Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-09 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 9, 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, Jim Shearer, Malcolm MacCoy: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Rose Maloney, Pat Maloney, Helen Sharp, Dale Sharp, Don Couch, Jim Ballantyne, Ron Crow, Don Northrop, Ted Hanson, Billie Jo Premoe, Brian Hoff, John and Renee Longden, David Brooks, Kay McKinney, Terry Trakel, Kelle Watkins, Angie Duncan, D’Arlene Stutzman, Rod Linja, David Hughes, Mike Wewers, Ted Caroon, John Jackson, Doug Stewart, Mike Ballantyne: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JUNE 11, 1996: Johnson: You have read the minutes, are there any corrections deletions or additions? I will entertain a motion for approval as written. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I recommend the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda for the date of June 11 be accepted. Johnson: Not the agenda but the minutes right? MacCoy: Yes Oslund: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we approve the minutes as written, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED JUNE 11, 1996: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Johnson: It is my understanding that we have received nothing new since our last meeting is that correct staff? Based upon that then I would suggest that we re-table this item. Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add if we could table this for say four months given the fact it has been on the agenda as a tabled item for over a year. Johnson: Is that your motion? Oslund: Yes MacCoy: Second Johnson: We have a motion to table the item for four months to a date certain which would be November 12, 1996, is there any discussion or questions regarding the motion? Hearing none then, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: TABLED JUNE 11, 1996: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Johnson: Item 2 requires the same motion if we want to do the same thing. We can’t do one without the other. Oslund: I make a motion that this item be tabled to the next regularly scheduled meeting. MacCoy: Second Oslund: Discussion, this one was, when was this originally tabled two months ago? As I recall they did a pretty substantial rework on the proposal and scaled down the proposal quite a bit. Johnson: On the plat? Oslund: The Ranch. Johnson: No, we are not into the Ranch we are on item 2. Oslund: Well then I withdraw my motion, and I will make that motion all over again. I am sorry, on item #2 I would like to table that one for 4 months just like the original motion. MacCoy: Second Johnson: A motion and a second to table item #2 until November 12, 1996, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED JUNE 11, 1996: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY: ITEM #4: TABLED JUNE 11, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 3 Oslund: I move that item 3 and 4 be tabled to the next regularly scheduled meeting. MacCoy: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second that we table items 3 and 4 until August 13, date certain our next regularly scheduled meeting for Planning and Zoning, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR RETAIL SALE OF ALCOHOL BY DWAYNE WINN: Johnson: Any discussion or questions regarding the findings of fact as prepared by the City Attorney? I have a question on page 5, excuse me its item 5 on page 6. The comment regarding no mixed drinks are allowed, I am confused. Crookston: Mr. Chairman, that is a those seven items on page 6 in paragraph 7 or excuse me they are actually part of number 15, those seven items are a quote from the items submitted by Central District Health Department. I don’t know why they stated that. Johnson: Well I wonder if there is another connotation there, I am not, if you have a bar and a liquor license I would assume you would want to sell a mixed drink once in awhile. Since you don’t know we can go on and put that as a question mark. Are there any other changes or questions regarding the findings of fact and conclusions. Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopt and approves these findings of fact and conclusions. MacCoy: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the findings of fact as prepared by the City Attorney, this is a roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Absent, Oslund - Yea, Shearer - Yea, MacCoy - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is there a recommendation you wish to pass onto the City Council? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 4 Oslund: Mr. Chairman I move that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the Meridian City Council that they grant the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the retail sale of the alcoholic beverages described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law or similar conditions found justified and appropriate by the City Council. Conditional use should be subject to review or revocation upon notice to the applicant by the City. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to send the recommendation onto the City as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 11, 1996: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION/ZONING TO C-G AND I-L BY DOUG TAMURA AND ARTHUR BERRY: ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 11, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY DOUG TAMURA AND ARTHUR BERRY: Johnson: We are in receipt of a request to defer without a date so that would be to our next regularly scheduled meeting. However since we have noticed for a public hearing we will take testimony from anyone that wishes to provide it this evening. Bearing in mind that the applicant is probably not prepared or available to answer any questions. You are certainly free to express your concerns at this time. At this point I will open the public hearing. We will handle both items 6 and 7 since