The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOctober 19, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 29 of 84 Zaremba: Excuse me, I think I better go home now. Rohm: Okay. All right. Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-009. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number RZ 06-009 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 19th, 2006, with the following changes to the staff report: That the zoning be designated as R-4, rather than R-B. I don't know, Sonya, what bullet point you want me to make that, though. Or if I need to. Rohm: I think that's sufficient. Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Rohm: Everybody knows. Watters: Yeah. I think that's sufficient, Commissioner. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 06-009, to include all comments in the staff report, with one modification to an R-4 zoning. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you all for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 06-043 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.51 acres from R-R to R-8 zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership - NEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Spurwing Way: Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 06-045 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential building lots consisting of 46 attached single-family units and 27 detached single-family units and 6 common/other lots on 20.51 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 30 of 84 acres in a proposed R-B zone for Spurwin9 Patio Homes Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership - NEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Spurwing Way: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-043 and PP 06- 045, both items related to the Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you are for an annexation and rezone, preliminary plat, and variance request for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision. The property is 20.65 acres in size and is currently zoned rural residential, R-R, in Ada county. The applicant has requested this property be rezoned to the R-8, medium density residential zoning district. The subject property is generally located northeast of the North Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard intersection and is an existing lot in Spurwing Subdivision. If you look on the overhead here, this is the vicinity map of the area. The red arrow points to the subject property here. Look at the next. This is the aerial view of the property. It's surrounded with golf course and the existing Spurwing Subdivision here to the north. Residential one acre lots. The property further east of the proposed subdivision down in this area is the proposed Knight Sky Subdivision, zoned R-4, R-15, and C-C. Further west of the subject site are one acre residential lots and Westwing Estates Subdivision and agricultural land, zoned R-R. South of the golf course is Chinden Boulevard, which is bordered on the south by the proposed Irvine Subdivision, zoned R-8, and rural residential properties zoned RUT. The plat consists of 73 single family residential building lots, consisting of 46 attached units and 27 detached units, and six common lots on 20.51 acres. All lots meet the minimum dimensional standards of the R-8 zone. The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 3.56 dwelling units per acre, which generally complies with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of medium density residential. The average lot size in the proposed development is 9,067 square feet, with the lots bordering the existing one acre residential lots to the north being 4,595 to 6,042 square feet or approximately 1/10th of an acre, with minimal overall house sizes of 1 ,400 square feet. The applicant is proposing 18 percent open space, with landscaped common areas, pond, and connecting stream channels. A variance is being requested to exceed the maximum block space length allowed in a residential district. However, the Commission is not required to make a recommendation to Council on this application. Here is a copy of the plat here and, then, the landscape plan showing the common areas. Access to the site is currently provided by North Spurwing Way via West Ballotta Court, both local public streets within Spurwing Subdivision. An emergency access is proposed from Chinden Boulevard at the southwest corner of the site for emergency vehicles only. Direct lot access to Chinden Boulevard shall be prohibited, except for the emergency access point approved with this subdivision. Note that ITD has not yet approved the emergency access to Chinden and the police department is requesting the applicant provide an additional access to the site. The issues highlighted in the staff report for the Commission are as follows: First, this site is currently platted as Lot 3, Block 1 of Spurwing Subdivision, but also includes a portion of Lots 2 and 4 of the same subdivision. A property boundary adjustment Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 31 of 84 application that matches the configuration of the property as shown on the proposed plat is currently in process at Ada county and will be required to be completed prior to annexation ordinance approval by City Council. Second, this property is currently not serviceable for sewer. It is master planned to flow to the North Black Cat lift station through planned mains in the annexed, but undeveloped property to the west. If the applicant wishes to commence development prior to the master planned mains being available, they may proceed providing they meet the conditions stated in Exhibit B of the staff report. Water service will be provided by United Water. Third, a goal of the Comp Plan is to require new urban density subdivisions, which abut or are proximal to existing low density residential land uses to provide landscape screening or transitional densities with larger, more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural densities -- rural residential densities. The applicant has complied with the landscape screening portion by proposing a common area with ponds and meandering streams and a stone wall fence as a buffer to the existing residences. However, the UDC requires qualified open space to be accessible to all residents of the development, which the design of this site does not allow. Although 18 percent open space is proposed, the usable amount of open space does not meet the minimum five percent requirement. The police department is not supportive of the design of the open space area on the north boundary, as it does not offer natural surveillance opportunities for the public areas and creates a potential safety hazard. Further, the proposed approximate 10th acre lots along the north boundary do not provide enough of a transition from the existing one acre lots. Larger, more comparable lot sizes and lower densities should be provided to buffer the interface between urban and rural residential densities in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Fourth and further on the subject of transitional lot sizes, the Comp Plan specifically states that residential uses north of Chinden and within a quarter mile or less from the rim should have lot sizes ranging from a half to one acre, insuring compatibility with Spurwing Country Club to the east. Use of transitional lot sizes and clustering of smaller lots adjacent to the nonresidential and rim property is encouraged. Fifth. The police department is requesting that an additional access be provided to the site for increased emergency access. Staff believes that this will be a difficult condition to meet considering the site is surrounded by golf course and there are no stub streets provided to the property from the existing Spurwing Subdivision to the north. Last, the landscape plan does not state what height the proposed stone wall fence will be along the north boundary. The applicant should address this in their response. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the subject applications for the reasons previously stated and those stated in the staff report. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. McKay: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'm representing the applicant on this application. The applicant is Spurwing Limited Partnership. It's the same applicant that was the original developer of the Spurwing development that's been out there for a few years. To kind of give the Commission just a little bit of a background of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 32 of 84 how this came to be, this particular area out here was beyond an area of city impact, it was zoned rural residential. The only development options available under Ada county jurisdiction was ten acre minimums or they could do a nonfarm development. That allowed them to cluster one acre lots. The minimum was one acre. They could have one home per five acres if they allocated 75 percent of the property as set aside for open space or agricultural uses and, then, that was deed restricted for a period of up to like 15 years. And that's how that golf course came about. Mr. Hewett had this master planned and he came to me and the site plan was already worked out and it -- it was integrated into this as part of a component of the golf course. Obviously, when an area of city of impact was extended outward, urban service planning areas were extended to the property, then, at that time development at a more urban density along the fairways would be viable and that's where we are now. Obviously, with the extension of the north Meridian plan jumping north across Chinden it's within that urban service planning area, it's within your area of impact as designated. I don't think Ada county has adopted that area impact as of yet, but, nonetheless, this area is planned up to the Phyllis Canal to be part of the City of Meridian. So, it was the desire of the applicant to submit a request for annexation and preliminary plat for this particular development. We did two neighborhood meetings on this particular project. My first neighborhood meeting I anticipated quite a fury when, you know, one thinks, well, they are one acre lots and we are proposing more urban density with some attached patio homes adjoining them. I was absolutely surprised that the overwhelming majority of the residents were very pleased and excited to see some mixed use. They said, yes, that's exactly what we need out here. There are a lot of people who want the smaller lots, but yet want the golf course atmosphere and the open space. One resident even said I may sell my house and purchase one of those patio homes. Mr. Hewett -- it is his intent -- he will be building these, so they will not be a hodge podge. As far as the anticipated value of the patio homes and the detached structures, they think that the low end will be 350 and they will go all the way up to about 800,000. So, what you're looking at is approximately 20 and a half acres. It is a platted lot, was platted when they did the original Spurwing. We are proposing 73 single family dwellings, of which 46 are attached. The 46 attached units are located along this corridor here. One of the things that I thought was quite nice is Mr. Hewett wanted a nice buffer here and your Comprehensive Plan, if you read the section that Sonya quoted, requires new urban densities abutting low density residential provide landscape screening or transitional densities, with larger, more comparable lot sizes. That or is stuck in there. So, it obviously, allows for an alternative of landscaping as an appropriate buffer. This particular area, this cul-de-sac is open here and I kind of -- this will give you a little better idea. The cul-de-sac is open at the end. Mr. Hewett wants to incorporate some water amenities. The wall proposed would be a masonry wall approximately six feet high. It would be located all along the north boundary. The input I received from the residence, they were happy. A lot of them said great. Very similar to what you see on the perimeter of Lochsa Falls off of Under Road. Very decorative. It looks like a -- like a masonry wall, but, really, it's a stamped concrete. They go in, they hand paint it to give it a more authentic masonry look. This area here is approximately 30 feet wide. The area widens out in through here. This is about 50, 55 feet. In evaluating the locations of the homes along the West Bollatta Court, most of the homes are around 80 feet setback from their rear property line. Some are up to 120. The two Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 33 of 84 closest dwellings to us -- there is one located here and here. They are about 50 feet from the property line, maybe one is a smidge less. So, obviously, you can see that that buffered area expands. I know Sonya indicated that there is a question concerning the safety of this common area. Well, the block -- the masonry wall will be along the north. The patio homes are open to that area. There won't be any site obscuring fences along the north boundary of the patio homes. The whole idea of this concept was to provide water amenities, open spaces, to give the patio homes a good feel and yet create a buffering here for the existing one acre estate lots. We -- one of the thoughts that Mr. Hewett brought to my attention is most of the people that will be occupying these will be -- mostly this will be a second home, coming in from other areas, wanting to live out in this north Meridian area along the golf course, spending their summer here and, then, exiting to warmer weather. The other thing that they did consider when they came up with this original concept was the fact that along this fairway they wanted to minimize the number of homes to basically minimize the conflict of the golf balls. If the patio homes were aligned all along the south boundary, then, you would have, obviously, more conflict potential for more property damage. So, that was another reason for putting the attached units on the interior here. As far as our Comprehensive Plan designation, it's designated medium density residential. Obviously, the three to eight dwelling units per acre. Our proposed density is 3.56 dwelling units per acre. So, we are on that lower end. The other thing is your ordinance requires only, you know, the five percent open space, excluding mandatory buffers. We are proposing 18 percent. That's 3.69 acres out of 20 and a half. We think that this project is a good idea. When you look at other golf course communities throughout the northwest or other states, you find a very good mix and diversity of the home types and lot types, basically satisfying different lifestyles and different, you know, people's desires. Some people want a 5,000 square foot house, others do not. They want maybe 2,000 square feet, 2,500, and they want all the amenities that a 5,000 would offer. So, you know, that's what we are here this evening to propose. As far as the zoning out here, Irvine, right across Chinden, is proposed as -- was approved as R-8. As Sonya indicated, Knight Sky to the east of this particular project proposed R-4, R-15, and commercial. So, I don't think that we are going way out asking for the R-8. We went with the R-8 so we could meet the dimensional standards, provide this type of diversity. We think this project has a lot of benefit to the city. If the city didn't intend to, you know, start annexing north of Chinden, obviously, they wouldn't have wanted to extend that urban service planning area and that area of city impact. Services. I think the staff indicates in your staff report that it's the Slack Cat Trunk. Well, so is Irvine and so is Silverleaf and the elementary school that was proposed. So is Bainbridge. Voltera. The Black Cat Trunk is designed, a large portion of it. They are working on that second lift station design. The development community is working with the city, Public Works Department, to facilitate getting that -- that Black Cat built and that second lift station, if at all possible, as soon as we can. Mr. Hewett is very aware that until sewer is available that, obviously, the project will be sitting on hold. I have reviewed the conditions of approval. I think that we can work with them. I think we are in agreement with those. I feel that this project has definite merit. It's not very often that I get such a warm reception from estate type lots. It was refreshing. And I was very surprised when the staff recommended denial, I'll put it that way. One other thing. Last week -- I'll conclude. The fire department, if we have in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 34 of 84 excess of 50 lots, does require a second means of access, whether that be a secondary full vehicular access or an emergency vehicle access. Obviously, our access in this area has already been set with the Spurwing development. We have got the Spurwing Way here, which is a collector roadway coming up to the clubhouse. This West Ballotta Court comes down here, it serves approximately 17 single family dwellings. So, this is a 36 back to back with curb, gutter and sidewalk. There is a short section of sidewalk that is missing. Obviously, capacity exists on Ballotta, connecting with a public street, bringing it here, creating a loop around and, then, we have an emergency vehicle access only out to Chinden that is in alignment or -- well, it's on the east side of Ten Mile from this east of the center line. Now, staff indicated that Idaho Department of Transportation e-mailed them stating we do not have a permit for that emergency vehicle access. The reason is it's premature at this time. They require, prior to giving us a right of way permit. an actual design. They need construction drawings, they don't just give us a permit. In the past in all my dealings with ITD, they have always been cooperative when it was an emergency vehicle access. We also have a condition with Ada County Highway District that we have to have fire department approval and their approval on that gate, because they don't want that to be utilized as a de facto access. It is for emergency vehicle access only in the event that this has some type of blockage. That concludes my presentation. Do you have any questions? Rohm: Thank you, Becky. Any questions? Jenna Ingle. Ingle: Good evening. My name is Jenna Ingle and I live at 2819 West Ballotta Court, which is the property that backs up to this proposed project, and I was surprised to hear the young woman who just spoke say that she had a real positive reception from the residents at Spurwing. The majority of the residents on Ballotta Court are not in favor of this project being approved as is. As she stated, we are -- most of us in Spurwing are on one acre lots and I think the transition to high density dwellings from our one acre parcels is inappropriate and one of the other things is that we have a horrendous problem at Chinden and Linder with traffic and so to propose 73 units in there is going to add to the problem, which is only going to get worse, and we know that Chinden, at least, is not scheduled to be widened or -- yeah, isn't going to be widened for maybe ten years and so one of the things that comes up for me is that my son is a fireman and he's the driver and he cannot get his vehicle through our community to get to his response time, which is four minutes. It's now six and a half. If emergency services, EMT, fire, and police, can't get to us -- any of us, you included, essentially, we are dead in the water. We are just left there. And there was an incident on the corner of Linder and Chinden where a nurse had to give CPR to someone who was involved in an accident there, because the emergency services couldn't get to them. So, those are some of the concerns and I think it would be much more appropriate if the Commissioners would look at the situation and we are not saying that we don't want the project, but I think the number of dwellings that Mr. Hewett is proposing is way beyond what it should be. So, I don't know what the designations R-8 and R-4 and R-2 are, but I think -- I think some of the inner circle of dwellings that are proposed for there should be cut back to another number, lesser number. And I do appreciate the work that staff did. You made things Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 35 of 84 very clear to us as to what you're in favor of and I would ask the Commissioners to acknowledge and agree with what the staff has proposed. Thank you very much. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask her a question. Rohm: Would you -- ma'am, would -- he's got a question for you. Ingle: I'm sorry. Zaremba: And this is just -- it's kind of for my own information and I hesitate to ask a question about CC&Rs, because the city is not involved in enforcing CC&Rs, that's internal to your subdivision to enforce them, but it's my understanding that the people that currently live in Spurwing have paid a pretty good premium for their lots and that involves some relationship with the golf course as well. Are you aware of anything in your CC&Rs that would prevent a denser project like this within your subdivision? This is still part of that same subdivision, I believe; right? Ingle: I really can't answer that question. I don't know. Zaremba: Okay. Ingle: But someone that I spoke to recently said that there is a concern about the transition from what is a rural community in a great sense to this -- what looks like a set aside development and one of the reasons that most of us moved there to begin with was to have some space around us and I mean the development, of course, is coming in and everything that's coming in around us is high density. So, that's the concern of the Ballotta Court residents and some of the other folks that live in Spurwing, too. Most of the people that live out on the rim won't be as affected by that. But being that there is no access onto Chinden, there are times even now when we are, essentially, prisoners in there, we can't get out of Spurwing onto Chinden. And so with no other access and they don't have that fire access, I mean we are just kind of stuck there in our spot. But I don't -- I don't know how to answer your question about the CC&Rs. I'm not well versed about that. Zaremba: Okay. It really was just a curiosity, since we can't do anything about them anyway, but -- Ingle: Okay. Zaremba: Just wondered. Thank you. Ingle: Are there any other questions? Rohm: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 36 of 84 Ingle: Thank you. Rohm: Chris Ingle. C.lngle: My name is Chris Ingle. I live at 2819 West Ballotta Court. I was at the first meeting that we had, the neighborhood meeting, and at that time this plan was shown to us there was not a lot of negative input, because it was said that this was a computer layout and it mayor may not stand. So, there wasn't any reason to argue about it. My major concern -- I think that the lots along the golf course are fine. The ones that back up against Ballotta Court are -- are too much of a difference between the sizes of Ballotta Court and these houses or these parcels of land. The green belt is a fine idea. The problem is that most of the houses on that side of Ballotta Court are two story, so a six foot fence is not going to do much, other than deter people crossing back and forth and I don't know how to deal with that. But my -- my concern would be -- or my proposal would be that without stating it because there are larger lots there, that the lots along the back of Sallotta Court be enlarged, that the impact between the two is going to be substantial. And it is a private golf course, so it feels like it should have some space. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Kevin Gould. Julie Gould. Anybody else that would like to testify? Come forward, please. Excuse me. Goulds were against, but they have gone home. Marts: My name is Rick Morts and I live at 3028 West Sallotta. It's on the north side of Ballotta Court. First off, I want to say that I have been very pleased with the Spurwing development that Mr. Hewett has -- you know, what we have seen so far to date. So, I put some trust into -- a little bit into his vision here, because I have been happy with what we have seen to date. He is a resident in the community and, however, he is on the north rim and not quite as affected by these lots. I do -- am concerned to the fact that this is, really, the first plan I have seen. I am not aware that I have been invited to any of the neighborhood meetings. Maybe I was and I missed it, but in hindsight at least I was aware of one of them in post -- I found out afterwards and in hindsight I found out it was only the people on the south side of Ballotta that were invited. Maybe that was the case, maybe not, but we did not see an invite, so this, really, is our first opportunity to take a look at this plan. I think there was an earlier question about the CC&Rs. I don't know if it's just in this actually hard written CC&Rs or part of the architectural committee, but there was a minimum house lot size of 2,800 square feet for the subdivision. I don't know if that's still the case or not for these, but I assume these will be much smaller than 2,800 square feet patio homes. I think my biggest concern is still probably just overall -- I like the plan, I like the idea of patio homes. When we moved in and we built there, we knew that there was going to be patio homes and just did not have a plan of-- you know, the density of them and I think this is, you know, my only thing I want to voice is probably -- I agree with the previous speaker, the size of the lots on the -- against the -- that backs up against the golf course there seems more appropriate to me as far as fitting in with the subdivision also. That's -- and I -- I'm not familiar with where all the waterways and/or -- are supposed to be placed. I don't know if it was on the diagram Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 37 of 84 there, the plan for waterways and so forth, but -- and maybe I can ask has that been planned in there where the waterways are? Rohm: Sir, you need to speak into the microphone. Morts: Oh. Where the waterways are planned in that subdivision, if it can be pointed out to me. Any questions? I think my biggest -- just a little voicing of the same concerns previously about the density. I think the nature of the patio homes is fine, the idea of putting in that street there, but I think the density concerns me a Iitlle. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Go ahead. Borup: Yeah. A question I had. You said you were made aware that there would be patio homes being developed there. How was that conveyed to you? Was that on your deed or was it mentioned by the real estate agent or -- I mean how were you told about that? How were you made aware of that? Marts: I think the community has been aware that that was a future plan. Just been more through the community. I don't think there was anything in writing. Borup: So, that sounds like that was the developer's intention from the beginning you mean? Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would that like to testify? Pretty much everyone in the audience. Becky, would you like to come back up, please. McKay: Mr. Chairman, as far as the neighborhood meeting, we did notify everyone within 300 feet as required by the city and we held two meetings and they were both held at the clubhouse to make it as convenient as possible. So, we did provide two opportunities. Maybe the gentleman is just beyond the 300 feet or -- I'm not sure what the problem is or the assessor's office. We get their date from them. So, if there is a delay in a deed transfer, then, that does cause us a problem. As far as the -- the association, the patio home section would be -- have its own association. There was a mention of a concern that these homes -- the patio homes would be two story. Obviously, would hoover over the top of the six foot masonry fence. These will be all single story. Mr. Hewett's intent is these will be empty nest type dwellings. Usually senior citizens and so forth don't want to be going upstairs. So, his intent has always been single story units. Traffic. Obviously, Spurwing's central collector is not at the half mile. When I did Lochsa Falls it -- Idaho Department of Transportation was insistent that we design our collector at the half mile. If you notice when you drive down Chinden, that signal was -- is installed. I don't believe it's operational and it was installed at the developer's expense of Lochsa Falls. So, in talking with some of the traffic engineers, you know, indicate that when the signal is operational it will create stacking and some gaps for cars to enter. Right now you have got, you know, a lot of traffic going down Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 38 of 84 Chinden at higher speeds and with intermittent signals at the mile. So, you know, they are trying to add some of these half mile signals, which will create what we call platooning of the traffic, therefore, creating gaps. Mrs. Ingle mentioned the fact that there were some people that were not happy at the neighborhood meeting. There were a few people that were not, but the over -- my statement that the overwhelming majority appeared to be pleased and already had prior knowledge that this project at some point in time would be -- would be coming down the pike is absolutely correct and true. When I went to that neighborhood meeting I expected to be probably tarred and feathered, but I -- you know, it went far better than I had ever anticipated. As far as fire -- or back on the traffic, Idaho Department of Transportation has told me that they are designing Chinden five lanes all the way to Caldwell. Now, when it's built your guess is as good as mine, but that's what's in the works. There is even -- I have even seen some documentation talking about that it could even be seven lanes. So, who knows. Hopefully the sooner they build it the better for the entire community. As far as fire protection, your closest operational fire station is over on Ten Mile, just, what is it, south of Ustick. There is also another proposed fire station on Linder at approximately the half mile at Lochsa Falls that as soon as funding is allocated for that that station will be built. So, it is, you know, obviously, within that umbrella. I know you like to have your fire stations within a couple of miles of a particular property in order to give it proper protection. We do meet that. I guess I ask you this evening to, you know, kind of open your mind beyond typically what we are looking at as far as projects are concerned. This is a unique situation. Golf courses are a different animal. I think this is an excellent project. I think it will be a benefit and I ask that you recommend approval to the Council. Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Mae. Moe: Becky, earlier you made comment that you had gone through the staff comments -- McKay: Yes, sir. Moe: -- and that you -- you could work through those. I noted in the staff comment that they would like to see some of that R-8 go into an R-4 and I guess what I -- I would be curious as to how would you work with that and where would you do that? McKay: I don't believe that -- that was not a condition of approval, was it? Moe: No, it was just -- McKay: That was part in the text. Moe: It's just in their text. Yes. It shows you I read it all. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 39 of 84 McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, when you referenced that I had reviewed staffs comments and that I thought we could comply with them, those are the conditions of approval. I did read the section back in the text where the staff said that even though we were providing landscaping and masonry wall as buffering, that they felt an R-4 combination would be more appropriate. I guess my response to that is if you look at your new North Meridian Comprehensive Plan, that whole band along Chinden is designated primarily medium density residential, you got some -- also some commercial designations and I think some mixed use. So, it is the anticipation that there will be five to seven lanes there. So, obviously, when the powers to be were looking and analyzing that, they thought that a higher density would be more appropriate. As you move north, then, it goes to low density residential. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: What's the question? You'll have to come back up to the microphone, but typically we don't do it this way, but -- you have to restate your name. C.lngle: My name is Chris Ingle, 2819 West Ballotta Court. The clarification was we -- everything we heard was that all the patio homes would be single story. So, my concern is not that they are going to look down in our yards, I looking at we are going to look down in theirs. All the houses on Ballotta Court, primarily, are two story, so it's not that they are going to be this tall, we already are. So, pretty much anything he does over there will affect our view shed and the more homes there are the more it's going to do that. So, the properties are bigger and less houses. It will fit in better. Okay? Rohm: Thank you. And, Becky, you're welcome to come back up and respond if you would like to his point of clarification if you would like. McKay: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Mr. Hewett just wanted me to go on the record that there are a lot of trees that were planted a few years ago that are maturing back along those rear lots also and I just want to reiterate the fact that those homes do sit quite a ways away from us, with the exception of you can see them, just two right there where the landscaped area becomes the largest. So, there is some natural buffering on their side also. Thank you. Rohm: Becky, we are not done yet. McKaiy: Okay. Rohm: The staff report indicated that the lots adjacent to the one acre parcels doesn't appear to have the transition that they would like to -- like to see and I believe testimony from others have indicated that they feel similarly. I'd like to hear what -- a comment from you in response to that. I didn't hear anything -- what alternatives or potential or if you -- or in support of the existing configuration. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 40 of 84 McKay: Mr. Chairman, I think as I mentioned earlier, the landscape buffering and the masonry wall are something that we typically don't see along the perimeter. Usually we are backing lots up directly to the more urban one acre rural lot and that's where, you know, the transitional lot sizes become I think more important from a planning perspective. When we try to create our own natural buffering and, then, obviously, install like a six foot masonry type wall, we are creating almost a double buffer here. I guess I, you know, would leave it to the Commission to make the determination, but, you know, we fight this time and time again and, you know, residential is compatible with residential. These are going to be luxury patio homes. They are attached in pods of two and Mr. Hewett's indicated that they will be single level. In the design of the golf course this is -- this is how the experts who design golf courses -- you know, this is what they recommended, the larger lots along the perimeter and the smaller lots on the interior. I guess I'd defer to the Commission, you know, I guess you have to -- Rohm: Just from my perspective, Becky, it doesn't appear as if that transition width gives the -- enough transition, I guess. It just -- it looks like you got a huge lot to the north, a narrow strip of transition and, then, some very narrow lots. It looks like there is like three lots on the south to the one lot to the north along a couple of those lots with the very narrow strip of transition and it does, to me, appear to be a bit overdeveloped I guess. But that's just as I view it. Thank you. McKay: Sure. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Mrs. McKay, I would ask you a question that probably needs the drawing that you showed before. And while she's getting that, I would like to ask staff a question. The staff report asked for a clarification of the fencing that was going to go along the north side of this property, the south side of the exist properties. My recollection that in it's in the ordinance because it's a police request all the time, that the only options are a six foot nonsight obscuring fence or a four foot sight obscuring fence. Am I right that they can't put a six foot solid wall there on an open space? Watters: Perimeter boundaries are allowed to have a six foot fence. Zaremba: Even if it's an open space? Watters: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Well, that is strike three, then. Rohm: Well, you got one good one in. Zaremba: Okay. That subtracts it, then. What I was looking for is a clarification of is the blue indicating water? McKay: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 41 of 84 Zaremba: Okay. So, within the space between the patio homes and the existing homes, that's a pretty good size pond? McKay: Yes. Yes. And a stream. Zaremba: And a stream. McKay: And, then, also vegetation and trees and so if you would envision the masonry wall would be on the north side, there would be restrictions -- you wouldn't want any fencing on -- Zaremba: Right. McKay: -- the south side of that open space. Zaremba: Now, are people able to walk along what's depicted as green there, is there-- you have some accesses to it I see, but are people -- McKay: That's for the waterways to come through. Zaremba: Uh-huh. McKay: This is more what we call a passive open space, you know, they are kind of on their own green, basically. That's kind of what-- Zaremba: So, that's not really intended to attract people into that area, it's just -- McKay: No, sir. Zaremba: -- it's just a visual amenity. McKay: It's a visual amenity to provide, you know, open space within in -- within this pod here and I have seen this on -- you know, on golf courses in Hawaii, they do, you know, large mixed use residential developments around the golf courses and I've seen more diversity in the dwellings than we ever see in the northwest and they are very creative and it all seems to fit and mesh well. Creates quite a beautiful community. Zaremba: What I was thinking of is the police comment that it -- that area doesn't provide for much surveillance, but I was assuming -- and perhaps the police are -- that it was going to be an active use open area. The police still want you to come and talk to them, but they may -- McKay: I would be glad to. Zaremba: That point may make a difference to them, that if it's not intended to be actively used -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 42 of 84 McKay: And, Commissioner Zaremba, I think sometimes they anticipate that the rear yards will all be fenced and so you would isolate that area and create a corridor. But where these are all open to it. you're not creating a corridor. It's almost an extension of the lot. Zaremba: Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Watters: Chairman Rohm? Excuse mo. Staff's issue with the open space at the rear of the lots was that to be -- part of the required open space of five percent, the open space has to be accessible by all residents of the subdivision. This is not. pretty much as Becky stated, the little -- what appear to be pathways are not, they are where the meandering streams come down. Also, I believe police will probably still have an issue with this due to people getting back there, you know, invited or not. It's a good area to hang out and, you know, not be seen. Thank you. Rohm: Yeah, I think that the -- your definition of amenity or the five percent and the applicant's seem to be in conflict and, Becky, I hate to have you keep coming back up here, but, you know, the point of the fact is is if you have got 18 percent of your development that is noted as an amenity on your perspective, but it's unusable from the city's perspective, we have got a -- we have got a major issue here and I'm not sure exactly where to take that and -- Watters: Chairman Rohm, if I could expand on that. Excuse me. According to my calculations, the actual usable open space is actually below the five percent, if you don't include the open space in the middle of the Block 2 or the open space on the north boundary, it, actually, is a little bit below the required amount. Thank you. Borup: So, then, you included the areas on the access road and, then, the areas on the entrance road? Watters: Yes. Borup: But if the other is not usable area, then, then, the police department shouldn't worry about anybody getting back there. Watters: Commissioner Borup, it's still a concern whether it's usable or not. They are worried about trying to -- McKay: Commissioner Rohm, I guess, you know, it boils down to how -- how we define open space. In most of the projects that we design we do have areas of open space that are more beneficial to one segment of the project than the other as linear open space, pocket parks, playgrounds, and so forth. It may be over in the west side of the project, but does it benefit the people on the east. I think one can look at it from that perspective Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 43 of 84 that, you know, we do have open space, maybe it benefits some lots more than it does others, but, nonetheless, is it still open. That whole end of that cul-de-sac is open to that waterway bringing that waterway through with a stream as it -- an illusion that it crosses under the roadway and goes on. Also, Mr. Hewett wanted me to stress to the Commission that the true open space out here is the golf course. It's surrounded by open space. This is not your average subdivision where we are going to have an overwhelming majority of small children who need play equipment and so forth. This is intended for more empty nest type people, snow birds and you got open space to the west, to the south, to the east, all the way around it and, then, we are creating open space along the north. So, I guess I -- what I'm asking the Commission is just to kind of think outside the box. Typically we are not here on a golf course. Not very often. And you even see, if you look at Cherry Lane golf course, a good mix of different residential type dwelling. A lot of attached patio homes, detached, large lots and that's kind of standard. This is outside the normal subdivision that comes before you. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, Becky. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to comment on the open space. I have some opinions regarding density on the north there, but there is a development in Boise that's larger estate type homes down there at Gary Lane that has that type of -- where the water comes -- basically, it's an extension of your backyard and, then, I believe -- Bound Crossing. Have any of you been out there and see if their open space is developed similarly as well. Some of it. It's wetlands, I believe. Is that kind of the -- that's what I'm envisioning when you're talking about this. Is that the same idea? Yeah. And I think it looks -- I think it looks very nice. I think it would create a transition to the homes to the north and it would certainly -- all of them that I have seen would discourage anyone from going there just to hang out, because you would feel like you were in someone's backyard. So, regarding the design of the open space, I like that piece of it and I just wanted to give some comparison of some things that I have seen around the valley that are developed similarly that I think look and serve their purpose very well and I very much would like to remember the name of the development down there. Rohm: How do you feel about the lot sizes? Newton-Huckabay: Well, on paper I just don't like the way it looks. You know, you have three to one almost. I would -- my thought would have been just flip them, put more of the bigger lots on the south -- or the density on the south and the big lots on the north, but I don't have the educational background to say that designing golf courses should be one way or another, I guess. But I personally -- on paper I think it looks too dense. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Meridian Plannin9 & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 44 of 84 Zaremba: In thinking about the sizes and Mrs. McKay mentioned Cherry Lane golf course, which has been improved by new managers and is now called Lake View Golf Course. It's surrounded by the Ashford Greens Subdivision on one part of it and I live in Ashford Greens. Part of the Ashford Greens Subdivision is called James Place and it is patio homes. They fit in very well. You know, I live like half a block away from them and I'm hardly aware that they are there. They are populated by -- well, they only market them to 55 and better, they call them, so it is mostly people approaching senior citizenship who do fit into the community. Their backside is on the other part of the golf course. In thinking about this project, I can see some similarities. If you think about the lots that are backed up to the existing large lots, if I'm understanding this correctly, you almost have to think of them in pairs. If these are going to be common wall patio homes, then, two dwelling units are going to appear to be one unit, one building, and if they are pushed to the lot line and there is open space between one building and the next building on the other side of the property line from the common wall, then, you almost have to think of these in pairs, not as individual lots, because they -- these won't be small lots with a house in the middle of them, they will be pushed -- two of them will be pushed together and appear to be one building from anybody else looking at them and I'll have to admit I came to the meeting siding with staff that I didn't think this was appropriate, but I have been -- I have had my mind opened to think otherwise. Rohm: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: So, in essence, there will be like 14 buildings, if I'm counting right. Borup: Half of whatever lots there are. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Don't make it simple. Rohm: Commissioner Borup, do you have some thoughts on this application? Borup: Well, I think a project like this is one of the reasons I appreciate that we look at each application on a case-by-case basis, rather than having a set of regulations that we need to follow on everything. I, too, have changed my mind. And I think the reason is -- well, actually, this is a first -- first project that I have looked at in a golf course setting and I think that puts some different dynamics on it than what we are used to looking at. I -- after looking at everything, I have got -- I'm in favor of the project as designed. Those are larger lots for patio homes. Most of the patio homes attached are usually 40 foot lots. These are another ten feet wider. You know, that allows for another six, seven hundred square feet in a building than what you can get in a -- what I think we are used to seeing as the attached patio lots and I think the buffer is a good buffer. Usually, when we are talking about transition as has been stated, it's where property lines are joining and it could be housing 15 feet from the other property line. They have got that natural distance, plus the buffer of the other existing also added to that. So, I -- I mean we are looking at something we haven't looked at before and I think for a golf course subdivision this works. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 45 of 84 Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: It works out to be 15 buildings. I have answered that question. Borup: Fifteen backing up against ten. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, I think so. Yeah. You have got 15 buildings versus-- Borup: Ten. Or eight. Or eight, I guess. Newton-Huckabay: Whereas it would be -- if you took out -- if you started taking out lots and making those detached, you're probably going to get somewhere more around 20 buildings. Borup: Yeah. Rohm: So, what you're saying -- Newton-Huckabay: Is anybody -- are you guys agreeing with me? Rohm: Yeah. Yeah. I think your math is probably close. So, you're in favor of the existing proposal based upon that -- Newton-Huckabay: Well. I guess when Commissioner Zaremba -- I hadn't really thought about it that way. I guess that's what I said on paper, but he's right, if you put 15 buildings versus if you make them bigger lots and you could end up with 20 homes, you're going to have -- appear to have less density because they are attached to each other. Or in pairs of twos, so two residences is one building. I mean, like you said, from the back it's going to appear to be only one building. You end up with more space between them. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Mae. Mae: The thunder has been stolen again. Mr. Chairman, when I first saw this, quite frankly, I was pretty excited about the project. I think it really -- it really mixes in well with what's already out there and what not and a little bit of diversity is great. Going through the staff report, though, you know, I did start having some concerns in regards to the size of the lots and whatnot, but, again, just like Commissioner Newton-Huckabay made the comment until Commissioner Zaremba brought up the fact about the -- as far as the buildings per se on the -- the two lots per S8, it makes a lot more sense now that he -- it's not going to look as crowded as it could in the fact you open it up and you have -- you might gain a little bit of area on lots, but, then, you're going to end up with more homes in there. So, I'm basically combining -- I think you're -- it's going to be -- it won't look as crowded as you might anticipate. So, quite frankly, I am in favor of the design. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 46 of 84 Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I guess my only concern is the open space and, you know, quite frankly, the individuals that will more than likely be purchasing here probably aren't going to need swing sets and playgrounds and basketball courts and things such as that that you would see in a typical subdivision. So, I guess I can overlook it, but initially I had great concerns over the open space, because even though it -- square footagewise it's there, it's really not usable open space, it's just -- it's just undeveloped space. So, that was my primary concern and I think I can live with the response from the applicant. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I know staff considered this very carefully. Their conclusion was that we should not recommend approval, therefore, they have not developed or provided conditions of approval. I would suggest that what we need to do is continue this and direct staff to provide conditions of approval, at which time they can again address with the police department the concerns about the open space. Rohm: I think that's in order. Would you like to put that in a motion? Newton-Huckabay: Do we have any -- I'm sorry, do we have any elevations for these patio homes? Hewett: My name is John Hewett. I live at 7212 West Spurwing Way. I'm the developer for Spurwing. We haven't at this time done any elevations of the patio homes per se. All I can tell you is they will be masonry, stucco, tile roofs, you know, attractive looking and they will fit in with the existing structures that are out there. The other thing I would like to point out, too, is all of the people that -- everybody that will be living in this project, they are all -- they will all be members of the club. I mean it's basically one family out there and we have people that are living in all types of homes from -- they will be living in small patio homes, people that are there during the summertime, gone during the winter, to people that live in great big huge houses on the rim. So, they are all part of a community out there and what this does is address the needs of a great many of our members that prefer a place that they can lock the door and head south in the wintertime. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Okay. Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I guess I would ask staff for their preference. Would you like time to develop conditions of approval or would you like to do some off the top of your head. Watters: Commissioner Zaremba, yes, I would like time to prepare conditions of approval. November 2nd will work for me if that's all right with everyone. ROhm: Works for me. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 47 of 84 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move to continue file numbers AZ 06-043 and PP 06-042 to the hearing date of November 2, our regularly scheduled hearing, to allow staff to compose conditions and findings for approval. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue this Public Hearing AZ 06-043 and PP 06-045 to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 2nd, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you all for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Moe: Are we going to have a break or -- Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Just like five minutes would be great. Rohm: We are going to take just a real short break, five minutes, and we will be right back. (Recess.) Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 06-029 Request for Conditional use Permit for the construction of a 5,200 square foot multi-tenant retail building with drive- thru for Grandview Marketplace Retail Building "B" by W.H. Moore Company - NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road (Lot 4, Block 1, Dorado Subdivision): Rohm: Okay. I think we are ready to reconvene. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-029 associated with Grandview Marketplace Retail Building Band begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a Conditional Use Permit for a 5,200 square foot retail building with a drive-thru window to be located within the Dorado Subdivision. The Dorado Subdivision is generally located at the northwest corner of Overland and -- at the Overland and Eagle Road intersection. The subdivision is currently zoned C-G, general retail and service commercial. Dorado was granted final plat approval in 2005. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed an approximately 5,200 square foot retail building with a drive- thru window. At this time the tenants are unknown. A Conditional Use Permit would typically not be required for a project like this, as retail uses are principally permitted within the C-G district. However, the UDC requires all drive-thru establishments to obtain Conditional Use Permit approval where the facility is located within 300 feet of another drive-thru or a residential district. The proposed establishment is located within 300 feet of another drive-thru within the subdivision, as well as an existing residence. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 48 of 84 The applicant will be required to obtain CZC approval, certificate of zoning compliance approval, from the planning department for site and landscaping improvement prior to building construction. All such improvements must be installed prior to receipt of occupancy. Therefore, staff is supportive of the proposal as revised and submitted. Per the request of the applicant, staff has prepared Findings consistent with our recommendation to be signed at the close of the meeting. If there is no opposition to the proposal and if the Commission is amenable to approving the application this evening. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Unless there are -- is there questions of staff before we -- Seal: Good evening. Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito. I'll try to make this pretty simple. I have read through the staff report. We are in agreement with it. I would add tonight that if you do approve it -- and I'm hoping you will -- we'd also request that you approve the Findings of Fact for us. Just very briefly, this was supposed to be heard on October 5th, based on our error it had to be changed to this date. At this point in the year a couple weeks can make the difference between starting a project in the fall or having to simply wait until the spring. So, again, if you approve it tonight, I would greatly appreciate it if you would approve the Findings of Facts also tonight, which would enable us to, hopefully, get this project started in the fall and unless you have any Questions, I'm going to sit down. Rohm: My only comment to that, Jonathan, is, generally speaking, it's nice to have an opportunity to review those Findings of Facts before we vote on them and I haven't -- have you had an opportunity to review those? Zaremba: They are provided as Exhibit C and I -- there is some wording that has to go along with them to adopt them, I think, but all of the facts are there. Rohm: I think the comment that I'd like to make to you, if we do move forward with Findings of Facts as well, I would not want this to be the norm. The bottom line is we have a process that we try to stick to and with this particular one being delayed, I can see your concerns from a construction perspective, but just out of respect for the process I'd like not to take this as the normal process for moving forward with projects. Seal: Mr. Commissioner and -- or Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, no, I appreciate that greatly. As I say, Amanda was very helpful in this and given the circumstances, you know, I know she cooperated with me and I appreciate it, but, no, I would not make a habit of this and, as I say, I admit it was my error, so I guess I'm asking for forgiveness and understanding. Rohm: Thank you. Seal: You're welcome. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 49 of 84 Rohm: Okay. Any discussion? Zaremba: I guess I would ask legal counsel -- there is normally a format in which the actual Finding document is provided, but we do have all the substance that would go into it in front of us. Can we approve the Findings tonight? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, I mean if you're satisfied there is enough information in front of you to direct staff to prepare the findings based on the information in the report, so that the -- so that the Findings are approved tonight and all you're doing -- going to do at your next meeting is ratify them, so that they can actually be signed in the due course, but if you're satisfied those are adequate, you can certainly approve them. I don't know if they have them in a format that's -- If Ms. Hess has them in a format that she normally would have. So, you can add it to your agenda as Item 15 if you wish to do that and simply approve them at the end of the meeting if you feel there is enough information provided. So, you have either option. Borup: I'm comfortable to do that. The difference here being we have already looked at the overall project and we already have seen the conceptual design layout and they are just -- they are just continuing on with the -- what has already been presented to us. Rohm: Okay. I think it's in order to just close the Public Hearing at this time, then. Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-029. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: That was my last motion for the evening. Rohm: Oh. Okay. Commissioner Moe, would you like to take a stab at making a motion and move this project forward? Moe: No. No. Borup: Well, then, do we need to discuss a little bit. We can go with the motion that's here and, then, further state that we'd approve -- no, are we making a motion to approve the Findings as written in the staff report and -- Rohm: I do have a document here if there is someone that would like to review them that is a City of Meridian Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for this project that's typed up in its entirety. We could -- we could either make an Item 15 and do that at the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19. 2006 Page 50 of 84 end and make -- or I believe our city attorney said we could add that to this motion and do it all in one fell swoop, if you'd like to review or just make a motion to that effect. Nary: Mr. Chairman, in case I wasn't clear, if you want to add the Findings as those are prepared, you should add them as an Item 15, so that the clerk can amend the agenda and it will be reflected on the agenda that the actual document, rather than the staff report, is what you approved. Rohm: Got you. Borup: Could it be 9-A? Nary: If you wish. Rohm: That works as well. Nary: That would be fine. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 06-029 as presented during the hearing of October 19th, 2006, with no modifications. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate Findings document to be considered by this Planning and Zoning Commission as an item added to our agenda at position 9-A. Mae: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-029. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9A: CUP 06-029 - FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW- Grandview Marketplace Retail Building "B". Borup: Do we now do 9-A? Who has got that? Zaremba: I guess we can take a minute to pass that along, so we at least have all seen it. Mr. Chairman, if we are ready for Agenda Item 9-A. Rohm: Well, I guess we have to open it first, don't we? Borup: Yeah. I guess. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 51 of 84 Zaremba: It's normally on a Consent Agenda. I'm not sure it needs to be -- Rohm: Okay. Let's just go with it. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and decision and order in the matter of CUP 06-029. End of motion. Mae: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the Findings of facts, Conclusions of Law in respect to CUP 06-029. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 06-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.556 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Eastwood Subdivision by Wirt Edmonds - 4515 South Locust Grove Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 06-047 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 7.556 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Eastwood Subdivision by Wirt Edmonds - 4515 South Locust Grove Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open AZ 06-045 and PP 06-047 for the sole purpose of continuing these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of 12/21/06. Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 06-045 and PP 06-047 to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 21 st, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Well, let's -- it's getting late. Moe: Are we going to take a break? Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 06-048 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 32.75 acres from RUT to a C-G zone (8.74 acres) and I-L zone (24.01 acres) for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 52 of 84 Creamline Park Subdivision by Creamline Associates, LLC - 1200 W. Franklin Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 06-050 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 industrial lots on 24.01 acres in a proposed I-L zone and 4 commercial lots on 8.74 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Creamline Park Subdivision by Creamline Associates, LLC - 1200 W. Franklin Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open AZ 06-048 and PP 06-040, both items related to Creamline Park Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I am pinch hitting tonight for Justin Lucas. He is in Denver right now at the ULI conference, so I will be presenting his staff report on Creamline Park Subdivision. The project consists of annexation and zoning to C-G and I-L. There are 8.74 acres on the south side of the development that are proposed for the C-G zoning designation and 24.01 acres proposed for the I-L, light industrial zoning classification. All of this property is currently zoned RUT in Ada county. The site is located on the north side of Franklin Road near the northeast corner of Franklin and Under Roads, approximately 350 feet east of Linder. Highlighted there in the teal. Adjacent land uses and zoning. North is a retirement community and future multi-family development, zoned L-O. East is a lumber storage, 84 Lumber, and vacant land down along Franklin Road_ And I think they have some -- there is some storage of trailers I think out there, too. To the south is Franklin Road. Directly to the south. And, then, Crestwood Estates Subdivision, a residential subdivision, is directly across Franklin Road from this site. To the west are single family homes and some home occupations. Those are zoned R-1 in Ada county. There is also a day care zoned L-O and some of the properties are vacant or underdeveloped. The one right on the corner is zoned C-C, on the northeast corner of Franklin and Linder, zoned C-C. There is the day care -- I guess I better point some of these out. We will probably talk about this a little bit more. There is a day care that was approved maybe three, four years ago, something like that, right by the railroad tracks. A lot of these homes -- folks have some signs up -- I think someone makes like wooden chairs and kind of low impact home occupations, if you will. I have never really seen them be too intensive of uses. They mayor may not be permitted in the county, as are all county properties today. It's my understanding, even, that if a family owns a -- you know, three, four, or five parcels, even, out there and, you know, father, son, and someone else that owns -- each has their house out there, and, then, as I mentioned, the corner piece is C-C and it's industrial on the other side of this property. The overall project does have six industrial lots, all on the north side of this lateral here that bisects the site east-west and, then, on the south are four commercially zoned lots proposed. The access_ One public street, Northwest 13th, is proposed for this project. It's pretty much centered in the middle of the project and cul-de-sacs just across that lateral. Beyond the cul-de-sac the applicant is proposing a 500 foot long drive aisle and cross-access easement to provide access to the -- to the other parcel. You may be able to make out the property lines here and here. So, there are your six. One, two, three, four, five, six. The applicant is also proposing to construct two curb cuts that will offer direct access to Franklin Road for lots 2 and 10 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 53 of 84 and I think I remember this correctly, somewhere in there, and I think -- maybe the applicant can help me out, but there is a couple of other driveways -- we have ACHD's staff report, too, that, essentially, said if you want a driveway over here it needs to be on this property line and share it and if you want one over here it's on this property line and share it. The constraints that staff has -- or the main issue, I guess, that staff has with this -- it's a hodge podge kind of right now of development, if you want to call it that __ land uses -- existing land uses. There are some newer developments. 84 Lumber hasn't been open a year yet. Some industrial uses up Taylor and up that -- up 10th there is pretty industrial uses. Same with on the other side of Linder. If you go over here, most of these are industrial uses. In fact, they are zoned I-L, too. Then, you have these homes that are kind of in transition, kind of stuck, not quite sure how t11ey are going to develop. A lot of them are pretty small. Probably the best way, in an ideal situation, you know, you get three, four, five -- all of them to come in and redevelop, but the likelihood of that happening probably isn't very feasible. Ever since I started at the city I think one of the very first pre-apps I had was someone out there that wanted to develop. but they only had one and we said, well, see if you can get a couple of your neighbors to come in with you and they haven't been back. So, there are existing homes, though, and we do need to respect that people do live there. This is getting to some of the applicants letter that they wrote to -- well, it's addressed to Justin, dated today. I will jump into that I think here in just one more second. This issue is mixed use community on the future land use map. All this area, including these smaller parcels and the day care and the C-C parcel on the future land use map. This does generally comply with the Comprehensive Plan. You mayor may not recall last year there was a project proposed on the site for a residential development. That wasn't a good project, so they did withdraw that application here in 2005. There are some requirements, of course, for landscaping along Franklin Road. Probably the biggest landscape concern that's brought up in the applicant's letter, they asked to not have to construct a 25 foot wide land use buffer between the I-L zone and these county zoned parcels. The way the UDC is written it says that if you are non I-L, to be any -- it could even be commercial zoning. If you're not industrial, you need to provide a 25 foot wide landscape buffer. So, that's straight out of the ordinance. There is -- we do alternative compliance, but having no landscape buffer there, it doesn't make sense and it doesn't comply with code. That's one of the concerns. I guess the biggest concern that staff has in the staff report has to do with the -- with the lack of access into this property. Staff's recommendation, just trying to brainstorm, essentially, is how do we get a public access back to this back side. It's a really deep parcel. Stub streets and access back out to Linder, essentially take -- it would take a lot away to stub over here and get it through. Then, if you stub it through, then, you have access to an industrial park from Linder. Does that make sense? I mean if -- if, you know, really these industrial properties want to have limited access, it doesn't really make sense to create a cut-through avenue for the general public to get through here and back over there, in my opinion. So, stubbing there is out of the question based on what the applicant is proposing for uses here. You can't go this way, these are fully developed here. This is -- there is not much frontage on these parcels here, it doesn't help access back to these. So, what staff came up with is there is a -- there is an existing street -- I think this is 13th or 12th, I can't remember now. 12th. It must be 12th. And it aligns over here. Staff's idea was that construct this loop roadway system that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19,2006 Page 54 of 84 would come up -- and I don't know exactly how far, we will let them -- I guess just based on this layout, so it doesn't have too much of an impact, in my mind, again, I'm not -- the applicant works with this more often, but I guess just for simplicity, if the road were to come, do something like this, and, then, come back down either in alignment with where the street's shown now or, really, anywhere over here, as long as ACHD would approve that location -- but that's the idea. Then, you get -- you can have your cross-access easement come off of that here and, essentially, it's the same layout, just with a secondary access. So, if this gets blocked, emergency access vehicles can get back up into the rest of the site. That's really what staff his looking for, is some other way to get across and it's not the general public per se, although they would be able to do the public street, obviously, but it is -- it is not only for emergency services, although it's primarily for emergency services, but also for people using these in the future, the tenants there, large truck drivers having -- you know, being able to loop through this subdivision and not having to turn around. I might point out that the fire department now has requested a cul-de-sac on the end of this, because they will have to use this anyways to get back here, so they wanted to make sure that they -- they have a turnaround in that location. Let's see. The applicant -- I'm going to jump to the applicant's letter now and just address some of their requests to modify the staff report. Essentially, it's all the conditions of approval that they have issues -- they take issue with, except for the approval of the preliminary plat and the landscape plan. So, just to go down the list, I guess, the first one, 1.2.2 on Exhibit B, page one, is our loop road. So, that's what that talks about I think I have explained that one. 1.2.3 is the applicant shall provide a cross-access easement to the Thornton property. So, let me back up and explain that requirement a little bit. This parcel here has about 350 feet of frontage on Franklin Road and somewhere in the neighborhood of 300, although I haven't scaled it out on Linder Road. So, when this C-C property does develop, they are going to be right on the signalized intersection here. So, ACHD has allowed them, if they so choose, the applicant, to construct a shared right-in, right-out access point on the property line with this parcel. I think that's a great idea. If, in fact, this applicant wants to construct a driveway there. If they don't, I still think it makes sense to provide cross-access to the public street, we don't have a driveway less than 300 feet to a signalized intersection in the future and we have to grant some variance to this parcel, because we have to give them access. So, if we could get that through this development somehow -- and I hope -- these are C-G zoned properties, so you're not looking at the mix of, you know, sending commercial users through an industrial development to get into Franklin Road, they are real similar -- C-C and C-G are real similar zoning designations. So, that's that condition. 1.2.4 is the western boundary landscape buffer of 25 feet to buffer the existing homes and the nonindustrial uses there. 1.2.5 talks about limiting trash compactors, loading areas, and docks and bays from facing that direction. So, we are saying put them -- face your bays, loading docks, trash compactors to the north-south or to the east, but don't have them facing to the west, because there is people living there. So, that one makes some sense to -- to staff, anyways, to have that restriction placed on this development. I'm going to skip 1.2.6, because that talks about the landscaping. The applicant has addressed their type of fencing in 1.2.7. The UDC does not allow chain link fence with slats as screening material, so any outdoor storage areas will, actually, have to be screened with a solid fence. You can use chain link slats with vinyl Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 55 of 84 slats in other locations, but if it is outdoor storage, it needs to be screened and that -- that does not mean chain link with vinyl slats. So, I think the applicant has clarified their intent -- intentions for screening out here. You may want to talk about that some more, but -- and, then, finally, their last comment was on 1.2.8 talking about tiling ditches and canals and it stated I think in the letter that an NMID, that they were advised that the pipe must be a minimum diameter of 60 inches. You may -- this isn't necessarily something for the Commission, it, actually, just requires that the Council act on it. Their general rule of thumb if anything's greater than 48 inches they don't require you to tile it. However, that's just a guide. Anything could be tiled or left open at the discretion of the Council. So, if you have any preference on whether it should be open or tiled, that's -- you can sure make comment on that. It is not natural waterway, 50 by ordinance it would need to be tiled, unless the applicant can prove that it's a quote, unquote, large -- large capacity facility I think is how the ordinance reads. I shouldn't have done the quotes. But, anyways, I think I pretty much touched on -- stole Brad's thunder and -- but he can sure touch on his stuff. The only -- the last thing, I guess, that I wanted to say is that just this afternoon I did get another e-mail from Joe Silva and this is in section three -- or Exhibit D, section three, of the staff report. It starts on page four. Is the fire department's comments. He sent me an additional condition and this says: As a condition of approval the fire department requests that the applicant provide fire department approval of any uses north of the creek with any application for a CZC. In our discussions with the fire department at our agency comments meeting, they had concern about the single access point and if users, particularly on the north end of this development, were to be hazmat type or store flammable materials, those types of things and only having the one access point into the site, so they wanted the ability to review these uses and if they are of that variety -- and there is -- it's not probably worded the best it could be. It, basically, makes Joe Silva God if he can approve or deny uses that go in there. But that's the intent is that, you know, they want to make sure that the uses that go in there aren't highly flammable, hazardous material, places, whatever that is -- but that's -- hazmat was thrown out there a lot. So, anyway, there is that condition that they wanted, just to have a sign off saying, yes, this use is okay and we are okay with the one access for that use when they come in. So, with that I will stand for any points of clarification or questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Miller: Brad Miller representing Creamline Associates, 3084 East Lanark in Meridian. I'd like to thank Caleb for his presentation. He's pinch hitting for Justin. Normally, I'm more agreeable on these things, but on this one there is a lot of issues that we have with this. Caleb, could you go back to that aerial photo? Could we first address the surrounding uses, the -- these homes right in here are really transitionary. If you go across the street -- this is an older aerial photo, but right here you have got the bus barn facility, which we sold to the Meridian School District. Right here you have the Sanitary Services and their transfer station. We sold that to them as well. You have got Marcon here that has their concrete barricades and you have got some industrial uses here. All along -- not here, but all along here you have got industrial uses. So, these residences and businesses Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 56 of 84 here are facing industrial uses. It's interesting to note that these lots are over 300 feet deep. So, I think that we will have very little impact on them right here and the 25 foot landscape buffer, to tell you the truth, I think is just going to be an added expense and not have any material impact on those residents, either pro or con, because if you notice, everything but the day care is located on the front 25 percent or the front third of the lots and so I think there is plenty of buffer there already. We would want to do whatever the landscaping requirement is along the perimeter of the development like this, but we just don't feel like the 25 feet would be necessary in this situation, because it wouldn't add any noticeable benefit to that. The other issue that staff has addressed is they want us to restrict the functioning of these buildings in these areas, they don't want any trash compactors. Well, we own dozens and dozens and dozens of industrial buildings, we don't have any trash compactors in any of them that I know of, but there are loading docks. All of our industrial buildings have loading docks, either grade level doors or dock height doors and I find it -- it would be difficult for us to -- in fact, most of our buildings will have doors on two sides. Some of them have doors on all four sides. We will have ground level doors on the front, dock high doors on the back and usually on the side we will have a door. So, I don't see any situation where we couldn't have __ well, that's an overstatement. I don't -- it would be unlikely that we would put a building there that wouldn't have doors oriented that direction. These are going to be -- a couple of examples of users that we have here are -- we have got a company that does pipe storage, they do plumbing materials, and they would have a lot of pipe out in the yard, they have trucks, they would be off loading trucks there and they would have loading docks as well for the smaller materials to. go inside the house -- or inside the building. So, I just feel that to restrict the uses on those lots in that way would -- doesn't really serve any purpose for these people and if we have got a six foot fence along there, I just think it would be negligible and wouldn't necessarily impact them, especially given the fact that in ten years I'll bet there is very few residences there, if any. We have attempted -- we have contacted all those owners and attempted to purchase their parcels. They all want like 15 bucks a foot and given that we paid two bucks or 2.50 a foot for that piece, 15 bucks doesn't make any sense. So, that's the issue of the -- of the compatibility with the -- with the surrounding neighbors. So, I would like to ask that we not have to put in that 25 foot landscape median, but we would want to landscape the perimeter with five foot or ten foot or whatever the minimum requirement is, but not provide the 25 foot buffer. In regard to the -- to the loop street -- well, let me back up. ACHD has granted us full access here, they have granted us full access here, provided it's shared with this parcel here and provided that it's aligned with this here. They have also granted a right-in, right-out access there. We don't have any problem with providing a cross-access easement at that point -- access point, if we choose to build it. We would like to reserve the right not build that and possibly get access for this lot onto this Northwest 13th. If that is the case, we wouldn't want to be bound to provide an access across that access easement to the Thornton property here. But I mean he would always be able to build one there on his property line. If we do build an access point there, we would be more than willing to provide a cross-access easement. We just don't want to have to be bound by that if we choose to take access over here. Let me see what else we have here. Oh, on the loop road. The need in the market right now -- there is very little industrial property in Meridian. There is a lot of smaller parcels -- I mean you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 57 of 84 can see over here you have got parcels that are, you know, an acre or less and you can see over here there is plenty here on Taylor Avenue. In fact, we own that building there and you have got 84 Lumber here and the mini storage. There is a need for larger lots. It's -- to tell you the truth, it's not the highest and best use for the property, we won't make as much money by doing this, and if we put a loop road in there you can get smaller lots, but the market really is calling for some larger lots and we have a number of tenants who will immediately move in here as soon as we get subdivided and get the improvements in. Most of those will be relocated from Boise. We have got Speciality Construction, which does construction supplies that wants to be here, they do highway supplies. Keller Supply, which I referred to before, and we have -- in fact, all of these lots we believe would be built out within two years. We don't have any perspective users for the front here, but a loop road would -- if we did a loop road it would not allow us to do the larger lots and it would provide -- I don't know if it would really get us anything or give the city anything. The fire department was concerned about the length here. We preferred to run the cul-de-sac all the way up, but they said that was -- 450 feet was the maximum, so we have proposed a 450 foot cul-de-sac. We would be willing to move this up here, but, then, we have -- these are all actually flag lots here. The fire department has stated that they would like to restrict -- have the opportunity to restrict the uses on all of these lots here. I would suggest that since this meets the city requirement of 450 feet, that we allow them the right to restrict uses on these four lots, but not on these two, because they meet all the -- would meet all the requirements of the 450 foot long cul-de-sac. Let me see. In regard to the ditch, Nampa-Meridian, we would prefer to tile the ditch. If it were a 48 inch pipe, that wouldn't be a problem, but as Mr. Mae can attest, going from a 40 inch to a 60 inch isn't a multiple, it's more of an exponential type -- I mean the costs just go up dramatically and it would just preclude us from being able to do that. It wouldn't be economically feasible. So, what we would do is we would only cover this portion here to cross the road. When we sold the property to the bus barn here, they were in the same circumstance. If you go over there you will notice that the Eight Mile Lateral as it goes across there has two crossings on it, which we installed for them, and they chose not to tile the entire ditch, because of the cost involved. Let me make sure I have got everything covered here. As far as the fire department turnaround, with the -- with the Commission's approval we would be willing to move this cul-de-sac right up to here. This right here is going to be easements, but if you were standing on the road looking at it you wouldn't notice any difference between this portion and this portion. We will build this to ACHD standards, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, everything would be identical to what we are doing here. The only difference is this would not be dedicated and the only reason that's not dedicated is because the city only allows a 450 foot deep cul-de-sac. I think I got it all covered. I think that's it. Any questions? There is quite a few issues there and I apologize for that. Rohm: You had mentioned that you didn't want to put that 25 foot buffer along the west line. I think in the staff report he mentioned that there is an option for alternatives. Did you mention what your alternative might be? Miller: I haven't and we'd be more than willing to work with staff on that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 58 of 84 Rohm: Because I tend to agree with your response. There is no sense in just putting a buffer just for a buffer's sake if all you're going to do is widen an effective 150 buffer that already exists. Miller: I agree. I mean we want to be good neighbors and we don't want to offend the neighbors in any way or impact them in a negative way, but it seems to me that the 25 foot landscape buffer really doesn't serve a purpose and I would be more than willing to meet with staff and find out other alternatives. One other issue I might bring up is we would be willing to put a stub road here. We don't have a problem with that at all. I mean ultimately having the second way in and out would probably be beneficial, but the problem is where do you locate it. As soon as you locate here, then, all of a sudden this guy's price goes to 50 bucks a foot instead of 15 bucks a foot, so -- but we would be willing to either dedicate -- or not dedicate but provide an easement there, provide a secondary access that could be dedicated in the future. Rohm: Quite honestly, this doesn't excite me very much. Miller: It doesn't excite very many people. Rohm: Yeah. Miller: Staff either. Rohm: Yeah. 1-- Miller: But it's shorter than this one here. If you lengthen that out it would go to there. Rohm: What -- did you consider this at all, a horseshoe there? Miller: No. And I will tell you, if the staff and the city requires that we do a loop road, we won't do the project. What we will do is we would -- and, please. don't take this as a threat, because it's not meant that way. We have some major mini storage guys that are just begging us to do mini storage there and we don't want to do mini storage, it's not -- I mean it's probably more lucrative, but it's just not what we want to do. But if the city were to say we have to do a loop road, then, we would say, okay, we are going to turn this into one large lot here, develop these two out as industrial lots, and, then, just do mini storage there. So, I don't see any circumstances under which we would be willing to do a loop road. You just lose too much property and, as I said in my letter, for industrial uses -- I mean those users don't want the public driving through there. Although there has to be good access for trucks. So. that's why we make the roads wide and the driveways wide to accommodate trucks, because if you can't accommodate trucks, you don't have an industrial project. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Borup: Do you have anything on this property here? Is this owned by the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 59 of 84 Miller: That's 84 Lumber. Borup: Oh. That's where they are. All right. Miller: And, then, next to that Yankes have built a facility here. So, I mean this really is a lot more built out than is depicted here. Hood: Mr. Chair? If I may ask Brad a question. Do you guys -- you said you offered a stub street back over to those properties on there. Did you knock on any doors to -- you said a couple of them were 20 dollars a foot or whatever. Miller: We have approached all the owners. Now, there are -- let me see. And I might be off by one or two here. This -- there is about an acre and a half right now that's for sale there and we are nosing around that a little bit, but it's over -- in our opinion it's overpriced, in their opinion it's not. Hood: And so I guess just to follow up my question a little bit. What -- because I'm pretty stumped on how they are going to develop. Like you said, they are pretty much sandwiched between industrial, if you're project's approved. Miller: Right. Hood: How do they develop? They are not like what's happened on either side, the large parcels. I mean you have got 30 acres of industrial there and at least a half mile of industrial type uses back the other way. That isn't the situation the way it's parceled out today. So, how do you envision those -- Miller: Well, Caleb, I think what's going to happen there is I -- there is one fellow -- I believe his name is Joe Olsen, who has purchased two of those properties. I think what you're going to see happen is you will have people come in and tie up two or three of those, combine them together, and I think you will end up getting buildings like you have got over here across the street, is what you are gOing to get. So, I don't think you're going to get a nice cohesive development there, I think you're going to see a hodge podge, to tell you the truth. Hood: But industrial type -- Miller: I think it's going to be industrial type uses. That's what I think. But, you know, that's just my opinion_ Hood: I won't hold it to you. Miller: Right. But if they are going to -- if they are going to sell their properties for ten to 15 dollars a square foot, you can't afford to do industrial uses on those properties. The rents don't justify it. Unless, potentially, they are user -- or owner occupied, user Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 60 of 84 occupied buildings. But you can't afford to build them and lease them and pay -- I mean you can afford to -- afford to pay maybe up to five bucks, but not much more than that. I apologize for the difficulty of this, but, you know -- Newton-Huckabay: Do you think putting a stub to the west, though, would -- that, to me, would increase the traffic problem basically through there. Miller: Potentially it could. I think you would have cut-through traffic there. I think you're correct. But, you know, we don't want to be disagreeable. I mean we want to try to accommodate the needs of staff and the needs of the city. I don't know if there is really a good solution, because the loop road does not work for us. Newton-Huckabay: Is there any reason why -- and I. honestly, don't know. You say you don't want to tile the canal there, but could you put another -- I mean can you put another bridge across the canal -- Miller: Oh, sure. Newton-Huckabay: -- so you could get -- I mean so you just drive through. Miller: Sure. Yeah. And so we would -- we would plan to put one here, but most likely what you're going to have is you will have -- right now this is fenced here and, then, you will have a perimeter fence here and, then, most likely you will have chain link fences on all these property lines. And most likely we would fence the ditch just to keep people out of there. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, so there would be fences around each individual industrial property? Miller: Most likely. And most likely what will happen is say we put a building there, there would be fences along the edge of the building as well, so you would have a parking area in the front and, then, you would have gates on either side or both sides of the building and the trucks would go and circulate around. Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Because they will have outdoor storage? Miller: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Miller: Yeah. For the most part. I would say -- I mean a number of our industrial projects are not fenced, but the majority of them of this type where they have got a lot of yard area, yes, they would be fenced. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, that wouldn't really serve a lot of purpose in the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 61 of 84 Miller: I don't think it would. Interestingly enough, just as a point of reference, these two crossings -- we did those for the school district. It was 180,000 dollars total for two crossings of that ditch with a 60 inch pipe. It's just outrageous, so -- and just to let you in on another little thing, we own this piece here, too. Our thought was to tile this whole thing, because we would pick up more ground there, usable ground, because you can park on it, you can drive on it, you can landscape it, but you can't build on it. But when we saw that it was -- it's kind of a cheap way to pick up more usable ground, but with 60 inch it's not, it just is not economically feasible at all. Borup: Not when you get over 36. It gets real spendy. Miller: We have even been willing to go 48, which, you know, we have done before. In fact. we piped the Eight Mile Lateral over on Overland Road and I believe it was 48 inch there, so -- there are my dilemmas, folks. Thanks for your consideration. Borup: Maybe just one comment. I don't think that this necessarily answers the alternative compliance on the buffering, but in an industrial zone you can also do an eight foot fence. The other thing I -- we have not -- Caleb, has there been any -- any phone calls from any of the neighbors? I mean, obviously, none of them are here, so they, apparently, don't seem to have any concern with this, $0 there is -- Hood: They haven't -- Mr. Borup, they haven't contacted me, but I was not the primary on this application, so I don't know if Justin talked to anyone or not. He didn't tell me that he did. Borup: It seems like he probably would have mentioned -- there would have been some mention of -- if there was some adamant opposition. Newton-Huckabay: The only piece of property along there that isn't in disrepair, in my opinion, is the one next to the railroad tracks. Borup: The day care. Newton-Huckabay: The day care. Miller: That's a newer day care and it is in good shape. Newton-Huckabay: But all the other buildings and homes, if you're to be -- Borup: I think are just waiting for -- Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, they are just waiting to get 15 dollars a foot. Miller: They are waiting for someone like us to buy them out. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 62 of 84 Newton-Huckabay: Because that -- whenever I drive down that stretch of road I find it's, one, the landscaping on the west or -- on the west side isn't kept up and, then, you have all those properties that aren't kept up and it's just very rundown looking all the way through there. Miller: It's an ugly stretch. Newton-Huckabay: It really is. And, then, of course, the road is -- I think I would -- if I may say -- is there -- and, again, I don't know -- can you have emergency access -- there is not like emergency access roads next to the railroad tracks, are there? Miller: Well, let me -- let me tell you one thing that is here. On the north of this property there is -- the subdivision granted when they did this -- I think it's called the Hepner Subdivision. It was done in the late '60s. There is a 60 foot easement right there, because the sewer line, believe it or not, runs along there. So, we will flow our sewer back to that line and not out to Franklin. The water will come from Franklin. One of the things when we met with Joe Silva -- we talked about maybe this -- the fire department could have access there. There is a gate here right now. Now, they have their parking lot there, so I don't know how feasible that is. The other thing that we offered to Joe is that we would provide the ability for the trucks to drive completely around the buildings and that's not a problem at all, is for -- I mean they could come back here and drive completely around the buildings and have access to all sides of the building, which seemed to be a concern to him, it seems to-- Mae: Well, you bring up the -- the easement. I'd like to -- when can you find out about that? I'm very concerned about just the -- the single access and the road going back in. Miller: Sure. Moe: But if we can find out what's going on with that easement up there, that, to me, is going to make a difference in my opinion on the project. And while I -- Miller: Right. Mae: -- have got you here, you also made comment that you guys have already thought of other uses for this property, if, in fact, if this isn't going to fly, so -- as far as -- Miller: Right. I mean if you didn't -- if the City Council denies it, we will just go a different route or, actually, if you didn't recommend it, we would shift things around before we got to Council. So, I mean we have always got a Plan B. But I just learned about -- I didn't just learn about the easement, I knew the sewer easement was there, but I just saw the plat today for the first time, it has a 60 foot easement, but it didn't have any notes on the plat, which said what that easement was for and the notation on the easement just easement. So, I have got First American Title researching that for me to find out exactly what the intent was for that easement. If it's only for utilities, then, you would have to get some sort of granting from the owner there to allow you to use it for emergency access. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 63 of 84 But, once again, their parking lot is there and, you know, the fire department likes to always go straight, it doesn't like to curve around things, so -- Zaremba: I have a couple of questions. Miller: Oh, no. Zaremba: One of them is kind of innocuous, the other one may not be. Miller: Okay. Zaremba: Is there any thought that you might find two users of the northern two pieces that would want access to the railroad? I mean for an industrial property to be right next to the railroad and not make any use of it sounds unusual to me. Miller: That's an excellent point, because right now 84 Lumber is in the process of putting a spur in here, so they are going to start bringing rail cars in and it's interesting, just as a point of -- and maybe it's not interesting to you guys, but to industrial guys it's interesting -- five, six, seven years ago nobody had any interest in rail. None of the tenants wanted rail. Now, I don't know if it's gas prices or what it is, but we get a lot of calls for rail. So, yes, we have got -- potentially we have got a lumber company -- not a competitor of them, they would be a hardwood lumber company that's interested in taking that whole thing and they potentially would have a rail spur there. The other issue with rail spurs is they are so darn expensive. I mean to get a rail spur there you're probably talking three to four hundred thousand dollars, belive it or not. Borup: So, it makes sense for two of them to go together on it, then, wouldn't it? Miller: Well, I don't know if it would -- I mean it would if it -- if it could be extended out, but some -- considering that both of these people would be in the lumber business, 84 may not be agreeable to that. Zaremba: The other question -- my memory sometimes fails me, but in discussion of a 450 cul-de-sac and, then, private drive aisles and stuff beyond that, during the Process Improvement Group that was developing the Unified Development Code -- Miller: I don't know if I'm aware of those people. Zaremba: -- my recollection was that you spent a lot of time on that committee and I'm sure the city is appreciative if it. I felt you had an awful lot of good input. But I'm trying to remember the discussion about cul-de-sacs and extending them and I would have thought that at that time you were not in favor of the kind of design that you're presenting to us. I know many of the members weren't. As a matter of fact, there were a lot of people who were flat out against cul-de-sacs, but it was brought up that in industrial areas or particularly in small in-fill developments, you almost have to have a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 64 of 84 cul-de-sac, even though they don't work well for police or fire or public transportation or anything else. Miller: Right. Zaremba: And I think the 450 foot actually was settled on from the fire -- from the International Fire Code or something. Miller: It could have been. Zaremba: It was not a figure that we made up. And, then, at a totally different time there were discussions about private driveways and the lengths of them and if I remember, all of those discussions involved a private driveway or a drive aisle that actually attached to a through street, not a cul-de-sac. I don't remember if it was ever anybody's intention to add those two together and make a deeper street. Miller: I can't disagree with you there. I don't remember specifically the discussions. Alii just remember is I was overruled a lot, so -- Zaremba: Well, you had very good input. Miller: Commissioner Zaremba, I can't remember, to tell you the truth, but I mean this definitely is not a standard situation and -- I mean to tell you the truth, it's kind of a novel, unique way of -- I shouldn't use this word, but of circumventing the ordinance, you know. I mean I don't know what other options we have. I mean we could make that northern portion just, you know, into a mini storage as we discussed and that would -- and that would work fine. But that doesn't provide a need in the market right now, even though it would make us more money to do that. But I mean it's definitely -- I mean that's -- it's definitely not ideal, but we would improve it all to ACHD standards. Zaremba: I guess maybe I'll discuss with staff for a moment. On that same subject. sometime since the UDC was actually adopted we have had two residential developments that had a full length cul-de-sac and, then, additional private drive added to that. But their limit is since you can only have four residences on a private drive, they only ended up being 500 feet or 550, they didn't add that much to 450. I guess my question is -- I don't feel that the people that were putting the UDC together anticipated coupling the two lengths together. Not that it would apply to the current applicant, but might it not be a good idea to prepare an amendment to the UDC that says that you can't combine cul-de-sacs and drive aisles to anything more than 450 feet? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I think that's something we can evaluate, too. I mean especially if this becomes a regular occurrence where we get people -- developers that need to, essentially, get a street -- a cul-de-sac street that's longer than 450 feet and we are looking at variances, because they need it to be 800 feet. You know, once you see that trend, then, something's wrong with your ordinance. So, this is the first commercial one that I can recall. We do get residential ones sometimes, similar Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 65 of 84 to the Spurwing earlier tonight, they didn't have anywhere to stub to, they couldn't get out. It's a similar situation here. They really -- there is nowhere for them to go. They are kind of in there. So, that's why staff feels that the recommendation of this loop to get -_ it's not a cul-de-sac -- it's not just a dead end. That's where we are coming from. But we can sure look into the ordinance in making some industrial exclusion or allowing them to have a longer cul-de-sac in non-residential -- generally, cul-de-sacs aren't encouraged. But, yeah, if you tried to circumvent the ordinance or whatever by -- I think we could write something that says thou shalt not take a driveway for more than one property further than that street. We can sure work on that. I can run it by Anna and we can -- I know we have got a text amendment in the next couple of months. Maybe we will propose something and kick that around with you, 50 we'll look into it more. Zaremba: One side Question -- and I'm trying to think for the fire department, some of this, which I really have no great knowledge of, but in a situation like this where, as you said, you are going to build it to look like a continuing street. On a public street there are requirements to have a fire hydrant so often. Is there any possibility that the fire hydrants could continue up your private street? Miller: That will be a requirement of the fire department. And, most likely, they will require us to put some fire hydrants on site within those lots. I know that 84 -- and, Mike, you can correct me on this -- 84 Lumber has, what, a couple on -- within their site? Four -- three or four within their site. So, I would imagine with these larger sizes that we would be required to put fire hydrants within the site. Zaremba: That makes me more comfortable. Miller: Now, one other thing that I might point out is, yes, the cul-de-sac's long, but as compared to the -- to the Spurwing project -- I mean they had however many homes on there. I mean we are talking, realistically, there is four users -- potentially only three users if we do one -- one user across the back, but there would only be four users who would be outside of that 450 feet. So, you aren't talking, you know, a hundred homes or 50 homes or even ten homes, so -- Borup: And I was thinking about the same thing. If it was a private drive with a dozen lots adjoining it, that would be maybe a different situation. We don't have that here. Miller: And I think the uses in there will not be high impact uses. I mean we will have truck traffic, but I don't see us having a fleet of delivery vans going out from there or anything like that, like a distributor of -- like Sara Lee Bread is one of our tenants. I don't see, you know, all the Grandma Sycamore bread trucks going out from there. I just don't see that kind of use. It's going to be more construction related users that need large yards for storage. Zaremba: Go back a moment to the discussion about loading docks. I got a little confused about your description of it. Are you saying it's not possible to limit the loading Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 66 of 84 docks to what would be the sides of the buildings, north, south, and east, as opposed to not having them on the west? Miller: Anything's possible. But, you know, the thing that I found is loading docks really aren't offensive, because everything happens inside. I mean the forklifts are accessing the trucks inside, I mean so it might be a visual thing seeing a truck backed up to a building, but there is really not any noise associated with that. I mean the noise is the flatbed trucks that are out there being unloaded with the backup alarms from the forklifts, which -- and I promise you there will be forklifts all over this site, but I guess I just don't see the offensive nature of loading docks. A trash compactor -- I mean I could understand it if it were over next to the property line, but I would imagine that all these uses also will be -- just want to make sure I'm not lying here -- I think they will be during normal business hours. I don't think -- I wouldn't want this restriction on us, but I don't think that we will have any 24 hour a day uses there. I mean we don't have -- of all of our tenants I have very few 24 our a day uses. In fact, I can't think of any. Zaremba: I would not suggest putting that restriction on it. My assumption would be that by the time their business has grown to the point where they might want to be 24 hours, your prediction of what's going to happen along Under with those converting to industrial would have happened. Miller: That's true. Zaremba: So, I'm in -- if you're not going to start out 24 hours today, it could happen in the future, but by then I don't think it would be impacting residents, so -- Miller: We have -- if you go over by Lewis & Clark Middle School, you have got Pine and Executive that travels through there. We own all the buildings that are east of -- well, we sold off a couple, but most of the buildings that are east of the middle school there and we have got residences up against our north boundary. We haven't had any problem with those residents there. We try to be considerate of them and try to -- in fact, that one we butted the building up against the property line as close as we could and put the loading docks in the front. So, I mean we don't want to do -- I mean the worst situation for me is having neighbors calling me and complain or call the tenant and complain and the tenant calls me. So, we want to avoid any conflict with the neighbors there. But I guess I just don't see the loading docks or loading bays or anything is offensive. And I don't necessarily think it should be restricted there. Especially given the 200 feet or so to the houses or 150 feet or whatever -- whatever it is. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if I may make another comment on -- to help the applicant, I don't know where the Commission's at, but the 25 foot wide landscape buffer that's required by ordinance along that property line. Alternative compliance is an option for landscaping, so if you wanted to propose fencing and a ten foot buffer -- and I'm not saying that's what we would approve, but, you know, there is some flexibility written in the UDC with an alternative compliance application. Some of the other provisions -- restrictions about loading docks, trash compactors bays, and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 67 of 84 things being on that side, are based on past testimony from the public. Now, most of those people probably didn't know it was offensive at the time and they are saying I don't want to see these things, they weren't people that already lived there, they were having this use potentially come on and move in next to them. So, whether their comments were based on any -- those uses actually being most offensive to them or not, those are the common ones that we seem to get and that's why they kind of cut and pasted into yours saying these are the ones we get complaints on -- Miller: Right. Hood: -- on a fairly regular basis. That's why we will try to head that off, too, and so no one gets calls and complaints. Miller: Right. Hood: So, just -- that's kind of some background of why that condition made it in the staff report or -- those seem to be the ones that we get the calls on, too. So, yeah. That's it. Miller: We will agree to no trash compactors. Rohm: I kind of like the idea of procuring the emergency access on the north line from Linder into your property. I don't know if that's an occupied improvement, but that certainly helps access to the development as a whole. Along that 60 foot easement and I don't know if the -- what it's going to take to get that to include emergency vehicle access, but that would certainly be something that I would consider as a trade for a buffer. Miller: Sure. Well, the -- and I don't know the answer to that yet. It may already include a provision for emergency access. The problem the fire department is going to have is the parking lot that they put there and they have got curbs and things, so -- but what we would be willing to do is put a gate right there on the property line and they could, you know, cut the lock and go on through. But we wouldn't -- I mean we wouldn't propose -- there will be a sewer easement here, but we wouldn't propose a dedicated 60 foot right of way there. I mean we would propose that that emergency access be within the yard area of that tenant and we could restrict the tenant so they didn't store anything there as well. Rohm: Okay. Anymore questions of this applicant? I'm not sure where we go from here. You have made some very valid points and I guess what we are faced with is the point's well taken and ordinance. Miller: I hear you. I appreciate your help and consideration. Rohm: Commissioner Moe, do you have some comments? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 68 of 84 Moe: Do I have comments? Well, this is a tough piece of property, quite frankly. I am concerned that the single access in through the center -- I understand the concerns of putting a loop road in, taking away some property, and whatnot, but I'm just -- I'm just real concerned that there isn't enough availability without the loop road on this piece of property. This is the second project we have seen off this property here and, you know, the first one wasn't very good either and I'm a little bit concerned on what we do with this. I'm just -- I guess my point being is I am swayed more towards the staff comment, than I am from the presentation. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I like the idea of having potential of, you know, six different -- or five different employers, rather than one employer with a whole bunch of storage sheds, but I do think that -- I agree access is an issue. I think I'd probably go with the stub to the west as far north or maybe midway between the railroad tracks and Franklin and I think that would be -- for one, you get a longer road in there and, two, you're going to have flow through. I think that's what I would do. Mae: Would you say that one more -- I missed -- Newton-Huckabay: A stub to -- Moe: Okay. To the west property, then. Newton-Huckabay: So, you would have your road come -- you know, your road come up and cul-depsac up here somewhere -- Mae: Right. Newton-Huckabay: -- and so this stub -- Moe: That may go nowhere. Newton-Huckabay: Well, yeah, they may eventually go nowhere, but odds are at some point they would, aren't they? Well, okay, if it was -- Mae: Depending upon who wants to buy that piece of property. Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I have got a question for the applicant to maybe clarify. The property south of the ditch, that's the C-G zone? Miller: Correct. Borup: Okay. And there would be -- and you're looking at access there at 12th? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 69 of 84 Miller: Yeah. Yes. There would be a full access point at 12th. Borup: And, then, would there be cross-access between those front properties, then? Miller: All these front properties would have access. Yes. So, this parcel here when it's developed would have access there and that would be its only access. We would not ask for additional access here. We would try to get access here, but I don't know if we will be able to, because there is a limited -- Borup: Too close to the intersection. Miller: Yeah. Too close to the intersection. Borup: Okay. Miller: And this would feed onto there. One point that I might make is ACHD -- Justin Lucas appeared at the ACHD tech review meeting and argued the point of the loop road and ACHD didn't feel like a loop road added anything or was necessary, so they felt that one full -- actually, initially, they said they didn't want us to have access here and, then, when they saw the alignment here they said, yes, you can have full access here and full access here and, then, limited here if you wanted it. Borup: Okay. That answers my question. Miller: Thank you. Borup: Well, I'm thinking of the survey that the city did a few months back or maybe it was a year ago, the lack of industrial land that we have in Meridian and, you know, the areas are along the railroad, so I think it's needed. I think the city needs it. The reason I asked the questions on the cross-access on those front C-G properties is even though it's south of the ditch, that, essentially, is a loop road. I think the only -- I know the fire department's concerned about not being able to -- you know, having access blocked, but this is the only place here that could be blocked. You know, all the way along here you got access from these other properties -- at least from this other property into it. So, I think that is a secondary access there. I do like the idea of having at least an emergency access up there, so I hope something could be done for that aspect. I'm comfortable, just because of the nature of what's here, because we have not heard from any of the neighbors, to -- to be -- to approve that .- the landscape plan as submitted, which shows -- which shows trees all along. The only thing that may be done -- I don't that -- I can't read the access point, if it even shows a fence, but I don't believe the ordinance requires a fence, it just requires the buffer and I think if I was living there I would much rather have an eight foot fence and a five foot buffer than a 25 foot buffer with no fence. And that may -- what I started to say, that may be the other extra considerations, maybe an eight foot fence along there, rather than -- rather than the six. There is a lot of landscaping already being shown on the -- on the plan. And, then, other Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19. 2006 Page 70 of 84 than -- other than maybe restricting the trash compactors that -- you know, I agree with the applicant on the loading -- loading areas and docks and such on the west side, I don't think it's a big concern. That's alii had. Maybe. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Well, I agree that this -- I like the industrial area. I'm happy with the C-G along Franklin. It would be nice if some of them wanted access to the railroad, so that we could start making more use of that. And I could be comfortable with the suggestion that the fire department can circulate all around the buildings. I think the question I would have on that is if the various tenants are going to fence their properties and probably gate them and lock them, would the fire department be satisfied with -- what do they call them, knock boxes or -- Knox boxes. I mean it doesn't do any good to say you can circulate around a building and, then, have them come up to a locked fence, but if they would be given a way to go through the gates, that would help. And I am satisfied on access to the property to the east, which is owned by the same owner. I'm still a little uncomfortable with access to the property to the west that's actually on the corner of Under and Franklin. My feeling is that needs to be absolutely assured, that their -- their entrance -- their property needs to be a little farther away than their property is wide. So, if you are putting a right-in, right-out driveway along that property line and they could use it, that's fine. If you don't do that, I would want them to be able to access your cul- de-sac the same as the other two properties are, which means some open passage along there. Because in that location Franklin is going to get busier and busier. Linder at some point will be widened to five and when there is an overpass to the interstate it's going to be a busy street. That intersection may end up needing brake turn lanes and acceleration-deceleration lanes and I don't think that property is going to be able to put a driveway within their property and I just -- of all the things that have been asked for, I think it's important to preserve their ability to cross part of your property to access Franklin. I don't know if you care to comment on it. The Public Hearing is still open. Miller: If I could. I believe the minimum for a right-in, right-out is 220; is that right? Two hundred and twenty feet. So, they have got 350 feet there. There is nothing that would -- there is nothing that would preclude them from coming right up against our property line and doing a driveway there, which would be the same as if we put on there. I wouldn't really want them to go across two of our lots to get to that cul-de-sac. Zaremba: It's not an attractive solution to the -- Miller: Yeah. Especially if they were to put say a Maverick or something there and so you have got all these cars coming back and forth going in for their -- you know, their 900 ounce Cokes and things. So, I mean for me the preferred location would be on the property line, but we just want to reserve the right to not put access there if we don't choose to. But nothing would preclude him from coming right over on his side and putting an access point there, which seems to me it's a cleaner -- a cleaner way to do it, than to have him cross our lots, because most likely those lots on the front are -- you have got a better idea there than I do -- what are they, an acre and a half, something Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 71 of 84 like that. So, they are larger lots and there could be office uses there. I don't know. I just wouldn't want to say that we absolutely provide access across our lots for them. Once they are developed out you can see how it lays out. Maybe it's a different story. But if they had a commercial type use there where they had a lot of ingress and egress, I wouldn't want them traveling across our lots. A similar situation is that Chevron over on Eagle Road that goes through the front of that savings and loan there and, then, John Jackson, when he bought it, ended up putting the driveway at the back behind the savings and loan, because that was just a mess. People walked out of there and it was -- we had people zooming back and forth. So, I mean I would propose that Tim Thornton get his access off of Franklin or off of Linder on his property. In fact, I would be willing to say when he got to the point of doing that, we would be willing to split the property line with the access point, with the driveway and we would be more than happy to do that. We just don't want to be required to, number one, put an access point there if we don't need it and, number two, if we don't put an access point there, provide him access across both of our lots, so -- but we don't want to preclude him -- we don't want to preclude him from developing that property. Although if you look at the way that ditch runs across there, I don't know how he's going to develop it, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. Well, I guess my basic summary is I think this is a project that needs to happen and the right place for it and the right zones. There are a lot of issues that aren't comfortable, but it's an odd piece of property as well, so sometimes we make allowances for things that we don't agree with. End of comment. Rohm: Thank you. Any additional comments by any Commissioners or questions of staff? Then, at this time could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Zaremba: Second. Borup: And that's her last motion. Newton-Huckabay: And that was my next last motion. Rohm: I wonder what the next one will be. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-048 and PP 06-050. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, for heaven's sake. Okay. Landscaping. Rohm: I personally think that the landscaping is not a necessary component of this development and -- Borup: Well, they have already got landscaping plans submitted. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 72 of 84 Newton-Huckabay: So, as submitted? Rohm: As proposed? Newton-Huckabay: As proposed? Rohm: Okay. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if you decide to do that, we need to keep the record clean, because the ordinance does require 25, we still need the applicant to actually submit the application and jump through that hoop. I have no problem if you want to give the direction saying five feet is fine, that's fine. but they do need to actually submit an application, because of the UDC. Borup: Right. What does the landscape plan presently show? Our copies are too small to -- I didn't get a full size. I don't think. Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I did. Hood: It looks like it's about a five -- it's kind of tough to tell. It looks like there is a property line and, then, a fence about two and a half feet in and, then, about another two and a half feet of landscaping. So, it's kind of tough and it varies a little bit. Borup: Yeah. I think it's more than even. Hood: I mean they are just trees. I don't see any shrubs or any ground cover below the trees, so -- it's tough to -- maybe the width of the of trees is the landscape buffer, because I don't see anything else underneath them. Borup: Yeah. I can't tell where it ends. It looks like it comes close to ten feet if you go to the outside line, but I don't know if that's lines or a ditch or what that is. Hood: There is top of bank of a ditch there. That's what gets a little bit confusing. If you go down to the very first thing on the north side of the canal, it would be on the very southwest corner. Borup: Oh, there it is. Yeah. Hood: That one is probably the best, where that parking lot goes over, that's kind of the best place to measure it and it measures out five feet is what I'm scaling out to. Borup: Okay. In my mind that's not a visual place where a lot of shrubs and flowers are going to mean anything. The trees -- the trees are always a nice feature to have, especially when they mature. I don't see where -- other than trees, where most of the perimeter landscaping does anything. So, are we looking for suggestions on -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19. 2006 Page 73 of 84 Rohm: I think Commissioner Newton-Huckabay is preparing to make a motion. She's doing a lot of writing. Borup: Well, if there is a concern about buffering on that side, an eight foot fence would -- would be an added -- be some added site buffering anyway. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, I mentioned it earlier that the UDC doesn't allow chain link with slats to provide that screening material. Now, if that's something that you guys want to do as part of this alternative compliance and allow the applicant to do that, because it truly doesn't, it doesn't screen. I mean you can see right through the chain link with slats. Borup: Well, the UDC doesn't -- doesn't even require a fence, does it? Hood: Well, that's what this alternative compliance is. Borup: Right. Hood: It would not otherwise require a fence, no. Borup: So, you're saying add chain link with the slats as part of alternative compliance? Hood: That's not necessarily what I'm saying. Borup: Oh. Hood: If you do want to do that, that's fine. But if it were just coming to us and we weren't having this discussion with the Commission, staff would not approve chain link with slats and a five foot buffer. You have to tell me what you want to approve pretty specifically or else we may have some discrepancies between the applicant and myself, so -- or Justin in this case, maybe. But as specific as you can be as possible with what you would like to see there, I can approve that, because I have got some direction from you. Borup: Well, I don't think it justifies a masonry wall, so what else is there? Rohm: I just think an eight foot chain link fence with a five foot buffer is -- it doesn't even have to be slatted, I mean in my mind. Borup: But that's not a site -- but that's not a site buffer. Rohm: Well, the -- Borup: Just keeps kids from climbing over it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 74 of 84 Rohm: There you go. And that's the purpose -- that's the purpose of that fence from -- in my mind anyway. Zaremba: I used to be able to climb a chain link fence pretty fast. It's not an obstacle. I like the idea of having maybe some extra trees along there. And the current -- the current neighboring uses would make me feel like there should be a solid fence or wall, masonry construction wall along that west property line, but I also agree with the applicant's prediction that those are going to transition out of residences at some point, at which time the wall would be excessive. Rohm: That's why I like the chain link fence and let it go. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, is it chain link with slats or chain link with no slats? Rohm: If it makes staff happier, with slats works for me. No preference. It's your motion. Newton-Huckabay: Slats it is. Zaremba: Can we specify that the slats have more than one color, they are not all the same color all the way down? Newton-Huckabay: No. Zaremba: You don't want to alternate the green and a white one? Borup: Probably get a red and a blue in there. Newton-Huckabay: No, we can't. Zaremba: Never mind. Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you're on. Newton-Huckabay: I'm still working on this. Okay. Borup: It looks like the trees are already at 35 feet. Approximately that area. Which is -- that's what the -- that's as close as you would want to do them anyway, isn't it? Hood: The UDC actually would require them to touch at full maturity to provide a full screening buffer. Borup: So, it depends on which species of tree. Hood: Well, they are showing them -- at this plan that is at maturity is what they should be showing on the plan, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 75 of 84 Borup: Oh. Hood: -- again, for it to be a land use buffer it really is a continuos wall of plant material when they mature. That's the intent. One for 35 is our standard requirement along streets and edges of parking, drive aisles, and things like that. Borup: They scale out how I figure it 37 and a half. So, close. So, that's close to -- Newton-Huckabay: You want more? Borup: I don't. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Is everybody in the -- Zaremba: I would support the fire department having some input to the northern four lots. I don't think it needs to be all six. Newton-Huckabay: I have got that -- basically, Brad's statement related to this -- they will provide access that they can drive completely around all the proposed buildings. Oh. And they are supposed to n and Knox -- Zaremba: Well, if they have access with Knox boxes -- if they have access and can drive all the way around, should they still have approval over the -- Newton-Huckabay: And I also have that. Zaremba: But are we -- if we are going to also have that, I would limit it to the northern four lots, as opposed to six. Newton-Huckabay: Four, five, six, and seven? Okay. Borup: I agree. Just those lots. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And we are not tiling the ditch -- or the canal. What about access? That's the only one -- Borup: Access to? Newton-Huckabay: One access on the west. Are we going to require to build the right- in. right-out or go for the letter to provide -- Zaremba: I think the way the applicant would like to see it state is if it exists it shall be right-in, right-out and have cross-access to the property. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 1 g, 2006 Page 76 of 84 Borup: You mean if the applicant provides it? Zaremba: If they choose to put it in -- Borup: Okay. Zaremba: -- it would have to have those elements to it. But he wants the right not to put it in. Hood: Mr. Chair, maybe Commissioner Newton-Huckabay may want to -- the ACHD's, actually, already covered that condition, we don't necessarily need to regurgitate that. If you want to, that's fine, too, but the applicant already has that option and if they do construct cross-access there, so -- Newton-Huckabay: So, I don't need to address that at all. Borup: Yeah. That's right. ACHD gives all kinds of alternatives. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. That works for me. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Now, what about the cul-de-sac and the drive -- long driveway. Just leave as is? Rohm: If that meets with the road standards as far as the 450 max and the rest of it is private aisle. Newton-Huckabay: So, leave it as it is? Borup: Well. I think -- from my standpoint, because there is -- because those other access points and cross-access agreements from the front, it's not technically a loop road, but it serves the same purpose and, you know, if you started measuring the cul- de-sac from the ditch and went 450 feet, you would be up to those -- well, not quite, but you would be -- you would be at least up to those other two lots. Mae: I may have missed this, but are you -- are you noting anything in regards to possibility of the emergency access on the north side? Newton-Huckabay: No, not yet. I need to know where to put that. Mae: I guess the concern I have there -- if you have the emergency access, the applicant did state that he may have a tenant that's going to take that -- both lots on the north, so, then, you're losing your emergency access to get back into that property. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 77 of 84 Borup: Well, not if -- not if he makes that a requirement to that tenant to have some kind of access through there, I think. A fire lane and a gate? Mae: Yeah. That's kind of what I was going to is to make that there was access. Borup: Well, that would be the idea/I think. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And, then, finally -- so, another condition would be to pursue that or are we just recommending that before City Council? How do you want that stated on the north? Borup: I mean -- Mae: I guess emergency access? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Moe: Follow up prior to City Council whether or not -- Newton-Huckabay: Is that 1.2.9? Or 1.2.1 O? Borup: That would be a good place. Or it could be stated stronger to provide an emergency access from the north easement, unless -- Moe: Unavailable. Borup: Right. Or prohibited or something. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Here we go. Borup: Did you do anything on the trash compactor and stuff? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Borup: Okay. Do you want to review your notes or are you comfortable with what you have got? Newton-Huckabay: I think I'm okay. It won't be like I haven't stumbled over my words on the record before. Borup: Everybody reads those so carefully. Newton-Huckabay: Really, it is the last motion I'm making today. After -- or did we close the Public Hearing? After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-048 and PP 06-050 as Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 78 of 84 presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 19th, 2006, with the following modifications. And give me a moment to get -- what page are those on? Hood: Exhibit B, page one. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I mean what page on the internet thing here? Sixteen or -- Okay. I'm going to try to stay in order here, but -- condition of approval 1.2.2 -- shall we -- we just strike that whole statement relating to the applicant shall provide two public street access points to this property along Franklin Road. These two streets shall be linked together by a public street that loops into the proposed development across the Eight Mile Lateral. Borup: We still have the two public access points, but just cross the loop part, maybe. Newton-Huckabay: The two streets shall be linked together by a public street that loops into the proposed development across the Eight Mile Lateral. One of the public streets access pOints shall align with Southwest 12th Street, which currently intersects Franklin Road across from the property. Do I strike the rest of that statement -- or the applicant shall submit a revised plan with alternative -- Borup: Well, it's an or, so that could stay. I don't know if -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. We'll leave that. So, we will strike -- go ahead. Hood: I'm sorry, not to intervene. I think the direction you're going, though, it's going to be easiest to strike that whole condition. Newton-Huckaby: Okay. Hood: There aren't two public streets proposed currently, so this would be a change. Borup: Oh. Hood: It's essentially staff's loop road proposal -- Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Hood: -- or some other alternative that may have come from this hearing. That's the or. And if you want to keep anything from the or, that may be where you want to insert your alternative potential access -- emergency access to the north, but, otherwise, that whole thing, if I'm reading you correctly, should go away. The whole thing could be -- Borup: So, do we even want to leave this statement that says provide two access points? They are going to do it anyway, so it probably doesn't matter, does it? Hood: Well, the difference is they are not publiC street access points. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19. 2006 Page 79 of 84 Borup: Right. Yeah. We could cross out the public streets or just -- or just cross out the whole thing. Hood: Essentially, by 1.2.1 you're approving their -- their one public street access point, so you don't need to call that out. This is called out, because it's a change. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, strike comment 1.2.2 and, then, 1.2.4, and I think we can strike 1.2.4 and 1.2.6, the landscape plan, we are suggesting that they submit an alternative compliance application with landscaping as proposed on their landscape plan, with a five foot buffer and a six foot chain link fence with slats of a single color. And so do we leave 1.2.7, then, Caleb? Hood: The first portion of that has been met. He clarified what type of fencing. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Leave it as is, then? Hood: It works fine just leaving it. Sure. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And, then, 1.2.8, that's regarding the irrigation ditches and the lateral. Do we just strike that and state that the applicant will not be tiling -- Hood: What you can do is -- the Council is the only body that can actually -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Hood: So, you can state that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that they not have to tile this, but as staff we are going to have to call this out for them to actually make that call. But you can sure put something in. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Borup: Or just leave it like it is. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I will just leave it as it is. And, then, now moving over to 3.4 and 3.18 and fire department. I would just take the statements made in the applicant's letter on 3.4 -- can we just reference the applicant's letter and include that the fire department is requiring a turnaround -- they agree to provide the fire department the ability to drive completely around any proposed building and provide Knox boxes, as well as grant the fire department -- on 3.18 now -- to the restrictions by the fire department on Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, regarding use restrictions for hazardous material or what's the term you want me to use there? Zaremba: Flammable and hazardous. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 80 of 84 Newton-Huckabay: Flammable and hazardous. Or just subject to fire department review and approval? I'm looking for affirmation from somebody. Borup: That's being duly withheld. Hood: Yeah. It's a little bit difficult, because it is the fire department's comments, so I don't want to -- Nary: And is that -- is that authority until there is at some point a secondary access or forever? Hood: I mean the way the condition reads is the fire department reserves the right to restrict future uses in areas that only -- are only served by one access. So, as I read that, if you have two accesses, then, we don't -- we don't care. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Until a second access is provided on that. We didn't do anything with the street design. And -- oh. I'm sorry. Back to item 1.2.5. The statement reads: No trash compactors, loading areas, docks or bays shall face the western property line on Lots 3, 5 -- Lots 3 through 5 on Block 1. Would you strike loading areas, docks or bays, so the statement will read no trash compactors shall face the western property line on Lots 3 through 5, Block 1. And item 1.2.10, the applicant will provide emergency access from the north by City Council, unless prohibited by -- Borup: Just leave it as -- Hood: It's private property, so they would have to negotiate with that -- that person to acquire an easement there, so -- Newton-Huckabay: So, we just -- unless prohibited by stakeholders? Zaremba: Shall we say they should pursue it? Borup: Make every effort. Newton-Huckabay: Best effort? Hood: It's hard for us to say that -- you know, complies -- it complies or doesn't. So, that's -- if you want to require some -- yeah, it's hard to put it on some other person. They may not want to even write a letter saying, no, you can't have an easement across my property. I -- Newton-Huckabay: Applicant will pursue obtaining emergency access on the north property line by City Council and report at City Council. I do belive that is the end. Hood: I do have one more point of clarification that was discussed during your -- it was just discussed during -- and I told you to leave it out, because ACHD's covering it -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 81 of 84 Newton-Huckabay: Right. Hood: -- with the -- the way that 1.2.3 is worded currently says -- requires the applicant to provide a cross-access easement to the Thornton property. So, I'm not sure what you want to do with that, but I think it -- Borup: Which number was that again? Hood: 1.2.3. And that was regardless of whether it's constructed as a shared driveway or as access to 13th Street. We wanted to see access provided through this site to that Thornton piece. So, whatever you want to do with that. I just -- you didn't make a change to that, but you talked about giving some flexibility and if you construct your driveway here, then, provide it. If you don't -- Newton-Huckabay: And that's what's in the ACHD comments; right? Hood: Correct. But ours goes a step further than that. Newton-Huckabay: Can we reference the ACHD comments in compliance with ACHD? Hood: What's your intent, I guess. of that condition? Newton-Huckabay: I understood that the Commission's intent was that we agreed they didn't necessarily have to build the driveway, but if they didn't they had to allow -- or if they did build the driveway, they had to allow them access. If they didn't build the driveway, they didn't have to provide any other access. Hood: Then, I would recommend you strike that entire condition. ACHD has covered that. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Strike statement 1.2.3. Borup: I think in my mind it depends on what the use is. If it's a Maverick store, then, you don't want to be crossing all the other properties. If it's another office building or something, then -- or a retail or something, that would be appropriate, but we don't know that. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And I believe that is the end -- Rohm: End of motion? Hood: There is not much of a staff report left, but -- Zaremba: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 82 of 84 Newton-Huckabay: Duly noted. Rohm: Okay. Good job, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-048 ,md PP 06-050, to include all staff comments with the changes as stated. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: All right. We have got one more Public Hearing, so -- Newton-Huckabay: We do? Item 14: Public Hearing: CPA 06-004 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the definition of "Office" by removing the last sentence of the description (see Chapter VII, page 106, June 2006 printing of the Comprehensive Plan) for Office Designation Text Amendment by the City of Meridian Planning Department: Rohm: Yes. Just a short one. Very short. At this time I'd like to open CPA 06-004, a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to modify definition of office. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. We are proposing to amend some text within the Comprehensive Plan relative to resolution 04-454, which is commonly used for residentially designated properties on arterials that want to go to office space, because they are less than three acres in size, but have frontage on an arterial street. Recently the Council has made an interpretation that it goes vice-versa and if you're office you can ask for residential, essentially. That was not the intent of resolution 454. We are cleaning this up so it really only applies to those resident -- pretty much residential properties, existing homes that back out of their driveways today as a single family home and they want to convert theirs to office. To do so, not for someone that is supposed to be office asking for residential. So, that is the clarification. We are proposing to remove the last sentence within office designation as currently written in the Comp Plan and I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I would note that the room is empty of public, therefore, nobody intends to add any public testimony and, therefore, I move to close the Public Hearing on CPA 06- 004. Mae: Second.