Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-11-09 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING NOVEMBER 9, 1993 The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson: Members Present: Charlie Rountree, Tim Hepper, Moe Alidjani, Jim Shearer: Others Present: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Wayne Forrey, Gary Smith, Larry Sale, Mike Scisoe, Bob Angell, Doris Baret, MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD OCTOBER 12, 1993: Johnson: You have all read the minutes, are there any corrections, deletions or additions to these minutes? Rountree: I have none. Shearer: I have none. Alidjani: I have no specifics. Johnson: No specific changes, I've had a discussion with Will regarding some of the typos and things we need to do a better job on. When we've got two Johnson's testifying maybe we should designate who is speaking it's kind of hard to reconstruct some of this. In any event, we have a motion and a second for approval, all in favor? Rountree: We don't have a motion Johnson: Oh, we don't have a motion, let's start over. If there are no additions, corrections, or deletions entertain a motion for approval. Alidjani: I'll make a motion for approval. Shearer: I'll second. Johnson: Moved and seconded to approve the minutes of October 12, 1993, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-40 BY JERRIE WOLFE AND ASSOCIATES: Johnson: Any discussion regarding the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as prepared by our City Attorney? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I have a conflict in this matter, so I'll have to step down. Planning & Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 2 Johnson: Any comments regarding the Findings of Fact? Rountree: I have none. Alidjani: I have none. Shearer: I have none. Johnson: Entertain a motion then. Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopt and approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Rountree: I'll second it. Johnson: It has been moved and seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as written. This is a Roll Call Vote: Roll Call Vote: Hepper: Conflict, Rountree: Yea, Shearer: Yea, Alidjani: Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any recommendation you wish to pass on to the City council gentlemen? Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to make a motion that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve their annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with the condition (inaudible) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and that the applicant and the owners be specifically required to tile all ditches, canals, waterways as a condition of annexation, and that the applicant meet all the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the development time requirements, and the requirements, and require a development agreement and the conditions of these Findings and Conclusions of Law, and that if the conditions are not met, that the property be annexed. Rountree: I'll second Johnson: We have a motion and a second, to pass a recommendation onto the City Council with conditions so stated, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 3 ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-4 WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VALERI HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION BY VICKI WELKER: Johnson: Any discussion regarding these Findings of Facts? Shearer: On page 2, about half way through the page, they talk about a stub street rather than a cul de sac to access property to the west it says, that should be to the east I believe. Because the cul de sac is on the east end of the property and the west side is bound by the street, Ten Mile. Johnson: Do you agree with that Wayne? Crookston: Yes I do. Johnson: Any other corrections? There is one minor typo, item 19 page 12. Any other discussion? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopt and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions with the noted changes. Hepper: Second Johnson: A motion and second to approve Findings of Fact and Conclusions with corrections. Shearer: Could I get a clarification? Johnson: Go ahead Shearer: We're a little bit vague I think, maybe not , in that we say that the subdivision will meet the requirements of the City Engineer, the City Engineer's notes on this indicates it may be necessary to provide sanitary sewer through the property, I wonder is that been established that we do need sanitary sewer through the property, and is that in conjunction with the elimination of the cul de sac and putting a stub road. Johnson: Well, I think what the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law is saying, is that he determines that to be the case and that's the course we'd have to follow. Is that how you interpret that rather than be that specific? Crookston: Yes, at this juncture the Findings are really part of the annexation only and not of the plating, but those comments are very relevant to the annexation. Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 4 Johnson: In other words, I don't think it has to be decided on as long as, only the City Engineer decides in that specific area with these comments. Shearer: Are we addressing the Preliminary Plat tonight on this? Rountree: Not until we address the Annexation Shearer: Well I just wondered it says with Preliminary Plat, and that's why I was wondering. Rountree: You could make a recommendation Shearer: You could Johnson: We'd have to do that afterwards. Shearer: Okay I've delayed this long enough. Johnson: Okay, we have a motion and a second, this is a Roll Call Vote. Roll Call Vote: Hepper: Yea, Rountree: Yea, Shearer: Yea, Alidjani: Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any recommendations for the City Council? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application in the condition set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Hepper: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to pass on the decision, the recommended decision to the City Council, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any comments or instructions regarding the Preliminary Plat? Mr. Forrey Forrey: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, this particular application was submitted and processed by the City as Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 5 a Annexation and Zoning request with a Preliminary Plat, it was done at the request of the applicant and with support of the city staff because this project and one other project were held up during the moratorium. We agreed to try and expedite after the moratorium was lifted any project that we possibly could with fairness to the development community, so a recommendation if you agree or if you choose to do this would be to if you can to act on the Preliminary Plat to keep it moving onto the City Council schedule if possible. Johnson: Okay, thanks Wayne for that explanation. Gary Smith, is there any comment you have regarding the Preliminary Plat please? Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, I have a very preliminary comment on this sewer. It appears as though, and working with the engineer with Haven Cove Subdivision, that extension of that sewer from Haven Cove into and through Dr. Coe's property is going to be very "iffy" as far as maintaining a depth a reasonable depth on the sewer. By the time the sewer gets to the southwest corner of Haven Cove its only approximately 4 feet deep, and to carry it on into Dr. Coe's property to serve all of his it doesn't appear that it's a workable solution. So I think that when all the calculations are in we'll find we need to come from Ten Mile Road to serve his property with sewer, gravity wise. And to do that means crossing the Eight Mile Lateral and my attitude towards sewer lines and something other than public right of way is not very good, so I guess from that standpoint I would support a stub road from this property to Dr. Parker's and I guess that would fall in line with the Highway District's suggestion of stubbing into his property for access. Now there will also be a possibility of an access out of the southwest corner of Haven Cove. Presently that Preliminary Plat doesn't show an access at that point, they show 3 accesses along their south boundary and one of them I believe was fairly close to Dr. Coe's property or it was common to his east property and his neighbor to the east, but that stub road on that southerly most east-west street in Haven Cove could be moved east and west. So there is a possibility of 2 access points for vehicles. Are there any questions you might have. Johnson: Do you have any questions of Gary or Wayne Forrey? Hepper: So are looking at that sewer coming out of Haven Cove or coming down Ten Mile? Smith: No, I think the sewer for Dr. Coe's property will need to come form Ten Mile through this proposed subdivision rather than out of Haven Cove, it appears as though we're only about 4 feet deep at Haven Cove's south boundary. It doesn't look like it's Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 6 deep enough to get back into Dr. Coe's property, because the sewer line is coming uphill upgrade faster than the ground is. Hepper: What is the distance that they will have to bring that sewer from down at Ten Mile? Smith: Well, they have to bring it, Valeri Heights has to bring it down Ten Mile anyway, so it is just a matter of extending it. Instead of cul de sac in Valeri Heights it will be a stub street to their east boundary and it would be just a matter of extending the sewer to their east boundary or to Eight Mile Lateral. Rountree: Excuse me, where is the sewer coming from if Valeri Heights doesn't bring it from Ten Mile? Shearer: They are Rountree: Why is it so low then coming through Parker's property? Shearer: That is Haven Cove Smith: Haven Cove's sewer, because Haven Cove's sewer is out of the Nine Mile trunk line, over on the west side of the Vineyards subdivision. And in order to get sewer to the southwest corner of Haven Cove we had to run some of it at .3% which is less than the minimum .4% required by the State of Idaho, when we do that the City of Meridian has to state that we understand it's less than minimum grade and we understand that there is a possibility of increased maintenance required on that sewer line, but that is the only way we can get sewer into that southwest corner of Haven Cove. When the sewer line was extended south on Ten Mile Road from Cherry Lane it was my intention all along that we could get the sewer almost to Pine and that the property to the west, to the east of Ten Mile Road to the north of Pine could sewer back to Ten Mile Road. So Valeri Heights falls into that service area, Dr. Coe's, Dr. Parker's falls into that same area. And right now the sewer is at the roadway that accesses the Fuller Park or the Little League Baseball fields. Anything else I can answer? Johnson: I don't think so Gary, thank you. Any other questions, any comments Mr. Sale? Sale: No Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission for the record, I'm Larry Sale of Ada County Highway District, we wrestled with the question of access out of this subdivision for sometime with the applicant, we should support the comments Mr. Smith made regarding the extension of streets and especially if its necessary to provide sewer out of this project. If I understood that correct, are you suggesting to extend the street out of Haven Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 7 Cove to serve Dr. Coe's property or out of this one? How about the stub street? I have told Dr. Coe, or is it Parker or Coe? Johnson: I think its Coe-Parker. Sale: That we would support an extension of a street out of Haven Cove, and the utilities are obviously up to you folks. Shearer: Now you have confused me. I was under the impression that we were taking a stub street out of Valeri Heights also in place of the, isn't that what the recommendation said? Sale: The Highway District recommendation was to stub a street to the south boundary of Valeri Heights, parallel to the drainage ditch. Shearer: Okay Johnson: Any other discussion, are you still confused? Shearer: I didn't think I was confused before. I just wondered if maybe we should see a revised Preliminary Plat before we make approval and recommendation, show these changes. Johnson: Is that a motion? Shearer: I don't know. What does everybody else feel on this? Rountree: My question goes back to what Larry said, that is at one point in time we had a recommendation and that's reflected in the Findings of Fact that there is a stub street as opposed to a cul de sac to the east of the subdivision, and that I would be consistent with what Gary wants in terms of a public right of way and a utility corridor, correct. But not necessarily what ACHD is asking for. Johnson: Mr. Hepper what do you think? Hepper: I don't know, I'm kind of confused on this too now. As I understand the Highway Department is asking for a stub street to the east. Johnson: We don't have a larger map, do we? Rountree: Jim has one right here. Sale: We were aware of the utility problems that Mr. Smith has identified. We felt there should be a stub connection to the Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 8 south because its, that property is going to have difficulty serving back into that corner next to the canal. By the same token there is a need to have a utility extension across the drainage ditch to the east into the neighboring property, we would support the extension of a street in that same corridor, and then drop our request for the extension to the south boundary as long as we get a way out of the property that is our primary concern. Shearer: I hear what he is saying, but I don't know what we would approve if we approve something. Johnson: Okay, thanks Larry I appreciate it. What is your pleasure, would you like to take action on the Preliminary Plat at this time? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we visit the recommendation on the Preliminary Plat at such time we see the plat revised for the conditions in the Findings of Facts, and the requirements of the City Engineer. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-4 BY EDWARD A. JOHNSON: Johnson: Any comments at all, Commissioner Hepper? Hepper: No, I have none. Johnson: Mr. Shearer? Shearer: I have none. Johnson: Mr. Alidjani? Alidjani: ON the same changes you made before on item #19. Johnson: I had one other spelling, minor spelling on item #2 on page 2, it should read additional, its about 10 lines down from the top, righthand side of the page. Any other comments? I like this new format of Findings of Fact, where it address the Comprehensive Plan. It's a little more detail I think a better job, more encompassing. Any Discussion? Entertain a motion for approval. Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 9 Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopt and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Shearer: I'll second Johnson: A motion and a second for approval, Roll Call Vote. Roll Call Vote: Hepper: Yea, Rountree: Yea, Shearer: Yea, Alidjani: Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any recommendations to the City Council? Hepper: 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 annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the applicant and owners be specifically required to tile all ditches, canals, and waterways as a condition of the annexation and that the applicant meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian specifically including the development time requirements and the required development agreement and the conditions of these Findings of Law, and if the conditions are not met to be de-annexed. Rountree: Second Johnson: A motion and a second for the recommendation to the City Council so stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM R-40 TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) BY DORADO DEVELOPMENT CO./MICHAEL AND CYNTHIA SCISCOE: Johnson: I'll now open the public hearing, is there a representative for the applicant, or the applicant that would like to come forward and address the Commission, please do so at this time. You will need to be sworn, state your name and address. Mike Sciscoe, 1711 North 30th, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Sciscoe: We are looking at getting that corner lot out there as stated in the zoning request change from R-40 to CG, the property Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 10 to the north is already CG, and we're looking, the Sciscoe's personally, are looking at the .41 acre lot that is on the inside of .95 acre that is looking a t being rezoned that is now R-40. We have a small bookstore that we would like to expand, and we were looking to move into the Meridian area since we lived here approximately 16 years ago. We are wanting to get back, we have been in Boise this whole time. We have a small store now but like I say we need to expand that store so that we can do more business, we have traffic to the store its approximately an average of 3 customers a day, it is cyclical though most of our business is in the summer, I would say from April to September we do a little more business. We are expanding the market by doing more mail order business on a regional basis, so it won't increase the traffic levels to any large amount but we are basically looking for the space in a residence for ourselves in this area. Johnson: Okay, thank you, any questions for the applicant Mr. Sciscoe? Wayne Crookston Crookston: I just need a little clarification, where is your property in relation to the apartments that are in that area? Sciscoe: From James Court, the south side of James court, to the north on the front of Meridian, its about 177 feet in from the corner in from James Court, Meridian Road, north of that is where our property begins. Shearer: That is that large home that is there, it was an engineering office for a while. Sciscoe: The Ambrose, the old Ambrose house. No they are just to the north of us we are south of them. There is a small, 1800 square foot brick house there now on a half acre. Crookston: Maybe you don't know this, but when that property was zoned or annexed and zoned to R-40 they proposed an apartment type development also, is that right? Sciscoe: Dorado? Yes they did. Crookston: Where then are they going to get access to Meridian Road to their development? Sciscoe: I believe they are going to be coming up James Court, is what the plan is, I'm not, Bob Angell's wa going to try and make it here tonight too, are you here Bob, maybe he would be better to address those questions regarding the development of that property. Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 11 Crookston: Are you going to testify? Angell: Yes sir. Crookston: I'll wait to ask him. Johnson: Anyone else have any questions? Hepper: Have you seen the comments by the Ada County Highway Department? Sciscoe: Yes, I have, and I'm not sure how much of those are directed towards us as it would be toward Dorado with the larger development. We're basically a small family owned business, and our family is the only one's involved i running it at this time. Hepper: That is why I was wondering if you had seen it, because there was, you know I don't seem to have it right here. Shearer: I can't seem to find it either. Hepper: Yes, some of the requirements, traffic impact study and easements and taking our curb cuts and adding curb cuts. Sciscoe: Right now there are two curb cuts right now on our property, one because there is an attached single car garage and there is a detached double car, there is two cuts for ours already, within the area we are talking about. Hepper: Anyway, you don't have a problem with Ada County's requirements? Sciscoe: As far as I have been able to interpret it no, and I will need some clarifications as we get deeper into it, but we are willing to work with everybody and getting this worked out. Hepper: That is what we all like to here. Johnson: Okay, any other questions for Mr. Sciscoe? Okay, thank you, public hearing, anyone else like to come before the Commission? You need to be sworn, state your name and address please sir. Bob Angell, 35 Horizon Drive, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Angell: Perhaps I could clarify and add a little bit, from the time that, and obviously we are familiar with he requirements set forth by the City and Ada County Highway Department regarding this entire parcel which at the time of rezoning was approximately 7.6 Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 12 acres, .41 acres is the parcel that Mr. Sciscoe has acquired which consists of what we call the Himmerich parcel the original home and that would leave us approximately 7.21 acres in the remaining R-40 zoned parcel which would extend basically 177.15 feet at the junction of James Court and Meridian Road to the north and then would go along in a easterly direction 1058 feet. The road as I'm sure you're aware in James Court is presently undergoing renovation and there has been some dedication of right of way from us on this entire parcel to enable the other subdivision, its the one that is just to the east of the low income apartment project on James Court, anyway in any manner we wish to provide a buffer for prior to any development of any multi-family on the bulk of our parcel and we have developed a legal description of parcel 3, which simply squaring off that 177.15 feet that also goes from this northerly point in an easterly direction 136.05 feet to run 136 feet along James Court and then continue in a northerly direction to close the rectangle, it will consist of about .55 acres and we've asked to join Mr. Sciscoe in a rezone of CG it is our intent to develop that parcel into an office use consistent with the zoning requirements and to once again provide a buffer to the property to the east. We think that is the highest and best use for that property. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Angell, any questions of Dorado Development? Rountree: What is going to be the width of James Court? Angell: I think Mr. Sale could probably mention that, it is my understanding that we'll start out with a 26 foot right of way which is to be dedicated by the present owners of the low income apartment project on the south. We are giving 30 feet from the entire 1057 feet of our parcel, and the developers of the new subdivision there that is to the east in the south of James Court is also giving 30 feet so that would be a 60 foot roadway, 56 to 60 feet. Rountree: Of you own knowledge, is that going to be a public right of way? Angell: Yes, you probably asked the question but it is our intent to utilize the access ingress and egress to our parcel if you decide to zone it, as per a request from James Court not from north Meridian Road. Rountree: The parcel that you want to develop, is that north of the Sciscoe's? Angell: No sir that is directly south of the Sciscoe's, it is Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 13 nearly the same size if you were to draw that line on a southerly direction 177.15 feet that intersects with the property line at James Court you'd have that rectangle in there that is .55 acres. Hepper: So you're going to be the one that is adjacent to James Court, that's your property. Angell: Yes Johnson: Okay, any other questions? Shearer: Your intended use is for an office? Angell: Yes Shearer: Professional type? Angell: Yes, that is our hope. Rountree: You are also asking for CG zoning? Angell: We're asking for CG zoning. Rountree: But you're going to build offices Angell: Yes, most likely Johnson: This is not on this application though, right? Shearer: No, this is part of it. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Angel? Rountree: Is there some reason for not desiring your property to be zoned Limited Office? Angell: No, we just thought for simplicity it would probably be easier to go for CG zone on the entire parcel other than split it into 2 different zoning requests. I didn't know that it made that much difference but that is not my call. Crookston: I'm not sure that the offices would be allowed, not without a rezone. Shearer: They are allowed. Hepper: Is there any access from you property through to the east? Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 14 Angell: No, nor was any contemplated we anticipate there will be most probably a fence or berm or some separation between the development and the frontage. I would guess that would be a requirement. Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you Mr. Angell we may ask you again further down the road here. Anyone else from the public like to come forward at this time? Doris Baret, 2250 North Meridian Road, was sworn by the Attorney. Baret: I have a couple of questions I have not received all the information about this parcel about what their intent was, it was my understanding he was going to have a small woodworking shop and then I find out tonight its going to be a bookstore so I don't know whether he is going to live in the residence and have a bookstore next to him, so I guess I just need some clarification. The other thing is we have the Ambrose property, and I was wondering could we have them, or could it be required that they put up a fence between their property and our property? Johnson: Where does your property lie, where is the Ambrose property? Baret: It is just north of what of their development, or rezoning request. Johnson: Okay, that is a good question, we will answer that question before the evening is over. I'm going to have Wayne Forrey talk a little bit about the letter he wrote regarding this application and why its mixed use and how the design and site plans will be reviewed by staff as they come in. At this point we are only talking a rezone. Shearer: Can I ask a question, are you currently using your house for residence or? Baret: Residence Shearer: It was an office before you moved in right? Baret: Yes Shearer: Thank you Johnson: Any other questions or is that it? Baret: I think, I was just curious, not really understanding. Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 15 Johnson: Well, if you have any other questions feel free to ask. Baret: Any other questions? Johnson: I don't think so. Anyone else from the public like to come forward. Well, Wayne if you would elaborate for the record a little on your letter I would like even though your letter is a matter of record, why this area was designated in the Comprehensive Plan as mixed use and also about reviewing any site plans. Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, during the public comments on the Comprehensive Plan the area behind Albertson's as it was referred to was generally regarded as an area where there should be good planning and site planning. In the Comprehensive Plan we identified a mixed use concept, mixed planned use development as its referred in the Comprehensive Plan as a way to address these issues where you have different uses together in the same area and this is an area where we had a commercial development on the south existing commercial development, Mrs. Baret's property, the lady that just addressed the Commission, she is zoned Commercial General, I guess it was formerly used as an office, across the street is a quality residential neighborhood, there are apartments in the area, so it was an appropriate designation not necessarily the specific land use but rather does it blend and mix and is it compatible from a site planning standpoint from all of those uses, so I think the key here is if this is approved by the Commission and by the Council and rezoned the key is good analysis by the City on compliance with out Ordinance in terms of the screening, the fencing, the landscaping the access, signage, those types of things are perhaps as critical as the question of zone. We are updating the Zoning Ordinance, and its possible that when Mr. Sciscoe or Dorado submit building plans to the City that we may very well have new requirements for landscaping, signage, etc., but I can assure if they submit today we'll evaluate it very thoroughly against our existing Ordinance. Especially in light of the development agreement authority that you have on a zone change in our current Zoning Ordinance. I do believe this zone change complies with our current Comprehensive Plan and our proposed Comprehensive Plan and its in a specific area that we had public testimony on encouraging a mix of uses as long as everyone is well planned and coordinated. I hope that helps. Johnson: That does help, it helps the public and I appreciate that. Just one minute we need to change the tape. Shearer: I don't believe the Ordinance currently addresses this screen between commercial and commercial. Forrey: No it does not Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 16 Shearer: Which we're, which this screen that is being discussed . Forrey: That is correct it directly says commercial shall screen itself from an adjoining residential use. Shearer: But both of these are commercial. Johnson: Which kind of leaves them to fend for themselves, really what it boils down to. Shearer: Which our new Ordinance I assume is going to address. Forrey: Definitely it does Shearer: When and if Johnson: It is almost if. Okay, any other comments? Rountree: I've got a question I guess specific to an action we took earlier tonight in our proposed Comp Plan, which identifies as corridors one of the entrance corridors into the City with the setback requirements for landscape for future development, it seems I'm not suggesting that the intent is here, but this would be a way to circumnavigate that emphasis in our Comp Plan by rezoning the frontage property into small lots that can't accommodate the wide landscape buffer and then develop the further inward properties into whatever the existing zoning is, I guess that's a concern I see with the rezone of that frontage property and such a narrow band. Forrey: Given the scale, the larger the scale the greater opportunity we have for a better entrance, the smaller the opportunity, that is a good point, correct. You know we have an opportunity in the current Zoning Ordinance to require a development agreement as part of a zone change. I forget the citation I think it 417, I can look it up and that maybe is and item where we can attach to any rezone that the frontage along Meridian Road be landscaped to at least have that landscaped theme because it an entrance to the City. Johnson: That's a good point Charlie. Anything else of Mr. Forrey, if not I thank you for your comments. Anyone else from the public like to come forward, anyone else who has testified that has a question they want clarified further, still confused, maybe not confused just more clarification? Seeing no one and hearing nothing then I will close the public hearing at this time. This would require a preparation of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 17 Shearer: Are you looking for a motion? Johnson: If you so desire, I need to lead by the hand. Shearer: I move that we have the Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for this project. Rountree: Second Johnson: For the Rezone right? We have a motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and a second, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Thank you for testifying. I have one other item I just want to throw out at you and put in ont he record before we close and then we can see if anyone else has any other comments. With the help of the City and Patsy Fedrizzi who is doing some work for the City specifically I've been looking at some landscape Ordinances of other Cities, I think I've looked at 8 total and tried to compare ours as much as I could to theirs. In most of instances I don't think our Ordinance is very good, it is better than some, but it certainly is not as good as several that I've looked and I have only looked at like I say 8 cities north to south and some of our neighboring cities. I think our Ordinance needs some work and so does Wayne and some other people. I'm not one for copying somebody else's Ordinance cause I think you have to come up with something that is pertinent to your own environment, your own community, but I don't see any shortcuts to put anything together without a workshop. I would like to get some material to you people and have you review it and get some comments back from you so we can begin the process of revamping that Ordinance with a little more specific. Right now it doesn't work because its rather vague and its not very specific in some areas. It lends itself to be abused, and it has been used as a matter of record. You know we don't designate for example types of trees, species most Ordinances do because depending on where you live they have withstand the drought situation or whatever. In addition to that the size is lacking, types of shrubbery that sort of thing how far the setbacks are what concessions you make. You know to encourage landscaping is another thing, most of the other Ordinances approach it from kinds of a trade off position, if you are doing, for example, landscape on off street parking they maybe will give up 5 feet of the Ordinance requirement for setback if that is replaced by landscaping and the landscaping is specifically laid out as to how it is to be designed, how it is to be maintained is another thing which our Ordinance doesn't address. So we really need to do Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 18 some work there its probably a lot of similar Ordinances that need similar work done but we need to start somewhere. I will get you some material I think it will be food for thought in nothing else, and I'd like your comments so we can get together and start working on revamping the Ordinance in conjunction with Wayne an whoever else. Any feedback on that or? Patsy is on a contract with the City to do some Economic Development work, I don't know how she got assigned to this specifically, I only know she has come to me with information and I'm trying to channel it back to Planning and Zoning as much as I can. Does anyone have anything else before we close, go ahead Wayne. Forrey: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I noted that in the Findings of Facts that were approved tonight the development agreement was specifically addressed in each of them and I need to compliment Wayne, he does a very good job in Findings of Fact, the City of Twin Falls their Findings are one paragraph you see the difference here and how specific. It is a little tough to administer when is says approved, you don't have a list of criteria and its a very good basis. I noted that in the past the Commission has always said we need to do a better job of follow up, monitoring, making sure what is said here and in the Findings gets built and I uncovered a situation where specifically the testimony of the developer said we would landscape and talked about the height of a berm and today it is not there and we're following that through with the developer and using the Findings of Fact as the tool to enforce what happened at a P & Z 7 or 8 months which we all assumed would get built, so that just points out the fact that these development agreements are extremely important, the Findings of Fact are extremely important, what is said here is extremely important and so it is important that Gary and myself and everyone else Larry Sale whoever is involved to follow up. Wayne is going to give me a list of everything that had a development agreement I'm going to dig into the Findings, dig into the testimony keeping a check off sheet of who said what and what was approved. This one I'm referring to started with Tim Hepper's questioning of are you going to provide landscape and that one question opened up the developer to say yes and here is how I'm going to do it, if you hadn't asked the question Tim, he might never have addressed it, it never would have gotten into the Findings of Fact, and today we'd have a subdivision on the Intersection to our arterial roads with no landscaping, and we will now, ultimately we'll have some kind of screen, so your questions are important, the follow up is extremely important but it is important on myself, Gary and others and we're going to get there so at times I think its fair to say "hey Wayne 6 months ago we approved the Himerich and Dorado" or whatever how are we coming on the screening or landscape or the development agreement those are good, fair questions, and I hope to be able to Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 19 click off the status of each of those. And I need your help on anything, any key project in the community that doesn't look right, call and say what is going on why isn't there a fence or a tree or whatever. Johnson: My concern has always been that we often times put additions on things and we never know if its done or not, we don't get the feedback. Not that we should have it but the City should. Alidjani: I have a question, maybe its a common question, how are we going to enforce that, even though I was one of the guys asking that question, do you have a questionnaire or do you have all the recommendations from different entities. What do we do, is it a possibility that we cannot issue, such as this subdivision not even a first building permit until all requirements have been met? Forrey: I believe we have that authority we've just got to enforce it, in this case it is after the fact, I think over half the subdivision is built and occupied. Alidjani: It sounds to me like we don't have a leverage regardless how we go about it. Forrey: That goes to Wayne's expertise as to what type of leverage, in this case the developer has acknowledged Tim Hepper's questions in, it was recorded, and so now he is bound to do something, screen that subdivision in someway, and we are having a meeting we've got the neighbors involved in it now, its unfortunate it had to come this way all this staff involvement we could have done it real quick. Hepper: I have a question for you Wayne, over there in Meridian Greens and those subdivisions going in there was a comment made here a while back on tiling the ditch and stuff, and one of them said well Planning and Zoning and City Council didn't mention so we didn't have to do it, and basically we got away with it. If it is an Ordinance they have to do but we don't pin them down, and say what are you going to do are you specifically going to do this we don't necessarily corner them but it is still an Ordinance they are still required to do it aren't they? Forrey: They are, and the Ordinance doesn't require landscaping of a subdivision, so when you ask the question are going to provide landscaping that is something the developer volunteered, and it became a matter of record and it became a condition. Tiling a ditch you don't have to ask that question that is an Ordinance provision. The Findings of Fact simply state that you must comply with all applicable Ordinances and tiling is one of them, so you don't have to ask that to get it. Landscaping in this case you Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 20 would. Shearer: This particular case that Tim is talking about I don't think that was an Ordinance at the time that. Hepper: That is what I was wondering if there was a time frame in there to where the subdivision was put in before it became an Ordinance. Shearer: I think that is right, in that particular case. Alidjani: Something has been on my mind for quite some time, there is a subdivision on Candlelight north of Cherry Lane on Ten Mile. Candlelight has curbs and gutters the one before does not, any explanation? Forrey: I'm not familiar with that. Alidjani: If you can picture that the bottom one has berms, grass comes against the blacktop, and then the next one, no curbs and gutters, no sidewalks, and Candlelight does have curbs and gutters. Forrey: Do you know Larry? Sale: I think that has to do with the streets around the Ten Mile area, it has to do with the impact fee and trust fund. The subdivision was approved by the Highway District after April 15th of 1992 our Ordinance prohibits us from requiring the curb/gutter an pavement widening on arterial and collectors unless we pay for it, which we are prepared to do in some cases, in other cases we feel that it may be an isolated piece which we wouldn't want to do or when they feel it is premature or for some reason or another we elect not to pave the development and I suspect that's the case there. I'm sure that's the answer. Johnson: It just sticks out like a sore thumb though. Rountree: The sidewalks don't even line up. Alidjani: Is there a possibility it would be done? Sale: It would be done by the Highway District, using impact fee revenue or in connection with some improvement project on Ten Mile Road, I'm sorry where is it from there. Alidjani: Approximately a 1/4 of a mile north of Cherry Lane and Ten Mile on the east side of the road. Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 21 Sale: About the same time you were starting, starting to talk at least, about your Comprehensive Planning process we were going through an evolution process of changing the standards for some of these section line roads. If I can bore you with a little bit of history, we went through a period back in the 70's when Ada county was under the control of a couple of individuals who foresaw no need to plan for growth, as a result the traffic model in APA was changed to reflect of that to. The transportation plan for coming out requiring 50 feet 60 feet of right of way for collectors of arterial because there wasn't going to be any people in here so we didn't have handle large volumes of traffic, obviously that was incorrect and in the past couple of year the Highway District and APA has realized that and has made a fairly dramatic change in attitude, toward required rights of way, fortunately the City of Meridian has topped us all and required 80 feet of right of way and we thank you for that, in this particular case I think we were in that process of looking at widths of roads, that would explain why the sidewalks don't line up. A previous project was done under previous scenario in which we only building 41 feet curb to curb roads of a 60 or 66 foot right of way along Ten Mile Road, and now we're looking at 65 or 70 feet curb to curb, if its 70 feet of it is on a bike plan 65 if it was not and a right of way with 90 feet. I apologize for what it looks like right now you are going to have to live with it for awhile, until we go in and fix it. Alidjani: Thank you Johnson: Okay, anyone else have anything before we adjourn. Rountree: I have a couple of things, while we have Larry why don't we talk about our P & Z packets and the comments from ACHD, see what they need. Johnson: One of the things, Larry, that we talked about earlier among ourselves, was the need for the necessary lead time to properly prepare for the meeting and on our last Planning and Zoning meeting there were 3 applications at least where we hadn't received andy ACHD comments, this is not meant to be critical, we just need to . Our ideal scenario would be to have everything in place on a Friday prior to the Tuesday meeting, I know you are busy. Sale: I appreciate that Mr. Chairman, we turn on a normal application one in which we don't defer for further information or have a problem with we turn in the longest period of time if we receive it on a Tuesday it will not be a staff report will not be prepared until the second friday after that, every application that we are routed by the other agencies by Friday or in some cases up until noon on Monday will be reviewed in that week by staff, and Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 22 our staff reporters prepared and finalized that Friday morning, the Friday morning of that week, it goes to our commissioners the following Wednesday, but those are accumulated for a week the previous week, anything we get in one week we review it, and the following week it goes to the Commissioner the following Wednesday. Usually you will not receive an action from us until the Thursday the day after, we don't send it out until Wednesday afternoon or Thursday of the week of which the Commissioners have approved our staff report. So the longest period of time you should have will be if we receive an application from you on Monday we won't send out the action letter until the 3rd Wednesday, the 3rd Thursday we'll send out the action letter, if that same application were received on a Friday it would get out to you one week earlier. Berg: So I need to be anywhere for 11 to Sale: Plus mail time, now that you have a professional planning staff, we would encourage the City to send your staff to the technical review committee on Friday morning which meets every Friday morning at 9:30. That you will have at least the staff report unacted on by the commission you will have it that day. Johnson: Do you have an agenda of that prepared in advance? Sale: Yes Johnson: So it could be faxed? Sale: We could fax it to you on at late as Thursday noon usually about by Wednesday we have a typed agenda. Johnson: Would that be helpful to have that, have that agenda faxed over so we know what items on there are pertinent to Meridian. Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Larry do you think it would be acceptable to include in the Commissions packets staff recommendations without Commission action? Johnson: Larry would have a better feel for that, Larry how often are they changed or altered? Sale: Not very often, but by the time you met that action would have occurred so then. Johnson: You mean we could verify with a phone call? Sale: Yes, in your staff report these come out, they are stamped graphed. Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 23 Johnson: So what you are saying we could cut it down to a week if we went to that, I think it would, well I don't know, I'm not going to make that statement, I was going to say it would be better to have something rather than nothing. Sale: I guess we handle about 1200 to 1500 applications a year in that fashion and 10 to 15 of them are changed by the Commission, so 1%. Johnson: Is that right? Okay, thanks a lot I think we can certainly work with that and that would help us a lot. I think, again not to be critical, yours is the missing one when we are missing one from agencies, and that's obvious because of proximity as well as everything. Except for Gary Smith because he is overworked too. Sale: Well, there is a brand new office back there he should be able to keep up now. Johnson: There aren't anymore bodies around to help him. Sale: I understand that Mr. Chairman. Johnson: He is a little more isolated I don't get to see him as much anymore. Sale: I couldn't encourage you more to have Wayne come to these meetings because his input obviously will help us make our decision. The other side of that then he will understand hopefully the rational that goes into a certain condition that goes into a certain condition, we say we know what is says because we wrote it but sometimes the ink is not dry on these reports until we're looking at 30 new applications and if you ask me what we're doing on a certain application I have to go look in the book I don't know whether it was last week this week or 2 weeks ago. Johnson: Well I certainly think Wayne will go to the City with that request and hopefully we can have a representative at those meetings. Speed up the process somewhat give us a better feel for it. Thanks for bringing that up Charlie, anything else? Rountree: One more thing and Gary will volunteer my absenteeism on the fencing committee, the new schedule in the format of the committee meetings makes it real difficult for me to attend, I'd like to turn in my resignation for that Committee, if you would accept it and maybe consider somebody else. I do want to thank Will for the 3 course dinner tonight. I think the committee is working real well we pretty much have the format of what variances are going to be considered, the engineering and the safety I would Planning and Zoning November 9, 1993 Page 24 put in a plug that we all do struggle with aesthetics and maybe Mr. Shearer could add some Johnson: I've got a policy I don't accept any resignations unless they are in writing. Anything else. Entertain a motion for adjournment. Rountree: So moved Shearer: Second Johnson: All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea Adjourned at 8:44 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) JIM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK