Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 5, 2008 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 26 of 43 Moe: Is there anyone else out in the audience that would like to speak in regards to this -- okay. No one else. So, I'm sure you don't want to come back up and say the same thing you just said; right? So, we are okay there. Having said that, now, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 08-006. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 08-006. A{I those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 08-006 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 5th, 2008, with no modifications. End of motion. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve AZ 08-006 for Alter Properties. All those in favor'? Opposed? That motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Public Hearing: RZ 08-002 Request for Rezone of 0.55 of an acre from the R-4 to L-O zoning district for Meridian Library Parking Lot Expansion by the Meridian Library District - 1727 N. Leisure Lane: Moe: I would now like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 08-002 for Meridian Library Parking Lot Expansion and hear the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a request for a rezone of .58 of an acre of land from R-4, medium low density residential, to L-O, limited office. The property is located at 1727 North Leisure Lane, north of Cherry Lane, on the west side of Leisure Lane, approximately a quarter mile east of North Linder Road. This is an aerial view of the property. Residential property zoned R-4 exists to the north of the site. To the east is an office, zoned L-O and R-4. To the south is a library parking lot and vacant building, zoned L-O. And to the west is an existing library parking lot, zoned L-O. The applicant proposes to construct a new parking lot for the library on this site. The conceptual site plan submitted with the application shows how the subject property and the existing parking lot to the west of the site will redevelop as one new parking lot, with associated landscaping. One two-way access driveway to the proposed parking lot is shown from Cherry Lane via Leisure Lane. Two one-way drive -- driveways enter from and exit into Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 27 of 43 the library property where the library is located west of this site from the proposed parking lot. That's the two drives right here. A possible driveway connection to the existing library parking lot to the south is also depicted on the plan. No new access points to Cherry Lane are proposed with this application. The requested L-O zoning district complies with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of office for this property. The proposed use as a parking lot for the library is considered a public/quasi-public use and as such is a permitted use in the L-O district. The adjacent properties owned by the Meridian Library District are all zoned L-O. This property is unique in that it encompasses all of Leisure Lane, a private street at the east boundary south of Cherry Land. You can see here on the aerial. Leisure Lane is an existing private street that is used for access to the subject property, the property to the east, and residences north of the site. The residential property owners to the north own the land to the center of Leisure Lane. Leisure Lane is located within an easement north of the site. Leisure Lane is currently improved on this site with approximately 22 feet of asphalt, no curb, no gutter, and no sidewalk. A raised curb exists along the east boundary adjacent to the office property that separates a five foot wide area that serves as a sidewalk, but is the same level as the street. Leisure Lane is considered a substandard street and all of the residential properties to the north are, therefore, considered nonconforming properties, because they are single family homes without public street frontage. Staff believes that Leisure Lane should be improved as a public street as a provision of rezoning this property. If Leisure Lane is improved as a public street, then, all of the properties that have access to Leisure Lane can some day redevelop in conformance with city code. If the improvement and dedication of Leisure Lane on this property does not occur, staff believes that there will be a negative impact on the adjacent neighbors. Staff is recommending as a development agreement provision that the applicant improve and dedicate right of way for Leisure Lane as the public street consistent with ACHD standards from Cherry Lane to the north boundary of the site. This improvement and dedication shall occur prior to approval of the certificate of zoning compliance for the parking lot expansion. Additionally, staff is including a development agreement provision for the parking lot lighting to be shielded, so that no direct light shines into adjacent residential properties. Staff is cecommending approval of the subject rezone request to L-O with the development agreement as stated in the staff report. And staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Moe: Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward. Daniels: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- Sonya, I was wondering if you could go to the aeriaL Moe: Name and address, please. Daniels: Sorry. Ed Daniels, 2785 Bogus Basin Road in Boise. Moe: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 28 of 43 Daniels: Currently the library is located here. The library district has purchased this property. They are utilizing the existing parking lot and they are utilizing the existing office building for staff and some administration. The property that we are requesting for rezone is back over in here. Right now the library district has got a significant demand for patrons and children and everybody coming to the library, such that they have -- they have expanded into this for the parking lot and -- even with that parking lot expansion, there is still a high demand for parking. So, currently what happens when the library parking lot gets full is that we have parents parking in subdivisions and needing their children to walk along Cherry Lane. I'm sure everybody's familiar with Cherry Lane. As you can see from the aerial, there is no landscape buffer befinreen Cherry Lane and the sidewalk and it becomes a major hazard for these -- for these children coming into the library. So, with the -- with the parking lot addition our hope is that we -- we mitigate any of the safety concerns that we currently have of where the parents have to park for their children. We are, however -- this is a very unique piece of property in that it does encompass a portion of Leisure Lane and I'm not seeing this right now on the aerial, but ACHD owns eight feet between their property and this property here and we haven't really got a definitive answer why that property exists or what ACHD really anticipates doing with it. Currently by making this a public road -- or, for one thing, it really straps the library financially in making this project feasible. You know, in order to try to do the right thing for the students and the patrons and the children as well. Also by making this a private lane -- I'm not sure what the intention is or if there is any -- going to be any contiguous private road that would maybe stop here and, then, the public would end there. So, I guess the question to maybe the staff is what was the intent to have half of a public -- half of a public road and, then, half of a private road when someday these may or may not be developed at any date and time. So, that's kind of the project and I guess our request would be to eliminate any requirements we have for a public road and any of the improvements that come with that, as well as the conditions of approval for water and sewer in here, I'm not sure what the intent is on there as well. I'd stand for questions. Moe: Any questions? Thank you very much. Okay. On the sign-up sheet there is a Bob Wallett. It says by proxy. Okay. For the record. Okay. Next on the list is Margaret Wallett. Wallett: Thank you. My name is Margaret Wallet. I live at 1838 Leisure Lane, which is the second property on the right. Moe: There should be a pointer there on -- Wallett: I don't know how to use it. Oh, there we go. Right there is my property. Moe: Okay. Wallett: It goes up all the way here and there -- that right there. I am all for the parking lot itself. I realize that there is a problem. The problem that I have -- and the reason I said no to this and my husband also, who is at home sick, is the entrance onto Leisure Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 29 of 43 Lane. I have pictures of Leisure Lane. The potholes that have been created from -- just from the dentist office on the corner and, then, when it was -- the counseling office and, then, they tore the fence down and made an exit onto Leisure Lane. I do have -- somewhere here I have pictures of the potholes that were created from too much traffic. Here we go. Right here. Moe: You'll need to give that to the clerk to put into the record. Wallett: Thank you. As you can see, there -- it's not a good road and it's because of the extra traffic. One reason that we chose to buy the house was because it was on a private iane, which means not so much traffic. We do get traffic from the dentist office, people looking for a place to turn around and that's usually my driveway or the Layton's driveway or Mr. Weeks' driveway, which Laytons are right here and Mr. Weeks is right here. And I'm right there. I have health issues. I have asthma and I also have COPD. One of the triggers for the COPD, as well as the asthma, is the fumes from traffic, which is one reason why we chose that property, because the fumes don't get there. But if there is going to be that much traffic finro doors down it's going to be a health problem for me and I'm going to end up selling, moving somewhere else, just because the traffic coming in and out. And I can guarantee you people will not turn to go to Cherry Lane, they will turn to come back down thinking they can get out, even though it says dead end. And that's a given. I mean that's just the way it is. So, I am opposed to the exit -- entrance-exit on Leisure Lane, but t'm all for the parking lot, as long as they have their entrance and things off of Cherry Lane. Thank you for your time. Moe: Any questions? Thank you very much. Wallett: Thank you. Moe: Shirley Ratcliff. From the audience she has nothing more to say. Allen. Can you pronounce the fast name for me. Garratt: Allen Garratt. Moe: Garratt. Garratt: 1917 Leisure Lane. My property is where the R-4 is, these two pieces of property right here. I, again, choose to live in this neighborhood, only having moved there about three years ago for a very specific reason, I wanted live in an area where I had that country lane feel, but I'm also in the middle of Meridian. I don't really want Leisure Lane to become a city street. If I did I would have lived in any one of a number of fine subdivisions that Meridian has to offer. I want to live in the country area. I'm not opposed to the parking lot for library per se, but I do not want to have the exit onto -- onto Cherry Lane for the very same -- the very same reasons. It's just -- it's too much traffic. There is already enough traffic racing up and down that street as it is. I have got a small two and a half year old child and there is cars going up and down that street, I can't let my child out in my front yard in the daytime, because of folks thinking they can Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 30 of 43 get -- take a shortcut -- shortcut to nowhere. Again, I'm not opposed to the project, just don't want it to exit onto Cherry Lane -- onto Leisure Lane. On Cherry Lane would be fine through the existing building right -- through that existing building right there, that would be fine with me. Moe: Okay. Any questions? Okay. Charles Fellows. Charles Fellows? Okay. Thank you very much. Terry -- is it Layton? Layton: Commissioners, my name is Terry Layton. I live at 1811 Leisure Lane, which, as was stated earlier, is the property just to the north of that library's current parking lot and the proposed one. I, myself, am in -- and my wife are in favor of the parking lot. We had a meeting with the library awhile ago and they showed us a preliminary -- we, for the most part, were in favor of the design. Some of our requests that they addressed and they agreed to comply with I have a concern, because in the staff report it addressed that there was no irrigation problems and our yard is fed by an irrigation ditch that would be going through the new parking area and they said they would take care of it, but staff said that they didn't address it, so I'd like to be on record that that would be taken care of. Like I said, I am in favor of the parking lot. Their design I think is nice. They have agreed to have a six foot buffer against my property line, so the headlights are not shining in my bedroom window, which they all angle right there, but they have -- with that six foot buffer. Another question I addressed to the landscape architect at that is all those trees look great, but when they did that last time on the property right there -- well, actually just to the north that the library owns, Idaho Power -- well, it's just the current property right here -- they put all these nice beautiful trees that they agreed to last time and about five years later ldaho Power came and cut them all down with neither of us having anything to say. So, somehow we have to address that problem, that they be low growing trees or something. And as far as the traffic, of course, I would like it if it didn't go onto Leisure Lane, but if that's going to be their only access, I would much rather have that be a controlled environment and controlled by them, than if -- can you, please, put that picture up that was the overhead. Currently -- on, no. The overhead one, please. Yeah. That one. Currently this is their property and you can see, as addressed in staff s notes, we have a five foot curb right here. Well, these guys all parked on this private property and we have very limited access here. So, if it is their property, hopefully, we can -- even though they have taken down the signs that the library put up there, no parking, we can somehow control that as well with this. So, if we can exit here and that's where the Commission agrees, that would be great, but if not, we -- I would like to see that somehow controlled as prior property. And is there any questions for me? Moe: Any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Layton: Okay. Thank you for your time. Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, did you say you had one? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 31 of 43 Newton-Huckabay: I said I have none. Moe: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Tino and Janet Sanchez. Sanchez: My name is Janet Sanchez. I reside at 1929 Leisure Lane, which is -- the other picture. At the very end of the Leisure Lane. And for -- speaking for both my husband and I are right here at the very end of the lane. We have no objections to the library's plan as it stands and as Mr. Layton mentioned, the library did work with us previously, showed us their plan and answered all of our questions and concerns. The only concern we have with the current plan is the recommendation by staff that Leisure Lane become a public road for that section and we also supported keeping Leisure Lane as a private lane and private property. We currently have an easement clear to Leisure Lane, which was a bit confusing. I thought in the staff report it indicated that it was a private lane to a certain point and, then, there was an easement north of their property. The easement does, indeed, go all the way to Cherry Lane, and we support keeping it that way and not making it a pubfic road. Concerns with that are as everyone else has mentioned that the traffic that's on it and controlling that traffic and just changing the signs to say it's a public road, instead of a private road is going to encourage more people to come down and use our road and give us less control over what happens with that road. Moe: Any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Thank you very much. That's all that signed up and pretty much everybody that's in here, so -- so, no one else. Questions? Comments? Rohm: I think it's appropriate to close the Public Hearing. We have heard all the testimony we need. Newton-Huckabay: Rebuttal. Rohm: Oh. Yeah. I guess rebuttal. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, before the applicant has a chance for rebuttal, everybody seems to be in agreement that they don't want Leisure Lane to develop from a private street to a public street. Why is it not feasible just to take the access off of Leisure Lane, if the library agrees to -- to eliminate that access, take the access to the south to the piece of property that they bought that already has access to Cherry Lane and -- I mean it could almost sound like the library is asking -- they want their cake and they want to eat it, too. We don't want to develop Leisure Lane, but we still want to drive onto it and we still want our through access to our parking lot. So, is it feasible to not have access onto Leisure Lane, put that south access onto the parking lot and access that parking lot through the west and the south, rather than the east? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 32 of 43 Moe: That would be a question that the applicant -- Newton-Huckabay: That would be my question is what a{{ the -- if the library doesn't want to pay for a public street, neighbors don't want a public street, where is the middle ground? That was -- Moe: Very good comment. Would the applicant like to come back up. Daniels: Sonya, if you could go to that aerial again. Thank you. The library district is not opposed to doing minor improvements to Leisure Lane. Of course, fixing the potholes and everything else that may come along with that. And so that was the intent of this project, because it is part of the library district's property, is that they would come back and they would, you know, repair it to a little bit better condition than what it is now. In regards to the -- in regards to the site circulation, currently the library has got -- they have finro access points here, here and here. The sign for the library is back over in here, so the primary entrance for the library is here. As people come in, they look for a parking spot, they are kind of doing this circle, they will circle the building and, then, we have an exit that comes out here. The intent on the design for the circulation is that we would maintain the same circulation as they have now and maybe we can flip befinreen the existing parking lot and maybe that new parcel as well. So, the intent is to have this as the main entrance to the library. People would come up and they would realize any parking that may be available here, if there is not a parking spot available, they can merely loop around, come back, either loop the building, or loop the building back over in here. So, that was the intent of the design. So, as far as having mass congestion of cars off Leisure Lane, that was not the intent and I think that with proper signage I think that we could limit the amount of access on Leisure Lane from the new parking lot. However, the library district feels pretty strong, because it is their property, they would be maintaining the road that they are allowed some sort of access onto Leisure Lane. Obviously, the neighborhood supports this as being a private road. The library district, as well as the neighbor, they support this as being a private road as well and that's the way that we would like to see it done here as well. The irrigation -- I believe there is a{ateral that runs north-south in here and we woufd, obviously, make that a continuous -- I don't know if it's a lateral, but it's a ditch and so we would definitely address any irrigation that flows through the property and we would pipe it accordingly. I'm not sure what the -- what the deal was with the Idaho Power cutting down these trees, they are, actually, really nice trees. They were nice trees. We would provide trees in there that would be slow, low growing, and so they would not have to be chopped down by Idaho Power for whatever reason, I assume because they were too tall. And so we would try to maintain that across that -- across that irrigation. So, with that I could certainly stand for any questions that the Commission may have. Moe: Any questions? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Daniels? Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 33 of 43 Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Daniels, on your plat drawing or -- you showed a potential access to the south. There it looks like it's somewhere around 37 and -- parking lot stalls 37 and 38, is that -- Daniels: Uh-huh. Newton-Huckabay: And if that access to the property were you have your offices on the south, you also have access to Cherry Lane through that property; right? Daniels: Through the south property. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Daniels: I don't know -- I believe there is a driveway -- there is no driveway to Cherry Lane. There is? Yes, there is. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Why do you have that just depicted as potential versus an actual? Daniels: For here? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Daniels: Well, currently the library district occupies this house in here and they have offices. They have some parking around here. We want to have the opportunity and the flexibility to connect any parking that we may have in here to certain days. So, it's a matter of just trying to get your parking lot a little more continuous in here and so maybe they are not using this Cherry Lane as much, because, as you know, with Leisure Lane, this driveway -- this neighbor's driveway, the entrance into the library and the other entrance back over in here, this becomes pretty busy and so -- Newton-Huckabay: That's a lot of curb cuts. Daniels: I'm sorry? Newton-Huckabay: That's a lot of curb cuts. Daniels: That's a lot of curb cuts. So, the Idea is that this could potentially come in and we could utilize this parking, just to make it a little more contiguous. For that same reason we would want to take the access off of Cherry Lane, but I think it would be a little more convenient for this parking lot to some day to be continuous, because the library district does own both pieces of the property. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 34 of 43 Daniels: Did that answer your question? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Daniels: In a long winded way? Newton-Huckabay: It wasn't the answer I was looking for, but I'm not totally certain what answer I was looking for, Mr. Daniels. Daniels: Just tell me what you were looking for and I'll tell you. Moe: Are there any other questions? Thank you very much. Mr. Rohm, you look like you're searching for something. Rohm: Oh, I just was trying to find -- I don't know. The public street, I think that it would be better being a public street, but I can certainly see where everyone from the audience wants it to remain private and so I don't know where to go with it myself. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I'm kind of Commissioner Rohm, I mean I-- I have a hard time with putting those kinds of funds to the library district to pay for a public street -- Rohm: That nobody wants. Moe: Exactly. Newton-Huckabay: But I don't know that -- I mean we have 45 parking stalls in there and we are going to figure half of those will exit or enter onto Leisure Lane once it's known, maybe? So, you're routing -- I think I'm in favor of leaving it a private street with improvements. Moe: Because we are still in open hearing, I guess I would like the applicant -- I have got one question for the applicant. Basically, what you're looking for to have access to Leisure Lane is just because you want access, as opposed to closing that in and making sure that all your traffic is going back towards the parking lot -- or the library itself. Basically, having to go back to the west. You're parking there and, then, you're going back out west, as opposed to having any access off of Leisure Lane. Daniels: Yeah. Mr. Chair, the -- hopefully to answer your question, is that we do have one exit out of here, but in the event we have, you know, a large venue happening, which -- which may happen, we want to have the opportunity to have that overflow parking come out at two points onto Cherry Lane, rather than just the one. Because, as Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 35 of 43 you can see, with all the parking, it can become very congested and I think very unsafe for everybody if we don't have more than one exit point onto Cherry Lane, so -- Moe: Thank you very much. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair. Is it appropriate that that would be an exit only? A right- out only or do you have to do right-in, right-out -- or right-in, right-out? Somebody stop me if I'm out of control here. Rohm: Well, about the only thing I would say to that is the existing residence as it currently exists don't have any limitations to ingress-egress. I don't think there is a right-in, right-out currently and I'm pretty sure none of them would be in support of not being able to access from the west, I guess, so -- Newton-Huckabay: No. Just onto Leisure Lane. Rohm: Yeah. That's what I'm saying is -- Newton-Huckabay: Right-in, right-out. Rohm: Yeah. Right now it's not right-in, right-out, it's full access, I would bet, and to limit the existing residence to a right-in, right-out might be as much of an annoyance as making it a public street. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I wasn't talking about the existing residence, I was talking about the library property. Rohm: Well -- but they are all affected by the same thought process. Newton-Huckabay: If you could only go right-in or right-out into the library parking lot -- Rohm: Oh, I thought you meant out onto Cherry Lane off of Leisure. Newton-Huckabay: No. No. No. Marshall: It would have to be a left in, right out. Newton-Huckabay: If you did a right-in, anybody who lived on Leisure Lane heading south could go into the library. If you did a right out -- Marshall: Excuse me. May I? Moe: Yes. Marshall: Mr. Chair. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 36 of 43 Newton-Huckabay: By all means. Marshall: A right-in would have to come from the north. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Rohm: That's what she's saying. And so the only access into the parking lot off of Leisure into it would be from the north and it wouldn't congest the traffic -- Newton-Huckabay: Beyond the library parking lot. Rohm: -- beyond the library parking 1ot, but you -- Newton-Huckabay: In theory. Rohm: -- but you could exit out of that parking lot and take a right out to Cherry Lane. That's -- that's not a bad idea. You see what she's saying? Marshall: Yeah. I -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh-oh, I have created a-- just a moment, please. Marshall: May I ask for some clarification here? Newton-Huckabay: Certainly. I have a pointer now. Marshall: Okay. Please -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh, you want me to clarify. I'm saying that if you were coming from the north it would be a right-in. If you were coming from the south, you couldn't. But, then, you might -- this is what I'm guessing, it's going to create a bunch of people up here wanting to turn around. Got you. Okay. Okay. Fair enough. Okay. Scrap that. Moe: But, at the same time, that brings up another point that I'm struggling with on whether or not we keep it private or you go public and that is you have made the statement that you are looking for another egress point out of the parking lots out of the library, so, therefore, that private lane is going to get warn out a lot faster, basically, than it would otherwise. You go ahead and you develop it back into a public -- you're going to have a better road system. You're only taking it to the north side of your property -- of the library property, so I find it strange that the neighbors don't want a public street to the north side of the library, simply because it will be a heck of a lot better road. Marshall: Mr. Chair, just asking because of the cross-access easement and a lot of homeowners associations having private roads, everybody having access to that road is required for the maintenance of that road or, in this case, is it different, is the library only Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 37 of 43 maintaining that section of road? I mean who is responsible for the maintenance of that private road -- Newton-Huckabay: Everybody who lives on here. Marshall: Right. And, therefore, it's seems that the public section of the road up to this point would make sense, where the public wouid maintain that road and, then, privately it would be maintained after this point. Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair -- and that's where my comment was, Commissioner Marshall, that if they don't want to make this a public road and the library doesn't want to pay for a public road, which I'm not sure I would necessarily support, then, I think that the library should get up this access to it for public use, because, in essence, that's what it would be. You would be allowing public use on a private street without the benefit of -- you're putting a burden -- you're putting the public's burden on everybody who lives north of this property, including the library who owns it. So, I don't think they should get to do that. I don't think the Library should get to put that burden on, but I would be in support of -- you can keep this a private street as far as I'm concerned, but you can't use it for public use. So, I would not be in support of this access. Moe: You'd close -- you'd close off the access. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Moe: That's what I was -- Newton-Huckabay: And, then, you exit here and you exit here and that's what I was saying, you exit to the west and you exit to the south, and -- unless if you want this access for public use, then, yes, I think you should have to pay for the benefit of public use and not burden the neighbors to the north. But it sounds like the library wants their cake and they want to eat it, too. And they want public use and they want access and that's where I think we have our conundrum that we have to solve, either this is a public street up to here, so you can have public use, or you don't get this access and you can put your access right here. Is that where we are all going with this? Marshall: Absolutely. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: You're welcome. Moe: Sir, the testimony has been taken. Thank you very much. Do you have another comment? Daniels: I do, actually. The -- I was wondering if you could go to that aerial that shows where the property boundaries are, Sonya. Thank you. As you can see, this -- like t Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 38 of 43 said before, it's a very unique piece of property. I'm not sure why it is the way it is, because none of the property lines where the residents are up here or anything like this, to where the library district currently owns that part of Leisure Lane and so we kind of felt that there is a little bit of maybe entitlement to utilize their own property for access onto Cherry Lane. And with that I guess my question would be being this is a new parking lot, if it did not loop out onto Leisure Lane, what would be the difference of not accessing it right here. To me this is a little more safety, whereas if we are forced to have another access onto Cherry Lane, we have got this existing curb cut in here that the library district, I would assume, would -- would be entitled to use as well. So, what we are really trying to do is make a little bit safer environment to where you're not having traffic at this point, this point, and that point. Newton-Huckabay: But you haven't given up that access. Daniels: Here? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Daniels: Not in this plan. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Close the Public Hearing? Marshall: What I-- I would ask you is that I understand the thought of entitlement to the piece of property, but seeing how it's a cross-access easement for everybody that lives beyond there, who, then, is responsible for the maintenance of that? Daniels: You know, honestly, I don't know if I could answer that, because of the way the agreement's written for Leisure Lane and a certain percentage of the neighborhood association participates in that. I don't think I can answer that tonight in a good way. I could make something up, but I wouldn't be right. But I don't know. Marshall: My concern, then, if you can understand it, is that we are, then, putting an undue burden on all of those people that live behind there for public access to that parking lot to maintain this strip of road. If, in fact, they are helping to pay to maintain that strip of road. Daniels: Yeah. I see can the point. Moe: Any other questions, Commissioners? Thank you very much, sir. Rohm: Before -- I have one question that just came to mind. I'm sorry. Newton-Huckabay: Welcome back to the hearing. Moe: Commissioner Rohm. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 39 of 43 Rohm: Well, I have been thinking. What my question is is -- is if -- if you had an either/or -- either develop the road to -- and dedicate it to Ada County and have your access from the parking lot onto Leisure Lane, as is in the staff report, as one alternative, or no access to Leisure Lane off of -- out of the parking lot, which would be your preference? Daniels: To be honest with you, I think I would probably have to take it to the library directors to answer that. I don't know if I can make that decision for them. Rohm: Okay. Well, I think that this Commission is kind of leaning -- if you have one, you got the other. If the road's to be utilized, it's going to be a public thoroughfare, as our recommendation on to City Council and that's why I asked you if you had your chance which way would you prefer and you're saying you'd have to go back to your board? Daniels: That's correct. Uh-huh. Rohm: Thank you. Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I may. Moe: Yes. Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Did you not earlier -- if -- I'm trying to follow up here -- make the comment that you felt that making the improvements and turning that into a public right of way was somewhat cost prohibitive based on the resources of the library district? Daniels: That's correct. Marshall: Thank you. Moe: Okay. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may just real quick. Moe: Yes. Hood: If, in fact, you want to go with what Commissioner Rohm just offered up, you certainly could put an either/or in the condition or if you want to move this forward tonight, not knowing what the library district may want to do, you could have a condition that says either you construct this as a public street or you -- I mean you can craft a condition that way, if you so choose. I just wanted to throw that out there as an option if that's where you guys want to go. Rohm: Good. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 40 of 43 Moe: Well, having said that, I guess a little bit more discussion. That's what I'd like to see happen. Because, quite frankly, I understand that the cost involved to make that a public street, there is a cost to bear, and, therefore, I mean if they can do without the access, then, I think that they should have the opportunity to do that. They would have to get that resolved prior to City Council, so that when they -- before, then, they can tell them which way they'd go. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think it would be a good opportunity for them to talk with the neighbors, too. And -- I mean there is -- with a private street you have the situation where you have a lot more stake holders per se than you would normally have on this type of thing and I want to make sure that the owners of Leisure Lane and the library, as one of those owners, all understand how they want to move forward, so I don't recall ever drafting an either/or recommendation to City Council before. I'm not opposed to it, though. Provided the attorney doesn't step in and say, no, don't do that. And he's ever silent. Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I don't think there is anything prohibiting you from doing that. I think -- I guess part of ine says that part of your charge as this Commission is to give your recommendation to the Council and an either/or really isn't that. But you certainly have the ability to do it. There are some unanswered questions from your discussion. You certainly can -- as you have done on other occasions, allow the applicant and the parties to take your information you have had tonight and come back in two weeks to see if some of those issues can, to, then, help you be able to make a decision that you all feel comfortable with and, then, if you still feel at that point that there really is an either/or -- and I would say there are occasions where you have said a specific recommendation and maybe just not quite as pronounced as this where you would have really one or a second alternative that are wholly different. But you certainly have sometimes given some options to the Council, but not one quite maybe as dramatic as one from column A and one from column B, so -- Rohm: Have we closed? Moe: No. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair'? I might say we could continue this as well. Moe: Well, that's what I'd like to find out from the applicant if he's -- would the applicant come forward again. Mr. Daniels, based upon what -- the discussion we are having here, would you like to have the opportunity to get with your folks and present the request that Mr. Rohm has brought forward and, basically, continue this hearing until the 19th of June? Rohm: It would have to be July 3rd, because -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 41 of 43 Moe: Oh, that's right. I'm sorry. July the 3rd. Excuse me. Daniels: Is that the only option? Moe: It's that option or whoever makes a motion here is going to tell us what -- what we might be able to do. It's either going to be one or the other. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'm going to make a motion, Mr. Daniel, if no one else does, if I beat them to the microphone, and my recommendation is going to be to eliminate access to Leisure Lane. If my motion will carry I don't know. Daniels: Yeah. I think any opportunity that I could have to meet with the client and maybe give them -- give them the options and discuss that as well. One more thing that I'd like to maybe bring up real quick, if it's appropriate, is currently there is -- there is a dentist office in here and he has got finro access points onto a private street. I believe he brings in a lot of the -- a lot of public as well. So, it's one issue that f have really brought to the table as far as -- as far as the public accessing Leisure Lane. There is no access onto Cherry Lane, also, to Leisure Lane for him. So, I'm not sure if anybody's got an answer for that. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: That's a fair statement and I wasn't sitting on the Commission when that office was approved and I would ask that same question, how they got -- got that -- those two easements. But we can't undo what's already done there, but we can, hopefully, eliminate making the same mistake twice or correcting them. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I mean I don't know the specifics of that. I did have a discussion with the counsel that represents that dentist office about -- about some of the issues around this particular parcel, but they certainly have an easement there, but that's really relative to the library. They are asking this an annexation. Those are conditions -- those are considerations that the city could make at this time as to where the accesses can be; what type of access that can be done. So, whether or not he has an existing easement and the right to use Leisure Lane to access his business really doesn't matter for this Commission's decision or the Council's on whether or not to allow access for this addition that the library wants to do. So, you can bring it up, but it does not really matter. Rohm: Thank you. So, are you going to make that motion to continue? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 42 of 43 Newton-Huckabay: Sure. Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. Daniels: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, application, and public testimony, I move to continue file number RZ 08-002 to the hearing date of July 3rd, 2008, for the following ~reasons: It gives an opportunity for the applicant to discuss the potential options of not having access to Leisure Lane or converting Leisure Lane into a public street and also continuing some discussions with the other owners of what is Leisure Lane as it's designed to be. Rohm: Second. Moe: There is a motion to continue AZ -- excuse me -- RZ 08-002 for the Meridian Library Parking Lot Expansion to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of July the 3rd, 2008, to discuss the access to the parking lot off of Leisure Lane for the public street at Leisure Lane to the north side of the property of the library. All those in favor'? Opposed same sign? That motion carries. That will be continued until July 3rd. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hood: Mr. Chair, just a point of clarification. We had one of -- a similar motion recently and I just want to make sure that everyone in the audience and the record's clear, that the maker of the motion was intending that not only the applicant gets to speak, but any of the property owners down Leisure Lane can come and testify again at that hearing on any new information that they may have regarding the subject application. Correct? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Hood: Okay. Thank you. Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 08-004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 318.74 acres from RUT to R-4 (69.72 acres), R-8 (192.20 acres) and R-15 (56.82 acres) for Oakcreek by Norpac, LLC - east of N. McDermott Road, west of N. Black Cat Road, south of Chinden Boulevard & north of Ustick Road including the southeast and northeast corners of W. McMillan Road and N. McDermott; and near the southwest corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Black Cat Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 08-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 139 lots including: 118 residential lots and 21 common lots on 30.72 acres in the proposed R-8 zoning district for Oakcreek by Norpac, LLC - east of N. McDermott Road, west of N. Black Cat Road, south of Chinden Boulevard & north of Ustick Road including the southeast and northeast corners of