Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 15 2003 P & ZMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 4 of 30 Borup: Let's. continue ahead -- Centers: Yes. Borup: --just like we -- all right. That was the long of saying we will continue as the agenda is written. Centers: Yes. So moved. Item 4. Continued Public Hearing March 26, 2003: AZ 03-002 Request for annexation and zoning or 19.79 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Callister Development by Dave Callister -Southwest corner of West Overland Road and South Stoddard Road: Item 5. Continued Public Hearing March 26, 2003: CUP 03-001 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a contractor's yard for an excavation company and mini-storage facilities on 5.91 acres for Callister Development by Dave Callister -Southwest corner of West Overland Road and South Stoddard Road: Item 6. Continued Public Hearing March 26, 2003: CPA 03-001 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. to change approximately 12.25 acres of the site from mixed-use-neighborhood to commercial for Callister Development by Dave Callister -Southwest corner of West Overland Road and South Stoddard Road: Borup: Item 4, 5, and 6 are all three Continued Public Hearings, AZ 03-002, CUP 03- 001,and CPA 03-001. All are a Rezone, Conditional Use Permit, and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 12.25 acres for the Callister Development. Again, I'd like to open the Public Hearing on these three items and is there anything -- additional comments from staff on this? Siddoway: Nothing particularly new, but if you'd like, I can go over my understanding of where the recommendation was sitting at the end of last meeting. Borup: I think that would help. It's been a month. Siddoway: Yes. Just to refresh your memory, generally, the application is sited that the intersection of Overland and Stoddard across from Bear Creek Subdivision and Queenland Acres. There is an existing Idaho Power substation in the south portion of that property. You can see the aerial photo there. There is the Hardin Drain that courses across the property. They have submitted a request for annexation and zoning, a Conditional Use Permit, and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in order to allow the uses that they are requesting. I have some site photos I can go through very quickly. The existing residence to the south of the power substation, Bear Creek Subdivision directly across, standing at the Hardin Drain looking north along Stoddard into the main Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 5 of 3D part of the site where the mini storage will sit in the foreground and in the mid ground would be where the contractor's yard would be. Here is a photo of the Hardin Drain as it exists, and portions of the site closer to Overland. Get back to the Site Plan. If you have the staff report, dated March 26th, I would just go through briefly the additional considerations. There were four of them. One, the lot split. It was being questioned or trying to determine if the lot split that would divide the property along the Hardin Drain had been finalized and approved. We believe that it has been done. The applicant submitted to me an exhibit showing two separate parcel numbers. We would like to get a formal letter from Ada County stating that that has taken place and is recognized legally. Item Number 2 is the substation landscaping. I do have a letter here from Idaho Power. I guess at the last hearing they were talking about potentially having the landscaping in on the Idaho Power substation site by May 15th, which is today. It's not in, but they apparently have recently secured the approvals to tap into the adjacent pressurized irrigation system and bore the line underneath Stoddard and begin that process. They are now anticipating that it will be done within the next month and the application -- or the applicant has no problem with the condition of approval currently -- the way it's currently written that says no COs will be given to the contractor's yard until the landscaping is in place on the Idaho Power site. That should be in, in time for that, but that gives us the ability to make sure it gets done. The Hardin Drain, the applicant is currently proposing not to the that. It will be ultimately up to Council, as they will be requesting a waiver, and, then, Item Number 4 dealt with some discrepancies in the project acreage. It's my understanding that they did clear that up and noted that, for the record, the 19.79. acres is the actual parcel acreage per their -- an actual field survey and the 21.16 acres is the actual annexation acreage, because it does include some right of way to the center line. Going through the site-specific requirements of the Conditional Use Permit, beginning on Page 12, I believe Number 1 there were no changes to. Number 2 dealt with the proposed fences around the perimeter. The staff report requests that they fence the entire perimeter of the project with sight obscuring fencing, adding slats. It's my understanding that the discussion at the last hearing was to slat the north, east, and west sides, but since the south was only open to the substation, that that may not have to be slatted. That would be one thing that needs some discussion and decision by the Commissioners. Skipping down to Number 5 the second sentence says that the applicant shall propose a maximum height for the monument sign for approval by the Commission. The applicant is proposing a 10-foot height, so the Commission will need to make a decision. That is, you know, half of the freestanding height of the proposed C-G zone that they are requesting. It's still a very tall monument sign, so you can weigh that and determine if that's appropriate. Skipping down to Item Number 7, it's my understanding that the word looped, which is in parenthesis in the middle of that paragraph, was to be struck. On the next page, Item 9 there has been discussion of the policy to pave the areas within the contractor's yard that are used for vehicular access. They are showing some covered parking, as well as access to the shop, that we know will be -- will be driven on. It's my understanding that there was some discussion about recycled asphalt, potentially, or other things that will need some decision. Right now as written this requires that it be paved. Number 10, I guess, was one of the major sticking points, which is the proposed driveway off of Overland. It currently is an access used by Idaho Power or was initially, at any rate, to - Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 6 of 30 -during construction and there was some discussion among the Commission at the last meeting that questioned if Idaho Power would be okay with that access not being there. I do have a letter just sent today that I can add into the record from -- on Idaho Power letterhead that says the Idaho Power Company substation people see no need to maintain the existing road and it was built mainly for access to the substation site during construction. However, we do have a power line adjacent to the subject road and the access to the line property is being sold as 75-foot easement in this area. They need access for potential maintenance, but do not intend to use it regularly as an access. I believe that the condition as written on Number 10 should remain in effect. If the applicant uses the access to access the property, that the drive should be paved, that the area adjacent to it should be landscaped. If, however, the applicant decides not to use that access and does not put in a gate, then, the condition would not kick in. I believe that's it. Item 13 asks for a revised site and Landscape Plan. One has not been submitted at this time, so the question will be any changes that are to be made, are you comfortable sending this on to Council and having staff review those before the meeting or would you like it to come back to this body first. With that, I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: I would comment first that I apologize for not being at the meeting on March 26th, but I have read all the minutes and I think I'm up to date on what was there. One question, though. On the access road -- and there was quite a bit of discussion about that at the March 26th meeting. If they choose not to use it, isn't the alternative that it needs to be landscaped, that it can't just be abandoned, right? Siddoway: The landscaping is required adjacent to any vehicular use areas so, the road itself would certainly kick in the requirement -- Zaremba: But wouldn't there be a landscape -- if it's not a road, then, there is a landscape buffer requirement between this and adjoining properties. Siddoway: Yes. You're right. I don't believe I pointed that out, but that would be correct. Zaremba: So, it either needs to be a road with landscaping or landscaping without road is that -- Siddoway: Yes but under the -- if they didn't use the road, the landscaping would not necessarily have to be done adjacent to Phase 3, which is a future phase, which in the annexation conditions we are proposing aNon-Development Agreement be required for Phase 3. That the landscape improvements around the perimeter of that site be tied to any development in any portion of Phase 3. It would affect a smaller segment adjacent to just the contractor's yard. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 7 of 30 Zaremba: My only other comment was I did not notice being mentioned into the record that there had been a letter received from a Dr. Robert F. Beede, possibly, Beede or Beede, of Intermountain Pet Hospital, who is across Overland Road from this project and wasn't apparently very thrilled about it. My guess is at the current design, the nearest thing to his property is going to be the storage yard, but there will eventually be something else between him and there that would totally block his view and I'm not sure when that design comes up for review, it could be made attractive and in the style of his building or something like that, is that -- Siddoway: Sure. Mr. Beede's property is across Overland Road to the northeast. The portion of the subject property that's directly across the road is the future phase three, which will remain undeveloped today. He would be looking across this undeveloped portion at a six foot, slatted, chain link fence in this location.. Zaremba: But, eventually, whatever is built on the Overland side of what we are talking today -- Siddoway: Will be between -- Zaremba: -- would block his view and it's more likely to be something like offices or some commercial that would be more attractive to him. Siddoway: That's correct. Borup: Any other questions? Rohm: Yes, Mr. Chairman, back to this road along the west line. Currently, is it a dedicated road by description through Ada County or is it a right of way for maintenance of the transmission line? Siddoway: I'll give you my understanding and we do have Andrea Tuning in the audience who wrote the ACHD staff report on this, so we may be able to get some insight from her. It was initially granted as a temporary access for Idaho Power to access their substation. Callister applicants, then, did go in and go through a variance process with ACHD to get it dedicated as a permanent access, not just a temporary one. That has been approved by Ada County Highway District, so it's currently a permanently dedicated access point. Centers: And Callister petitioned ACHD for that? Siddoway: Yes. Centers: Thank you. Rohm: Well, it seems to me, then, if it's a dedicated access, then, by definition, it's a road and would need to be landscaped. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 8 of 30 Siddoway: If it's used for a road, it needs to be landscaped. Rohm: Well, yes, and paved. Siddoway: And paved. Yes. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: Anything else, Commissioners? Mr. Boyle, do you have anything you'd like to add? Boyle: Commissioners, Clint Boyle, Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive in Boise. I just have to say Steve did a great job summarizing. I think the points pretty much followed the notes that I had on that, so I appreciate that, and, hopefully, I can clarify just a couple of factors tonight, because I believe we are in agreement with the majority of the staff comments and Andrea Tuning from the Highway District is here and can come up and answer questions as well. What I wanted to hit on, first of all, is with regards to this driveway I think is how I'd rather phrase this existing access drive that extends along the west boundary back to the Idaho Power site. That is not a dedicated right-of-way -- public right-of-way or even a private roadway. Essentially, what that is, is an existing driveway that was granted by ACHD to Idaho Power to assist in the initial construction of the actual substation and getting equipment in and out of there and installing the transmission lines and whatnot that they needed to get extended out to Overland Road. Borup: Mr. Boyle, are you saying, then, what was really granted was access to Overland? Boyle: Correct. What we approached ACHD on was to change -- this is with the Callister development -- to change the temporary restriction, because ACHD's report specifically states that at a point in time when any other development occurs on the property, they lose that access to Overland. We petitioned ACHD to keep that access in place with the impression that we would be able to utilize that as a secondary access into the contractor's yard. Now, that was prior to our knowledge that the developer would be required to pave that road, install landscaping, and trees along the road. At this point in time we -- after the last Commission Meeting, we went back to Idaho Power and that's where this new letter that Steve submitted into the record tonight came from, was specific conversations that I had them determining whether or not they still needed to utilize that driveway. The response -- and my understanding from them is that they do not need to utilize that driveway for any sort of access to the substation site. They are comfortable with the access off of Stoddard Road. The only reason that they would be driving through that area -- and they will maintain a power easement through that area -- would just surely be for the maintenance of the transmission line, if and when they ever needed to do any sort of maintenance function on the transmission line that runs along that west property line. It would be no different than any other public utility Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 9 of 30 easement where they want to be able to get in there and maintain those lines. As far as it functioning as any sort of access way for them for the substation, they do not need it. With respect to the staff report, the option that I discussed with Steve and that we would present to this Commission is just leaving potentially some language within that site- specific item that allowed the developer the option, if he were to utilize the roadway as an access, he would -- the roadway -- the driveway is what I'd call it. Centers: Yes, I'd call it a driveway. Boyle: We will call it a driveway. Centers: What's the width of that driveway, Mr. Boyle? I can't find the scale. Boyle: I'd have to scale it off. Centers: I can't -- oh, here we go. Go ahead. Boyle: If we were to utilize the driveway, then, the developer would be required, as the staff indicates, to pave and landscape along it. However, the other option that he would like in there is if he does not utilize that driveway. In other words, he does not install a gate for that driveway he does not utilize it in any manner or fashion, that he would have the option of basically leaving the site without doing the paving improvements and the landscaping improvements. It would be an either/or. If he utilizes the drive and leaves the gate into the contractor's yard, then, he would be required to do the improvements. If he's not using it and has no intention of using it, that there would not be that requirement for the paving and landscaping and that would be something that staff can verify through the permitting process. Obviously, come in and have the gate removed and just the fencing in, if he were not going to utilize that. Zaremba: One thing I didn't have from the previous discussion was all the visuals so let me clarify for me. Boyle: Sure. Zaremba: The gate you're talking about is on the back and the west end of the contractor's yard? Boyle: Correct. Zaremba: And you want to figure out some way to make that optional? Boyle: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 10 of 30 Borup: The gate seems to be the key feature. I mean is the gate either in or not. If it's a solid fence, then, he's not going to be using the access. Boyle: Right. Borup: If the gate's in, we can assume that he is. Boyle: Right. Borup: You looked confused, Commissioner. Rohm: Well, if the road is there -- if the driveway is there and -- Boyle: Which it already is. Rohm: Which it already is. Boyle: Right. Rohm: What's to prevent the use of that driveway, whether it's called a driveway, a roadway, or any other thing, whether there is a gate in fence or not? Borup: Because he wouldn't be able to get to his property. His property is fenced all around the perimeter. Rohm: I think the concern is that the driveway will be utilized to ingress this whole parcel of ground, whether it's to the area to be developed or not. I kind of get that sense and that's the concern that -- Borup: Okay. I guess I didn't have any concern with that. When that phase three is ready to be developed, they are going to petition for some kind of Overland access point at that time and I assume ACHD will determine whether that one goes or stays and whether the new one can -- would be granted. Rohm: Well, it just seems to me that if, in fact, it's not going to be used, then, let's vacate it and do away with the temporary access and, then, it's not an issue. The utility company has ingress-egress to their transmission line via the description of the line itself and so they don't need a temporary designation to get in and out and, then, it's a non-issue. Borup: What Mr. Boyle is saying is that the applicant may want to use that and, if he does, then, he'll pave the road and pave the driveway and have a gate to access the back part his yard, otherwise, it will, essentially, be abandoned. Zaremba: It seems to me the only thing that's really flexible here is whether it's paved or not, because there is going to need to be landscaping under either scenario. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 75, 2003 Page 11 of 30 Borup: Well -- Zaremba: Am I understanding that correctly? Borup: Not necessarily on Phase 3. Zaremba: Phase 3 landscaping doesn't need to be done right now, but eventually it will Boyle: Commissioners, if I might try to shed some light on that. My understanding from the staff report was that if the roadway was paved, the landscaping would be required from Overland Road all the way back to the contractor's site. If the roadway is not paved and it's just left as is, we are just installing landscaping right adjacent to the little tip of the contractor's yard. There is a difference in landscaping, a pretty substantial amount. Phase 3 is going to come in and landscaping is going to go in and access points, like Commissioner Borup indicated, obviously, there is probably going to be some petitions for some accesses onto Overland Road for that phase three. Phase 3 right now is tied up with the sewer extension, the Black Cat sewer extension, so that's going to be a parcel that's, essentially, in holding until the sewer gets there. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Boyle, on your Site Plan that we have, you do call it an existing access road. There is no reference to driveway. Boyle: Right. Centers: And the way I scale it, it's a scale one inch equals 600 feet. That so-called driveway is about 200 feet. Why? If your scale is correct. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, the one-inch equals 200 -- or 600 feet is for the vicinity map in the corner. Centers: Okay. Siddoway: The actual Site Plan is one inch equals 60 feet. Centers: It's 60 feet? Siddoway: Yes. Centers: Per inch? Siddoway: Right. Centers: Okay. I get that road to be about 30 feet, then 25 feet. That's a wide driveway. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 12 of 30 Siddoway: That is a driveway. That's atwo-way driveway in our ordinance. Centers: Okay. Boyle: And, I apologize, that is a driveway, a matter of semantics there. Shouldn't be labeled a road, because it is not dedicated as such. Borup: A designated road would need a 50-foot right of way, wouldn't it? Boyle: Yes. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, if it simplifies things at all, staff is not trying to push the issue that it's a road. We would agree that it's a driveway access and I, actually, think the option makes some sense that, you know, if they choose to use that access, then, it has to be paved and landscaped and everything and if they do not, if they simply fence it off and there is no access, then, it wouldn't need to be paved, it would just stay as an access for Idaho Power only at that point through their easement. Centers: My personal opinion there, Mr. Siddoway, is that you're looking at enforcement problems, if they choose -- I mean either/or, could there be a gate put there with a padlock lock on it held by Idaho Power? Rohm: On Overland you're saying? Centers: Is that possible? Yes, on Overland, and then if they come back and they decide they want to use that -- Borup: Well, there is no fence on Overland. You'd have a gate with no fence. Centers: There is no fence? Siddoway: No. There is no fence. Centers: Right. That wouldn't work. Boyle: There is an irrigation -- or some sort of lateral along Overland, so I guess you could have a gate that ran to the -- where the lateral was open and -- Centers: I guess my question is -- my question is why hasn't the applicant decided whether they are going to use that or not? Yes or no. Boyle: Okay. If that's what it comes down to with the Commission, no, he is not going to use it. He is not going to use it. Centers: Because you don't want to do the landscaping. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 13 of 30 Boyle: Because -- well, paving and the landscaping along the entire length. Centers: And I think that's a decision you should come to, because you have the Stoddard access, as the Chairman stated earlier, when you develop Phase 3 you're going to need different access, so let's just -- are there any other parts of the report that you want to talk about, Mr. Boyle? Zaremba: On that subject, I would say we should state it that there will be no opening or gate in that west fence. Boyle: Fair enough. Centers: Good point along the -- right next to the Hardin Drain. Zaremba: Right. Borup: So, the rest of the staff report today you're in agreement with? Boyle: The only other item was there was some discussion from the Commission about the type of service within the contractor's yard itself and, from what I recall, Commissioner, Chairman Borup, there was some discussion about being able to utilize recycled asphalt within those vehicular use areas. Centers: Those were my notes, too. Borup: I had that written down. We did discuss that. I don't know -- did we reach a final decision? Rohm: I think that was the consensus. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I'd agree to that. Borup: Now, one of the items on here was that the revised plans would be submitted 10 days prior to the next Public Hearing. Boyle: Right. Borup: Which would have been 10 days ago. Boyle: Right. That specific -- and I don't remember. I believe we had some discussion on that, but maybe we did. That specific item, one of the main reasons that we haven't done that is because, obviously, we are still in the discussion on paving the road, landscaping adjacent to that roadway, and there was some issues as to requirements within the contractor's yard. We certainly are willing to submit a revised plan, we just Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 14 of 30 didn't want to be going back and forth with a bunch of changes and we will accommodate that before City Council. Borup: I guess that's true. Steve, was that -- the revisions were mainly pertaining to the required landscaping if the driveway went in? Siddoway: That and there is going to be a minor shift in order to accommodate the ACHD right of way -- or future right of way, there is going to be a two foot shift to the west. We also needed to verify that the actual width of the street buffer along there was 20 feet, because I was scaling it at 18, but in talking with Clint, I understand that's probably just a copying error and they had drawn it at 20. Nonetheless, it will be a minor shift. That will create some minor shifts, you know, ripple effects down with the buildings and it's showing in the storage facility, to maintain the 20 free and clear access around the buildings, et cetera, that are talked about in the report. There were some minor -- minor site tweaks. Plus, showing the -- you know, any areas to be paved within the contractor's yard or recycled asphalt or whatever this Commission requires. The screened fencing should be noted in the locations that it would be noted, but things like that. Zaremba: Not to be picky on semantics, but this, actually, is the same hearing it's not the next hearing yet? It was just continued. Let me ask two things that I don't think have been discussed. In the contractor's yard is there likely to be storage of flammable liquids, tanks, anything like that? Are they planning any gasoline supplies or tanks of oil or -- Boyle: That I do not know the answer to. Commissioner Borup may know more about the functions in a contractor's yard. I know that, mainly, it's primarily for equipment type storage. Borup: What type of contractor? Boyle: Excavation. Zaremba: Storage and maintenance, l think. Boyle: Yes. They will do some maintenance in the shop that's on the backside of the office there. I don't know what extent. Zaremba: And I'm not absolutely certain that makes any difference. I guess my question for staff is, is there any special requirement if there is going to be flammable tanks and -- Siddoway: They are performance standards in zoning ordinance that address storage -- bulk storage or flammable materials. Certainly, the Fire Department would have specific regulations related to that as well. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 15 of 30 Zaremba: So, we don't need to reference them, necessarily, in what we do? Borup: The only thing I can see is maybe some diesel, which is not real flammable. Zaremba: New subject discussing the 10-foot monument sign.. You're aware of sight triangles and the safe distance from the driveway and stuff and where that would be located? Boyle: Yes. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I had a question for staff. Would you okay with the Item Number 13, you know, the revised Site Plan and Landscaping Plan being submitted prior to Council? Siddoway: Yes. I hate making a call on that, because I know that Council really likes the Commission to sign off on them, but they are fairly minor shifts, you know, separate from the landscape issue, depending on how that's resolved. We could review it before Council. Borup: I would be comfortable with -- I mean it's just -- it's pretty minor. At the most you may lose a foot or two on a building. I don't know. Boyle: Commissioners, the layout is primarily what -- what you see here is what you're going to have, other than some call-outs within the storage area. Like Steve mentioned, a two-foot shift to accommodate the required landscaping along Stoddard, with ACHD's right-of-way requirements. The buildings may shift by a couple of feet to the west from what you see there. They may have some minor adjustments, but -- Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Commission may want to hear from Andrea on the status of that driveway access if it is not used by this applicant. It sounds like it may go away if it's not used by this applicant. Borup: Anything else you want to -- Boyle: I believe that covered it all. Just, again, request your approval of the item and move us forward onto Council. Thank you. Borup: And maybe just to -- maybe while you're up here, summarize -- talking about screening on three sides, a 10-foot monument sign, that there would not be a certificate of occupancy until landscaping was done on Idaho Power. Then, it sounds like we are in consensus on the recycled asphalt. Was there anything else that was missed? Does that sound like that covers it? Boyle: That covers it, other than just moving us forward. Borup: Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 16 of 30 Boyle: The Site Plan. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Requiring no gate in the west fence. Boyle: Right. Zaremba: Opening or gates in the west fence. Well, that doesn't preclude someday when they develop the third phase, they could make an opening in that fence. Centers: Well, yes, but they have to come back at that time, anyway. Zaremba: Right. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Did you have something you'd like to add, Andrea? Tuning: Good evening, Commissioners Andrea Tuning, for the record, Ada County Highway District, planning and development staff. I do have a little bit of historical perspective. I have seen this as a county application, as well as a City of Meridian application. When I originally reviewed the application as part of the county for the Idaho Power substation, we did approve an access that was temporary on Overland Road, which is labeled on your Site Plan as the access roadway. Now, that temporary access roadway was approved on a temporary basis and it was specifically noted by our ACHD commission that that roadway would be eliminated with the development of any -- of the additional parcel as it came in for development. When Clint Boyle did bring the Callister property forward for the contractor's yard, we did evaluate that and the commission determined because they were proposing an access, we would require the access to meet our district policy, which would require that roadway to shift a little bit to the east, which would align with the driveway that's located across the street. If the Callister property is not going to take access via that driveway, then, that driveway will be eliminated and no access will be taken, whether it be from the Callister property or Idaho Power and Clint Boyle should submit a revised Site Plan to ACRD, so that that can be noted in the ACRD staff report. Borup: Thank you. Rohm: There you have it. Thank you Borup: Any other questions? Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Reinhart: My name is Jackie Reinhart I live at 1055 West Overland Road. I have the property adjacent to the west of the proposed site. I guess as a -- you know, afarm -- we are that little red square right there. Yes, and all the land down. We are concerned Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 17 of 3D as far noise and fencing. We have got horses, children, worried about the dust with the road issue and so on and the landscaping, just kind of as homeowners, kind of concerned as to what it's going to do to our property and the noise and so on. Borup: So, you like the idea of that road being eliminated, then? Reinhart: Yes. Borup: Okay. Rohm: I suspected that. Just curious. During construction of the substation when Idaho Power Company used the road, was that a big issue at that time? Was there a lot of dust and -- Reinhart: When they put equipment on the site -- or on all the acres, they didn't move it very far. It was there, it was worked, the substation is at the far end of the property, you get dust in the road as they go up and down, but most of the equipment actually stayed on this 19 acres, where people would come and go to the site, but the equipment never left the site until it was all done, so that was not a real big -- Rohm: It wasn't a huge issue? Reinhart: No, it wasn't. Rohm: Thank you. Reinhart: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on these three items be continued until the end of this meeting. Borup: Are we still keeping the hearing open? Zaremba: I was. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Until we decide whether we need to -- it depends on what we do with Item 7, I believe. Centers: It has no bearing on it, in my opinion. Borup: No, it doesn't. That's why I asked. We can close the Public Hearing and move on. Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 18 of 30 Centers: They are both separate issues. Zaremba: Well, they are totally separate, except that we can't pass one onto the City Council -- Centers: Sure, you can. Zaremba: If we pass it on to City Council, then, the other one has to happen. Borup: Right. I don't think we want to make a motion on a recommendation, but we can close the Public Hearing, I believe. Centers: Yes. I think you're -- excuse me, but -- Zaremba: I withdraw my motion. Borup: Well, no, I was going to say that we could go ahead and let's vote on the motion. Well, we don't have a second, do we? Zaremba: It dies for lack of a second. Centers: I think -- of course, we are able to discuss here. I think you're thinking that if we don't pass one, we can't pass the other, you must pass them both, or something like that. They are two separate issues totally. Borup: No, we just can't pass this month and another the next month. Centers: Totally. I understand that. If one is passed and one is denied, the one that is denied has to wait six months before it can come back. You know, I'd like to proceed and -- yes, I would move we close the Public Hearing. Borup: Well, unless we continue one. Zaremba: Well, I agree that -- Borup: That's really the only issue Zaremba: I don't see any purpose in continuing this one. The only reason I would continue this one is to keep the two Comprehensive Plan changes running in sync, but I'd also agree with the argument that there is, really, no relation between these two and one shouldn't hold the other one up. Centers: Yes Zaremba: I can go either way. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 19 of 30 Centers: I think that thinking there is too much inference on what we might do on the next issue, which is totally separate. I'm in favor of acting on this and moving forward. Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on all three items, 4, 5, and 6. Centers: I second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? Okay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: So, do you want to make a motion right now? Centers: Yes. I would like to, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering, really, if we shouldn't -- both -- all three items are open. Shouldn't we act on Item 6 first or does it matter? Siddoway: I believe it would be prudent to. That's the Comp Plan amendment and the zone that's requested would not be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan without the amendment being made. Centers: Thank you for your agreement. Then, I would make the motion that we recommend approval on Item 6, which is a request for a Comp Plan Amendment to change approximately 12.25 acres of the site from mixed-use neighborhood to commercial for Callister Development by Dave Callister at the southwest corner of West Overland Road and South Stoddard Road, including all staff comments. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Centers: And, then, Item 4, I would recommend that we recommend approval to the City Council -- or make the motion for Item 4, which is AZ 03-002. A request for annexation and zoning of 19.79 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Callister Development by Dave Callister, southwest corner of West Overland Road and South Stoddard Road, including all staff comments from the memo dated March 26th. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 20 of 30 Centers: I would make the motion that we recommend approval for Item 5, which is CUP 03-001, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a contractor's yard for an excavation company and mini storage facilities on 5.91 acres for Callister Development by Dave Callister at the southwest corner of West Overland Road and South Stoddard Road. Including all staff comments, and as amended from their memo dated March 26th, Item 2, Page 13, the proposed fences around the entire perimeter of the contractor's yard shall have no entrances other than the one on Stoddard Road. It shall be of a sight obscuring nature, other than the fence along the Hardin Drain. Wasn't that our -- yes? Item 3 -- and maybe the staff can help me here. We had -- at our last hearing we had crossed out: This will require a license agreement with ACHD and I had noted: Or otherwise required by the ACHD -- or as otherwise required and I think that would still be applicable, wouldn't it? Siddoway: That would be just fine. The landscape ordinance does require that and we have been requiring the 10-foot gravel shoulder without any problems for the last couple of years. Centers: So, that would be part of it. Item Number 5, the sign, 10-foot maximum. Item Number 7 we have crossed out the word looped in that paragraph. Item Number 9 on Page 14, we would cross out or line out beginning with the sentence. This will require the access road off of Overland and all areas within the contractor --just cross out the words up to Overland, which would be eight words. The contractor's yard, recycled asphalt would be acceptable. Item Number 10, replace that whole paragraph, applicant has stated they will not use, and insert that verbiage regarding the access off Overland Road and is -- shall be abandoned by application from the applicant to ACHD correct? End of motion. Zaremba: I will second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? Steve, did something need to be added at this point about the C of O prior to landscaping or would that automatically be entered -- handled by the building department? Siddoway: Let me check just a second. I believe that's already been in the -- the annexation conditions. Just a second I guess go ahead and add it. I'm not finding it, so -- I know it's in here somewhere, but I would just go ahead and add it into the site- specific conditions for the Conditional Use Permit. Centers: So included. Zaremba: Second accepts. Borup: Okay. We have a motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT