Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-08 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 1996 The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Jim Shearer: MEMBERS ABSENT: Greg Oslund, Malcolm MacCoy: OTHER PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Dick Williams, Phil Barber, Chris Beeson, Wayne Forrey, Steve Sweet, Dennis Butterfield, Dana Cowan: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 16, 1996: Johnson: You have read the minutes, are there any additions, corrections or deletions? If there are none I will entertain a motion for approval. Shearer: I move we approve the minutes. Borup: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes as written, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED AUGUST 13, 1996: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY: ITEM #2: TABLED AUGUST 13, 1996: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY: Johnson: It is my understanding that we haven’t anything new on this, no correspondence or additions is that right staff? Stiles: Chairman Johnson and Commissioners I did receive a phone call today from one of the applicants and they requested a meeting for Thursday to talk about the development. I really don’t know what their plans are at this time. Johnson: In other words they are still alive right? Stiles: I guess in a manner of speaking yes. Johnson: What would your pleasure be on this? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table items 1 and 2 until the next regular meeting November 12. Borup: Second Johnson: Its moved and seconded that we table items 1 and 2 until our next meeting November 12, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED SEPTEMBER 16, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR KARATE CLASSES BY BRAD AND DEBBIE MILLER: Johnson: It is my understanding that this application is all but dead is that correct? Stiles: Yes Johnson: Is there anyone here representing item #3? If we table this we need to table it to a date certain. We have no formal withdrawal but some action has taken place which leads us to believe this is not a live issue anymore. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we table until the next regular meeting (inaudible). Borup: I think (inaudible) can we just remove it from the agenda until and let them make a reapplication? Johnson: We have a motion with no second, so it is going to die for lack of a second. So you can make a new motion. Shearer: If we do that though they will have to pay another fee and everything if they decide to go ahead, right? Crookston: That is correct. Shearer: I would prefer to table it in case they are (inaudible). Borup: Mr. Chairman, I think Shari has a comment. Stiles: The indication from the owner of the property is he has verbally stated he is not going to continue with it. The applicants themselves have not asked for a withdrawal. The Idaho Business Review did have a business filing for that address as a company called Awards Are Us. So if we need to get that formal withdrawal, I guess Counsel would need to advise Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 3 Johnson: It would be my recommendation that we table it and have Will Berg or Shari contact the applicant and get a formal withdrawal. Borup: I second that (Inaudible) Johnson: We have a motion and a second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY DOUG TAMURA AND ARTHUR BERRY: Johnson: You have the findings of fact and conclusions of law, are there any discussions, any comments or corrections? Any discussion Commissioner Borup? Borup: No, no comments. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves the findings of fact and conclusions. Borup: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact as compiled by the City Attorney, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup - Yea, Oslund - Absent, Shearer - Yea, MacCoy - Absent, Johnson - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is there a recommendation we should pass onto the City at this time? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the property set forth in the application be approved for a conditional use permit under the conditions set forth in these facts and conclusions of law. Borup: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we pass a recommendation onto the City as stated, all Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 4 those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC; TABLED SEPTEMBER 16, 1996: Johnson: We have in our hands hot off the press revised findings of fact and conclusions of law. It would appear that there is some discussion necessary specifically with three items and some blanks to be filled in. On the copies you are working with the revisions are shown as crossed out the additions are highlighted in bold. Items number on page 27, item C, item F, and on page Item O require completion. Which I would suggest that we make an attempt to doing now. Borup: Do you want to take those one at a time? Johnson: Sure, starting with item C on page 27. Borup: I think the attempt on that again is the buffering from Greenhills Subdivision which seemed to be the biggest concern amongst the homeowners. I agree with the idea of buffering but as stated by the applicant the construction time does not lend itself to have the motel built first. I think that is what this leaves open is that does not happen then what other buffering would there be. (Inaudible) Shearer: I would think as long as that buffering strip was put in when the construction on the first buildings that as long as that is done at the same time as the first buildings that be adequate. Johnson: How would you revise this then, what would be your pleasure? Shearer: I think maybe that whole item C could be revised to read that the landscape screening will be provided along with the first building that is constructed and that would be the landscaping to the north and to the west. That would take care of the problem that we are trying to solve. Borup: The only other thing I would maybe like to add to that was just pass onto the staff, I don’t know if we could (inaudible)the biggest part of the buffering I think is going to be the height and nothing is really addressed in that other than the type of trees. I can’t tell looking at the plan if they are talking about a raised berm one of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 5 letters did refer to a berm. The landscaping, a detailed landscaping plan would show that. Can that, without us getting too specific here can that recommendation be made? Johnson: I think you can word it anyway you want. Do you have any suggestions in that area, do you understand exactly what we are trying to do here Shari? Borup: We are not talking, and I don’t think that is their intention but a strip of grass with a few shrubs along there. Shearer: I think they are planning on trees and I think you are right that a berm on that nothing screening should be provided to stop head lights for people coming out of the parking lot. So that people driving out of those parking lots into that north screen that the berm will be there to block it off along with the trees. Borup: Can we get into specifics on a berm height and tree height say within five years they will be such and such? Johnson: You can do whatever you want to do. I think it should be more general. Borup: I don’t know if there is a point to get too specific but that would be the intent is a berm high enough to take care of head lights plus trees or other screening that would get above the height of the house windows or something. Shearer: I think that we’ve in the previous paragraph said that screening shall be approved by staff and I think that they can handle that. I think they can handle that as far as the tree type and (inaudible). Borup: I think it all relates back into A and B. Shearer: So I think it is just a matter of having the screen and the berm to stop head lights. Borup: I feel comfortable with the wording then on that one. Johnson: We will go back and review these and make the correction. Item F just makes a reference to the number of storys. Shearer: I see no reason to limit them to less than 3 stories especially since we have a building across the street that is more than two but I think it is four, I am not sure. I would agree with that too. That was their application was three I think if we didn’t agree with that then the whole thing should have just been denied rather than dictate (inaudible). Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 6 Johnson: Do you want to strike F then? Do you want to insert a number of stories in there? Do you want to strike it since it is part of the application as 3? Borup: I guess it would serve the same purpose either way wouldn’t it? Johnson: And then item O, it has to do with setback, building setback. Shearer: Conform to the ordinance. Borup: Setbacks are already specified in the ordinance aren’t they? Crookston: There are no setbacks in that zone. Shearer: What is their proposal, I can’t read it on there. (Inaudible) Twenty foot on the pool area. Borup: We are trying to determine what the present setback is. Have there been any other recommendations other than the 3 times the height suggestion? Johnson: Wayne do you recall? Crookston: There was not, that came from my discussion with Mr. Oslund. That is where that the 3 times, that is where that came from. Shearer: Can I ask, does the staff have any problem with the setbacks that were shown in the proposal? Stiles: I don’t have that in front of me right now, I think one of the main issues is if there is going to be a public road there or not, we still don’t know that. It is going to make a big difference if there is a public road there and if it is, if they are going to be able to move that signal. I don’t know how the negotiations have been going on that. Borup: (Inaudible) In the past month ACHD has still not come any closer to making a decision? Stiles: The last conversation I had with ACHD is they were still talking with Idaho Transportation Department whether it would be possible to move that signal to line up with Magic View so they wouldn’t require the public road but I haven’t heard any decision. It doesn’t comply with ITD’s policy but whether they will make an exception I don’t know. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 7 Borup: We are trying to determine what the width of that landscaping strip is between Greenhill, it is not readable on our plat. Stiles: The applicant’s representative stated it was 30 feet. (Inaudible) Johnson: Do we have enough information that we can fill in the blanks here and do whatever you want to do on the findings of fact. Borup: We think so. Johnson: Let’s summarize the three items, B, F and O and then move on. Borup: On O I would recommend the setback requirement be that as submitted by the applicant which appears to show 20 feet on the western setback on the pool area. The main part of the building has a larger setback than that. The confusion, the discussion was on the northerly setback, my recommendation would be, the building setback it appears by looking at the plat it would relate to about 95 feet from the present property line which would be the same as submitted with a street in there. So I believe what we are saying is the setback would stay the same as what the applicant submitted with the plans showing the proposed street. If the street was removed the setback would still stay the same. The buildings would stay in the same location. Johnson: Do you have enough wording on that Mr. Crookston? Crookston: I think that I can put it in. Johnson: Item F? Shearer: Three story as submitted. Johnson: And Item C? Shearer: That the screening strips on the north and the west will be constructed at the time of the first building. Borup: I thought we were only talking about the northerly strip not west. Shearer: Well at least the west next to the building that is being constructed be Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 8 constructed at the same time because we won’t want a building without that screen there. Borup: I guess I am fine with that. Johnson: Do you have that Mr. Crookston? Crookston: That one I don’t have Borup: I hadn’t heard that either, I don’t know if that had been discussed previously. Johnson: That is what we are doing now. Go ahead Mr. Shearer. Borup: I am not sure, did anyone feel that was necessary to the west? Shearer: It is my understanding that the applicant would like to construct the McDonald’s and the station first and if that occurs we need screening on the north which would man that we would want the landscape screen to the north to go in at the same time. I n addition the landscaping around the building being constructed, whichever one it is whether it is the hotel or the C Store or whatever, between it and the, the landscaping around that building shall be done at the same time as the building naturally which includes a screening on the west side of that particular building that is being contracted between the houses and the buildings. Borup: Are you proposing a change from that they have submitted or just the amount of landscaping screening that they have already submitted? Shearer: Well the screening that they have already submitted. Borup: (Inaudible) that wasn’t showing, I apologize, that wasn’t showing the plat I had here. There is, unless it was removed from the second draft, I don’t think it was. That sounds good to me. Johnson: I will point out under C a couple of typos and that is all in the next to the last sentence there. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I also have a question on E, this has changed several times as it states now it says there shall only be a primary entrance for the hotel, motel on the south side, I am sorry, no that is it of the structure period (inaudible). I wasn’t sure what the concern was to have it on the east side which would be facing Eagle Road which is the way it is designed. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 9 Shearer: The only place we want (inaudible) Johnson: I will agree with that. Do you want to leave that or east end in there? It has a line through it now. Any other changes or or discussions? Crookston: I just have a question, the screening is to be done at the same time of the construction of either the McDonald’s or the Chevron C store whichever comes first unless the motel hotel is put in first? Shearer: With the first building, just put it that way then it is there. We do want to protect the residential. Johnson: Are we ready to move on the findings of fact? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopt and approve these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Borup: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as amended, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup - Yea, Oslund - Absent, Shearer - Yea, MacCoy - Absent, Johnson - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recommendation for the City? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the 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 and that the applicant shall enter into a development agreement prior to the issuance of a building permit. That if the applicant is not agreeable to these findings of fact and conclusions of law and is not agreeable with entering into a development agreement the property should not be annexed. Borup: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we pass the recommendation on as stated by Commissioner Shearer, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 10 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, MCDONALD’S W/DRIVE THRU, AND A HOTEL BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: Johnson: You have the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared, any discussion, any changes, corrections? Commissioner Borup, any discussion? Borup: None Johnson: Commissioner Shearer? Shearer: I have none. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup - Yea, Oslund - Absent, Shearer - Yea, MacCoy - Absent Johnson - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: The decision or recommendation to pass onto the City? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I recommend the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommend to the Meridian City Council they approve the conditional use permit (inaudible) by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law and those adopted for the annexation and zoning of the property. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass a recommendation on as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 11 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT GENERAL BY WAYNE AND KAREN FORREY: Johnson: Any discussion, corrections or deletions concerning these findings of fact as prepared? Entertain a motion for approval. Borup: Mr. Chairman I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we approve the findings of fact as prepared, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup - Yea, Oslund - Absent, Shearer - Yea, MacCoy - Absent, Johnson - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recommendation to the City? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I recommend the Meridian Planning and Zoning hereby recommend 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. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we pass the recommendation onto the City as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: This should be a good project for the City of Meridian Mr. Forrey. (Inaudible) ITEM #8: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 12 USE PERMIT FOR A JOHN DEERE DEALERSHIP BY CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT SUPPLY CO.: Johnson: Any discussion regarding the CESCO findings of fact and conclusions of law? Borup: I have none, I think they covered things pretty good on the concerns before (inaudible) sewer and water and it sounded like there are a lot of conditions that need, a lot of things need to happen. I have nothing else. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning hereby adopt and approve these findings of fact and conclusions. Borup: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we approve these findings of fact and conclusions of law, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup - Yea, Oslund - Absent, Shearer -Yea, MacCoy - Absent, Johnson - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommend to the City Council 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. Specifically resolving the sufficient sewer and water service for all of the applicant’s land included in this application. Borup: Second Johnson: Motion and second to pass the recommendation onto the City as read, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL US PERMIT FOR A THRIFT STORE AND FARMERS MARKET BY IDAHO YOUTH RANCH INC.: Johnson: Any comments gentlemen? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 13 Borup: Nothing specific on the findings and I think it probably can be handled, the same concern that I had last time is there is no real design. I don’t think as far as the structure for the fruit stand. But I don’t know if that is something, is that something you normally handle under conditional use, but at what point I am too new to know. Johnson: I don't think we have any additional information other than they plan to move the building they have been using down there, is that correct, have you heard anything new? Borup: They have not submitted anything to the building department. Stiles: I don’t believe they submitted any application for that building. We don’t normally require building plans but as a part of a conditional use you could certainly put that condition that it be approved by Council. Shearer: You can go down and actually see the actual. Borup: That is part of my concern. Johnson: We can certainly insert that in the findings if you so wish as you make your motion. Borup: I think the findings, Johnson: I am sure they cover that as well. Borup: Yes it does, it says that it would be designed and constructed harmonious in appearance with the general vicinity. I don’t know if we can get any more specific than that. Johnson: Probably not. Do we have a motion on the findings? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I would move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law, roll call vote. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 14 ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup - Yea, Oslund - Absent, Shearer - Yea, MacCoy - Absent, Johnson - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the Meridian City Council 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. Shearer: Second Johnson Moved and seconded we pass a recommendation onto the City as stated by Commissioner Borup, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT CENTER BY SELECT DEVELOPMENT AND CONTRACTING INC.: Johnson: Any comments regarding the application for the family fun center. Shearer: I have no comments on the findings. Borup: None here either. Johnson: Entertain a motion for approval of the findings of fact? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions. Borup: Second Johnson: Motion to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law and second as prepared, roll call vote ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup - Yea, Oslund - Absent, Shearer - Yea, MacCoy - Absent, Johnson - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 15 Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use request by the applicant for the property described in the application and the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Borup: Second Johnson: A motion and a second to pass a recommendation onto the City as read, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 16, 1996: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-C BY CHERRY PLAZA ASSOCIATES: Johnson: This is a continuation of a public hearing, do I need to re-open it? Crookston: Yes Johnson: I will re-open the public hearing at this time. Is the applicant or a representative from Cherry Plaza Associates? Would you like to come forward and address the Commission please. Chris Beeson, 840 East Curling Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Beeson: I apologize, our engineer was going to be here tonight as well, I don’t know what has caused his delay. Johnson: Well he just figured we would be here all night. Beeson: In early this Spring Albertsons and my group made and application to the City Council to subdivide or do a lot split on our Cherry Plaza shopping center so that Albertson’s could own their parcel separate from the rest of the other one. The City Council at that time endorsed our application to do that and directed that we follow that up with a subdivision application. At the time we were doing that we also discussed with staff that the parcel in the rear of the shopping center was an out parcel and it would be an appropriate time to bring it into the City just to get rid of the infill parcel. We don’t have any specific development plans for that parcel at this time. We are just getting it zoned and leaving it there as a lot. The main purpose of our application is not Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 16 to construct any improvements but rather to reconfigure lots in a minor fashion between the Albertson’s parcel and the shops parcel so that they could also own frontage along Fairview Avenue as opposed to just the frontage on Meridian. So, that was the basis of our application. We have worked with staff, we have prepared a response to the staff’s conditions and basically don’t have any issues with staff’s proposal. We would agree to have any further development of the rear parcel, I believe it is proposed lot 1 subject to a conditional use at the time of development might be proposed in the future. We would work with staff and with the Commission to come up with a traffic circulation plan to try to deal with the problem of ingress and egress. I think primarily as East 1st moves into the center there. We do have some ideas for that and I hoped Steve would bring the plan here. The other thing we are trying to do is as we do that was to not degrade the parking any further than it already is because as I am sure you know it is pretty tight. We will also be as staff has requested planning a landscaping strip along Fairview Avenue and in some of the end islands on the parking aisles to put some definition into the parking lot. Those would have the trees on them. Now as part of what we would be doing and in talking to staff they would probably have to submit a separate application. We will be requesting a variance from the standard landscaping requirements for the center becuase there isn’t enough area left to do what would be required (End of Tape) is contemplating requiring an addition of right of way taking along Fairview Avenue so that they can add another lane to that. Johnson: We did receive the draft today, I haven’t had an opportunity to review it in detail. Beeson: And we don’t even know if it is final yet Mr. Chairman. You will see some of the points that they have got on there. And they are also requesting a right of way take along Meridian Road although now in the first part of it, it reads that they are talking about a five foot taking, for a while they were talking about a 23 foot but that would get into that truck dock on the Albertson’s building so they have kind of backed off on that. So if, the requirements of the City at least as we know them today seem to be things that we can deal with, with regard to our application. Whether or not we can get by with the Ada County requirements the Highway District remains to be seen. They also want to require a further median strip at those intersections along Meridian Road and Fairview Avenue to prevent the curb cuts next to the little credit union thing from being used as full turns. They would like those to be right turns only. That was all reconstructed two years ago and they kind of agreed to that configuration but apparently they decided they would like further changes now and we are still trying to work with them on that. I believe Ms. Stiles has provided, although I apologize for the lateness of it, our response to the staff report. But as I said we didn’t really have any issues with that. There were a few things where we did note that we kind of expected that except for tiling the Settlers Canal in the back there is a little strip of it back there Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 17 next to Cumba’s day care center adjacent to our property that we would fill now. Do the landscaping and try to come up with a better proposal for you on the parking. Then that would be what would apply to the current structure that is there. The rest of it would apply to some development that might occur with that piece in the back. I stalled long enough for Steve to get here, this is Steve Sweet from Quadrant Engineering who is our engineer. Johnson: Steve while you are here and if you are going to comment we might as well swear you in as well. Steve Sweet, 405 S. 8th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sweet: Mr. Crookston I believe was aware of our application at the City Council. For the benefit of the crowd this is the Cherry Plaza current configuration, the point we want to bring out here is that there is a 12 acre site which includes a number of 20 businesses in Cherry Plaza including Albertson’s and a bank in the store, Pioneer Federal Credit. The applicant has come before the City for a request for a resubdivision previously and during the process which is allowed under the ordinance of the City we agreed to provide a plat on this 9 acre parcel with the piece that is already annexed to the City. And to bring in a 3.6 acre, not quite an out parcel, it is not quite an enclave but close to an out parcel into the City. This is vacant ground today, it is not even a pasture, just a non-utilized (inaudible). North of the site has La Playa Manor, Five Mile Drain we share the boundary inside that, the ravine that forms the drain there. To the north and west is the Cumba day care, I believe that is the name, that is what we have gone with. The vacant site and US Bank occupy the corner here and I believe the relocated at this time to another store. Johnson: Yes they have and that day care for the record is Horizon I think. Sweet: In our application for resubdivision (inaudible) we came in and asked for two parcels and said we would come back tonight before you with an annexation and a plat. This is the new lot numbering to meet Ada County’s concerns, it is different from your preliminary plat. As we talked through this tonight while we refer (inaudible) that is incorrect, this drawing reflects how we will meet the County Engineer’s concerns. Shari has provided us with a number of concerns and some conditions. We have met with Shari and responded in writing. After we visited with her today we had some revisions and I have a revised copy, and everybody has a copy of that? Johnson: Yes we have one dated 10-8. Sweet: That is today, that is the revised document. What we would like to point out to the Commission, this is an existing site. We would like to come in with a platting and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 18 annexation with reasonable conditions. The City of Meridian has been fairly reasonable and would want you to be aware that Ada County Highway District, is goign to have, we are going to have further negotiations with the Highway District. Subject to the outcome of some of those discussions the plat may or may not go forward. It is our intention to go forward short of paving a seven mile stretch in Western Ada County for the Highway District. Johnson: Mr. Beeson touched on that. Sweet: Following our application for the resubdivision Albertson’s has purchased lot 2, Albertson’s and Cherry Plaza Associates are applicants in this subdivision. Mr. Chairman, how detailed would you like to go tonight on these conditions? Johnson: Well I am hoping you will shut up soon so we can go home. Did you want a political answer? Sweet: I frankly like that answer. Johnson: I know you are trying to earn your keep becuase you were late and you are trying to impress your client I think we understand it pretty well. The main issue is the annexation of the piece of dirt now that is basically weeds. That is what we are here for are we not. We realize there are things that have to be worked out with ACHD but that is beyond our control and something you will have to do. Sweet: There has been concern by Council on circulation on the site. This is a revised circulation plan. There has been concern by staff on need to increase the landscaping that is there, the seven trees that are around Pioneer Federal Credit Union. Johnson: Yes Mr. Beeson talked about that and that is an issue that will have to be worked out with staff. There are some limitations there just becuase of the amount of land that is left there. Sweet: Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to sit down and shut up and would stand for questions at your pleasure. Johnson: I am sorry, I did issue a pretty strong hint there. Do we have any questions of either Mr. Beeson or Mr. Sweet. Borup: I think the last drawing probably answered some questions that I was curious on as why part of lot 2 jogged out to the back, is that for additional employee parking? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 19 Sweet: There is a parking lot (inaudible) access has been difficult around the store site, Albertson (inaudible) Johnson: That parking lot has been there almost a year now hasn’t it? Sweet: A little over a year. (Inaudible) Shearer: I see your new configuration will keep me from cutting across the parking lot. Johnson: That is a nightmare in there there, flip that over please. Sweet: (Inaudible) Johnson: Well the whole thing, a lot of that is beyond your control it is just what they did last time through. It makes it confusing. Borup: The other thing I was curious on is what do you anticipate access to lot 4? Johnson: The old four or the new four? Sweet: It would have to either be (inaudible) probably have to be out through this property or down the back or out through here (inaudible). The clerk is passing out a reduced version (inaudible) On that drawing there are some lighter dash lines those are existing parking stalls, the heavier lines are the proposed (inaudible). We would be asking for a variance in providing some compact spaces, a little bigger than 7.5 foot and we are (inaudible) 8 foot width along Fairview behind a landscaping strip in there. Johnson: We have noticed a lot of developments have just done away with compact parking because no one pays much attention to it. Crookston: Mr. Chairman, do you own the property to the east of this? Beeson: The US Bank (inaudible) Crookston: To the north of where the US Bank was? Beeson: Out here where proposed lot 1 or 4 comes back in here, that part yes, not the frontage. Crookston: How are you placing that, what appears to be a parking area? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 20 Beeson: This one here, that does exist today and there is a recorded easement for that. When Albertson’s did the remodel, as part of that they put the structure on here and they also made a deal with US Bank to add these 18 spaces to that. Crookston: Is that easement in your name? Beeson: It runs with the land and it is appurtenant to the shopping center (inaudible). Sweet: Those 18 stalls in that parking area are not included in the 423 we show in the total. Johnson: Is that 423 is that a substantial increase is that an increase? Sweet: That is existing. Johnson: Am I correct in saying we are really not gaining any additional parking? Sweet: I think I have squeezed another stalls out of this site. And going from a 10 foot stall to a 9 foot City standard (inaudible). Johnson: So you just picked up about 10 parking spots. Sweet: That is correct (inaudible) 25 foot road, City standard road. Shearer: Which public hearing are we in? (Inaudible) Johnson: We are just asking questions, that is pertinent and we can incorporate that testimony into the other one. Any other questions? Beeson: Can you see what these arrows are here, is that legible on the little one. Johnson: Isn’t that the way the traffic flows now? Beeson: No, what they have come up with to help try and solve this problem is the way it currently is the one, the left lane is left and straight, so the people that are trying to go straight (inaudible) so that is one of the things that causes the stacking. What we are proposing is that ACHD would go along with this is to have the left lane be only left only and the right lane be straight and right so that it would keep moving and reduce some of the stacking. Also, what Steve is proposing here is that there be signage and a curb line here to help prevent people from coming out of here and trying to get in there. That Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 21 they would basically have to go around and then come back this way to avoid kind of the Russian Roulette stacking (inaudible). Johnson: Couldn’t they do the same thing with altering the traffic signal itself, does that accomplish the same thing? So you could go proceed on green and the oncoming lane would be halted, like they do in a lot of areas. Like they do on the corner of Ustick and Cole for example. Sweet: With the City’s encouragement that would be easier to obtain. That reduces the efficiency of the intersection and the Highway District is trying to maximize the efficiency of Fairview at this point. Johnson: Any other questions? Apparently not at this point. This is a public hearing, is there anyone from the public that is here to comment on this application or would like to come forward. Are there any comments from staff at this time before I close the public hearing? I will close the public hearing at this time. This is item 11, annexation and zoning. And your motion is? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this. Borup: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 16, 1996: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR FIRST STREET PLAZA BY CHERRY PLAZA ASSOCIATES: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, any additional comments by the Applicant? Steve Sweet, 405 S. 8th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sweet: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, we would like to incorporate previous testimony and request your approval of the preliminary and final plat for First Street Plaza plat. Any questions? Johnson: Thank you Mr. Sweet, any questions of the applicant? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 22 Borup: Maybe on landscaping, you had made some reference to it, is that still forthcoming, the landscaping plan detail? Sweet: Yes, the landscaping as noted in the letter we would like to landscape out there without decreasing parking. What we are proposing is (inaudible) on the end of the parking, landscaping along Fairview and these curbed islands could be landscaped (inaudible) that would lend to landscaping and dressing up the City’s entryway there. We haven’t worked through the details, we have had discussions with staff. We would be, we are requesting a variance to the one tree per 1500 square feet of asphalt, we don’t have that much ground out there to give up without tearing asphalt out and losing parking. We would request a staff level review and approval of our landscape plan. Borup: That is all I had. Johnson: Commissioner Shearer? Shearer: I have nothing. Johnson: Counsel? Crookston: Nothing Johnson: Thank you Steve, anyone from the public care to comment on this application? Any further discussion? Shearer: Do we want to hold approval of this until the annexation (inaudible). Johnson: I will close the public hearing at this time. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we table this until we get our findings of fact and conclusions of law back at the next meeting and then proceed with the two together. Borup: Second Johnson: Motion and second to table item 12 with the conditions so stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 23 FOR AN OFFICE/BASEMENT APARTMENT BY DENNIS AND JANET BUTTERFIELD: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant to come forward and address the Commission. Dennis Butterfield, 2833 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Butterfield: Basically when we applied for this we were applying for a basement apartment under this property that is zoned CC. We were under the understanding that office could be used as it is zoned. Friday we picked up this paperwork from the City and we saw some other things in there that kind of surprised us but we thought this is a pretty good time to review. So I would just like to go through some of that if I could. Johnson: Sure go ahead, are you referring to the letters from Bruce Freckleton and Shari Stiles, those two letters? Butterfield: As I say, as we understood we were doing conditional use for the basement and much of this applies to the upper level of the house. Some of it is handicapped discussion. I am going to let Dana talk a little bit about the handicap situation. I am just going to talk a little bit about this paving and and striping. We do have plans to, we have plans and we have space for 3 more spaces behind the house that is currently lawn. It would be striped. We have a drainage system that is adequate to do that, it was sized at the time with that in mind when it was put in. We will have to get, it looks like we will have to get a copy of that for the City Council, is that where that is presented? Or do we do that with Shari? When we are talking of drainage. Johnson: Public Works department which is Gary’s department. Butterfield: Okay, we will review that with Public Works department. Lighting is probably adequate there, you probably didn’t see the light on the back of the house that will be used as well as there is quite a bit of light on that shop. I will review this assessment agreement with Gary. This fire code requirements, all of this stuff I am going to have to review with someone who can tell us what is required. We have plans to put in more fire alarms and a fire extinguisher in the building and I don’t know what else they are going to require beyond that. Johnson: I would meet with Kenny Bowers on that, those are his comments so he will be able to expound on that for you. Butterfield: The certificate of occupancy is a concern to us because like I say any of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 24 this can hold it up am I right? Johnson: Yes Butterfield: We about have the house ready, we have painted it and we re-roofed it and we did some patching of walls and stuff like that inside. We would like to proceed as soon as possible. Again we are taking about an occupancy permit on the basement and this is being turned around to make requirements on the office. So, I thought I would just bring that out and review that with the board. Johnson: And Shari Stiles does include that in her comments as well I’m sure you know, the fire and life safety requirement. Butterfield: That is only in Shari’s comments. Johnson: Well the life safety is part of the fire code as well, Kenny Bowers stated. That is the only point I was making there. Butterfield: That can be complied with fairly quickly. The parking lot and also this handicapped situation which I will let Dana touch on, he has done a little research on that. Dana Cowan is the proposed occupant of the property. He had done some research on what they were going to require for his type of an operation if you would like to review that with him. Johnson: Sure he can come forward, are you finished? Butterfield: I think so. Johnson: Any questions for Dennis? Butterfield: I am finished except I don’t have any better understanding so if you guys could enlighten me on what is going to be required on this. Johnson: Well we will get some staff comments for you and hopefully that will help in that respect. Anyone else like to address the Commission? Dana Cowan, 2513 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Cowan: Dennis just asked me to stop down and give you some information. I called and talked to the Department of Justice and got some information from them on the Americans with Disabilities Act. We knew that we were going to do some minor renovations and we thought we had better find out what we need to do. Basically what I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 25 understood from them and what I have highlighted is that because of the structure being a fairly old structure and it being, in order to make it completely handicapped accessible you would have to move potentially load bearing walls that type of stuff in order to make pathways and that type of thing accessible. They indicated that from the basics of what I have read through the act that because of those limitations that is going, it creates excess burden and therefore not needed to be done. They do indicate that in so far as it is possible that we need to do it. Dennis has already ramped up the walkway from the front to the front door. It isn’t going to (Inaudible) the landing is not be enough, but it stills helps those that might have some more limiting handicaps although not wheel chair accessible. The same thing is going to be some of the things inside, the bathroom, the way to get in there (inaudible) not possible or (inaudible). Those are the things that I have found just in talking with them that as long as we do as much as we possibly can that we try to make it accessible to anybody we can with the accessibility (inaudible). In addition to that they indicate that as long as a procedure exists within the company or within my company to be able to provide the same services to someone outside of there, like I could come to them, which I can essentially do anything with them at a separate site that I can there. So I have (inaudible) with them at the home or at their office or whatever is convenient to them. So, I feel like pretty much there is not something that we can do more than we have done to make that workable. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Cowan? Is there anything the staff could do to perhaps answer some of the concerns of the applicant? Is there anything you would like to say with respect to the ADA act? Stiles: Chairman Johnson and Commissioners the Americans with Disabilities Act is part of the Uniform Building Code. I believe it does speak to existing buildings and the language in the statute is whether those improvements can be reasonably accommodated. Of course you don’t want spend more on trying to make improvements for the handicapped then maybe the building is even worth. But things like the ramping, the bathrooms, if they are made available to the public would need to be handicapped accessible. But this is private office intended only for his employees that could be waived. This conditional use permit does apply to the office and the apartment because of the mixed use and the change in use. Because of the change in use from a residence to an office building even though it is a permitted use in that zone requires that all City ordinances be met. The certificate of occupancy some of these requirements they could be bonded for a temporary occupancy prior to operating. It would be maybe 30 days or if you needed longer to get that parking paving done maybe 6 to 8 months. Shearer: Why do we need a conditional use for the office if it is already zoned for an Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 26 office, no matter what was in there before. I mean obviously we have to go into some of the code things yes, but why a conditional use? Stiles: Because it is the same piece of property and you are dealing with two separate uses for the same piece of property. Some of these requirements are just because of the change in use. The ordinance has to be met because of the change in use. But of course the (inaudible) if you are talking about a residential building or just an office building that is one thing. But when you are talking about a combined use in one building the ordinance is very clear. If you would like a copy of the ordinance I will give that to you. Borup: That is what I was going to comment that the problem here is the dual use, not if it stayed at residential obviously nothing would be happening, or if it was strictly office. Shearer: I can see the conditional use for the basement apartment. These guys want to put a little bitsy apartment in a house that is probably, definitely not over 900 square foot per floor and probably closer to or not over 1100 square foot and probably closer to 900 square foot. There is enough garbage in here to (inaudible). Stiles: This is just building code and ordinance requirements, it is not any different than any other project we have going in the City. Johnson: I think we can appreciate that. Shearer: I don’t think that the ACHD can force an owner to encroach on a neighbors property for a driveway and combined a driveway in an existing unless that other owner wants to do it. Stiles: And ACHD’s comment is that if they want a waiver of any of those requirements then they need to request that of ACHD. They do sign on the certificate of occupancies. Shearer: It is turning into a bureaucracy. Johnson: Well those personal opinions all aside there are certain things that we do have to do. I think Mr. Cowan made a good point regarding the nature of his business that I am somewhat familiar with. I would guess and it is true in my business that the handicapped accessibility is certainly lightened by the fact that we don’t do much businesses in our offices, we do them more at the business of our clients. That would appear to me to be something that could be varied or conditioned just the fact that the bearing walls would have to moved and it is really not something that would be used I guess is the practical thing I would have to say about that. I don’t know that they get Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 27 much utility if you went to all of that trouble. Maybe that is logic that doesn’t have anything to do with ordinances but I can sympathize with that comment. I think that is valid. As far as the occupancy permit those either have to be waived or a variance or something before that can be issued the way I understand that. Unfortunately the little guy gets hit along with Albertsons and everyone else. What is the time frame again on the paving, I didn’t understand your comment sir I guess I wasn't listening very closely. Did you say 6 to 8 months or something, is that what you were talking about. Stiles: That is the only thing I was referring to if they couldn’t get a paving contractor in there now they would have to wait until spring. Johnson: We are almost out of the paving season and although it seems like we are not. It won’t be too long. Butterfield: We have a great deal of work to do to make that basement happen and it is not going to happen this winter. The existing paving is adequate for Dana to park 2 cars back there right now. We just thought we would provide more parking. Now I do see that there are some sections in the code here that require, that set forth how much parking you need. I haven’t been able to get at that yet. As far as Dana’s use goes right now, he already had parking for 2 spaces and that is all he needs. I don’t know if you have driven past it, it is almost ready. The building has been painted, re-roofed and cleaned up and cutsied and he is ready to move in. He was planning on it this next week and we would have to come to some sort of an agreement on this occupancy permit to make that happen. Johnson: I am not familiar with hose those are issued, whether they are issued on a temporary basis or not. Is there any comment you would have on that Shari? I understand that you don’t, I am not asking you to decide now, just procedure is all I was asking about. Stiles: I wouldn't have any problem with issuing the temporary provided they meet or bond for their requirements to meet the ordinance. I would like to do a sign review, there is an existing sign there that is leaning against the building and Cowan: (Inaudible) The sign that is leaning out front right now is just a temporary sign, just wanted to let people know I was coming there. The sign that currently exists, the bottom section of it is a reader board, all we plan to do is insert a panel into that. It is done professionally by sign company. It will be our farmers logo type and (inaudible). It really won’t change anything there really than a different look slightly. Johnson: We have an aggressive new ordinance officer that would make sure that you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 28 did that. Well I don’t know, Dennis are there any specific concerns that perhaps we could help you more with tonight, if not we need to move on here. Butterfield: That is all, the only thing is the basement is, we will probably want a little bit if parking out there for that if we ever get that done. It is not going to happen right now. Johnson: I think we need to make sure that you leave here knowing that the parking is eventually going to have to be paved because that is our ordinance. Butterfield: That is fine, I had planned on that when we put that building drain in there or the parking lot drain in there. Johnson: Any other comments? Borup: Mr. Chairman, at this time the parking is not paved, is that correct? Butterfield: There is parking for the shop back there. Borup: That is what shown on the plat was the shop parking only. Butterfield: The end stall there is two cars deep and Dana was using that for his residence when he lived in the building. Johnson: It is not all paved? Butterfield: That is paved. Johnson: That part is paved but (Inaudible) Butterfield: Nobody is parking on dirt. Borup: Where is says grass will be paved? Butterfield: (Inaudible) Johnson: That is where we are coming from what you are saying is what is there now in grass will eventually be paved. Butterfield: That will give us three more stalls. Borup: I guess that will answer that. When did you start working on remodeling the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 29 house? Butterfield: Dana must have moved out 2 months ago. Borup: And at that time you didn’t know if you needed a conditional use permit? Butterfield: We talked to Shari about it and we were trying to persuade her, she is very good at what she does, (inaudible). She said that we would have to get, to go through this conditional use, but we did not realize that we would be dealing with the office. We thought we were dealing with the basement. Borup: So at that time you thought you would proceed right ahead with the office? Butterfield: Right Borup: Other than bring it up to building code because of the change in use are you still planning on that? Butterfield: Well as far as what is required for fire I think that is quite reasonable. I, we worked on the heating system which we have taken out permits for. We have got electrical, there is some work being done there. The plumbing has had a little modification there as well. All of those are being permitted. Borup: I think probably the electrical and the others are the most pertinent parts. What items are causing you a hardship here on opening up the offices? Which specific items are causing a problem with the office opening? Butterfield: Well the parking situation is something that takes time. If you require more on the handicapped than what we have done that would require some demolition and redo. The floors in the building are all hardwood floors and they are nice, we don’t want to have to (inaudible). Borup: So really it is just the parking mainly and then ACHD really had some requirements. I don’t know how that is dealt with. Butterfield: We will go ahead, as Shari indicated we do have the opportunity to write our request to them. Obviously we don’t have any control over the property next door. It is for sale right now and the person who is trying to sell it isn’t going to want to do anything with it. We don’t think that we should have to to be required to work on someone else’s property. Shearer: Actually this property is zoned (inaudible) the way I see it if we forgot about Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 30 the apartment they could move in and do the thing right? Johnson: Yes but not according to the ordinance because it is dually used. Borup: He is saying if it did not have the apartment. Johnson: Well if. Stiles: Ada County Highway District signs all certificates of occupancy. The comments they made, they are stating their policy. Butterfield: We found it really interesting that they wanted to change the entrance to that driveway when everyone of them was just put in a few years ago. They are all the same, so ours would be pretty unique. We paid $1400 for ours and it is wider than anybody else's because it is combined driveway, best one on the block. Johnson: Okay, where are we going with this? Is there anyone else from the public? I will close the public hearing at this time. Shearer: I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. Borup: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the Butterfield application, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any other comments from staff or anyone? If not I will entertain one more motion. Shearer: I move we adjourn. Borup: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:06 P.M. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 31 (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: JIM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK