Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGemtone Center Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeetIng January 2, 2003 paga 4 of 57 South of East Overland Road and east of South Eagle Road, with the applicant understanding that certain notices have to be made. And that if those notices, once received by the property owners, if there are objections, that there could -- you could see this hearing back at the Planning and Zoning in the future and the application is nodding their head that they understand that. Of course, that will be part of the conditions approval. End of motion. Zaremba: I will second it. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Our next item -- Zaremba: I would only comment for the general public that are here that may not attend very many of these meetings, you probably are aware that there is a requirement in the state law to notify any property owner within 300 feet of the applicant. Because this parcel was misidentified, somebody who is actually within 300 feet of where the property really is was not notified. We are not waiving any of the notification requirements, but since this one seems to be a stam dunk, we are moving it forward and if it -- if the person who eventually will be notified objects, it will come back to us again. Item 5. Public Hearing: PP 02-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 12.081 acres in an I-L zone for Gemtone Center Subdivision No. 4 by Thomas T. Wright - west of North Eagle Road and west of East Pine Avenue: Borup: Okay. I think we have received -- we received a letter in our packet concerning the next item and that is of a Commercial Subdivision, Gemstone Center. They have requested, because of some items they want to work out with ACHD, to have this item deferred to our January 16th Agenda. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: I have looked at that Agenda and it seems that we are fine on the items. Zaremba: I would move that we table the hearing on PP 02-028 until our meeting on January 16, 2003. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 2 of 132 Zaremba: On the summary page, the first two pages, on the second page of that regarding the ninth item, the Public Hearing, PP 02-025, what we recommended approval of was, actually, 119 building lots and 12 other lots. That was a change from 117 to 119 and from 15 to 12. I'm looking at the summary sheet that -- the Item Number 9. Borup: Which page are you on? Zaremba: This is January 2nd. Borup: No. 1-- Zaremba: The summary page on top. Borup: Oh there. Zaremba: That says what we approved and forwarded in this -- Borup: Right. Zaremba: On the second page of that, Item 9, what we approved were 119 building lots and 12 other lots. Borup: Yes. That's what I was looking at was the motion -- or the motion said 119 and 12 and that was the original application number, I think. Zaremba: The original was 117 and 15. It was changed to 119 and 12. Borup: Yes okay so noted. Zaremba: Those are my only comments one either of these -- anyone of these items. Borup: Okay. Centers: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda as amended, Items A, B, and C. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second all in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 4. Tabled Public Hearing from January 2, 2003: PP 02-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 12.081 acres Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 3 of 132 in an I-L zone for Gemtone Center Subdivision No.4 by Thomas T. Wright - west of North Eagle Road and west of East Pine Avenue: Borup: Okay. Next item is -- actually, four, five, and six are all tabled from the -- or not tabled. I'm sorry. Let me try again. Item Number 4 is a Tabled Public Hearing from January 2nd, PP 02-028, a request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots in an 1- L zone for Gemtone Center Subdivision. I'd like to open this Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. On the PowerPoint overhead, you can see the area of the subdivision that we will be discussing tonight. It's the area that's in bold. This is an aerial view of the site. I'll just spend just a few moments on this. I wasn't here at the last meeting, so I don't know your background on this from the time it was tabled before, but just to give you a little overview. Borup: We did not have a presentation on it. McKinnon: I'll go ahead and give you a detailed review, then. The reason why this project was continued at the last Public Hearing was that there was some discussion concerning the existing Commercial Avenue, which is a private street. You can see that it's dirt at this time. It now has been improved to an asphalt surface. As you might remember a few months back, almost a year ago, we had some discussions about Elixir Subdivision and whether or not Commercial Avenue should be a public road or a private road. Well, they have improved it all the way up to this point. It does not meet ACHD's requirements, and it's still a private road at this time. When this subdivision was originally approved at Preliminary Plat, the last time this was approved as Gemtone No. 4, the subdivision essentially, encompassed the area that I'm highlighting right now. It is, essentially, bordered on Pine Street with the other local streets on the sides ending on the western boundary. At that time this lot -- this would be Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Block 6 -- those lots were not included with the original approval of this that took place a number of years ago as noted in the staff report. If I can move forward, this will give you a better view. As noted in the overhead, there is Commercial Avenue that runs right along this northern boundary of these lots right here. This application before -- the reason why it was continued is because Commercial on the original application did not connect. You can see that they offset. Commercial is public on this site and did not connect with Commercial over here. There was an offset of about 50 feet between the two streets. In addition to that, the requested Preliminary Plat approval that was before you included a driveway that went from Pine Street all the way down this long, narrow flag lot, to Lot Number 2 down here, rather than taking access off of Commercial Court. You should have all received a few items today. Let me go through what those are. You should have received a staff report from ACHD. They gave us the final report today. You probably haven't had a chance to review that, but I will go ahead and highlight a couple things after I'm done telling you the information that you received today. You should have received a copy of Joe Silva's updated memo. There was, really, only one change on that and I will highlight that as well. It addition to that, you Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 4 of 132 should have all received an eight and a half by 11 tonight showing the changes that were proposed to the Site Plan. I'm just going to go ahead and go in reverse order from that. You have the Site Plan. If you can take a look at that down at the area that, I have got highlighted on the PowerPoint that would be the area of Commercial Street. They have added Commercial Street to run from the existing Commercial now to the existing private Commercial Street. ACHD does not want the two roads to connect at this time, because Commercial on the east side is not a public road, it's just a private road, and so they would ask that they would connect with bollards and staff is in support of that, as you have read in the staff report. We'd like to see those two connected. In addition to that, there was a requirement to complete Machine Avenue. If you're not familiar with ACHD's policy of half plus 12, what that essentially, means is that the developer that developed this parcel that's adjacent to Machine, instead of developing the entire roadway on their parcel, they improved the roadway to have two lanes of traffic, which is, essentially, half of the road, plus 12 feet. The other 12 feet would be for the additional lane of traffic. Machine Avenue does not have a sidewalk currently on the eastern side of the property to where it dead-ends. One of the requirements of ACHD now would be that Machine Avenue is completed to its full width and the curb, gutter, and sidewalk is installed on the east side of Machine Avenue. The new Site Plan shows how that would take place. Now, if I can get you to grab Joe Silva's memo. Turn to the second page. This is the only change from the last time, is that Joe has now asked for an approval turn around on the north end of North Machine Avenue. It's not shown on the Site Plan that was given to you tonight. Becky didn't have a chance -- or the applicant did not have a chance to make these changes, because this came over from Joe just t his afternoon. T he t urn a round would be at t his location at the end 0 f t he northern terminus of Machine Avenue. That would be to allow emergency vehicles to make that - that escape from the dead-end road. We can go to Ada County Highway District's approvals at this time. I wish you had the opportunity to read this, but it goes through site-specific items. If you could turn to Page 6, I will just go through a couple of the site-specific items that need to be brought to your attention. It's going to be Page 6, Item Number C-1. If you can get to the very end of that paragraph, it says if the city does not require the extension of Commercial Street, then, the applicant shall be required to complete the intersection and improvements of Machine Avenue. City staff does support that the two streets connect. It doesn't make sense for people to not have access from the existing public road in the future down Commercial Street to get to Eagle Road. It doesn't make sense for them to have to go on two other arterials back out to Franklin to get to Eagle and so we would like to see those two connected. We would like tonight that you require that the two roads do ~- that the two roads do connect. If I could get you to look now down to Item Number 3. Again, the final sentence of this section of the report says that they need to provide a written approval to the Meridian Fire Department that indicates a turn around is not required at the northern terminus of Machine Avenue. The memo that we just read from Joe says that there is a requirement for that so there will be a requirement for that. It won't be able to comply with that unless they show that they can put that turn around at the end of Machine Avenue. I have taken a second to talk with the developer just this evening and it looks like it would be possible for them to put a turn around on that property, so that does not appear to be a major concern. They will be required to place the no parking Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 5 of 132 signs on Machine Avenue. I have done several site visits out to the area and currently there are cars parked up and down both sides of Machine Avenue, both on the east side and the west side in order accommodate parking for one of the larger commercial uses on the south side of the Commercial Street at the end of Machine. Borup: David, while you're on that, can -- can you explain the purpose of that stub street, Machine Avenue? I mean is it anticipated to access that property to the north or -- it looks like this applicant has no need for Machine Avenue to be extended at all for their -- is that correct? McKinnon: That's correct. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Machine Avenue is not being required to be extended tonight for this application. Borup: Well, but they are requiring a turn around. McKinnon: They are requiring that they complete the half plus 12 and that's what ACHD's policy is. There is nothing on the -- right now it's just edge of pavement. There is no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. Borup: Right. That was my question. That stub street is designed to serve future property. Is that what's still anticipated here? McKinnon: That is what's anticipated. The reason that the applicant is being required to complete the westem -- the eastern portion of Machine Avenue, is because that's the portion of the property that -- the portion of the street that's on their property. In the future we could not require say this parcel right here to complete improvements on someone else's property. Borup: Right. I understand that sot his is the 0 nly - - is t hat landlocked 0 r is t his a secondary access or we don't know. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that property is not landlocked. In addition to providing access to this lot, it also would provide access in the future as it connects to Pine Street. Pine Street is where Eagle Road does have the stoplight and so people could access Pine Street by going up north to Pine. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: A future connection there but they are not required to extend this road any further. Borup: No. I understood that. Zaremba: Well, is the assumption that at some time Machine will connect to Pine and Commercial? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 6 of 132 McKinnon: I went to the tech review at ACHD last week for this -- and Becky's here tonight. She was at the tech review as well. There was a lot of discussion about whether or not that ever will connect and it, essentially, hinges on whether or not the city would like it to connect. ACHD, in my opinion, was either -- it was sixes either way for them, whether it continued up or if it -- Zaremba: It certainly would help people that intend, eventually, to go from Commercial and go north on Eagle they would probably go to Pine to the signal. McKinnon: Right. Zaremba: The end result of that would be that this applicant would need to do the half plus 12 on their side all the way up. McKinnon: The problem with them having to do the half plus 12 on their side is that they would offset the road right at that point that we are right at now all the way back up to Pine and ACHD felt that at this time there wasn't enough push for that. Brad, Steve and I -- all three of us got together to determine what -- you know, whether -- we couldn't figure out whether or not ACHD was going to want to require them to dedicate that amount of right of way that would be allowed to complete a half plus 12 all the way up to Pine Street. In talking with ACHD, they don't believe that it should connect and they are not requiring that additional dedication. Borup: I'm assuming Lot 1, Block 6, is not intended as a building lot? McKinnon: It, actually, is intended as a building lot. In ACHD's report -- I was going to go on just one more site specific comment on that and that's Item Number 4, which is just the next one I was going to go to. ACHD in their staff report talked about how Lot 1 should actually not take access off of Pine Street, but, rather, should take access off of Machine Avenue. The reason for that is because Pine is a collector -- commercial collector and they'd like to limit the number of access points on Pine Street. They felt that in order to limit the access off of Pine Street, they could take access to this building lot by accessing it here, providing a driveway from the terminus of Machine and running it up to this lot and not allowing access to Pine from that lot. That's one of the reasons I wanted to bring it up to you. It doesn't -- from staff's point of view, it makes more sense to front the building onto Pine Street and provide access onto Pine Street. It is not in violation of ACHD's policy, but it is something that ACHD would like to limit. That would be something that I would ask for you to make a motion on tonight as to where you believe they should be taking access to that lot. I was just looking at -- yes. It's still lot - - the revised Site Plan shows this lot down at the bottom now as Lot 1, Block 7, and so the number -- the numbering system that we have used is going to be a little bit off, but throughout the staff report the lot down here is Lot Number 2 of Block 6. Lot 1, Block 6, is still the same number so as far as where you would like to see access tonight would be something that I think the applicant would like to hear from you and something that we can hang our hats on, essentially. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 7 of 132 Borup: Any idea the explanation for that configuration, the curve and -- does the applicant own the unplatted area, too? McKinnon: It was an old railroad spur. It actually came up through there to serve -- Borup: Are those separate parcels under a different ownership? Same ownership? McKinnon: A long time ago they were under different ownership, if I remember correctly. It was all part of the entire rectangular shaped piece of property that was part of the Elixir Group. It wasn't Elixir? It was Westem Chemical? Which one was it? Borup: Well, it just looks like a poor way to do a lot. Centers: How wide is this, Dave? McKinnon: It's 50 feet. Centers: Fifty? McKinnon: Fifty. Borup: It is -- the lot is -- well, I don't know if it's larger than it looks. It's not going to take a very large building up there in that triangle section at the top. Okay. Well, I mean -- McKinnon: It's 1.66, but it's got that long flag that runs up at 50 feet for approximately-- Borup: That's going to be up to -- that's going to be up to them to decide what they could put on there if it complies -- you know, if you comply with the setbacks from Pine Street and everything else. McKinnon: Right. Borup: And leave room for right of -- so they still - 50 feet is not buildable either, is it? McKinnon: It's going to be really hard to build a skinny building on that. Borup: Well, 25 feet of that needs to go to the -- for future Machine Avenue, doesn't it? McKinnon: A portion of that would be part of Machine Avenue's completion. That's correct. Zaremba: Then a landscape setback and the -- McKinnon: Yes it would be really skinny. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 6 of 132 Zaremba: So they have a building that's two feet wide. McKinnon: Right. Borup: Down on the bottom. McKinnon: If I could just continue on to a couple more things, before we get into discussion, and I know Becky is going to have a few things that she's going to want to add. With the original Site Plan that was submitted, there was no Landscaping Plan that was submitted for this parcel, which is now Lot 1, Block 7. There is a requirement, as you will note in the staff report, for a new Landscape Plan to be submitted that includes a landscape buffer for the future pathway adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad. In addition to that, there was no landscaping that was shown for -- for obvious reasons, in this location where Commercial would come across and you would need a Landscape Plan for that as well for the public street frontage -- street buffer Landscape Plan. We would need to know how the applicant intends on landscaping or treating this area in the future, this 50-foot wide area, as you have noted that it's really not buildable at this time. There should be some treatment to that area in order to either, one, beautify it or to keep it from becoming a nuisance, keep it from becoming a 50-foot wide -- or a 25-foot wide, jogging up to a 50-foot wide weed patch. . There needs to be some sort of treatment that's taken on that area. Unless, of course, you decide to go with ACHD's recommendation to require a driveway starting at the end of Machine and running the access to this lot from Machine Avenue. Those are -- that really covers the information that's addressed in the staff report as well. We do support the new revised connections to the Commercial Street and there are a number of items that I would like for you to strike from the staff report tonight, items that they have met on the revised Site Plan -- the revised Preliminary Plat. If I could have you turn to Page 4 of the comments, it would be the comments dated December 315 on Page 4. If you would strike Item Number 3, that was the -- that was the requirement for an additional plat note. The plat note has been included on the new revised plat. Item Number 7, the applicant has eliminated the 25-foot wide cross-access easement. That item can be stricken from the staff report. Item Number 8, the applicant would be required to extend the existing East Commercial Street. The applicant has done that as well so all three of those Items Number, 3, 7, and 8, should be stricken from the staff report. With that, I'd ask if you have any additional questions of staff. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I have a question probably directed to Bruce. 0 n the response from the Water Department, which they signed November 25, 2002, is the statement that what is now being called Block 7, Lot 1, was part of the Elixir project, which we have talked about, and was never accepted by the Meridian Water Department. What does that mean to us? Or what does it mean to the applicant? Just in general what does it mean? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 9 of 132 Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, the parcel that they are referring to, to my knowledge, never was part of the Elixir project. It's always been in the ownership of Gemtone so I think their comment is in error. Zaremba: Okay. Just having nothing to do with this applicant, but if a parcel was not accepted, what does that mean? Freckleton: Well, I think what he's -- I think his word should .have been accepted, not excepted. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: There was a water main installed in Commercial Street coming in off Eagle Road down into this location. I'm not sure where he's going with that, but I don't think the final inspections were ever approved and the lines never were accepted by the City of Meridian for ownership and maintenance. Zaremba: But if this project went through, that inspection would happen and -- Freckleton: Yes. They would be two totally separate projects, because this would have to get its services from extensions of services off of Commercial through this area, not off of Elixir. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borup: So you wouldn't be looping the water line? Freckleton: Well, we would be looking to make the connection at Machine with the lines that were installed as part of Elixir, yes. Borup: That's what I thought. Freckleton: So we would just have to work that out, but it is two separate projects. Borup: Any other questions? Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Dave, you had been commenting that you wanted Commercial Street connected and maybe I lost you and, then, you said strike Number 8 on Page 4. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the reason I asked you to strike Number 8 is because the applicant has submitted a plat that does connect to the two. Centers: But in your first comments when you first started you were talking about that being a requirement, but they have done it, then? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 10 of 132 McKinnon: They have done it. Centers: Okay. Great. Thank you. Borup: And maybe just clarification on that same thing, then. ACHD wanted the bollards, staff does not is that correct? I'm not sure why they wanted the bollards. McKinnon: The reason -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the reason for the bollards is because Commercial Avenue is a private street. Borup: Right. McKinnon: And we cannot force the applicant to allow us to have access to their private street. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: The reason -- we have to have -- Borup: Well, does their street go right up to their property line? McKinnon: The street, actually, if I have -- in discussions with ACHD and site, the street actually extends beyond their property line and goes into part of Gemtone project. However, the street is a private street, it's maintained by the owner of that. If the city were to require them to open that up, the city would also have to make that a public road. We cannot require them to make that a public road at this time, because the road does not meet ACHD's standards. Borup: Oh. Right. I understood that but if that road already extends past their property line, G emtone goes ahead and just connects to it, if t he other property doesn't want access, it should be up to them to put a barricade up, shouldn't it? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is a barricade that's up right now. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: So they have placed a barricade there. The connection that Gemtone would be making would be separate to that but currently, the -- where Commercial Court comes and dead-ends is about where my laser pointer is at on the map. There is actually a chain link fence that's located right at the dead end portion of that road so the bollards would keep vehicles from traveling across someone else's private property. Staff does not disagree with the bollards being placed there at this time. However, in the future, when Elixir requests that their property be re-subdivided or -- subdivided and other portions of it annexed -- I'm not sure if it would involve annex -- when they come Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 11 of 132 back in to subdivide, like they did previously with the Elixir Subdivision, we can require them at that time to make that road public. Borup: If I remember right, I think we already did that once. McKinnon: We did do that once. However, the applicant for Elixir Industries has said I'm not going to do it, I'm not going to record my plat, so we have no way of requiring him to do his public road now. Borup: And the project that that was made a requirement on didn't go through. McKinnon: It didn't go through and so we have no way of forcing him to allow us access to that private road at this time. Borup: Okay. They moved drown the street is what they did. Okay any other questions from staff? Is the applicant ready for a presentation? Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt and I'm representing the applicant in this matter 1100 East Valli-Hi, Eagle. Dave's pretty much given you, you know, some of the history on this project. This is a Preliminary Plat. We had obtained Preliminary Plat approval -- or not I, but another planner years and years ago multiple Time Extensions were granted by the Council, a Variance and, then, the applicants couldn't decide exactly what they wanted to do. They allowed the Preliminary Plat to expire. Basically, what this is, is a new Preliminary Plat going through the second time. As Dave indicated, that's a -- the curvature there is an old railroad spur that Gemtone purchased from -- I think it was Union Pacific Railroad. It was never built and so they added it to this project. We went through staff's comments, ACHD's comments, we adjusted our Preliminary Plat to reflect the extension of Commercial Street along the dog leg and just, for your information, the reason that the block changes and the lot numbers change is because we separate that with a right of way. Once that right of way separates that, we have to change block and lot numbers. You were correct, Commissioner Borup, this body and the City Council required Elixir to make their Commercial Street public, they threw a fit and -- because they had built it, I believe, in advance and it was not constructed as to ACHD standards, nor did they put sidewalk on either side. Borup: I believe they were told before they built it. Bowcutt: You're probably right. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, and Mrs. Bowcutt, the City Council at first required it to be a public road and, then, there was an appeal to that. Mr. Clayton, representing Elixir Industries, convinced the Council to allow to that remain private after the first time they went public, so they did flip-flop on that. The final decision of Council was that that road could remain private as part of the Elixir -- Borup: It wasn't built to ACHD specs? They built it private? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 12 of 132 Bowcutt: Correct. McKinnon: Yes. Bowcutt: Anyway, at that time one of their arguments before the City Council to rescind the requirement to make it public was that there was probably never going to be a chance of a connection. They also got a letter out of ACHD that said they didn't care whether it was public or private. Well, now, we come through and ACHD is saying we need this connection, but, oh, shoot, it's private over there. I have talked to the applicant and Mr. Wright has indicated he is not opposed to extending Commercial and connecting that to the private section, so that in the future, if it ever becomes public, you will have that connection out there. The dogleg, when you look at that, it's approximately 72,491 square feet. If you look at -- if we come up say approximately 500 feet, we have got about 25,000 square feet in this area, approximately. It is technically un buildable. Probably the best bet would be to utilize that for a driveway, if we have -- we have 50 feet here, driveways are typically 20, 25 feet wide, and, then, have landscaping on both sides. This is approximately one third of these 72,491 square feet. You would -- you know, you could place a building in here, it would, obviously, have to be, you know, designed the right way. Borup: Excuse me, Becky. Does Gemtone own both parcels 0 n both sides of that curve? Bowcutt: They only -- the only thing that they own -- Borup: Is Block 6 or Block 1? Bowcutt: -- is what you see there. Yes. Borup: Okay. Bowcutt: Yes. Yes, so the other option is if one could not fit a building on Lot 1, Block 6, at some point in time it could be combined with a parcel to the east or to the west. Someone could do - when they came in to do a -- you know, to do a plat of -- to the east or the west, that could be included so there are options there. I always feel it's the responsibility of the developer to make sure that they are buildable. If they can'tfit something on it, that's their problem, that's not the city's. Borup: Right. Bowcutt: It is unusual and, like I said, the burden is on the developer. We have adjusted the right of way -- excuse me. Zaremba: Since we are on that spot, do you have an opinion about whether a building would preferably face Pine or have this long driveway down to Commercial? MerIdian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 13 of 132 Bowcutt: You know, I guess it could go either way. It would be more cost effective if it fronted Pine, because driveways are, obviously, expensive. As Dave indicated, you know, you have got to find something to do with those 50 feet. You know, maybe your user is someone who has a need for some storage, you know, like say a plumbing company or a roofing company, you could possibly fence off that 50 feet and store certain types of materials along there. I mean there are all kinds, you know, uses that you could -- you could have, but I am in agreement with Dave, I wouldn't want it to be an eye sore. You know, if the Commission would feel more comfortable putting some condition on there, that it be treated in some fashion, you know, staff level review to make sure when that lot is developed that that 50 feet is treated appropriately with either landscaping or screening or whatever, we are not opposed to that. The turn around, that was kind of a surprise to me, because, typically, we go one lot deep and without a turn around, but according to Dave, because that's 200 feet in depth and it exceeds 100 feet, therefore, the Fire Department is asking for a turn around. We can fit a turn around in there. This is a 100 scale. As you can see, based on the area that my client owns and the existing 50-foot of North Machine Avenue, we can fit a turn around in there. It is feasible to comply with the fire department's requirements. The other right of ways, this particular project has more right of ways than anyone I have ever seen. We are going to have to improve West State, North Hickory, and East Pine, Machine Avenue, and Commercial, just to bring on these few commercial lots but the applicant is fully aware of that. I have faxed him over our revised Preliminary Plats. He has read through the conditions and I think staff and the client and myself are in agreement. We would ask the Commission to go ahead and recommend approval of this to Council. Do you have any questions? Zaremba: I do have one very small. We have addressed now speaking in this area. Bowcutt: Yes. Zaremba: I guess this is Machine Avenue. Bowcutt: Yes. Zaremba: You have talked about making a turn around here. Bowcutt: Yes. Zaremba: That ends up leaving maybe, what, 20 or so feet -- 30 or so feet of Machine Avenue. It still needs to be widened. Are you proposing to do that or-- Bowcutt: Yes. ACHD's-- Zaremba: To make it a finished road for that -- BOwcutt: ACHD said that we have to go ahead and widen it. Anytime we have thought of something that is approved with the half right of way or half plus 12, usually, the City Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 paga 14 of 132 Code and ACHD policy manual requires that we finish that out. Yes, there is an existing 50-foot of right of way there, we would utilize that, and if it -- if we have to add a little bit, we have, obviously, got the area to finish that roadway off. Then, that turn around could be temporary, so that Machine could go straight north. To swing it onto our dogleg, I don't think would be a ppropriate. You would want it to go pretty much in alignment straight up and intersect with Pine. Zaremba: So let me ask -- that answered that part of the question. Let me ask both you and maybe staff chime in. Assuming that someday this probably would connect to Pine, it seems pretty logical to me. Would a restriction along this property line be in order, that at least the setback had to be enough, if they build on it, the setback has to be enough that a future right of way could be -- Bowcutt: For a flanking street you mean? Zaremba: Yes. Bowcutt: That it would have a flanking setback? I don't see a problem with that do you, Dave? McKinnon: That's very appropriate. Bowcutt: Yes. That would be appropriate. You're right because, you know, technically, the building could be built like it was just a side lot line and, then, you would have a roadway. Therefore, it would impact the building. Yes. Good idea. Zaremba: I don't know how many feet that is, if we need to specify it. Bowcutt: Typically, it's 20, isn't it? McKinnon: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. That's an acceptable thing to do. Borup: Oh, I see what you're saying. You're saying setback -- but you're still planning for a future street right of way there, though. Zaremba: Setback from this property line, if they build a building right up to the property line, minus 10 feet of required setback. Borup: No. That's what I'm saying. I think you're talking about two different things here. Becky, are you anticipating a 25-foot right of way along your property line any way future right of way? Bowcutt: No, sir. No, sir because the 50-foot of Machine Avenue right of way would extend straight north. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 15 of 132 Borup: Right. Bowcutt: And it would be -- Zaremba: Probably only take up 10 or 12 feet off of this property. Bowcutt: So what -- Borup: Oh, the existing Machine is already 50-foot right of way? Bowcutt: That's right so if you -- Borup: Okay. 1-- Bowcutt: If the RUT property is developed - Borup: Right. Bowcutt: - then, they would dedicate 50-foot along their boundary. Borup: And that would stay in alignment with existing Machine. Bowcutt: So, then, Commissioner Zaremba's question is wouldn't it be prudent for us to have a flanking street setback versus an interior side lot line setback. Borup: Yes. Bowcutt: To plan for that. Zaremba: I didn't know that terminology, but, yes, that's exactly what I was asking. Borup: I think we definitely should do that. Yes. Otherwise, 10 years from now when someone wants to put a street in, they say where -- why did the city approve that don't they plan? Bowcutt: Right and the building could be as close as what? Dave, what's the interior setback for I-L? McKinnon: I-L? Oh, geez. I think it's zero. Bowcutt: See. It could be zero. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Becky, Bruce and I are trying to figure out a way to wordsmith that to add that as a condition of the plat. That way it's a note on the plat, so that when they come to get Building Permits that, you know, the Building Department is notified that they have to meet those additional setbacks of 20 Maridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeUng January 16, 2003 Page 16 of 132 feet. Bruce and I are kind of in a quandary as to how we would -- if anybody has any ideas how we could either place that in the easement or if there needs to be a separate lot for that, how would we indicate that on the plat? That needs to be -- Bowcutt: Setback for that particular lot? McKinnon: Just as a note on the plat? Bowcutt: A note on the plat. McKinnon: Just a note on the plat? Bowcutt: A note on the plat. McKinnon: So there needs to be an additional note on the plat -- Bowcutt: Yes. McKinnon: -- that would say that for Lot 1 -- Zaremba: Block 6, Lot 1. Borup: Couldn't it be a note and a dotted line also? Bowcutt: It could be graphically shown or shown in -- McKinnon: I think graphically depicted with a note would be -- okay. Thanks. Bowcutt: Usually, graphically depicted is the best route. They see them a little better than in the notes. Borup: Yes. That's -- I have seen that happen. The notes don't always get read. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Becky, I had a note here on Page 6 of the ACHD report. You would really like to leave Item 4 in there and have that option, wouldn't you, to have the driveway along Machine Avenue? Bowcutt: I think -- I think we'd like the option. Centers: Well -- and you mentioned maybe storage -- Bowcutt: Yes. Centers: -- on that 25,000 -- I think that would be uglier than a driveway. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 paga 17 of 132 Bowcutt: Well, yes, I guess it depends -- you would have to fence it out if -- if it were storage it would typically be fenced out. Centers: Yes. Bowcutt: Then you would have some type of a corridor type fencing system. Centers: But if you were going with the driveway, you're going to do your landscaping and that type of thing, as you mentioned earlier. Bowcutt: Yes. Centers: So I think that that would look better. I just wanted to compliment you again, as I have before, and other presenters, as I have mentioned, if they would take a lessen, we have your memo here and all we had to do was just look down and done this, will comply, you just specify each item. Good job. The only two things that we need to add are the turn around and, then, what Commissioner Zaremba brought up. Bowcutt: That's correct. Centers: Excellent. Bowcutt: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: I also agree that your presentations are very helpful to us. I'm not so sure I would want you to have to train your competition, though. Centers: She could charge for it. Zaremba: It would be nice if they did it, too. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Centers: Well, I think it would be in order to close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: I will second that motion. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Do we need to discuss the wording of those two -- Centers: I made some notes here. Applicant to provide a turn around at the south end of Machine Avenue to comply with the fire department -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 18 of 132 Zaremba: It's the north end of -- Centers: Would be the -- Zaremba: It's the south end of their property, but it's the north end of Machine Avenue. Borup: Correct. Machine Avenue comes off of Commercial right now. Centers: Oh. Okay. Okay at the north end of Machine Avenue to comply with the city. Then, install no parking signs along the whole area and, then, the building on Lot 1, Block 6, should be set back 20 feet from the Machine Avenue lot line would that be correct and be noted on the plat? Borup: Noted and graphically depicted. Centers: Pardon? Borup: Noted and graphically depicted. Centers: Right on the plat. Anybody have anything else? Zaremba: That and the few deletions that staff has noted. Centers: Yes so I will -- Rohm: Jerry, is Machine Avenue platted all the way to Pine Avenue? Borup: No. Rohm: So it wouldn't be -- it wouldn't be 20 feet back from Machine Avenue, it would be -- Zaremba: The western property line. Rohm: -- from the west property line. Zaremba: Of Block 6, Lot 1. Rohm: Right. Borup: Right. Zaremba: West property line of Block 6, Block 1 and, then, the decision about do we want this applicant to add bollards at the east end of Commercial Avenue. I think that's a good idea. ACHD is requiring it. I think we just don't negate that. Maridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 15, 2003 Page 19 of 132 Centers: Well, yes, I think they had said that they are going to comply with all the ACHD requirements, so that's in there. Borup: See, I don't think they should have to. It's a private street. Zaremba: Well, it's not this applicant's problem, but what would it take to make that private portion comply with ACHD? Borup: I don't know now. Zaremba: Just not put enough face under it or -- Borup: It's because of the attitude of the other landowner is the only reason it's not a public street. Zaremba: Well, the construction isn't adequate right? Borup: We don't know. It was never pre-approved and inspected during construction is the problem, I believe. McKinnon: Mr, Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is numerous reasons why it doesn't meet the ACHD's requirement for a public road, not the least of which is there is some drainage issues and the lack of sidewalks on the full length of the property. Zaremba: I would support for now the bollards and when that property ever comes up to put it on them to fix the road to standards. Centers: That would be the case. Zaremba: And, then, the bollards could be removed. Borup: That's fine. I mean I just -- it's a private road. If they don't want anybody going to it, they need to put the barricade up, which, apparently, is already there anyway. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if it's a requirement in ACHD's -- if those are requirements of ACHD's, we don't necessarily need to adopt them as our own, however, unless, you'd like to adopt them as our own in case ACHD changes their mind, so -- Zaremba: I think my only question was whether we were going to countermand it and if we agree we are not going to countermand it, then, we don't need to mention it. Borup: Right. I think it would be up to the Commission. I wouldn't mind seeing us leave it up to the option of the applicant. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 20 of 132 Centers: The bollards? Borup: Yes. Centers: And, then, they talk to ACHD? Borup: Yes. If they can talk ACHD out of it, I -- which they probably wouldn't, but I -- Zaremba: The end result being -- Borup: The only reason I'm saying that, I guess I'm still bothered by the other landowner's previous attitude. Zaremba: Me, too, but that doesn't bleed over to this. Borup: No. Well, it is, it's - Zaremba: Well, it does impact, doesn't it? Borup: It does impact them. Centers: We could say that we don't necessarily require bollards on Commercial street and it would be up to the applicant to talk to ACHD, but - Borup: Sounds like it's not a big deal either way. Zaremba: If we say nothing, that will -- Borup: I don't think they care either way. Centers: Okay. All right. Well, I will make the motion here, Mr. Chairman, regarding Item 4, is it, on our Agenda? PP 02 - I would recommend approval to the City Council for PP 02-028, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 12.081 acres in an I-L zone for Gemtone Center Sub No.4 by Thomas T. Wright. At the west of North Eagle Road and west of East Pine Avenue, including all staff comments, with the exception of Page 4. Strike Number 3, strike Number 7, strike Number 8, and additional -- additional requirements would be to install a turn around at the north end of Machine Avenue. Also, install no parking signs all along that area and, then, any building placed on Lot 1, Block 6, should be 20 feet from the west property line and should be noted on the plat, that language. I think that's it. Zaremba: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Anyopposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT