Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-09 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 9, 1996 The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Hepper, Greg Oslund, Malcolm MacCoy: OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Crookston, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Anna Doty, E.J. Quinteri, Brian Iverson, Wayne Forrey, Brian Hoff, Mike Caven, Gary Lee, Berton Spencer, Dale Newberry, Sharon Barrus, Deanna Spencer, Greg Johnson, Brad Miller, Ehno Tiddens: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 12, 1996: Johnson: You have all read the minutes, are there any corrections, additions or deletions to those minutes? Oslund: I have got two, if I can find them here. Page 23, at the bottom, the last statement attributes that statement to me but in fact I did not make that statement that is Wayne Forrey’s statement. One that begins, “Yes, it is stated in the letter,”. Then on page 63 near the bottom, fourth from the top, the statement begins, “ we have an original motion by Commissioner Shearer and attributes that statement to me but in fact that is Mr. Hepper, I don’t think I was chairing the meeting that night. Johnson: I am surprised, that on page 63 that late in the evening you remember what you did say and what you didn’t say. Oslund: Actually I just grabbed those two so if (inaudible). Johnson: Any other corrections, additions or deletions? Entertain a motion please. Hepper: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we approve the minutes of the previous meeting held March 12. Oslund: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes with the two corrections stated by Commissioner Oslund, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: For those of you that may not have gotten the word the item #10 which is a public hearing we have a request for a deferral on that from the applicant so we will not be doing anything on that. However, we will take public testimony if you are here to testify but the applicant will not be responding this evening. If you want to testify Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 2 tonight you may do so, it has been deferred to a date certain which is May 14, our next meeting. ITEM #1: TABLED MARCH 12, 1996: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY: Johnson: This had been tabled at the applicant’s request in March. It is my understanding that we received a plat on Thursday the 4th which was brought back on April the 5th. Apparently there was an item missing. At this point we still do not have to my knowledge ACHD comments or the requested traffic study. Do any of the Commissioners have any comments regarding this preliminary plat? Oslund: I have a couple, first I would just throw off the suggestion or possible suggestion there that because this application has changed as dramatically as it has that possibly we might want to open it back up to the public. That aside I had a couple of my own comments, let me get to those here. We were given some information about quite a few things, architectural standards and fencing and so on. I was interested in what a two pole split rail open fence was, what you had in mind. It referred to a picture but our stuff is kind of dark, the copy is I can’t really see it. Speaking to the applicant on that. Johnson: What is your other question if you have just two and maybe we can handle all of these at one time. Oslund: The question about sidewalks, you say that, or the applicant says that they would be providing not, they would not be providing sidewalks on both sides of the streets at all locations because the feeling is that the pathway that is included in the development would serve the purpose of some of the sidewalks. So I haven’t seen anything in my package that indicates where the sidewalks would be. The third would be non-circular turnarounds, there is a turn around near the entrance that I am wondering about and I will just kind of go over these. But I think we really need to look at the plat that you might have to give us a little clarity on this. The fourth item I had is you show some floor plans of some house models but earlier in this information package you provided you say that all of the lots would be available to individual builders. So I am wondering if these really have any relevance can we, is it likely that we would be seeing these same kinds of floor plans or are these just something the applicant would actually build or is this something that is going to be required of all builders in the development. I think that was number four. Then my last one, there is an open space area in the northeast corner near the Nine Mile Canal, and you state in your information package that is provided for the use and benefit of the subdivision, that is the way I read it anyway. I guess I am wondering how they are going to get the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 3 benefit out of it, at least what I am seeing there doesn’t seem to be any access to it across the canal from the development. So, those are the five questions that I had. Johnson: I could add to that that perhaps is there really any reason for this to be a PUD anymore since the project has been substantially changed and down sized since its original submission. What special circumstances are existing that this should be a PUD. Does anyone else have any other comments and then we will ask the applicant to respond if the applicant is here and willing. Okay, is the applicant here or a representative? Is this a continued public hearing, does he need to be sworn again? Crookston: I don’t recall, I would imagine that we did. Wayne Forrey, 3045 Thayen Place, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Forrey: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, Greg Johnson is here tonight he is the owner and President of Westpark Company, Greg and I are both going to address some of these questions. I missed question number 3, but I wrote down 1, 2, 4 , 5 and 6. Johnson: Well the 3 had to do with the turn around that Mr. Commissioner Oslund was questioning. Forrey: The photograph of the fence was supplied to the City in a colored photograph. I don’t know how it photocopied but if you are aware of the fence in Crossroads Subdivision that is the photograph of the fence in Crossroads Subdivision. It is two rail split rail fence, it is at the back of the lots bordering the common area. The sidewalk is shown on the colored rendering that we provided to the City. Do you have that, is it in the City file? Could we look at that because it does show, it answers questions 2 and 5. Johnson: Was it in this packet? Forrey: No, it is rolled it is a large colored rendering, full size, 24 by 36 inch. Johnson: Apparently it is not in our file. Forrey: It has the open space colored, the pathway colored, the fence colored. Johnson: Why don’t you proceed with what you can address and we will see if we can come up with that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 4 Forrey: The colored rendering shows where there is going to be chain link fence, six foot high cedar fence, and the two rail split rail fence. It also shows access and gates into the Nine Mile Drain, open space which was question #5. It shows the five foot asphalt pathway where it is actually going to be developed which was question #2. It shows it going into all through the open space and providing circulation through the open space. Which turn around was question #3? Oslund: Block 1 provides access to Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, right at the entrance. Forrey: Yes, it is a non-circular turn around. Oslund: That is correct. Forrey: That question is, is that an approved design? Oslund: Well I guess my concern about a design like that is if you have got that open space that you have to, for lack of a better term you have an open field of pavement that is close to 120 feet long and probably 60 feet wide. I wonder how you then you have got at least 4 properties gaining access at that point. I am wondering how you are going to channel traffic, I don’t know how you are controlling traffic at that point carrying people from just kind of randomly entering the street. Forrey: JJ Howard Engineers designed that with communication with ACHD. Our preference would be to put a landscape island to help define the main roadway and help define turning into that eyebrow if you will. The Highway district, I don’t know what the standard is, but evidently JJ Howard Engineers has been designing it with ACHD and that is the design they came up with. Again our preference would be to put a landscape island in there. Oslund: So you are saying that ACHD has approved this? Forrey: Well it is my understanding they have. (Inaudible) Forrey: Greg Johnson mentioned that probably was that design was a concern over maintenance getting maintenance vehicles in there not having a landscape island. The floor plans, those are samples floor plans, and the ordinance calls for a style. That is the style of building, we addressed that in the written submittal but staff also wanted to see some sample type floor plans and elevation drawings of homes that could be built. So those are samples. I am not saying that those three would be built at every 3 or 4 or Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 5 5th lot but those are building plans that are now under construction in Sportsman Pointe that Greg’s company is familiar with and will probably use. Those lots will also be available to other builders and they also have floor plans that they work with. So that is an example of styles that will likely be built along with the color schemes we provided sample colors. Oslund: So the homes that actually get built may bear no resemblance to what you provided? Forrey: That is possible, but they will be in that similar style. The covenants, conditions and restrictions which we submitted is a lot of detail on what constitutes the style and the percentage of brick and the type of roof and the type of siding, windows and all of those things. So it gives you very good confidence in the type of homes that will ultimately be there. Question #6, the city’s ordinance encourages and asks developers to consider PUD. In fact the ordinance says in effect we would rather have a PUD than a straight subdivision. And so yes there has been some modifications here but the modifications came as the result of City direction to us. The City said we still want the open space, but we want you to scale the project down. We want bigger lots in some areas, the City didn’t particularly like some of the town homes, the attached residential so those have been eliminated. So I hope you wouldn’t consider it a substantial change that we would have to go back to public hearings. All of these changes came as a result of the public hearings and we have met those concerns. We hope you will approve this so we can get onto City Council. Oslund: Getting back to question I had about the fence then, the reason that I asked that is because I was wondering what you intend to do with the fence, all the fences adjacent to block 4, lot 61, from the material you provided us, I believe that what you are saying is that all of that fence would be the split rail type is that true? Forrey: That is correct, If you look on this colored drawing you will see a brown line and it shows where all of that two rail fence is. Can you see the brown line in there? Hepper: Would the lots adjacent to that two rail split rail fence be restricted into providing their own fence. If somebody wanted to put up a cedar fence to keep a dog in the back yard would they be allowed to do that or would they be prevented from that? Forrey: They would be prevented from that, it is in the CC&R’s to protect that open space and the visual look of it and feel. That is why the developer will put in that fence and those lots would be restricted. Oslund: Could they put in a little privacy fence closer to the home around a patio or Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 6 something like that? Forrey: I will let Greg answer that, I didn’t see that in the CC&R’s. Greg Johnson, 2433 Can-Ada Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. G. Johnson: It is our intent to allow these people to fence a private patio but the exterior portion of it, the idea is to let them look across that landscape. We will have lots, if a particular person wants to fence his yard in the ordinary traditional manner on the lot line with the solid fence, there are many lots in the subdivision that would accommodate that. But hopefully there will be enough buyers that maybe don’t have a lot of pets or they have children but they want them to be able to go out into the play areas and be able to look across those play areas and that is what we are designing to accommodate there. Oslund: You were going to at the same time with this drawing talk about that portion of land at the northeast corner. G. Johnson: This park does have an access off of this culdesac there is a paved path designed to carry people up to the access road along the canal. The canal itself will be fenced with a chain link fence. If the Nampa Meridian will allow a gate here they will be allowed to go through that gate and walk along the Ridenbaugh Canal to that access road. But their access to that area is through a foot path coming off of that culdesac. That is, Nine Mile Drain at that point is nothing more than a slight suppression that it collects drainage (inaudible) It is not a huge ditch by any means. There will be a walk path with a culvert over it at that area. Our intention is to grade that drain and probably line it with river rock if we can get Nampa Meridian’s approval. It is about 18 inches to two feet deep and if it was sloped with river rock it would be a nice amenity and wouldn’t have to be covered at that point. That whole area picks up quite a bit of water seeping through the canal is raised about 10 feet at that point so there is water, it is quite wet and marshy in that area. So it will grow good grass it keeps the grass wet and we need a way of picking up that water so it doesn’t cause a problem in the building areas. So we would like to retain that drain there in an open configuration so that water can escape. As Nine Mile Drain continues when it gets down into the middle of the project it becomes a fairly large drain at that point and then continues to the north. Hepper: Would the area between the drain and Ridenbaugh Canal designated at the common area would that be landscaped or sodded or anything? G. Johnson: Our intention is to, it currently is raising grass in this pasture area. Our Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 7 intent with that is to mow it and use it as ball fields, children would be able to play baseball there and other things. It has a gentle slope to it from the canal down to the drain area. But our intent in that particular area is not hide development. There are some clusters of marsh we intend to leave that as kind of wetlands and let the ducks and geese continue to nest there. So it is more kind of an area of quiet peaceful walking and hopefully the Ridenbaugh access can be used and people can walk along there and enjoy a nice summer walk. The areas over in the middle of the Subdivision will contain a soccer field and there are fort type things and hopefully the children, the teenagers and that type of thing will play in those areas and concentrate their activities there. Hepper: What is lot 19 right in the middle of the project in the front there, coming off of Victory Road, the big lot just to the east? G. Johnson: That is an existing residence, it has a home and some horse barns behind it. That would continue to be a large tract of ground with a residence on it. Hepper: Okay Johnson: Any further questions of Greg? Oslund: I am still troubled with that square culdesac, I just don’t see the logic in (inaudible 60 feet by 120 feet of open pavement with no control of vehicles. I just don’t understand how that is going to operate in any kind of organized way, it is is going to be a free for all. I am not ACHD. G.Johnson: Our original design has that as a culdesac with a landscape island and we would be glad to do it as that if we can get it approved by the Highway District. Oslund: I have no more. Johnson: Anyone else that has any comments? (Inaudible) ACHD comments on this, we haven’t received them. Forrey: We are surprised by that, we thought you would by now, you should have. Johnson: Not on this submission because this is different, is that correct staff? Nothing new that we have received. G. Johnson: Our tech review with ACHD did include other portions but their comments on this part are no difference then they have been. The one thing that they did request Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 8 is a secondary access out onto Victory, we have (Inaudible) Originally we had submitted with access up here (inaudible) secondary access and there will also be a third access to the north as that subdivision to the north of us develops. But that was ACHD’s major concern with this portion of the project was one access out onto Victory until the other subdivisions complied Their other alternative to that is to widen this entrance and make that entrance a limited access road for a portion of it in order to provide adequate access with one entrance. Johnson: (Inaudible) anyone from the public that would like to address this application on the preliminary plat? Any additional comments or questions? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I had a question of Shari Stiles, Shari, on the open areas and common areas that are designated as right of ways, the open area up to the northeast goes to the center line of the Ridenbaugh Canal and then there is a maintenance road and then there is the Nine Mile Drain. Over on the west side there is also the Eight Mile Lateral of which the property line goes down the centerline of the lateral. Would those areas be designated as a percentage of the common area? Stiles: Commissioner Hepper and Commissioners, I believe that is a decision for the Commission and the Council as to whether those are suitable areas. I would also ask that you look at storm water retention areas as being suitable open space areas. Hepper: Is there a definition of open space that has to be usable for play ground or walking paths or anything like that? Is it just visually an open area? Stiles: There is a definition, I couldn’t quote it to you right now but I could get that for you from the ordinance. Johnson: Does anyone else have any comments? I will close the public hearing at this time. What is your pleasure, we are acting on a preliminary plat so it does not require findings of fact and conclusions of law, only a recommendation. Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this item until the next regularly scheduled meeting in May until we have time to consider some information that we have asked for. Johnson: Could you be more specific on the information? Oslund: I would like to hear in a little more specific detail what ACHD has to say about our friendly square culdesac and also this issue of open space. If we could have a chance to review our definition, the City’s definition of open space to see that in fact these do, these areas do meet those criteria. (Inaudible) was about the storm water Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 9 detention area, do we have any estimate of what, how much, how often that is going to be inundated if at all with storm water and make it unusable. Johnson: It is a little difficult to incorporate a question into a motion. Oslund: Do you want me to back up? Johnson: Yes I would appreciate it for clarity. I think you should restate your motion. Oslund: That is as clear as I could do it Jim, maybe I want to withdraw that and ask the applicant on that third question the specific one about storm water. Johnson: Do you have a question for the applicant? Oslund: Yes G. Johnson: This is a preliminary plat and we typically do not do our final designs until we get into final platting. That storm drainage will be similar in design and concept is very similar to the existing park and storm drainage system in Sportsman Pointe Subdivision. That particular storm drainage park is about 3 feet in elevation below the street grade and it hose berms around the side of it. It is designed so that the predevelopment flow flows into the Nine Mile Drain unrestricted. A major storm when that particular subdivision that happens to be an 18 inch pipe if a storm providing more water than that 18 inch pipe can discharge then water will bubble up out of the grate into a small retention area. If that retention area gets full then it flows over into the volleyball court and the basket ball court. In the three years that has existed the basket ball court and the tennis court have not been flooded because of storm water. They have flooded because of broken sprinkler lines and a couple of other things but storm water has never gotten into them. Until we reach an agreement with Nampa Meridian Irrigation and Ada County Highway District as to predevelopment flows and actual sizes of those I can’t answer that although it will be designed in a 3 stage system similar to that. But we do intend to use other than the first small area that would get wet in a small storm that will be more of a wet (inaudible) encouraging cat tails and fowl nesting in that small area. The other portion that we will use for sport courts and that would probably only be flooded maybe once a year or even less than that. So they are usable areas, our rationale in the other green belt areas that Mr. Hepper referred to in our opinion the walking using the access roads of Nampa Highway District as walk paths for jogging and just taking a stroll as a family or whatever you want to do in the evening those are open areas that can be used and they are kind of pleasant next to the water although they have to be screened from the subdivision for toddlers and other things so that they don’t have dangerous things there. The other thing is the City staff Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 10 has requested that we always plat those areas separately from our lots anyway to avoid in the past homeowners if their lot is platted through like the Eight Mile Lateral or the Nine Mile Drain the tendency is that should be their land in their mind and they want to run fences down through it and we have lots of problems. We are better off to plat those as common homeowner owned parcels and in this plat we are suggesting that all of those areas will be separate lots owned by the homeowners association. Some of them will be highly usable by the homeowners others will be somewhat restricted because of their nature. But, if you look at the calculations on that we are way over our percentages of 10% common area in the subdivision and I think we are providing some very good amenities here to the homeowners there. Crookston: Mr. Chairman, did you desire that to be on part of the public hearing, what Mr. Johnson just stated? Johnson: Yes, we want that as part of the record. Crookston: You need a motion to have the record open for that purpose. Johnson: Thank you, entertain a motion. Oslund: Okay let’s try this again. Johnson: We need a motion to accept the testimony first since I closed the public hearing. Oslund: I make a motion that we accept the testimony as given of Greg Johnson. Hepper: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we accept the testimony as provided, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Oslund: I make a motion that we table this item until the next regularly scheduled meeting in May, pending the review comments of ACHD. Hepper: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we table this item until ACHD comments are received so it would be tabled until the May 14 meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 11 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: TABLED MARCH 12, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY: Johnson: It would be inappropriate to act on that would it not Wayne? Crookston: That is correct. Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that we also table that item on the conditional use permit until the regularly scheduled meeting in May. Hepper: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we table item 2 as well, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED MARCH 12, 1996: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PORKY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 1 BY RON VAN AUKER: Johnson: It was tabled according to the minutes to receive comments from ACHD which we now have in our possession. Do you recall whether or not this was a public hearing that was left open or closed? I was not at that meeting. Crookston: It is a public hearing, excuse me it was, I don’t recall whether or not we continued that. Johnson: Well we start at page 44 in the minutes if you have those with you. According to the comments on page 50 it was closed at that time. Crookston: My notes indicate that it was closed. Oslund: My notes say that it was closed and that it was tabled pending ACHD comments. Johnson: In that regard then now that you have reviewed ACHD comments what is your discussion what are your comments regarding the requirements as set forth. Is there someone representing the applicant here this evening? Hepper: I guess we need to know if the applicant is willing to abide by these comments of ACHD if they have any problems. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 12 Johnson: Sounds logical to me, would the applicant like to address the Commission? Miller: Brad Miller, we met with ACHD and the requirements are fine. Johnson: Site specific as well everything is alright, no problems? Miller: Yes, no problems. Johnson: I have to ask at least three times because sometimes people don’t really understand what we are asking. Any comments regarding those ACHD comments from the Commission? What is your pleasure? Hepper: Mr. Chairman I move that we recommend approval of the preliminary plat to the City Council. Oslund: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to recommend approval of Porky Park Subdivision No. 1 preliminary plat in the hopes that maybe someday someone will change the name, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: TABLED MARCH 12, 1996: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BALLANTYNE-TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK BY JIM BALLANTYNE: Johnson: Checking the minutes here, starting on page 20, we need to determine whether that was closed or open. Crookston: My notes indicate that the public hearing was closed. Johnson: Thank you, and it was tabled for what reason? Crookston: My notes don’t reflect that Mr. Chairman. Johnson: On page 30 it indicates it was tabled for receipt of ACHD comments as well. Page 30 of the minutes? Oslund: Who made that motion? Johnson: Malcolm MacCoy made the motion that ,”based on the material that was given to us this evening plus the ACHD material which has not been reviewed and still has to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 13 be decided upon that we table this issue until our next meeting which is April 9,” and we are here. So what would you like to do? Oslund: Discuss, at least from where I was sitting the prime concern I had related to transportation and ACHD was that intersection the signalized intersection of the proposed 5th Street and Franklin. We did receive ACHD comments where that particular issue was one of many was discussed by ACHD. I think it was in a tech review. I guess, in that tech review ACHD said that the intersection could be either left where it is proposed and the driveway for Hoff Forest Products relocated at the expense of this applicant. Or it could be the cross could be moved to line up with that. I guess the two questions I have to the applicant and one to Mr. James Hoff I believe that is his name, Brian Hoff if he is here, he testified. One question would be what is the plan to keep it where it is at or to move it to line up with Hoff Products. Or and then the second question I have is to Hoff or a representative of Hoff is if this is acceptable. Johnson: And this would in accordance with the March 13 letter from Hoff Forest Products to ACHD correct? Oslund: That is correct. Johnson: Is the applicant or representative here? Is Mr. Hoff here? Mr. Forrey Forrey: I have an overhead transparency if that would help, can I take a moment and set up the machine? Johnson: Sure, we love pictures. Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, we were tabled to receive ACHD comments, we now have those. The comments from the Commission are correct, the Highway District stipulated that we have really two options. Leave SW 5th in its current configuration as shown on the plat and at our expense the developers expense realign the Hoff entrance. Or move SW 5th to a line with the current Hoff driveway. That is shown as B in the blue. If we do line up with Hoff which is something we may have to do it would change the configuration and kind of a jug handled approach there. There is room to do that it eliminates lot 1 as a developable lot. It would become a nice landscape area. The current use for lot 1 would be shifted down to lot 2. We are prepared to proceed with alternative B if we need to. The other alternative that we agreed with the Highway District is that we would move the entrance to a shared access with our neighbor to the west which is Henkels and McCoy Contractors, we meet with them at 8:30 in the morning. We may have an alternative of shifting to the green that is shown right there. That is also allowed by the Highway District. So our Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 14 choices are either line up with Hoff or we move that entrance an appropriate separation from the Hoff driveway that meets Highway District standards and right now that is 125 feet separation. So if we go to the combination access that is shown in green with Henkels and McCoy, we are far enough west of the driveway that we wouldn’t have a conflict. We understand exactly the position of Hoff Lumber and we agree with that. They did not want to realign their driveway, they want to leave it right where it is at today. So we are really faced with option A or B and as a fall back I guess we would eliminate access to Franklin Road if we can’t work with A or B and we would orient the access down Corporate Drive and just kind of let Franklin Road sit for several years and see what develops with the Hoff and Henkels and McCoy and the veterinary and that sort of thing. We don’t want to do that, we would like to set that in motion today so we know from a good planning standpoint where the access is going to be. So, we can live with the ACHD comments and hope you will approve the plat so we can get moving and get onto City Council with this plat. (End of Tape) Johnson: I am speaking for myself and not all of the commissioners it makes sense at least to me and seems logical that option B is most plausible since the Hoff entrance has been there for some time. To me it doesn’t make sense that they should be put in the position of having to move their entrance away when it is not doing any further development at this point. How far (inaudible) have you talked with the so called neighbor there to the west? Have you approached ACHD specifically with that option? Forrey: Yes we have. Johnson: Both questions is yes we have? Forrey: Yes Johnson: What has been the response from Henkels and McCoy if they are the owners there? Forrey: Well we won’t have a final response, we have had preliminary meetings but we have another meeting with them tomorrow morning at 8:30 but our meetings at the Highway District, they would like to see option A. By the way so you understand options A and B does not interfere with the current driveway at Hoff we are not asking to realign Hoff at all. They have made that clear and we made it clear to them we are not asking to realign. So we are just looking at our side of Franklin as A or B. Hepper: From what I can gather from the ACHD somewhat stipulated that a signal was Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 15 desirable at some future date at that intersection. Forrey: We think so too. Hepper: If you went with option A how would that signal function in relation to the Hoff? Forrey: Hoff does not have a lot of traffic coming out of it and going into it. It is employee traffic it is not like a big commercial center. And so you always look at the intersections in terms of separation between curb cuts and access point A even if it was signalized would be far enough away from the Hoff driveway that it meets ACHD standards. Now I think it would be best for everyone concerned that a signal if there is going to be one would be right in front of Hoff as well because they might want to redevelop their property some day. In that case it might be best at site B, that is something that we have to work out. If we can’t do option A then we will probably drop to option B and that just, we just live with losing lot 1. Oslund: I don’t see how 120 feet is going to do it between A and your entrance to Hoff. The reason I say that is because if you are heading East on Franklin and you want to turn into Hoff you have to pass through what is likely to be a signalized intersection A and go your 120 feet and turn left into Hoff. What is in your way is that left turn bay that is turning left into your development. 120 feet is not going to accommodate more than 3 cars plus the tapered to get it back out to (inaudible). Forrey: You realize that Franklin is going to be five lanes. Oslund: Yes, and I am referring to the left turn bay that will be essentially continuous when construction is finished. Also in the ACHD report it said that a warrant analysis for that signal had not been performed yet and they expect to see that. To me you can’t answer the question about spacing between A and the driveway until you do your signal analysis. Forrey: And that is just for the signal but it also says at such time when development appears to warrant a signal then the developer prepares that signal analysis. In other words they didn’t require for that analysis, it can be at some point in the future. Oslund: The way I understood it is they are requiring you to do a signal a warrant analysis for a signal now or in the very near term. Forrey: No in the future, it is not required now. In fact there is even some doubt as to whether there would be enough traffic to warrant a signal at build out of Corporate Drive. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 16 Oslund: It says a warrant analysis should be completed prior to the District’s approval of the final plat for the first phase. If the signal is warranted then the applicant shall be responsible for the entire cost of the signal. Forrey: I don’t think you have the latest edition of ACHD comments, because that was specifically addressed and changed. Oslund: Mine is dated, it is based on the ACHD Commission date of April 3rd, so last Wednesday. Forrey: Staff specifically told us it wouldn’t be required as a condition of platting. Oslund: Well it makes sense to me, all the warrant analysis tells you is is there ever going to be a signal warranted there. It seems like a question that should be answered. That is my concern, I don’t think, with all due respect of ACHD if they said is 120 feet I don’t know where they got that but that is going to be an issue and last time when Mr. Hoff testified he gave us in his letter to us he told us he gave us the numbers about how many employees were using that. I didn’t get the impression that it was a small number especially at peak times in the morning and evening. Maybe Mr. Hoff can give us some more information on that. Johnson: Wayne do you have a copy of these April 5th, we just received our yesterday. Forrey: Yes, does that clarify the warrant analysis? Oslund: It says the same thing, it is what I just stated. “Conduct a traffic signal warrant analysis prior to the approval of that final plat of the first phase.” Forrey: Is ACHD here? Johnson: Is there a representative of ACHD? Apparently not. Forrey: Boy, that was addressed by staff specifically. Oslund: It is the same thing I have it is just stated a second time under specific requirements. I guess what I am getting to is if I have to pick right now I would say B I don’t know how you are going to get A so far over that you are going to have enough room to give good access for Hoff. In my opinion Hoff should not suffer at all because of this. They are out there now, it has been there for awhile. They are a big employer and they have certain needs of access and they need to be made (inaudible) one way or another. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 17 Forrey: We agree and I asked Brian Hoff and he will tell you that we absolutely agree with that. Oslund: Maybe it is time for Mr. Hoff to talk to us. Johnson: If Mr. Hoff is here we would appreciate asking you some questions. Just state your name for the record please. Hoff: Brian Hoff, thank you for your concern. I think that the comments for the staff report from Ada County answered all of the concerns that we had at that time and that was to line up to our existing driveway or with our consent have our driveway moved. We went over that with Wayne and Jim Ballantyne and were unable to find a suitable relocation. So we said we wanted to leave it where it is and that is where option B looked like an attempt to line up to that driveway. Option A is something new to us but something they are looking on. We had the same concerns that you pointed out. Can it be far enough away to impact us (inaudible). Hepper: What is the amount of traffic travelling in and out of your (inaudible). Hoff: We have about 300 employees that we have that traffic and I think we figured 18 semi trucks in and out a day. Hepper: How many shifts? Hoff: Three shifts. Hepper: So it not all at one time. Hoff: We rotate it (inaudible) seven different times. Hepper: So basically when one shift is letting off another one is getting on. Hoff: About 1/2 hour apart, a lot of traffic. Johnson: Thank you very much. Does anyone have any further questions of the Commissioners, from the Commissioners? Hepper: I guess I had one more question for Wayne, was there any other comments or I don’t know maybe you haven’t seen the ACHD comments, I am just wondering if you had any problems with those besides this one? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 18 Forrey: No we don’t. Hepper: Have you seen them? Forrey: Yes we have, all of the other comments are fine and we hope that you can approve the plat and let us move towards City Council and get back to discussing the annexation and the merits of this project. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Forrey. This is a preliminary plat, it requires a motion, not findings of fact and conclusions of law. Oslund: Well, as far as I am concerned, since Mr. Hoff is aware of the facts and aware that this other alternative is coming or being developed and I think it is pretty clear that ACHD’s material that they state anything that does happen has to be with the consent of Hoff. I would make a motion that we approve or not approve but make a recommendation to approve the preliminary plat and send it on to Council. MacCoy: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the preliminary plat as stated and forward it to City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SENIOR CITIZEN BOARDING/LODGING COMPLEX BY WAYNE & KAREN FORREY: Johnson: It is my understanding that these findings of fact and conclusions of law have not been completed is that correct? Crookston: That is correct. Johnson: Without them we can’t act on those so we will have to. Crookston: I would like to ask Mr. Forrey some questions in regard to those. (Inaudible). Mr. Forrey as I read your application I did not see that you asked for a PUD for the 7.75 acres. Forrey: That is correct, in fact I made a point of saying that PUD was only for the 5 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 19 acres of our property. And that the balance would remained zoned industrial. Crookston: I did not notice that in the application. Forrey: It is there and shown on the submittal map the design plan and it was noticed in the newspaper as well. Also, in the submittal that I gave to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the March public hearing that was addressed in the written response to the staff comments. It was addressed specifically as an item. Crookston: Thank you, then we have some problems with our ordinance. In Section 11-2-409A it does state that, which is the residential listing, it does state that a PUD residential is authorized as a conditional use permit. You go to the industrial section and it does not even address a residential PUD it addresses a general PUD and an industrial PUD. As I understand it you have requested a general PUD. Forrey: That is correct. Crookston: Under our ordinance it also states that the general PUD is designed around or for use when the use is not particularized. That, what I am trying to say is that the application doesn’t state that it is going to be residential, commercial or industrial or that there are enough uses that it would be all of them. As I interpret your application that is going to be a residential application for the senior center. Forrey: No, if you will read the application I submitted and the information it complies with your ordinance and talks about all of the various uses in the project. Many business uses as well as the living center. Crookston: But you just told me you were not asking for a planned unit development. Forrey: No I did, I applied for planned development general in accordance with your ordinance, very specific, which is an allowed use and the industrial zone and conditional use permit. Crookston: But what we are dealing with is only the portion that relates to the senior citizen center. Forrey: So I don’t understand, what is the question? Crookston: The question is as I read the application, the senior center is going to be residential. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 20 Forrey: Yes, with other businesses inside the complex and in the campus to serve those elderly residents. Crookston: Then that is something I did not (inaudible) Forrey: And it describes that in the information I submitted to the City. I am devastated to get to this point and there are no findings. Crookston: (Inaudible) let me restate that, Forrey: All of this was clearly outlined (inaudible). Crookston: If the decision was to approve, let’s say the senior center but not go forward with what you have requested on the 7.75 acres for one reason on or another do you have a problem with that being separated and maybe one go forward and maybe one not? Forrey: Well, yes, I don’t understand the implications of that. I am not prepared now to understand how that relates to the ordinance. What I submitted complies with Meridian City ordinances. It is all one piece of property and I am seeking a conditional use permit on a portion of my property just like other developers do. It is a process that has been encouraged by the City and we are following that. Crookston: I don’t dispute that. Forrey: I guess I would like to know if there is a problem what it is. I don’t, I just don’t understand what is at issue here. Crookston: I have to apologize to you because apparently I was not totally up to speed on what you have applied for because as I read the application that you were asking for was that you were asking for a PUD on the portion that was going to be the senior center complex. Forrey: That is correct, PUD general. Crookston: The way I interpret the ordinance is that and because I interpreted it without being enough on top of it myself all that was going to go in that portion was the senior citizen complex. Johnson: (Inaudible) you people need to get together. We are not going to be able to move forward on this this evening, so any further discussion really is a moot point at Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 21 this time. You need to get together and discuss what it is so we can get findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared for our next meeting. We will do what we can to move that along posthaste. If that requires a special meeting just to address those findings of fact and conclusions of law I think this Commission is willing to do that for you so that we are not delayed a whole month. Forrey: I am not asking for that I am clearly disappointed but I can wait another month if you need the time. I would like you to read everything that I have submitted, I had a ten or eleven page handout described in detail. All types of maps. Johnson: The fact is they are not ready for us so we can’t move along. Crookston: I would apologize, to Wayne and the Commission for not totally being apprised of what was going on. Not because it wasn’t there just because (inaudible). Johnson: Thank you very much. Do we need a motion? Crookston: Yes Johnson: We will need a motion from the Commissioners to table this until such time we have an opportunity to prepare findings of fact and address them at the appropriate time, no later than our next meeting. Crookston: I think it is appropriate to include in the motion that Mr. Forrey and myself work on this together. Oslund: I make a motion that Mr. Forrey and Mr. Crookston get together and talk about this and work all the glitches out and we will table this item until such time that occurs no later than the next regularly scheduled meeting in May. Hepper: Second Johnson: Moved and second we table this item as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 14 ACRES TO I-L FOR OLSON-BUSH NO. 2 SUBDIVISION BY R-2 DEVELOPMENT: Johnson: We do have these findings of fact and conclusions of law, are there any Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 22 comments that the Commissioners would like to make at this time? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I have a question on page 15, paragraph 12, it is on page 18, I guess it would be on paragraph 16 next to the last line. It says, “it is concluded that the land should be annexed and zoned but not subject to de-annexation,” I am questioning whether would not should be omitted. Johnson: Yes, that doesn’t look (inaudible) Hepper: But subject to de-annexation. Crookston: That is correct. Johnson: We need to delete the word not on the next to the last line of paragraph 16, is that correct. It also looks like we go from paragraph 16 to 18. Any other comments on these findings of fact. Hepper: On the approval of findings of fact and conclusions, second sentence there it says the City Council of Meridian instead of the City of Meridian. Johnson: Good point, so we need to eliminate Council correct. Hepper: Yes Johnson: Anything else? Anyone else? Entertain a motion then for approval. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact. Oslund: Second Johnson: Moved by Commissioner Hepper, second by Commissioner Oslund to approve the findings of fact with the corrections discussed previously, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yea, Oslund -Yea, Shearer - Absent, MacCoy - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any recommendation you wish to pass along at this time? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 23 hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the property set forth in the application be approved for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Including that the applicant enter into a development agreement as required herein and that if the applicant does not do so that the land be de-annexed. That if the applicant is not agreeable with these findings of fact and conclusions and is not agreeable with entering into a development agreement the property should not be annexed. Oslund: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to pass a recommendation as written and stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR OLSON-BUSH NO. 2 SUBDIVISION BY R-2 DEVELOPMENT; TABLED MARCH 12, 1996: Johnson: Any discussion regarding the preliminary plat? Oslund: I move that we approve the preliminary plat including staff comments and move it forward to City Council. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Motion by Commissioner Oslund, second by Commissioner MacCoy to pass an approval recommendation onto City Council for the preliminary plat for Olson Bush Subdivision No. 2, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY CRYSTAL MARTINEZ: Johnson: Any comments regarding these findings of fact and conclusions of law that have been prepared? Oslund: I had a question, it was more directed to the applicant, I don’t know that she is here. But, when she was here for the public hearing she made some statements to the effect that she was possibly considering the use of her home of more than 12 children which would require a whole different process, whole different level of review I guess. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 24 She made it sound like that was the direction she was going and she wasn’t sure if the conditional use permit was the correct process for her. I was wondering if she had resolved that issue or if she had talked to staff about that at all. Johnson: Is Crystal Martinez here, any representative for her here? Apparently not but we are not here to act on that anyway, we are here to act on what has been presented. MacCoy: Wayne told her what she had to do so it is up to her. Oslund: I would make a motion that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission adopt and approve these findings of fact and conclusions. Hepper: Second Johnson: Motion by Commissioner Oslund, second by Commissioner Hepper to approve the findings of fact as prepared, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yea, Oslund - Yea, Shearer - Absent, MacCoy - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: The recommendation you would like to pass onto the City Council is? Oslund: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit request by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in these findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the applicant be required to meet the requirements of Bruce Freckleton and Shari Stiles, the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, uniform fire code and other ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the applicant by the City. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we pass the recommendation as read onto the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 25 ITEM #9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LEARNING CENTER FOR 50 STUDENTS BY MILLSTREAM PROPERTIES: Johnson: Do any of the Commissioners have comments or corrections regarding these findings of fact? Entertain a motion please. MacCoy: I make a motion for approval of the findings of fact and conclusions, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions. Hepper: Second Johnson: Motion by Commissioner MacCoy, second by Commissioner Hepper, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yea, Oslund - Yea, Shearer - Absent, MacCoy - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: The recommendation you would like to pass onto the City Council please? MacCoy: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Hepper: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HONOR PARK NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY WILLIAM HON: Johnson: As stated earlier we have a request from Mr. Hon and his representative to defer this until our next meeting in May which is May 14. However since it is a public hearing and it has been noticed if you would like to give testimony at this time I will open the public hearing and ask you to address the Commission at this time. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 26 Ehno Tiddens, 213 E. 2nd Street, was sworn by the City Attorney. Tiddens: I am here representing the Williams Addition Lateral Association which is a group of people who use flood irrigation for their yards in that subdivision which is, it adjoins Franklin Road. Franklin Road is the southern most boundary, it goes clear over to the rail road tracks is our northern boundary of our subdivision. On the east it is bounded at 3rd Street East and on the west it is bounded by Meridian Road. In that area there we have a lateral that flows through it and we want to keep the water flowing through it. In this plan that we got in the mail of the subdivision that is in question here it doesn’t show any plans, any way of continuation. There is a ditch that runs along the park that is right on the extreme western edge of this subdivision that we are talking about here. It flows continually through the irrigation season and right now it is an open ditch. We want to make sure that there are provisions for approval of that plot plan that water continues to flow through and it goes under Franklin Road through our subdivision. Also, we would recommend a 14 inch tile through there instead of leaving it an open ditch. The ditch presently is closed, in other words tiled in both at the park end which is right below the swimming pool is where our ditch comes out and or the tile come out and the ditch begins. And the ditch part is only I would say about 200 feet long there between where it comes out there in the park to Franklin Road. Then it goes of course under Franklin Road and through a 14 inch tile into our subdivision. We just want to make sure there are plans so that our water is not obstructed there. Johnson: Okay, I have two things to respond to that or two items that will maybe give you some comfort. Our staff recommends under their general comments which they responded to this. Any existing irrigation ditches crossing the property to be included in this project shall be tiled per City Ordinance. That is an ordinance that requires ditches to be tiled. The ditches to be piped are to be shown on the preliminary plat plans will need to be approved for the appropriate lateral users association, etc. Secondly we have a comment from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District which is more or less a boiler plate type response, but it says all laterals and waste ways must be protected, etc. So I think you can be assured that your flow of water will not be interrupted down stream. Do you have any other questions other than that? Tiddens: Only, what is the time frame on that, when do you think it would be tiled? Johnson: Well I can’t answer that specifically because we don’t know how long this process will take before this approved. It will be a condition of acceptance of the application that they have to tile. There will be a development agreement to that. Is there a specific time that you can tell us that would be more specific than that Gary Smith? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 27 Smith: No Mr. Chairman, I don’t know what their schedule is for improvement of the subdivision. They have, if this plat is approved by City Council they have one year to file a final plat on all of it or a portion thereof. If they don’t do that they have to either ask for an extension or the approval is null and void. I would like to get this gentlemen’s name and telephone number and I will put that on our review copy of this preliminary plat and we will call you sir when we have plans and let you come and look at them. Tiddens: Do you want me to give that to you now? Smith: Yes sir if you would. Tiddens: The name is Ehno Tiddens, at 888-7702. Smith: Thank you. Johnson: Thank you very much, I appreciate your testimony. Anyone else from the public that would like to comment on this application? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. Crookston: Don’t you want to continue the public hearing for a presentation by the applicant? Johnson: Yes, that is a good suggestion, I will not close the public hearing I will leave it open so we can receive the applicant’s testimony. We will need a motion to table it to our next meeting even though we have a request from the applicant. Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move we go ahead and keep it open and go ahead and table it to the regularly scheduled meeting in May. Hepper: Second Johnson: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR RAILSIDE SUBDIVISION BY RONALD YANKE: Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite Mr. Yanke or his representative to address the Commission. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 28 Gary Lee, JUB Engineers, 1750 Summertree, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: The application before you this evening is a request by the applicant of approval of a preliminary plat known as the Railside Industrial Park Subdivision. This development consists of 13 industrial lots ranging in size between 1 and 1/2 acres. It is situated on 22.8 acres off of Pine Road just directly west of Locust Grove. It is north of the rail road and situated in a presently zoned industrial or I-L zone. The intent obviously is to develop light industrial uses in that park as presented in the preliminary plat the uses will identify and comply with the current ordinances. This particular piece of property as well as surrounding parcels to the east, south and west is in an I-L zone and has been for quite some time. It is bordered to a residential subdivision to the north known as Maws Addition which is in an R-8 zone. The current use of the property has been in agriculture production for quite some time. As you have seen earlier this evening there is an application just to the west boundary of it by Mr. Forrey for the residential use. There are services available on Pine Street for water and sewer as well as a sewer line along the south boundary adjacent to the existing railroad track. There has been a variance application submitted to the City which I guess will be heard by the City Council seeking a variance on the pressurized irrigation ordinance. This project being an industrial use will be mainly hard surfaced areas, buildings, and very minimal landscaping. There will be some provided to meet the minimum requirements of the City. There will be a landscape buffer along Pine street in accordance with the City staff recommendations of a 20 foot wide strip and also a ten foot wide strip along the future Locust Grove as it may extend in the future. There has also been a request for a waiver on sidewalk on one side of the street on Ralston and Commercial Avenue. This is very similar in nature to the Layne Industrial Subdivision that was approved about a year ago just to the east of this property on the present Locust Grove site. The lot dimensions are 185 to 200 foot in frontage so this waiver we believe is a reasonable request. There are no commercial uses or attractions in the neighborhood that would cause an excessive amount of pedestrian traffic. We have reviewed at least technical staff review from ACHD on their comments regarding right of way and road widths. We have agreed to shift the right of way along Pine Street southerly so that the existing improvements along Maws Addition can stay as they are today. By doing this we are giving up additional right of way there to accommodate future plans (inaudible) street through there. Also there will be an adjustment to the right of way along Locust Grove to line up with the present Locust Grove north of Pine. A couple of comments from the City Engineer and City Planner. A letter we received on Friday, general condition 4 speaks to the waiver, we would like to have the waiver on the sidewalk to have it on one side of Ralston and Commercial Avenue. Site specific condition 4, we would like to request that the landscaping along Locust Grove and Pine Street be placed in an easement and the maintenance of that landscape easement be by the individual lot owner rather than in a designated common lot. The reason for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 29 that is this particular development we have no cause or reason to form a business owners association and we would like not to do that. Site specific condition 7 where the City Engineer spoke about the common lot for the sewer lines along the south edge of the boundary of the project. We would like to discuss this further with the City Engineer and see if we can’t have some sort of exclusive easement right for the City and keep that on private property. We may suggest that maybe limit the use of that property to either emergency vehicle access or possibly parking and restrict any storage or building use. Again we don’t want to have to form a homeowners association to maintain the common lots that would be an unreasonable request. (End of Tape) Lee: Well that concludes my presentation, I would entertain any questions that you may have at this time. Johnson: Questions of the applicant from the commissioners? Hepper: Gary I had a question on these site specific comments from Shari Stiles and Bruce Freckleton, #4 states that a 20 foot planting strip would be required. It says as residential properties abut this subdivision 20 foot planting strips are required adjacent to existing residential properties to the north and the west of the subdivision. Do you agree with putting a 20 foot planting strip down the west side? Lee: That would be the residential house that is on the corner I suppose you are speaking of? Hepper: Well to the west of your project wouldn’t that be Forrey? Lee: Well there is a jog in the parcel and there is an existing home situated on Pine Street. Yes you are correct in stating that part of it adjoins Wayne Forrey’s property. Oslund: Their’s is right here, Forrey’s is right here. Just a little clarification once again, Forrey’s property is to the west of your property. Lee: Starting on the northwest corner of Lot 2 that is correct. Although that piece west of Lot 1 is owned by a third party and there is a house on that property now. Hepper: (Inaudible) 20 foot landscape strip down the west side, apparently it says, because those are both residential, Forrey’s would also be residential. Lee: I did have a conversation with Wayne Forrey and his comment to me at the time Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 30 was he is planning on some landscape buffering on his development. He wasn’t going to make any undo hardships on future developments along this already approved industrial area. Hepper: That is kind of what I was getting at was if you had worked anything out to accommodate each other or just see that Shari’s request is met. Lee: I guess we would probably like to entertain that portion line along the west boundary of Lot 1 which is a single family residence, there is a fair amount of separation between the boundary and his home at present by his own property. His property is an industrial zone. Oslund: So let’s say that again then, along Lot 1 and Block 2 you are not proposing to landscape. Lee: No Oslund: How about along Blocks 2, 3, 5 of Block, I am sorry Lot 2, 3 and 5 of Block 2? Lee: No, no plans for landscaping there. Oslund: I guess I would, the fact that Wayne has come in and is proposing a residential, basically a residential development to your west, somebody is going to have to put something in there and buffer. It seems to me that since Wayne was in here a little earlier, the only thing that seems logical is that this particular application you would be required to put the buffering even though he beat you only by 30 days. Lee: This is all industrial use in this area. Hepper: I believe that Wayne testified and we could ask him that he testified before that he would be willing to put in the required buffering so as not to place a hardship on the industrial that was previously there before his property. So I guess before we go too much farther we need to maybe get a comment from Wayne on this too. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Lee? MacCoy: I do, you don’t have any problem with item 10, a note will be placed on the final plat that states no direct access will be allowed to Pine and Locust Grove, are your plans to be all internal? Lee: Yes, that is fine, that is correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 31 MacCoy: ACHD will have their statement I am sure, but I just think it is good policy to maintain internal, you don’t end up with a problem. Lee: We agree MacCoy: You had shown your drawing here JUB Engineering drawing that you have a 58 foot right of way, what set that? Lee: That is the ACHD revised policy for collector streets. MacCoy: For 58 not 60? Lee: That is correct, it will have the same size street within that right of way as it always has and that will be 41 feet back to back. Johnson: Anything else Malcolm? MacCoy: No, that covers mine, Gary and Shari have covered most of them. Oslund: I have got another, you kind of peaked my interest when we mentioned about the lots. Block 2 and Lot 1 and Block 1 those lots abutting East Pine. If you want to create a 20 foot landscaping easement there rather than a common parcel to affect the landscaping improvements. I guess I wonder, I understand what you are trying to achieve there. What is the easement, what is the purpose of the easement. Could you just make that one ownership lot? Lee: Well it would be a specific site easement on that lot for landscaping. And the CC&R’s should address those two lots as being required to have landscaping in that easement. Oslund: Easements from who to who? I guess I don’t understand. Lee: Well I guess since it is a City requirement the easement should be for the benefit of the City so it is part of their beautification of the entry into the City of Meridian. Or it could be for the beneficial use of the lot owners in the subdivision, either one. Oslund: That seems a little peculiar to me, because they are not really, the other, I don’t see what the benefit is to the other. If you are going to do that it seems to me you just make it again a common ownership parcel and just go ahead and do it the way we have seen it on others. I guess and maybe it is directed more to Wayne, if we try to do something like that, in other words create some landscaping up front that none of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 32 other parcels have any involvement in does that make a case at all for possibly improving all of these parcel under the preliminary plat and then putting lots 1 and 1 along East Pine Street of the conditional use permit. I don’t see how we have any control if we approve the preliminary plat with this kind of arrangement. I don’t see how we Crookston: The concern is going to be who is going to take care of that landscaping. Oslund: Or that it gets done, how do we know that it will get done, I guess it what I am asking. We trust you guys, don’t get us wrong. Lee: Well I guess our point of view is really the only people that are going to benefit from that lot or that landscape easement won’t be the users in the development. It is not a common open space area for them to enjoy necessarily. And then you have only got 2 landowners to get after for landscaping maintenance or whatever the City may see fit rather than 13. Oslund: I agree, I guess I just don’t see the purpose of the easement there because when you grant an easement you are granting something to somebody so they and they pay something to receive that benefit. I see those two parcels, if an owner, a particular owners wants to dress up frontage maybe that is something that they would like. Lee: Well maybe we should handle that in the CC&R’s then to make those restrictions on those two lots and those along Locust Grove. (Inaudible) 20 feet landscaping and you can be specific on what you want, so many trees, so much in the way of shrubs and so on and so forth. Oslund: Well if we were to approve the preliminary plat with a condition or not a condition but the fact that we would show that there was some landscaping up front what is the process for affirming that is going to happen? Johnson: Shari Stiles would you like to address the landscaping issue if you would at this point (inaudible). Stiles: Chairman Johnson and Commissioners I believe this came up in the Valley Center Subdivision, I am not sure how that ended up whether they required an easement or a lot. I believe Mr. Morrow was quite specific that he wanted a lot. The main concern is consistency of the landscaping that it fit as one unit and that it be done prior to any building on the rest of the plat so that planting strip which is intended as a buffer for the residential across the street be in place prior to do any construction on the lot. I think that they could probably handle it with probably a note on the final plat Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 33 and in the covenants that I believe the Council can make the condition that landscaping be construct prior to beginning any construction on any portion of the plat. Johnson: Is that a similar case where only two of 13 lots owners would benefit from the easement or was it a situation where the landscaping area ran the length of the project or do you recall specifically. Is it really similar to what we are talking about here? Stiles: It is somewhat similar, they had much more frontage on Overland Road. There is really nothing across the street from them and also it was a new annexation. This property has been annexed for many years and we cannot require a development agreement as part of the plat. Johnson: If as Mr. Lee suggests they handle this through the CC&R’s do you think that would be acceptable to you, do you think that would be acceptable to the City Council? Stiles: I think that if the maintenance is handled through the CC&R’s I still do believe that it should be constructed as part of the initial improvements. Johnson: And your hammer on that, your leverage on that to satisfy Commissioner Oslund is what? Stiles: Prior to their getting a signature on the final plat they would need to bond for those improvements. Johnson: Or do the improvements. Stiles: Right Johnson: And Gary do you have any comments regarding Shari Stiles’ comments? Lee: No, I really don’t think that is a concern. I think our biggest concern was forming an association and having a corporation formed just to take care of landscaping. Johnson: I can see where you wouldn’t want to do that (inaudible) and I don’t think that is appropriate either. I wonder if there is a better way of handling it. As long as you have the signature or development agreement or something (inaudible) seems to me we could be satisfied it would be completed because that seems to be Commissioner Oslunds Concern that it will get done even though he trusts you guys. Mr. Forrey, since your name came up in vain here several times would you make yourself available please so we could ask you a couple of questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 34 Wayne Forrey, 3045 Thayen Place, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I met some time ago with Mike Ford who is an executive with Ron Yanke Company. I committed to Mr. Ford that on our project our retirement center campus we would build a lot of landscaping and quality screening and fencing and it would not be necessary to ask them to do any of that work. I made that same commitment to Gary Lee I think on two occasions. Our project abuts only a portion, my entire property is the west boundary here except for the home on Pine. The elderly campus is toward the north part of my property. So I am not asking for a special landscape strip we will provide that ourself we will self buffer and screen. I don’t think it is appropriate to ask these gentlemen to do it, we are perfectly happy without it. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Forrey or any other questions? In other words you told us what we wanted to hear. Thank you Wayne I appreciate it. Is there anyone else from the public or does the applicant still (inaudible). Lee: I am finished unless there are some questions? Johnson: Thank you Gary, any other people in the audience that would like to address the Commission on this application. No further comments Mr. Lee? I will close the public hearing at this time. This would require findings of fact and conclusions of law. Oslund: I thought it was just a plat? Johnson: You are right it is just a plat, sorry about that, recommendation. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval on the preliminary plat. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Commissioner Hepper motions for approval, seconded by Commissioner Malcolm MacCoy, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea FIVE MINUTE RECESS ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PHOTOGRAPHIC PORTRAIT STUDIO BY BERTON & DEANNA SPENCER: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 35 Johnson: At this point I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or the applicant’s representative to address the Commission. Berton Spencer, 213 E. 3rd, was sworn by the City Attorney. Spencer: Originally when we began this process and what we determined was really quite a process what we would basically need is we need a place to do some photographic portraits. The main thing that we are considering is for like seniors and at this location there wouldn’t be more than one possibly two seniors there at a time. It is going to be very limited. The other thing would be interviewing and discussing wedding plans with brides should we do weddings. Most of our work is done on site. For instance working with seniors on the green belt, environmental type work. We originally made the application for the enclosing the car port for a photographic studio and I saw that there were several questions and comments with regard to that. Basically how we feel at this particular time is that anything that if you don’t want to enclose it we won’t enclose it. I have also noticed that there are also some concerns about a sign and that sort of thing. This would be an appointment only sort of situation that we would like to have at this location. I am not sure at this particular time if an accessory use permit might be a better thing than a full conditional use permit but we would just like to state that any, we would be more than willing to work with the Commission on any way it would allow us to be able to do this. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Spencer, any questions from the Commissioners to the Applicant? MacCoy: I do, you say it is going to be done by appointment only? Spencer: Yes MacCoy: How do you plan to advertise, through the yellow pages or though billboards or what? Spencer: Yes and word of mouth that sort of thing. As far as billboards, the other thing would be like the school paper with a phone number that sort of thing. MacCoy: You have read the material that was written up by the City? Spencer: Yes, I would also like to include that there won’t be any type of photographic processing done on the site so as far as the compliance with the City sewer there wouldn’t be any problem. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 36 MacCoy: Let’s go back one step here, you list your home at 213, I got the impression that was a single family dwelling. I took a look at it and it is a duplex. Spencer Yes, when we originally purchased the property there was a question about that and we went to our insurance agent and he said that they insure it as a single dwelling property because there is a split. evidently there is some sort of fire between the two so they are able to insure them as separate properties. MacCoy: Probably a fire wall in there. Spencer: The other owner is here this evening as well. MacCoy: I would like to hear from them later on. I have got a concern the fact that it is a duplex, because 215 being your next door neighbor I have seen over the years this type of installation causing a problem. You mentioned chemicals not being used in the building, what kind of assurance do we have that is not going to happen? Spencer: There used to be a problem in the past with nitrates in films, that is no longer a concern. As far as lighting, I don’t use flood lighting, it is all electronic. So there won’t be a problem with that. MacCoy: There won’t be a problem with wiring for example. Spencer: It is very low. MacCoy: Let’s go back to your carport now, do you still plan to frame that to make a room out of it or are you going to do that in your home? Spencer: I would like to but I would, at some point my wife would like to have the extra space. I frankly, at this juncture I would like to leave it to the Commission if that would be acceptable. MacCoy: Because framing that carport in puts you, I can see your neighbors fencing which is pretty close. Spencer: There is five feet from there in between the fence that exists there. MacCoy: Is that a four foot high fence? Spencer: No, I think it is more like a three (inaudible) in fact it is getting rather old if you noticed. That is going to have to be taken care of sooner or later. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 37 MacCoy: Where do you park your car when the car port is gone. I noticed behind your area it doesn’t look conducive to put more cars and more vehicles. Spencer: There wouldn’t be any access to get to the rear of it. MacCoy: So you would be forced to park on the front part of your property. Spencer: We have measured that and I am not sure of the requirements but there are 25 feet from the existing sidewalk to the street and even without the carport there you could easily put three in front and one in the driveway which is four vehicles. Frankly I don’t see any situation where we would be having more than two other vehicles there. MacCoy: Okay, so you wouldn’t plan to park your car on a I guess a concrete pad of some kind in front of your existing (inaudible) Spencer: There is one existing there now. MacCoy: Did they list the fact that (inaudible) Spencer: There is an existing four foot sidewalk there that runs the entire length of the block. But it is getting rather old anyway. I am assuming that here when they were talking about the installation of a five foot sidewalk that would go in its present position. MacCoy: You mean replace what you have. Spencer: Replace what I have and widen it by a foot. MacCoy: I realize that in our Old Town zoning we do have some leeway but we are also concerned about the health and safety of your neighborhood and particularly now your neighbor which is next door to you. Spencer: I do have a letter here from the folks that live at 200 East 3rd which is across the street. We have gone around and discussed this with all of our neighbors as many of them as possible and they all said they were in support of this. Johnson: Would you like to enter that letter into the record? Spencer: Yes, if I could. MacCoy: Okay, for the time being I am going to shut off and pass it down the road here. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 38 Oslund: What is the square footage of your home? Spencer: It is a two story, I did some quick figuring back here and the total square footage of the property came to 2070 square feet. Let me think here Oslund: That is your lot size? Spencer: Yes, that is the lot size, 2040 excuse me that confused me because there was a statement in here about the regulation that is under 2070 would not be (inaudible). I do have a floor plan of the house here if you would like to see that. Oslund: Okay Spencer: In that I did take some measurements, do I submit this to you? Oslund: I think I can take a look at it and then submit it. Johnson: That would be fine, we want to make sure to note on there that we received it so we will do that here. Oslund: Let’s suppose then that you weren’t allowed to enclose that carport and you needed to do your work within your home. Are you going to have enough room in the lower portion to do that? Spencer: In the living room there is (inaudible) the other thing is that most of the or all of the equipment is rather portable. So it would also require that we take the equipment down as well so that she could discuss plans with brides that want to come in and have a wedding and to show work. Oslund: You said that there is not going to be any photo processing on site, where would that occur? Spencer: That is done out of state. I presently have a professional lab that I deal with. Oslund: You did say that if we were to approve this without the enclosure of the carport that would be acceptable. Spencer: That would be acceptable if it was between not being able to do my photography and that. I am just trying to work with you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 39 Oslund: Then, just to make this clear on the, in terms of the advertisement and that sort of thing then you would not be necessarily or you would not be advertising your location for just for folks to just come in. Spencer: In fact we would if we could stipulate it would be by appointment only, would that be acceptable. I also have some photographs of the property if you would like those. Johnson: If you submit those to us it becomes property of the City I have to tell you that in advance. Hepper: I had a quick comment, I am not sure that the feasibility of enclosing the carport would be satisfactory. You would probably have to, you can just build a wall and set it on the concrete slab. In order for the building department you would have to check with the building department but you would have to have a footing and foundation under there (inaudible) just like you have to have for a house. The cost of tearing all of that out and putting that in is probably more then the cost of the carport right now. Spencer: I was, it was one of those things where I was going to go do that then somebody said no before you do that come here first. Hepper: I don’t know maybe Gary can comment on that, I believe that I am right. The building requirements would require a footing and foundation and redwood plate and all of that kind of stuff just like a new construction. So the only thing you would be salvaging would be the roof but you would basically have to rebuild that as a part of the house. Johnson: Did you indicate that your neighbor was here that is in the same building? Spencer: Yes Johnson: I would be interested in hearing if he would be willing to come forward or she. Sharon Barrows, 215 East 3rd Street, was sworn by the City Attorney. Johnson: The concern of some of the commissioners I believe, Commissioner Oslund and also Commissioner MacCoy is compatibility of a commercial enterprise with someone so close in proximity. My question to you is what is your reaction to this application and are you on the favorable side or the negative side. How do you view this application affecting your way of life. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 40 Barrows: Our property is really close to down town Meridian, we are, I don’t know what you call when you are living in a commercial area anyway. As I see it I see this photography studio as something positive, I think it will upgrade our property myself. It truly doesn’t sound like anything where there will be cars coming and going, coming and going, it sounds like sort of a quiet family small business. I felt that it was positive. Johnson: In other words you do not have a specific objection to the application as has been presented. In case the record did not get that she said no she does not. For clarification you are owners or your unit or your portion of the duplex. Barrows: Yes, I don’t own it yet but I am buying it. Johnson: Right, it is not a rental situation. Barrows: No sir Johnson: Any questions of the neighbor, I am sorry the name escapes me right now. Thank you very much we appreciate your testimony. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward on this? Crookston: I would just have a question for the applicant Mr. Spencer. Johnson: Is that it? Crookston: Mr. Spencer if you did use the carport my question is are you going to operate in the winter? Spencer: If it wasn’t enclosed I wouldn’t operate it in the winter of course without enclosing it in. At this particular point it sounds awfully unfeasible to do that because of the cost of enclosing it in. Crookston: Are you aware that you would have to bring the property up to code, meet all of the codes to do this? Spencer: You mean for the carport, I am not sure about the other codes as far as if we were to use a conditional use permit without the carport suggestion. Crookston: It would be the electrical, the mechanical, the water and sewer codes, all of it. Johnson: Well you need to be more specific, are you saying that none of this meets Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 41 code now? Crookston: I have no idea whether it does or does not, I am just saying that is required. Johnson: Of course that was in the comments from staff, you have those comments do you not? Spencer: Yes, I have a question about the fire department requiring the 25 foot in one of the comments. I don’t understand what that requirement exactly is. It was on #4 general comments on the first page. As far as the American with Disabilities act, I will have to read and find out what that is specifically referring to. Whether it is referring to wheel chair access only. (Inaudible) Oslund: You alluded to early on in the testimony that you weren’t sure if you were supposed to be getting a conditional use permit or an accessory use. The way that I see it anyway, if you were going for the proposal as stated that is the enclosure and the sign out front and that kind of situation then I guess I would say yes that this is a candidate for conditional use permit. I guess it is but if it is reduced, the scope of this thing is reduced to the point where what you are talking about is you have people over you are not openly advertising. You have clients over one and two at a time and you are taking pictures of them and you are not processing the film on site and none of your neighbors seem to, the ones we heard, didn’t have any objection and you noticed the rest around your area. I guess I just don’t see the problem, I can’t answer or address Wayne’s statement about bringing everything up to code. It seems like if somebody wants to do that it should be Johnson: What you are saying Commissioner Oslund is this is a candidate for accessory use is that what you are saying? Oslund: I guess I am asking Johnson: Let’s get Shari’s feed back on that since Shari is the expert on Accessory uses. Stiles: Commissioner Oslund and the rest of you, they did initially apply for an accessory use permit. However because of the of the commercial aspect of it and the fact that it is in Old Town I did not feel it was eligible for an accessory use permit. Usually the home occupations are merely office like such as a real estate or insurance where they do not have traffic coming in and out. All they want to do is use it as a business address and don’t use it as a commercial site. That was the reason for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 42 requiring conditional use permit. Johnson: There is usually little to no traffic, no signage. Stiles: Yes Oslund: I guess what I am asking is and that determination I assume was made given the facts that are in his application that is the sign out front. I think the application at least Spencer: Excuse me in the original accessory use permit application I didn’t include that sign, that sign was basically just an after thought. Oslund: How about the addition? Spencer: The addition I believe was in it. (Inaudible) Oslund: I guess it would be my opinion that if we adjust the application to eliminate all of those things and he wants to have just one or two clients in his home on occasion without general advertising to take pictures it seems like it should fit. Especially when we have noticed all the neighbors and one showed up and has no problem and the others didn’t find a good reason. Stiles: I believe if this were an occasion where none of the work were done at the home and they simply had a business and wanted to go out on site like they were going on the green belt and things like that, I think that would be fine as an accessory use permit, but I still believe this is a commercial use of the property and it should be under the conditional use permit. Johnson: The last and I am not arguing with you, but the last accessory use that I recall that we approved was a fellow that actually made, manufactured wood signs in his home. There was no traffic there and that seemed to be the reason that we permitted the accessory use, but there was work there. He had converted his garage, there was no structural change to his building, but he was doing his sign work out of the garage. I am a little foggy myself on accessory uses. Accessory uses don’t require for lack of a better term the rigmarole that we are going through tonight. Shari’s point about Old Town, we have a special designation for this area Old Town because we want to kind of see it retain its integrity so to speak. So everything in Old Town is conditional use where it not in others areas of the zoning. That may be one of the guiding reasons that she decided that it wouldn’t fit accessory use. I am not putting words in your mouth I am just trying to see where we are coming from here. We need to address at a different Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 43 time what constitutes an accessory use and what doesn’t. I tend to agree with Greg which I don’t do very often that maybe this isn’t a conditional use but that is the Commission’s call. Crookston: (Inaudible) I believe that whether it is a conditional use or an accessory use they still have to meet the codes. Deanna Spencer, 213 E. 3rd, was sworn by the City Attorney. Spencer: I guess what my question was concerning code, was we have done some research to find out what it is we need to bring this area into code as far as electrical, heating, as far as any of these other things that would have to be added. I guess what my question was is there anything different that you are talking about in this area that I am not aware of? Crookston: Well there would be one thing that you haven’t mentioned that could be a problem is the fire code, the health and life safety code, mechanical code, electrical, mechanical, that is all that popped into my head right now, Shari? Stiles: Uniform Building Code which would include the American with Disabilities Act. B. Spencer: And then we would still, we couldn’t ask for a waiver of any of, for instance the parking ordinances or that sort of thing? Crookston: You can always apply for a variance but when they are specific requirements it is very difficult for the City to grant them. Johnson: (Inaudible) City Council which is where the variance has to be approved not before this body, it is reluctant to vary anything that is required by code. D. Spencer: These are all things that I am sure we would have to have someone address. We are required to meet any of those codes and so it is something that definitely we need to do. MacCoy: What is the age of that building by the way? B. Spencer: I believe 80 or 81. D. Spencer: Yes I believe so, 80 or 81, I would have to back through. MacCoy: We have gone past that date, the reason I was (inaudible) more of a current Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 44 code already in place there is a lot less to be done. What you have heard this evening is very true, I think the cost would be prohibitive considering what you want to do with that building. You need to actually look at your finances. D. Spencer: Well, that is another area that we have to (inaudible) and as far as some actually other figures on the (inaudible) had an architect come out and it is certainly a possibility. It certainly is something I would like to look into. B. Spencer: In the findings of fact could you address those specific codes for us? Crookston: They would be addressed. Johnson: Those are in there they are more or less boiler plat but they would be mentioned and referred to by specific ordinance. Crookston: Let me put it this way, the codes would be referenced what you have to do would not be, because I certainly don’t have any ability to do that. It would just say what codes you have to be or that you have to comply with. B. Spencer: Well my concern was it says something about fire then I need to be talking to the fire people, if is says something about concrete, I need to be talking to the concrete people. Johnson: We realize here that we are not dealing with professional developers or builders, this is a one time deal for you and we want to give you the best guidance we can. In that regard do either of the (inaudible) to add to that to help these people along because we are not dealing with professional applicant’s and specifically with respect to see if it would be feasible for them to meet the code. How do we give these people the guidance they need? Smith: Mr. Chairman, there are I think there are several businesses around that do inspections of residential units and they can advise owners of the situation of their home. Johnson: With respect to the code? Smith: With respect to the codes and they do this primarily for sale of home or for a buyer perhaps but primarily for transfer ownership or homes. I would assume that they could do the same thing. Johnson: You locate those people in the yellow pages or do you have references? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 45 Smith: Well, we have a contractor that works for us in the building inspection department, his Company (End of Tape) he is in the building department and I think he does this kind of work outside of his regular City inspection duties. I think he can advise these folks of what they would need to do to upgrade in all of these categories. I am not sure of that but certainly could give him a call and check with him. If he can’t I would suspect that he could advise them of someone that could. Johnson: Thank you, what we need to do here is help these people out so they don’t spend a lot of money going off into one direction and not be able to realize any return. D. Spencer: I just wanted to further comment here that we wanted to do a small business operation in hopes that someday we would be able to increase. Then at that time be able to go out and rent the appropriate square footage for studio or reception for sales area and maybe even production. What my thought was after this was accomplished I would like to use and have that area revert back to residential as a spare family room or something that we would like to use as additional space. So on those other things we would have had to I think we would have had to do that anyway. Hepper: From my own perspective on this I think, I don’t really see where it is a problem. If it is feasible for you guys to do it, just taking some pictures is really not a big intensive use. I have no problems with putting a studio in there it is just if it is feasible for you to do it. I think from my standpoint I don’t have any problems with it. Oslund: I agree, not sure how we get you through this as fast as we can. Like I said I was kind of leaning towards the accessory use but I don’t know if we can get that. I don’t know if it makes any sense, you are really close to getting through this process and like Wayne said some of these issues about code requirements would apply regardless of the planning process that you go through. I don’t believe though, I guess I like, it is a good idea with the exception of I don’t really like the idea necessarily of the sign and the addition. But the other stuff. D. Spencer: Well I can do without the sign, it is not important. MacCoy: But if you plan to do the addition anyway for another thing down the road then that is a different story altogether. I think you have to do your homework and finances before you step into this. Oslund: Well that addition doesn’t need to be done, it could be, just come back go to the building department and say we have a single family residence or a duplex and we want to add on a family room and I don’t believe that you will ever have to come see us. As long as you meet their requirements. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 46 Crookston: On your question about if you do go with a conditional use permit or an accessory use permit either one and then you operate your business and in two years or 20 years later you want to go back to the home that is not a problem. Johnson: Anyway, the way this process works is if we go to the findings of fact and conclusions of law then those aren’t addressed until our May meeting on the 14th, following that it goes to the City Council so it is not a real quick process. That is as quick as it can be under the (inaudible) with what we have to do with noticing the people etc. Anyone else have anything else? Anyone from the public have a final comment? If not I will close the public hearing then. It does require findings of fact and conclusions of law. Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this application and incorporate the testimony given and the concerns of the commissioners. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded you have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: That is it for tonight, if you do have any question feel free to contact the City either the public works department but that is probably not your best bet, go first to the City Clerk if you have any questions he can direct you to the people to give you answers in the interim here. ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF A PORTION OF GEM STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY BY WILD SHAMROCK PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and ask the representative or the applicant to come forward and address the Commission. I need to remind you that any materials presented to the Commission become property of the City. Mike Caven, 6874 Fairview Avenue, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Caven: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners my name is Mike Caven I represent the Wild Shamrock on this application for vacation of Gem Street. I would like to kind of bring you up to speed here a year ago this month on this project we had approved is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 47 what I have here before you. The Blimpie’s/Godfather site has been constructed and they are in business and operation right now. We will be submitting the final plans for building D here within 30 days and begin construction on that. What we have before you right now, we are working with building A on this plan here shows that it is a sit down restaurant, under the conditional use a year ago, that is approved for a drive thru and that is what we are attempting to do is with our client right now to put that back into a drive thru. We have another plan that will show that as a drive thru. What we are referring to tonight is for this building, for the future drive thru, we feel it is critical for an access onto Gem Avenue. And so we are looking for a vacation of Gem Avenue, we want to cover up that Eight Mile lateral and put the access in on Gem Avenue. (Inaudible) Caven: Reviewing the comments from Shari we don’t have a problem with items 1 through 4, if we can add a fifth item to that. The fifth item would be the plans for vehicle access on Gem Street will need to be approved by Ada County Highway District, submit written evidence of approval to the City Clerk’s office prior to the commencing of work. Above and item 1 were subject to working out of piping the Eight Mile lateral getting an executed license agreement and submitting that as evidence to the City Clerk’s office. In item #3 we are to provide an approval letter from ACHD for all the work to be done in the right of way. In item 4 we are to submitted a detailed landscaping plan for Gem Street prior to any building. So item 5 as I suggested would just continue that we would get an agreement with Ada County Highway District for this access to Gem Avenue prior to construction. With that if there are any questions? Johnson: Thank you Mike, any questions of Mr. Caven? This is a public hearing, is there someone else that would like to address the Commission at this time? Jean Quinteri, 2710 Laurelhurst Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Quinteri: We have no objection to the tiling of the lateral adjoining Gem Street. The only thing that we are concerned with that in April 1985 the Ada County Highway District granted us permission to improve the South 24 feet of the north 59 feet of Gem Avenue for additional parking, that we have done. We would like to be able to continue to use that for a portion of Gem Street for off street parking for our patrons. Following some of the plans that have been submitted and the details that I have here one concern that I have is how far into that south 24 feet will that improvement come. How much of that 24 feet will be used in approving the lateral? We would like to be able to maintain that, I know that the agreement from the Ada County Highway District has a stipulation they can rescind that approval, but we sure need it and we would like to keep it. Are there any questions, I would be glad to try and answer them for you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 48 Johnson: Okay Jean I am not too sure we can answer your question and I can understand the importance of that to you. I would like to ask staff at this time if they have looked into that specific issue and perhaps can shed some light on the situation regarding Meridian bowling lanes. It doesn’t matter which one of you goes first. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I have looked into that license agreement that they have. Johnson: That license agreement is that the agreement that he is referring to of 1985 with ACHD? Smith: I believe so. Johnson: Do you happen to have copies of that? Quinteri: I delivered some to the City. Johnson: The City has that. Quinteri: I delivered copies and they made copies of mine. Johnson: I don’t think we have those in our packet. Let me see, we do have that in here. It is smaller type, it has been reduced. Quinteri: (Inaudible) Johnson: It looks like it runs for an indeterminate period of time until such time as you are notified by ACHD it no longer exists right? Is that your understanding? Quinteri: That is correct, there is a rescind on section 1 the last seven lines you can see where the license can be terminated with a 30 days notice which we haven’t received. Johnson: Have you had any discussions Jean yourself with any representatives from ACHD on this? Quinteri: (Inaudible) Johnson: I guess the real question is one we probably can’t answer at this point and that is how far that comes into the 24 feet is that correct. Caven: The reason that we would be happy not to improve the street, curb, gutter and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 49 sidewalk, it is a recommendation by ACHD that we do that. Brian here can address the technicalities of a 24 feet. How it got to what it is and why it is there. If you can see if we can get rid of the curb, gutter and sidewalk then we can preserve his 24 feet and move on and that would be fine. Johnson: Well I would appreciate Brian’s comments. Brian Iverson, 826 LaCassia Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Iverson: Just a little history, Gem Street has 91 feet of right of way, it was sold to the County Highway District I believe it was about in the late 1940's. Sold them 91 feet of right of way so they could get rid of the Eight Mile Lateral I guess with it. So at this time the Eight Mile Lateral is located on Ada County Highway District right of way and the Wild Shamrock parcel actually abuts Gem Street right of way south of the lateral. (Inaudible) recommendations of ACHD was to curb, gutter and sidewalk Gem Street as part of the development. That creates drainage problems plus we have no access so one of the things that arose out of that was to go in and tile the Eight Mile lateral and get access to Gem Street and provide the improvements. To do that we proposed to vacate the southerly 36 feet of Gem Street. Mr. Quinteri does have a license agreement from 1985 for the north, the south 24 feet of the north 59 feet of the existing right of way. The impact on him would be that the new right of way would encroach 3 feet into his 24 feet from the south. Under the provisions to provide curb gutter and sidewalk, the curb, gutter and sidewalk and distance from the right of way to the back of the sidewalk will require an additional 9 feet. So the total encroachment into his 24 feet is 12 feet leaving him a remainder of 12 feet which is really a moot question because now we are looking at a paved street out there and it would be my belief that the Highway District would rescind the agreement because now you have an improved street with curb, gutter and sidewalk out there. Johnson: So the parking would disappear is what you are saying? Iverson: That would be what I believe. Oslund: On both sides of the street? Iverson: Yes Oslund: So the typical section for this piece, then this is an arterial, five lane? Iverson: I believe it is designated a local road, our firm also did the Meridian Road design improvement. Because of the connector and everything else the existing curb returns at E. 1st Street are 41 back to back for a street line with turn section. ACHD had Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 50 approved that and with my belief that because of the connection between Meridian Road and East 1st. Oslund: So it is a 3 lane. So he is really going to lose a ton of parking, not just on the south side of Gem Avenue but everything on the north side he is going to lose. (Inaudible) Oslund: Okay, so your improvements are only half street improvements from the center line to the south. Iverson: Right, well it requires just a pavement match and it is not even a full section. Quinteri: Can I ask a question, is it necessary to put that wide of a sidewalk in Gem Street? Iverson: We, normally with that street section you have a 7 foot sidewalk in this case we have 5 foot sidewalks. The other reason that the street is so far north and you will notice that with the existing curb returns on East 1st that they are in the northerly portion of the existing right of way. One reason of course is that the Eight Mile Lateral takes up the southern portion of that right of way. The other is that the bridge is both on East 1st and on Meridian Road by the time you put the radius in and you can see it on the existing curb returns on East 1st and the road way would match those because of the bridge being there by the time you get the radius, the curb return radius in the Gem Avenue moves north. Oslund: Does this require findings? Crookston: Yes Oslund: (Inaudible) Crookston: Well I think that it does but I am not sure. Johnson: I didn’t think that it did (inaudible) it is a recommendation as I recall. Crookston: I will look into and if findings are required then I will do them and if not I won’t. Johnson: I think we need to move if we are going, and if we are through with the testimony we don’t know that yet (inaudible). Is there any other testimony? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 51 Smith: Mr. Chairman can I ask a question? Brian do you know where the building is in relation to the right of way line, Meridian Bowling lanes? Iverson: I do but whether or not I have got it with me I don’t know. I don’t have it on the drawing Gary. Quinteri: Our building is 22 feet north of the Gem Street right of way that we have (inaudible) Iverson: So then 22 feet of the right of way and when you put the curb, gutter and sidewalk on your side you would have basically 22 feet. Smith: Is it possible then that his parking along his building would be protected even as Gem Street is developed do you think or not? Iverson: It would be my observation that as Gem Street is developed on the north side, as curb and gutter is developed up there then you would be restricted to that 22 feet which I believe would probably reduce it down from what he is seeing now because of the open nature of it. (Inaudible) parking stalls so about 20 feet so if he was pulled in towards the building (inaudible) Oslund: What was the distance from the face of curb back to property line? Iverson: Two feet, from the face of curb to the property line it would be 7.5 feet. Oslund: It doesn’t look good for parking as Gem develops. Smith: I think the highway district would have to make some special ruling on that. I guess that this their jurisdiction. Quinteri: (Inaudible) South 24 feet (inaudible) along that side and leave (inaudible). Johnson: We are not in receipt of ACHD comments is that correct? Smith: Mr. Chairman, may I ask another question? Mr. Quinteri how many parking spaces do you have available at this time for your bowling lanes, do you know? Quinteri: 190 some. Smith: How many spaces do you have adjacent to Gem Street do you think at this time? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 52 Quinteri: Well we can use as many as 22, 24 places. Smith: On the South side? Quinteri: Yes (inaudible) you are going to have a passage way (inaudible) Crookston: Well they have got to eat somewhere, you just won’t have as much food business Jean. Quinteri: We are getting, it is amazing we get more restaurants out that direction and (inaudible) going up, so bring more restaurants in. Johnson: I am not sure that we are getting all of these comments on the recording here that Anna has to deal with. At this point it looks like we are kind of at an impasse, we need to have some kind of recommendation. If it does require findings of fact and conclusions of law and Anna thinks it does and she does all the typing on all these (inaudible) so she probably knows so I think we need to do that. I am sure that the Commissioners are interested in ACHD comments. Iverson: I guess as a point, we haven’t filed a formal application with ACHD and I don’t know is it a part of the City process when you get a request for a vacation is it forwarded to ACHD Gary? Smith: They have their own process but Shari said this was forwarded to them. Iverson: Part of their process is that we have to have City approval (inaudible) before we proceed with their process. Johnson: We just need some action on it whatever you want to do. You have some options you can table it, you can proceed on the condition of (inaudible) deny it, ask for findings of fact. Oslund: I think it is a tough decision but I don’t know what kind out of our jurisdiction. Johnson: I think that is true but what might occur is some options, I don’t know that they might be that ACHD might come up with. I know ACHD is the one that wants the street 3 lanes wide. But I would still look for their comments on their review of this. MacCoy: (Inaudible) Johnson: You guys can do whatever you want to do, I don’t want to tell you what to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 53 do. MacCoy: I propose that we table this until we receive the ACHD comments and (inaudible) next meeting. Johnson: You have to table it to a date certain which would be May 14. MacCoy: May 14 Iverson: Well if you have submitted it to ACHD and they haven’t responded what is the mechanism to get comments from them? Johnson: (Inaudible) process the way I understand it, is that correct? Smith: Well I am not sure how the highway districts reacts on vacation. If what Brian is saying, it sounds like they are waiting for a response from the City of Meridian before they issue any action. I don’t know I haven’t followed one through before on a vacation of right of way. I am sorry I can’t tell you. Johnson: We did one on Roger Anderson that we handled on March 12, do you recall that specifically? Smith: We vacated an easement for Anderson yes, that was a City easement, this is a public right of way. I am sorry I don’t know what their process is. I know they have public hearings and advertisements just like we do but I don’t know if they are requiring some kind of input from the City of Meridian prior to their holding of that public hearing. Iverson: As part of the application process you need to submit approval by the City for the vacation. ACHD of course owns the right of way and now they charge you for it. The developer has even had to have an appraisal done of the Eight Mile Lateral part of it so that ACHD can determine Market Value at which you would purchase it. Caven: I think what, we thought through these things, I think what when I first started on these conditions 1 through 4, if we can add that number 5 that gives this Commission the opportunity to go ahead and move this thing forward and get a decision that we can take and put on our application to ACHD but still what their decision is have to come back before your clerk with the written approval of what they will accept. That was my proposal on putting that in the number five plans to be able to access onto Gem Street will need to be approved by the Ada County Highway District, submit written evidence of approval to the City Clerk’s office prior to commencing of work. So I think that would Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 54 allow you to make that decision pass it forward and whatever ACHD decides has still got to go through the City of Meridian before we start work. Oslund: Well I think we should consider as hard as it is moving this forward and if, have we decided that there are findings. Johnson: We are pretty sure that it is required. This is not something that we handle everyday, but we think we do. Stiles: Chairman and Commissioners, I know that the last vacation that we did was for Roger Anderson and that findings were prepared however in December of 1994 we vacated an entire plat with all the roadways and associated easements, Crookston’s comment here, Crookston states,”this does not require findings”, Johnson, “it is a recommendation though is it not?” Crookston, “You can make a recommendation to the Council.” Shearer moved we recommend the City Council to vacate this plat, second and it went right onto City Council. The motion was, we have a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the vacation of this subdivision plat and the associated right of way all those in favor, opposed. Crookston: There may be differences between vacating the plat and vacating a right of way. Stiles: I don’t believe we did any findings for the Loffer vacation. Crookston: Either way Johnson: I don’t think any of those cases had a negative impact on anyone. (Inaudible) Crookston: If they are required I will do them if not I won’t. Stiles: Is this State code where it requires that? Crookston: We deal with that and the City’s ordinance on this, both. Oslund: I am going to take a shot at a motion here. Johnson: Well Malcolm already has one on the floor. Caven: Could I ask a quick question, if you guys decide the sidewalk doesn’t need to go in, the improvements don’t need to be (inaudible) says they want them (inaudible) is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 55 it this Commission or the City of Meridian or Ada County Highway District. Crookston: ACHD will make the final determination (inaudible). Caven: That is where if we can get through this and add this number 5 the developer and the bowling alley we can get down to ACHD and work this out with them and bring that decision back to the City of Meridian. Crookston: That could be, the City does have to approve it at some time. Caven: ACHD is not going to hear it until they get recommendation from the City. Johnson: We have a motion on the floor. Oslund: Malcolm could you restate your motion please? MacCoy: My motion was to table this until our next meeting in the month of May, regular meeting in the month of May. We would then look at the ACHD comments on this. There may not be any. Oslund: I would like to second that and ask for discussion. Johnson: You can’t have discussion until there is a second or it dies for lack of a second. Oslund: I just said that. Johnson: Okay, we have a motion and a second, discussion. Oslund: Okay, I guess I would, I don’t know that there is a need to table it and I understand that there is an impact to the property owner. It is ACHD’s right of way that they are seeking to vacate. ACHD is going to have to make a couple of decisions, they are going to have to decide whether they are going to give him as (inaudible) on street parking that is not currently shown in this I don’t know. There are several issues that need to be worked out and I don’t know but I think they are all within the jurisdiction of ACHD. So, as an alternative, I would offer that maybe we just go ahead. Johnson: Well we have to vote on this motion first. (Inaudible) any further discussion? We have a motion to table until our next meeting with hope of feedback from ACHD which we may or may not be getting, all those in favor of that motion? Opposed? MOTION DEFEATED: All Yea Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 56 Johnson: Is there any further discussion or another motion? Oslund: I would like to make a motion that we determine if we need the findings of fact and if we do we prepare them and if we don’t then this motion would be that we approve the request for vacation of this street right of way. Then we get a chance to review the conclusions of ACHD’s review. In other words that would come back to us. Johnson: You have a motion on the floor is there a second? Motion dies for lack of a second. Gary Smith you had a comment that might help us? Smith: Mr. Chairman I was just wondering if the parking requirements for the Meridian Bowling lanes should be taken into account here just to see what kind of impact this really has on their operation. Johnson: Square footage versus use and that sort of thing. I would guess it would (inaudible) originally approved for that. Smith: I have no idea, but I don’t know that there has been any plan set forth as to how this is going to look once the street is improved and whether or not parking spaces can be provided along the south side of the building off of Gem Street. It may be that Meridian Bowling lanes is not only going to lose the parking spaces on the south side of Gem Street but they will lose them on the north side of Gem Street also with the improvement of the road. There is after all 92 feet of right of way provided here, 92 feet, that is probably as wide of right of way that we have in the City of Meridian except for Fairview Avenue. (Inaudible) Smith: I understand that but it is still public right of way. We are going to vacate 36 feet of it because of a ditch which will be piped. If the ditch is going to be piped it could be moved onto the property and piped. Johnson: Do you think there is a possibility that the vacation of this easement is going to put Meridian bowling lanes out of compliance? Smith: I am just asking the question Mr. Chairman, I don’t know. But right now, I don’t know, I am just asking the question. Johnson: I don’t think we have enough information here to make a decision here. I think in that regard we need to get some additional information. We are going around in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 57 several different directions here. Smith: I understand that, I am just tossing out a question that I think from my standpoint needs to be answered. We have an operation of a long term Meridian business down there that has relied upon parking along Gem Street and all of a sudden it appears to me that parking on both sides of Gem Street is jeopardized by the vacation of 36 feet of the existing right of way. Oslund: Is that parking currently on public right of way? Smith: It is on the south side yes sir. On the north side if there is 22 feet of space between the building and the right of way then that parking area is on the Meridian Bowling Lanes property. But on the south side that is definitely in the right of way. That is why this license agreement exists with the highway district. Oslund: I share your concerns as well and that is why I said that ACHD is going to have, one of the decisions that they are going to have to make is are they going to allow direct off street parking on the north side. I would say that is unlikely. That is, it is something that is going to have to be dealt with. Quinteri: On the north side of Gem Street there would be no need to provide (inaudible) parking in our own property (inaudible). Oslund: Yes, but that parking would have to direct, it would have access directly from the street, is that correct, backing in and out? Quinteri: It does now. Oslund: And with the new street is that right? If they were to complete curb, would you still have to get into that parking space directly from the street? Quinteri: If you put curbs and gutters on the north side (inaudible) curbs and gutters would have to go on the portions (inaudible) 92 feet of right of way. (Inaudible) Johnson: Comment Mr. Caven? Caven: A year ago when this was approved the climate of this site regardless of if we tiled the ditch or not is to do the improvements to Gem Avenue. So the issue here isn’t if we should tile it or not, that doesn’t matter, we are required to put the improvements in by ACHD on a conditional use from a year ago. So we have to do that. The way the ground lays because of the ditch and the bridges to get the radius that ACHD wants Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 58 that is why the sidewalk is where it is. So that is going to go in regardless if we pipe the lateral or not. The second issue, when you get down to it, we want to work with the neighbor but the bottom line is the public right of way in the agreement with ACHD they gave the bowling alley the right to use it until such time as the revoke the license to use it. I wish I could go around town and get parking on public property all over the place. But the bottom line is that ACHD knew this was going to be improved at some time in the future, they weren’t using it at the time. (End of Tape) phase one of the Blimpie’s and Godfather’s they didn’t make us do it. When we come in with phase 2 they are going to make us put it in. Oslund: What is the variance that you are referring, you just said that ACHD would grant a variance, what variance are you seeking? Caven: Well if I said variance I didn’t mean variance, what, we did phase 1, Godfather’s and the Blimpie’s they did not make us improve Gem Avenue at the time. When we come in to do our next building they said they will make us do the improvements on Gem Avenue, it is already set. And so what we have done in the mean time, we have a user for building A, which the access onto Gem Avenue would be very beneficial for traffic flows for getting in and out of the site. We determined if we pipe that and make an access to Gem Avenue. Oslund: So the half street improvements that you guys are committed on doing on the south side there does it have on street parking of any kind? Or just bike lanes or what does it have? Caven: Has that been designed? (Inaudible) Caven: We will have to submit some plans to ACHD and go with what the requirements are. So we get the vacation and your comments on it so we can go down and apply to them and say the City of Meridian agrees to this (inaudible) on street parking or restrict the parking or what they are going to do. Oslund: That would replace maybe half of what he has got now, he has 24 spaces that are perpendicular on the south side. If you did parallel parking possibly you can get some back. I just don’t see, the stuff that is happening on the north side that is going to happen in the future and that is really not, that is something that is going to have to be dealt with but I don’t think it is our, I think it is ACHD’s issue. Crookston: How far to the east of Meridian Road is the plan for the access into the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 59 Bolo’s area and that area? Caven: That is another issue and we will need to get exacts, but as it is drawn right there it is about 210 feet of East First and about the same from Meridian Road. Johnson: Okay we need a motion guys or we will be here all night. MacCoy: I recommend that this material be tabled until the next meeting to get the ACHD material in hand and also study or comments by our staff to do with the bowling alley. Johnson: Okay, I am looking for a second here before we have discussion. Oslund: Second Johnson: Okay, I think the problem here in this motion is you made your motion with the ACHD would be providing comments and I don’t necessarily think they are going to provide us with anything. I think you can structure a motion to pursue that to clarify whether we are going to get it. I think (Inaudible) requirement that someone from staff contact ACHD. (Inaudible) I don’t think we can state with those in hand because I don’t think we have anything in hand and therefore we would be stuck again with tabling it again. MacCoy: I rescind my motion. Crookston: The second needs to rescind also. Oslund: I will rescind my second MacCoy: I recommend that we table this material with the fact we will review it again in one month at the regular meeting with staff checking into the ACHD material if any, and the needs for findings of fact and conclusions. Oslund: Second Johnson: Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Oslund: I move that we close this meeting. Hepper: Second Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 9, 1996 Page 60 Johnson: We have a motion for adjournment, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: JIM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK