Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-13 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13, 1996 The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Hepper, Greg Oslund, Jim Shearer, Malcolm MacCoy: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Larry Rackham, John Shipley, Gladys Abrahams, Bernice Young, Dean Mihalsihal, Helen Sharp, Dale Sharp, Mike Ford, Kathleen Lawrence, Jerry Ellis, Billie Jo Premoe, Larry Dirkin, Wayne S. Forrey, Angela Miller, Bert and Bonnie Trask, Bill Humphrey, Bob Nahas, Nancy Hansen, Dixie Lee Roberts, Mike Wewer, Bob Haley, JoAnn Butler, Carl Babbitt, Karen Gallagher, Herbert Papenfuss: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 9, 1996: Johnson: Are there any corrections, additions or deletions? Oslund: I have a couple, having seen none I withdraw my request. Johnson: Does anyone else have any comments, if not I will entertain a motion for approval. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the minutes of the previous meeting. Shearer: Second Johnson: A motion and a second to approve the minutes as written, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED JANUARY 9, 1996: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR PACKARD NO. 2 SUBDIVISION BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Johnson: It is my understanding we are awaiting additional information, we still have not received that. Is the applicant here or a representative? Is this a continuation of a public hearing? Crookston: I don’t believe it is. Hutchinson: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, we are in the process of trying to get the easement worked out for the sewer across Mr. Alleman’s property. Apparently Mr. Alleman has retained the services of Hubble Engineering to do that work. We have yet to hear from them on the that connection. It is my Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 2 understanding that work is proceeding in that direction and that we will eventually have something to give you that will hopefully satisfy the requirements of the City Engineer. Johnson: Okay, thank you, we do have a letter dated February 12 from Mr. Alleman stating basically the same thing that (inaudible) and you are in the process of working something out. Anything else? Hutchinson: Not tonight. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we table these two items until the next regular meeting March 12, items 1 and 2. Hepper: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we table items 1 and 2 since they are the same, they are connected to the same applicant until our next regular meeting which would be March 12, 1996, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED JANUARY 9, 1996: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK NO. 6 BY BOB NAHAS: Johnson: Would the applicant care to come forward at this time and address the Commission. Bob Nahas, 8437 West Creek Run, Boise. Nahas: How much do we know about what we are talking about tonight. Johnson: It did come up once or twice and we tabled it at your request is what we had done at this point. We are prepared to proceed now. Nahas: Certainly, I would be happy to answer any questions, was Shari going to go over this beforehand. This is basically a resubdivision of some existing lots Johnson: Right, I think we are all familiar with it. Are there any questions of the applicant? Hepper: We have some comments here from the Ada County Highway District I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 3 believe, are those new comments are just standard comments? Nahas: I think those are the same ones as before. One of the issues was the abandonment of Headway Court and I believe that is coming up for recommendation tomorrow evening. Crookston: Mr. Chairman, this is a public hearing. Johnson: This is a continued public hearing. Crookston: Mr. Nahas does need to be sworn. Bob Nahas was sworn by the City Attorney. Hepper: Does lot 16, apparently that at one time was intended to be a street or part of a drive. Nahas: That was intended to be a street and/or driveway into the eventual Waremart grocery store. Hepper: Is that still the intention? Nahas: Yes Johnson: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Hepper: Is the Waremart store still the intended tenants there or is that just proposed. Nahas: Waremart broke ground about 2 years ago and they are probably 2 or 3 years away from building. At the time that they go ahead with construction we are going to have to do some changing at the intersection of Progress Avenue and East Central Drive there. Hepper: They still have intentions of going there at a future date? Nahas: Yes Johnson: Anything further? Thank you Mr. Nahas, this is a public hearing, is there anyone from the public that would like to address the Commission on this application? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. What is your pleasure? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend that the City Council approve this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 4 preliminary plat. Hepper: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that a recommendation to the City Council is to approve the preliminary plat, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 74 UNIT PUD REQUEST FOR ASHFORD SUBDIVISION NO. 2 (FORMERLY JAMES PLACE) BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Johnson: Any comments or discussion regarding the findings of fact as prepared by the City Attorney? I have one minor correction on page 13, number nine, spelling of Bruce. So it has been corrected good. Any other corrections, any other discussion? Oslund: I have one Mr. Chairman, page 13. #21, there near the bottom, that the road shall be public and meet ACHD requirements. The proposal was that I believe the proposal was that it could be either or public or private. These findings are that it is going to be public streets. Now my concern is is they are public how does that affect the overall proposal. Because the proposal that we saw had non-standard ACHD streets. Johnson: What we are saying is that is our recommendation to the City Council. There will be an opportunity for the applicant to respond to that at the City Council hearing. But it is the consensus of this Commission, their recommendation is that these streets be public and that is the message we are sending forth. But it would affect things that would have to be addressed. Is there anything else? Entertain a motion for approval of findings of fact. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact. Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yea, Oslund - Yea, Shearer - Yea, MacCoy - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 5 Johnson: Any recommendation you would like to pass onto City Council at this time? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommend that this application be approved under the conditions stated above in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Any ultimate approval should be subject to all City ordinances. Specifically including design review and plat approval under the procedures of the subdivision and development ordinance. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHFORD SUBDIVISION NO. 2(FORMERLY JAMES PLACE) BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION; TABLED JANUARY 9, 1996: Johnson: What would you like to do with the preliminary plat? Hepper: Discussion? If we change the road widths to public than that is going to change some of the potentially some of the layouts or some of the setbacks. I am wondering if, would any of that be considered a significant change? Johnson: It is possible. Shearer: I think the sidewalks were the only thing not up to standard weren’t. We only had sidewalk on one side. Johnson: Sidewalk on one side five feet wide. Oslund: They had 29 feet for roadway. However, part of their proposal what that they include a security gate at the entrance and if these were public streets that couldn’t occur. (Discussion Inaudible) Oslund: I jumped to the next application. Johnson: Any other discussion? What would you like to do with this preliminary plat. We need some kind of motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 6 Hepper: It seems that we had some discussion last time about square footages of the houses. Johnson: We did, that is addressed in the findings. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend approval of the plat. Hepper: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the preliminary plat, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST OF .95 ACRES TO R-4 BY KENT AND MARY BARNEY: Johnson: Any discussion on these findings of fact and conclusions of law? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we hereby adopt and approve these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Oslund: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we adopt and approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by the City Attorney, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yea, Oslund - Yea, Shearer - Yea, MacCoy - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is there a decision or recommendation you wish to pass onto the City Council at this time? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommend to the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated in the above for the property described in the application. That the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law and that the applicant owner be specifically required to tile all ditches, canals and waterways as a condition of annexation and that the applicant meet all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 7 that if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed. Oslund: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we pass a recommendation onto the City Council as read by Commissioner Shearer, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: At this time I would like to point out that items #13 and 14, if any of you came here for that this evening the applicant has asked to have that continued to March 12, our next meeting. There will still be a public hearing tonight if you are interested in that but you won’t be able to take advantage of a presentation by the applicant’s because they will not be making their presentation this evening. If you have come for that we would be glad to take your testimony. If you miss tonight you will get an opportunity again on the March 12 meeting, our next regularly scheduled meeting. I meant to announce that at the start of the meeting. ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST OF .48 ACRES TO R-4 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Johnson: Any comments regarding these findings of fact that you have in your hands prepared by the City Attorney? I invite a motion for approval. Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yea, Oslund - Yea Shearer - Yea, MacCoy - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recommendation to the City Council? Oslund: I move that recommend, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 8 with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. That the applicant be specifically required to tile all ditches, canals, waterways as a condition of annexation. And that the applicant meet all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian and that if the conditions are not met the property be de-annexed. Hepper: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to pass on the recommendation as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Johnson: Any comments regarding these findings of fact? Oslund: A minor correction on page ten, item 1-C, twenty foot planting strip rather than plating. Johnson: Also on page six, next to the last paragraph, dome probably should be some. Is there anything else? Oslund: Page 20, conditions of this, item one that the road shall be public and meet ACHD requirements. This is what I was getting at earlier when I jumped ahead how many items 4 or 5 items on the agenda. Part of the proposal was that the development included a security gate at the front and also that they not have sidewalks on both sides. If, it is kind of, we have a conflict it seems to me because if they are public streets we can’t have the gate and more than likely ACHD is not going to allow sidewalk on one side. In our conditions item six we do allow the applicant to have a sidewalk on one side even though they are public streets. Johnson: Okay, any other comments? Oslund: I would like to add a condition to one of the things that was brought up was that same entry way. The fact that they used an 80 foot right of way width that reduced their setbacks, the sideyard setbacks to the homes along there down to 5 feet. I would suggest that we add a condition that right of way be reduced to 70 to get at least 10 feet on the sideyards. Johnson: If you desire that can be part of the motion. Is there any other discussion? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 9 Hepper: Since we have a conflict on the gate and the public road, do we need to resolve which way we are going to go on that. Johnson: Well, the findings of fact have resolved that, the fact that we have a conflict should be addressed in the motion. Olsund: I make a motion that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopt and approves these findings of fact and conclusions but in addition to, hopefully I am doing this right, give me a hand here if I am not. Let me start over again. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions with the following added conditions. One, that the roads shall be private and to the width shown on the applicant’s plans. And two that the right of way width at the entry be reduced from 80 feet to 70 feet. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second, this is a roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yea, Shearer - Yea, Oslund - Yea, MacCoy - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recommendation to the City Council? Oslund: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that this application be approved under the conditions stated above in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. That any ultimate approval should be subject to all City ordinances specifically including design review and plat approval under the procedures of the subdivision and development ordinance. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded to pass the recommendation onto the City Council as stated by Commissioner Oslund, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT; TABLED JANUARY 9, 1996: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 10 Johnson: Any comments regarding the preliminary plat? Oslund: I move that we recommend to the City Council that the preliminary plat be approved per the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the conditional use. Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded we pass a recommendation to the City Council of the City of Meridian as stated by Commissioner Oslund, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE OF 8.34 ACRES TO C-N BY SMITH’S FOOD AND DRUG CENTER, INC.: Johnson: Any comments regarding the findings of fact for Smith’s Food and Drug Center, Inc? Oslund: Point of interest, page 17, item 7, recommended that the vacant parcel to the west be developed as a park with maintenance provided by homeowners association of Valerie Place Subdivision. I guess I wonder do we have the authority to place it in their, within their responsibility to maintain? Do they have anything to say about this? Johnson: Does anyone have a valid recommendation here? Mr. Crookston, are we making a valid recommendation here? Crookston: It is something that would have to be worked out between Smith’s and the homeowners association of Valerie Place. It is a recommendation to the Council hopefully they would come to the City and talk about it. We cannot require that. Oslund: If we can’t come to an agreement and that deal falls through what happens with our, it just evaporates altogether or what? Crookston: Well it would. It is my understanding that the City does not want to have an approximately 2 acre park to maintain and care for. That is why that is in there the way it is. Their proposal was to either have it as a park or to make it part of a residential subdivision is what they said at the hearing. Johnson: Understand? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 11 Oslund: It is clear as mud I guess. Johnson: Well the park was one of two alternatives proposed as I recall. Any other comments regarding these findings of fact that have been prepared for Smith’s Food and Drug Center Inc. If there are none then I will entertain a motion. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves and adopts these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Oslund: Would it be appropriate to ask for discussion. Johnson: No, it wouldn’t be. You have to get a second first. Oslund: Second, discussion. Johnson: Go ahead. Oslund: I am still not happy with that. Johnson: That is why we vote. Oslund: Well I haven’t heard anybody vote no yet. Back to item 7, is there a way we can modify the language possibly that in the even that the deal falls through Valerie Place is not willing to maintain it that somehow the park doesn’t evaporate that the City has an opportunity to entertain the idea of maintaining it. Can’t do that, why is that? Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Oslund, a park that size, we have to transport all of our equipment for maintenance and we are not equipped to do that. We have had to do a separate maintenance facility at the 8th Street park because we can’t transport equipment back and forth across town. Historically nay park that is less than 5 acres is a maintenance nightmare for a City. It takes a lot of time it takes a lot of other equipment to take care of because you can’t house anything on site. Everything you do is transported in whether it is fertilizing, mowing, whatever the operation is. I personally would be opposed to the City getting involved in maintaining a park that size. Thank you. Johnson: Any further discussion? We have a motion and a second to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Oslund - Yea, Shearer - Yea, MacCoy - Nea. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 12 MOTION CARRIED: 3 Yea, 1 Nea Johnson: Is there a recommendation you wish to pass onto the City Council at this time. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the rezone request by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law that the property be required to meet water and sewer requirements, fire department requirements, Nampa Meridian Irrigation requirements, fire and life safety, uniform building code and other ordinances of the City of Meridian. Oslund: Second Johnson: We have a recommendation for the City Council with a second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: 3 Yea, 1 No ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE RANCH BY WESTPARK COMPANY: Johnson: I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant to address the Commission at this time. Wayne Forrey, 3045 Thayen Place, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Wayne Forrey, I work with Westpark Company the developer of the Ranch Subdivision formerly known as the Highlands Ranch, the Commission may recall that name. With me tonight is Greg Johnson, the owner of Westpark Company and the companies legal counsel JoAnn Butler. I have a revised layout plat that is colored that I would like to give to the Commission. Then I would like to go through a short slide presentation. We will probably referred to the colored map after the slides so let me turn that on right now. (SLIDE PRESENTATION) We have had several applications on the Highlands Ranch project, annexation, preliminary plat, conditional use planned development, several annexation applications. I feel it is a culmination of a good process. It has been getting better all of the time. Here is a vicinity map for everyone to look at. This is a project that is between Locust Grove Road and then on the south is Victory Road and on the East is Eagle Road, you can see the Eagle I-84 Interchange up there in the top right hand Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 13 corner of that site map. The project is essentially one mile wide the stretch between Locust Grove Road and Eagle Road. Now I am at the corner, this would be the NW corner of the project, this is on Locust Grove Road looking directly east and this is the John Shipley property and this is where Highlands Ranch starts on Locust Grove Road. All of that field that you see there in the background would be the Ranch subdivision. This is right where the canal crosses Locust Grove Road, the canal of course is high ground and so the road drops on either side of the canal. There have been some real safety issues there about having access. Our first plat showed a 50 foot public road coming out onto Locust Grove road about, well right behind that car. It would require a new type of bridge over the canal which is fine but the input we have received from the Highway District, City officials, neighbors, was that was a safety hazard because of the elevation of the canal, the drop of the road, how the Salmon Rapids Subdivisions I think T’s into that. So our current plat that you have before you tonight we do not have access onto Locust Grove Road to just avoid that safety problem right there and not introduce anymore conflicts. I am about the center of the project looking back towards Los Alamitos Park Subdivision in the background there. The same are there just turning the other direction. In the background you see St. Luke’s Hospital way in the background there, it is about a mile, a mile and a quarter away. But in the right side of this picture over along Eagle Road you see those trees and those outbuildings, that is the Nixon Dairy where there is a proposal for a new high school with the Meridian School District. It it is being evaluated by the developer and the school district for possible acquisition. This is the Hanson property on Victory Road and we are looking kind of north and east and you see the Ridenbaugh Canal with that tree line there and you can see the rise in elevation of the topography of the site. This is up on top looking back now over the tops of the homes there. The Hanson home is down below those trees, the Record property is down below so you can kind of see the roof tops there. That is the magnitude of elevation there. This is the Glick property and this is the property and this is the property line actually between Sally Martins property where the pine trees are and the Glick property where the out buildings are. Where the pine trees are would be the Ranch subdivision and there are a lot of nice pine trees in that area. Our proposal is to preserve those as much as possible. Along this fence we are proposing a permanent 20 foot landscape strip to be maintained by the Ranch. Here is some history of how we got here. About a year ago we met with the Planning and Zoning Commission members and citizens, City officials and in January of 1995 we submitted these development applications. In February we requested annexation to R-8 and R-15 with limited office. But citizens and city leaders felt that was too great a density. The City recommended we come back with an R-4 planned unit development with a small amount of L-O. Also in February we learned that in order to get this project approved we needed to have a preliminary plat tagged onto the annexation and not do them separate. So in April we submitted a preliminary plat in June we went before the Planning and Zoning Commission for a hearing on the preliminary plat. In Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 14 August the preliminary plat and the conditional use permit for the planned unit development they were tabled by this Planning and Zoning Commission. However, to help move this project forward the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the annexation go forward. And so right now today the preliminary plat and conditional use permit is sitting on the table right here. But we did in August move forward with the annexation to find out how the City Council felt about this project. In September of 1995 we had the hearing with the City Council, many changes were suggested. We made those changes to accommodate citizens. In November an amended findings of fact and conclusions of law was prepared by the City Council. We have been saying that is what really established the ground rules for the plat. The findings were very specific much like you talked about tonight, road widths, lots, depths, buffers that type of thing. So after we received those adopted findings of fact and during December and even into January of this year we revised and prepared a new preliminary plat based on those findings. That is the one that is before you tonight. We think we have done everything in those findings that was suggested by the City. Input from citizens, city officials, and the bottom there we have a statement there. We really are sincerely trying to do what is right on this project and accommodate all of the various input and comments that we have been receiving here. We want to make this work for not only the developer and the neighbors but the City. This was the original submittal with the R-8 and R-15 zoning and we learned very quickly that it was just too much density. I apologize, this isn’t very dark. This is the revised preliminary plat for the Ranch subdivision that you have before you now. The map that I just handed to the Planning and Zoning Commission this is a slide of it. You see all the green, the open space, you will notice on there we have lot square footages so you can see the size of the lots that we are proposing now. Down near the Glick property during our initial public hearings there was a lot of discussion about making larger lots next to the Glick property. In the findings of fact we are instructed that those lots should be at least 18,000 square feet in size. You will notice through there we have got 22,000, 20,000, 19,500, there is one that is over 20,000. So those are large lots next to the Glick property. Plus we have got that 20 foot landscape strip which they requested. The Hanson property, Mr. and Mrs. Hanson also asked for large lots even though the canal is a good buffer there they wanted large lots. So you can see we have got 17,000 almost 16,000, another 22,000, 18,000. Again large lots like Meridian Greens type lots there along the canal next to the Hanson property. The Record property, we have large single family lots there, there are some 11,000, 12,000, 14,000, 15,000 square foot lots. But we also have some town homes that is in a common area proposed there. The Record property is part of the annexation request so we think that is just a nice little corner with that culdesac park open space right next to the canal and just a little pocket of town homes there to meet the different home styles of the project. There has been quite a bit of discussion about a bridge. In the original plat that we submitted to Planning and Zoning and City Council we did not propose a car bridge over the Ridenbaugh Canal, we had a pedestrian Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 15 bridge. After Los Alamitos Park Subdivision No. 3 became better known by the City and Highlands Ranch was being discussed. The thinking came to the point of well we need a car bridge, a vehicular bridge to connect the two subdivisions together. And so throughout various meetings the Highway District, City officials, we were instructed that we should link up with the road that is shown in yellow there, I think at one time it was called Time Zone it is now Brandy’s Jewel Avenue shown on the Los Alamitos Plat. But I also understand now that the City has Johnson: Excuse me we need to pause while we change the tape. (End of Tape) Forrey: I also understand that the City has approved a revision to the Los Alamitos subdivision plat which takes the stub street over the canal into the school property instead of linking up with the Ranch. It has been made very clear to Westpark Company and to myself by ACHD and City officials that Highlands Ranch or Westpark would only be responsible to construct one half of the bridge or pay for one half the cost. The other half was to be paid for by the developer on the other side of the canal. Without the bridge there if the bridge stubs into the school property that means either the City of Meridian or the Meridian school district would have to pay the other half of the cost of that bridge. We would prefer that two developers the people that are in the business of developing land and making money off it pay for the bridge. This has got to be resolved but our plat is based on the instructions we have received from the City and the Highway District to place a bridge at that location. This comes out of the findings of fact, the amended findings of fact from the City. Let me read it here, that development of that portion of the project designed for residential development would be in compliance with the comprehensive plan and therefore the annexation of that portion of the land would be in conformance with the comprehensive plan and could be in the best interest of the City of Meridian if an acceptable plat is presented and approved. That is the whole issue that we are working on right now is can we get to a point of an acceptable plat. The Council went further and said that the City Council would like to see the plat of the subdivision before taking action on the annexation and zoning. So at the Council level we are also tabled. Our annexation is on hold waiting for a plat to come through the P & Z onto the City Council and if the Council is happy with the shape of the plat their intention then is to annex and zone us and approve a plat all in one whack. A response to City comments today, Westpark Company submitted an updated letter to the City addressing each of the comments from the fire department, the Public Works Department and the Planning and Zoning Administrator and you may have a copy of that. Item 2, there is we think something that is incorrect in the water superintendent’s comments. We would ask and right now we would disagree with the way they are written. We would as for reconsideration of this water master plan and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 16 constructing nearly two miles of water transmission pipe. It just seems in our thinking a little excessive at this point and we would like to reconsider that. There was a comment in our staff packet we could identify who submitted it and they were complaining about town homes and lifestyle homes in the R-4 zone but in fact it is allowed in the PUD and that is why we submitted a planned unit development to obtain those different types of homes. All of the comments appear to be workable and acceptable based on the packet we have now. Westpark’s legal counsel is here tonight if anyone has questions on the high school site issues. That is Ms. JoAnn Butler. Let me just wrap up, our density, when we submitted the R-8 and R-15 there was a lot of discussion. The neighbors said we want R-4 type projects, we dropped back to an R-4 PUD. We now have on this plat before you 436 dwellings on 133 acres, the density is 3.27 that is much like the regular R-4 subdivisions the Planning and Zoning and the City have been approving. Our open space and this is all the easement and this includes the canals is 26.3% Now when you take the Ridenbaugh Canal out we are still well in excess of 10% required in the PUD, there is a tremendous amount of open space here. I want to ask this question, does the City really want a PUD, we have gone through this a year, we think the PUD is the right thing to do. We may probably, we should have looked at a straight R-4 subdivision because it takes quite awhile to get everyone thinking about the PUD, the advantages of a PUD and maybe if we are in the wrong area here please let us know. Make a decision, let us know if we are on the right track. If we are on the wrong track we will drop back we will look at a straight R-4 subdivision. We think there are advantages to the PUD but we have got to get moving on a plat here and help us move forward to the City Council and please make a decision tonight. I would be happy to answer any questions plus Greg Johnson is here and legal counsel is here as well. Johnson: Thank you Wayne, any questions from the Commission and Commissioners to Wayne Forrey? MacCoy: I have a couple and I probably was the one that made the comments about the town houses and lifestyle. I just felt that the, in the first place let me start off by saying this. I am glad to see you upgraded, I have been through some of these with you before and listened to you. You went to a point where you went to the R-4 and I think that is the correct thing to do in this territory. Forrey: So you think we are on the right track. MacCoy: Well that part I think is on the right track. Going through your material that you submitted this last time which is the maps and so. I am still quite concerned about the townhouse and the lifestyles in the size of those please, how wide they are, the width of building and so on. I have no more details than what you given us right here on Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 17 maps and that situation. So I don’t know what you have in mind as what a town house or lifestyle should be. You did mention some time back it was going to be on the high end dollar value. That again rings a bell with me, if you are going to do that you are going to want a town house, let me put myself in that position, if I was going to buy a town house I want something which gives me some space. I don’t think some of this is in that ballpark. I think if you are gong to do a planned development and we decide upon that situation or you do that you continue that same thinking right into your town house and lifestyle homes being that you have some space and nice locations so that if I am the buyer I would say this is really a nice spacious place and I would like to buy this place and live in it. I don’t think you ought to wedge in, maybe that is the wrong word to use at this point, a lot of small little buildings in order to make use of that land because you have a little hole here and a little hole there. I would like to see for my own edification some details on what you consider a lifestyle or a town house material. I realize we are in the preliminary stage, but I think that is the time you should show it. I don’t want you to go down the road thinking you have a final and then you have wasted more time and more money and it shouldn’t happen that way. I am truly concerned about the widths of the or the size total of these places. I am keeping in mind what you told us earlier the fact that this should be quality type homes. I think we all agree both citizenry of the area that lives out there the residents that are going to be adjoining this they haven’t really truly said no to everything. You have tried to accommodate them, I commend you for that, but I think our job here is to make sure that the entire project is a top quality house as a whole operation here. I think (inaudible) planned development you would be better forward in your motion to give us some details so we can make our final decision on this. I will speak for myself there. I did spend considerable time going through your big layout and I looked at your sidewalks, your hydrant placement, your light lamp posts and a few other things of that type and I thought a lot of that was pretty well thought out. I have a question on lamps you considered instead of going for street lights you have gone to say something which would be I guess the light post in front of a house type of thing. That would take care of having street lights which then takes care of overhead wires which is a distraction from the type of lifestyle you are trying to live out there. This is a country operation, this is rural, I am thinking if you want to keep the feeling you should stay towards either putting the wires in the ground or go to something which would permit lighting which is a safety quality type of thing which you should look toward ways of handling that. I think for the moment I will stop my comments. Forrey: Thank you, I have some notes here. Johnson: Anyone else from the Commission? Oslund: I have a couple. First, kind of a trivial (inaudible) who decided to make this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 18 preliminary plat 3 feet by five feet? I would open it up now but I am afraid it would overwhelm my fellow commissioners. Forrey: Don’t let the size scare you. Oslund: My question, one of the questions I have is for, to give you an example, lot 29 of Block 12, it is one of those areas where you have town homes adjoining one another and then you have areas that you are calling, I think you called them private open space, something to that effect. It is the area around these units here, these town homes. I was wondering how you proposed to maintain that area? Forrey: That would be attached residential, a triplex or fourplex thinking. It would be through the homeowners association of the Ranch, I don’t know, Greg are you proposing multiple homeowners or just one? One overall maintenance arm, so all of the open space would be managed and maintained by the Ranch maintenance division of the homeowners association that would be maintained there. But those would be attached units, just a large cluster unit there. Oslund: The open space for the drainage, I think you are showing a detention basin, what is the proposal for that open space in terms of landscaping? Forrey: In Sportsman Point subdivision part of the open space there is used in the same manner and most of the time it is used for sand volleyball. It is usable recreation space. So JJ Howard engineers designed that, they are designing this one. It will probably have an elevated section in the middle almost like a doughnut so there could be water sometimes right after rain but immediately after it seeps there would be a chance to get in and play some sports or have usable open space. That is the concept here to actually use that. Oslund: That is just for the detention basin and that only comprises a part of this block for lot, I cant read the lot, twenty something I think. It is kind of a four legged deal here, only a portion of that, I think a small portion according to that plan is the actual detention basin. Forrey: That is correct. Olsund: So what about the rest of it? Forrey: That is all open space, usable, there is a pathway through there, an improved pathway and just like the project you evaluated tonight with sidewalks on only one side of the street. We have proposed the same concept. Because all through that open Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 19 space there is an improved pathway. Olsund: That will be sodded? Forrey: Yes, it is end developed, improved. In the larger open space by the lifestyle homes there would be more active facilities. A tennis court is planned, a basket ball court is planned, those type of more active recreations. Oslund: The other question I had is this real narrow open space in there, the 15 feet. Forrey: Yes, access pathway. If you look at the map I handed, right there, can I walk over there and talk loud. The concept here is that this is the John Shipley home and I was standing here taking that picture looking to the east. The concept here is that a person could enter this open space right here nice landscaped area, walk through this open corridor here, come down the street. And so we have about 300 feet of sidewalk that the person would have to walk on and then they could enter this pathway system and walk all through this improved pathway up to this street and then over the foot bridge over the Ridenbaugh canal along this street and then into more open space. So the concept is not to force people to use the sidewalks in the road right of way but to use the interior pathway system. Of course you can also take the Ridenbaugh canal clear back to Eagle Road. So you can conceivably walk from Eagle Road to Locust Grove Road and only have to get on maybe 600 or 700 feet of sidewalk through that whole 1 mile. Oslund: The access to, kind of jump to the other side of the project, Lot 21 of, well it would be the top right hand corner of your picture up there. This piece on the other side of the canal. Forrey: Yes, that is the school park site. Oslund: A portion of. Forrey: That is correct. Oslund: Having not seen this proposal before, where is the rest of the property? Forrey: If you would just picture four corners coming together. This corner right here adjoins four other properties that are being considered for development. The Los Alamitos Park subdivision where I show that bridge right here. They adjoin right here and they have dedicated ground and transferred the deed to the City and the City is holding deed to that property to collect for future park school site. As part of our Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 20 findings of fact from the City Council they have said that we were to transfer ownership of this ground on the north side of the Ridenbaugh and the west side of the Ridenbaugh to the City to team up and link up with the Los Alamitos property that they have acquired. The developer on the north side the City has said the same thing. When they come in to develop and one of them has, I think it is Sundance Subdivision has another piece of the pie. When all four properties are developed we think we will have 15 to 18 or maybe 20 acre holding in public ownership to be used for a combination school park site. So that is our piece of the pie right there. Oslund: The commercial or the Limited Office I think it is, that orange sliver there, how are you going to get access to that? Forrey: It has direct lot frontage access to Locust Grove Road. Oslund: The last question I have is the unplatted portions on the frontage of Victory. Are those owed by this applicant or another? Forrey: They are not owned by Westpark unless there has been recent acquisition. But they are owned by people that have consented to the annexation of property. Mr. Killgore is part of the annexation package, he owns some of that ground and I think Mr. Nixon has holdings in there and he is a party to the annexation. So there are people that own the ground there in two locations that are supportive of annexation and want to sell a part of their property to Westpark Company. I don’t know of any other developers in the business developers that own any ground there. I am not aware of any other than on the North Los Alamitos Park and Sundance. Oslund: That is all I had. MacCoy: Back to me a minute, a question came to mind. You were going through your slide presentation here about the pedestrian bridge and making a roadway. If the roadway doesn’t come into reality than you have only one entrance into your, or exit out of the western section (inaudible). Is that the reason Forrey: I think there are a couple of reasons. When we first started master planning of Highlands Ranch, the first edition. We wanted to take access out to Eagle Road and that was part of the concept to develop that 37 acres. Then the school district indicated they wanted to seriously look at a school site, a high school site somewhere in that area. They approached Westpark and they began negotiating on that. We thought the school district was serious enough that we should probably just reserve that area and hold it and not plat it as a subdivision. So, what you see here is the balance of Westpark’s holdings minus the 37 acre high school site. When we dropped off the high Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 21 school and didn’t plat it we lost our access to Eagle Road. The school district also said they didn’t want to have a public road connecting Highlands Ranch with the high school site. They only wanted emergency access like a twenty or thirty foot access but not a public road. At that point then we realized that we would end up with just what you said with access primarily to Victory Road. That heightened the awareness on our part and also the City’s part that we needed a bridge to link Highlands Ranch or the Ranch subdivision with Los Alamitos Park No. 3. Then we began discussing where should the bridge occur and that is the slide that I showed you. That bridge location may change and that is probably fine, we need to coordinate to see who is going to pay the other half of that bridge cost. MacCoy: I am very concerned about that, you have locked in all these people into total of two access and that is it. Forrey: We have, because the plat has changed, we commissioned a new traffic study by Dobie Engineering firm. It is not yet completed and you will notice in your comments the Highway District says we are going to hold back until we see the revised traffic study and that is fair. We don’t know ourselves. We need to get that done and we are working on it. MacCoy: Well it is a real concern, I think you have got yourself, I hate to put the finger of approval on documentation which we end up tying all these people (inaudible) which could be disastrous. Forrey: Well I hope you could approve in concept subject to the traffic study, ACHD will ultimately decide how that is going to work. Hopefully we can move forward and keep debating this and working with the City Council. Johnson: Anyone else? Mr. Hepper? Hepper: I had a question Wayne, could you define what a lifestyle home is and the concept of it a little more. I understand how a town house works and the intricacies of that, but I don’t understand the lifestyle concept. Forrey: Yes, it doesn’t look any different than the good homes that you or any other builder would build. The difference is in the ground that it sits on. What you see is 50 by 50 building pads. Somewhere within that envelope there will be a nice home. The ownership of the ground will leave at that 50 foot marker. Beyond that it is all common ownership, common maintenance. The lifestyle meaning never have to mow your lawn, you don’t have to worry about maintenance of the shrubs, it is like living right next to a golf course where there is always good maintenance. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 22 Hepper: (Inaudible) Forrey: Not the 50 feet, most of those homes would probably consume that envelope and it might change with home design some might be L shaped. But in concept you would buy the pad construct the home, you would own the home but you would have no yard maintenance. That would all be done by professional management. Hepper: What would be the square footage of those homes? Forrey: Minimum 1400 square feet. In fact, in all the homes previously we had agreed that would be the threshold minimum for the entire project. Hepper: On the lifestyle homes you really don’t show any streets, just shows lines connecting the homes. As we get closer to a plat we would look at that in terms of the dimensions of that street and the parking, that is all private, so those would all be private driveways connecting each unit and the street through the lifestyle homes is private between the two culdesacs. Hepper: There is a line across the end of that street at both ends would that be a gated street? Forrey: Security gates yes. Hepper: Would this be an elderly area? Forrey: Most likely. (Inaudible) Hepper: Would it have a club house or anything? There is some federal designation that is you have a 55 or older you have to have a club house and activity center or something. Forrey: I am not aware of that. Hepper: It seemed like (inaudible) Forrey: Subsidized housing or something but that is not what this is or envisioned to be at all. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 23 Oslund: I have a question, I haven’t seen this before. Have findings of fact and conclusions of law been prepared for this before? Forrey: Yes, correct. In fact we have about 4 versions. Johnson: You weren’t paying attention to the slide show. Oslund: No I remember that, he is talking about us approving something tonight and I was hoping we would just be able to (inaudible) and ask for findings of fact. (Inaudible) Oslund: On these lifestyle homes, is there, it is kind of peculiar because you have an ownership that is surrounded by another ownership, landlocked. Does that present any legal issues, legal technicalities? Forrey: Legal counsel is saying I will address it so hold that question. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. Johnson: Thank you, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to come forward on this application? JoAnn Butler, 607 N. 8th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Butler: Before other members of the public got up to speak I thought I would add to the applicant’s presentation here tonight so people could respond to it. Again JoAnn Butler representing Westpark Company and of course I am pleased to be here before the Commission tonight because I believe your comprehensive plan does speak very clearly to the need for mixed residential uses in these areas. Planned residential areas that can easily become over time integrated neighborhoods. Integrated with the rest of the City. As Mr. Forrey already pointed out, the City has gone through a year of annexation and rezone hearings and conditional use or planned development hearings where elaborate findings of fact have been prepared and tabled at City Council pending a plat and conditional use to come before this body. In many regards we are very fortunate to have those findings, it gives us great direction in making the plan and presenting it to you tonight to ensure that it meets those findings of fact and conclusions of law. The City has already in essence made findings that we meet the annexation and rezone criteria as contained in the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. As Mr. Forrey pointed out the site is intended to be developed under the regulations of both the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. We believe that the written and verbal testimony that has been presented over many Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 24 hearings and again tonight allows the City to make the written findings needed to approve the planned development closely aligned to those findings that have already been tabled in connection with the annexation and rezone. I wanted to just answer a couple of questions that some of the Commissioners raised. I think I might as well start with the lifestyle issue. I live in a lifestyle home, I live in a lifestyle home surrounded by ground that isn’t owned by me that is private ownership totally surrounding me. I hope it doesn’t look like it but the next thing on my mind is retirement. What I want to do is work very hard over the next couple years and do a lot of gardening and hopefully retire with a house that I could afford. That is what I did when I bought my house. It is, many on this Commission might consider it to be a relatively small house. I consider it manageable. I know when I get home I can enjoy it. I do have a very small lot, that is my personal ground. I look over a sea of green on a park whose Board I sit on with the rest of my neighbors and maintain that park. As the City Engineer pointed earlier when you have got pieces of park spread around the City that are smaller relatively smaller it is difficult for the City to maintain. Having private parks and neighborhoods set up and designed so that a homeowners association can maintain them by assessing themselves and having active members is really a boon to the City because it means you basically get a City service provided to your citizens without having the spend the effort and a lot of dollars. Just to answer that question I literally do, I am bounded by a private street which is not owned by me, I am bounded by common area which is not owned by me, the legal technicality that one has to whoever asked that questioned that one needs to make sure as provided for in the restrictive covenants is that you have access over ground that you don’t own. As long as that is provided for than there is no legal problem with it being surrounded by land that you don’t own. Also in connection with those town homes and lifestyle homes I consider my home to be a very well built home. It was built in accordance with the building codes and regulations of the City that I live in. I think the developer did an admirable job of relying on those codes and meeting the public’s requirements, mine as the buyers requirements for a lifestyle home. I think if the City of Meridian knows its building codes well and it clearly is unless you are in the process of doing massive changes to your building codes will rely on those building codes to ensure a quality project. I think that again speaking for myself and many people that I know like myself you provide well for your citizens by having mixed use, mixed residential use where people can make that conscious choice. I think, I know in my neighborhood we have created a better community for it. It is not so homogeneous, we found a much better community for it. In connection with, I was mentioning access, but in connection with public access in and out of the Ranch as you know the traffic study that has been provided to the City shows that access is not an issue on in and out of the subdivision. I would have Mr. Johnson address that more fully if you have other questions on that. Of course our ACHD hearing is Friday and they will be making further recommendations to the City on that as well. I would also like to reiterate what Mr. Forrey mentioned about that connection between the two Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 25 neighboring developments. We were required under our findings to make that connection as Mr. Forrey showed in his diagram. I believe there has been some discussion about moving that connection further north. It would still connect the two developments but it would go through the school district’s property. Quite frankly we don’t believe that the school district a public body should have to pay for that. I think it should, we do believe that it should be split. Johnson: Well it is not their property at this point, we are talking about a proposed site aren’t you? Butler: That is correct, it is correct that it is the City’s property right now. It is proposed to be. What we don’t want to see is a public body such as the City or the school district pay for that interconnection between the two projects. Mr. Forrey touched briefly on the water issues that are up before. I think that wasn’t addressed by the Commission but if you have any questions on that I think we should address that here tonight so that you have some clearer answers. I am not the one to address those issues but Mr. Forrey or Mr. Johnson can. Finally something that we became aware of just recently. Mr. Forrey talked about the fact that there had been negotiations with the school district in connection with a potential high school site up to a portion of the property that is not shown on this plat because it is not proposed to be platted. When I became involved I found that there was some confusion and I know that Mr. Haily is here to speak I will reserve some time. Unfortunately he and I have not had the opportunity to speak but I did talk with his attorney today to try to clarify some of what seemed to be the concerns or may have been concerns on the schools or by the school district on this point. It is an issue that is a side issue. It doesn’t have to do with the approval that this commission is charged with the review and approval of this particular plat. But just in case the Commission is interested there was some confusion as to the negotiations between these two private parties the school district and the developer. Originally the developer and the school district were trying to determine who should put in utilities to this site and that would determine purchase price on the sale. Originally an offer was made to the school district at a lower purchase price but the school district would put in the utilities. I happened to be involved with the Meridian School District as they tried to get its school sites approved in Eagle and those sites did not have utilities when they were going through their process. I know this past summer was a little bit touchy as we were getting water and utilities in so that those schools could open in September. I know the school district told us point blank no we will not or at least their representative who has since retired told us that no we would not put in utilities and we had to come back to the school district since we have given our purchase price given the up front cost it would take us to put utilities into the site. We can only offer it to the school district at what the school district obviously thought was a higher price and too high for it to consider. And so my understanding from their attorney is that the district has Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 26 been looking at other sites I have no idea how those negotiations are going on other sites. We are certainly open to discussing again with the school district or continuing negotiation with the school district. I think the school district would understand that given our purchase price and our up front cost for utilities there is a minimum that we can go and it may be too high for the school district and I know that they would then look elsewhere. What I have just for the record are a few letters from Dan Mabe who was then the Deputy Superintendent or to Dan Mabe then the Deputy Superintendent of the school district outlining the purchase price with utilities and without utilities just so that there wasn’t any confusion and just give this to the Commission for the record. Again I know it is not an issue before you, but I think there was some confusion about that. Unless anybody has any questions of myself, we are here tonight to respectfully ask this Commission to move this forward to the City Council. Johnson: I have a question of you, since you brought up the school district issue, on a project this size the City looks for contributions by the developer, something that would benefit the City. We think we should, we think we deserve that and for the community. You would (inaudible) the contributions by the developer for the City of Meridian in this project. Butler: I will tick off what I am aware of and I will ask Mr. Forrey to do the same. First the developer has to pay impact fees to Ada County Highway District for the public roads in the area and all those improvements, curb, gutter and sidewalk that is provided. Sewer, water, which is part of the reason that I am asking that the water issue be addressed here because I understand and my client will clarify this, I understand that the water utilities especially they are being asked that the developer would serve much more than this development. So he would be paying a much greater cost for utilities than serves this development. I think that issue should be addressed. Rather than ask the City to provide parks in this area at a great cost and clearly at a hardship to the City (inaudible) greenbelts and park areas for the community. Johnson: Would there be any restrictive uses on those parkways? Butler: Those would be private parks maintained by the homeowners association. If it is like the park outside my back door I know that I pay for its maintenance and what not. It doesn’t necessarily maintain in private use but we are not walling of the parks. Of course in the school site that Mr. Forrey mentioned that is in the process of being formed to the north of the site is also an amenity. Of course you know with all of the infrastructure that is provided those are the amenities that are provided to the City . Forrey: Satellite fire station site, a well site and a pathway along the Ridenbaugh canal Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 27 would be available to the public. Butler: There is even though we are providing the parks for this area we do have to still pay park impact fees to the City that won’t even go into this area. Which raises the question what benefit does the developer get for the impact fees that he pays. Johnson: Not a question that I am prepared to answer. Hepper: Does the developer pay park impact fees? Butler: The developer does pay park impact fees, every lot pays. It comes with the building permit so. Hepper: So the purchaser of the building permit pays the impact fees. That would be the homebuilders and the owner of the house. Would that be correct? Butler: Typically people assume that gets passed onto the home buyer and I won’t say that it doesn’t I won’t say that it does. But what is clearly true that somebody that doesn’t have a public park will pay park impact fees and not have the benefit of that park outside their door and maybe not within close proximity. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else that would like to address the Commission? John Shipley, 2770 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Shipley: I guess I need to give you a little history, City Council was acting on this this past August time. They had mentioned in City Council meeting that they were going to buy my property so there were some concerns that I had that I didn’t voice because if they were going to buy my property I didn’t need to voice those concerns. If I can go over here to the map, my property lies right along here. Nine Mile Drain comes in somewhere here and that is the back of my property. I am 195 foot from here over to here. As you can see there are a lot of houses all the way along here and this I talked to Mr. Johnson over the phone yesterday from about here there is a drain ditch that comes back here and dumps into the Nine Mile Drain. It is a farmers type drain ditch, my property lies 3 to 4 foot higher depending on how the land is leveled in that point. The geology of the area is gravel bar back there. When I irrigate that ditch gets wet back there. To protect those people along that line there with all of those houses there we need to make certain that some kind of a drain is made there. Also, I in the Spring every year I burn my ditch and (inaudible) and any type fencing they put up there I sure hope it wasn’t burnable. I would hope that all those people would understand that if the wind shifts they are going to get some smoke on them. The reason I was testifying here tonight is to make certain that it goes on public record that these are problems. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 28 The original reason that they asked to buy my place was because they needed to road access in without creating a road over the canal at the point that the Highway District had spoke of. Realizing that the bridge would be an expensive matter for them I said I would sell but nobody ever offered me anything. So that created a little diversion in my life. I would like the City Council to know that drain and that fence and in the corner there where our weir is where the little green park is right there that stuff be taken care of in an appropriate manner and we don’t lose our irrigation or something because of that. Mr. Johnson said that would all be taken care of but that was on the telephone and I need to make it clear that is just his word against my word at the point. So we go on the public record and we can solve this matter before it goes any further. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Shipley. Any questions of John? Anyone else from the public? (End of Tape) Carl Babbitt, 1671 East Time Zone, was sworn by the City Attorney. Babbitt: I cam just to listen but I guess I should voice a couple of concerns that I had. They were talking about an access road and that they only have one coming out of Victory to this one section and then they are talking about a bridge going over. Well two things, the Los Alamitos Subdivision only has one road going out of it. So if you dumped this subdivision into it it was my understanding that road was just marginal or would handle just its own subdivision. So if you did put a bridge over there would have to be some other roads to handle all of that traffic. The second part, it is my father that owns the land where Los Alamitos is being done. The way he is doing it is as the developer decides to develop it he pays for the land. But he doesn’t own it he has an option to buy it. He doesn’t own it until he develops it. So where that bridge is proposed to go across is still my fathers land. If the developer chooses not to take that option it stays his land. He can choose to develop or not whichever. But any, they are talking about sharing the cost of the bridge. I don’t think it would be right for my father to find out that he has been saddled with the cost of a bridge. If he doesn’t develop it and Los Alamitos might not develop for another couple of years. So you are talking a proposed extra road that could be two years off. The same for the school site. They have proposed 3 acres to give to the school, and they are not asking for money for it. But again that is all proposed down the road. So I just wanted to put it on record that we are talking two maybe three years down the road before this is clarified. That is pretty much it. Johnson: Thank you very much, any questions? Mr. Haily? Bob Haily, 577 East Linkershim, was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 29 Haily: Mr. Chairman and commissioners, I am Superintendent of the Meridian School District here this evening representing our Board of Trustees. I commend the developer and his associates for their planning. It looks like they put a lot of thought into this. We do have some concerns however. A subdivision or a development of this magnitude with 434 units in it will have an impact on the Meridian School District and the educational services that we will be able to provide and to the taxpayers of our district. This development when complete would provide for us 400 to 450 students and as you are probably aware the schools south of the freeway that would service this area are above capacity at this point in time. We have failed two bond issues, we will try again this Spring hopefully we will pass a bond and we will build more schools. However in the area of acquiring sites we cannot wait until we pass a bond issue to acquire sites. Unfortunately we are findings that it takes anywhere from a year to two years to go through the process of obtaining a site and if we wait until we pass a bond issue we can’t get schools built on time. It has been stated here this evening that there is a misunderstanding about the inclusion of a high school site in this development. I don’t believe there is any misunderstanding. There has been a statement that there is negotiation, I don’t believe there has been any negotiation. The School District by statute is required to negotiate with school teachers so we very clearly understand the definition of negotiate. In our definition negotiations have not taken place. When an individual says this is it take it or leave it I don’t believe that constitutes negotiations. We are interested, very interested in school sites in this square mile, we are interested in a high school site at a price fair to the taxpayers of our school district. If that can’t be worked out we are also interested in a middle school site in this square mile at a fair price to our tax payers. We also need an elementary site in this square mile. That one we believe should be fully donated by the developers of this square mile and I know that process has been underway two or three years already and do you see an elementary site on here yet? It is time that happens. I am here to ask you this evening to table this until you have in your possession a signed copy of an agreement between the developer and the School District either for a high school site, a middle school site or a combination high school and elementary site in this square mile. It is imperative for the school district that we be able to plan ahead and to acquire sites in relation to these developments especially one of this magnitude. Mr. Chairman I would be happy to answer any questions. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Haily, any questions from the Commissioners? Hepper: What is the amount of ground that is required for an elementary school site? Haily: The sites that we have been purchasing have been about 12 acres. However we have done some combination sites with the various cities that we work with where the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 30 City acquires seven acres and we acquire seven acres and develop it jointly. Hepper: The site they have to the north where that parcel would be donated to the City for a school or park site would that in combination with the other pieces of that puzzle that are proposed would that be of a sufficient size for an elementary school? Haily: If I heard correctly tonight that total package there could be in the neighborhood of 15 to 16 acres and if that was packaged properly yes that would be ample for the school district and for an adjoining park. What we are fearful of in that process is that they are going to be little triangles that don’t fit nicely into their developments that we will be left with and it is a little hard to put a school on a little sliver and a triangle. Hepper: Has the school district been approached on those slivers to see that they are put together in a fashion that would be acceptable to the school district? Haily: Mr. Mabe who retired from the school district this summer who has worked on that project for quite some time and there have been various shapes talked about. But again we don’t have anything concrete that we could sign off on and say that this will work. MacCoy: One question Bob, just for clarity. I had heard a couple months ago that there was some work being done by you and your staff with the developer which was buying the material of the farming of Overland and Eagle and there south of that for an elementary school. Nothing has been done about guaranteeing a school site there? Haily: Overland and Eagle, no I don’t believe so. The closest one that we have been negotiating on would be in Pepperhills which would be the corner of Cloverdale and Overland. We have some negotiations going on in that subdivision. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, Karen? Karen Gallagher, ACHD, 318 E. 37th, Garden City, was sworn by the City Attorney. Gallagher: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, there are two items that I wanted to clarify tonight regarding this proposal. One of which is the Highway District has not received the traffic study as of yet therefore we have not proceeded with the review of this. Until we get this I am not sure how it will affect the streets or the layout. One of the concerns that we do have at this point in time is on the eastern half that we do have one access to Victory Road and that the loop street is discontinued by the proposed private street. So we needed to look at those numbers and I can’t give you any definite at this point but there are some issues that we need to discuss up to this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 31 point. The second one is regarding the bridge location. There has been a lot of discussion on this up to this point by our staff and yours and with our staff and our Commission. Los Alamitos No. 3 has been approved by our Commission without a bridge connection with culdesacs on both the ones that were shown in the slide that we saw tonight. So we brought that up before when we talked about Highlands in the past. So it is still a conflict that is remaining at this point. The districts staff’s position is to move the bridge to the east further. At this point we are concerned with a direct connection Sundance Subdivision to the north does have a residential collector that comes straight down that we would have concerns about cut through traffic on and speeding on since we have had those in the past. The bridge at either this location that they are looking at or the other one that has been proposed would both have a fairly directly connection to Sundance so those were some of our concerns. Those were the only items I wanted to address if you have any questions. Johnson: Thank you Karen, do you have any questions? Anyone else from the public like to come forward? Herbert Papenfuss, 2680 South Eagle Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Papenfuss: Where I live they don’t seem to have done much but make it worse. They propose this high school apparently facing Eagle Road and I don’t know about you but I would not want to live next to a high school. Not with the current situation today. I don’t see that would have any beneficial effect as far as my property is concerned. I am concerned about that. It would also require, I don’t see how you could get away from it, it would also require widening that road which would take a slice off of my property which would put my house uncomfortably close to the road. That certainly doesn’t enhance things. This maybe the future somewhat but if I decided to sell my house to get away from this the way things are now if I try to sell it and didn’t tell them what might be happening I could be liable of suite latter on because I didn’t tell them. They would be uncomfortable with what is there. If the high school doesn't go there my understanding is the office space would still be there, that is apparently from what I understood this afternoon when we came and looked this subdivision over is that is still basically a part of it if that is zoned for the high school the zoning would also fit for office and wouldn’t have to be rezoned. So that means that either way it is going to have to widen that road. Another thing that nobody seems to care too much about is that bridge that is there toward the north just north of Nixon’s property and our property. That would be a hazard with high schools or office space there because that is a blind spot. I have lived there 30 years and I know what I am talking about. That is a blind spot, when I back out of my house and want to go south there are a number of times when I have backed out and it looked completely clear and I get out there and a car comes over the top because you can’t see it, it is an actual blind spot. If they make any Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 32 changes they are going to have to correct that or it is going to be a hazard. You know high schools kids they, if they had to five feet they would sooner drive so you are going to have a whole bunch of cars there and I think this is something that has to be considered. Now I, let me just say this, I have nothing against growth, I am not an anti-growth type person. I realize in this area growth is a part of the picture. I don’t object to that but I do object to things I feel are not going to be of value to me. If those were homes there large at least approaching 1/2 acre as I noticed on some of those that would be fine because I have an acreage so do others on my side of the street. So that shouldn’t hurt, but when you stick town houses and other things like that there it doesn't do us any good. We depend upon you gentlemen to help us protect our property and see that it will be of a benefit to us. Like I say I have no objection to growth but I think there is some serious problems as it now stands at least as far as I live is concerned. Johnson: Thank you, any questions? Is there anyone else that would like to come forward? Nancy Hanson, 2460 East Victory Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hanson: (Inaudible) I am not sure (inaudible) We have four acres and actually there is easement here and with the easement from the canal and the creek, Nine Mile Creek, there is an extra two acres along here. So there is six acres and I think it borders right into these town houses. So, I want to say that I appreciate that they have changed in the past to the property being R-2 zoning that borders along the canal there. I like the larger lots better but now I am concerned with the town houses right next to us. They weren’t in any of the previous plans. Also this plan they said has 436 homes and with the acreage that they have taken out for the high school and the other ones there are 54 acres I think that you have taken out. I am just concerned, I am curious about how many houses were in the previous plan with 181 acres the last time. Johnson: As I recall you have to address your questions to us. Hanson: Okay, is there a way to find that (inaudible). Johnson: We will get you answers if we can get answers tonight. (Inaudible) in the findings of fact. I believe it was over 700 initially. Hanson: Okay, but we have knocked the property down not quite a third and the houses, to me it looks like the density is just kind of moved around a little. Johnson: You saw the density on the slide and we can ask for (inaudible) Mr. Forrey Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 33 stated it included all easements. Hanson: The other concern I have is the increase of traffic on Victory Road since those are the only access now. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, any questions? Is there anyone else that would like to come forward at this time? Would the applicant like to address some concerns that they have heard tonight? Forrey: Thank your Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. In response to John Shipley’s comment, yes Westpark Company would and it is in the findings of fact and conclusions of law at the City Council level, it is in the Zoning ordinance that we have to maintain any drainage that exists there now. So we would take care of that. Also I believe in the comments from the Public Works Department it talks about non-combustible fence where appropriate. Mr. Shipley spoke tonight about burning that drainage way so we would have to put non-combustible fence there. I don’t know if I could say a specific dimension but that is something we need to work out with Mr. Shipley and go on record as that. We would have to have a non-combustible fence in that area where he would burn the drain and would have to maintain that drainage and make sure it gets back to the Nine Mile Drain. We did state that Westpark Company would consider purchasing his property and I think that is still valid, Westpark is still considering. I don’t know if they will or will not, it is a little tough on Mr. Shipley, he has mentioned it might be for sale. If the traffic study indicates that we have to have access out to Locust Grove Road than we have to look at some options and that may be to evaluate purchasing that property. We are working with the bridge situation that we have got and that is just again back to the engineering and traffic study. Which Karen Gallagher from the Highway District mentioned. Mr. Babbitt’s question about putting a condition on his father’s property or his family’s property well that is not a condition that we placed, that has been placed upon us by public agencies as well. So it has been placed on Marty Goldsmith the person that is intended to buy the Babbitt property and intends to develop it. If it doesn’t develop I guess it would revert back to Mr. Babbitt’s family unless he wanted to develop. Then that is the ground rule we all have to live with. There needs to be a bridge somewhere in that area. In terms of timing it is probably Mr. Babbitt four or five or seven years away from Highland Ranch or the Ranch perspective. The first phase and we have a map with the phase lines, it is not right there, but the first phase is down along Victory Road at the entrance and then it concentrates along Locust Grove and it would probably be four to seven years before we jump the canal so to speak and move east of the canal. Mr. Haily’s comments, thank you, and we thought there was some good communication going but it is evident we probably need to do a little better job there communicating with the school district. And maybe JoAnn Butler can address that more. Karen Gallagher is correct, we have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 34 commissioned a traffic study, it is not yet completed, we are working on that with the Highway District. Mr. Papenfuss, boy and i sympathize, I think Eagle Road is scheduled for widening with or without this project. So that is a neighborhood issue there with the State and the Highway District. We are part of that because of the intent to develop property but we are not the reason for the widening of Eagle Road. Mrs. Hanson, I hope we are doing a good job, we are trying to put larger lots there, but she is concerned about the town homes. I didn’t think that bordered her property I think that is up next to the Record property. The Record ownership is part of the annexation and they have consented to that. If it is a problem and let’s check it out, maybe we need more buffering or screening in that area. That is just a nice little corner there are some nice trees up there and it is a nice little corner we thought for a clustered attached units right there. If it is not going to work right there and if it is a problem to her we will reevaluate that. I will work with and find out the actual ownership. I think it is next to the Record Ownership and not her property. Where we are next to her property we did provide larger lots. JoAnn, any follow up? Okay that is it. Johnson: Will you walk us through your formula how you got that, you might correct me if I was wrong how many units there was in the original plan? Forrey: It was almost 700, I think it was 682 as I recall. We are now down to 436 dwellings. It is not like we lost units because we never had them approved in the first place. But that was the first concept in that R-8 and R-15 zoning. But in the R-4 concept we are looking at 436 dwellings on what you see there as a gross ownership or assemblage of property at 132.94 acres. That comes out to a gross density of 3.27 and that is the formula the City uses in evaluating density. So we are at 3.27. Johnson: Well (inaudible) for Mrs. Hanson and for myself. I believe she was counting something like 50 some acres that was excluded from that for various reasons. Is that included in the 139? Forrey: I think she is referring to the high school site which was 37 acres, that comes off. The 132.94 acres is what you see on the preliminary plat right here. It does not include the Nixon Dairy, the proposed high school site. Johnson: And that works out to the density of 3.29 or whatever it was? Forrey: Yes, 3.27 Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Forrey? Oslund: Just one, you said a few minutes ago that a bridge is needed, before you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 35 Karen said that Los Alamitos No. 3 had been approved by ACHD and there is no bridge, what is going on here? Forrey: The Highway District did approve that but the City Council said no, that is not acceptable to the City of Meridian. The City Planning Director and the City Council approved Los Alamitos Park with the bridge and overrode ACHD’s recommendation to the City of Meridian. Hepper: I had a thought here I wanted to discuss with Wayne, it was mentioned that with the PUD’s we have had a couple other PUD’s that were brought in. They submitted floor plans and landscaping details, almost down to telling us what color the houses are going to be. Very detailed (inaudible) specifically know what we are doing with the PUD. With this where they are going to be selling lots to individual homeowners and different builders and stuff like that I realize you don’t have the control. Part of the concern that I have and I think the City is when we go with a PUD we go smaller square footage of lots and so forth. We don’t necessarily have to have big homes or whatever but we do want quality. It is hard to legislate quality. The building department is not in the business of controlling quality, they control the life safety factors of it to make sure the headers are the right size, the trusses are properly manufactured and nailed right. They don’t, the building department doesn’t get into things like how much brick is on the front of the house or whether it is shakes or shingles or tiles or stuff like that. They don’t make those requirements that is more for the developer with the restrictive covenants. So to me the quality is more dictated by the developer in the covenants rather than the building inspector. My concern is if this gets past, how do we have some sort of assurance that we are going to have quality projects here? Are there things in the restrictive covenants to assure us of that and how do we know we (inaudible) other projects we had. Forrey: One of the comments we received from your Planning and Zoning Administrator was that the City wanted to see covenants. And that is what led Greg to JoAnn Butler, she has prepared covenants for a lot of unique developments in Boise a lot of PUD’s common area type things. So Greg approached JoAnn and she has been working on covenants I think they have been submitted to the City, let’s let JoAnn address that specifically. I think she can follow up on that quality issue and exact where the covenants are. Hepper: Okay, not actually reading the whole covenants just touching on the highlights. Butler: I can address that and they have been submitted to the City just for an initial review. They have been submitted, we haven’t received comments as yet. We have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 36 an architectural control committee that we are establishing under the covenants. We are striving to do exactly that. Provide for quality through a formal mechanism so the City first hand when going through the development process can see that. And second hand remember as Wayne said four or five or seven years before it is developed, there is phasing. You don’t sell the last phase unless the first phase looks okay and is quality. That is partly the developers motivation to maintain a quality project all the way through. That is what we strive to do with our covenants and the enforcement of those covenants. Oslund: I have a question, in the covenants are you going to, it seems to me you have a huge variety of building or dwellings, sizes of dwellings and multi-family, not multi-family but these town homes and lifestyles. Are you going to create almost like districts within this? Butler: How we did it, how our initial draft of the covenants is we have a master or an umbrella association which governs all of the subdivision but where there are for example the lifestyle homes, they would be a separate homeowners association, sort of a local association because they would be in particular assessed more to maintain the parks than the rest. So, but we always try to keep it interwoven so that we don’t have disparate goals for the whole community. To keep it an interlocking neighborhood. Johnson: Does anyone else have any final comments? Shipley: I forgot a couple of things, I have been in contact with Water Resources on the well issue that I have had with Salmon Rapids across the Road just this week and also the Governor’s office. I have received some documentation that the Water Resources wants to require surface water to be used if possible. Their definition of if possible is any time that surface water is in the ditch that it is possible. The Governor’s office has got some studies right now there is a $300,000 grant to study water in the State of Idaho and the falling levels. I am particularly concerned about this because my old house and my old well I have a jet pump and you can suck water no more than 22 feet, you can push it for hundreds and hundreds of feet. Salmon Rapids has put in a well, they have remodeled a well across the way. In Planning and Zoning in 1993 they had told them that they had to use surface water but he got around that by going down to Water Resources and playing games because he had already remodeled the well when he went down to file the well. Four or five years ago when we had irrigation water up till July the 15th my well went down on me for about 3 or 4 days while McDermott irrigated his alfalfa fields on that same well that was originally for 23 acres. They have transferred the water of 23 acres all over Salmon Rapids and all over Los Alamitos and are intending to transfer it on up on the next phase of Los Alamitos. But my paperwork states that they had to accomplish this within one year for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 37 Salmon Rapids so I am going to make them enforce that part. Or the Governor’s office is going to make them enforce that part. Then I didn’t speak to the fact that I have no sewer stub into my side of the property anywhere, it is going to leave me without and I would like to have that issue resolved too before you guys decide to make this thing a done deal. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. Does staff have any comments? Smith: Mr. Chairman, I might address the domestic water issue. We have proposed out there 443 homes I believe at this point there is a single water line serving that area. Water Superintendent’s concern and mine is that we have a looping system because we are getting quite a ways away from our point of supply or the point where the water line crosses the interstate. His comments may seem a little severe and they certainly need to be looked into as for as actual need to serve this subdivision. But secondarily if we have a water main break I don’t want 443 homes out of water. We just went through a situation southwest part of town where we replaced or the Highway District replaced a culvert under Linder Road and we had approximately 200 homes without water for one day while they replaced that structure because we had to shut the water line down, it is the only feed into that area. Out at the northwest part of town, Cherry Lane Village, we had to run a series of fire hoses between fire hydrants to connect two parts of town while a water line was down for repair. So this thing of having dead end lines serving large subdivisions is not very attractive. When we have to go door to door giving a notice to a resident that they are going to be without water if we know they are going to be without water that is one thing, if they are without water because a water line has been broken due to a contract digging through it or some other Mother nature cause perhaps it does create serious problems. We all take our water for granted, and when that water is not there people are very upset. That is I am sure the reason that the Water Superintendent replied the way he did on his initial review. The water design, the water use in that area will be modeled through our computer system and the lines will be sized accordingly throughout the subdivision. But we do have our grid system that we need to maintain in order to provide the flow in order to provide reliability of the flow. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you Gary. Discussion or comments. We are on the public hearing for the preliminary plat, we gathered a lot of testimony with respect to item #12 as well, the conditional use permit. At this time we are addressing the preliminary plat only. Oslund: I had a question for Gary, so you are saying that to provide, it appears to be water available but not reliable water. In other words you need a loop and I guess my question is without unfolding the 3 by 5 map what is their proposal. I see they have some water lines shown on their map. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 38 Smith: I don’t recall the exact location of the water lines on the preliminary plat. Typically the developers show the least number of lines they have to and that would be basically in the right of ways adjacent to their property boundaries that abut the right of ways. In this case there is significant amount of property that does not abut Victory Road for example. We are in the process of drilling a well at Los Alamitos Subdivision, we have put the test well down and documents are being prepared to bid for contract to drill a well. As Mr. Forrey mentioned there is a well lot reportedly involved in this development on Eagle Road. There is considerable amount of activity right now for the development of the intersection of Eagle and Overland Road. There will be a well site in that general area. These things all hook together are going to provide a very reliable water system out there. All of the time intervals working together with all of the developments will provide a reliable water system. I don’t know what those time elements are like integrated one with the other. Which one is going to happen first if the mall is going to develop at all I don’t know. But we need reliability as far as not just water supply that is not the problem particularly, but it is the reliability of the distribution system to provide a continuous flow under a what if scenario. That is my concern. Oslund: So ultimately the City can provide that, but your concern then is in the interim while that system is being developed there may be periods where we don’t have the redundancy. Smith: Right, the water volume can be supplied by drilling a well, but the line servicing the subdivision if it was damaged and the water flow and the well on the east side at the Eagle Road site was not in production yet and this water was being drawn from the Locust Grove site and that water line was damaged than we don’t have a loop back to or back flow or back serve to the subdivision from another direction in other words. Johnson: Any other comments or discussion? What would you like to do with the plat? Hepper: Well I know that Wayne and the developer would like us to act on this thing but I personally I don’t see how we can make a decision right at this moment with the questions that are still up in the air. I think we need to table it and give them an opportunity to try and get some of these things resolved, sewer and water, the school site, the ACHD and some other concerns of some of the neighbors. Maybe the next meeting we will be able to have a little more informed picture of what is going on. I would move we table it until our next regularly scheduled meeting. Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded we table this item until our next regularly scheduled Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 39 meeting which is March 12, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RANCH BY WESTPARK COMPANY TABLED JANUARY 9, 1996: Johnson: Is there any additional information that the applicant would like to provide to the Commissioners that hasn’t already been provided? Wayne Forrey, 3045 Thayen Place, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Forrey: No additional testimony Mr. Chairman. Johnson: Is there anyone else that would like to comment on the conditional use permit? Seeing no one then I will close this public hearing. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we table this to March 12. Oslund: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to table item #12 until March 12, our next scheduled meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea TEN MINUTE BREAK ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SENIOR CITIZEN BOARDING, LODGING COMPLEX BY WAYNE AND KAREN FORREY: Johnson: The applicant has asked that we defer this until March 12 due to time restraints they will not be making a presentation tonight. Since we did notice it as a public hearing we are going to treat it as such in case someone came here to testify. At this time I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to address the Commission? Mike Ford, 10807 Alliance, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Ford: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, we own 23 acres just to the west Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 40 of Mr. Forrey’s request here. As I am sure you are aware he is requesting a conditional use for a residential use in an industrial area. We recently developed Layne Industrial Park just west of this property on Locust Grove and plan on developing the 23 acres the same way. I am not opposed to Wayne’s development at all. I would only ask that screening, buffering, type of things that would need to be done between industrial and residential be placed upon him at the time you hear his request and not upon us at a later date when we develop our property. Johnson: How is your property zoned right now Mike? Ford: Industrial. Johnson: Okay, you probably said that and I missed that. Any questions of Mr. Ford? Thank you, is there anyone else that would like to come forward on this application? Dean Michaelchek, 2410 Springwood Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. (End of Tape) Michaelchek: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners I guess I am not very good at public speaking but I own property on Pine Street and I am not really opposed to Mr. Forrey’s plan here or anything like that but I do request that the Commission take a traffic situation into account. Pine Street has turned into almost like a drag strip here in the last year and a half or so. It is getting to the point of ridiculousness and I don’t know what the future is for Pine Street and I don’t know if the City has any concerns or any future plans for it. But I do request that it be addressed and I do wish to go on record with these comments. If for any other future development for those fields further on east down there and all that stuff there seems to be a lot of traffic on there and I just wish that would be addressed. Johnson: Are you familiar with the Pine Street extension program? Michaelchek: No I am not, I have heard that it may go on to Eagle. Johnson: It is going to hook up with Emerald and it will back up all the way to East 1st through and connect with Emerald. Michaelchek: Is it going to be more than 2 lanes or whatever like that? Johnson: Yes but I can’t tell you how many lanes, maybe Shari can or Gary, but that is on the drawing board. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 41 Smith: It would be three minimum and I think probably four lanes most probably through that area not where Wayne Forrey’s project I don’t believe is being proposed but to the east of that it would begin to be three lanes at least. Michaelchek: Will it be two lanes probably from this project to Locust Grove or something like that? Smith: Well maybe in front of his project it would begin just to the west or back toward town there is too much residential in there for them to do any major expansion or width. In the undeveloped areas adjacent to his project it will be widened. Michaelchek: That is all I wanted to say. Johnson: We had a presentation from ACHD on that I think it was from ACHD on the proposed extension in there and the process of acquiring land and that sort of thing. It is on their drawing board. Thank you for your comments, anyone else? I will close this public hearing. Crookston: Wait a minute you don’t want to close this public hearing, you want to adjourn this public hearing. Johnson: Thank you for reminding me of that, we need to do that with this item and also the next item. If there is no one else then we will adjourn the public hearing but leave it open so we can continue that on March 12. Shearer: I so move. MacCoy: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we leave the hearing open and continue this to March 12 in accord with the desires of the applicant, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BALLANTYNE-TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK BY JIM BALLANTYNE: Johnson: I will open the public hearing at this time. Is there anyone here that would like to address the Commission? The applicant has requested a deferral until March 12 also. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 42 Larry Rackham, 305 West Franklin, was sworn by the City Attorney. Rackham: A few questions, I think the project that I have seen so far with this development seems to be an addition in the good of that area and to the City of Meridian. I do question a couple of areas of concern and one was the movement of the canal from the center of the property that is south of my property on West Franklin Road to adjacent to the property on West Franklin or relocating the canal. That poses a couple of concerns that I have. One is the safety concern for the area if there were to be retail on the property that I would in the future be using. Secondly, the elevation of that ground goes to the north down all of the area north of that project are on septic tanks with water being brought over close to those drain fields and existing septic tanks that could create a problem particularly on the lower level than has been addressed to this point. With the new sewer going in and being available with this development it would make that something that would be considered for connection in the future for anyone that would want to or need to but not address or concern about that particular thing has been addressed and I wanted to be assured of that. The other concern I had was the development of Franklin Road which has been put off I think twice now with Ada County considering an increase in traffic in that area with the roads existing as they are. It is something that needs to be addressed to Ada County and the need for continuing with their concern or their plans for concern with their traffic in that area. As that area develops and is now a real hazard, people trying to turn off of that two lane road, we have had several near accidents. A couple in our area where people have tried to go out around the right side of somebody on the right illegally or improperly. Trying to hustle down the road with five cars behind him trying to get around him. Has there been any future development with the (inaudible) for that road (inaudible). Johnson: There has been some discussion, I am not up on it. It has been addressed before both at the City and Planning and Zoning by ACHD. Perhaps Gary, you could enlighten us with something recent. There has been quite a bit of talk about the very thing you are talking about. Smith: There is a design that is underway for Franklin Road from Meridian Road to Linder for a five lane section, a center turn lane and two lanes and two lanes west. I can’t tell you the dates, they have been as you mentioned they have been moved back on us several years now. Rackham: Well last Fall was the last movement it was planned for last fall. I haven’t heard a date for a future date, but with a development like this we are looking for a real problem on Meridian and Franklin Road. That needs to be addressed, not that we should limit our development but that somehow we should have a consideration for the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 43 roads the necessity of those roads for that development that have to be done and should be done. Johnson: That is a good point. Rackham: One other concern and I want to get with the developer myself or Wayne who is working with that on it, the Franklin Road property that I refer to 305 West Franklin, I don’t know what considerations are necessary for emergency or safety in and out of that or between the properties. But, recently I was on West 7th and while I was on the street problems developed with a fire and I had to go clear out around down to Linder Road and out before I could get out of there because the Fire Department closed that off. With this property behind I didn’t see any addressing of that to speak of and if there is than I would like to be made aware of that or what the plan for that is. Johnson: I appreciate your comments and this will be incorporated in our minutes and will be available for us at the next meeting and also for the City Council. Is there anyone else? Okay we will adjourn this public hearing then until March 12, we need a motion to that effect. Shearer: I move we defer this to March 12. Oslund: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we defer the hearing until, continue it to March 12 at our next meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF SEWER AND WATER EASEMENT BY ROGER ANDERSON: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative to come forward. Jerry Ellis, 502 Aurora Drive, Nampa, was sworn by the City Attorney. Ellis: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners the vacation that we are requesting is in regards to a sewer and water easement that sewer and water easement was reconfigured on this property. The water line and sewer line were both moved and we are just asking for a vacation of the existing easement or excuse me the proceeding easement. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 44 Johnson: Thank you very much. Anyone have any questions? Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission on this issue? (Inaudible) Johnson: Go ahead Gary Smith, we do have a comment. Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shearer, we do have the documentation for the new easement in place. I believe they have relocated the facility also. Johnson: Thank you Gary. This will require findings of fact. I have closed the public hearing at this time. Shearer: I move we prepare findings of fact and conclusions. Hepper: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE FOR UP TO 12 CHILDREN BY ANGELA MILLER: Johnson: I will now open this public hearing and invite the applicant or a representative of the applicant to address the Commission. Angela Miller, 2019 Bedford Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Johnson: Just basically tell us a little bit about your project, what you have in mind. Miller: I am currently having a house built. It is a a primary residence and my occupation is a day care provider. I am applying for a conditional use for that use. Johnson: Have you had discussions with your neighbors? Miller: I only have one and yes they are in favor of this. Johnson: No opposition that you are aware of? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 45 Miller: Like I said I only have the one neighbor and they have no opposition and I have talked to the builder and he has no problems there is a letter from him. Johnson: We have that letter. Thank you, did you have a chance to review the comments from our agencies, were there any problems with those? Miller: No, Johnson: I noticed you did respond to most of those. Miller: I did? Johnson: Somebody did on your behalf. Crookston: Excuse me, would you explain how you are going to keep the kids within the yard and things like that, do you have a fence? Miller: The backyard will be for day care use not the front yard and it will be fenced with a wood fence per code. Crookston It is fenced now? Miller: All I have is a hole in the ground right now, but it will be constructed at the end of when the house is being built. It will be put in before or as soon as we occupy the home. Crookston: How long will that be? Miller: Well, we hopefully will close March 29 and be moved in in April. I will not be able to take children until I get the conditional use permit and the State of Idaho and I will not be able to get those approved until the fence and other conditions are met. That should be within a reasonable, I would say within a week or two of occupancy. Crookston: Do you have an age of children that you would only want to have there at the day care? Miller: I take them all, from zero on up through school age. Usually until they can either go home by themselves. I take them all. Crookston: How many children are you thinking of taking care of? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 46 Miller: I have always been licensed for 12 but I choose not to do that many. Currently I am licensed in Boise for 12 and I do have 5 full time and 3 part time. I do choose to get licensed for 12 just because I do take in some drop ins or when the school aged children are off of school that I do not go over capacity. Crookston: What kind of play toys are you going to have in the backyard? Miller: I have a swing set and I do have some fisher price play equipment. Crookston: Excuse me, where is your property that you are going to build on? Miller: It is Midtown Square, Block 5, Lot 12. Hepper: What would be your hours of operation? Miller: Well, depending on the job I am flexible right now. I do have some Micron workers so a few days a week I work from 6:30 in the morning to 7:00 at night which may be the case. My other hours I work from 7 to 5:30 or 6:00 I like to have the children out by 6:00. Crookston: What type of gates are you going to have on the fence so that children cannot get out of them? Were you planning that? Miller: Currently I do have 6 foot gates and the locks are up high. I have a padlock on them right now. I don’t know if there is a code for self closing or self latching gates, I am not aware of that. If there is than that is what I will do. Crookston: We don’t have a code here in Meridian on that I am just wondering just to make sure what kind of facilities you are going to have. Miller: It is a group home, it is primarily a residence with the day care during business hours. Crookston: How close are you to Cherry Lane? Miller: Well, I am one block off actually. Crookston: To the south? Miller: Yes, Cherry Lane, I don’t know how to measure that I am just at the I would say, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 47 Oslund: It looks like you are about a 1000 feet at least. Hepper: Does the Developer of the project have any concerns about additional traffic? Miller: Not at this time, as it states in the letter that we will get together any concerns that he might have. He does not oppose this at this time. Crookston: Thank you. MacCoy: Another question here, I had a whole list of them but most of them have already been answered already. Johnson: You don’t get credit for those, you only get credit for those that you ask. MacCoy: (Inaudible) I am assuming that when you go for your licensing that the health and safety portion they are going to look into. Adequate lavatory, kitchen facilities and so on. Miller: I have those yes. MacCoy: Do you mind stating what the requirement is for (inaudible). Miller: I have no idea since it is a primary residence I am not sure if there is a code that we would require me to have more stool in the bathroom. I am not a center. Johnson: No there are none that I am aware of with respect to, when you get beyond 12 when you get into, what is the next terminology Wayne? Crookston: Day Care Johnson: Day Care then there are different requirements, segregated requirements an that sort of thing but not at this level. MacCoy: The main question I had was for drop off and pick up (inaudible) is there any problem with traffic. (Inaudible) but you look at your whole Midtown Square (inaudible) more and more Miller: Where I am at the end of the street I am not going to have really a lot of traffic right at that area because I am at the end of the street there. I do have the driveway which will be kept open for people. It is a two car driveway yes. MacCoy: You talked about fencing and (inaudible) I just would like to (inaudible) Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 48 required to by code on the gate situation that (inaudible) self closing gate with a (inaudible) locking system because too many things have happened, kids (inaudible) you know how fast that happens. (Inaudible) Miller: Okay Crookston: You will have a state license though? Miller: Yes, that is in the process now? Johnson: Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you, is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission on this application? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. This requires findings of fact. Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Shari. Taking a look at the map that was provided there appears to be an unplatted property behind this property. At least the map I am looking at doesn’t show what that is planned to be, what the zoning is, my concern is it may be a potential for incompatible use. Not in the broader sense but just the fact that if she has a day care there what is the use going to be behind her potentially? Stiles: Commissioner Oslund and Commissioners that is currently zoned R-4, it is owned by the McFaddens, they also own the NW corner of Cherry Lane and Meridian. Oslund: Judging by the heckling occurred up here I guess that means something. Johnson: No, it just means you need to have a discussion with Mr. Shearer, off the record at some other time. Stiles: Not likely anything to happen for awhile. Oslund: Maybe you are familiar with this the Midtown Square and the specifics regarding that but there appears to be on Lot 13 right next to her lot 12 which in appearance seems to be maybe a ped connection. So she would have a pedestrian alley or connection immediately adjacent to her property. I guess my two comments based on that are really that you have a little different situation because you do have that alley there and the potential for some other use behind you. That may pose some kind additional exposure to the kids, maybe other older kids walking through that alley way ultimately. That was my only comment, I don’t know exactly what we would do about that. That is all I had. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 49 Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. MacCoy: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the application for Angela Miller, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #17: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP HOME DAY CARE BY KATHLEEN LAWRENCE: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite Kathleen or a representative to address the Commission. Kathleen Lawrence, 889 North Fillmore, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lawrence: My request for conditional use is for a day care for up to 12 children which is a group home day care. I did submit proposed fence, due to weather our yard has not been fine graded so we are waiting for that to get done so we can get the fence up. Shearer: Which lot in the subdivision is yours? Lawrence: Lot 6, Block 5 Hepper: Would the garage be part of the day care? Lawrence: No Crookston: Do you have a fence now or will you have one? Lawrence: I do not have a fence now, as soon as the yard, as soon as we are able to fine grade we will put the fence up. Crookston: So you are just newly moved into the home? Lawrence: Yes, we moved in December 5th. MacCoy: What kind of fence? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 50 Lawrence: What kind of fence, we are going to put a six foot four by four by six wooden fence with a gate. Hopefully self locking. (Inaudible) Crookston: What are your hours going to be? Lawrence: I would like to have seven in the morning to six at night. Crookston: And the age of the children that you are going to accept? Lawrence: I want to accept preschool age which is 3, 4 and 5. I do not want to limit it to that but that is my preference. If I am starving I will take other ages. Johnson: Have you had an opportunity to review the comments from Bruce Freckleton, the City Engineer, that is a February 8 letter to you. Lawrence: Yes I have, I didn’t know who it was from, I didn’t see who it was from. It is the one about the fence type and height. Johnson: No, there are four items it is February 8 is the date of the letter, it is on City letterhead. It looks like this. Lawrence: I tried calling him, I got these mailed to me on Monday and I tried calling him this afternoon and he never got back with me. Outside lighting there will be no other light other than what is allowed by the covenants and restrictions, there will be no sign. Off street parking, as you can see I am kind of on the corner there and the drive way will be open it is a two car driveway. Number four, sanitary sewer and water to this facility will be via existing service lines and that is through what is already there. Johnson: What he is saying in the last comment is there is a possibility that the water usage could increase your assessments for water and to make you aware of that. Lawrence: I don’t have any problem with that. I did sign that I would pay extra sewer or water in my application. Johnson: Does anyone else have any questions of the applicant? Hepper: Probably the same question that Greg had on the last one. Are you aware of what the zoning is on the other side of the fence from the back of your property? Lawrence: Light industrial, that whole area is light industrial and I don’t know why the whole subdivision is there it is light industrial. I thought I would just have to get the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 51 regular day care license and I wouldn’t have to do a conditional use permit. Hepper: You are aware that is light industrial and there could be manufacturing and stuff going on right on the other side of your fence? Lawrence: Yes I am. Hepper: Twenty four hours a day type possibility. I just want to make you aware of what is there so you don’t come back some day. Lawrence: I don’t see that as a problem as far as the day care goes as far as my residence goes maybe you might see me here when they are applying for theirs. Hepper: As long as you are aware. That is all I have. Johnson: Anyone else? Thank you, does anyone else want to address the Commission on this application? Lawrence: I have one more question, as far as the hours go, like she says Micron, I don’t know what kind of people I will be taking in, are they flexible with that. Is that flexible with that or is that set in stone how does that work? Johnson: We ask that question really in consideration of your neighbors. Lawrence: That would be my preference and consideration myself. Johnson: Your answer was fine it was, I would like it to be, in other words it wasn’t this is what they are. I think that is fine. Does anyone have any reflection on that? Lawrence: Thank you Johnson: Is there anyone else? I will close the public hearing at this time. This requires findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to have the City Attorney prepare the findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 52 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #18: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, FUEL ISLANDS AND CAR WASH BY AVEST: Johnson: I will open the public hearing at this time and invite Avest or their representative to address the Commission. Larry Durkin, 380 East Parkcenter Blvd., Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Durkin: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners we are the developers of the shopping center project where Fred Meyer is presently under construction and we have a number of other buildings under construction, the McDonalds is now open. What we are talking about tonight is lot 7 which is in the bottom right hand corner of that plat. I want to point out that this is the plat that you have and the building here of record it has been a modification to the north property line. When went through a property line adjustment procedure. So this property is now larger. We took some of lot 8 and applied it to lot 7 and I just want you to be aware that I am showing you this for the purpose to give you an idea of what we are talking about in the larger scale but that is not completely accurate the way it is today. We have entered into an agreement with Chevron, it is the same Chevron operated by that operates the Chevron in Meridian by the freeway. It will be a similar type of operation. This is a 4,000 square foot building with your typical convenience items and food items as well as the car wash and pumps. We have on our plans and application met the conditions for the overall plat. As far as landscaping, drive ways, etc. We have read the entire staff report that we received from the City and we are in full agreement with the recommendations on the report and have no problems with any of them. I don’t see any concerns. Crookston: Are you going to have a drive in window? Durkin: The back left hand corner or what would be the northwest corner of the building there is, it is set up for a drive through facility to pick up milk and things at that back. There is not a restaurant in it, it is for picking up, there is a dairy case there and that is where the register is in the store. So we will have that. Crookston: A conditional use permit is required for the drive in window. Durkin: Is that a separate procedure than this? Crookston: Yes, that is what the Texaco out on Eagle Road that is what happened to them too. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 53 Durkin: So you go through the conditional use permit for the Chevron and then you come back and go through. Stiles: Counselor, I believe the only reason the Texaco had to go back through is because they never showed it on their initial conditional use permit application. I was under the understanding that this could cover the whole thing since they did show this as part of their design now. Crookston: That would be fine with me. Durkin: That would make sense. Crookston: (Inaudible) that did happen to the Texaco place I just wanted to reference that. Johnson: Well they hadn’t shown (inaudible). Durkin: It is clearly shown in our application on this plan here and it is identifiable on the packets that you have. I guess it is really difficult to see on your packets but on the larger plans that we have submitted. Johnson: Is there any change in the lighting that, from what Mr. Eddy has now by the freeway? Can you address that, we were kind of surprised by what happened on Eagle Road and that is probably why I am asking that question. Durkin: Specifically the lighting here is consistent with the Fred Meyer development and frankly I am not real sure what exactly it is but I know it is consistent with the overall lighting plan for the development. Johnson: That was a major concern when the development was approved with Fred Meyer and so if that carries through I am sure that will be (inaudible). Durkin: It is part of our overall approval process for the whole of the project. Hepper: Would there also be a sign like the one out there on the freeway, the one that you can see from about 20 miles away. Durkin: No, there is a small sign in the center of the project. It is a different type of operation I think in all fairness when you have a highway type of location versus a neighborhood type of location. Steve Eddy operates quite a few different ones if you have ever seen the one by the mall at Emerald and Milwaukee that is one of his. Broadway and Linden over in Southeast Boise, that is one of his stations. He is under Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 54 construction now with another highway monstrosity by the airport but this would be more of a neighborhood style. Some of the concerns we had and if you want, I don’t know if you want me to go into it, but we are leasing the ground to him and we had some concerns on the some of the environmental things. We are convinced that they are meeting or exceeding all of the requirements. The ground water on the site automatically goes through a filtering system so that in the event that there would be a spill on the site it doesn’t go into the drainage system it goes through a filtering system first. That is collected. The car wash is filtered many times a day, there is a holding tank that the water is recycled over and over and over again. When they do flush out that tank that goes go into the sewage system but it is completely filtered through a series of filtering systems first. It meets all of the criteria for that. So we are happy with that. The landscaping that we are showing in the front on Fairview Avenue is identical of the overall front of the whole center so that will carry from, this is the last parcel on Fairview that we have and that will carry all the way to the corner without any change. It actually goes a little deeper in some of the sections but on Fairview Avenue it is 35 feet deep and the berm will be the same height, the landscaping plan will be aggressive, nice landscape. Another thing I would like to point out and then this will be it for me, but Tom if you could just point out the lot line between lot 7 and 8. We have a cross easement and use agreement. Lot 8 is to the north, it is our last vacant parcel and we are trying to, we are not trying to, we have a cross easement use agreement that we will be recording on the parcel and these two properties will share access points and we plan on building another facility there that will be compatible with this. That is about it. Johnson: Thank you very much, any questions from the Commission that haven’t been answered? MacCoy: I think I will go back to this lighting, I am familiar with the places you talked about, I am just curious to do with the non-glare type lighting, (inaudible) lighting so much in the past few years here (inaudible) they show up very well in your establishment but they don’t create a road hazard and they don’t create a problem with the neighbors. Durkin: Mr. Commissioner, to be frank with you I don’t have the details on what they are proposing to do specifically. We did cover this at length in the Fred Meyer parcel and i would be happy to add a condition that the lighting be the same lighting program as the Fred Meyer parcel that is in our lease agreement with him. I don’t have a doubt that is the case, but if it will give you more comfort and satisfaction tonight I would be more than happy to. We have a recorded development agreement with the City that is specifically covered in, however if that would make you comfortable that will be the same type of light that is a non-glare light. We have a number of shopping centers in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 55 other areas and I am really aware of that, how sensitive that is. Each time we build a center we try to improve it more and more. We will be more than happy to have that as an additional condition. Johnson: Anyone else? Thank you Larry, anyone else that would like to address the Commission on this issue? We need you to leave those documents that you brought with you for us if you would. Is there anyone else? I will close the public hearing at this time. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any further issues or discussion before we adjourn? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Oslund: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:48 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: JIM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 13, 1996 Page 56 ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK