Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-11 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 11, 1996 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Hepper, Greg Oslund, Malcolm MacCoy: MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Shearer: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Paul Loree, Dick Moore, Dee R Lynn, Ted Hanson, Dwayne Winn, John Anderson, Terri Lynn, Karen Gallagher, Doug Tamura: Johnson: I need to announce that if you are here for item 12 or 13 that application has been withdrawn so we won’t be taking public testimony tonight on that or addressing it. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 14, 1996: Johnson: Are there any corrections, deletions or additions to these minutes? Entertain a motion for approval please. MacCoy: I recommend that the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the agenda for the and the report from May 14 be accepted. Oslund: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we approve the minutes as prepared, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD MAY 22, 1996: Johnson: Are there any corrections, additions or changes to these minutes that you would like to make? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the minutes of the special meeting held May 22. MacCoy: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we approve the minutes as prepared for our special meeting May 22, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED MARCH 12, 1996: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: ITEM #2: TABLED MARCH 12, 1996: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Johnson: It was my understanding this was tabled for no response to previous requests. I have discovered nothing has changed since that unless somebody else has any input on that? I have a letter from Mr. Vern Alleman that he still has not bee contacted with respect to easement on his property which is a key issue here. I have checked with staff and staff has received nothing from the applicant. It would be my recommendation that we table this further. Oslund: Mr. Chairman I move that we table items 1 and 2 until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Hepper: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we table both items 1 and 2 to our next regularly scheduled meeting a date certain of July 9, 1996, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED MAY 14, 1996: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY: ITEM #4: TABLED MAY 14, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY: Johnson: Checking with indicates nothing new has been received on these applications is that correct? Shari Stiles says yes for the record. Nothing has changes then it would be my suggestion that we also table these items. Hepper: So moved MacCoy: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we table items 3 and 4 until a date certain of July 9, 1996 our next scheduled meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHILD CARE CENTER BY JERRY COBLER: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 11, 1996 Page 3 Johnson: You have these findings of fact as prepared by the City Attorney, are there any corrections, deletions or any discussion regarding these findings of fact and conclusions of law? Oslund: Mr. Chairman, just a clarification for my information, one of the conditions, condition 4, on page 12 there says provide for a child care pick up area located off of the two main fronting streets. I guess my first question is is there any off street parking requirement for those other than employees? Crookston: No Oslund: Then this pick up area, I guess it is not crystal clear to me exactly what that is, it is off of one or the other fronting streets. Crookston: It fronts onto Chateau which runs east and west and I can’t remember the street that goes into the school that fronts on two streets, it is a corner lot. Johnson: It has to do with configuration of the property, the structure on the property as pointed out by the applicant at the last meeting and it is my understanding that is why the pick up area is on I shouldn’t call it a side street but not the main street, is that correct? Crookston: I thought that it was on the corner of Chateau and the street that goes into the school and that it was actually on the corner. Hepper: I believe it is right across the street from the school. MacCoy: Is that Jericho. Oslund: Yes, it seems like there was one lot between it and the cross street. Crookston: It needs to have so the the street that it does front on has that statement with it. Oslund: What is the pick up area exactly, is it (Inaudible) Crookston: It can be anywhere but the children need to be dropped off off the street so that the parents aren’t driving along the street and just stop on the street and the kids jump out probably both sides of the car or sometimes both sides of the car. It is designed, my comment is so that the kids don’t get out of the car while the car is still on Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 11, 1996 Page 4 the street so that there then would not be cars passing that could run into a child that let’s say is getting out let’s say the passenger or drivers side of the vehicle from the back door. Oslund: So one option the owner has to effect this is to have restricted parking on that frontage signed as such that it is for pick up and drop off only and not for any kind of parking. Crookston: It would be either that or have a drop off area when they pull into the drive way that would be more preferable than on the street at all. Johnson: I am not too sure that you could get the restrictive non-parking limitation on the public street. Oslund: That was my concern. Johnson: Okay, any other questions any other discussion regarding the findings of fact? If not I will entertain a motion for approval as written. MacCoy: I recommend that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions. Hepper: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the findings of fact as written, this is a roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yea, Oslund - Yea, Shearer - Absent, MacCoy - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any recommendation you would like to pass onto City Council? MacCoy: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City 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. That the use should be denied if the owner does not give his consent. Hepper: Second Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 11, 1996 Page 5 Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass the recommendation onto City Council as stated by Commissioner MacCoy all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G BY JAMES & DONNA HASKIN AND MAYME ELLEN GREEN: Johnson: Any discussion regarding these findings of fact as prepared by the City Attorney? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. MacCoy: Second Johnson: A motion and a second 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: Recommendation gentlemen? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the property set forth in the application be approved by the City Council for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Including that the applicant or assigns enters into a development agreement with prior issuance of a building permit or final plat whichever comes first. And that the property only be developed as a commercial or generally planned development or under the conditional use process. That if the applicant is not agreeable with these findings of fact and conclusions and is not agreeable with entering into a development agreement that the property should not be annexed. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we pass on the recommendation as stated to the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 11, 1996 Page 6 ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G BY RICHARD JOHNSON AND LAMONT KOUBA: Johnson: Any discussion regarding these findings of fact as prepared. There is a revised version is there not, did everybody get the original and then you revised it. So we are working off of the revised version. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I had a question on page 20, on paragraph 15, I have a question if that, where it says City Council standards under which the City Council shall review applications, if that shouldn’t state Planning and Zoning. In the last sentence there it says the City Council concludes as follows, if that shouldn’t also state Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows? Johnson: Sounds right to me, do you concur on that Counsel? Crookston: Yes I do Johnson: The change is noted. Any other changes or discussion? I have a couple of small corrections, page 3, I am not too sure of the origin of this comment, number 6, that the Avest Plaza for Fred Meyer shopping center is not the property to the north of this development. This is somewhat west of that there. And on page 5, the last sentence, I am confused about how it reads. I get hung up when we get to the last sentence it says “and would have not problems”. Also on page five in the middle, I don’t know about my old English or not but I think beautiful is probably in that use should be beautifully. I don’t know, I am more concerned with that last sentence on page five. (Inaudible) Crookston: I think we just need to move the t off of the not. Johnson: Okay, that accomplishes the same thing. Those are the only two corrections that I have. I just think it is a stretch to say that it is across from Fred Meyer. Anything else, any other corrections? Oslund: I don’t know if it is a correction or a clarification on page 22, items A, B and C near the bottom the first one refers to the Planning and Zoning Administrator and then the seconds referred to the Planning and Zoning Director, is there a distinction there? Crookston: No Oslund: Okay, one in and the same. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 11, 1996 Page 7 Johnson: We haven’t decided on a title for her yet that is all. That comes with her next paycheck I guess instead of a raise. Okay, anybody else have any discussion on that? If not I will entertain a motion on that for approval with those corrections as noted. Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopt and approve these findings of fact and conclusions with the stated corrections. Hepper: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact as prepared with corrections as stated, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Oslund - Yea, Shearer - Absent, MacCoy - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recommendation to the City Council? Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian recommend to the City Council that the property set forth in the application be approved for annexation and zoning and the issuance of the conditional use permit under the conditions set forth in the conclusions of law. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Motion and second to pass the recommendation onto the City as written, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Have we covered item 8 in item 7 since it was in the title? Crookston: Yes Johnson: Okay, so we have covered right now item 7 and 8 both the annexation request and the conditional use request, it looks like it was incorporated into one document. I meant to ask that question before we addressed it. ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BY DWAYNE WINN: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 11, 1996 Page 8 Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite Mr. Winn or his representatives to address the Commission. Dwayne Winn, 3793 Manchester, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Winn: I don’t know what to say, in 1978 I put in for a liquor license in the City of Meridian and it came thru this year. I had an agreement with Moe for the El Zocalo and he was going through a divorce and right when I got my license and the judge awarded her the building over here. So I was out and Mr. Mayes leased me part of his building and that is what I am trying to do. I have to maintain alcohol beverages for 6 months to retain this license and that is all I am trying to do. I only have seating capacity for 4 or 5 people. I will only be open from 9 to 5:30 and that is it. Hepper: What happens after the six months? Winn: After 6 months you can keep it, you don’t have to sell anything. The way the laws when I put in in 1978 for, you didn’t have to open anything but now they have it so you have to be able to sell alcoholic beverages for six months it has to be in operation for 6 months. After six months I put in my (inaudible) that is all I am trying to do is keep the license. Johnson: In that regard Mr. Winn have you checked with the proper authorities as to whether or not the building you are contemplating using the Mayes building will meet the code necessary for the occupancy? Winn: I have gone into agreement with the health department, they have been there and there are a few items like I had to have a spring loaded door and had to put things in the toilet. I am in the process of fixing Johnson: When you say things to the toilet are you talking about to accommodate handicapped? Winn: No, the inlet has to be an inch above the outlet so you can’t get any back pressure. Anyway the health department has conditionally approved it for this six months to get my license to maintain my license. Johnson: Shari, are you familiar with what might be entailed other than the health department for the State with respect to our local ordinance, any local ordinance might apply to fire safety, health standards? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 11, 1996 Page 9 Stiles: Chairman Johnson I am not sure what that all would entail as far as handicap accessibility maybe the sinks are required to be, if he can furnish some kind of an approval from Central District Health with what he is planning to do and all of the other requirements I wouldn’t have any problem with it. Johnson: What would be perhaps where he should go to verify that. I am thinking in terms of the Fire Marshall, exit doors whatever. I think he is going to have to meet all those standards of public gathering place and I just think that it would be in your best interest to touch those bases as soon as possible with our local city agencies. I would start with the fire department and maybe go to the building department as well. I would do that. Stiles: The public safety issue definitely needs to be (Inaudible) Johnson: The public safety issues, our requirements may differ from Central District Health and also from State requirements. Winn: The way it is right now it is single container throw away, nothing. It is single container, I can’t touch the ice I have to use an ice prong. Johnson: I am more interested in things like fire safety, does the door go in or does it go out. Does it have a panic bar, those kinds of things I think you may have to meet some of those requirements as well. I am not trying to discourage you I just want you to go in with your eyes opened that you know you might have to do some of those things as well. Winn: This was not my dream, I mean in 1978 I was hoping it would be a nice cafe or (inaudible) this is not what I expected. Johnson: The only thing that I still have that I had in 1978 is I used to play better golf. Any other questions of Mr. Winn? MacCoy: I have the first question to give to our Council is there in the Idaho law a distance set forward from a drinking establishment of issuance of liquor to either a public building or next to a library like where we have children involved. Crookston: Yes there is, it is 300 feet. MacCoy: Since I only have a parking layout are you planning to do nothing except just be there. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 11, 1996 Page 10 Winn: I have seating for about four people, I don’t plan on anything MacCoy: Nothing bigger than that. Winn: I will be closed no later than 6:00, 5:30 I think. MacCoy: Okay, what about signage? Winn: The only thing I have is no one under 21 to enter, I am not advertising at all. What the law says is I have to be open for 6 months and that is all, it doesn’t say I have to sell anything. It says I have to be open and that is all I want. MacCoy: That is all I have. Johnson: Thank you, any other commissioners that would like to ask questions of Mr. Winn? Oslund: Not necessarily a question, let me just start off by saying that I, since your hours are so restricted you won’t catch me down there taking a drink because I don’t drink during the day usually. On the map that was provided with the application just a clarification at least the one I have it shows the location of the block, it shows, where mine shows anyway is about where the library is right here. Winn: No it is right across from the 127 Club. MacCoy: That was the reason for my question because I saw that map. (Discussion Inaudible) Oslund: That is not a bad idea though to serve drinks over at the library. Johnson: (Inaudible) this is a public hearing anyone else like to address the commission on this application? Seeing no one then I will close this public hearing, what is your pleasure gentlemen? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 11, 1996 Page 11 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: The reason I am stumbling around is I probably should tell you what we did because you are not used to this process right. I will back up, what we have done is just taken public testimony which there was none other than listen to you. Now as required by law we have to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. Those are those things we went through when you were here earlier. That will be on our next scheduled meeting July 9 then from July 9 it goes to the City Council for their approval and if everything goes through the earliest it can be approved is, it could be the 23rd of July, could be that is with no hang ups. It might make it to the 16th. (Inaudible) Johnson: Yes you went there for the license now you have to get permission to zone for it to use the license. That is kind of a lengthy process but I wanted you to know that before you left and I should have told you that. (Inaudible) Johnson: Well that is really not our function to do that, all we can do is provide you with all of the information that you need so that you can tell them this is the process I have to go through, I started it in good faith and just because the fact that we only meet once a month you are kind of restricted see. The City Council they meet twice a month and you have to fall in with those dates because we are required by law to notice the public twice 15 days in advance. When you are working with a newspaper that is a weekly then we have to advertise it in the weekly it is a local paper instead of a daily. You start putting all of those dates together it just stretches the process out. Even if you hit everything smoothly it can take 90 days or so. (Inaudible) Johnson: What I would do is certainly prevail upon them with the extenuating circumstances that you are doing everything that you can. When did this license become available to you? Winn: (Inaudible) Johnson: They may ask you why you waited. Winn: (Inaudible) I work for the Highway Department (inaudible) Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 11, 1996 Page 12 Johnson: You know after you approach, I know Vern Alleman wants to tell me something, after you approach the authorities with your story would you contact Will Berg and tell him what the problem is. He is the City Clerk. Anything that we can help you out with we will. Vern, it is not a public hearing any more but what do you have? Alleman: (Inaudible) Johnson: I don’t know the answer to that, I think it is. Paisano’s was within the Nazarene Church and they have a liquor license, and the church said that was okay. This is kind of a different story, I haven’t measured it. That is a good point. ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G AND I-L BY DOUG TAMURA AND ARTHUR BERRY: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing. If there is a representative or the applicant here please come forward at this time. Is there anybody here representing this application? Let’s handle 10 and 11 together gentlemen. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to address this commission at this time. We will take public testimony. John Anderson, 120 N. Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Anderson: Is it okay if I approach you with my written comments? Johnson: Yes, do you have copies for everyone? Anderson: Yes, I live at 120 N. Locust Grove which is approximately 200 feet south of Lanark. I am located on the east side of this proposed project. We have lived on Locust Grove since 1986 and kind of got used to the quality of life out there. I am not really opposed to this type of building, I did come to try and find out down here at the City they didn’t have the information as to what type of business was going in there. So I (inaudible) I am kind of concerned on the business hours. I don’t know if you have restrictive covenants for these kinds of things that are built in a residential area. I would like to see something similar to a 6 a.m. to a 10 p.m. type of arrangement if we could at least along what is now Locust Grove Road. I don’t know what you are going to change it to. I see that you are relocating it and aligning it with, on the north and south side. I live right behind Cope Auto Parts and that is pretty (inaudible) real big problem, it doesn’t bother me that much and I wondered if anybody could answer, is there any kind of hours set up for this type of businesses? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 11, 1996 Page 13 Johnson: I don’t think that we are going to be able to answer a whole lot of questions because the applicant isn’t here. You can ask anything you want and it goes into the record and it will have to be answered. Anderson: Okay, well I guess I will ask that question and I guess we will wait and if we have a re-hearing we will come in talk. Some other concerns that I have also would be the type of businesses and there again I suppose nobody is here and I will ask it anyway. I am concerned that it is not a commercial business that operates 24 hours a day which leaves a lot of traffic possibly coming by my home, maybe possibly having large neon signs that would make it difficult to sleep. Another big concern this is probably occupationally as well as personally, I work for the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, although I am not representing them tonight, the ditches that go down through this property is the end of what is called the Barker Lateral. This has got to be piped I suppose by the City ordinances has to be accommodating of 275 minor inches approximately. It is real important if you could put some kind of restrictions on any of the irrigation work being done limited to October 15th to March 15th. The facility itself, where this water comes from is probably a mile and a half to a mile and 3/4 away from this property. If they have a problem which happens quite commonly when they are doing this kind of development we can’t shut that water off real fast. Not to mention it would disrupt a bunch of people’s private life who use this water to irrigate with. That is a real big concern with me, I would be more than happy to participate in the approval of that system if I am allowed to. Traffic, I don’t know if this concerns you guys or not but traffic on Locust Grove right now where you come to Franklin Road is a real nightmare at certain times of the day. I would really like to recommend or ask that maybe we get a light put in at Locust Grove and Franklin at the new location to offer some sort of buffer. I think with this kind of complex it is going to bring more traffic in there. Or at least consider that. Lastly, on the construction, there again I don’t know if you guys can accommodate this either is there anyway that during the construction period that can also be limited from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. so that we can get some rest at night out there. Hopefully there again, I don’t know a lot about these kind of things but that they offer some kind of dust control or noise control during this process. A good friend of mine just had a subdivision built on 20 acres across the street from his house in Nampa and just dusted their poor house. They had to get the curtains all completely torn out of there, reclean the carpets (inaudible) she gets kind of excited when that stuff happens. I guess if there is going to be another hearing or any amendments to any of this I would like to be notified so I can come back and comment on it. Johnson: You will be, thank you for your comments. Anyone else? Dee R Lynn, was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 11, 1996 Page 14 Lynn: With the road being moved of course then I will bump up exactly to this property. Which is no problem because I have been around long enough in the business world to realize that it makes sense for commercial things to kind of all go in together and be just do things the way they fit. And I obviously didn’t care enough to buy the property and keep it the way it is so I don’t have a whole lot of comments to make except on the traffic. It really is difficult to get onto Franklin Road even from my property now. I really do think it would be quite a necessity to have at least a light there. Of course I am interested too in more information about what is planned but that is not the biggy. Johnson: Thanks Dee, that traffic is going to get worse and worse because of other developments in there. The fact that Layne Industrial Park and there is also another 20 acre park right across from that development. So that is going to increase it, you make a valid point on the traffic. Anyone else? Close the public hearing at this time. Mr. Hepper is there something you would like to do with this application at this time? Hepper: Yes, I think we need to table it to our next regularly scheduled meeting. Oslund: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to table it, I am assuming, hopefully correctly because the applicant is not here? Hepper: Yes Johnson: To table this to the July 9 meeting which is our next scheduled meeting. Oslund: Mr. Chairman some discussion? Johnson: Yes, and I need to make a point before we do that, we want to leave the public hearing open. Go ahead what you were going to say? Oslund: That is the point I was going to make. Johnson: Thank you Crookston: This is on both items ten and eleven is it not? Johnson: Yes, and we will start we will take more public testimony at the next meeting. All those in favor of tabling the item? Opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 11, 1996 Page 15 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Does anybody else have anything because we are all through? (Inaudible) Johnson: We got a letter from the applicant asking as to withdraw their application. (Inaudible) Johnson: Not totally, to just withdraw the application. There is an indication that they will resubmit and there will be a new design. As far as we are concerned it is just a withdraw, we can’t take public testimony because (inaudible). (Inaudible) Crookston: Jim if they ask to be withdrawn, the whole application is withdrawn there is nothing for the City now. Johnson: Absolutely, that is what I was trying to say, you just said it better than I did. But totally, they have a condition in here that they are coming back but it is not really, it is still withdrawn. Anybody else? Karen Gallagher would like to talk to us from ACHD. Gallagher: Thank you Mr. Chairman, on that application that was withdrawn, I was asked to try and get some feedback from you. We are looking at it in conjunction with discussing with Shari of getting a public road at the signal at St. Luke’s with the understanding that we are going to see some redevelopment that the comp plan calls for some kind of mixed use planned developments. Do you have any feedback on that do you see that developing that way. Is there a need for a public road at that signal as far as what you see coming in. Is it only going to be those two parcels of some of the ones along Eagle Road and beyond that we aren’t going to see an incredible amount of development where we need this road. Johnson: I can only speak for what I know which is very little about that. The only information that I have is and Shari may be able to add to this is the two developments along there. The one that is there now and then this proposed application that is withdrawn. Is your question is there something further west? Gallagher: Yes, the only reason we would need the public road as we see it is if we do see additional commercial development. Because otherwise we are going to be putting in probably doing some kind of partnership at least for the first stretch of it to get the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 11, 1996 Page 16 public road started and we are trying to make sure that we are headed in the right direction looking at your comp plan. Obviously we are looking into the future trying to make some educated guesses on what is going to be needed. If we don’t get it with this parcel that has been withdrawn and as I understand they are trying to design with this road and get some property from the parcel next door to them. We are going to lose the opportunity to get them out to a signal and possibly have a right in and right out at Magic View in the future when Eagle becomes more restricted. If there is any kind of guidance that you can give us that you are headed in the right direction I can at least take that back. Johnson: Does anyone have any knowledge that I don’t have because I am surprised as the next person that they are developing those two parcels. (Inaudible) they are occupied now there are parcels in the five acre tract, I just don’t know anything else. Do you know of anything Shari? Any plans? Stiles: Chairman Johnson and Commissioners I have not heard anything specifically about that. My only concern is that is the only traffic light allowed between Overland Road and Franklin Road and I think that single family homes on five acre parcels in that area that property value is going to be so much it is going to dictate that they sell out to a commercial, some kind of a a commercial office development and that is my concern that there is some type public access to get to that light. Because getting out of Jacksons now is a nightmare if you want to go north. Hepper: It would be purely guess work but I would guess that just because of the proximity to the overpass and the freeway and that being such a big open piece of property that there is no reason why it wouldn’t eventually go commercial. It may be something like Nahas’ property, or it could be an industrial park back there or a commercial center or whatever. Just because of the proximity to the freeway and overpass like you said I can’t see any reason why it wouldn’t. Gallagher: That is what we were thinking, I mean 55 being one of the roads that really can take you north south somewhere and the fact that your comp plan does allow for redevelopment (inaudible). So nobody sees any reason why we shouldn’t go ahead with the road then, can I phrase it that way? Johnson: I really don’t, I know one other land owner on that street and (inaudible) I haven’t had any conversation with anyone else. Gallagher: Thank you Johnson: Thanks for coming, somebody else had something they wanted to talk to us Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 11, 1996 Page 17 about? Are you the guy that is late? Well gosh you are too late. We already had the public hearing. Tamura: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission my name is Doug Tamura. What I would like to do is if I could informally ask the Commission kind of some direction of where we are going with our property. (End of Tape) Crookston: I suppose that he could ask some questions but it is really not advisable for the Commission to discuss the matter outside of the public hearing. Johnson: I don’t have a problem with you making a presentation but we probably won’t comment on it. Do you want to do that (inaudible) we extended the public hearing as being open so we will have it next month. Tamura: That is fine because part of what we are trying to do is working with Karen on working out all of the Highway District’s concerns about what is going on with our property. I talked with Shari and here is kind of our predicament. I understand the City of Meridian desires’s to have kind of a big picture of what we would like to do. We recently bought the Madden property which is at the corner of Locust Grove and Franklin. So there is approximately 38 acres that we would like to master plan. The long term traffic plan is to have a five lane facility on both Locust Grove and Franklin Roads. At this point it will be a fairly major intersection with a future bridge that will cross across the freeway. Our thought was to go ahead and preserve the corner of the two Locust Groves and Franklin for some kind of commercial development in the future. Our desire is to go ahead and do a light industrial and build a concrete office warehouse complex behind that along the railroad right of way and the ditch. One of the requests that came from the Highway District was to propose some kind of east west connection between the two Locust Grove’s. I guess what we are showing right here that to us makes the most sense would be potentially extending E. Lanark from Locust Grove to Locust Grove. The other option that was mentioned in the Highway District report would be potentially put the road just south of the rail road right of way. I guess our preference, I guess our question would be for the Highway District that we discussed with Karen is that since we don’t really need the road, in a sense we have internal circulation that would feed our project is that we don’t really need the E. Lanark extension. I guess the two positions that we would have is we don’t have a problem of letting them use the ditch right of way if they want to use that for road right of way. But at the same time it seems as if it makes more sense to do East Lanark. I guess the question I wanted to ask the Commission is on a parcel like this where our main intention is to start development of our northeast corner of our property is should we come in for just an annexation and rezone on just what we are going to do and then request that 1/4 of our property or does the Commission like to see a whole overall Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 11, 1996 Page 18 planned unit development of what the big picture is. I guess Johnson: We don’t have an answer to that in a general sense without referring to your presentation or your plat that you are showing. In general the more information we get the better. As a matter of fact where we get criticized the most or at least we leave the public in the lurch the most is when they are unaware of what is ultimately going to be there. They don’t seem to have quite the concern with the annexation and zoning on projects as they do to what is going to wind up there. And so the more information we can get that is conceptual or even concrete to use an occupancy structures, roadways, lighting, all of those things then the better off we feel or more confident we feel passing judgement on other property or recommending judgement on a property. So to answer your question, kind of leading question, yes the more we can get the better we have found ourselves to be. One of the things that delays the process on a lot of other applications is the fact that information has been wanting. That is my general response to all applications and not specifically to yours. Tamura: And I guess the other thing is in talking with Shari and discussing with Shari on how to proceed this, I guess the perception we would like to have is that for each phase we go along we would resubmit a conditional use or a finalized conditional use that would detail exactly what we are going to do in each phase. So this first phase we would like to request annexation and rezoning on the whole parcel and a specific conditional use just on our first phase and then we will continually work. Johnson: We like to work on applications where we can condition the use and on a phase basis and Shari likes that too because we just have more control over landscaping and everything else we want in there as we see it develop. Tamura: One of the things that we think is what we would like to do with this property one it is in such a prime location as far as the future and what is going to happen there. Is looking at what has happened to the subdivisions it seems like the City doesn’t have as quite as much control over what is being built or what is being developed. So I guess our concept is we would like to go ahead and own and control and develop all of the space behind. Potentially when we do the commercial depending on what goes there we will come back in on that. What we would like to do is come up with the concept where the buildings and the landscaping is an an integral part of that whole back section of our property. So it is all a planned unit development concept. More than having selling off lots where you have ten different kinds of users and buildings and whatever. So that is kind of a general concept and so beyond that it is just working out circulation and traffic for the Highway District. Johnson: It is quite a sizable thing there, you are talking 36 acres and (inaudible). We Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 11, 1996 Page 19 don’t want to talk to you, we will see you next month. Vern did you have something or did you just come see if we were shutting your water off? (Inaudible) Johnson: We need another motion. Oslund: I move that adjourn this here meeting. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we adjourn the meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:25 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: JIM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK