be. I don't think it would take a very long time. I don't think it might take more than a month. But I don't know that. But my concern is when I read the guideline in the Comprehensive Plan that tells us we are supposed to make that determination and then I read in our Zoning Amendment and Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11- 15-4-B, it says if the adoption of the Zoning Amendment Application requires an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, we must follow our procedure and provide the adequate notice to do that. We are supposed to do it right. I saw the folks here from Cedar Springs for the same reason we have to follow our process. Borup: Well, I think what Mr. Moore is saying does it require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan? Is that what -- ? Moore: It does require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Borup: Okay. Moore: And if this body determines tonight they want to do that, it can be part of this proceeding is what I'm saying. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 59 Nary: But can it be part of this proceeding without prior public notice that that's what we are doing? Because that's what this ordinance says. We have to follow our ordinances and provide notice that we are amending the Comprehensive Plan, which would say -- you know, like I said, we can do that in a month. The same notice must be done, but it's providing adequate notice that we are amending the Comp Plan. You can come tell us if you want to or not, and then take action. Moore: Since the notification you already sent out explains thoroughly what you were going to do at this meeting, I don't see that another notice needs to be made simply to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Nary: But the ordinance requires it. 11-15-4-B says we are supposed to follow it. To amend the Comp Plan the notice is supposed to relate to that. The notice is supposed to say that's what we are doing. What I noticed that tonight was we are considering annexing the property and zoning it and we are considering providing -- approving a Preliminary Plat for what the piece of property will look like. No one was told that that's what we are doing. And, you know what, the same people that were here are probably the only ones that would care and I understand that. But that's the legal requirement and I think it's our responsibility to make sure we follow the legal requirement, even if it may seem cumbersome. That's the process that the ordinance requires to be done and that's all my concern is. It's not that it takes a long time, I just -- if we don't follow the process that's where we have to do it over. Moore: And my statement would be I understand your concern, I'm saying you have already given public notice and had a Public Hearing. To do this your statute says can be done at the same time that you do the other stuff. Your concern is that it wasn't noticed as such. Nary: My concern is that it was never noticed that we were amending the Comprehensive Plan and notice requirements -- Moore: And I would go back to my statement that a Comprehensive Plan isn't something written in stone, but anytime this body determines that it's appropriate to do so, it may change it. Nary: Where does it say that? It doesn't say anything -- Moore: It says that in -- Nary: You give notice to the public and they come and tell us and then we can change it? Moore: It says that in the State Statute and it says that in the court proceedings that were based on that state statute. Nary: As long as we follow our process to change it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18. 2001 Page 60 Moore: I understand what you're saying. Nary: All I'm saying is we didn't do that. We didn't follow our process. If you read through 11-15-3 we didn't follow any process to amend our plan. We just decided tonight we could do it. That means we are still subject to appeal and we have created an issue that we don't have to create, is my concern. Moore: Chairman Borup, I'll let this body make its decision. Borup: I think that's what's going to happen anyway. Forrey: Mr. Chairman, I have some critical information that -- Borup: Oh, I'm sorry, we didn't close the Public Hearing. Come on up. I thought we had closed the Public Hearing. Forrey: Just to exclamate and put an exclamation point on the comment, we did follow your process. When we looked at this about a year ago and -- 10 months ago, I came to City Hall, I met with city staff, and I said we are going to submit 3 applications, annexation-zoning, Preliminary Plat, and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Staff said, whoa, why are you going to do that? I said, well -- and I looked-- I helped write that Comprehensive Plan, Commissioner Nary, I know what it says. I said, well, I think that's the proper way to do it. Staff was nervous and then they called and said, no, we don't want to do it that way. It's going to complicate things. Then I contacted by City Hall and said the city will not accept your Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application. There is a moratorium on accepting those applications, because the city is taking its own Comprehensive Plan Amendment in the process and you will be tagged onto that. We were nervous and we said, well, when is the Comprehensive Plan going to get adopted and that's the risk we are talking. We are tagged, we were told, just make your application and it will all go through and you might not get through until the Comprehensive Plan is approved, but there is no need having duplicate Comprehensive Plan and an application in front of the city. So our application was prepared and not accepted by the city. Would you like me to resubmit it? We were told just to follow this process -- Borup: Well, no, I believe that. I mean that's -- and it was anticipated that that Comprehensive Plan would be adopted by now. Forrey: Well -- and even if we are tagged on, which we were told we would be, and if it's 3 or 4 months from now, that's what we have to assess as a team here in terms of getting these public services constructed. Steve and the school district will have to analyze the timing factor, if that's the only way it can happen~ Borup: Well -- and that's -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 61 Forrey: That's the process we have been following. Borup: All the Commissioners haven't spoken, but I have a question for you. Anticipating the way this is going, probably 2 choices, perhaps going to City Council with a negative recommendation, but the other option may be to continue it to a future date. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: I don't know if you have a preference there. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Yes. I was looking at the calendar, because I would like the applicant to get together with the Parks Department on the pathways anyway. You know, this is a situation where the parks department and yourself talked about it in advance correct? Forrey: Yes. Centers: Which I appreciate at the Parks Department. But you need to work something out there. They have their requirements and their wants and their needs, so that was my feeling on the application anyway. Let's advertise for a possible Comprehensive Plan Amendment and look at it December 6th. You can't go to November 15th. That's not 30 days. Borup: Well, I don't think we are going to be doing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment while we are this close on our current one. It's going to have to be in conjunction with -- Centers: Well, I'm with Commissioner Nary. I don't think the current one is going to be in place for in -- Borup: Well, the City Council -- well, no, I guess I don't either. The City Council hasn't been moving any faster than we have been moving. Nary: Mr. Chairman, I mean is it realistic to think that in 6 months we are going to have the new Comprehensive Plan - 6 months from now. We are not even done with it. We are not going to be done with it for at least a month. Then December -- nothing happens in December, so if they think that the City Council is going to pass the new Comprehensive Plan after Public Hearings, public comments, and they are gnashing around about it, before April? I doubt it. I mean I just -- I have a hard time seeing it, as slow -- this is the government, things always take a little bit longer, that's just the way it's supposed to work. Borup: I'd probably agree with that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 62 Nary: So it does say here that this Commission -- as Mr. Moore stated -- can recommend an ordinance change to amend the Comprehensive Plan. There is no -- there is no moratorium. Somebody sold you a bill of goods, because there is no legal moreatorium that I'm aware of that says they can't amend it. We can recommend amending it. We can put it back on our agenda to do that and we can direct them to do it and take notice and do it. We can do it. If you don't want us to do it -- and I don't know what everybody else thinks. If we want to do it, that's fine. But Mr. Crane doesn't have to spend a lot of money to get an attorney to say slow that project down a little bit, I don't want that there yet. Forrey: I understand. Nary: I guess we agreed at the outset that this -- it doesn't take a brain surgeon to read this and say that's what it seems like to me and you have to do that. It's just a process. I just want to make sure we follow the process. It sounds like you did, too. I'm sorry that someone told you that, because it doesn't match up with what's written here in the bOok. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mr. Forrey, if you wrote the last plan and - Borup: Well, 8 years ago, though. Norton: Since it looks like it's going to go to light industrial in the new plan and, you know, it sounds like a real good project, but there is one business that I really have some concerns about, which we haven't discussed yet tonight. I'd feel a lot more comfortable voting for this if there was a CUP so we knew, as the neighbors knew what was going there. Everything else sounds great. Putting up a huge berm, and put in big trees, it cuts down noise, cut's down site. It's by the water treatment plant and you have a nice little pathway. I'd like to see it in a CUP and I'd look for it. Forrey: On everything? Norton: Yes. But I want to know what's going in there. I'm not going to vote for a certain business going in there. Centers: Yes. On the 4 lots that we don't know? Norton: Yes. Right. Borup: Designate a CUP on those lots you mean? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 63 Centers: Exactly what I'm saying. Borup: Commissioner Norton, are you talking about a CUP on the lots that -- Norton: Well, I want to know which lots -- well, wait a minute. What businesses are we talking about right now, besides the school buses, the sanitation trucks -- Forrey: The recycle. Borup: That's it. Those 3 businesses are all we know about. Norton: I have a real concern about the recycling plant. I'm real concerned about that. Borup: On whether they are going to do more than just inside the -- Norton: Yes. What type of employees they hire, whether -- what type of criminal background those employees have right next the school bus barn. I have a real concern about that recycling. The other one is fine, no big problem. But, you know, unless somebody can sit there and convince me on something that I have first-hand experience, you know, going to the recycling place and fear for your life of getting out of your car, you know, I -- so I'd like to see a CUP or at least somebody come up and tell you the recycling is going to be totally different than what I have seen. And a CUP on the other ones that we -- Borup: Yes. I think that's -- they had on the ones we haven't discussed. Okay. Forrey: We agree in principle in that. We do. Borup: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Forrey? Forrey: Whatever you decide to do, I hope we can find a way to move this forward. The school district has buses. They are paid for and on order and no place to park them. And Sanitary Services is jammed to the gills. They have got a contract that says they have to serve every time you annex. The city keeps continuing to grow and they have no place to park the sanitation trucks. On the city mandated that there be recycling and us citizens are paying for that and so there is another essential service. If we can keep this moving forward somehow and refinance it, that's I think in the best interest of our -- Borup: Okay. I think I give 2 scenarios, both of them would be moving it forward with -- Forrey: Refresh my memory. Borup: One would be going with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that Commissioner Nary has suggested and the other would be making a recommendation to the City Council. We haven't heard from everyone, but -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 64 Forrey: What the recommendation would be? Borup: Yes. So far it's probably not real positive. Forrey: When would the -- Borup: And then you can argue your case with the City Council. Forrey: Right. The hearing in Option A be scheduled, most likely? Centers: The Comprehensive Plan Amendment, I'm proposing it be December 6th. We normally hear continued hearings at our second meeting a month. That's the first meeting. I -- you know, I'd like to see it on the first meeting December 6th from October 18th, so, you know, a month and a half, a little over. We can't do it in November if Commission Nary -- would it make him uncomfortable? Nary: Well, because of the 15 days -- it requires a 15 day notice, but I'm really concerned, because when the staff has to submit that when all that happens, so putting it in -- Norton: And just kind of-- in all honesty, City Council usually reverses everything that we do anyway, so -- Nary: Commissioner Norton said that, just in case the record was unclear. Forrey: There is probably 10, 15 million dollars among 4 or 5 gentlemen here resting on that and I need a couple nods from the -- see you on December 6th. Borup: If that's your preference. Okay. Forrey: That would be fine. Borup: We'll take it from there. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment, so we can move this forward. Norton: Sure. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Maybe just for information, at this time we don't have everything in here, but we have 3 projects on December 6th at this point. One of them was Wendy's and then -- Nary: I see Mr. $iddoway shaking his head, so out of experience I'll ask why. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 65 Borup: I meant to ask staff on that. Siddoway: We have been discouraging and telling people basically not to apply for Comp Plan Amendments. I do not know myself if that was directed by Council, but I give as my strong opinion that they would not look favorably on a Comp Plan Amendment. Now I don't speak for Council myself, but that is my impression and maybe --. They can still take their chance and go through the process, but I really believe that and I don't know that it's going to get them anywhere. If they do, I just want to make it clear there is an application and a $1,100 fee. I assume they are not just saying they are going to notice it, but you have to pay a fee and go through the application process. Just questions in my mind surrounding this Comp Plan Amendment idea. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I know we don't have the power to do that, but --. I'm not blaming you, Steve, but somebody told these people the wrong information and they waited and they could have done something and we could have been done with it. I mean we could have been done with it a long time ago. It wouldn't have affected the outcome of the Comprehensive Plan. That's not your fault and I don't mean to make it sound like it is. We don't have the power as this Commission to waive the fee, but they should waive the fee. These people should have -- they shouldn't have been told that to delay their project when this was -- you cannot read this Comprehensive Plan any other way. You just can't. So -- but we can by this Commission make this recommendation and go forward. You're absolutely right, when the Council gets this after the December 6th meeting, if that's what we choose to do, they can choose not to do that. That's the risk these folks take and I understand -- and they understand that, I guess, that that's the risk, that the Council can disagree with this. But if the Council disagrees, they can annex it, zone it, and approve the plat and forget the other one They can say they don't think they need it. They don't have to deal with it. I think that's wrong. But they could do that. But if Mr. Forrey's direction and request was followed at the outset we wouldn't even have this discussion; it wouldn't have impacted the Comprehensive Plan at all. So we don't have the power to waive that fee. They should. But we don't have any way to do that. Forrey: I understand. Nary: But we can go through this, but I understand what Mr. Siddoway says. You take your chance with Council, but I believe the Council could simply say we are not going to hear that Comp Plan Amendment and they could still do your annexation, I guess, if they want to ignore it. Forrey: We attempted to submit a Comprehensive Plan Amended and the city refused to accept it, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 66 Nary: Well, they have to accept it by this ordinance, under 11-15-2-A-1. Borup: You had it written out-- Forrey: Yes. Borup: -- on paper ready to hand in? Forrey: Yes. We got a check from Leon Blaser and Ed McNelis. So the city said we have been instructed not to accept confidential plan amendments. I just want to know will staff accept this? Nary: Well, under this ordinance they are required to accept it, because if we adopt it as our recommendation, then they have to do it, because that's no different than if the Council directs us or if you ask for it. Forrey: I understand. Shreeve: So you don't know if it was under the Council directive or who? Where? When? Siddoway: I don't know. I don't know the actual directive. I have heard us say time and again, no, we are not accepting Comp Plan Amendments. We went -- we went through a phase where we were saying, no, none, and then there were several people that were in a group that wanted to. In November I think it was of '99 we went through a large Comp Plan Amendment process with about 8 individual Comp Plan Amendments that came through all at once, most of which were approved, some were changed, et cetera. Since that time we haven't been accepting them. Shreeve: So the moratorium has been 2 some odd years? Nary: Well, Mr. Chairman, I could put on the record I brought up the idea. There is a state statute on a moratorium and it does have a basis in the Comprehensive Plan to allow for that. There is a process to do that and I brought that up at the Council meeting in May. They acted as if they had never heard of such a thing, including the City Attorney. They had no idea that anything exists, or at least that was the impression I was left with. So there is no legal moratorium that's ever been enacted that I'm aware of: That's a policy choice they made and they can choose to do whatever they want to, but this ordinance says we have the power to require that it be done this way. Then he says they can refuse to -- they can refuse to -- I guess. I don't know where that says that in here. They can review it, I guess, but I don't think they can refuse our direction to do it. Not the way I read it. Borup: That's been my impression, saying unofficial policy and anticipation that the new Comp Plan would be forthcoming. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 67 Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I just had a question and a nod from the audience would be fine. Can you park school buses in the wintertime on bare land? Bingham: Yes, if we can get electric to heat it. Norton: You would need electricity over there? Well, you know, I'm feeling like embarrassed for the city. These people have done everything they should have done, the guy wrote the Comp Plan. They did everything he was supposed to. The city says we can't take it, to get everything that --. The city says we can't take it. Centers: I agree. Forrey: Thank you. Norton: How are we going to do this? Centers: Well, I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing. Norton: I will second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Nary: Well, Mr. Chairman, what I'm going to do is I'm going to move that we recommend through the Planning and Zoning Department, under 11-15-2-A-1, a portion of the Meridian City Code, that an application be accepted for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for this project, for AZ 01-015, request for annexation and zoning and that the project also include PP 01-017, request for Preliminary Plat, but they also accept the application under the City Code requirement to do so, that they, pursuant to the State Code, 5 or 6 or 7, Chapter 65. They follow the appropriate notice requirements that noticed up an amendment to the Meridian City Comprehensive Plan. That we set the matter over for our December 6th meeting to take up the matter of the two applications for the annexation and zoning and both are Preliminary Plats and for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, so that we can do this properly. If the city did the right thing, they'd waive the fee for these people, because this is ridiculous. This has wasted their time and everybody else's time, because a policy was decided to impose on these people that had no legal basis to do that when our code tells us what we are supposed to do. Borup: In that motion you referred to it, Commissioner Nary, that notice be given and make sure that this notice gets out timely, so that we do comply with the 15 day notice or rule or whatever it is. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 68 Nary: The proper notice under the City Code. Borup: That's got to be - Centers: This can be heard on December 6th. Nary: Under 11-15-4-B it clearly says you have to follow the state code requirements for providing notice, so they need to do this right. We only should do it once. It's not that complicated to do. We should have done this already. So that's my motion, that we put this on our December 6th calendar, so that we can do it properly before we try to move forward. Centers: I second. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? Shreeve: Certainly on a much minor degree, but since they are having to come back, to talk with the Parks Department. Talk with Mr. Crane. You may as well resolve some of those issues as well, see if some of those things can be resolved in the meantime. Centers: That's just a recommendation. Forrey: We will do it. Borup: And we'd need to open the Public Hearing to get more information, so probably Nary: Be glad to be noticed as a public -- well, it's required to be noticed as a Public Hearing for a Comprehensive Plan. Borup: So it would be a separate hearing on the Comp Plan about more information on the application. Nary: I certainly would include in the motion that we reopen the Public Hearing just to accept information we are asking the applicant to go get in regards to the Parks Department, as well as any other public -- Borup: Do we want to reopen the Public Hearing tonight and then continue it, rather than reopen it later on? Nary: That would be fine. Borup: Okay. Is that part of the motion? Nary: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 69 Borup: That's a long motion. Moore: So we are reopening? Borup: Do you want to do a separate motion for that? How about a separate motion to reopen the Public Hearing, but continue it? Centers: Let's finish the first motion. Borup: Yes. Okay. Okay. Do we have--you second it? Okay. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Okay. Now the second motion? Nary: Mr. Chairman, I'd move that we reopen the Public Hearing on AZ 01-015 and PP 01-017, that we continue that matter to our December 6th meeting for further discussion. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Need a short break? We will try to make this one as short as we can and we will take a break at this time. (Recess.) (Commissioner Norton left at 10:45 P.M.) Item 8. Public Hearing: PP 01-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and 5 other lots on 5.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC - 2435 South Meridian Road: Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 01-029 Request for a Planned Unit Development for a private RV storage and reduced lot sizes in an R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC - 2435 South Meridian Road: Borup: Okay. Let's go ahead and meet. Are we going to reopen -- if we can move along the next item? Commissioner Norton did have to leave. We still have Item 8 -- oops. I'm sorry. Items Number 8 and 9 like to continue with. Item 8, Public Hearing PP 01-016, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and five other lots on