they are related in this public hearing at this time. Is there anyone that would like to come forward and address the Commission on item 6 or item 7 on the agenda? (Inaudible) Donald Couch, 1975 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Couch: My concern about the property is not it being developed by my concern is traffic, it appears to me that there is a lot of development going on especially in that area. There is no traffic control, they have slowed the speed limit down to 35 miles per hour but the flow of traffic is hard to understand. You can’t get off of Locust Grove now from 8 in the morning until 6 evening. They have just expanded the school over on the street behind there and the adjacent development. So I am concerned about the lights Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 5 being there or put there. That is my biggest concern. Johnson: Thank you, any questions? Oslund: When you say lights do you mean traffic signals or street lighting? Couch: Traffic signal because of, and I understand that they are considering taking Locust Grove straight through to Fairview is that correct. So that adds more concern because that street and now existing Locust Grove. If you consider that I would appreciate it. Johnson: Anyone else that would like to address the Commission on this application? D’Arlene Stutzman, 1960 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Stutzman: I don’t really have, I just need a little bit of clarity, I am wondering if you put North Locust Grove straight through if you are going to leave the one that is there now. If they would each have a light or exactly what you would do with that. Johnson: We don’t have anything to do with streets. Ada County Highway District and they would make recommendations with respect to signalization and the direction of the street and width and all of that sort of stuff. Stutzman: So it is not your understanding that they would close the Locust Grove that exists now and that this would be an additional street? Johnson: I haven’t seen anything from ACHD personally on it so I couldn’t comment, I don’t know if anybody else has talked to them about this particular street or not. Oslund: When the applicant was here last time what I thought they were showing was the Locust Grove that is there now would remain and that the new Locust Grove would just connect the two Locust Groves, the one that is over at Fairview and the one that is south of Franklin and that a signal may be required there. Stutzman: That is the question I had, thank you. Johnson: Anyone else? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. Crookston: Do you want to close it or do you want to continue it? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 6 Johnson: I think I want to continue it, let’s continue it. Anyway the reason, according to Doug Tamura sent us a letter asking for a deferral. They are currently in the process of negotiating conditions of approval with ACHD and that those negotiations would not be completed prior to tonight and that is the reason he asked for the deferral. So we will continue that public hearing, we need a motion to that effect. Shearer: I move we continue this to next month. Oslund: Second Johnson: For item 6 and 7, we have a motion and a second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF RIGHT OF WAY ON WASHINGTON STREET BY D’ARLENE STUTZMAN: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or the representative of the applicant to address the Commission at this time. D’Arlene Stutzman, 1154 Cathy Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Stutzman: My little subdivision has a private street, Cathy Lane, that goes out there and bumps into this great big patch of white caps. Initially however many years ago that somebody thought up the City of Meridian they thought that Washington Street would go on across and there would be a bridge across Five Mile. But of course that isn’t ever going to be a subdivision across Five Mile now is completely developed and everything like that. So, I want the vacancy of that 30 foot so that I can incorporate it into what I am doing and put a drainage in there instead of just having it more unkept weeds. Johnson: Could you explain to us what it is you are doing? Stutzman: You have the copies of the map, it is the, it would not be all of proposed Washington Street of course, it would only be the part that is directly north of me. I can’t find my map now. I was talking about the little subdivision map where I had them done in yellow. Johnson: Okay, again, I guess I am unclear the reason that you want that 30 feet vacated. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 7 Stutzman: Well because a long time ago when I first started thinking about finishing that development, which I bought the subdivision repo from a bank from Tom Marks etc. when he took bankruptcy and all of that garbage. Jack the City Clerk at the time said that would be a good thing to do because with all of the changes that had been made Washington street was never ever going to go through and that it would just be sitting there a weed patch if I didn’t do that. It doesn’t connect with anything, it is never expected to connect with anything. So it just seems logical. Johnson: Okay, any questions of D’Arlene? No questions at this time, is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? You will get an opportunity to come back if you want to. Ron Crow, 6937 West (inaudible) Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Crow: My mother owns the property, Ruth Crow (inaudible) and we are concerned about the access from Washington is the only access at the end of our property at this time. If we have to, I would hate to give up some access if for the road to come into my mother’s property plus it might be needed for the fire department later. That is our main concern is access to our property. At this point I don’t see any other way to get into our property. Johnson: Thank you, we do have a letter signed by your mother. Shearer: Could you point out to me (inaudible) (Discussion Inaudible) Johnson: Thank you Mr. Crow, anyone else that would like to come forward? Terry Trakel, 928 East 5th, was sworn by the City Attorney. Trakel: The property in question borders my mother-in-law’s place which I am representing her, Nora Overton. We own the property directly north of that right of way. We own up to 300 and some feet that borders that right of way. That right of way would be the only access into our property. This is what Ruth Crow is also talking about. Without her extension and this extension our property would sit there and you can only get to it by river boat through the Five Mile Canal. So we are suggesting is that easement be kept open it has been kept open all of these 20 or 30 years and we wish it to keep that way for the future. Johnson: Thank you any questions for Mr. Trakel? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 8 (Discussion Inaudible) Johnson: Any questions? Shearer: Do you have a dimension on your property? (Discussion Inaudible) Johnson: Anyone else that would like to come forward and address this application? Any rebuttle comments? Stutzman: The reason I think that vacating that end of this street since the access that they would have would only be Washington Street anyway Cathy Lane being a private street so the two would never ever be connected. I just don’t see that there would be an advantage by leaving the weed patch there. Because the access that the crow property and the other property have will be Washington Street which you know would touch both properties whether or not the extreme east end of it were cleaned up and made something nice. Thanks. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else, one last request? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. What is your pleasure gentlemen? Oslund: Mr. Chairman, and I don’t remember the gentleman’s name over here but he brings up a good point that and not knowing what his agreements are and what his rights are but it appears that if we grant this vacation then that parcel, that long skinny parcel it looks like it is labeled 8 on the plan I have would be totally land locked with no access to that property, the access they enjoy now. So unless somebody can convince me that they have access from elsewhere I don’t see how we could do this without cutting that property off all together. I guess I have a question, Cathy Lane then is a private street (Inaudible) Oslund: So they have no legal easement or right to that access? Johnson: I am sorry, D’Arlene you have to get to the mike if you want to comment. Are we opening the hearing now is that what we are doing? Crookston: If there is a motion to that effect, I don’t recall you closing it myself. Stutzman: The access, the only access that exists now is one that Nora Overton left Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 9 an easement west of Cathy Lane to that parcel. But that is not really a street, the only street is going to be when Washington Street does come through. Of course that wouldn’t be affected at all because we wouldn’t be vacating Washington Street up to where it didn’t touch the property. Washington Street would always touch the property. Oslund: Well Washington Street according to the map that I have doesn’t touch the parcel in question. Stutzman: It doesn’t at all, but I am not asking to vacate all of Washington Street. I am asking to vacate only the east little chunk that wouldn’t affect getting to their parcel. (Inaudible) Stutzman: Correct, vacate the last little end of it would not affect at all the ability that will be developed to get to that piece. Oslund: The ability to get to that piece though Stutzman: Would have to be Washington. Oslund: Would have to be through Washington but it depends on this particular persons ability to get access through another property. I guess, before we, I guess the other question I have is do you, can you show us that you have any access right to Cathy Lane? Stutzman: None whatsoever. Oslund: I would say you are out of luck then from where I am sitting. Crow: I went down Cathy Lane and it is a really narrow lane and I don’t know too much about the fire trucks or anything or where this will end up with it. That is a real small lane and if a fire truck had to come down that lane with all of the cars that are parked out in the street it would be a real job to get down that lane. I don’t understand all of this but it seems like to me that if you want access to come in on Washington and make a right hand turn or have access down that lane and the more access that fire truck had the better off you would be. Maybe the fire truck would have to park where that 30 foot is to fight a fire. Johnson: That is a concern that has been expressed by the Fire Chief, Mr. Kenny Bowers and his suggestion was or one of his suggestions was that perhaps a culdesac or a turn around area would have to be located at the end of the street because there is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 10 no way they could get down there and turn around. Crow: Yes and like I said I just went down there a couple of days ago and Cathy Lane is a real narrow street. So that is one of my concerns. Johnson: Anyone else? At this time I will close the public hearing. What would you like to do. Oslund: Well from what I have heard I think we should approve it. I don’t know Johnson: Well this requires findings of fact and conclusions of law doesn’t it? Crookston: I don’t believe that it does. Let’s direct the City Attorney to find out and if there is a requirement that there be findings of fact that I prepare them. Oslund: I move that we ask Counsel to determine if findings of fact are required on this application and if they are to prepare them. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we really don’t know what we are doing and we will have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law if it is required and if it is not required then a recommendation I guess will go to the City Council. Crookston: You don’t have a recommendation, if you desire to do that you can. You can do it tonight or at the next meeting. Oslund: Is there anyway we find out about the findings tonight? Crookston: Yes Johnson: We will break for three minutes while you get the answer for that. THREE MINUTE BREAK Johnson: Let’s call the meeting to order I am sorry for the delay. Can we have your comments Counsel? Crookston: Certainly, from what I have read, findings of fact and conclusions of law are not required for a vacation of a right of way or easement but it still has to be approved by the Ada County Highway District because it is a public right of way. You need to make a recommendation to the Council as to whether or not you desire the vacation to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 11 be approved, approved with conditions or denied. Johnson: Thank you I appreciate that. MacCoy: Do you want our statement here? Johnson: Yes MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that Planning and Zoning deny the vacation permit as requested. Oslund: I second that motion, call for discussion. Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we recommend to the City Council to deny the request for vacation of right of way, discussion. Oslund: I kind of changed my tune a little bit and I just, after talking with staff a little bit, and reviewing some of their comments included in the package, realize that there are potential other uses for this right of way for the public including a pathway and possible other future uses therefore I have changed my mind about it. Johnson: Any other comments? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF RIGHT OF WAY OF PORTION OS E.1ST STREET, STATE AVENUE BY MERIDIAN JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2: Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant’s representative to address the Commission. Ted Caroon, 1735 Federal Way, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Caroon: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission this is a request to vacate the portions of State Avenue and the W. 1st Street shown here in yellow together with a small portion of the adjacent alley, about 60 feet there completely surrounded by Meridian School District property. I believe you were given a little sheet like this in color. I would like to at this time point out a small error that got into this sheet. If you will notice the correct school district property as it is shown here with the lot 7, 8, 9 and 10 in these two blocks are actually part of the Meridian School District property. So that all of the area requested for vacation here is actually bordered by only Meridian school Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 12 district property. Is that clear? The purpose of this request, Meridian School District has recently acquired some property here and they have turned that into a gravel surface parking area for staff. That relieves the parking congestion that we had over here on West 1st and Carlton in this area which was kind of a source of complaints. This has really been pretty successful. Right now it is graveled surface and it is the desire of the school district to go ahead and continue to improve that area and these areas were vacated and could be used by the School District then this entire area could be utilized to develop decent paved parking area, a proper place for parents to drop off their students in front of the school and be a generally much improved in terms of appearance and child safety and public usability of this space in this area. I might note that none of the other streets in this area continue through the property either. We do recognize the need to allow emergency vehicles and utilities vehicles like garbage trucks and so on to continue to get around here. The District is certainly willing to work with the City and grant whatever use easements and so on are necessary to enable that to continue. With that I would just respectively request your approval of this application. Johnson: Any questions of the applicant’s representative? Oslund: In the comments from staff, comment 2 talks about homes adjacent to the alley will require access through W. 1st Street to get their (inaudible) as the alley is one way, do you, what is that referring to exactly? Caroon: I am not sure what they are referring to, is the alley one way. I guess I was not aware. Oslund: That is what it says, it says cross access easements will be needed for these properties and clear vehicle driveways. It sounds like to get access some properties will need to be coming across your property and that easements will be required. Caroon: I am not sure that is true if they have access off of Pine Avenue here. It may be related to the error that is in that initial drawing that you received that indicated that these properties were, could not be accessed if this alley were vacated from this point. I am not sure that is the case where it is a corrected drawing here. Johnson: Can you add any clarification staff on that particular point? Stiles: Chairman and Commissioners the alley is of a width that does not allow two way traffic and I believe it is one way going south and that is currently how those people access the rear of their lots is having to go down W. 1st and through State to that. I don’t know if garbage trucks go down there. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 13 Crookston: Mr. Chairman, all alleys within the City are one way alleys. Johnson: Right, and they are used by the Sanitary Service people. Caroon: Excuse me is it possible that could be changed to a one way north to allow these people access to their property. Oslund: If we reverse it it seems like they would still have to come across your property at some point going in or out. Caroon: Well it is only just a few lots there. Oslund: I don’t have that map in front of me. Stiles: If it were one way the other way then they would have to back out, well no. Crookston: Shari is that how that works, if your car is pointing one direction which is the correct direction but you are backing that is okay? (Inaudible) Caroon: I am sure we can, it is not the intent to close that alley and it is the intent to leave that to allow access for heavier vehicles through there anyway. I am certain that we can incorporate the traffic needs into the alley and the development of the parking areas and drives around the front of the school. Johnson: Any other questions? Hearing none I will invite anyone from the public to address the Commission on this application for a vacation. Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. Discussion? Recommendation? Oslund: I think their request seems like a reasonable request. The only concern I have is what we just talked about and that is can this be done in a way that provides access to these homes as good as they have now. Johnson: You can incorporate those into a motion. Oslund: The staff points out that is what they were getting to when they talked about cross access easements so that would be something the school district would grant to each of those properties to allow them access across and through your facility. If that is acceptable then I think that would be an acceptable solution. So I guess taking all of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 14 that and making it a motion. (Inaudible) Counsel do we need findings on this one? Crookston: (Inaudible) Oslund: I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Council that the vacation be approved with a condition that easements be provided from the District to the affected property owners. MacCoy: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: Johnson: We have a request from Attorney Steven C. Brown of Ellis, Brown and Shields chartered to defer and reschedule the hearing on August 13, 1996 which we will certainly do. However we have noticed this as a public hearing and at this time we will take testimony from anybody that is willing to give it with the understanding that your questions may be addressed at the presentation date on August 13 by the applicant and we probably will not be able to answer your questions this evening. Bearing that in mind then I will open the public hearing at this time and invite anyone that wishes to address the Commission (End of Tape) Ted Hanson, 1882 Bentley Avenue, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hanson: I was wondering about as P & Z could you clarify for me what the impact is going to be, what you are doing is you are going totally commercial sitting right on the property line of these people’s back yards. Don’t you have a buffer zone in this impact land somewhere? How would you like to have this 80 room hotel built right behind your back fence. Johnson: I had better not answer any questions like that. We are glad to take your testimony and objection if that is what it is to the application. But as to as answering questions like what would you like and what would you have we are not obligated to answer those kinds of questions. We are here to gather information from you so that our City Council will be better informed when they have to make the decision to approve or not to approve. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 15 Hanson: I will restate it, where does the impact plan allow for commercial against residential property. Johnson: There are, and these can be delineated in our comprehensive plan, there are conditions for buffering commercial, residential against residential. In terms of landscape barriers, plantings, fences, sound walls. Those things are available, none of which are mandated. The only thing that is mandated is that there be acceptable buffering, and acceptable is kind of an ambiguous term but it is in terms of what the City Council and staff determines to be acceptable buffering. In other words we do it all the time but buffering is usually a requirement, as a matter of fact I don’t know of any recent cases that it was not a requirement. Anyone else like to address the Commission? John Jackson, 3500 Commercial Court, was sworn by the City Attorney. Jackson: I merely have a question regarding the administration of this process. I just want to point out to the Commission that like most people I am very busy and travel a lot. This is the second time I have attended this meeting to make comment and I find out when I get here that it has been cancelled which involves a lot of inconvenience coming from out of town and that sort of thing. Is there any other way? Johnson: No Jackson: Should I perhaps call I guess? (Inaudible) before it is cancelled? Johnson: You can do that, the reason that we accept public testimony when the applicant asks for the deferral does not withdraw the application is to give people like you an opportunity to provide testimony that have to travel and maybe can’t meet the August 13 date for example. That is why we are doing that, we are here to gather the information. For us to guarantee you that it will be here next month, no. Jackson: Is there a cut off day or is there any notice at all prior to the meeting being cancelled? Johnson: It is not cancelled it is deferred, their letter stated that July the third, we received it on July the eighth at the city of Meridian. That doesn’t give you a whole lot of time since that was yesterday. Jackson: I understand it is not your fault it is just a question so that I can make by travel arrangements accordingly. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 16 Johnson: I would suggest you call and see if there has been any request for deferral and call the City at 888-4433 and ask for the City Clerk Will Berg, and he can tell you if there has been any recent action. We have had deferral letters come in the 11th hour and they are just not prepared they are not ready so they asked for a deferral. Well we can’t take much action or do anything intelligently not that we do anyway but we can’t do anything intelligently without their side of the story. That presentation is really critical to the whole thing. A lot of you people that come to the other presentation you will get your questions answered with the presentation or at least (inaudible) whole process. We want to give everybody an opportunity to testify that (inaudible) to come here if they want to or they can reserve their comments for next meeting. There will also be another public hearing following this at the City Council level. So whatever we do at Planning and Zoning you get two (inaudible) shots minimum, hopefully it won’t be deferred forever. Jackson: Well I appreciate your comments and I understand a little better. Johnson: Thank you for coming, anyone else? Any more testimony on the application by Eagle Partners either items 10 or 11? At this point I will close the public hearing. Crookston: You want to continue it do you not? Johnson: I am sorry I want to continue this public hearing, thank you I know you are here for a reason. We need a motion to continue this until August 13, 1996 date certain a requested. Shearer: Do we need, there was a letter that came in, do we need to put that in the public record. Johnson: Which letter are you referring to, the letter from Howard Foley? Those are both part of the record. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the Planning and Zoning on this issue postpone it to the next meeting. Johnson: Items 10 and 11 Commissioner MacCoy? MacCoy: Yes, items 10 and 11 since they are related. Johnson: Continued to August 13, 1996. Oslund: Second Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 17 Johnson: We have a motion and a second, any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FORA REZONE FROM R-4 TO L-O BY KELLE WATKINS AND DOUG STEWART: Johnson: At this time I will open this public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative to come before the Commission. Doug Stewart, 5916 North Linder Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Stewart: Well we are attempting to buy property at 1250 West Cherry lane which is one door from the new Meridian library and convert it to a light office use. My wife is a counselor and she wants to move her practice to Meridian and that seems to be a good location that is on the entry corridor and almost every piece of property that is along there is already commercially zoned and that is what we would like to do with this piece. Johnson: Have you read the comments from our City staff and do you have any questions regarding that? This letter is dated July 3rd that I am looking at. One from Shari Stiles and one from Bruce Freckleton. Stewart: Yes I did have a question on those, number 4, I am looking at the one from Shari, where it asks for since this is the Meridian corridor we ask for a minimum of 20 foot landscape setback should be required as a condition of rezoning. Well that is well and good for Fred Meyers that has 1000 foot frontage and 100 foot setback but this is a house that has been there for 35 years and has 35 feet from the sidewalk and the front of the house. There is already a 13 foot planter there which I have a redraw (inaudible) and we add plantings over here and (inaudible) that would be more than (inaudible). We would like to keep that (inaudible) Johnson: So what you are saying is if we require the 20 foot you are going to have 15 feet left between the landscaping and your home right? Stewart: (Inaudible) Johnson: Well we have a relatively new landscape ordinance with respect to that and you are a victim of circumstances. Stewart: (Inaudible) Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 18 Johnson: We have your request on that, is there anything else on here? On these comments? Anything on ACHD’s comments? Stewart: We have already hashed that out with them, they had asked that access be gained through Leisure Lane. Well Leisure Lane is a private road owned by this gentleman right here between that private road and this piece of property is an 8 foot strip of land that I don’t know who it belongs to. I don’t think we can ask for an easement through those two pieces of property property. My insurance man says that would not be a good plan since that is two pieces of private property accessed to get to our land when there is already a curb cut in front of the house that takes us off the street and keep us on our property. I understand that little chunk of land is in some kind of a problem with the City according to (inaudible) who owns the street. Johnson: You have already hashed this out with ACHD was your meeting prior to their drafting of these recommendations or afterward? Stewart: This was last week and we have to go back there tomorrow. They didn’t make a final decision they made recommendations which you have there and in the end decided that we would leave the curb cut where it is and go ahead and use it because it is such a limited use anyway because the Counseling business is a one on one. The counselor comes, whoever they are counseling comes and they are there for an hour and they leave. So it isn’t a high traffic business anyway. So they decided that we could go ahead and just leave the curb cut where it was. Johnson: Do you have a copy of ACHD’s draft, we do, I just want to make sure you have one. Stewart: Yes I do because I gave it to Shari? Johnson: Any questions from the Commissioners? Shearer: Is there any reason why this drive way can’t come in and go to the back. We don’t need all of this gravel parking and so on in the front do we? (Inaudible) Stewart: Since this already exists we want to leave it and leave the planting. This is now a road that goes out to Leisure Lane that is to be cut off and limited to this property and just be a parking space there. And then the (inaudible) this already exists and is (inaudible) black topped. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 19 Shearer: It seems to me if we follow Shari’s recommendation or requirements of landscaping the front that this drive could come through that, the landscaping could be there and (inaudible) we have a driveway through the landscaped area. Stewart: (Inaudible) Shearer: We have changed substantially the last couple of years as far as the requirements for landscaping. Johnson: We need to ask you to return to the podium so we can pick up all of the testimony. Anything else? Crookston: Excuse me Mr. Stewart, I may have misunderstood you when you started your presentation. I thought that you said that this property was adjacent to where the new library is going to be. Stewart: One door, there is another piece of property between the new Meridian City library and this piece of property. Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you, anyone from the public that would like to come forward on this? John Longden, 1727 Leisure Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Longden: I own the easement that comes down through there plus the lot directly behind him which is one piece of land. The easement is connected to my lot as one piece, there is a section of private property an 8 foot section between Leisure Lane and his property that right now is in Ada County Tax discussion I will put it that way, it has been there for a year and a half. But he has told me it will come out in about a month or so that they will get it straightened up and figure out what they are going to do with that strip, because they are going to take it from taxes evidently. Johnson: Excuse me, you lost me a little bit, what is the ownership for that 8 foot strip, is that what is being determined now? Longden: Yes, the strip between Leisure Lane and his property. It is about 8 feet and 300 feet or whatever the depth is of his lot. That was taken for taxes as far as I know. They told me they would let me know about July and they set up a new committee to take care of those problems they told me. I was just concerned about parking on Leisure Lane because it is a narrow street already. I was wanting to widen that right Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 20 out front so those garbage trucks can get in easier and stuff because part of that already is in grass and it needs to be taken out of grass and put back in gravel so the trucks can get in there easier is what I was after because if they start parking out there on that side and it creates a problem for emergency vehicles or even people getting in and out of that easement. So that was my main concern is that he hold to his cut off coming out of the particular lot onto Leisure Lane. Crookston: Excuse me, this property in this application was that not the property that there was a request to rezone that to R-8 two years ago or something like that? Longden: No, the property to the left of that easement was rezoned to L-O or office use and stuff, Mike Gamblin. Crookston: This is not his property? Longden: No this is not his property. I guess that is all I have to say. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. Discussion or motion? The request for rezone would require findings of fact. Shearer: I move that we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: What that means is we will have the City Attorney prepare these findings of fact in accordance with our ordinances, in accordance with the testimony presented tonight and at that time a recommendation will be included which will be passed onto the City Council. We will handle that at our next meeting which is August 13, 1996. Following that it will go to the City Council meeting. Any questions on the procedure. ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BALLANTYNE-TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK BY JIM BALLANTYNE: Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite Mr. Ballantyne or his Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 21 representative to address the Commission. This is a preliminary plat. Mike Ballantyne, 2690 N. Mule Deer Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Ballantyne: On August 8, 1995 we came before this Commission requesting an annexation and zoning for approximately 40 acres between Franklin Road and Meridian Road on the southwest corner. The City decided that was from R14 County to L-O and C-G. The City decided they wanted to see a plat, we then brought you a plat last Winter, you meaning the Planning and Zoning Commission approved that plat pending resolution of some entrance issues on the north end of the property related to Hoff Forest Products and their entrance. We then in the course of our application and in the course of our meetings and approvals through Ada County Highway District and the City of Meridian made changes to the plat. Those changes were caused by ACHD requirements, concerns of the neighbors and requests by the City of Meridian. We presented this revised plat to the City Council who decided that the plat should go back to Planning and Zoning because it was significantly enough different than the plat that you had approved that you should have a chance to see it again. So that is why we are here just to give you the quick run down. I have prepared for your reference photocopies of reductions of the old plat and new plat so that you can compare then and we can talk real quickly about the changes that were made so that you are aware of what has changed since you last approved the plat and then we would be glad to answer any questions that you have. The green plat that I have given you was the original plat that you approved pending some resolution of that entrance up at the top of the plat at the north end of the plat. I will just go through these numbers that I have identified and show you the changes that we have made. The first change, number one, I do have enough of these by the way if anyone is interested, number one we shifted the Franklin entrance to match with Hoff Forest Products Driveway. This was done because of concerns of Hoff Forest Products and we discussed this at length I believe at the Commission meeting last winter. Number 2 which is down toward the bottom on the left side we terminated Pennwood rather than making it a through street. This was done because of concerns of the residents in Franklin Square about having commercial traffic in their subdivision and about the additional traffic that would be generated through Pennwood if Pennwood connects to Meridian Road. So that was terminated per neighbors request and per request of ACHD. Number 3 which is toward the center near the Eight Mile Lateral, we brought southwest 3rd through all the way to the north edge of the property there as far as southwest 3rd would go. That was done per request of Ada County Highway District and the property owner to the north, Larry Rackham. It made sense that when that property was developed that it would be able to, we didn’t want that not to go through. Number 4, which near number 3 there, we left the lateral in place, the Eight Mile Lateral rather than relocating it. This was done for a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 22 number of reasons, one being the cost of relocating the lateral, the second being concerns raised by neighbors, people in Hope Arms were concerned about a ditch being adjacent to their back fence and a lot of small children live at Hope Arms. The neighbors to the north were concerned about the change in water table, many of them are still on septic tanks. And Nampa Meridian and the property owner was concerned about the way the water would flow through that new lateral when you do 90 degree angles, you get a lot of hammering. If any of you have ever farmed you know that tends to erode and can be a mess. Lastly there was some concern that the old Eight Mile Lateral would still continue to draw water and would cause some drainage problems in the center of the property. Item 5, we replaced Fulmer Avenue with Pennwood Street, We moved Fulmer down to the south edge of the property and renamed it Pennwood as was logical. This was just a more logical layout because the lateral not being relocated it made a lot more sense especially if we eventually use that 50 foot easement through Norm Fuller’s property. Number 6, we added there at the top Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2. That is per City staff request that a 35 landscape buffer be a common area, not be maintained by the property owners on Franklin but be maintained by the subdivision association. Number 7, we added where Pennwood used to go through we added Lot 10 of Block 1, that was done to handle the bringing of utilities from Pennwood Street over to SW 5th. We wanted to make sure that the City staff and utility companies were able to access that. That will be a utility easement it will be maintained by the neighborhood association. It will not be maintained by the City it will be a common area. Number 8 there on the east edge of the property we moved the easement that Norm Fuller had given us. We moved that slightly to the north to accommodate a request by Norm Fuller. Number 9, because of all of the changes that I just mentioned that caused a change in our lot and block layout. And so we are now numbered differently. Number 10 we added a lot, it is not actually where I show number 10 it is over on the east side of SW 3rd on your new plat. We added a small lot per request by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District that the control area that they control the pressurized irrigation, the pumphouse whatever they end up building there be deeded to them. That ground be a separate lot and block that they can have unlimited access to rather than having to get an easement. So those are the changes to the plat. So we bring this plat back before you with these changes and request that you approve the changes and the new plat so we can continue to move ahead. Johnson: Could you reiterate number 10? Ballantyne: Item 10, on the plat it is a tiny lot, your reduction it is very hard to see, but there is a tiny lot, Lot 4 of Block 3 which will be deeded to Nampa Meridian for them to, there is a 4 with an arrow on the east side of SW 3rd. That will allow them unlimited access to the control area where the pump house for the pressurized irrigation and we wanted to accommodate them there. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 23 Johnson: Thank you, any questions? Oslund: Block 1, Lot 10 the utility access there did that also serve to provide some pedestrian access between Pennwood Street and SW 5th? Ballantyne: Initially Ada County Highway District indicated that they didn’t want any access even pedestrian access between the business park and the residential use. The City staff has indicated that they would like to have pedestrian access it seems logical that there may be some employees of different businesses there. We are not opposed to that being an access we will maintain that area and we are not opposed to making that a pedestrian access. Johnson: Any other questions from the Commissioners, Counsel? Thank you Mr. Ballantyne. This is a public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission at this time? Any comments from staff? I will close the public hearing then. This is a preliminary plat request, no findings, recommendation? Shearer: I move we recommend approval of the preliminary plat. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat as presented this evening, any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Do you have this letter, you may have this copy. Entertain a motion. Shearer: I move we adjourn. Oslund: Second Johnson: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:03 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE FOR THESE PROCEEDINGS) Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 9, 1996 Page 24 APPROVED: JIM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK