Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-11-12 B MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12, 1996 The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:00 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Greg Oslund, Keith Borup, Jim Shearer, Malcolm MacCoy: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Helen Sharp, Dale Sharp, David Wiltsee, Denise Crabtree, R. Stansbury, M. Stansbury, Terry Leighton, Gary Weeks, Gene and Jamie Peters, Tom Ensley, Corbey, Steve Bradbury, Richard Zamzow, Jeff Dorman: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1996: Johnson: You have the minutes, are there any additions, corrections or deletions to these as prepared? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the minutes as written. Oslund: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we approve the minutes as written, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED JULY 9, 1996: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: ITEM #2: TABLED JULY 9, 1996: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Johnson: It is my understanding we have had no new information since this was tabled July 9, 1996. Is the applicant or representative here this evening? We do have one letter that has come in on this from Vern Alleman which you have in your file. He apparently has had no contact either with the developers concerning an easement across his property. This thing has gone on for quite a long period of time, what would you gentlemen like to do? Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table not only items 1 and 2 by 3, 4 and 5 as well. Johnson: For what length of time? Oslund: All of these items have been going month to month with no action. Johnson: I would like to make sure the representatives for items 3 and 4 are not here first. Is there anyone here representing the applicant or the applicant for items 3 and 4 which is Westpark Company, the Ranch Subdivision, anyone here for that? Crookston: Since those are not, since those were not called, 1 and 2 were called at the same time that is the matter that you are dealing with now. I don't think it is appropriate to take action on items 3 and 4 at this time. Johnson: thank you, we will just handle 1 and 2 then. Would you restate your motion please Mr. Oslund? Oslund: I withdraw my motion and restate it to table items 1 and 2. Johnson: For what date, for what date certain, how long? Oslund: We have been tabling them for 2 to 3 months but we have been carrying them. I don't know that it has any advantage to it anymore than the next meeting, the December meeting. Johnson: We have December 10 in there that would our next meeting, Do we have a second to the motion? Shearer: I second it. Johnson: Any discussion regarding that? We have a motion to table these items to our next regularly scheduled meeting on December 10, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED OCTOBER 8, 1996: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY: ITEM #4: TABLED OCTOBER 8, 1996: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY: Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we table these until the December meeting. Oslund: Second Johnson: Any discussion, we have a motion and a second. I have a question of the City Attorney, with these items that we are continually tabling, I know I can't remember anything that was said about these items and I would have to review the notes and I am sure that probably applies to most of you. Is there a point Wayne when these really need to be considered as being resubmitted? How long does this process go on? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 3 Crookston: They are applications in standing until you take action to remove them from the agenda which you can do at any time. MacCoy: There is no length of time like one year? Crookston: There is no length of time on how long they last in our ordinance. Johnson: Can you tell me when these items came to Planning and Zoning either one of them? Crookston: I would have to say that it had to have been some time in (inaudible) Johnson: We can look it up, I just thought that you had the information. Oslund: I have a question for Wayne, it has been so long on the Ranch and they have changed it so many times the conditional use, do we have findings on whatever their last idea was? Crookston: Mr. Oslund, I have the same problem you have, I don't recall where we are at in he formal process for those applications. Johnson: Let's do this prior to our next meeting then, can we get that information and have it in our boxes and have consideration for perhaps removing these items from the agenda when we find out the circumstances and the length of time and what action has been take on these the last six months or so. To my knowledge nothing new has come in. Crookston: I will supply that to the Commissioners. Oslund: I have one more question, when you say action do you mean the action would be removing it from the agenda or the action would be a recommendation to Council to disapprove of the application? Crookston: Excuse me Mr. Oslund, this has never happened before so I am not exactly sure how we handle it. But I believe that the Commission can take action to just remove it but I think that I can supply that information with the status of the applications. Shearer: I think somebody ought to contact the people involved in these and see what their situation is and tell them that we are planning on removing them from the agenda. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 4 I don't think we ought to just do it without even talking to anybody. Crookston: I think that is appropriate. Johnson: I believe in making that effort but I also think there is an obligation on the part of the applicant to keep us informed as well. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I have a question also, would it be possible to table an item for say six months then if the applicant came in and wanted to proceed ahead to put it at the next available time on the agenda? Johnson: I know we have tabled items for more than a month, but I don't know the answer to the other question. Crookston: You can table it to a time certain I believe any place on the calendar that you desire it. It does somewhat have to be reasonable. What I am saying is you can't table it for 20 years. Borup: I guess what I was getting at was we could table it for six months and they come in at two months and wanted to get back on the agenda would that be possible without having to keep doing this every month? Crookston: I think that is a reasonable approach. Borup: Not necessarily on these but maybe on future things too (inaudible). Oslund: That is what I was getting at. There were some and these were probably the ones that we table for two or three months at a time. We went three meetings out but we are still seeing it on the agenda even though they were tabled for three months. Johnson: It is not fair to the people that have been noticed, they come to these meetings and nothing happens. So I think we need to do some research on that Wayne. You say it has never happened before, you mean I am sure that it has never happened before here. There must be some history somewhere at some Planning and Zoning Commission where it has happened. If we could put our hands on that I would like to have some precedent before that. Okay, we kind of beat that to death, did we ever get to the vote? (Inaudible) All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: TABLED OCTOBER 8, 1996: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 5 KARATE CLASS BY BRAD AND DEBBIE MILLER: Johnson: This does not look like a continuation of a public hearing so the public hearing must have been closed, is that correct? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I believe there is another business operating at that location at this time. Johnson: That is my understanding. Oslund: We have nothing in writing from the applicant that they want to pull it? Johnson: We do not. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we table this as we have on 1 through 4 and we will make our decision based on what our Attorney comes up with (inaudible). Borup: Mr. Chairman, I believe at the last meeting somebody from staff was going to contact the applicant to see if they wanted to proceed. Johnson: I would like to see if we could get a second to the motion first and then we can have the discussion. Shearer: Second Johnson: Okay, discussion. Borup: I believe last time someone from staff was going to contact the applicant to see if they had any interest in proceeding. Johnson: Yes and I don't know if that has happened because staff is not represented here this evening. There has been some discussion from staff to the applicant the building owner that it is not going to happen. We don't have anything from the. Borup: (Inaudible) Johnson: Any further discussion? Oslund: Well I would like to kick it off the agenda too but what I was told last time is that we can't until we have something in writing which this may be on our agenda forever given the applicant's (inaudible). Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 6 Johnson: Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: 3 Yea, 1 Nay ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-C BY CHERRY PLAZA ASSOCIATES: Johnson: You have the findings of fact and conclusions, is there any discussion? Is there a motion? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Motion and second to approve the findings of fact as prepared, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup - Yea, Oslund - Yea, Shearer - Yea, MacCoy - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any decision or recommendation you wish to pass on to the City Council at this time. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the rezone request by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law and the property be required to meet the comments of the Meridian departments and other governmental agencies. Borup: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass the recommendation on as stated by Commissioner Shearer, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FIRST STREET PLAZA BY CHERRY PLAZA ASSOCIATES; TABLED OCTOBER 8, 1996: Johnson: This is a preliminary plat, what is your pleasure? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 7 Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that we hereby recommend to the City Council to approve the preliminary plat. Shearer: Second Johnson: Motion and second to approve the preliminary plat, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFFICE/BASEMENT APARTMENT BY DENNIS AND JANET BUTTERFIELD: Johnson: Any comments regarding the findings of fact as prepared by the City Attorney. I have one minor typo on page 3, the last sentence, first paragraph, first word should be quite. Are there any other corrections, any other discussion? Wayne we have two copies are they both the same? Or is one a revision of the other. We had an original and then another one put in our box today, and they look to me to be the same. Crookston: I believe that I only delivered one set, I don't know how the second set got in your box. I delivered one on approximately 5:00 on Friday. Johnson: That is the one that I read and there was a new one that came in this afternoon. Crookston: There should be no changes, they should be the same. Johnson: If there is no further discussion or no discussion I will entertain a motion. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman I recommend that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions. Shearer: Second Johnson: Motion and a second to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup - Yea, Oslund - Yea, Shearer - Yea, MacCoy - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 8 Johnson: What recommendation would you like to pass onto the City Council at this time? MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, 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: Motion and second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-4 TO L-O FOR PARKING FOR NEW MERIDIAN LIBRARY BY MERIDIAN FREE LIBRARY DISTRICT: Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or the applicant's representative to address the Commission. Tom Ensley, 1197 Main Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Ensley: It was last winter, I think it was in January or February that I met with you on the new library facilities on Cherry Lane. I don't know if you can see this, on Cherry Lane. That facility is now under construction and this is the existing building with parking at front and back. The request tonight is to, the District has the option to purchase a piece of property to the east of their existing facility. It is located off of the private Leisure Lane that accesses to Cherry Lane. It is a piece of property that is 130 feet by 108 feet and then it legs over 32 foot wide leg extends over to Leisure Lane that is to the east. The purpose of the purchase or and the rezone request is to provide additional parking for the new facilities. This would accommodate 21 parking places, it would be accessed strictly from the library site itself with 2 accesses in and out within the existing driveway. There is a driveway that goes around the building and this would be on the east side driveway. It would impact the existing facilities in no way other than just accessing off through curb cuts. The property would be of course landscaped and fenced according to the City ordinances with the green area. It would be two fold providing a green space for the library facilities itself also then it will serve as the drainage for the on site drainage. Then there will be a buffer of trees and landscaped area around the perimeter of the parking. This leg area would not provide, we are not planning for access to Leisure Lane. We would use this as a greenbelted area also. I think that is (inaudible). Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 9 Johnson: Okay, thank you very much, are there any questions of Mr. Ensley? Anybody else, anybody have any questions. This area in front there that is just lawn and sidewalk? Ensley: This area here, that would be lawn area, grassed and trees and shrubbery and sidewalk. Probably they will use it in the operation of the library, they will have some story hours out there and so forth. Johnson: Any picnic tables anything like that planned? Ensley: Not necessarily, could perhaps be, it is really just kind of open at this point. It is just kind of (inaudible) Johnson: Thank you very much, I guess we have no questions unless you do Mr. Oslund? Oslund: I just have one that I was thinking about, is this needed to meet your parking requirements for the main development or that is already met? Ensley: No, we were required to have 75 we have 77 on the site. But it is obvious that additional parking will be needed, particular in he meeting room and so forth as the facility get into full swing, they will. Additional parking would be most convenient. Borup: Was this property split off from an existing lot or was it already that configuration? Ensley: It is that configuration right. There is a lot here, there is a lot here on the corner and then when (inaudible) MacCoy: I think it would make good sense, I have been up there and driven and walked the whole thing. I thought it was a good direction to go for you people because you have a chance to use that land. Crookston: Mr. Ensley, what type of guarding or buffer or whatever are you going to do so the people cannot gain access off of Leisure lane? Ensley: It will be fenced, as the rest of the fence around the property, it is a cedar, 6 foot cedar fence. Johnson: If there are no further questions from the Commission could you turn that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 10 around so the public could see that. This is a public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to come before the Commission, now is the time to do it. Any questions? Terry Leighton, 1811 Leisure Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Leighton: I have a few concerns basically about the fencing and stuff being a cedar and also the access (inaudible). Johnson: You need to address us and speak into the mic because we pick it up and then we transcribe it. So I would appreciate it, questions directed to us please. Leighton: My concerns are the fencing which were addressed, the 6 foot cedar. And the buffer zone, is this 30 foot leg which was addressed as being the flood plain control or for the parking or is the back part where I see the little area. How are we going to be guaranteed that this buffer is going to be fenced and controlled? Those are my questions. Johnson: Okay, is that all you had Terry? Thank you, is there anyone else here from the public that would like to come forward at this time? We will try to gather all of the information, all of the testimony in questions and try to answer all of the questions at once. Denise Crabtree, 1927 Leisure Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Crabtree: I am very relieved to see that you are not going to use Leisure Lane. I had stopped at the library one night and understood from what they said that they were real happy that they could have another out for the library could just use Leisure Lane. So I am very relieved to see that is not going to happen. but, I don't want people just walking down here it is still a private lane and we need to be careful about how we, there is not really much room for pedestrians if there is entry way for pedestrians in there it needs to be considered for their safety too. That is what I would like to add. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? Mr. Ensley, would you like to comment perhaps on the questions brought up by Mr. Leighton? Ensley: I believe we did answer the one about the green belt area, we will be using this (inaudible) to accommodate the on site drainage. There will be a fence around the entire property so there will be no access to it then from other than the library itself of course from the parking area and from the library site will be the only access to that. Is there another question? Johnson: There were just some concerns not really questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 11 Ensley: I should answer that there will be no pedestrian traffic, (inaudible) Johnson: Well there is nothing in your design that encourages any additional traffic at all, Leisure Lane pedestrian or otherwise that I can see. Thank you very much, one last shot, anyone else? Corbey Bolton, 1727 Leisure Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bolton: I was just concerned about the lighting on that, like at night and stuff because I live right there in the corner. Johnson: That is your only concern? Thank you, do you have another question Terry? Leighton: This is a question just to you guys basically. I don't know the legality or the zoning but could a person if they lived near that purchase that leg to control that access maybe and save the library district some money of the fence and all of that and the buffering system. If a person was to come just straight off, because that attaches to my yard if I could just make that part of my yard is what I am thinking for that 32 foot. (Inaudible) Johnson: The property that is now owned by who, which property are you talking about (inaudible) Leighton: (Inaudible) Johnson: You would have to talk to the owners of the property. They have an option on it which I assume they are not the owner yet (inaudible). Leighton: (Inaudible) Johnson: Can it be split I would think it could be, I don't know. Anybody else have anything? Do you know enough about the lighting at this point, because I know we have (inaudible). Ensley: We really haven't gone to that point yet but it will match the lighting on the, it will of course require some lighting for night use. The lighting is designed to be a down light and we have been very sensitive about that not (inaudible) our project is surrounded by residential. Johnson: Okay, we need that on the record and we appreciate you putting that there. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 12 Anything else, any questions by the Commissioners? If not then I will close the public hearing at this time. What would you like to do. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion for the City attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on item 9, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Does anybody have any idea what we did here tonight, or have a question about what we did? This is the first step, findings of fact will be at our next meeting on December 10 and then if those are approved it will move directly to the City Council and you will have another opportunity to talk to them on a public hearing. ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-4 TO C-C FOR AN ANTIQUE, CRAFT AND COLLECTIBLE SHOP BY EUGENE PETERS: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and ask Eugene Peters or his representative to address the Commission. Eugene Peters, 1323 N. Meridian Street, was sworn by the City Attorney. Peters: Pretty much what I submitted is what we have been planning. Basically the property at 1323 N. Meridian Street the east side of this street, the entire east side is already zoned C-C. Eventually the entire street we understand is going to run south on a one way basis. Perhaps over the next few years, I am not really sure exactly when. But we as owners, or we are in the process of buying the home have considered this option of changing it to rezone it to be for business and we have stepped forward rather slowly in deciding what we want to do with it. We are just in the process of making these plans as we are standing here. We have received all of our papers like for the requirements I mean from Ada County Highway district, what they would require in regard to parking in the back. We have agreed with them to pave and make a parking lot out of the back off of that alley way. Therefore there wouldn't be any gravel or dust problem. As well as, I just received today, we have been out of town for a couple weeks, but I just received from City of Meridian this morning the requirements from Planning and Zoning from you folks. I went through them and I am seeing what we have to do there in regard to striping that parking lot as well as putting in handicapped. We certainly would do our best to abide by that. I have talked with neighbors I don't know Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 13 if I have any neighbors that have any concerns on this or not. I have talked with most of them. I guess that is pretty much it other than what you have on paper. I don't have a chart or map or anything, I have never done this before (inaudible) didn't know what I was supposed to bring in. That is probably pretty much it what you have in front of you. Johnson: Thank you, any questions of the applicant from the Commission? Borup: Just one, you said you did review the comments from Mr. Freckleton and Ms. Stiles the 14 items? Johnson: That is the letter of November 8. Peters: Am I holding the right one up? Borup: Turn the page, and you had no problems with any of those items? Peters: Well I probably will have a couple of questions in regard to the requirements there on number 11, the drainage plan. You are wanting an architect or an engineer to draw that up. I don't know if you would accept, that is something I guess we would have to discuss but the fellow that I have that I was planning on using to put in the pavement that parking lot, he is familiar on where to drain it and all of that. But if that isn't going to be accepted then we will have to go through (inaudible). Johnson: The reference there is to an ordinance that requires that. You need to talk to our people about that. Peters: Okay, that is what I had a question on, I didn't know that. Oslund: Number 11 falls under the general category for the (inaudible). Peters: Underground sprinkling is already in that we can make work. I think the rest of it we are pretty much, you know understand. The last item, number 14, all lighting shall meet the City requirements, we will find out what that means. I think it is probably just one light in the back there or something. Who would I contact on these questions in the future? Johnson: To start with Shari Stiles and if she doesn't have an answer she will direct you to the right people, but Shari Stiles is who you need to talk to. MacCoy: Since you said you read this material do you have any problem with item 3 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 14 on there. I had some concerns and submitted those as what I considered a problem to do since I have been out there and looked at your place. It is a single driveway it runs back at the side of the house there and I don't know how big your back yard but I am worried about turning a car around. Peters: Okay, you know how the area recesses in the back, that fence will come out all the way to my neighbors property. Then in the back yard itself there is a slope in the back that goes probably 28 feet from where the fence now sits. So actually from the center of that from the center of the alley way I am going to guess roughly 35 feet. That would all be paved and it would be paved entirely over to, between the two fences. So there would be plenty of room to actually turn quite a large rig back there. MacCoy: You are going to submit a plan here so that we can (inaudible) it is a very small area I am really concerned about the (inaudible) Peters: The alley way is very small, it is like, the Ada County, they are requiring 12 feet wide of pavement that is actually the narrowest part, the rest will be, once that fence is out and pushed forward it will all be plenty wide. But we will certainly do our best to submit to you what you have in mind there. MacCoy: Do you plan for a lighted sign? Peters: I haven't really decided that yet. MacCoy: You are aware that you will have to bring that in here anyway as part of our sign ordinance. Peters: Yes I am, I have looked at some of the signs on First Street like the Red Door and the one next door to it. I have kind of, I haven't really put the cart before the horse there yet but we kind of looked there to see what they had up and we thought we would do something similar. MacCoy: That is all I have. Johnson: What is, it is probably here but I didn't pick up on it. What is the total square footage of the structure? Peters: The total square footage is 1950, 1900 I would say. Johnson: Since you are also going to maintain a residence there what portion would actually be used for that, what percentage would be used for the business? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 15 Peters: Probably half and half, I have a full basement in the house. If this flies if this will go the way we would like to see it go over a period of time we will move out and make it strictly a business. Johnson: Thank you, any other questions? This is a public hearing, anyone else here this evening to address the Commission on this application? Anybody have any further discussion? If not I will close the public hearing at this time. What is your pleasure? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this. Oslund: Second Johnson: We have a motion for the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on item 10, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: We will review those December 10 and then it will go onto the City with the same procedure there will be another public hearing. ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW/USED R.V. SALES/SERVICE FACILITY BY ZAMZOWS: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, is the applicant or his representative here, they are both here. Steve Bradbury, 300 N. 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bradbury: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission my name is Steve Bradbury as Mr. Crookston has already indicated and for those of you who don't know me and I guess it is only Mr. Borup who I haven't met in the past, I am an attorney. I have been asked to represent Zamzows in connection with this application. What you have before you is an application actually to expand an existing conditional use permit for a new and used recreational vehicles sales and service facility that is presently located down here on East First Street at the site of the old Meridian Ford property. So that you know, it has been a little confusing at least to some people about what part we are talking about. The site we are talking about is bounded by East First Street on the east and by Meridian Road on the west and by Les Schwab Tires on the south. Then it Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 16 goes up to where that residence is on the north that is on East First Street and stops there and goes back. Apparently Meridian Ford used some other property which was behind that residence and further to the south. That property is not included in this application. The property that is in this application consists of about 3 acres more or less, maybe a little more than that. It, what we are doing here or asking for is to expand the conditional use permit that was previously granted which consisted of I am going to say I am going to guess about an acres worth maybe a little more than that acre maybe an acre and a half. Now that original conditional use permit was filed back in March and it was filed under the name Advantage Auto Sales, you probably remember that one. That was intended to be an automobile sales and truck and automobile sales lot. The hearing was held before this Board I guess in May, I wasn't here at that time but then later got involved in the project. Of course then the project was ultimately approved subject to a number of conditions and it seems to me based upon what I have been able to gather the big issue seemed to be the landscaping requirements. So while the staff was working out the landscaping requirements with the owner of the property and the potential user, that user Advantage Auto jump ship, took off and gave up and went away. So Zamzows was sitting there with a conditional use permit without a tenant on its property it was intending to lease. So they got a hold of Tom Scott Automotive and last Summer filed and application with the City to transfer the existing conditional use permit to Tom Scott Automotive. That was approved by the Council, I believe it was about August 20 of this year. Then on a temporary or (End of Tape) it was made clear the intention was that Tom Scott would want to use the entire site and not just a portion of the site. Of course staff advised that a new conditional use permit would be necessary, that is what we are here to do. What we are asking this body to do is to approve the expanded conditional use permit basically in accordance with the same requirements which were imposed with respect to the original conditional use permit except of course there are a couple of differences. The main one and most obvious one is probably the landscaping requirements. The landscaping requirements which were imposed before had to do with just the portion of the site which was going to be used. So now we are proposing to use a larger portion of the site and a new landscaping plan was necessary and in fact has been prepared and submitted and I am assuming that you all have copies of that plan. If you don't I have a couple of extra here. Mr. Zamzow hired Bill Strite to prepare the landscape plan. He drew it up and met with Shari Stiles who is not here at the moment to defend herself so we will say whatever we can think of. My understanding and I think Bill's understanding is that Shari had reviewed it and was satisfied with the proposal. That is what we intend to build assuming that the application is approved. The other thing of course that is different about this application than the previous one is that Ada County Highway District has required that additional dedications and improvements be made. Before we were only talking about East First Street frontage now we are talking about Meridian Road frontage as well. So the Highway District has imposed some additional Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 17 dedication requirements and improvements for that frontage. We have reviewed the ACHD requirements and they are all acceptable to the applicant. Except I guess one minor issue that has to do with the amount of the deposit they are asking to be put into their right of way trust fund. They calculated the deposit based upon 320 feet of frontage on that road, they only have about 260. We think we can work that out with the Highway District without too much trouble. I just wanted to point that one minor glitch out. Other than that the Highway District's requirements are generally acceptable. Johnson: Excuse me, you have no problem with the paving requirement? Bradbury: Are you talking about the interior of the site? Johnson: Yes Bradbury: I will get to that, I am not quite there yet, I am almost there. As a matter of fact I think the next thing I am going to talk about is there. We have also reviewed the staff report which we received this morning and are generally in agreement with most of it. But it was a very nice segway, the graveled area section that staff has requested be paved we would like this body to consider waiving that requirement and the reason is this. The lease with Tom Scott Automotive is only a 3 year lease. We don't expect that property will be used long term for that use. I was talking to Rick earlier this evening and he tells me that he kind of expects that eventually there will be another use there and there may very well be a building placed in the location where this gravel area is or some part of the gravel area. His request to you is that you not require him to pave something that 3 years from now he may be digging up and putting a building over the top of. That site is intended to be used only for over flow parking in connection with the operation there. It had been used by Meridian Ford for the same purpose and my understanding is for however many years that they were on the site or that portion of the site and what we would like to be able to do is to continue a similar use for at least the term of the existing lease and then if the plans change we won't have to be digging out a bunch of expensive pavement. So that, with respect to the internal paving that is a concern. We also of course are aware of and a little bit concerned about the staff report's observation that there has been a lack of progress on the landscaping requirements under the originally issued conditional use permit. We certainly understand the City and City staff are a little bit concerned about that too. There is a reason why nothing appears to have happened on ground. There is a little bit more behind the scenes probably going on than is obvious. You need to remember that when Advantage Auto took off on us and we went to Tom Scott and got Tom Scott involved at that point we knew they wanted to use the entire site. We had been advised that we were going to have to get a new conditional use permit for that and we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 18 knew that based upon that we were going to end up with additional landscaping requirements and additional ACHD right of way dedications and that we were going to be looking at preparing a completely revised or substantially revised site plan to deal with those issues. The hope was that we would be able to construct all of the improvements at one time rather than having to go in and do a little bit here and then after we get conditional use permit approval for the rest of the site assuming we did go back and do the rest of it. So that was at least part of the problem, part of the problem was that we didn't want to jump out there and start building stuff and then have to go back and rebuild or add on or fix or change depending on what you folks decided was a necessary requirement for the expanded conditional use permit. The second issue of course is that we had to go back to the Highway District and find out what they were going to require. And of course we had to higher the landscape architect or get him back on the job and get him to come in and talk to Shari and see what it is that she was going to require or propose be required. Of course all of that took probably a little more time then any of us really expected. As a matter of fact we are still trying to get permits out of the Highway District to start the work. I spoke with Rick again earlier this evening and he tells me that he has gotten bids from Concrete Placing to start the work at least on the First Street frontage. If we can get the permits and all goes well construction should start in the next two weeks. Rick can tell you a little bit more of the details if this has been a worry for you. I guess what I would like to convey to you if nothing else is that the applicant I think is doing his best to try and comply with what it is the City would like to see out there. I will tell you something that I have told to the Mayor and I think Mr. Johnson was in this meeting, it has been a couple of months ago, one of the issues that has created some consternation for the applicant is whether or not and why he ought to be required to get a conditional use permit in the first place. Given that site was used as an automobile sales lot for years and years. That is that Meridian Ford was grandfathered. I have spoken a little bit with the City Attorney about the necessity of getting a conditional use permit and frankly we disagree. Mr. Crookston thinks that we should and I am not sure that legally it is required. All of that aside and in order to try and get along and to try and do what the City would like to have done the applicant has agreed let's try to get some approvals and let's try to build some of these things. That is where we are but I guess the bottom line is that the applicant would like to do it with, as efficiently and economically as possible. With efficiency you sometimes get a little bit of delay. Johnson: (Inaudible) sharing that feeling with us? Bradbury: Well the reason I am sharing that feeling with you is for two reasons, one because one of the requirements under the law is that I make a record of any legal issues that might arise in connection with an application, so I am making a record. And second just to explain to you that even though legally there may be an argument as to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 19 whether or not the conditional use permit is required the applicant is agreeing to go through the process. And we are here and we are not saying, the applicant is not saying I won't get a conditional use permit, I won't go through the process, and I am just going to do whatever I darn well please out there on the one hand. On the other hand the applicant is asking that you folks recognize that economically some of the conditions that are sought to be imposed might be just a little bit too harsh. I hope by saying that I haven't ruined everything I said before. Johnson: Anything else? Bradbury: That is all I have, I would be pleased to answer any questions if you have any of me. Johnson: Any questions of the representative? MacCoy: You said you have read the requirements that our staff has put together. I am interested in your understanding of the signage out there. Bradbury: I don't know what plans there are for signage, I understand as the staff report points out that if signs are intended then they need to be approved. Beyond that I can't answer or address the question. Maybe Mr. Zamzow would be better suited for that one. MacCoy: Okay, since you realize that we have a sign ordinance (inaudible) and get that approved. Since your statement that you are only going to be there 3 years or at least your client will be there 3 years I don't think (inaudible) big signs that we don't want to see big signs that light in the night and flash on and off and so on because we have had our fill of that situation. Bradbury: I understand what your concern is and I wish I could address them in more detail but I just don't know what the plans are. MacCoy: Now, the ADA which is your American Disability Act are you familiar with that? Bradbury: Sure MacCoy: We have asked for parking and signage on that property, that building as it presently stands doesn't have any access interior do you know what the inside of that building is going to be used for? Meaning are we required to have people that have wheelchair problems have to go in that building or is that going to be strictly Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 20 maintenance operation in there? Bradbury: I don't know what specific requirements under the ADA may be applicable to the building itself. MacCoy: Well if you use it for the public you are going to have to make it accessible is what the thing says. That is pretty short order. One of the things that was laid out in the staff report which I take exception to is it mentions repairing the broken concrete. Are you familiar with concrete work, but you are better off going in and busting all of that out and putting in new concrete. I don't want to see a repaired concrete out there down on the main thoroughfare that we have because it just doesn't work in the first place We are always repairing it. It doesn't do your business any good and it doesn't do us any good as a City. I would like to see that be included in your material that the sidewalk if you are going to take it out your money ahead actually by taking the whole thing out and putting in a decent sidewalk and concrete effort. Site lighting which was spoken to as part of this is a real concern of ours. We understand you have to sell items but we also think that the people that live on the north side of the place deserve some recognition from the standpoint we don't want to end up lighting their entire place up. So I would suggest that you have that as a criteria that you do low level lighting that doesn't blind the people that live next door. I had one more item here, I will pass, go ahead. Shearer: I don't have anything, I think everything is pretty well covered. Johnson: Commissioner Borup? Borup: The only question I had, I think from what I gathered from (inaudible) basically everything that staff prepared you are in agreement except for paving the over flow parking in the back. Bradbury: That is correct. That is really the only issue that is of any significance. It appears to me that except for the little bit of a glitch we have got with ACHD that is the only other thing we would have to work out. Johnson: Thank you very much, would Mr. Zamzow like to address the Commission at this time? Richard Zamzow, 11555 Thomas, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Zamzow: I really don't, I think Steve covered the history thoroughly, I don't think I need to go over that again. This has been a real struggle for me, had I known it was Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 21 going to be like it was I probably never bought the property in the first place. (Inaudible) It is amazing to me, of course I deal with, I counted one day, I deal with 27 different government agencies and we all do that from the Department of Weights and Measures to OSHA, and it is questionable sometimes how people would want to be in business first of all or how they can stay in business. I think it is pretty tough sometimes. Nonetheless it is very expensive to facilitate everybody and very time consuming. Plus you have to run your business in the mean time and I am not up here on my soap box but I am going (inaudible) I have had a renter here since February, I have had lots of rent since February and plus all the improvements that need done. I know you guys don't have any real sorrow for the money that I am losing so on and so forth, but frankly it is tough. You have cash flow and you have to make ends meet and you have to work. So with that in mind what Steve is saying is hey we are bleeding, the bleeding has stopped the Mayor has been great, Shari has worked with us and they have helped us. We have an overflow, we were honest up front that gravel area we wanted to use as overflow. Tom Scott came over here saying hey I want to be upfront with the City of Meridian to a fault. So that we don't have any problems with them down the line because we want to be good citizens and I don't want to lease this from you long term and make how many millions of dollars worth of equipment do they have there and make a commitment like that and then having to find another location. Johnson: I will second that, I was at that meeting with Tom Scott and they were very up front about what their intentions were. Zamzow: Yes they were, so we said we want a little bit of overflow parking, needless to say if you are going to use that for overflow parking then you have to go to Ada County and have to do all of the landscaping improvements. Then you have the setbacks on the Meridian side then they require that landscaping there which is another $30,000 so now we have $60,000 worth of improvements plus loss of rent. So we are talking $100,000 worth, which you don't budget for. There is not a one of you that would have bought that property or anybody I asked would have ever thought I would have had to do what I am doing. I am sorry, I have never talked to anybody that would have thought that. It is not as if I just fell off the watermelon truck because we just finished a building down there and I know what the requirements are and I have no problem with the requirements. But I have a problem with expediting things, and I think I fell in the crack here somewhere. So anyway with that in mind I would hope that you are as considerate as possible so I don't have to throw another $30,000 of paving on there for over flow parking. (Inaudible) I have really kept my temper Jim. Johnson: I think you have done a very good job of that. I do, I understand exactly where you are coming from, I think we got off on the wrong foot on some issues. I hope you don't think that this commission has been obstructional an obstructionist at all because that is not our intent to do that. I realize things haven't moved along quite a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 22 quickly as they should have. I think however I think you people made some assumptions that weren't true and I can see why you made those assumptions but we have to follow what our ordinances are and what are requirements are and I know you understand that now. I think the recent meetings have all been positive and with the Mayor and I think going back to why we are doing what we are doing is an opportunity that the City has not had for a long period of time on that piece of property to make what we consider to be improvements to the entrance way to Meridian and that is why, it is an important piece of property to our image as a City. In the future this is probably our last opportunity at least first and last for a long time to make improvements there that fit with our present code. We are proceeding as though we are legally able to do that at this time. On the advice of our attorney and other things this is an opportunity for us to do that and I think you understand that. We are compassionate, some more than others obviously, but we want to move this along too as quickly as we can. We also have to do it right and this is enough of my speech, but I am just responding to really your concerns because it is not as though we are up here trying to make things difficult for you. That is not what we are trying to do, at least we do not do that on this Commission I can tell you that. Zamzow: I know that it takes time, you meet once a month and then that goes two months and then it takes me a month to get the architect and then I have to go in front of Ada County which is, I am telling you is a real tough duty. And then it has to go to the State of Idaho and then we have seven or eight people that have to sign off and it just takes time. It is my concern was my integrity with the Mayor that I told him I would get started as soon as possible and frankly I did. On the 15th I redid the drawings with Billy Ray Strite to fit the whole property and it took my renters almost 2 weeks to get signed off of all the agencies just the fire department, the planning and zoning, the sewer and underground waste people and so on and so forth. I have been, if I had dropped and quite running Zamzows and worked 100% of trying to get this renter I suppose I could have sped it up maybe a week or two. But I have a business to run and that is in between time. So that is real critical to me because I don't want to have any hard feelings with the Mayor or anybody else on this because I am doing business in this area and that was my biggest concern was in the staff report it showed, I kind of read between the lines there like there was some concern there and there shouldn't be. We will get it done, first and foremost they have a $24,000 bond with me and then they have another one that the Ada County Highway District, another, so they double whammied me on bonds. In other words I did it twice, I did it with the City once and I had to do it with Ada County Highway District. (Inaudible) Are there any questions? Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Zamzow? Oslund: I just had a comment, that is that you talked about the cost of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 23 improvements and I hope that they are not excessive but the only thing that I would add is that hopefully that as each owner out there adds their improvements that is going to improve the value of all of your properties and hopefully in the future you will have a property that is worth even more and even more desirable than it is now. I hope that money you spend you get returns on that. I think you will. Zamzow: I think we will long term, it is kind of hard to up front the cost when you didn't budget for it. Of course that happens every time you do a project. But usually not more than 10% this one has been substantially more than that. Nothing comes easy that is for sure. Johnson: Okay, this is a public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission at this time? I will close the public hearing at this time. MacCoy: Mr Chairman, I move that we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Shearer: 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 ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY BY WESTERN PCS II CORP: Johnson: I will now open this public hearing and invite the applicant or the applicant's representative to address the Commission. David Wiltsee, 3184 Elder Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wiltsee: Before I start I would like to say that my seat back is in mint condition, I did not attempt to destroy or mutilate the arm in any manner, if that could be held to my credit I would be most appreciative. Good evening, I am very happy to be able to deliver this proposal for a conditional use permit to you tonight. I represent Western PCS which is a corporation based in the Seattle area, and holding quite a number of FCC licenses to serve large portions of the west and mid-west. Almost exclusively with wireless telecommunication services ranging from conventional cellular to the type of system we are building here in southern Idaho right now which is a more advanced cellular type system called PCS. It is digital rather than analog in nature compared Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 24 with the more conventional cellular. It has much more capability of supporting different kinds of devices and much more capacity. There was an interesting story on Channel 7 news tonight about a fellow who was setting up an independent web type site in Boise, he just aimed up to Table Rock mountain with a little antenna he has devised and he will then peddle his service to people so they can get on the internet in a wireless way. Johnson: Cyber highway. Wiltsee: Yes, this kind of thing is coming very rapidly, we don't see us being in competition so much with the more conventional telephone companies and telecommunication companies as supplementing and providing a different kind of service than is available right now. In the area that we are dealing now, essentially Ada County, Canyon County, and Payette and over into (inaudible) Oregon will be putting about 35 telecommunications antenna sites. We started in August and we are probably going to complete our work in February or March hopefully and be able to have the system up and running. There after we will move over and deal with the rest of Idaho and hook into our system that extends down and includes the entire State of Utah. The particular facility that we are requesting a conditional use permit for is a monopole and I am sure you are familiar with a monopole that is over in a storage facility over here near the interstate highway here in town. It would be similar, it is going to be located on Bower Street, it would be a little more subliminated perhaps than perhaps the one there now. It would be a 120 foot monopole with 6 antennas mounted at the top. It would occupy a leased area on the ground of 40 by 40 feet, a fenced in area and include the monopole within in that fenced area and a concrete pad on which states a so called BTS, a base transceiver station that contains all of the guts of the system, switching, equipment and computers and radios are contained in a cabinet size fairly small metal container on the ground. The particular property that we are proposing to locate on is owned by the McCray's who own the plumbing supply shop which is on the same property. It is a 1.46 acre parcel. This parcel is immediately south of the rail road track and immediately north of Bower Street, it is wedged in between the rail road track and Bower Street near 5th. Our proposal is to occupy this very small piece of leased property on the McCray site. Maybe you would like me to stop now, we have submitted drawings and I hope you have copies of those drawings, it might be a little hard to read but I would be more than happy to interpret them for you or describe any aspect of the project. Again the fenced area and the facility itself essentially backs right up to the rail road track there. Currently the property houses a plumbing supply place and the rest of it is pretty much a vacant not even gravel, just dirt and rock rubble parking area. There is an existing storage tank that is on the property and it is going to be removed. It used to be used for fertilizer. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 25 Johnson: Is that a surface tank? Wiltsee: Yes it is sir. I don't want to get prematurely into the suggested conditions by the staff but we would be we are more than happy to comply with paving and landscaping requirements. If I might if I have a chance I might describe a little more detail of what we have in mind along those lines. Johnson: I think we will probably have some questions that will lead into that. At this point are there questions from the Commissioners? Oslund: I just had one, how high is the one or do you know how high the one is over at the storage area off of Waltman? Wiltsee: I believe so, it is right in front of the storage place there. It is 110 feet. Oslund: So it is pretty close, thank you. Johnson: Commissioner MacCoy? MacCoy: No Johnson: I have just one, there seemed to be concern both with staff and our Chief of Police with regard to interference. Could you address that? Wiltsee: Certainly, the range on the radio spectrum that is currently occupied by police and emergency services is actually being assigned to this type of service. The police and emergency services are being reassigned to 900 megahertz what they used to occupy between 1850 and 1990. Don't ask me to many things about this because you get in real fast over my head. That 1850 to 1990 band of the spectrum which has previously been devoted to emergency services nationwide again is not being devoted to PCS and those emergency services are being relocated to 900. So as far as radio frequency concern there won't be a conflict. We have planned this particular facility as we do all others to be able to accommodate if possible police, emergency services and other public service communications on the pole itself presumably with whip antennas. In some cases the police and emergency services take us up on it, in other cases they have a pretty good set up already. I know in Garden City we are providing an opportunity for them to go to a higher elevation on a pole than what they presently have on their own tower, that is going to give them much better coverage in the City so they are going to take us up on it there. We would be more than happy to do the same thing here in Meridian. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 26 Johnson: I appreciate that thank you. Crookston: Mr. Chairman, I have a question, this is not a specific question about your application but what I am wondering is how many of these poles do you believe the City could eventually have? I will state my concern is, my concern is that we have one in this place now and one over here now and one over here now and then presumably we have 3 here and then we have 18 over here. Wiltsee: Well at this point I think you are about half way through. There are a number of additional license (inaudible) recently completed by the FCC. There will probably be another 5 or 6 different carriers coming in, not necessarily to Meridian per say or any part of Meridian but being required by virtue of their license to serve metropolitan areas and other areas. So I would say probably another 5 or 6. Some of them are devoted to mobile radio, devoted to paging systems. But still in all they are going to have some sort of antenna structure in their game plan. We try as best we can to collocate, so called collocate with other companies we try to make available if the structure permits try to make available space for collocation. Which is not always easy and vice versa we try to collocate on other peoples facilities when we go into a new area where they are established, but then it doesn't always work. There are structural reasons why it can't be done sometimes and there, it is just impossible sometimes to come to a deal and (inaudible). We tried, not to knock competition but we have tried a number of times with US West in this vicinity to collocate with them. Although we can see no structural reasons (inaudible). We do try to collocate. In this particular case because of the size and nature of the structure it is going to be a very thin monopole and it really will not be conducive to collocation by another company. Both the nature of the monopole and height they have to locate probably wouldn't make it a very good location for them. But again it is fine for emergency services. Crookston: What my concern is that they try to my knowledge try to locate telephone lines, I can't think of the other lines but they try and put those underground as much as they can. These I assume are things that cannot operate underground. Wiltsee: It is not the nature of the beast. Crookston: But I also see them as, on the old telephone poles there were lines everywhere. And I foresee at some time the same thing happening to them a community saying we don't want that. Wiltsee: That is happening in some places, unfortunately because the infrastructure is going to go in. If it is a bad idea on its own merits that is one thing, but just a straight ban really doesn't make sense. There are other ways to approach the problem, I know my firm strongly advocates a planned approach in the part of local government. Not Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 27 just to react but to have a plan even to the point of identifying public properties that might be available and then leasing those and knowing what the conditions might be in advance of leasing those to industry. It works real well and we even (inaudible) I didn't mean to sound alarmed when I said that there will be more (inaudible) such as telephone poles or power poles, nowhere near that kind of thing in number. There will be more companies coming in the northwest. It has been our experience as a company that public sites made available (inaudible) because they can go in and (inaudible) where they might locate and not have to shoot in the dark. Crookston: Are you aware of any governmental entity, a City or County that has an ordinance in effect that says, gives you some site selection requirements, let's say how far it has to be from pole to pole or anything like that? Wiltsee: I am not, nor do I think that would be a particularly good idea to try and dictate that kind of rather technical consideration. We don't want to put up more than we have to. They are pretty expensive to put up and maintain. We want to get the biggest coverage possible from each one that is put up. The higher they are the better within reason. I do think that the idea of making public land available to have a strong policy that encourage collocation for possible and to expect a good faith effort on the part of the industry to try to collocate and maybe try to pony up some (inaudible) is quite logical. Huntsville, Alabama stands out in my mind as having an excellent program. We are, my firm is trying to set up, we are a subcontractor to Western PCS and we are working with a number of counties in Central California and the foot hills near Sacramento to both identify sites that are logical, to work with the local government, way before the firms come in to identify what the constraints of those site might be. If structures were to go there, what conditions would logically be placed to (inaudible) any problems on those sites. There are some fairly large counties geographically and we have identified in each in the range of 35 to 50 sites that look like they make sense. So I think that kind of program is probably the best, the best idea. You start dictating collocation or some things that would affect the technological or the spacing considerations it really sort of messes things up. Unless it is right on target for a particular firm. Crookston: I do know that there are people that do not desire them to be in residential areas. We have poles that are substantially higher than the one you are talking about. They have the flashing lights on them, the red lights and people don't want to see more of that. Wilstee: I don't blame them, we do our level best to try to locate in areas that are appropriately zoned and made it a practice never to go for a rezoning for this purpose to stay out of residential areas wherever possible. It is not always possible but believe Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 28 me we try. Oslund: I think looking at your application it looks like you have done a good job at finding a site. Judging by these photos it appears to be as good a site as you can get. It is pretty ugly every direction but that doesn't mean that the next one your competitor comes in three months from now and wants to put in, I am sure that it is going to happen because everyone has gotten used to this cellular phone and portable communication devices. I am glad you brought up that idea about management, I think that the City needs to be thinking about this and planning for it because it is going to come. This is the second one that we have seen in the last 6 months, the other one withdrew the application. I think we are going to see more of it and I don't think we should dictate, but if we could somehow encourage that collocating of facilities I think that makes a lot of sense. Wiltsee: It does make sense and another aspect of it I think you might consider in a comprehensive program it have been my observation working in this industry with these kind of facilities that even though height makes people's hair stand on end at first and they start taking about the height of the thing. Height really doesn't make that much difference, it is all a matter of perspective. If you are driving down Overland near Albertson's in Boise you have those 55 foot great big steel power poles right next to you as you drive along and there is one every 150 or so feet. It is a much more compelling thing than having some thing like this 2 blocks away, it maybe a little bit taller but you don't even see it through roof tops and trees and so on because of the particular perspective you might have. Where I think the attention probably should be paid is to the ground level facilities and properly landscaping as you see fit or fencing or other kinds of treatment that (inaudible) at eye level on the ground where you can really see it. Johnson: Thank you for your philosophy (inaudible). Thank you very much this is a public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to come before the Commission on this application? Any other questions? Borup: Yes Mr. Chairman, were you the same applicant that was previously looking at the Overland site? Wiltsee: We did have a site on the other side of the freeway that we were contemplating and we pulled our application at that time. Borup: That was up on Overland on the other side of the freeway. Wiltsee: It was on the other side (inaudible) Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 29 Borup: I thought it was the same name and I think this is a less intrusive site than that probably (inaudible) Is there a building planned at this point, that looks like that is something in the future. Wiltsee: There is a future shelter provided for in there. We don't put the shelter on there unless there is a heating problem, unless it gets overly heated (inaudible) put the shelter on specifically to air condition it. Cold air doesn't make any difference, rain doesn't make any difference. But if that site gets real hot we have to air condition and we have to (inaudible). I would expect at that time that we if it were your wish if you wanted to condition it and come back and submit any plans to you once again about the nature of that (End of Tape) Borup: (Inaudible) this is a pretty desolate place right now, it looks like whatever you do is going to be way back all by itself away from everything. That is all I had. Landscaping would be nice (inaudible) Johnson: I think we can handle the conditions here by just asking you if you have read those and you have any problems with any of those suggestions from staff? I am referring specifically to that November 8 letter. Wilstee: I have one question and that is on number 3, I am not exactly sure what it means. It says dedication by property owner of any required right of way on Bower Street should take place prior to obtaining a building permit. I don't know if that means, I don't know what the City wants there. Both the land owner and we would be more than happy to cooperate but we ware not exactly sure what it means. Johnson: Well I think they are talking about access to it for maintenance and that sort of thing if a right of way is required. I think that is what they are referring to. Wiltsee: I see, I thought it was an encroachment permit. Johnson: Is that the way you read that Mr. Smith? Smith: Yes sir. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I did have another question, how often would people be at this site, is it a daily thing for maintenance? Wiltsee: once a month unless something goes badly wrong. A technician just goes and calibrates things. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 30 Borup: Mr. Chairman, then, I guess I am wondering why is paving necessary for something that is not going to have continual use? Johnson: I think the paving is a requirement of our ordinance as I understand it, is that right Mr. Crookston? Crookston: It is. Johnson: Because a building permit is required. Wiltsee: May I ask, is there a particular standard for the paving, it is not going to be a real street it would just be access from Bower back to the site which would be very infrequently visited. It would be our thinking to say if we could make it 8 feet or something like that, not a real first class 21 foot road going back there because that would be real unnecessary. Johnson: That makes sense. Crookston: I am not sure. Johnson: It makes sense and he is not sure so that probably means they have to make it a full street. (Inaudible) Johnson: Mr. Smith has a comment. Smith: Mr. Chairman, typically on a single lane access on like that 12 foot of pavement is adequate for it. Johnson: Is that what we use for our well sites and that sort of thing? Smith: Right, 11 to 12 foot is a typical traffic lane. Johnson: So four feet more, 50% increase. Mr. Oslund had a question that might lead into two more things. Oslund: I just was wondering, your service area is Ada County for instance, how many of these poles do you need to serve all of Ada County? Wiltsee: Ada County, including the cities? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 31 Oslund: I don't know what your service area is but I am assuming (inaudible). Wiltsee: The service area is vast and (inaudible) but in this portion in this area to serve Ada County and all of the cities in Ada County we are going to need about 25 maybe something like that. Oslund: That is a lot of poles. Johnson: It is also a lot of poles. Oslund: Yes but you take 25 poles and you have 5 competitors, you have (inaudible) Wiltsee: Well some are already built, AT&T, US West and Boise Telephone already built their systems pretty much. Sprint hasn't come in to exercise their license yet. Johnson: Besides you have the opportunity to turn those down. (Inaudible) Anything else? Wiltsee: The one last one the number 4 that has to do with underground sprinkling system and minimum of 1 three inch caliper tree per 1500 square foot asphalt. We are not at all adverse to landscaping, in fact we would be more than happy to do so. We think that one poor little tree sitting out there would look real strange and it might not be a happy tree. So if we could have the latitude perhaps to work on a landscape plan. We are working on one now in Eagle that involves pyracanthra, planted along the base of the fence, it is nice. Evergreen and red berries in the fall and it can be trained to climb the fence and kept trim. So we have arranged with a land owner that they would be happy to water it if we had to put in a sprinkler system we could tap into their. But if we made arrangements to water some plants like that and space them at appropriate intervals I think it would grow real nicely. Johnson: That makes sense, and it is probably something that you can work out with staff. Anything else? That is it, I will close the public hearing. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this project. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 32 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: I see Mr. Butterfield sitting there, did we act on number 8? We approved the findings of fact and it will go onto City Council for their next meeting. Do you have a copy of those, now that we have approved them you can have a copy if you don't already. You are welcome to mine, I could give you mine right now if you would like. ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 7 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and ask Steiner Development or their representative to address the Commission. Steve Bradbury, 300 N. 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission my name is Steve Bradbury and I have been asked to present the application that is before you on behalf of Steiner Development. This is a project that you folks have seen before, at least parts of it. It might help to go through a little bit of background to try to get you up to speed and help Mr. Borup who I don't think has seen the project before. What you have before you is an application for a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit for a planned development. This particular phase of the development is for a 60 unit senior living project. What I might suggest you do, you all have a booklet that looks something like this. I will be going through the booklet and will be referring to various tabs throughout the booklet. What you might do right now, you might want to get behind tap 3 and pull out one of these preliminary plats because it will help to show you what we have in mind. There are actually two of them behind tab three, the first one of these pull out maps just shows the lot lines and the preliminary plat. The second preliminary plat and the second pull out also shows the proposed foot prints for the buildings that would be placed on those lots. So you pull those out now it might be a little bit easier for you to refer to things as we go along. As you probably know this is the last of a multipart development project on a 40 acre parcel of property on Ten Mile Road that has been owned by Mr. Teter, Bill Teter who is here tonight with us. Probably the easiest thing to do, but this one might be good too, I will pass those out. Those are just smaller versions of, maybe it will be a little easier for you to get a look at it. If you get, I keep telling you to pull out maps and look at things, behind tab 1 there is a map that looks like this. Maybe we can start there. The pull out map, the colored map that you have got kind of helps you to get a feel for what it is that has gone on before, behind tab 1, multi-colored, to give you an idea of what has gone on before. You folks first saw this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 33 project in January of 1995. At that time there was a proposed preliminary plat for the entire 40 acre parcel. That parcel was divided up into what I would call 4 distinct areas. Those four areas would be an R-4 zoned area for single family detached residential dwellings. That is shown in the pink or red on this map that you have pulled out there. The blue part which was incorporated into that same application was an R-8 single family detached residential development. That was previously approved and a matter of a fact there is a final plat for that along with the pink R-4 area. That has already been through the City process. In the lower right hand corner, the yellow portion that was a proposed senior living area as well and that had a number of single family detached building lots for single family detached dwellings as well together with a club house. That was approved for preliminary plat I guess it was in January of 1996, earlier this year. What is left then is the orange portion which is in the upper right hand corner of the map and that is about a little under 7 acre parcel that was originally proposed for some kind of town house or condominium project development. That has an R-15 zone. By the way the yellow portion is also an R-15 zone. So what we are here to talk about tonight after all of that is the proposal of what we are going to put on that orange portion. You will probably recall that the project as originally proposed the concept was for the development to provide a variety of housing choices in a planned area. So we can get one area with a multiple choices in living environments. We have the single family, the traditional detached single family dwellings on 8,000 square foot lots in the R-4 area. Similar homes on smaller lots in the R-8 area and then we have the single family detached senior citizens area in the R-15 and the yellow area on the map and now of course we are proposing a similar type of living area in the orange portion. Only what we are trying to accomplish there is to find a little bit more moderately priced facility for people who might not be able to afford to get into the little bit nicer project that has already been approved. What is proposed here is mostly two unit, zero lot line developments, some people might call them duplexes but that is not really technically right. They are zero lot line, they are single story town houses although people get confused when you say that too. Basically is it two unit zero lot line dwellings most of them. There are also two proposed three unit zero lot line buildings and then 3 four unit zero lot line buildings. If you look on the foot prints that you have got there (inaudible). Now, back to the book, behind tab one, about two pages in you will find the page that talks about the, it gives you some basic information about the project. The parcel size is about 6 and 2/3 acres. When the project was originally proposed, when you originally saw it we were talking about 7 1/2 acres in this parcel. The staff in the staff report pointed out and questioned what happened to that additional half 2/3 of an acre. It took us a little while to figure it out too, and we think we have. We didn't give any of that ground away. I think what happened, I have it up here, what we think happened here is during the platting process because we have had several plats. We had a plat for the R-4 area and then another plat for the R-15 area down here and then a third plat for this R-15 area that is under consideration. What happened we think is that during the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 34 platting process for this parcel, this area that is in yellow here which is the sewer easement up to the north the 20 foot landscape easement, landscape buffer along Ten Mile Road and then the landscaping along the entry road didn't get included in the calculation for the total acreage in this phase. What happened is those portions all got included in the total acreage in the previously approved phase. So the ground is all there it is just that it didn't get included in that calculation. So you can see you add all that additional ground up I am fairly confident that we are at 2/3 of an acre and probably just a little more than that. So the project still has the same amount of dirt under it, it is just that it got allocated into, it got perhaps platted in the wrong spot, but it is all still there. (Inaudible) Bradbury: I can explain some of the reason why that ground got in the previous plats and that was because when the final plat was submitted for number 5 which is the R-4 area the City imposed a requirement that we provide a 20 foot buffer along Ten Mile at that point in time. Of course it was originally contemplated that 20 foot buffer would be included in the plat for number 7. Like I say, the dirt is there the 20 foot buffer is going to be there it is just didn't get calculated into the square footage of the plat that you have before you. If it creates a problem, we can untangle it. I am hoping that we won't let these little technicalities bother us. The density is about 9 units per acre and that is of course substantially less then the 15 units per acre maximum allowable under an R-15 zone. It is probably, I might as well point out to you, that there are two units more being proposed tonight then were proposed originally for this piece of ground. There are 60, originally when you first saw this project two years ago we were talking about having 58 units. The net density however in all the R-15 zone is a minus 9 because there were 11 fewer units finally approved in the other project, in the other R-15 senior project. So there is plus 2 here, minus 11 there, that leaves a negative 9 total. So overall density we are under what was originally suggested as what (inaudible). And I think you have to realize of course at that time it was nothing more than just target and that is what we were aiming for. The home sizes we are proposing, they will be 1160 square foot minimum. I spent a little bit if time looking in the ordinance for requirements for minimum square footage of homes like this, two unit and 3 unit homes. The only thing that I could find was the requirement that these things meet a minimum 800 square foot which is found if you are interested at section 2-411 I. Maybe I missed but I couldn't find anything else. The reason I raise the issue at all is because the staff report suggests that perhaps the minimum square footage on these dwellings ought to be 1300 square feet as well. Whether or not I guess that is a good idea something for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 35 you folks to ponder. The 1160 square feet which are proposed here meets the requirements of your ordinance by quite a little bit. The setbacks, you can see the setbacks that are shown on this page here, front 18 feet, side 5 feet, rear 15 feet. What you don't see is street side yard setbacks we are proposing 15 feet. Now that is less than is required under the typical R-15 zone. Of course since this is a planned development we are asking that the Commission consider allowing some relief from a number of standard requirements in this zone and the setbacks would be one of them. What we would like to ask for is the front yard setback be reduced from 20 feet to 18 feet, and that the street side yard setback be reduced from 20 feet to 15 feet. Let me point out something in the application materials that you have got, there are a couple of references to seeking a 10 foot street side yard setback. That is wrong, it is 15, we did a little bit of calculating and we can get it done in 15. What I would like to remind you of for those of you that might not remember is this is consistent with what was proposed for the senior project to the south that has previously been approved over there was the same thing. Eighteen foot side front yard and 15 foot street side yard. So we are asking for the same consideration on this as was provided on the other project. I have already said it once, I will say it again, the project contemplates that all of dwellings will be single story at one time when it was originally brought to you and there was some concept drawing shown. We thought that we might want to have two story town houses there. Those have been eliminated for a couple of reasons. First of all we were committed to the idea that it was going to be a senior living area and we are thinking that most seniors don't want to be walking up and down stairs, so we will try to keep them all down on one level. Second we wanted to have a lower profile near the entry to the project (inaudible) we would like to keep the buildings down a little bit lower profile there at that front entry. I think that will help the aesthetics a little bit in the entry area. Third frankly similar units over in subdivision No. 3 I think it is have been very successful and we think there is a market for them. Parking requirements, each of the units would have a two car garage, and in addition there is a driveway for each of the units which will hold two cars. So we have that off street parking. In addition there is proposed off street parking in a couple of areas that are shown on the plat. The plat shows a total of 16 I think off street parking places. This isn't showing (inaudible) there were four spaces shown on the plat, off street parking places on the plat here, the fire department has suggested that those are likely to interfere with the driveway. We figure they may so we are figuring that those will probably be eliminated. We will end up with a total of (inaudible) 12 and if we need to make some adjustments on those we certainly can. One other issue with respect to off street parking is that your ordinance requires that off street parking be set back four feet from the right of way. We are proposing that the City give relief, waive that requirement the four foot setback. As they are shown we are showing the parking areas to be directed accessed from the street. That too is consistent with the approval that was given on subdivision No. 6 the other senior citizen area. Streets, we are proposing private street, with forty foot total right of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 36 way, 28 feet of pavement, 2 feet of curb and gutter on each side, a 4 foot sidewalk on one side. Our proposal is to permit parking only on one side of the street and we will work out with the fire department on which side they like best or least or however they want to look at it. The streets will be built to the construction standards of Ada County Highway District. All of that is consistent again with the approval that was given for subdivision no. 6. Street frontages that you will see on your plat the standard R-15 street frontage requirements are that each lot have 50 feet of frontage along the street. It won't take me very long to recognize on the plat that we are proposing a whole bunch of lots that have 33 feet of frontage. What we would like to suggest to you is that again under the planned development requirements the 50 foot street frontage requirements be waived and maybe what may make some sense to you is that since we are proposing two unit one building consisting of two units and those two units will be built on two lots, zero lot line in the middle that what you really have is 66 feet of frontage for each building. Perhaps if you look at it that way it won't feel quite like we are trying to squeeze so much in as asking for 33 foot frontages. Although the lots themselves are technically 33 feet. Each building really has 66 feet of frontage on the street. So if you add all those together I think we get there. There are also some frontages, some flag lots around the corners where the frontages don't add up to 50 of course. But generally we have been able to get past those requirements as well and would like to ask you to do that for us as well. Okay, the next page in your booklet is a list of amenities on the project. I don't know if I need to go through them all but there is a proposed gated security entrance to provide added measure of security to the people who live there. There is a privacy wall that will surround the entire project. Just so that you can remember, we talked about this a couple of years ago. We were talking about this masonry wall that goes all the way around the project up and down Ten Mile and then extends into the subdivision and beyond. So this project on those two sides the main thoroughfare (inaudible) will have this really nice masonry wall and then comply with the fencing requirements. Of course you know about the 20 foot landscape buffer along Ten Mile Road. There is a bus stop proposed in there open space. We have a proposal for an open space that I think consisted of about 18,000 square feet. An open space recreation area. It serves a duel purpose of being a storm drainage area and I know that sounds a little funny. Maybe I can help show you what I am talking about is this area right in here. Of course we have also got the open space that (inaudible) That recreation area and drainage area has been we thought about it quite a little bit and talked to the engineers about whether or not it makes sense that you can have a drainage area and a recreation area all in the same spot. Apparently it really does work. Our consultations with the engineer tell us that this area is going to be dry most of the year and it is really only wet when it rains. Of course in an outdoor recreation there probably aren't too many people who are going to be using it when it is wet, when it is raining. As we understand it, a typical storm that we have here, will put about 2 feet of water into this drainage area. Within 48 hours that 2 feet of water drains Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 37 away. If we have a 100 year storm the storm that theoretically happens every 100 years we might have 4 1/2 feet of water in that thing and of course it is going to take a little longer for that to drain away. Generally speaking most of the time, most of the year certainly most of the time of the year where people want to be outdoor using the facility that ground is going to be dry. So the proposal is to make some use of that ground by landscaping it around the perimeter, putting in a gazebo up front, I have a picture of that so you can get an idea of what we are talking about. If you are looking at it from the street toward this spot right here (inaudible) a gazebo and a deck. There will be picnic tables and benches throughout the area along with like I said some landscaping facilities. Now we really want to make this into a recreation facility that can be used. I know it is a challenge. That is what we are working on and hoping that we can find some good solid uses for this area. And certainly willing to take any suggestions that you might have as to what other facilities we might put in there. But like we say we are thinking of picnic areas and benches and tables with the gazebo. Perhaps even a barbecue pit or something like that. The 10% requirement of open space by a fairly wide margin. We roughly calculated when we were sitting down, there are well over 30,000 square feet of open space there. So I think that issue is fairly well dealt with. Behind tab 2 in the booklet in the application materials, I don't think we need to go through any of those unless anyone has a particular question about anything they saw in there. Behind tab 3 I already told you has the plats and the proposed building footprint layouts. We can talk about those if anybody has any specific questions. Behind tab 4 in the booklet you will find a typical floor plan for the proposed units. Typical elevation drawing of the proposed units and a typical site plan for the proposed units showing you the dimensions and how they fit onto the lots. Two bedroom, Two bath, Two car garage, fairly standard units. Behind tab you will find the proposed construction materials that we are talking about using in the project. And of course we have materials dealing with the roof, the architectural shingles. We have an exterior color chart we can show you the kind of siding and stucco that is intended to be used. And the brick accent is shown back there as well. So I think that pretty well covers all the basic amenities and features in the project. We received a staff report this morning and went through it in some detail. I think it is probably worth going through again right now. Because there are a couple of issues that we probably ought to talk about. Let me get some of this other paper out of my way. First of all the general comments we are all perfectly okay with all of those except for just one I think and that would be number 8. The last sentence of number 8 indicates that the off street parking areas are not supposed to be within four feet of an established right of way and we are seeking relief from that 4 foot setback provision. Other than that all of the general requirements are acceptable to the applicant. The site specific comments, number 1 pressurized irrigation. We proposed pressurized irrigation, it will be included in the same system that is proposed for the Lake at Cherry Lane no. 3, 4,5 and 6. Nampa Meridian Irrigation District has already approved the system for number 3, it has Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 38 been oversized to accommodate the entire project. It is a shared system with Englewood Subdivision and Firelight. So that is certainly we are aware of and the intention is to build it to Nampa Meridian irrigation District specifications. Number 2, the street lights you bet, what we would like to do and keeping with the rest of the project is probably install some more decorative lighting as opposed to the standard poles and we will work with the staff to come up with the materials that are satisfactory. Number 3 is dealing with the width of the roadways, as I said the roadways that we are proposing here are the same as were proposed for number 6. We agree that there shouldn't be parking on both sides of the street so we will restrict parking to one side of the street and we will work with the fire department to get the details of how they would like us to handle that one. Number 4, dealing with the treatment capacity of the waste water treatment plant. Yes we understand the application is subject to the capacity. Number 5, that one has to do with the density issues and the number of units and I have already spoken to you about that. Hopefully I haven't completely confused you about where we are. Number 6, dealing with the amount of open space, the 10% open space, we have talked about that a little bit. One of the things that I didn't mention is that number six suggested the slopes in this retention facility are 3 to 1, that is right except at the entry where people would be coming and going. That will be a 4 to 1 slope there to make it a little bit easier to get in and out. Of course if we can figure out a way to install ramps and steps and things like that it would make access even easier I think that we would be able to do that. Number 7 is talking about sidewalk, in the other senior project in Number 6 we had a sidewalk on one side of the street. We are proposing, we are asking that the Commission allow to do the same thing on this project. What we are trying to avoid is having a whole lot of hard surface and create a little bit more soft surface. One of the things that might be worth noting is that since the idea is to provide a senior living area, I know these people walk, so I don't want to suggest that we don't need sidewalks. But I don't think you are likely to see as much traffic in and out of this area. We are talking 60 units, people are probably going to be staying home they are not going to be children. Theoretically if the project is developed as proposed there wont' be any children running around and playing in there except those that are coming to visit. So we are thinking the requirement for sidewalks on both sides of the street really might not be necessary. Number 8 addresses MacCoy: (Inaudible) the width (inaudible) Bradbury: The proposal is for a four foot sidewalk and I know that staff is suggesting 5, we would like to stay at 4 in order to help reduce some of the hard surface area that would be there. I suspect that if it is a do or die we will go along with what the City requires. Johnson: It is part of the ordinance, you would have to get a variance is the way I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 39 understand it. Bradbury: Well I guess what I would suggest is the Commission consider reducing the sidewalk size under the same planned development provisions that are allowed for reducing setbacks and densities and or increase densities and those things. Like I said the four foot sidewalk is what we would really like to do. We think it is enough. We don't want the project to look too institutional with too much concrete and pavement every where. And that is the thinking. Johnson: What was the resolution on 6? Phase 6, what did we do for sidewalks there? Bradbury: I can't remember if it is was four or five, I don't recall. MacCoy: While you are looking I would like to put a two bits in for a five foot because you talked about the senior citizen lifestyle and they do a lot of walking. Four foot is really too small to allow 2 people side by side to go walking, five is more comfortable. Bradbury: Yes I understand, and I don't know that this is do or die. We are just trying to like I say to get to much hard surface. I can't seem to find anything that tells me here, wait a minute. Well the section, the street section that I am showing on the preliminary plat for number 6 shows a four foot sidewalk. I can't remember for sure what was specifically approved other than looking at that. Oslund: Are the mail boxes on the sidewalk? Bradbury: I would imagine although I don't know. I guess that is probably what the post office requires these days isn't it. MacCoy: (Inaudible) Bradbury: Maybe what we could do is to provide some additional meandering around it to keep a little bit of extra space there. I guess what I would like to suggest is a (inaudible) probably not be a deal killer and although that is what we would certainly prefer if it is going to cause the Commission a great deal of heartache then I think maybe we ought to just move on. Number 8 is an issue addressing the requirements of the fair housing act. The proposal is to have this be a seniors 55 and older project. We are fully aware of the requirements of the fair housing act and intend to comply with them. If we can't comply with them we won't build it, but I don't think we are going to have any trouble with that. Number 9, this one is kind of an issue that I have to say I can certainly emphasize with staff's problems. It has been kind of a difficult project and a little bit confusing because of the manner in which it was proposed. That is that we have got a preliminary plat for 40 acre parcel that includes two big lots in it and now Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 40 we are coming, we have been back in and asked for preliminary plat approval for a resubdivision of one of those big lots. That was in January, now we are back in asking for a resubdivision of another one of those big lots and that is number 7 the one you have before you now. I can see that it might be a little difficult for people to keep it all straight. What are we talking about no. 6 or number 7, number 3 who knows. We are certainly willing to work with staff to try and make it as easy as we can make it on staff so that the confusion is minimized. We certainly understand that you have to build these things in some reasonable order. We understand that plats have to be recorded numerically and we are willing to record the plats numerically. What we are really hoping that we can avoid however is to be placed into a lock step requirement of you have to build one before you start on the next. We might want to build them all together. We might want to start one and jump over and start on another depending on what the marketing demand is. Recognizing that the plats have to be filed as they go along. As much as I can emphasize with staff's concerns I certainly hope the commission will permit some measure of flexibility and not impose a lock step build one before you can start on the next one type of condition on this project. It just takes the flexibility away and we just know that we would like to build them in exactly the order that they have been proposed to you. We know that marketing changes that the desires of the people, that is what drives, that is what sells, Johnson: Rather than be general can you be specific as to why you haven't built these other four? Bradbury: I can be specific on, let's go back through it, number 3 is built and is for sale. Number 4 has a final plat approved and we have gotten caught up in a sewer easement glitch. We had negotiated easements from the entity that had acquired an option on the property adjacent to it. That option expired and now we are attempting to acquire those necessary easements from the owner of the property. Those easements have been in the hands of the individual who optioned the property for months and months and we have just gotten caught in that glitch. So that is what has held up number 4. Number 5, you have final plat approval, that has been given but unfortunately as I understand it the plans for that one are being held pending resolution of the sewer issues on number 4. You have to remember these things aren't even adjacent to each other. They are remote from each other. So number 5 the circulation of final documents and final plans are being held while we try to get the number 4 worked out. Hopefully we will be able to find a solution to that one real soon. Number 6 of course we just got preliminary plat approval, the final approvals, working on the final construction plans and Doug what did you tell me (inaudible). The construction plans for number 6 are in works and we intend to submit those next week. Of course that brings us now to number 7. So although again I sound like I am repeating myself and I probably am. Although from the outside it may appear we are not making any Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 41 progress, I think we are. There is a lot of work in progress on each and every one of these phases. You got to know that the owner of this thing doesn't want to sit on this land and not be able to market these lots for no good reason. I think you all have to understand if we can get all of the little glitches straightened out and get the things built and start selling them nobody is going to be any happier than the people who own this thing. Johnson: I think we understand that as long as you understand what the City ordinance is on development time requirements. Bradbury: I certainly do, you bet, and we will do everything we can to meet all of those requirements and if it looks like we are not going to make them then you will know that we will be here explaining why. So I probably beat that one to death. Number 10, covenants, you bet, we will show them to the City Attorney and anybody else who might be interested in reading them. We are perfectly happy to have review of the restrictive covenants and submit those whenever you would like to see them. Number 11 is dealing with the minimum square footage for the homes. I already talked about that our proposal is 1160 square feet. Number 12 says all ordinances of the City of Meridian need to be met. We understand that and have no problem with that. Of course we have asked for relieve form certain requirements under the planned development ordinance. Number 13 is a reference to a development agreement being required. Yes, we understand that we will provide a development agreement for the cities review just at any point in this process that you folks feel like you need to see one. If you need it now we will give it to you know. If you would like to see it when you see the final plat, we will give it to you when you see the final plat. You tell us and we will build it. I think that covers everything that I intended to talk about. One more thing, in your packet or at least in the packet that I received there is a litter from the School District expressing some concern about the number of students that are likely to be placed in the schools as a result of this project. I think maybe they didn't' understand we are talking about a senior project. Theoretically there are not going to be any children out of this project at all. If for some reason there is I doubt there will be very many. Johnson: I think their figures represent a typical subdivision. Bradbury: I think so too, I just wanted to point that out so that didn't get lost. That is all the comments that I had prepared to make. If you have any questions for me I would be pleased to answer them. Mr. Campbell of course is here and he can answer questions that I can't hopefully. Johnson: Okay, questions from the commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 42 Borup: Maybe more of just a comment, staff did have a lot of site specific items here (End of Tape) questions and concern on. I think Mr. MacCoy mentioned that seniors do quite a bit of walking, I think I have to, from what I (inaudible) four foot would be adequate. I don't know (inaudible) the applicant will be willing to go either way. But I guess more of just a comment, that was the only item I think. Johnson: Thank you, Commissioner Oslund? Oslund: In general I can't remember staff comments come in that had as many concerns that seemed to be so focused on the issue of are you going to deliver. This issue of when are you going to build something. I don't work with the applicant every day and I was on the Commission when we passed on 6. So I guess I just have concerns about that. Obviously Shari has been working with you folks and if she has got some what appear to be fairly serious concerns I just wonder, I wish she was here tonight so she could elaborate on these. To me the issue of trust and are you going to deliver that is key. I don't think the City, I think the City, most people would agree we want people that are here for that can be proud of what they have built and they will stand by it. That was the one concern. The other more specific and technical concern I had was about that drainage basin, that retention basin. Now you talked about landscaping the perimeter, now what about actually down in the bottom of the basin? Let me just elaborate a little further, I am kind of concerned if we don't irrigate that then what we have is a landscape strip about a weed field. Bradbury: I am glad you raise the question because I don't want you to leave with a bad impression or an erroneous impression. The only reason I didn't talk about what is going in the bottom is because we are not really absolutely certain yet. When we have talked about in the past we have talked about having it planted with grass so that it can be used kind of as walking and recreation area. There has also been some thought given to well maybe if we can figure out a way to build it maybe we can even put a tennis court down there. I don't know if that is feasible but that is a possibility. Maybe some other kind of recreation use that we might be able to put down there as well. We just don't know and that is an honest answer, we just know for sure what we want to try and put down there. It depends on what we can feasibly build. Yes I understand I have seen some of these drainage retention areas and some of them look pretty bad. Oslund: That is okay if that is what it is. But you are talking about doing something that is quite special here and Bradbury: Exactly the applicant has seen these things too and says that is not what we want to do. We want to make this a functional area, we want to actually be able to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 43 provide something that number one is useful and two is attractive because we want to be able to sell these things and keep people happy. So you are right, to the extent of hearing it from me helps you my discussions with my client the applicant we have talked about it a lot. We talked about it quite a bit today. I am convinced in any event that these folks have every intention of building something there that is useful and that is attractive. I am sure that if you would like to hear from Mr. Campbell he would be happy to reiterate those thoughts. As to the other, are you ever really going to build anything. (Inaudible) maybe I can help, I don't know if this helps or not because you folks see a lot of land developers come and go and some of them probably do a better job than others. You haven't had a whole lot of opportunity yet to see exactly what Steiner Development can and will do. But I can tell you this little bit. I know for a fact that these guys have got a whole lot of money already invested in this thing. They already own a pretty good share of the dirt out there. I don't think that these folks are going to walk away. If nothing else just the pure tenacity of these folks and how many times they have been before you. I have been before you on their behalf ought to send some message hopefully. They are not going to be spending all of this money on me and all of this money on the engineers and all that other work if they don't figure they are going to build something. Unfortunately we have really had a couple of issues that have just, a couple of issues that really caused us a problem. One thing I didn't tell you why didn't build subdivision no. 4 well we didn't even the dirt, Steiner Development didn't own the dirt until really just recently. That is done. Johnson: Well I think you can understand also if you were here earlier our first four items have been going on forever and so we are a bit gun shy. So I think that these comments and I really appreciate these comments from staff, because they are poignant and they are specific and they reflect past disappointments. They refer specifically to you to look at the drainage sites and specific areas and also the situation with the lot lines and the lots out at La Playa Subdivision. Those are the type of things that are helpful because really what they are telling me this is recent experience that didn't' work out favorably. Bradbury: And we need to do better. Oslund: You have a credibility problem I think, not from me, (inaudible) Bradbury: I guess what I would like to suggest to you along those lines that you have the opportunity here because you have a conditional use permit in front you. You can place reasonable conditions on the applicant's future conduct and if you have concerns in a particular areas well condition them. What I would like to ask you not to do and what I will ask you not to do is to hamstring these folks so they end up getting into a lock step that is going to make it even harder for them to actually do it. It is a two edged Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 44 sword, you string out all the conditions with the idea that by (inaudible) these guys are going to do it our way or they are not going to do it at all and you might get your wish, they might not do it at all. That is really what we would like to try to avoid if at all possible. I had another thought and I probably rambled long enough. If you have more questions. Johnson: In your behalf, this type of development, not necessary specifically this one but this type of development is something that Meridian has a need for. I think that is why we are as far as we are on this sort of thing. This is an attractive concept and I am confident that it would be a successful project if done right because the demand is certainly there for this type of housing. Bradbury: And it does remind me of the other comment I did want to make and it kind of has to do, it comes off of that same thought. If there is anything quite like this in Meridian now, I don't know where it is. It is the first time that I think that you folks have seen a project that was constructed like this one. When I say that I am talking about the approval process of coming in and having several different concepts proposed. It is the first time I think that staff at least here has seen something quite like this. It has been a little tough, it has been a little bit harder to get through the approval process. It has taken a little bit longer than the typical 8,000 square foot residential subdivision. Nobody is more frustrated about that then the owners are. Shearer: Can you clarify the road right of way for me? Bradbury: I will try, I am not sure I can. Shearer: On the survey it shows 42 foot right of way and then it is dimensioned at 40 feet. Bradbury: Are you talking about the street section, I noticed that too. You are right it is labeled a 42 foot right of way but then it is dimensioned as a 40 foot. The intention is that it is a 40 foot and I hope the numbers add up. I know we went through this once before when they didn't but I think they do this time. Shearer: If that sidewalk is expanded to 5 feet I would recommend that you off set that street a little bit in there because you only have an 18 foot driveway and some of those cars are in the neighborhood of 19 feet in an older vehicle. So you might want to cut that 3 foot down on the one side and put a foot on the other side. Bradbury: Just move it over a little bit, I follow you. Shearer: You might give some consideration to that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 45 Bradbury: As a matter of fact that is exactly what we did on the other senior project. Although we had the 40 foot right of way, we didn't put it right in the middle, we got it and moved it over one side or the other so it all fit better and would work for setbacks and what not. Shearer: You need all of that driveway, all of that overlap onto the right of way that you can get. Bradbury: You bet, we will be happy to work with Mr. Smith on what works best in that respect. Johnson: Commissioner MacCoy? MacCoy: You might want to clarify something here on one of your materials you have listed is 61 units and then your drawing shows 60 units so there is a discrepancy someplace in there. Frankly I am little concerned, in fact I am very concerned about the structure thing. I think you need to work a little bit on that from the stand point you speak, I know I read the same material, you have an 800 and 1100 and a 1301 type (inaudible) you are going to need to clean up that item with our staff. I was going to bring up the same thing that Mr. Shearer brought in here because the walkway is a concern since they are a walking public that are going to live here I think we ought to do everything we can to accommodate them. I think his suggestion about staggering is a good one. I was going to do the same thing (inaudible) you are going to have to do something to support that. Johnson: Any other questions? Bradbury: Maybe I can respond very quickly, with respect to the number of units if there is a 61 in there I think that is a mistake. It ought to be a 60, my understanding is the proposal is 60 units total. We will make sure we count them and give you the right number if we have a problem. The size of the units clearly we are intending to meet the requirements of the ordinance. As I read the ordinance it is 800 square foot minimum and we are sure going to beat that by a fair amount. And then the sidewalk we talked about that a lot. I don't think we want that to be a deal killer. Johnson: Thank you very much, is there anyone else that would like to come before the Commission on this application? Jeff Dorman, 3747 Summerset Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Dorman: My name is Jeff Dorman, I work for Coldwell Banker, Aspen Realty. I am Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 46 the marketing agent for Steiner Development on this particular project. I wanted to kind of set your mind at ease as far as the dedication and the ability of this developer to go through with the project on the previous application you had in there on the senior development. We have pushed through and we have sold that complete development for the developer already. The development is going through, he is planning on putting in the single family homes on this particular development that we are doing right now. For this hearing here we are expecting to have this contract also sold this week for a one developer to come in and develop all of this project. So we are moving forward. We have on the other developments where we have the single family homes we have 6 individual builders coming in, each of them here in the last 3 weeks have optioned 3 to 4 lots to start in the spring time. So in keeping with the mind that we are trying to progressively seek and get these projects sold so that we are not waiting in the wings and we are not lagging our feet on this thing. So you know we are pushing forward as much as we can on the sales and the marketing part of this also. Johnson: Thank you very much, anyone else that would like to come before the Commission? Hearing and seeing no one I will close the public hearing at this time. We are addressing item 13 only which is the conditional use permit. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Oslund: 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 #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 7 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing. Steve Bradbury, 300 N. 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bradbury: We have talked about all of the issues that I have to talk about with respect to the preliminary plat in the previous hearing. I would simply ask that all of my comments and discussion that we engaged in with connection to comments be included in the record for this hearing and then I won't have to repeat it all. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 47 Johnson: Thank you, this is a public hearing, is there anyone that would like to come forward on the preliminary plat portion? Any further questions from staff? From the Commissioners? I will close the public hearing at this time. Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this item pending the, until the next meeting when we will get the findings back on the conditional use permit. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we table the preliminary plat request until the next meeting when findings of fact are prepared for our review, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any further motions? Shearer: I move we adjourn. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we adjourn the meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:44 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: JIM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 12, 1996 Page 48 WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. CITY CLERK