Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 18, 2003Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 19 of 54 Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: PP 03-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots on 5.93 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: CUP 03-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development fora 41- lot subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes, minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Borup: Okay. At this time we'd like to open continued Public Hearing RZ 03-009, request for Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates, at 3680 West Ustick Road. And also Public Hearing PP 03-019, request for Preliminary Plat approval 40 building lots and seven other lots on the same project. And CUP 03-034, request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned development. Like to open, again, all three public hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, members of the Commission. On item number five, the rezone request, the property is shown here on the screen. It is as noted before existing commercial. You can see the -- Mr. Crane's property, who just testified as well, and the split that happened on that triangular-shaped piece just to the east. It does abut this subject property and, then, the Nine Mile, you can see here, which is owned in fee simple by the U.S. Government. The Wastewater Treatment Plant shown here to the north in gray and, then, the existing R-4 and R-8 subdivisions to the south. There is -- Dakota Ridge Subdivision is the one that is immediately across the street. That's Dakota Ridge. There is an elementary school, Ponderosa, shown here just down to the southwest. So, the request is to rezone the property to an R-8 zone. Their density -- gross is 6.91, so the R-8 would work with their gross density. Their net density is, actually, 9.26, so it exceeds it, but we have typically used the gross density for that calculation. I think the only other thing to point out on this item is that the applicant has submitted a written response and has pointed out a couple of items that -- of findings that would -- that they disagree with and assuming that now that the Commission is moving towards approval of the residential zone, those findings would also have to be made by this Commission to modify staff's findings. So, those are findings -- on the rezone it's Findings A, E, and F that we have -- we could not make the finding and that would have to be amended for the Commission to make the finding in favor of the application. And moving on to the next two items on the agenda, here on the screen is the amended plat for you to consider tonight. Ustick Road on the south, they are proposing one point of access, public street into the subdivision here near their west boundary. They have a common lot to meet the city's street buffer requirement, along the frontage 25 feet. They have a couple of hammerheads that are here in the project on the east side. They have one stub street that is just here right in the middle Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 20 of 54 of their west boundary that would make connectivity to this larger ag parcel to the west. The other common lot that they have, the larger one, is here on the very north end, which does wrap around and touches this Nine Mile Drain. They have their storm water retention area shown here with the contours and the crosshatched area there. So, it's a general layout of what they are proposing. They do have 40 residential lots, seven other lots. The main points of discussion that we called out in our staff report, those start on page seven of the staff report and the first item there is the reduced street sections, item A on page seven, and they have requested some reduced street sections as a part of this. The highway district, my understanding, has accepted those. So, we have not received a written notification as condition number four asks, but I was told by Mr. Wardle that Gary Inselman at the highway district said that the 40 foot right of way, which is the minimum width that ACHD can accept as a dedication, they do have 40 foot just here in these T's. Otherwise, they have the 42 right of way in these two east-west street sections and, then, they have 42 from this stub street to the north. So, those are the reduced areas. They have the standard 50 foot the right of way off of Ustick up to the stub street to the west. And item B on page seven, the reduced lot frontages, and we did receive written modification to the planned development application, that they have now formally asked for -- as part of their planned development to reduce the width of the lot frontages in this project. We still have -- would like probably just to talk about it more tonight with the applicant, particularly on these two lots that I'm pointing to now. As they have proposed it, this southerly lot would take access off the -- this hammerhead and, then, this northerly lot would take access off the hammerhead to the north, of course. But they have a common lot that is connected -- a micropath connection between these hammerheads and that at this point is not a common driveway, so you really just have 15 feet of this lot that touches the right of way and the question is, you know, is that sufficient to make the turn with a vehicle or anything else and so we are asking for -- for there to be -- I think probably the best way, if you go with this configuration is just to make a common lot that's for vehicular access and not just pedestrian, but there may be other options to design that. But; again, those are Lots 9 and 10 on Block 1. We are asking for that to redesign the lots and submit an amended plat that meets the ordinance. And the other two items, Ustick Road right of way, I think we are -- the main thing there is with any future dedication we are just suggesting that -- it's really not clear right now if the applicant intends to dedicate the right of way and where the sidewalk's going to be proposed, so we are asking for clarification on that and, then, D on page eight is the pressurized irrigation. They are stating that there is an insufficient amount of surface irrigation water available. They are requesting a variance to the pressurized irrigation ordinance. If this is granted, the applicant will be subject to paying well development fees. On the site specifics, we had requested a couple of -- some more information and I will just let Bruce speak briefly to item number one, which dealt with the sewer trunk and where the serves from. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. The information was provided to my office today. This morning. We looked it over and it does prove out the fact that sewer is not going to be available by flowing to the northeast and that the plan, as proposed, is the only viable alternative to sewering this project, so I'm satisfied with that report that I got this morning. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 1 S, 2003 Page 21 of 54 Hawkins-Clark: If we continue, then, on that page eight, just a couple other items to point out for the Commission. I believe that the applicant's in agreement with the modifying the plat to accommodate any future right of way in a common lot. So, that's kind of taken care of, I think. The 40 foot right of way widths, we just need to get written confirmation on that and, then, the redesign area that I mentioned on those two lots off of the hammerheads. Then, on item number seven, the planned development for the project, again, the reason for the planned development is multiple. They are asking for reductions in the setbacks, primarily the front. The street side they are also asking a change from 20 foot to ten on the street sides, which, mainly, is going to affect, you know, all the corner lots within the project. So, instead of having a 20 foot side to the street, they were proposing ten. Then, the front 20 foot from back of sidewalk, which, as you know, has been approved many times. That's mainly just a tracking issue with the builders. Then, another reason for the planned development was the lot size. They are asking for a reduction to 3,400 square feet per dwelling unit. The house size, asking for 1,100 square feet per house, instead of 1,301, so 200 square feet left there and, then, the final reason they had -- on the first floor, the city ordinance right now says you got to have a minimum 800 square feet on the first floor of a unit and they are asking for that to go to 500 square feet on the first floor. The amenities they have got are the ten percent open space and two picnic hardscape area common lots and -- Centers: Where are those, Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Here at the north end, the common lot that comes through kind of adjacent to the Nine Mile, I believe, is a couple of different areas in that lot, several hundred feet long, you know, along the Nine Mile and I believe they are prepared tonight to show you where they want to put the amenities within that. I think those are all the things to point out for right now. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Wardle: For the record, my name is Jon Wardle. My address is 4940 East Mill Station Drive in Boise, Idaho. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to talk about the Stapleton project. Just a couple points of clarification. We did a slight revision on this project. It moved the entrance over slightly. The actual lot count is 38 new lots, with one existing, so a total of 39. There is an existing house that sits right here that will remain but, there are 38 buildable lots. To answer Commissioner Centers' question regarding where the landscape areas were -- and I was under the impression that staff had received this landscape plan. Borup: Yes, we have got it. Wardle: Okay. One area is right up here, in that location. The other one is right here between those two. We are proposing picnic areas, as well as some heavy landscaping around those, so -- they are pretty secluded, but accessible and usable by the public. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 1 S, 2003 Page 22 of 54 Centers: Mr. Wardle, let me cover that now and I had noted on my agenda and I got it from my notes, there is 39 building lots or did you say 38? Wardle: There are 38 new and one existing, for a total of 39 lots that will be a part of this plat. Centers: Okay. Thirty-nine lots part of the plat and five other lots was my other change. Wardle: Maybe we can do a quick count. Borup: Well, that's the old one there. That's why -- that's the one we have the landscaping plan on, the one that's on the board, before the road was -- before the entrance was moved over. Centers: I got the five from someplace, because I crossed the seven out. Wardle: Five is correct. Centers: Okay. Good. Wardle: And one other point of clarification is since the application was submitted, the property has changed hands, it is now owned by Mr. Jake Centers instead of Mrs. Britton, so I just wanted to clarify far the record that Mr. Centers is the owner of the property. Centers: Clarify the other connection there with the name centers for the group, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: We -- I think we have run the family trees and there is no relationship between Mr. Jerry Centers and Mr. Jake Centers. Centers: Way to put it. Good way. Wardle: If I may pass something out to the Commission? Borup: Does staff already have one of these? Wardle: Staff does have a copy of this. We have gone through and reviewed the staff report. I made some comments regarding -- or directly relating to the previous action this evening, which is the Comp Plan text amendment and if I might enter for the record a couple of these. On page three of the annex -- on the zoning application, A, we just simply say that we disagree and that this item probably should be stricken, given the action of the Comp Plan text amendment. On item number E, we do not believe that the mixed-use wastewater treatment -- we do believe that this area is an appropriate location for residential uses. We request action on modifying standard E by eliminating Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Meeting September 1 S, 2003 Page 23 of 54 that first paragraph. F, we do not believe that the proposed rezone and use will be as is written here, a disturbance to the Wastewater Treatment Plant or the existing areas around it. And item L, we believe that it is an appropriate location and request that item L or standard L be modified to state: Staff finds that the rezone of this property would be in the best interest of the city, period, and delete the rest of that sentence. If I might, are we going to cover all three hearings at this point? Borup: Yes. All three are open at this point. Wardle: Okay. We will just go ahead and go through -- moving onto page two of my report, under preliminary plat findings requirements, item A, we, once again, disagree, given the previous action on the Comp Plan text amendment. I think staff did a very good job on pages seven through eight on items A through C of clarify this. We have discussed with ACHD staff, they are in agreement that we can use a 40 foot right of way on those hammerheads. I had forwarded an a-mail yesterday from ACHD to Mr. Hawkins-Clark, but, apparently, that's not made it to his file yet and we will make sure that he has a copy as requested as a condition of this. We also did amend the application, it was a slight over -- we overlooked this when we did it. Clearly, we were asking for reductions in lot sizes and frontages. The issue of Lots 9 and 10, there is currently 15 feet of frontage on these two, there is 15 that touches there and 15 that touches there, which is sufficient for a driveway to get out to it. If you look in the planned development standards, driveways for either single or double residences or certainly one or two can be a minimum nine feet and we have 15 feet. I think it meets the intent. If we need to be a little more creative and create a common drive between those two, I think we would probably do that, and the same thing with those two. But the fact of the matter is there is sufficient width there to handle the driveway for those two -- for those two homes. Borup: Mr. Wardle, would it be anticipated -- I mean would you know at this point in design which location the garage would be for -- Centers: That's was my question, too. Are they going to have to back out? Borup: And I think that was one of staffs concern, if the garage is closest to the street, can it make the turn or if the garage is on the opposite side of the lot, you know, that would allow -- Wardle: If I may, I think there is two ways to look at it. If the garages -- let's look at lot -- I think this is Lot 9. Sorry that I'm shaky. If the garage is on this side, we could create a little bit more concrete on this side of the lot and they could, essentially -- when they -- they could pull right in and when they back out, they back out on their own lot and pull straight out to the street. That's one way to do it. And if the garage is on the other side, farthest away from it -- Centers: But you haven't given us footprints, so to speak, so, you know, we have nothing to hold you to. So, I think your comment of creating a --. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 24 of 54 Wardle: A common drive? Centers: -- a common drive would be -- Wardle: Preferable? Centers: -- that would be my preference, because -- Borup: What was the reason that the streets weren't connected in the design to start with? Was it block length or -- Wardle: Well, no, it wasn't block length. I think we were just trying to create a little bit more -- an amenity here where the neighbors could get to each other without really needing to put that road in. It wasn't required, it's not necessary, and we just thought we could do a little micropath through there that would connect the neighborhood and not disconnect them. Centers: Save some asphalt expense? Wardle: Perhaps some, but that wasn't out intent when we did it, we were just interested -- Borup: It's not that much. Wardle: -- providing some sort of connection for those -- Centers: A hundred feet. Yeah. Eighty. Wardle: So, I guess the alternative would be to create a common drive between these two lots and a common drive between these two lots would accomplish that concern of them coming straight out. Rohm: It appears that it would be easier just to push the road through and not have the hammerheads or whatever you call them and, then, you wouldn't have that as a concern at all. Centers: Would you have to go back to ACHD and get approval for that 40 foot all the way through? That's a 40 foot street; right? Wardle: We would. Centers: Yeah. I think that's part of it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 25 of 54 Borup: Well, I think something can be designed to accommodate that. Did you have questions or a comment? Okay. Maybe -- I mean the turn around would be an answer, but I -- it's not up to us to design the layout either. Wardle: And I guess I'm not asking you to request -- or requesting you to redesign, I'm just -- Borup: No, but we are -- I mean I think the comment is the concern about safety and cars backing out on the street. I mean in this case if they backed out they would have to back clear out to the main street up there, which would be in front of two other -- at least two other properties. That's a lot of backing. Wardle: I think if we create -- I guess the two options are create a backing space on the lot itself or do a combined common drive between those two. Borup: Is that the main concern of the Commission is just more just a safety thing? Centers: Oh, yeah. You're right. You know, somebody coming out of that garage would have to back clear down here. Wardle: Also, for the record, these lots are deeper, which gives us -- I mean, typically, the front setback on this adjoining lot would be here, so I mean the garage would be about where that number is on that. I think their -- I think we can provide sufficient space on that lot for them to turn around and pull straight out on the public right of way. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: One other thing maybe to consider is that, as designed, they have our public sewer going through the middle of that, connecting up the two hammerheads. We need to be able to have 24 7 access to our sewer, so I mean we would not allow any parking -- I mean I could just envision somebody's motorhome or camper sitting there in that area. Borup: You mean on the common lot or on -- Freckleton: Or whatever we are talking about. I mean if we are talking about a micropath, if we are talking about a shared driveway, whatever we settle in on, just, please, keep in mind we do have sewer going through there and we need access, so -- Borup: But right now, the way the design is, that -- you don't foresee a problem, do you? I mean because it's a common lot with a pathway. Rohm: Well -- and you just can't park anything on that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 26 of 54 Borup: Well, you wouldn't park on the pathway anyway. Centers: Right. Rohm: 'Not on the pathway itself, but the 24 feet that Bruce is speaking to would be outside of that 15 foot pathway. Borup: That's alandscape -- that's a landscaped area. Rohm: Oh. Excuse me. Centers: He wants 24 hour, seven days aweek -- Freckleton: The easement -- the easement for the sewer need to be 20 feet in width centered. Wardle: And, for the record, that's a 25 foot -- Borup: Yeah. It's a 25 foot easement. Wardle: So, in terms of access, I mean these will be restricted from parking on those ends. The pathway would also provide, technically, Public Works a way to get across there without ripping through landscape features, because they would have that pathway. Centers: I don't have my plat out, but what's the number of these two lots? Wardle: I think it's nine and ten. Centers: Nine and ten? Yeah. I think it would be -- I think we have done it before, too, that before any building permit would be issued on Lots 9 and 10, the Building Department would be satisfied that the garage is such that a car could turn around and leave the property and have sufficient room to leave the property without backing out. A permit would not be issued on Lot 9 or 10 unless the building official was satisfied that the garage was such that the vehicle could turn around on its own property. I think we have done that. Really? Powell: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission, if that's the way you go, I would suggest asking for a plan of how these would be developed now, so that you can review that -- Centers: Ask for the footprint? Powell: Yeah. Ask for the footprint now and have them come back and provide that to you, so you can make that evaluation. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 1B, 2003 Page 27 of 54 Borup: Well, other cities have had that stipulation. I know Boise has on a -- they just required a turn around. So, their stipulation was -- and they didn't design the turn around, they just said there had to be a turn around provided that the car can back out of the driveway and pull out forward. Centers: I think you're speaking from experience. Borup: I am. Centers: Yeah. I figured. Borup: I have done. And that's simply all they said. It didn't tell you how it had to be or what your house had to be or -- you know, you didn't have to provide any footprint, just when you turn the plan in you showed the turn around, you know, the back up turn around. I don't know that it needs to be too complicated. Centers: And the footages. Wardle: I would agree. Powell: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission, normally, it wouldn't be a problem, but that's an awfully tight site and I'm just -- I think it would be beneficial for you all to know if it was possible on those lots, given the design of the site. I mean he's got 15 feet of frontage to work with, he's got a driveway apron, plus the backup area, plus a house he needs to get on there, so I think a simple layout would be -- Centers: Well, I think he's correct, too, the 15 foot is sufficient for a driveway. I mean there is no doubt about that. Borup: Now, are we looking at a two car -- Powell: Other than that he's got the hammerhead coming at right angles and that driveway would have to come at an angle from that, so it would be crossing over the corner of it and it's not shown as a radius curve, it's shown as a -- as a 90 degree curve. So, I mean there is -- it's not clear exactly how that would work through there to me, but I think that would be beneficial information for you all to base your decision on. Borup: We are talking two car garages here? Wardle: They are two car garages. Just one point of clarification. They are shown as square. They, actually, will be rounded. ACHD has already commented on that that those need to be round. Square is not -- I don't know how that got through exactly, but that's the way it was submitted. But they will be rounded on the end of each of those hammerheads. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 1 S, 2003 Page 28 of 54 Centers: Well -- and addressing that, Mrs. Powell, I guess, you know, I would ask the applicant to address that and satisfy staff that it can happen prior to a City Council meeting or going forward from here, if that were to happen. I don't need to see it back. You know, I'd like staff to look at it prior to another meeting, I mean, so -- Borup: It's a tight fit, unless you have a short car. Centers: They could put that in the CC and R's that only the buyers of those lots drive Dodge Neons. Wardle: Or Mini Coopers. The next item that was on there is item C, which is the Ustick right of way. Staff has made the recommendation that that future right of way, if it's not conveyed at this time, be placed in a common lot for future conveyance. We will do that. And I think the issue of the pressure irrigation has been sufficiently addressed already. Onto number five on page number three of my document. We requested a preliminary plat, site specific condition number five, be modified to read -- eliminating a majority of that -- actually, all of it, just as something to the fact -- and I think this is where you were going -- the lot frontages -- I'm going to just state my statement and, then, we can discuss it. The lot frontages as depicted are approved for the accompanying planned development application and I think we would be willing to submit plans on how that -- those Lots 9 and 10 would function prior to the City Council meeting for staffs review. Item number seven -- and I have looked for this issue, we specifically requested it, but I don't know that it was appropriate for us to request, and this relates to sidewalks -- required sidewalks within the landscape buffer. Historically -- and all the projects I have done in recent terms, all of our sidewalks have been placed within that required landscape buffer, but we have been told that if the sidewalk goes in there, we are required to add an additional five feet to the landscape buffer. I have looked through the zoning ordinance, I have looked through the landscape ordinance, and can't find anything specific requiring that. The fact that the sidewalk goes in the landscape buffer means that the right of way is reduced, therefore, there would, actually, be more space in that ultimate buffer. The right of way of the road would be much less -- required much less than what it would be if the sidewalk was within the right of way. So, we are just asking as part of the planned development that the sidewalk -- the five foot sidewalk along Ustick Road be allowed to go within the 25 foot landscape buffer with no additional land for that lot. Just for clarification, we are going to fence both the east and west boundaries with six foot cedar and along the Nine Mile Drain we will do a six foot powder coated chain link fence. There was a question regarding what the fencing types would be. And the same thing on the general comment number five. Onto the Conditional Use Permit, pages 11 through 13. Standard A, we submitted an amendment stating -- or requesting reduced lot frontages and lot sizes. That was submitted to staff in a subsequent letter. Item D we disagree with, given the previous action on the Comp Plan text amendment. Same thing with C and D. The remaining items we don't have any comments on. Special Consideration A have already addressed. Special Consideration B -- and this is probably where the question of what these homes are looking like. For point of example, when we came in and got Berkeley Square approved, we supplied you with plans that we wanted to use Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 29 of 54 for that project and those plans were accepted, the dimensions were given, and it was understood that we -- you know, as designed they would likely work. When we went to go pull building permits, we found out that they did not comply with the letter of the zoning ordinance requiring 800 square feet on the first floor. So, that's why this issue comes up. I think we can work with the design of the units like we intended to do with Berkeley and we can accomplish that if this issue allowing 500 square feet on the first floor, instead of 800. Borup: I would agree with that. You have got a lot more design flexibility by allowing that. Centers: Did you say that was allowed at Berkeley, the 500? Wardle: The plans were accepted, but when we went to go build them, we were not issued building permits, because they did not meet the zoning ordinance, which required 800 feet. So, we ended up redesigning and reconfiguring those homes to meet the intent of that and that's why we are bringing this issue up at this point. Borup: I don't think we received those plans as -- I had understood it was more of a conceptual plan. Wardle: They were conceptual and they were taken to the Building Department. They were designed, but they just were not allowed. Centers: Yeah. You didn't get the specific approval like you're applying for here. Wardle: That's correct. .Centers: So -- okay. Wardle: That's correct. Centers: Before I forget it, Mr. Clark, could you throw up the original map that shows the adjoining property here? There we go. And I guess, you know, it's -- it may not be any of my business and if it's not, tell me, but rather than just this almost six acre piece, was there an attempt to acquire more land to develop? You know, six acres is tough to deal with and I can see why you propose this project. Or was this just a parcel that is available by one or two property owners? Wardle: If I may, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, at the time that we looked at this only that property was available. We have spoken with the neighbor to our west, Mrs. Wilkins. It's not her plan to do anything at this point, so we are working with what we have available to us at this point in time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing September 18, 2003 Page 30 of 54 Centers: Okay. Yeah. And the reason for that question is I -- well, it's a lot easier to develop the bigger parcel of land and it's tough to deal with 5.93 acres and I can see your reason for the density, I guess, is my point, in a round about way. Wardle: If I might also address why we -- why we chose the type of product that we want to do here is we have looked at the market, if you look -- if we look just what's to the south of us, a lot of that is R-4. There is a little bit that's R-8 spread throughout, but you look at everything that's coming on line generally all complies with the R-4 zoning, although many of them are getting R-8. The Comp Plan would allow R-8 and in what's the yellow around most of this area, although the areas below it to the south did choose to go R-4, they could have asked for R-8. What we found with our experience with Berkeley Square is it meets a Hitch in the market that's currently not being met. Other people are making housing choices that are much farther away and we just have felt very confidence, we had a lot of success with Berkeley Square and that's the reason we chose this. We weren't just trying to maximize or push them in. We came up with a very efficient program at Berkeley Square and feel like this is a good area to do it as well. It's likely that other things, as they develop around, there may be some that would, you know, go for a little higher density, but I would say overall there aren't many projects that would be similar in nature to what we are trying to accomplish here. So, I just wanted to clarify on the record why --why we went with what we did. Just to summarize and sum up here, on my last page number five, staff asked for clarification on the open space calculations. When the plat changed, those numbers were not provided. They are now here, it's been given to staff, and I believe it's item number four relating to the hardscape elements. We have two picnic areas and also the micropath and picnic areas, one in the front, one in the rear; and which will be heavily landscaped as per the landscape plan. Finally, on the recommendation, staff said that there was a lack of finding. We now believe that there is -- there is the ability to make a finding, given the Comp Plan text amendment, and we request that Stapleton Subdivision be approved for the rezone, for the preliminary plat, and conditional use permits with staff's recommendations, findings, and recommended conditions, as well as the modifications we set forth in this document today. I'll stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? Does staff have any comments or concerns on Mr. Wardle's reply to the original staff report? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, there is -- do you want us to respond now? Borup: Sure. Hawkins-Clark: The ordinance number on the Ustick Road sidewalk is 12-13-10-2. It's it the street buffer section. That's where it talks about the sidewalks, that the buffer width must exclude the width of the sidewalk. In terms of the -- Borup: Have we been consistent on that on other projects or has there been waiver? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 31 of 54 Hawkins-Clark: I don't believe we have -- no, I don't believe we have received any waivers of that. I would have to -- you know, to check specifically on other projects that have had these detached sidewalks. You know, is it a key issue, I mean from a design standpoint I can see Mr. Wardle's perspective. I mean I think it's just -- the ordinance is basically saying, you know, in order to accomplish the amount of landscaping from the street, the five foot sidewalk isn't a part of landscaping and -- Borup: I understand that and that's what the ordinance says and that's what needs to be stated. I just want to make sure we are being consistent. I'm trying to remember the last -- I guess this comes up with most all of them that are on an arterial, but I think the last one I'm thinking of was over on Linder that had a meandering sidewalk through their buffer area. Hawkins-Clark: You know, on some of those, of course, if they put the sidewalk in the right of way, it's a mute point and, you know, several of those have. I think since the highway district has changed their policy and they are -- you know, they are not paying for right of way, we have seen more sidewalks placed in easements on the private property, rather than in ACHD's right of way and, yeah, you're right, I think maybe just the fact that I have called it out here has kind of raised the issue, but it should have been addressed. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: We need to be consistent. Wardle: And I guess with the planned development -- and we knew that coming in, that's why we are requesting. I can personally say on the last three projects that I have processed through the city here, we -- it's never come up. Borup: Have they been outside of the right of way? Wardle: Yes, they have. Within the landscape buffers that are required along the arterial roads. Borup: So, Berkeley Square has some -- Wardle: Berkeley Square, Heritage Commons, and Paramount when that one gets developed. Borup: Heritage doesn't have a sidewalk yet. Wardle: It will. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing September 18, 2003 Page 32 of 54 Wardle: It's not too far removed. So, just raise that as an issue, because it's never been raised before to me and I don't know -- and it was specifically raised at this point and that's why -- Borup: Well, it sounds like that's something that's been on the books and maybe been overlooked a little bit. Wardle: I believe so. Hawkins-Clark: So, you're the lucky one to have it brought up on this project. Wardle: But to put this in perspective, from center line they would require 48 feet and as you approach that property line you would have back of curb, five foot buffer, five foot sidewalk, and, then, two feet to property. So, if we removed the sidewalk from the public right of way and place it with an easement and we put the public right of way at back of sidewalk, we are talking 12 additional feet as enhancement to that landscape buffer and, then, the sidewalk would be within 37 feet, instead of 25. Borup: Yeah, there is definitely more buffer area, but that would -- and as Brad said, that would restrict -- could restrict landscaping within that area. But as long as they comply with the landscape ordinance is that a big issue? Hawkins-Clark: Well, the landscape ordinance is where this ordinance -- is where this is at. Borup: Right. But I mean as far as the tree count and that thing. Hawkins-Clark: Oh, yeah, I don't think there is any question they could get the required trees in there. It's the width. Borup: So, you're concerned more with the width? Hawkins-Clark: Right. That's what the standard is 25 feet -- on arterial roadways 25 foot. Borup: So, even though we don't have the width now, once the road was developed there would be more, as Mr. Wardle just stated. You would have that extra that would be added to that -- essentially, to that land -- I mean even though it's not owned by the -- in this case it would be the homeowners association, but the property is still there. Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry, I'm not following. Borup: Well, the distance from back of curb to the nearest lot line -- I don't know if I followed your numbers. You said an additional 12 feet. Wardle: It would. So, if we just look from centerline, there is an existing 50 feet there Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 33 of 54 Borup: Yeah. Wardle: Okay. So, the standard would be -- Borup: You're talking a 96 foot road? Wardle: Ninety-six foot road -- 96 foot right of way. So, if we go from centerline, you would have six feet of -- for the middle lane, 12, 12, you would have another 5.5 feet for the safety shoulder, bike lane, whatever you want to call it. You have half a foot for the curb and that would put us at 36 feet. So, we have an additional 12 feet now that would, in essence, not need to be dedicated. So, from that point to our property line, since we are already showing 25, there would be 37 feet, in essence, for you to place that five foot sidewalk, which more than meets the requirement. Centers: But you're talking undedicated land. Wardle: At this point. Centers: And unowned land by the applicant. You're talking shoulder -- road shoulder, let's call it, that no one is going to maintain and not the homeowners of this association. Borup: Well -- and that's a good question. And who maintains the land, the property from the back of curb to the subdivision? Wardle: As done in most projects, most developers just landscape right up to the sidewalk. There is no differentiation -- Borup: Right. Wardle: -- and so that's just part of -- Borup: But this road's going to go in however many years down the road, so who is going to maintain it, then? The landscaping won't be in at that point, will it, or are you -- Wardle: Well, the 25 feet for sure would be in. Borup: Right. Wardle: And I guess the question is how much more would be need to go. Centers: Right. Well, I see where you're coming from, Mr. Wardle, but, you know, he showed you the ordinance and it's 25 feet, plus a five foot sidewalk is what they want. You're saying there is extra land for a period time and, as Chairman Borup said, and as you're -- you were going to say, generally, the homeowners association landscapes that, even though they are going to lose it, which was the case along Overland Road Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 34 of 54 just recently. They did it to sell the homes, but there is no guarantee that this development will landscape that road shoulder for the beautification and we can't require him to, because he doesn't own it. Wardle: Well, he does -- Centers: Did I miss a point or did I hit it pretty much on the head there? Wardle: I just -- I think you're on point. I just want to clarify that he will own that common lot -- that lot up until the point the highway district chooses to purchase it for the road. Centers: Right. And of that we want him to do 30 feet, five feet for sidewalk and 25 for landscape. And, you know, I think we are beating a dead horse, in my opinion. Borup: Well -- and that's what I was, I guess, not -- I had forgotten that the future dedication is in a separate lot. Wardle: Correct. Borup: So, they do own it at this point. But it wouldn't be any different than any other subdivision that's -- where they run the landscaping out to the shoulder. Is that the intention? Wardle: It is. I think Mr. Centers is correct, I mean it is our intent to be able to sell these. Borup: Yeah. Wardle: And we are going to do a nice job on the landscaping out there on that buffer. Borup: Well, given all that, Brad, are there -- what's -- what's the options without ignoring the ordinance? I mean we don't want to -- we don't want to just ignore the ordinance, it's not -- apparently, it's been overlooked for the last year. Hawkins-Clark: I mean we are not sure of that, I guess, is the point. I mean it sounds like on Heritage maybe that's the case, but I mean Heritage, too, Locust Grove isn't going to a future 96, it's staying at the current 50. Borup: It is? Hawkins-Clark: It's, ultimately, just a three lane, Locust Grove is, from Ustick to Chinden. That's not planned to be a 96 foot right of way. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 35 of 54 Hawkins-Clark: So, they are using the existing 50 and asking that the sidewalks be on private property. They are putting three travel lanes and 50. Does that make sense? So -- Borup: And 36 -- Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Borup: Forty-six. Hawkins-Clark: With your utility easements. Borup: Forty-seven and a foot and a half. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. So, I mean, I guess -- really, I think the only option here is to -- you know, to ask as part of the planned development -- you know, they, can ask for a reduction in the buffer width. You know, I think our -- the ordinance says at ultimate build-out 25 feet of landscaping beyond the right of way. Is it going to look ice in between when it's -- now and when it's built out? We have no doubt that they will probably do a good job, but, you know, we got to think about, ultimately, this being a five lane road and how much landscaping beyond the future ultimate right of way -- ultimate road section and, you know, that's -- Borup: And if the landscaping goes to the new -- the future curb and gutter, then, it more than is adequate to comply, isn't it? Hawkins-Clark: To the future -- right. To the future -- Borup: The future -- Hawkins-Clark: -- right of way. Yes. Not -- because, yeah, they are not required to dedicate that until, as they have said, the highway district chooses to come in the future. They are going to preserve it in their own common lot, but -- so, yeah, I think it's either comply or amend the planned development and, then, yeah, I guess on that issue I think those are the two choices that I can think of. Borup: Okay. Does staff have a big concern either way? I mean the intent of the ordinance is to have -- is to have it look nice. Hawkins-Clark: Right. And to have somewhat of a consistency along our entry roads and main arterials as the city builds out. Borup: This doesn't seem to -- Hawkins-Clark: Five feet of difference, a traveler, probably, is not going to notice a big difference, but -- the other point, I guess, that Anna just noted is the question of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeiing September 18, 2003 Page 36 of 54 existing house. A sidewalk along Ustick Road, is that going to extend in front of that existing house and cut off their driveway? Wardle: The sidewalk would extend and at the point that the driveway comes out, it would be, in essence, a curb cut. Hawkins-Clark: Just a curb cut. Wardle: A curb cut. And, then, it would extend across the front and back. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Wardle: If I might ask a point of clarification. Are we required to do a detached sidewalk? Is that -- is that an ordinance requirement or is that just a -- is that a preference? Hawkins-Clark: That's also ordinance. Wardle: Okay. Centers: And I have question, too. If you're familiar with Overland Road and my subdivision out there, Sportsman Point, where we ended up, we don't have 30 feet, do we? After dedication of the, you know, improvement of the streets and the curbs, we don't have 30 feet from the curb -- Borup: That would have been under the old ordinance, though. Centers: -- to the back neighbor's fence. Borup: That would have been under the old ordinance. Centers: So, I can see the rationale with this ordinance. If and when down the road -- when Ibought in '94, ten years ago, you know, I thought we had a lot of buffer there. Didn't think about Overland Road being widened to five lanes. Bingo. You know. So, I think that's what the ordinance is looking at. Did I hit it? Wardle: Yes. Centers: I'm glad I hit one of them. Borup: But this one covers that. They have got it. Centers: As long as you end up with 30 -- you're going to end up with 30 feet, including the five foot sidewalk. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing September 18, 2003 Page 37 of 54 Borup: Well, they will end up -- I still didn't catch the numbers, but -- 37, either that or -- or at the very least you have got the sidewalk that's not going to be there. Centers: Well, then, what are we talking about? He's going to comply. Wardle: Eventually, we will comply. I mean but it's -- today -- Borup: But not right now. Wardle: If the sidewalk is detached and meanders and we are requesting to go within the 25 foot landscape buffer, which means the eventual curb -- back of curb will still be 12 feet away from that common lot. Eventually, that whole buffer will be 37 feet, so we comply, but, specifically, the way that the ordinance is written that has just been shown to me, they are saying that we would need to provide 30 today and we are requesting that we be allowed to provide 25 feet ,five feet of sidewalk inside that 25 feet. Borup: The difference here between this and your subdivision is when the street goes in the buffer is going to increase. In your case it decreases. Centers: Yeah. I don't follow that. Borup: Well, because the curb and gutter is going to be 12 feet from that common lot. Apparently, when Overland was widened it -- well, I don't know. I don't know. It was either a smaller setback or they took some of it, one or the other. Centers: Yeah. Borup: I don't know -- okay. I don't know if we -- Wardle: Thank you. Borup: -- needed to spend that much time on this. Centers: Yeah. Right. Right. Wardle: Sorry. Borup: But I think we started with asking staff if they had any concerns. You mentioned that one and we have probably beat it to death, but were there some others? Hawkins-Clark: I think the only other point was on the frontages, just to clarify that the -- you know, if -- the R-8 requires 65 feet of frontage for a standard R-8 lot. You can reduce that to 30 feet if you do a flag lot. Again, I'm referring to these two Lots 9 and 10 that are on the west boundary -- on the east boundary. They are not flag lots and you can also reduce it to 15 if you have a common driveway, but there is no common driveway. So, we are kind of back to the 65 and I guess our point is more focusing on Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 38 of 54 the legal frontage than it is the access into it and how the design -- I mean that's important, but -- Borup: So, you're saying that's not in compliance with the ordinance? Hawkins-Clark: Is the -- yeah. I guess to point out that it's just a significant reduction from 65 to 15. Borup: Fifteen. Hawkins-Clark: Which is pretty unusual for -- you know, certainly, we have seen it go in half and the rest of their subdivision averages 40. So, from 65 to 40. Borup: So, that aspect of it is more of a technicality on complying with the ordinance, then? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Centers: You're speaking of Lots 9 and 10? Hawkins-Clark: Lots 8 and 10. Right. Centers: But if there were a common drive, then -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Centers: -- then, you're okay. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yeah. I think -- Wardle: And I offered that as a solution, to do a common drive for those two. Borup: It sounds like that may be the solution to comply with the ordinance. Wardle: Okay. That's what we will do, then. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to -- I didn't know -- didn't hear a conclusion on that point. Borup: No. We were saying that or a turn around, but -- Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Borup: -- the turn around wouldn't clarify the -- Hawkins-Clark: Clarify the frontage issue. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 1 S, 2003 Page 39 of 54 Borup: The -- okay. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Borup: That was it, just those two, then? Okay. Does that make sense, Mr. Wardle, just the two -- Wardle: You bet. Borup: -- just the two items that staff felt there was any conflict with -- and they were both ordinance conflicts, not necessarily -- Wardle: Just -- I understand those and just to restate with the planned development there is some flexibility that can be granted, but we will -- Borup: Atwo-thirds reduction is probably -- Wardle: I think with the common drive we can address that and meet actually the way the ordinance is written, so -- Centers: It's kind of an irrelevant question, because of the attendance here, but did you have a neighborhood meeting? Wardle: We did. We sent out a notice, we held the neighborhood meeting in June, and Mr. Crane and Ms. Leighton attended that, as well as Mrs. Wilkins, who is our neighbor to the west. The Johnsons, the neighbor --their neighbor also attended. We noticed -- Centers: Who did you send letters to? The same people that the city sent letters to? have that list in front of me, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: We used the list that was given to us by the city. Centers: Right. Okay. Wardle: We noticed the homeowners associations to the south. There were two, actually, and all those neighbors that were on that list. Centers: Okay. And you had how many show up? Wardle: I think we had six, maybe seven. Centers: What did your letter say in just -- you don't have to read it, just briefly. Wardle: It said we are going to have a neighborhood meeting, included -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 1 S, 20D3 Page 40 of 54 Centers: Talk about a development to the north of you on such and such property? Wardle: Actually, it included a copy of the plat on it as well. The proposed plat. Centers: The density? Wardle: Uh-huh. And I think said we that were requesting a Comp Plan text amendment and the Conditional Use Permit, the Preliminary Plat, and Rezone. Centers: Okay. Very good. Thank you. Wardle: And I only had one letter come back to me and that was the one I addressed to myself. I always do that, just to make sure that I get it as well, so no letters were returned as non-deliverable. Borup: Never heard of that approach. Centers: That's good. Wardle: Right there. Centers: You addressed it to yourself? Wardle: Yes, I did. So -- it's just my way to make sure that I know at least somebody got it and I got it and I attended, so -- Centers: Very good. Borup: Okay. Any -- like to open now for any public comments. I assume Mr. Crane? Crane: My name is Charles Crane. I live at 3600 West Ustick Road. The density is one thing I'd like to address. Keeping in mind that this is just six acres, it's the same ratio of having 39 houses on six acres, if I had came before you with that original request for my two acres to have 12 houses on it, what would you think, too dense for two acres having 12 houses on it? You know, this is the same ratio that they are talking about. If this property was on ten or 15 acres, this density would fit in with the neighborhood and make some sense, but being this tight and pushing back all the setbacks and the floor sizes, the lot sizes, square footage sizes, to make this many houses fit on this small of a property, that's a problem, and Ineed -- I live next to this problem, I have just built my house, I plan on being there for a few years. This intense bothers me and along the east edge here every 40 feet there is another house. House. House. House. House. House. House. House. House. I have got nine houses all of a sudden looking into my backyard and these aren't little two story houses. Borup: I thought your property was to the east of -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 41 of 54 Crane: That direction. So, there is like a hundred foot strip with the existing house and I'm -- Borup: Right. Crane: -- the other triangle. Borup: You're the triangle. Crane: Right. Borup: So, they are looking across a hundred feet into your backyard. Crane: Right. Borup: Okay. Crane: And if we could go three dimensional --just two dimensional that you have -- Borup: Well, I mean you just made a statement they are looking in your backyard and there was a lot between yours and them. Crane: There is, but it's just an open lot, an open area. So, this is -- I was standing on my property on this top left and looking over into this subdivision. The wood fence there is Rhonda's fence border, that's the edge of Stapleton right there. They have brought dirt in already to start bringing up the slope, because they need to slope towards Ustick Road, instead of the back. So, I'm looking at this big mountain where I don't see the sunset anymore and on top of that mountain they are going to build two story houses. So, these people are going to be on this giant mountain, nine of them staring into my backyard. Borup: Well, you're making the assumption the homes are going to be on top of that pile of dirt? Crane: That's -- for the sewer to flow towards Ustick Road and that hill is going to get bigger as it goes back towards the back. I would, actually, be very interested in knowing how high that hill is going to be. Centers: I'm sure the applicant can hardly wait to address that. Crane: I would really like to know, because at the moment, you know, you can see the other neighbor's house over there and the hill is bigger than the house. So, that's my main concern is that many houses being -- and they are going to be not that far away, they are going to be up where that wood fence is, because of the setbacks being crunched down smaller and smaller. Do you have a couple more of those pictures? And this is from the other neighbor on the west side where they are building up the hill, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Sep[em6er 18, 2003 Page 42 of 54 just in reference back behind the hill are those big trees back by the sewer treatment plant and they are almost as big as those trees and -- more pictures there? Hawkins-Clark: Charles, are these the ones on the CD? Crane: Yeah. On the CD. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. It will just be a second. Crane: And a couple of these pictures on the CD are the -- the other subdivision that they were talking about previously and what those houses look like. I had a couple of thoughts on their design. As it sits, they have got nine houses up against the border with our property. If they rotated those houses, they could still get nine lots in there, but there would only be three up against the border and because of the height of the houses maybe we could limit the second story not having any windows facing east and still get the light in on the first floor, but on the second floor. not having east facing windows. Some of the -- Centers: Let me back up. The property line to your property line is a hundred feet? Crane: It's about a hundred, 104, something like that. Centers: Hundred and four. Okay. Crane: Just another picture of the hill that they are building. Go ahead and go to the next picture if you can. I wasn't sure if that first one would be available. Next picture. This is our own little family slide show here. Oh, Berkeley, that's what it's called. That's the houses at Berkeley Square, which, I guess, would be 800 square foot floor and they are talking trying to get that smaller, 500 from what I heard at the meeting. But there is very small space -- there is only like five feet between the houses. But I drove around the side and I noticed that some of the side houses they don't have windows on it to the next subdivision, but that would be right up to that border, but they wouldn't be at that level, they would be built up on top of that dirt pile to get the sewer flow towards Ustick Road. So, we have got the dirt level, first story, second story, and even though I'm a hundred feet away, you're going to have all those houses lined up five or ten feet apart from each other. And this is the -- Berkeley from the side. If they rotated the houses sideways and didn't have windows on the sides, then, we would only be faced with three houses and no, you know, real high vantage point to be looking down in the yard. This is what it would be now with nine houses stacked up right next to our property. Be house after house after house. Borup: You're saying this is the rear of these homes? Crane: In this one it's -- I guess this would be the rear of the home. So, the garages would be on the other side. This is at the school behind Berkeley. This is on the backside. I think this would be the -- what we would be looking at. Then, the last Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 43 of 54 picture. And one of the reasons I live out where I do, instead of a subdivision, is I got tired of looking out my window during breakfast to see what the neighbor was eating for their breakfast and I wanted some space, I wanted to be out a little bit, and that's why I live out here. And, in fact, the neighbor and I just put up that vinyl fence, just so we would have some privacy, so when we are out in our back porch we don't have to, you know, bother each other and we just spent 1,000 dollars on that vinyl fence for some privacy. But with the sides of those houses and on top of that berm, they are going to be looking right over that six foot fence. And I did attend that -- Borup: So, don't they have to also look over your neighbor's home to see your home? Crane: At the very front, but our backyard -- the front yard faces Ustick, so we don't go out there very much, because of the road noise and being out in public. So, my private life is in the backyard. The backyard is where we spend our time, we have our barbecues, and that's what would be exposed. Because the original two dimensional plans, it doesn't really show how high these houses are going to be and that's my concern, that they are not doing the setbacks, not doing the restrictions on lot sizes, and they are just putting so much in this little six acres that those would be some of the things I'd like you to consider and work with the developer on and see if he could fit in with the neighborhood a little bit better to protect our privacy and our property values. Borup: Anything else? Crane: That was -- that was it, I think Borup: Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Leighton: My name is Rhonda Leighton. My address is 3610 West Ustick Road, Meridian. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I -- my feelings are pretty much just like Charles'. I don't have an opposition per se to the residential itself as we discussed in the last meeting in regards to changing the Comprehensive Plan text. I also think that in RZ 03-009, the request to go to R-8 probably is a doable thing. That kind of encompasses them all the way through that they could probably push five or six into some land deals. When we have gone to the neighborhood meeting, we discussed that, I asked him why so dense, why two story, you know, facing the back of my house, why do I have all these windows that are going to look down onto the property. My property is 600 feet -- oh, maybe that's too long. I don't know how long it is. It goes back all the length of the side of that property. Their east side is my whole property line on my west side. So, there is one common lot, nine lots, all the way through and Charles showed you the pictures of the back of those houses that look down on there. It will be intrusive, there is just no escape to that. So, during the neighborhood meeting I said why, why do we have to go this way, why can't we just go a normal -- normal homes. They said Meridian needs 120,000 dollar homes. That's what these homes are going to sell for. And they may be 116, they may be 123, they may be in there. So, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 44 of 54 went shopping and I went to Hartford Estates. It's on the corner of Ustick and Ten Mile. It from the northeast corner and it's a Hubble Homes. I can buy today, tomorrow, a house that has a main level finished, 1,454 square feet, it is three bedroom, two bath, and has an additional family room with an attached two car garage. It sits on a lot that is 90 by 115 and that house sells today for 119,965. I get to choose the colors, et cetera, et cetera. So, I think that marketability could be done in a less dense situation. Borup: Do you have any idea what they paid for that land? Leighton: What they paid for that land? Borup: Uh-huh. Leighton: No. Borup: Okay. I don't either. Leighton: Actually, I heard, but that's not my -- Borup: But Hartford paid about 20 an acre. That I was aware of. Leighton: Yeah. Well, we are talking marketability. I mean they are talking development. The way it looks to me at the bottom line is pocket money now. We are talking about cramming a whole bunch of these in together so that we can 39 of them -- 38 sold, since there is an additional one to go in there. At that same meeting I said I want out, this is not what I bought this house for. This is not where I want my horses. I do not want nine homes on the back of my property. Buy me out, buy out my back half, or stub me a road, so that I can do something and get horses out of there and do something different. What am I going to do with a piece that is 115 wide at the front, narrows down to 104 down in the middle and goes all the way back that distance? I get stuck into a situation where I have horse property and nine houses that are dumping onto my land and I mean watching over, looking into -- I even have trees, which is kind of a nice thing, but there is no privacy that way. They take away my sunsets, the take away my privacy, and they have all this up against horse property? And now I have no options. Mrs. Wilkins' land to the west has gone sky high. She's sitting on a gold mine, as far as I can see. She has a stubbed road into her property, she probably has developers knocking on her door. Jon Wardle admitted today that they have already been knocking on their door. I'm standing with a hand out saying buy me out, I'll shut, I'll leave, this is not why I bought this property. I will go out elsewhere, I will move away, I don't want to see that. Then, they tell me that the excuse is they have to have a market for 120,000. Did they sell Berkeley Square? Yes, they did. And did they sell it in eight months? That's what I heard. So, I'm sure there is some marketability out there and I'm sure that they can get something sold, but if Hubble can take and put this Clearwater at 1,454 square feet on a lot size that's over 10,000 square feet and sell it for 119,965, why can't have we have some sort of compromise with this? Why can't we have something that will push us to single level up against the property line, that will Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 45 of 54 push us to a little bit less density, push us to maybe a five lot, maybe a six lot, maybe something with a little more elbow room. I walk across the street at Dakota Ridge all the time and I know what they are, they are spread out a little more and such. This complex, this Berkeley Square ditto is not the same type thing. It's not in keeping with the area. The two story complex is right, it is very intrusive. So, I would ask for your denial as far as the density of this. It goes to show in the CUP 03-034, that they have to have all sorts of reductions, they have to have minimum size lots, size of homes, the minimum square footage, the this, the that, the setbacks, the this and that, and I mean whatever else are they going to ask far? So, it seems to me that they are asking for an R-8, which is a general blanket and, then, they are wanting to push the limits further and further and further. I think I said my peace. Borup: Okay. Thank you Centers: Thank you. Borup: Do you have any final comments, Mr. Wardle? Wardle: Thank you. For the record, Jon Wardle, 4940 East Mill Station Drive. I guess if we are going to show pictures, we might as well -- Centers: Give them a copy, too, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just sitting on our property -- the one that says property to the east -- we didn't want to show the mature trees there. With a six foot fence and where the trees are, there will be homes there, but she has some nice mature trees, we are not going to discount that at all. If you look at Mr. Crane's property -- I haven't been out there this week, I just got back -- I just got into town today, I haven't driven passed the property, so I was not aware that he put up a vinyl fence, but if you look at his property, the bottom picture there with his vinyl fence and with the fencing that we would be putting in and with the trees where they are, I am not sure that there would be many people looking into his backyard. Borup: How long ago were these pictures taken? Wardle: These pictures were taken in early August. Borup: Okay. Was this home occupied at that time? Wardle: Which one? Borup: The new one here. Wardle: Mr. Crane's? Borup: Yeah Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 78, 2D03 Page 46 of 54 Wardle: It was. I think he's probably been in his home maybe a year. Borup: I didn't see a garage. I'm not sure how he got an occupancy permit. Wardle: I don't believe there is a garage. Centers: So, is the other property with the vehicles sitting in front the Crane property pictured, Mr. Wardle, the one at the top left? Wardle: Uh-huh. Centers: There is a vehicle. Is that the adjoining property? Wardle: No. That's Mr. Crane's property. If you look -- Centers: Where is that? Wardle: Pardon? If you look at the property to the east on this upper left picture, you can see that same van just in the corner there and, then, you can see Mrs. Leighton's property where her car comes in on the front. It's kind of tucked back behind that power pole. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Wardle: I want to address the issue of that dirt. Centers: Yes. Borup: We are interested in that, too. Wardle: We recently -- I mean we are aware of the issues of the grade of the sewer. We recently came in contact with somebody who had excess dirt near by, needed a place to go, we volunteered. If you look at the grade at the front of the property, that property is not going to be any higher than that. It's going to be tapered towards the back and it's just for cover in terms of sewer and those type of things. It will be level, it will not be any higher than where the property is at the front of the -- up at Ustick Road. Borup: So, presently, the property slopes to the back? Wardle: It does. It slopes to the north. Borup: Right. Wardle: Towards the Nine Mile. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 47 of 54 Centers: So, it would be very similar to the Crane landscape? Wardle: Correct. Centers: And the mounds of dirt, that belongs to other parties? You weren't bringing it on in anticipation of development? I mean I couldn't imagine you doing that. Wardle: Yes, we were. The opportunity was available. I mean we always run the risk of if the project's not approved, then, we are -- Borup: You have got a lot of dirt. Centers: Yeah. It was dirt that was kind of available to you, so you just took it? Wardle: Yes, it was, so we took advantage of that opportunity. Let's just put this in perspective. If the rezone is not approved and we go back to the underlying zone, it's C-N. We would be allowed to put a commercial building 35 feet tall, 25 feet from that property line. These would be two story homes in comparison to that. I guess, technically, we could get up to a three story home, as long as we met the 35 foot. I think everybody has opinions about ways the property should be developed and designed. We have always taken the longer view of what's available in the marketplace and Idon't -- I guess I don't discount the fact that maybe Hubble is trying to sell those for 119,000. We have done our research as well and we are comfortable with what we have designed. Centers: Well, the way I look at that comment is this is a capitalistic society and I'm happy to live in that kind of a society and I'm not going to sit up here and dictate what anyone can make on their property and if they can make more than the next guy, then, more power to them and I'm not interested in knowing what they make, so, anyway. Borup: So, the way I read this topographic, it looks like you got five or six feet from the front to the back -- to the north. It really does slope off, doesn't it? Wardle: We figured in back there would probably be about three and a half to four feet of fill. Borup: Towards the back. So, it will still be lower than the front, then? Wardle: It -- very well likely, yes. Borup: Unless you're cutting the front down or if these numbers are wrong, it will still be a little lower, it looks like. Okay. Was there any other issues you wanted to address? Wardle: I do not. Just stand for your approval of this project. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 48 of 54 Borup: Does staff have any additional comments? Hawkins-Clark: Just a couple of things, Commissioners, should you choose to move ahead on this. I did want to just note for the record that Ruth Wilkins did submit a letter dated September 15th that was into the record generally supporting the project. I just wanted to note that. Centers: You know, I didn't see that. Supporting the project? Hawkins-Clark: It's just a three liner. Would you like me to read. it? Centers: No. That's okay. It's supporting the project and it's on the record there? Borup: This is the neighbor to the west? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. She say's I'm not opposed to this development and would recommend that it be approved. I am concerned about the future planning of this area surrounding the sewer plant and would like to see this kept in residential to conform with the existing residential houses to the south of Ustick Road. So, I guess there is both items there. She doesn't have a problem with the project, but she thinks that the density is too high, because she wants it the same as the south side of Ustick Road. Sorry if you didn't receive that. Borup: Well, you're assuming that's what she meant, because that's not what she said. She just said she wanted to keep it residential. Hawkins-Clark: To conform with the existing residential housing on the south side of Ustick Road. That's what she says. Borup: To conform with -- well, never mind. It doesn't really matter. Centers: Well, let me interrupt. I'd like the applicant to address the fact -- did Mrs. Wilkins attend the neighborhood meeting? Wardle: Yes, she did. She was in attendance and she was, actually, at a Public Hearing -- I think our first one when we went late that evening and she decided not to stay around, but she did come to our neighborhood meeting, yes. Centers: With no comments or -- she was just there. Wardle: She was just there. She did have a friend of hers with her that also attended and -- but she provided us with no comments -- Centers: Okay. Wardle: -- at that time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing September 18, 2003 Page 49 of 54 Centers: Thanks. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: And, then, I guess two other things that we wanted to mention. The findings far the rezone, again, would need to -- you would have to make the finding in favor of the project if you choose to approve the rezone and, then, there would need to be the requirement for that easement or that -- whatever you want to call the nuisance easement, the odor easement, to be attached to this as a condition and, then, the common drives that would need to be a condition, since that's now part of the application, for Lots 9 and 10. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing. Borup: We have motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: And a second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Centers: I think it's obvious where I'm coming from. I looked at the list of people that received notice of this meeting tonight. We had 25 individuals. There were five or six that showed up to the neighborhood meeting, two of which are here tonight. The Dakota Ridge Homeowners Association received notice of this meeting. I think it's very obvious that most of the people that received the letter felt residential -- it's about time, because I sat on the Commission when we heard about Falcon Creek and the buses and all of industrial possibilities and as Mr. Wardle pointed out with the present zone recommendation they could go with a 35 high commercial plant of some kind. It's just very obvious -- and I guess we voted for the text change, so that's where we are coming from, that residential is the desire, for the most part, of the community, in my opinion, and -- based on either hearings, too. Borup: Right. Centers: As far as the density, I think it took some ingenuity with six acres to do something with it and to get the bang for the buck, as Chairman Borup pointed out, the cost of land, you have to get some density, and I'm sure it's none of our business what the land cost, but I'm sure it wasn't cheap and it's a capitalistic society. If he got it cheap and he's selling it high, then, more power to him and that's none of our business, but that's irrelevant, in my opinion. So, I'm highly in favor of the project, I think we ought to address the issues on the cross-access with Lots 9 and 10, and the adjoining lots to the north and south and I think that's the main issue. And, then, the landscape buffer width, 25 feet, plus the five foot sidewalk. To be honest with you, I think the applicant Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 50 of 54 should comply with that. I guess I don't have a problem with it either way, but it's kind of a give and take situation, in my opinion. Borup: Comments from any other Commissioners? Rohm: I'm just a little bit curious why they were not able to work with the adjacent property and incorporate the one parcel into this development. I don't know if that's appropriate -- Borup: You mean the property to the east? Rohm: To the east. Yes. Borup: Or to the west, I mean. I mean to the west. Rohm: No. No. No. To the east. The one sliver of parcel that -- Borup: Oh. Someone else owned it. Rohm:. Well, she wanted to have it included. She asked them would you consider including this in the development and I would be curious why they didn't just expand and include that in the -- Borup: I'm sure they would have if they could have got it for the same price. Rohm: Probably. And maybe that's not for this hearing, so -- Centers: And we had that situation on Locust Grove, Inglenook Sub, the neighbor to the south owned a five acre parcel, an elderly gentleman, tried to sell it to the developer, they didn't want it, and I think part of the reason they didn't was because he wanted a pretty penny and -- if you remember that testimony. Mathes: Mr. Shepherd. Centers: She even remembers the name. But, anyway, that happens with adjoining neighbors sometimes, they can make connectivity, because of whatever, you know. It happens. Borup: Okay. Do we need to discuss a motion or are we ready just to move ahead? Centers: Ready to move ahead. Borup: Okay. Centers: I guess, you know, I will just ask you, Commissioner Rohm, how do you feel about the project? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 51 of 54 Rohm: I think it's a good project. Borup: Okay. We still have three hearings open. Centers: No. We -- Mathes: We closed them. Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Centers: I closed all three. Borup: Thank you. Centers: My motion was the intent to close all three. Borup: You probably did, if they said so. Centers: If I didn't, I amend it right now. Borup: All right. Item No. 5, the first one. Centers: Come on, Leslie. Borup: This would be the rezone Mathes: Brad, you're going to have to help me on this one, because I don't have a clue what you were talking about. On those A -- where it referred to the thing we just did. Okay. So, I make a motion to approve RZ 03-009, request for a rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates, including all staff comments received August 15th, 2003. Now, I'm not sure where to go from here. Do we include Jonathan's thing? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I think that would cover you, actually. Mathes: Okay. To include a memo dated August 21st, 2003, from Wardle Group. Centers: Then, I have a question. I had on my notes when I reviewed this, the odor easement, let's call it, should it be mentioned in the rezone or -- with this project? I mean that was just the text change. Should that also be mentioned here? Borup: On the rezone or on the plat? Centers: They have mentioned that it was going to be a note on the plat also and on the CC&Rs. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 1 S, 20D3 Page 52 of 54 Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. And I guess it's where -- if you want to -- you know, they have submitted a consent waiver that would be a part their title process, that the buyer would sign, and they had an easement. Centers: Yeah. But we renamed it. Not a Consent and Waiver, we renamed it to -- or at least our recommendation to Odor, Noise, Lights, and Dust Easement. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Well, then, that -- an easement would become part of the plat. Mathes: Not annexation. Hawkins-Clark: No. Mathes: Okay. Centers: So, we would want to mention that in the plat recommendation. Okay. Good. Thank you. Borup: Now, would these next three items be subject to approval of the Comp Plan amendment? Does that need to be stated in the -- or is that just assumed? Hawkins-Clark: We will -- staff will prepare the recommendation to the City Council on each of these four applications and, you know, we will state that you have recommended approval of the Comp Plan amendment and Council will receive them just as you -- Borup: Because these are all a mute point without that other amendment. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Centers: Right Mathes: Right Hawkins-Clark: They will all be on the same City Council meeting, so in the same order as you had them. So, I don't think you to need to reference -- I think the main thing is just referencing the -- yeah, the easement and, then, any revised -- you know, there are a couple of differences in Wardle Group's letter that you, actually, disagreed with and wanted to support staff on, so I think -- but those were plat issues. Centers: Okay. Well, I will second the rezone motion. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 53 of 54 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT Mathes: I recommend approval of PP 03-019, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 39 building lots and five other lots on 5.93 in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates, including all staff comments dated August 15th and the memo dated August 21st from the Wardle Group, with these exceptions. On page eight, item five, Lots 9 and 10, are to have common driveways with -- nine will be with eight and ten will be with eleven. And they need to comply with the 25 feet street buffer, plus the five feet for the additional sidewalk. Is that right? Centers: They have that as their site specific as number seven, so Mathes: Right. Borup: So, it would just be keeping that staff comment, then. Mathes: Y es. Keeping that staff comment and making sure that the new Odor, Noise, Dust, Lights Easement is written on the plat. Centers: I have question for Brad, too. Earlier in your presentation you felt that we should address items A, E, and F of the annexation and zoning analysis. By not addressing them in the special consideration -- in the considerations, are we okay? Hawkins-Clark: I think the fact that Mrs. Mathes referred to Wardle's thing in her statement, yeah, we -- Centers: And that was backing up. I'm sorry. I second that motion. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Okay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Mathes: And the final one. I request approval to go to City Council, CUP 03-034, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development fora 39 lot subdivision -- is it 39 or is it 39 plus five? Hawkins-Clark: Thirty-nine plus five. Mathes: Okay. A 44 lot subdivision, to include a reduction in minimum size lots, side of homes, minimum square footage on main floor of main level home and setbacks in a proposed R-8 for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates, to include all staff comments received August 15th, 2003, and to include the memo dated August 21st, 2003, from the Wardle Group. I think that's it. Centers: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 54 of 54 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And we have run out of agenda items, Commissioners. Powell: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission, I would like to point out that Mr. Jonathan Wardle was last again on the agenda. Borup: We worked hard to do that again. Yes. Do we have a final motion? Mathes: I make a motion to close the Public Hearing. Or adjourn the Public Hearing. Centers: Second. Borup: Adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Meeting adjourned at 9:27 and a half. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:27 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED KEITH BORUP -CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 700 of 104 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, at the request of the applicant, I move that we continue this Public Hearing to our meeting of August 21st. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 17. Public Hearing: CUP 03-037 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to move into older home used as office space, pave portion of adjacent lot, use as dealership for used automobiles in a C-G zone for O.P.M. Enterprises by O.P.M. Enterprises, Inc. - 1065 East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Okay. Next one is Item Number 17. I'd like to open CUP 03-037, request for a Conditional Use Permit to move into older home used as office space, pave portion of adjacent lot, use as auto dealership and office buildings in a C-G zone for O.P.M., Enterprises. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, at the request of the applicant, I move that we continue this Public Hearing until August 21st. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 18. Public Hearing: CPA 03-003 Request for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential uses within the mixed-use WWTP zoning designation for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Item 19. Public Hearing: RZ 03-009 Request for a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Item 20. Public Hearing: PP 03-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots on 5.93 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Item 21. Public Hearing: CUP 03-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development fora 41-lot subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes, minimum square footage on main floor Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 101 of 104 of multi-level homes, and setbacks in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Borup: I hope we are ready for a long meeting on the 21st. Okay. That leads us to our last project. I was originally hoping we would at least be able to get to Item 18 and perhaps continue the other three, but -- Mr. -- well, this -- actually -- and I hope that got communicated to you, John. I know when we were anticipating putting this on the agenda, staff didn't even want to put it on and I don't know if that was discussed with you. I did with Christie. Anyway, we decided that it would go on with the understanding that we may not make it and my understanding is that you want to proceed ahead on that basis, so -- Wardle: Commissioners and Chairman, we were informed of that, so whatever you want to do. We are at your mercy. Borup: Okay. Commissioners? I'm not sure how much time we anticipate for the Comp Plan amendment. Are we within the -- when was our last one? Within the six months? Zaremba: As a text change I don't believe this is -- Borup: Oh, this is just a text change. Okay. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Zaremba: We have not opened the Public Hearings, is that -- Borup: No, we have not Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we table Items 18, 19, 20, and 21 to our meeting of August 21st. Borup: Okay. I might make a suggestion maybe, to perhaps this could be first on the agenda. The other two asked to have theirs moved. I think they could go in where they fall. Would it be appropriate to maybe have this one first? Zaremba: I would be happy to lead the August 21st meeting with Item 18, followed by 19, 20, and 21 and, then, the other continued hearings after that. Borup: Mr. Wardle is that what you would rather -- or would you rather have it at the end? Okay. So -- Zaremba: The motion is to table 18, 19, 20, and 21 to be the first items on our August 21st agenda. Borup: Okay. You would be first on the agenda Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 102 of 104 Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor. Any opposed? Did we cover everything? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman -- I move we adjourn. Mathes: Second. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Siddoway: I believe that -- we can look to legal counsel, but, I believe you should open those hearings to continue them. If you table them, we will have to re-notice them. Borup: Oh. Siddoway: Is my understanding. Borup: We don't want to do that. Because they have been noticed for this meeting and everyone is at this meeting -- Wollen: If they are simply continued, I think that's -- it may be a matter of -- Borup: Has Council done it that way? Wollen: It may be a matter of verbiage, but I believe that they received notice of this hearing. Siddoway: The City Council, I believe, does always open them on their agendas, if they are going -- if they have been noticed for that date and, then, continued to another date. It's kind of a semantic thing. Borup: Well, what's the difference between open and tabling -- I mean continuing and tabling it? Siddoway: Goad question. Wollen: And I don't know -- I don't really know what -- Borup: Where are the parliamentarians here? Wollen: Yes. The Robert's Rules of Order. Borup: The meeting's over, so we are free to -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 103 of 104 Wardle: I guess just for the sake of clarity and consistency with other applications, I just -- maybe change the motion to continue to the next hearing, just because of -- I know that this area has been contentious in terms of noticing issues, so -- Borup: So, let's not take any chances. Wardle: Let's not take any chances, let's just continue the Public Hearing to the 21st. Zaremba: I don't have a problem with that. We do have a motion on the floor, though, that needs to be voted down. Borup: No. We have already adjourned, so we need to reopen the meeting. Zaremba: We didn't vote on the adjournment. Wollen: Yes. The adjournment was never voted on. It was seconded, but it was never voted upon. Borup: Okay. We have a motion on the floor to adjourn the meeting. All in favor? All opposed. Okay. MOTION FAILED: THREE OPPOSED. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would like to withdraw a motion I previously made and substitute it with this motion. I'm sorry. You will need to open the Public Hearing before I make a motion. Borup: Yes. I'm sorry. I'd like to open Public Hearing CPA 03-033, and RZ 03-009, and PP 03-019 and CUP 03-034. I'd like to open all four Public Hearings at this time. Zaremba: I think we are learning why it's not advisable to conduct heavy thought after midnight. Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue those four Public Hearings to be the very first items on our agenda for August 21st, 2003. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. chairman, I move we adjourn. Mathes: I second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 104 of 104 Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: We have adjourned at 12:49. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:49 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: SHARON SMITH, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 7 of 113 clinic in an L-O zone for Seegmiller Dental by Dave Seegmiller, south of East Gala Street and east of South Millennium Way. Including all staff comments from a memo dated June 30th and the original hearing date was July 3rd, postponed until August 21St End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2003: CPA 03-003 Request for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Item 7. Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2003: RZ 03-009 Request fora Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Item 8. Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2003: PP 03-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots on 5.93 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Item 9. Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2003: CUP 03-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development fora 41- lot subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes, minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Borup: Now, this next project we really have four items pertaining to the same project. It is listed as a Continued Public Hearing. We did not have a presentation or any testimony on this. This was after -- this was at the end of our last meeting and after the time when we start new Public Hearings. Because I think staff of recommendations and to facilitate this, we would like to continue with Item Number 6 as a single item and, then, after that we would get into the seven, eight, and nine, which is -- seven, eight, and nine hearing is on the. project itself with the Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use and rezoning. I would like to open Continued Public Hearing CUP 03-003, this is a request for an amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for the proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates. This project is at 3680 West Ustick Road. We'd like to start with the staff report. Again, this is just on Item Number 6. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Augusl 2l, 2003 Page 8 of 113 Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Then, just on Item Number 6, the request for the Comp Plan Amendment. Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: I have shown on the presentation, just to help orient you, you're no doubt familiar with the area as part of the Comprehensive Plan process a year ago, but the area we are talking about is generally here at the northwest corner of Ten Mile and Ustick Roads. The property that is for the next three items on the agenda is shown here with the -- with the Nine Mile adjacent to it on the east side. Their request is -- does not, actually, relate to this future land use map, it's strictly a proposed text change. Right now in this area that's shown as kind of this off-brown color, the Comp Plan says there will be no new housing permitted. There is also an additional five or six policies that I included in my staff report that also pertain to development in that area, but the specific policy that they are proposing to change is to allow new residential uses in this area with a Conditional Use Permit. Just to clarify, I think you received the original application, but, then, there was a supplement that was submitted after that by Jonathan Wardle with the Wardle Group. He outlined in there a number of other justifications that they made where they feel that the change should be made to the Comp Plan, so I wanted to clarify that you received that. We have addressed a couple of prior related actions that are -- have occurred out here in this area on page two of the staff report. Mainly, that the Council did adopt the Comprehensive Plan and land use map on August 6, 2002. They also, on August 6, 2002, denied a request for annexation to a light industrial zone on the 30 plus acre parcel that's located here right at the corner of Ten Mile and Ustick Road. That was proposed as the Utility Subdivision and I did list the four reasons for their denial of that industrial zone request in the staff report, including the concerns of the neighboring property owners. The fact that the proposed development does not constitute a light industrial use, that the development would pose concerns and noise, odor, liter, and potential impact and that they did not consider that annexation to be in the best interest of the city. Then, the third item I listed that relates to this is the property that is the subject of this application was annexed in December 2002. The Britton parcel, to a C-N zone, and that C-N zone does -- we felt was something that staff and the applicant came to that would match up with the anticipated uses in this Mixed Use Wastewater Treatment Plant Area. That was the reason for the C-N. Centers: Well -- and, Brad, excuse me. I remember that evening. She would have accepted any zone we gave her. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Yes. Centers: She just wanted to be annexed into the city. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 9 of 113 Zaremba: Well, in fact, she was cooperating with us, because she had hooked up to sewer and she's required to Annex. As I recall, their original request was a residential zone, we changed it with staff -- staff suggestion, and we recommended that to City Council, that it be changed to C-N. Hawkins-Clark: C-N. Right. Yes. Thanks for that clarification. On Page 3 of the staff report, started to address some of the specifics on this application to amend the Comprehensive Plan policy. I guess the main item to point out there is the fact that the compatibility of residential is basically something that the Public Works Department and the operators of the plant out there have expressed on the record in the past several times that they are generally opposed to adding population of residential uses in this area of the city. In and around the plant and, certainly, this ultimately does come dawn to a Commission and City Council decision about what is compatibility. Do you feel that there is or could be, through the Conditional Use process of a residential project, some kind of buffer or other mitigating factors added in there and/or will there be that much of an impact on the market that the lots would just simply not sell. These are things that require somewhat of a crystal ball and the compatibility is -- basically will be coming down to your judgment based on what is submitted into the public record. Staff feels generally that this is -- you know, this has only been in place for about a year now in terms of a designation. We would like to see the Comprehensive Plan have more of chance to work with the designations that were adopted. A year is not a long time for the marketplace to respond to changes in the city's plan, so that's one thing that we would like to see continued on. Even if residential were allowed adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant, probably the lower densities would be preferred as are out there now, which are the rural type uses and densities. We are, as we put in our recommendation, just feel that the application just really doesn't warrant the change at this time. I did include some acreage that gives you a sense for how much property is out there. There are 420.43 acres in that Wastewater Treatment Plant area. Of that 420 acres, about 250 is available for nonresidential uses, if you assume that the school district is going to pursue this 40 acre piece that's shown here, which is, actually, a part of the frontage on Black Cat Road. This is all existing single parcel, I believe but the breakdowns are shown there. Mr. Wardle did, in his application talk about the amount of nonresidential uses that could potentially be constructed out here should this go all nonresidential. With a floor area ratio of around .25, which is pretty well founded in terms of how much acreage would be dedicated for actual square footage of the building and how -- in relationship to the area of the whole -- of the land. You know, we recognize that 100 percent nonresidential at a .25 would probably overwhelm the North Meridian Area and that's why in our recommendation we are basically saying we would like the opportunity to spend more time with the property owners. Possibly with other planners, other developers, and kind of look at this whole section in a more intensive way, probably as part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment with the North Meridian Area, as you recall, was withdrawn, so that we can pursue that. We think that this could be kind of folded into that effort. I don't think I'll point out anything else, other than that we have recommended that the Comp Plan Amendment not be approved right now. We think there is more work to be done and that the plan should have more than one Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 10 of 113 year to -- allowing the commercial and the light industrial and the general market to adjust to the new developments and the patterns that we have shown in the Comp Plan. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I'd like to ask how long has the treatment plant been there? That long? Hawkins-Clark: Bruce Freckleton is saying he thinks it's the late '70s. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Other questions from the Commission? You're saying you'd like not to do anything in this area until a more comprehensive plan has been developed. Is that generally what you're saying? Hawkins-Clark: Well, Ithink -- no. Ithink there are entitlements that certainly go with the current Comprehensive Plan for this area and -- Borup: We just don't know what they are. Hawkins-Clark: --Ithink they are -- well, they are the office, the light industrial, some small retail, other uses that are currently allowed out there we think would -- obviously, we are not going to recommend anything other than approval if the plan and the use complies with the policies that are currently stated. We are just simply saying with this application to allow the new residential is -- Borup: I have got a couple of questions on the definition, then. A Planned Unit Development, general planned residential, what type of -- what type of residential housing would fit under that category? Hawkins-Clark: Are you referring, Chairman, to the schedule of use control that -- Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: -- shows the plan? There is no housing type or product type that is -- Borup: Other than just residential. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: Well, I note that this is presently a C-N zone and a general planned residential project can go in a C-N zone as a conditional -- C-N zone as a Conditional Use, without even needing a zone change. I mean it's a permitted use with a Conditional Use. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Augusl 2l, 2003 Page 11 of 113 Hawkins-Clark: We would certainly have to find that the use is consistent with the Comp Plan -- Borup: Also. Hawkins-Clark: -- regardless of -- you know, at the time of any development application. But -- and I would probably need a minute to do that, but I could check -- I believe that that was, actually, stricken as a part of an ordinance amendment about a year and a half ago. We had -- the schedule of use was modified. Borup: Do we have that new modification yet? Have you guys got it? Zaremba: I do not have -- you're talking about Chapter 8? I don't have a Chapter 8 any newer than two years ago. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commission? Centers: Yes. I had a question, Mr. Chairman, but I see that he's looking -- Zaremba: One of the additional uses that have been floated for that area -- while you're still looking -- is a park. Wouldn't be anything wrong with resurrecting that for a few of these acres, too. Hawkins-Clark: I believe it is under Ordinance 03-1006, but it looks like it was just the general planned residential that was stricken. It still allowed the planned residential development, so -- no, I'm sorry, it doesn't. Yes. The planned residential development is allowed as a Conditional Use Permit in the residential -- all four residential zones, but the Planned Unit Development general planned residential was stricken from the C-N zone, so that was -- Borup: It was stricken? Hawkins-Clark: It was stricken as a part of that ordinance amendment. Borup: I do not have -- I mean I'm still looking at my old one that had that as a Conditional Use. Centers: The way I understand it, from what I read, if we approve the text amendment or recommend approval, it applies to all of the brown area. Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Centers: And it can't specific for this specific property, it has to apply to the whole area? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. As the application was submitted that's certainly the case and we would -- we would want to see, when it comes to a Comp Plan policy, address a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 12 of 113 broader area than just one parcel. That's not the tool for our Comp Plan to just deal with the -- Centers: Right. Okay. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Wardle: Commissioners, for the record, my name is Jon Wardle. My address is 4940 East Mill Station Drive, Boise 83716. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening. If I could just clarify one point that was discussed on the Britton property, there wasn't an option to do residential, because the Comp Plan precluded it. That's why it went to the commercial zone. It probably could have gone to limited office, maybe even light industrial, but she needed to be in the city, she needed sewer, so that's where it ended up. There wasn't an option for residential, although she. requested that. I'd like to give a little bit of background, because it's important to this whole discussion of what is the mixed use Wastewater Treatment Plant area, what does the city want it to become. In 1993 the city designated this area generally as rural residential agricultural. There was a park site designated on generally the corner, which we refer to as Utility Subdivision, which many of you are familiar with. More recently, you have had a lot of discussions on that very application. I'm not going to go into the details of it, but there were some issues raised within that application that are applicable to this entire area. There were ten Public Hearings on that application. There were, actually, eleven, but the first one was deferred. There were ten Public Hearings, including what you had, as well as City Council. The issue of a regional park site was discussed. The Parks Department decided not to go with this location, the public record stated because they were told that the odor may be too strong for their patrons, so they chose to go two miles down the road to a location at Ustick and -- is it Ustick or is it McMillan and Meridian? Ustick. That's where the regional park site went. There was a residential subdivision proposed by Collins Engineering for an R-4 designation, but it was not accepted, because of the proximity to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. There was also a business park employment center concept floated in front of the city and this is based on the public record. The city said, no, we'd prefer that it not go there, because of the eminent odor that may come from the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Here were three applications or three potential projects for this area, they were all told that, no, it wasn't appropriate at this location. Alight industrial project was proposed. That was Utility Subdivision proposed in 2001, carried on through 2002. Ultimately, that project was denied, because it was deemed to be heavier industrial and would not have been compatible with the existing neighborhood, which was residential. In 2002, the city adopted the mixed used Wastewater Treatment Plant and as Brad stated, it encompasses about 420 acres. That's a big area 420 acres with a mixed-use designation, and I'd like to just get into what some of the uses could be if granted a Conditional Use Permit and that's the catch, if granted a Conditional Use Permit. Light professional offices, and flex space uses, including light warehousing. No new residential period. Limited small-scale retail and mini storage so, those uses were specifically laid out in the Comp Plan as being appropriate for this mixed-use Wastewater Treatment Plant. The staff did detail some more specifics of what it really Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 13 of 113 breaks down to. There is approximately 292 acres that could potentially be developed in this area so, let's use that as our baseline number, 292. They make the statement in there that 40 acres is potentially designated as a school district property. What school district property is this? Is this an elementary school? Is this a middle school? Is this potentially a high school? I think that needs to be understood as well, because as I read this mixed-use Wastewater Treatment Plant designation, it doesn't say anything about schools, but it's very specific in the items of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan that they want to minimize human exposure to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. If this is an elementary school, that's potentially 600 students, Middle school, a thousand, and High school, 2,000. Something needs to be addressed on that as well. This is a bigger issue than just residential. I gave you a memo and that memo was included in the packet, but it's been updated to address the numbers that have been provided in the most recent staff report, so the numbers are updated, I'm just going to read some of those issues. A variety of application studies and issues are important to consider as the future commercial retail industrial viability of this mixed-used Wastewater Treatment Plant. First, industrial uses the city received a request and held Public Hearings for industrial and storage applications known as Utility Subdivision. That ,project was denied and deemed not compatible with the neighborhood. The city made it clear that heavy industrial uses are not appropriate at this location. Retail uses. The city did a study in late 2001 performed by an outside consultant by the name of Ed Starkey and tried to decipher how much retail is potentially going to be in the North Meridian Area and I think over the city as well, but, specifically, it was in concert with this discussion. That January 11, 2002, report stated each square mile will support about 43,000 square feet. If you put that in acreage size, it's about one acre. If you take to a floor area ratio of .25, that's about four acres worth of retail in every square section. That would -- if we back out those four acres as retail possibility in the section, that would leave 246 acres of -- what do we do with it? Location on linkages the mixed-use Wastewater Treatment area is poorly situated for type and intensity of uses proposed by the existing Comprehensive Plan. Retail office, light industrial, and flex spaces desire good access, visibility, and linkages to a larger transportation network. The site is two miles from Highway 20-26, eight miles from the interest interstate point. Some of the 250 acres may be developed as commercial andlor office uses. That's very possible. However, much of it will never be viable given the already approved projects in the North Meridian area, which have much better locations and linkages to those transportation corridors. Even if the transportation linkages were better, the mixed-use Wastewater Treatment Plant appears to disallow office -- large office and manufacturing parks given the limited land use option of only light professional offices and flex space. We don't want to get into heavy industrial. I am assuming that the light profession offices -- there may be some discussion of what exactly that means, but I'm not sure it would, represent a park similar to what we have out at EI Dorado or Silverstone out on Overland Road. Those are major facilities and I'm not sure that this location is geared to a major facility like that. ACRD did a study with the North Meridian Plan to determine how much industrial space -- or, pardon me, how much commercial and retail space they envisioned happening out here. Strangely enough, the study was completely silent on industrial. I asked them why. They said ACHD didn't request any industrial uses out there, nor did the City of Meridian bring it up. It may have been an oversight, but let me give you the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 14 of 713 numbers of how much retail and office they are proposing. If you combine the two, its 4,673,000 square feet if you put that into acreage size with a floor area ratio of .25, that's about 429 acres worth of office and retail space. The 246 acres that we are talking about here, if you use just a simple floor area ratio of .25, so a quarter of every square foot would be dedicated to a use and the rest would be either landscaping or office. You would get about 2,678,000 square feet of space out here if it was retail or office. Now, the issue with flex space and manufacturing space, warehouse space is different, talking with representatives who deal with these flex facilities. Their floor area ratio is based on circulation and parking requirements, as well as docks, is anywhere from .35 to .5. We are talking even more square footage of possible warehouse space in this location. It would be a range from 3,750,000 square feet up to 5,387,000 square feet. If you put all the retail that's projected in the North Meridian Area and you compare it to this area, it would represent about 57 percent of all that retail and commercial space going here. That's highly unlikely that's ever going to happen, based on existing approvals. Residential neighborhoods, you look at this area, there is adjoining residential to the south, all developed. There is adjoining residential to the east, developed and in the process of being developed. You see across McMillan Road it's shown as -- I think it's medium density residential. You come down Black Cat Road it shows it as both medium and low density residential. Around here, they are proposing that uses will occur. The question is what's the magic line? At what point does the break happen of where is it appropriate to have residential and where is it not appropriate to have residential? If I can digress just for one second? This proposed Comprehensive Plan was dated December 2001. It was a plan that you saw, that you looked at. If we look at it today, the Wastewater Treatment Plant is all orange brown. This one -- we are talking about this area right up here. It shows that it's gray. You will notice that everything along Ustick is shown as residential. Now, something happened between the time that this plan was proposed and this plan was adopted and I'm sure that there is an explanation for it, but someone felt that residential was appropriate, at least at some of these locations along here. I just wanted to bring that into the record, that at one point it was proposed as residential along Ustick Road. The real issue here is the Wastewater Treatment Plant. You know, there are comments in the staff report from both Planning and Zoning and Public Works concerned about the impact of odor on humans. You go back to the public record of most recently Utility Subdivision, there was a lot of testimony given of people saying from time to time they do smell it, but it's not all the time and they just have learned to live with it. There was also record that some of these -- the Commissioners on here, as well as City Council, have toured the treatment plant, have been out there, and haven't smelled anything. The real issue here is how real is this smell. I'm not going to discount it. I know what it smells like. It happens from time to time. I have in-laws that live out there and I have smelled it on one occasion, but I have spent a lot of time out there as well. I wanted to know what the city's perception of the smell was not just we have concerns. I called Code Enforcement. Code Enforcement, they weren't aware of any,' but they said call the Police Department, they might be. I called the Police Department police, the Police Department says, you know, you're talking to the wrong people, that's not something we deal with, call Code Enforcement. I called Code Enforcement back and they forwarded my phone call to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. I should have started there first. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 15 of 113 Probably would have -- connect the dots would have been fewer. I found out from the Wastewater Treatment Plant -- I got a little educational on what type of plant this is. It's an activated sludge plant we tertiary sand treatment. Did I say that right? Okay. In short, that means it generates sludge and from three or four times a year that sludge is picked up, it's -- sometimes it's -- I don't know if it's sold or given to farmers. It's basically used as a solid bio solvent that they can put as fertilizer and use it on -- and the Wastewater Treatment Plant said if I even wanted to use it in my yard, I could. It's that type of material, and they said that's the time when the odors are most prevalent and I asked the question how many complaints have you received? How many calls have you received? He said over the last five years they have received three phone calls about the smell. One of them was from a new resident that was unaware that the Wastewater Treatment Plant was there, but she lived smile -- about three-quarters of a mile to the southeast, which is the prevailing direction of the wind, so she caught a sniff. From their perspective, they have had three calls over the last five years. I would also assume that they prefer that nothing be there, but he did state to me that if residential occurs, people need to know up front what they are buying and where they are buying next to. It needs to be clearly stated and we are prepared to do that, inform the people that we work with what's out there. Borup: Mr. Wardle, I was very interested in that. That was one of the questions I had down, was how many complaints there had been, and you must have anticipated that. I don't know. Wardle: Can I make a couple more comments? Borup: Yes. I mean I have heard others say that some of the people have thought that it was a sewer plant and it was a dairy farm down the road. Zaremba: There was a big cattle operation right next to it Borup: Is there -- was that even differentiated between? Wardle: No. Borup: Okay. Go ahead. Wardle: Okay. I would assume that if the Wastewater Treatment Plant receives a phone call, that it's probably something they anticipate. Whether they could differentiate between what's happening at the dairy or themselves, I don't know. During the Utility Subdivision project, some testimony was given by the public that at times you could smell the Wastewater Treatment Plant. For the most part, there was no smell at all. Even members of the Commission had stated on a tour they didn't experience any smell. We are going into this project wide open. We know where we are. We know the location. We understand the concerns of the city. We also need to be very clear of if residential is not allowed here, what will you allow? The park site decided not to go here because of that concern. The proposed residential subdivision was not allowed to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 16 of 113 go here. Business employment center was told we'd prefer you not be there and the industrial subdivision was denied. If those uses are not allowed and are going to be requested to not be here at this location, what will be? I guess it's our request this evening that residential be strongly considered as an appropriate use, especially given the adjoining residential uses around. I think that we can work with future buyers as the project goes forward on educating them and we are prepared to do so on both plat and CC&R's, so that it's clearly stated in both locations. Centers: So, that's how you're going to do it? That was my main question that they don't do it. Wardle: It doesn't do it? Centers: They don't read it. They don't read the CC&R's. They don't read the plat. I would love to see it residential if the future homeowners had the opportunity -- if there was a sign all the way around it, there is a Wastewater Plant so many feet from this location, but that's not going to happen. You come up with an imaginative idea to keep the public informed that there is a Wastewater Treatment Plant and, you know, I would definitely be interested in that, because I have thought and thought about it since I saw this application. Because five years from now a homeowner resells to another party down the road and they are not going to know that the Wastewater Treatment Plant is so many feet away. I would love to see it residential if the public could be informed -- not all of the area residential, maybe the area you're talking about, but I don't know how you can keep them informed. They don't read the CC&R's and they won't read the plat. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, if I might. Commissioner Centers, something we have done in another project where we had issues of concern, which was Harris Ranch, we had an addendum that every buyer that came in signed the addendum and it stated very specifically things that they needed to be aware of. They signed that -- we stated what those things were. One of them was -- we had a depredation easement, which was for the wildlife. We are near the wildlife management area, they were going to be in the area, and so we needed to make them aware of that. I think it's something we can do in this case as well and we have prepared language to -- Centers: Is that an addendum to the sales agreement? Wardle: Yes. Centers: When you sold the property to the builder for the lot or the builder sold the completed home to the buyer? Wardle: It was when the builder sold the home to the end buyer. Borup: So, that addendum would accompany the deed? Can you even do that? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 17 of 113 Powell: Anna Powell. It does get transferred to the second owner with the CC&R's, I believe, but -- because I'm not the first owner of my house and yet I got a copy of it. I'll also comment that there are violations against that all over the place. I mean one says you can't have wrought iron fences with spikes on the top and they are everywhere, so - Borup: Well -- but I think the point was there, they are made aware of it with a separate thing that they have to sign. It's not something that's in a 40-page document Centers: Well --and I'm concerned about the homeowner down the road. That guy that gets that and, then, he sells it, he's not required to -- Borup: Well, if it's an addendum to the deed, wouldn't that have to -- Centers: He's talking the sales agreement, Mr. Chairman, when they sell the property to the -- Borup: Well, the first buyer. Well, that was my question. Can that be an addendum to the deed? If that's the case, that would be transferred every time the property is -- Centers: That would be -- Borup: I don't know the legal aspects of that. Centers: Because the way I read the concerns from Mr. Watson is kind of like the concerns of people that have livestock and, hey, we are here first, we are grandfathered. That's Mr. Watson's concern, we were here first, we are grandfathered, we don't want to hear the complaints, and I don't blame him. Borup: I don't either. Centers: So, I think that's his major concern, the four points he made Wardle: If I might just make one more point. It's been my understanding and substantiated by the Wastewater Treatment Plant, but there is funding coming in this year and it's their expectation that no smell or very little smell will come from the treatment plant. Now, maybe Public Works can address that, but it's my understanding that there is funding in place and staff said within the next 12 months the smell should go away completely. Borup: Comment on that, Bruce? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. What if? I mean what if it doesn't are you going to want mitigation. You know, what we are trying to do is protect the city, protect potential buyers -- we don't want to get the phone calls, we don't want the complaints, we want the same protections as like the Right to Farm Act provides. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Augus[21, 2003 Page 18 of 113 You know, I have been here for 10 years, 11 years, and ever since I have been here, that plant has been under construction, constant construction. It's not just noise -- or I mean it's not just smell, it's noise and lights and we have huge drying fans out there that run 24-7 and it creates a lot of noise. We do our best -- you know, we do our best to try and keep the smell down, the noise down, but you got to consider the operation. Zaremba: May I ask a question about capacity of the plant? Meridian at this point has not -- we haven't filled in all the spaces that even have already been approved for housing developments and -- I guess my question is what capacity is the plant running at now and is this plant ever going to be enlarged or is there supposed to be a second plant at build out? Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, I wish I could answer the question of capacity at this point in time. I don't have that information with me right now. Like I said, the plant is under constant upgrade, expanding the capacity, and we have a long range plan that every year we are keeping up, trying to keep up with the growth. Zaremba: It can continue to expand without using up more of the acreage around it or will it sometime need to be a larger facility? Borup: I think the question is does the city already own enough acres to -- Freckleton: Yes, we do. Borup: -- accommodate Meridian at build out. Zaremba: Eventual full capacity. Freckleton: Yes. At build out, we have enough acreage. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: And that was what I had understood from past comments. Zaremba: Okay. Wardle: Just one final comment and I will sit down and listen to rest of the public testimony. You said no to a park. No industrial. No commercial. No residential. If uses aren't -- and I think the other issue here is you have also placed a Conditional Use Permit on top of this. Someone might come in and say that's retail across from me, that's not compatible with my residential neighborhood and whether you find a finding for that or not, that could go to court and be delayed for many, many years. I think the issue of the Wastewater Treatment Plant -- and I agreed with staff -- needs to be addressed. I hope that this is the forum that it can be addressed. I know that both this Commission and the City Council are interested in finding some sort of compromise for something that can occur here, other than just having a -- as it was told by one Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 19 of 113 member, a 500 pound orange guerilla that we don't know what to do with. I appreciate your time. Stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I will say that your research has been very thorough and I'm very impressed by the information that you provided to us. Wardle: Thank you. Borup: Any discussion from the Commissioners before we proceed with testimony? Zaremba: I'd like to hear what anybody else has to say. Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else here to testify on this? Come forward, please. Layton: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, my name is Rhonda Layton. My address is 3610 West Ustick Road. I border the proposed property on the east side of the property. I have a one-acre piece that I purchased last year in October and knowing of the Comprehensive Plan at that time, I purchased this piece. I have two horses that live on that acreage with me and I have been grandfathered in. I am in the city I am hooked up to the water and the sewer. I'm in the city limits, but I do have that grandfather clause on that. My property is 110 feet wide and it goes back the length to equal an acre. I don't know how deep it is. There would be nine two-story houses 15 feet from my property line in this proposed deal. I know we are not addressing the details of the plan at this point yet, but I would like to say that I am opposed to basically all of it. I don't want to see the Comprehensive Plan changed drastically for one specific use, one specific six acre piece. If that's an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and needs to be taken care of addressed, maybe a residential two-acre, horse people that are used to kind of the smell kind of thing, you know. In my opinion, the Wastewater Sewage Plant smells different than the dairy does or did smells different than my horses do. I'm more bothered by, like Bruce said, about the noise and the lights. The noise, the humming, is more so, because it's 24 hours a day. Of course, you don't hear it in the day with the traffic and stuff, but I certainly hear it at night. Then, the lights shine at night, too. At night I would say I would be more bothered with the noise and the lights than I am with, you know, the smell. It comes and goes. I have lived there for nine months and I would say a good 40 percent of the time it smells at some point you know, during the day. If Conditional Use needed to be made in something, I could see a less density project to maybe keep in -- to coincide with the rest of the residential area, rest of the -- I don't know. Borup: So, you're saying a less dense residential use? Layton: I would think that if the commercial -- or if a Conditional Use Permit would be approved on this area, then, at the most part a very less -- or a low density. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 20 of 113 Borup: But you're saying residential? Layton: Right. I'm just saying if that -- Borup: The suggested change is to allow residential, rather than the industrial commercial. Layton: Right and I'm saying that if you were to allow the residential, and not allow 40 homes on six acres, but maybe five homes on six acres. Centers: They can do that now in the county. Layton: In the county, but this is city -- this piece is the city. It's annexed. Centers: Let me ask you did you know about the Wastewater Treatment Plant when you purchased your property? Layton: I did. Centers: How did you become aware of that? Layton: I bought from the owner and he disclosed that information to me. Centers: In writing or just a nice guy? Layton: I'm not sure it's in writing. Centers: So, then, what you're saying is it didn't bother you. Layton: In order to buy it? Centers: Right. Layton: I bought it as horse property. I knew my horses would be there also. Centers: But you live there. Layton: I do live there. Centers: You know, irregardless of the horses, you live there. Layton: Yes. Centers: And you knew about the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Layton: Yes. Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Mee[ing August 21, 2003 Page 21 of 113 Centers: Okay. Thank you. Borup: You are the property right to the east you said? Layton: Yes. Borup: Did you buy that from Mr. Crane? Layton: Yes, I did. He lives next door to me on the east side. Centers: Okay. You're right about in there? Layton: No. Centers: Right here? Borup: Right here. Layton: I'm right -- that long one right here and, then, Crane is next to me, more towards the east. We both border the Nine Mile Creek. Borup: And you built a new home on your property? Layton: He did. I did not. I have the original old home. Centers: Oh. Okay. Borup: And he's got the newer home. Layton: Yes. I would like to ask have you received the letter that he sent to the planning and zoning? Borup: Yes, we have. Layton: And -- okay. Is that going to be read into it or you just have that in your file? Zaremba: I was going to mention it for the record that we received it. That usually is -- puts it on record. Layton: Okay. Zaremba: Since we are on that subject, we have received a letter from Charles Crane, dated August 2151. Layton: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 22 of 113 Borup: Thank you. Layton: Thank ycu. Borup: Do we have anyone else? J. Centers: Commissioners, my name is Jake Centers. My address is 2011 Locust Grove in Meridian, and, for the record, there is no relation to Commissioner Centers that I know about. Centers: Thank you. I don't know of any either. J. Centers: Okay. Good. Okay. Really, it boils dawn to one of two things. Either the property surrounding the Wastewater Treatment Plant has an odor or it doesn't and if it doesn't have an odor, then, no foul, no harm. You know, approve residential. If it does have an odor, then, kind of what they are saying, the approved uses would be for businesses. If any of you own a business or imagine if you did, would you want to locate your business in an area that omitted a foul odor, where you relied on clients coming to your business, your place of business, and having to endure that smell. I own a business and I surely wouldn't want to locate my office in a place that's stunk, where I was trying to make impressions on clientele that was coming in -- you know. I mean you usually build your office and have pleasant smells, mood music, and that kind of thing in there to create a pleasurable experience when they come to see you. You know, I don't think that that's something that a business owner would want to do. At least with a house you know that that smell is there and we tolerate a lot of things with our personal residences that we wouldn't necessarily choose to do when we were going out trying to conduct business. I think there is a little bit of a difference with that. There was a comment made by Mrs. Layton about the nine homes being right adjacent to her property. Her house actually sits on the front part of that property and there might only be three actual homes that would, I guess, interfere with her day-to-day activities with her house. She's concerned about two story -- or nine two story residences abutting her property, but there can also be, if this were light industrial, a two story manufacturing facility that operated -- you know. I'm not exactly sure what the hours of operation is limited to in light industrial, but, you know, it could be a 24 hour operation that goes on next door. You know, I don't think this is as bad as it could be if some of the other uses were allowed. There was also some comment about wanting lower density uses on this property and, you know, the reason I identified this property and have presented the plat that we have, is because we have done research on the market, housing market in Meridian. They are -- I'm sure you guys have seen them, there is thousands of lots of standard size ranging anywhere from 60 feet to 80 feet to 100 feet wide and not -- so, I have identified a market that I feel is not being addressed in Meridian and want to be able to provide those smaller lots. Therefore, provide more affordable housing for future buyers in Meridian. We recently did a project on -- further south on Ten Mile -- actually, south of Cherry Lane called Berkeley Square. The project has been underway for about really eight months, they are sold out, and they are nice. They are the same size lots as Meridian Planningand Zoning Commission Meeting August 27, 2003 Page 23 of 113 this, it's turned out to be a really great community, it's been able to offer finished product for sale under 120,000 dollars. That's about the only project that I know of that detached single-family ownership that's available in the City of Meridian right now, and you know, mainly because of land costs. Anyway, that was about all I have. Are there any questions? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Okay. J. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Commissioners? To me, the most telling argument is what do we do with it. I mean so far everything that has been proposed has not been approved. Zaremba: Well, yes and no. Borup: If the city didn't want a development there, maybe they should have just said no development. Zaremba: The Utility Subdivision that has been mentioned I thought was a good project, except for the two tenants that they already knew were going to be there. They were not in the spirit of light industrial. The project itself, if they would have had different tenants, I would have been fine with, the layout of it and that proposal. I'm very impressed by the -- Borup: But what type of tenants would be there? I mean the' city has turned down office complexes. Zaremba: Well, I picture light industrial as -- Borup: Which is what? Did we ever get a definition on the record? We still don't even have a definition of light industrial. It's just straight industrial. Zaremba: Well -- Borup: And we have only got one industrial designation. Zaremba: We have light industrial defined and we have on the schedule of use control only industrial, which use -- most of which are heavy industrial. Just to express an opinion, again, I am very impressed with what Mr. Wardle has put together. I agree with the staff comment, that we have not given a lot of time for the no new residential to be in effect and to see what can be there. I'm not sure it's our job to decide what should be there, but to protect those who shouldn't be there. I'm inclined to let the no new residential be the rule for a lot more than one year. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 24 of 113 Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have a direct question for Mrs. Powell. What's your opinion when you redo the North Meridian plan area? You're going to have to address this. What are you coming in with it at? Powell: Well, actually, the North Meridian Area Plan still left it as Wastewater Treatment Plant, so we could discuss it as part of this conversation, I think, is what Brad was saying, but that's their -- as I understand it, they had not proposed a change to this area. Centers: They? Powell: They being the applicants that had submitted the North Meridian Area Plan. Centers: And you were redrafting that. Powell: Correct. Centers: You and your staff. What are you going to come back with for the waste -- for this area? Powell: Well, our charge was to fold their ideas in with the existing Comprehensive Plan and since they didn't express new ideas for this area, we hadn't exactly planned on changing it. Now, if you would like us -- Centers: Well, I think that's unfair. I think that's very unfair to lay it back on Wardle, that they didn't recommend a change for this. They were volunteering their time, they didn't address it, you know, so what -- what do you want to do? Do you want to leave it that way? I mean you were just passing the buck to them that they didn't recommend anything. You're going to leave it that way? Powell: Well, as part of that charge to fold that into there, no, we hadn't considered it. If you would like us to consider different uses while we are doing that, we would be happy to. I wasn't trying to pass the buck, sir, Ijust -- Centers: Well, because you hadn't -- they hadn't recommended anything, so -- Powell: Right. If that's something the planning commission would like to us to do, we can certainly look at that further. Centers: We are just individuals up here. I think it's what the community wants and, you know, the development community and the people that own that property, are they going to be able to sell it. Are they going to be able to find enough buyers for light industrial? I doubt it. I totally agree with that. There is no doubt about it. On the other hand, we do have a Comprehensive Plan and if we change the text for these six acres, it applies to the whale area. That's why I'm trying to pin you down on your recommendation when you come back for your change to the North Meridian Plan Area. I mean these people shouldn't have to sit there and not be able to sell their property. I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 25 of 113 have always advocated that. It's very unfair to the property owners. A couple of the property owners that have always appeared at this commission and protested whatever development, you're always going to have those people, whether it's residential or industrial, heavy or light. I think the owners of those parcels of land should have the opportunity to sell them and, presently, I don't think they are going to have that opportunity. Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Centers, we can certainly include that with our efforts to revisit that North Meridian Area Plan, be happy to do that, and I think the Wardle's have provided with this application a lot of good information that we can consider for that. Centers: Yes. We heard testimony from one lady, she knew about the treatment plant and she still purchased property there. I think if proper notification is given, it's probably a better use than totally industrial. If the people want to live there and they give -- I think the chairman's idea of a permanent notification on each and every warranty deed that is handed to a buyer and -- I think that could be done. Thank you. Zaremba: Well, one of the recommendations that the North Meridian area study did make was to connect Black Cat Road to Highway 16. When that river crossing is made, Black Cat Road may at some point become a major transportation corridor, which would address one of the issues that was raised today about this being some distance from transportation corridors. Centers: But staff disagreed with that. They wanted to leave it as Ten Mile. Borup: Well -- and, then, Ten Mile is even closer to this area. If Highway 16 connects to Ten Mile, then, that -- Centers: No. Was it Ten Mile or -- Borup: Ten Mile would be the interchange. Zaremba: And Ten Mile is what's being discussion for the interchange, so in the discussion of how is Highway 16 going to get to the interchange, both Black Cat and Ten Mile have been proposed as options and that brings a major transportation corridor right to this property. Not the identical property tonight, but to the mixed use wastewater treatment area and I realize that's not a tomorrow solution, but I still feel that we need to let the current Comprehensive Plan work for awhile. The difficulty is if, as Commissioner Centers points out, if we make this change, that we, in all fairness, need to make it for the entire area, which, essentially, means that there -- it un-uniques this area. If you have amixed-use Wastewater Treatment Plant area that has no different rules than anywhere else -- Borup: Well, but it does, because everything else would still apply. The only thing that the text amendment was changing is that in addition to everything else, that residential Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 26 of 113 could be considered. We are just adding one more use to the allowed uses. Well, I mean -- not allowed uses, but -- Zaremba: That's a 180-degree change from the current -- Borup: Well, it is. It is. Because right now -- Zaremba: It's a turn around. Borup: Well, it says that residential is strictly forbidden. Anything coming up would be on aproject-by-project consideration. It's not a blanket thing that the whole thing is going to turn residential. Centers: That's a question I had. If we allow the text amendment, that residential use would just be one additional use that would be allowed, correct? The allowed uses would also include residential, correct? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Centers: For all of that area, and every application would be a CUP? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: I certainly agree the proposed -- I mean the Comp Plan has the best use for that area, but I also think sometimes it's not bad to be practical and you're not going to have five million square feet of space around that area. It's just not going to happen. There has to be more than just office buildings or whatever light industrial is supposed to be. Some industrial use that doesn't have people associated with it. Powell: Chairman Borup, just to follow up on the Commissioner Centers' previous statement that you -- this would allow residential in all of those -- in all of that area, except, of course, the property owned by the Wastewater Treatment Plant, which at an average of five units to the acre, would leave you with 1,870 residents in that area. If we take the commercial to the extreme and the residential to the extreme, you're looking at an awful lot of residents around there. I mean they only get three complaints now, because you can see how many houses are probably out there, there is 12 to 15, maybe, but you're going to get a lot more complaints with almost 2,000 people living out there. That's units. That's 1,870 units, so you get -- Borup: Well, that's at a 100 percent residential you're saying. Powell: Right. That's what that text amendment would be allowing. I mean they presented the extreme on the commercial area and this would be the extreme on the residential area. Borup: Yes. They are both extremes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meefing August 21, 2003 Page 27 of 113 Powell: Yes. Borup: Well, I know we have from previous -- I mean we know what -- we know what the residential neighborhood to the south wants, they -- we have heard that testimony just -- it was just about unanimous, they all wanted some type of residential buffer. Centers: Oh, yes, and to the east. The subdivision to the east and to the south. Borup: Well, the east didn't seem to care an awful lot, but the one to the south wanted some type of residential buffer. I'm thinking of -- the idea of some type of buffer along Ustick Road maybe is not a bad idea. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, just one point of clarification. At the time that Utility Sub was going through, Hartford on the corner to the east, I don't believe it had any houses in it. It was a bare, empty subdivision, so -- Borup: Right. The Individual I was thinking of was living there, but not a new home, it was an existing home. Freckleton: That's correct but the subdivision was empty Borup: Did you have another comment, Mr. Centers? J. Centers: I did. Jake Centers, for the record, again. You know, I mean if the odor is there, like I said again, if -- say I build an office building and Ihave -- I lease it to a business owner who moves in on a day that there is no odor and all of a sudden one day there is that odor. I mean why is he not -- you know, I mean we are just sitting here talking about only the residential people that would move in here would be the ones that would complain. I mean as a business owner, if, you know, that odor was there, you're going to call and -- make that call just as if you actually lived there. I mean, you know, if -- like I said, if there is an odor and we move people in here, which, unless you condemn the whole area, people are either going to work there or they are going to live there, then, you know, those calls are going to come in regardless if that odor exists. I have been out there, you know, a dozen times and, actually, the only sewer odor I smelled was from the manhole out in Ustick in the front when that pressurized system was coming through and that's what smelled bad. Anyway, there is a house there now, we have guys renting in there, they have lived there a month. I specifically asked them yesterday, never told them the plant was there or nothing. They said they smelled it once and that was it, so -- and, you know, like we talked about, I mean if everybody -- you know, we have had testimony from Ms. Layton that it does smell and I'm sure Mr. Crane commented on the same in his letter. I mean if it's so bad, why are they still living there. You know, why did Mr. Cramer subdivide his property and build his dream home there, you know. It's -- Centers: Well, Jake, all these people smell the same thing that -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 28 of 173 J. Centers: And that's the other thing, Imean -- Centers: Yes. All of these people in the southeast area -- J. Centers: Yes. Is a couple hundred feet going to make a difference when -- you know, I mean I don't think so. Anyway -- Borup: Okay. Other discussion from the Commissioners? Centers: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have got to admit I read everything before I got here and I have learned to keep an open mind until you hear testimony and I honestly can say that I did have when I got here and I hadn't made up my mind. I would like to have staff buy into the way I'm feeling and that that's to allow residential use. I guess I had misunderstood or was thinking of it improperly, that when the chairman indicated that we are just adding an additional use alongside industrial and whatever. I'm concerned, like Mr. Watson is, that people aren't notified and I -- maybe the attorney can tell me, are we going to be able to put that on a deed or require that of the property owner to put that on a warranty deed that's passed down? Holinka: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Centers, I don't know if that's something you can put on a deed. Imean you can probably attach that as an addendum, possibly, that could be attached to a deed, but, in any event, that would be something that the homeowners would have to -- Centers: So, in other words, if we required it, there really would be no guarantee? Borup: Wouldn't that be similar to -- I mean I know some of -- on their deeds they have an addendum notifying them that they are in an area of impact, the city's area of impact. Some of them -- that's not uniform, but some subdivisions have had that, so individuals have been notified and had to sign recognizing that. Would this be any different? Centers: Well, if the city was so concerned, too, when the new homeowner moved in there and they got their first water bill, they could enclose a notice to them at that time. Borup: It's too late, then. Centers: That's true. But -- Borup: It sounds like you have got one of the main concerns I do, I mean as long as people go into something with their eyes open -- Centers: Right. Borup: -- that's their choice. Imean that's -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Augusl 2l, 2D03 Page 29 of 113 Centers: Totally. Borup: -- the free market and I think maybe there needs to be some notification, because it sounds like a lot of people moved in here and weren't even aware the plant was there. I mean it is screened pretty well with trees and such. Centers: Well, as you said earlier, I think, you know, it's obvious by the testimony we had at previous hearings for the Utility Sub, that most residents in that area would prefer residential. Borup: Mr. Forrey, have you got a -- pertaining to the thing we were just discussing, it sounds like? Centers: I was wondering if you would get up and -- Forrey: Add something? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record Wayne Forrey, urban planning consultant, and think about this Boise City in any development in proximity to the Boise airport, the developer is required to sign an aviation easement. That puts the property buyer -- and it gets into all of the real estate records, that you're in proximity to the airport and there is a risk of an aircraft falling .out of the sky and damaging your property and that, of course, affects your insurance rates on homeowners insurance. I also am involved in several projects in the Salt Lake area -- Borup: Clarify now -- so that -- you say the developer is required to do that. Is that each homeowner? Forrey: Yes. Borup: And each time the property changes hands is the same thing? Forrey: Yes. It is, actually, a legal attachment to all the real estate papers that there is an aviation easement, just like there would be an Idaho Power easement or a gas easement or a road easement, that -- but it's in the air. Now, in Salt Lake they have sanitation easements, so if you're in proximity to a Waste Treatment Plant in the Salt Lake area. There is a similar easement that if you are within 600 feet or 700 feet of the city of Sandy or the city of Provo or the city of Salt Lake or Ogden, and that's mandated through their state local land use planning act, just like we have area of impact. It's a state -- and it's very routine in Utah and just like it is here in Boise with the airport. There are mechanisms to formally place people on notice that they are in an area that's unique or special, whether it's airplanes, industrial facilities, or a gas pipeline. Centers: And we could put whatever name we want on it Forrey: In the Utah area it's a sanitation easement. Centers: Sanitation easement. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 30 of 113 Forrey: And in Boise, it's an aviation easement in the airport area. I mean there are some tools you could research and -- your staff I'm sure could research that and see how other cities do it. Borup: I would say the applicant needs to research it and present an option, rather than having staff research it. Yes. I was going to ask if you had any final comments, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Appreciate it, Mr. Chairman for the record, Jon Wardle. In terms of researching it, I would be happy to. Actually, I have done a project out in the Boise airport area and have an aviation easement on a project, so I'm aware of those, they do run with the property, so as we have sold lots that runs with it. I'm in the Utah area, so I will also look up the issue on the sewer easement or the sanitation easements. Just one final thought. I have done a lot of research on this project, just to look at the viability and, correct, one day Ten Mile or Black Cat and/or both are going to be upgraded, either to three or five lane facilities, one likely will go down to the freeway, one likely will go up to Chinden, Highway 20-26. If you look at the map, compare that to the rest of the center of activity in terms of industrial and commercial uses. It is pretty removed. I have spoken with representatives of Colliers, I have spoken to representatives of Thornton Oliver Keller, who are large brokers in terms of office, retail, and industrial uses and this is not an area that would ever come up on their radars as viable for industrial parks, just because of its proximity to almost nothing. There is no railroad that comes out here. Obviously, heavy industrial is not a possibility, we know that, but that would limit some light manufacturing uses as well, and the nearness to those public or those transportation facilities is a problem just wanted to state that for the record, that I'm not taking this lightly. I understand the concerns of staff, but we need to talk about market realities. If we let this plan go unchanged, I doubt you will have -- at some point you may a project that comes back in on Utility Subdivision, but I doubt you would have anything more than that in the future ever. I'm curious to know the city is going to address a school district use in the mixed use Wastewater Treatment Plant area as well. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. I know that this is not to be taken lightly, it's a big change, but I think that the information is in front of you to make some sort of a decision and give us the direction. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Centers: Mr. Chairman, that's my big hang up is notification and I appreciate Mr. Forrey's information and I would be -- obviously, I lean toward residential use being allowed, but, then, the notification is my hang up. I would like to continue these hearings to the next available hearing and let Mr. Wardle do his homework. He said he had aviation easements and I think he should have done his homework on this sanitation easement and give us something that can be passed on life long to the homeowner of the property and I would be highly in favor of it if that can be included. Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 31 of 113 Borup: That's an issue I feel strongly on. I mean as long as people know what they are getting into, that should be their choice. Centers: Right. Borup: I know if I was receiving a phone call what my answer would be if any of those people called. It would be probably very short. Centers: Yep. It was in the -- it was on the title in the record and you should have read it. Borup: Right Zaremba: And I would I think chime in with that. Under the present circumstances of not knowing somebody could be notified, I would like to stick with the Comprehensive Plan as it is. I very much like the idea of the sanitation easement or whatever -- whatever you call it. If the applicant can come up with a way that we can do that, I would change positions. If I knew there was a guaranteed way to notify those homeowners -- you know what you're buying, then, I could open up the whole area to anybody that was willing to buy there. Borup: And I still would not anticipate this whole area goes residential. I really think it needs to have some other uses, but with that many acres, it's not going to happen. Zaremba: Even the industrial and office uses should have that same sanitation easement idea. Borup: Right Zaremba: I mean anybody that buys in that area should be given this piece of information and we need to assure that we know that they are getting it. I kind of would side with Commissioner Centers, if we continue this and hopefully the applicant can come back with amechanism -- Borup: Well, one other thing we need to discussion, then, because we have kind of mixed -- we have kind of mixed the two applications here. Supposedly, we are discussing the Comp Plan text amendment. Zaremba: Well, unless that happens, the other one is -- Borup: But the statement on the sanitation easement -- I'm not sure if it would accompany -- it would not accompany the next plan amendment, that's something that would have to be inserted in each project as the application came forward. Centers: Yes. Well -- and I think the applicant understands that if we don't see something like that, that satisfies us, they won't get the text. You know, they need to Meritlian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 32 of 113 include it where it needs to be included and we continue all four Public Hearings to our second meeting in September. I thihk if you do it right and you get that right with that easement and it's passed on and it's in the title policy and every home buyer will see that forever, I think you're going to get -- I can't speak for the Council, but I think you're going to get something favorable there, in my opinion. That's my opinion. If we don't do it right, then, I think you're beating up a dead horse, so -- Zaremba: Do we -- or do you know who determined, for instance, the outline of the aviation easement in Boise I mean how did that come about? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, I would assume that it was Boise City attorney's office that came up with that, probably in concert with the airport department. When we did our project we contacted the airport, they had a boilerplate, we gave them certain information, you know, who the developer was, the plat, and the lots, that type of thing, and that was just a recorded instrument at the same time. The way it worked was when the plat was recorded, that instrument was recorded prior to the plat and it showed up as a note on the plat, but it also rolled with all the lots, they were also identified with that. You raise an interesting point, the sanitation easement being applicable to all uses. Perhaps if we go down this route, maybe the text of the Comp Plan at this location needs to state something that all uses will be subject to a sanitation easement in the mixed use Wastewater Treatment Plant. Because I think Mr. Centers - - Mr. Jake Centers made an interesting point of businesses who have individuals that rent are as likely to complain as a homeowner, so -- Centers: Sure. Totally, agree. Zaremba: If you would want to modify your application to suggest that text, it would go along way for me. Wardle: Would modification of the application -- modification of the application be necessary or do I just submit something to you -- I mean we have got an idea here, do we just submit this, you know, prior to the next hearing as, you know, this is where we come. These things are kind of -- they expand. Zaremba: We are exploring new territory together. I don't know. Does anybody have an answer to that? Borup: Yes. I don't know why that -- the wording can't be changed by this Commission, essentially. I mean we'd like something specific. Zaremba: We need to find out whether a sanitation easement can be done legally. Centers: You know, I'd like to see an example, you know, of how it's going to be done, Mr. Chairman, and I'd really like to do it right and, then, we can sell this to the City Council. An example -- and maybe get an example from Utah or talk to Mr. Forrey and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 33 of 113 let's get it nailed down. I'm not trying to delay you, I'm trying to get it approved and done. Wardle: Could I ask what the hearing date is going to be? Centers: Well, the second meeting in September -- I know -- correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chairman, the 4'" -- the first meeting is booked, based on what I have seen. Borup: Yes. Centers: But the second meeting in September is the 18th. You know, I guess we want some guarantees, you know, and you show us how it's going to be done and it will be passed along with the title and -- I have seen the aviation easements in preliminary title reports and final title properties. That's where they show up, so -- Wardle: Thank you. Centers: Thank you. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend that we cohtinue Items 6, 7, 8, and 9 and continue them to our second meeting in September, which would be September 18t" and that's a motion. Zaremba: I will second it. Borup: Excuse me. I just --did you -- was your motion to continue all four? Centers: Correct. Zaremba: Did we have all four open? Borup: Well, we didn't, but they were continued -- da I need to reopen -- do I need to open a continued hearing? Centers: Not in my opinion. They are open. Borup: That's what I was thinking. That's what I wanted to verify. They are already open. They are not open? Zaremba: My question would be do we want to include in the motion a specific request of what we want to have accomplished before that meeting. Centers: He better understand it by now. Zaremba: Okay. Centers: He's shaking his head. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 34 of 113 Zaremba: Okay. Centers: So what's the consensus? Borup: It looks like we don't have one, so let's --just to cover ourselves, let's go ahead and open Items 7, 8, and 9. I'm not going to go into any more detail than that. We will consider those items open. Centers: Okay. Then, I would move that we continue Items 6, 7, 8, and 9 to our September 18`" meeting. Zaremba: And I will second that motion. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Borup: Okay. Commissioners, are we -- would you like a short break at this time or would you like to proceed ahead? Centers: Yes. I would, please. Borup: Okay. We will take a short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 11. Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2003: CUP 03-030 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru coffee kiosk in an L- Ozone for Coffee Kiosk by Donn Reiswig -east of South Eagle Road and south of East Franklin Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening and start with Item Number 11. This is a Continued Public Hearing from August 7th, CUP 03-030, request for a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru coffee kiosk in an L-O zone for Coffee Kiosk. This is east of Eagle Road and south of Franklin. Like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a temporary coffee kiosk on a portion of the land that's owned by Touchmark Living Centers for the Meadow Lake Village project. The Conditional Use Permit is required, because of the drive-thru and also because the Planned Development that's been approved on the lot, as a whole requires a Conditional Use Permit for any uses that is proposed. The applicant intends to use this kiosk for a maximum of two years or less if, another user is found for the site. They are proposing no freestanding signs. The kiosk is entirely self-contained and will not be hooked up to water or sewer and no trash enclosure is proposed to be provided and the Meridian City Council November 5, 2003 Page 42 of 76 Nary: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say yea. Okay. All yeas. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 13. Continued Public Hearing from October 21; 2003: RZ 03-009 Request for a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Item 14. Continued Public Hearing from October 21, 2003: PP 03-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots on 5.93 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Item 15. Continued Public Hearing from October 21, 2003: CUP 03-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development fora 41- lot subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes, minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: De Weerd: Okay. Items 13, 14, and 15, how would you like to continue those? Mr. Nichols? Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, it might be appropriate to continue those until the 7:00 p.m. meeting on the same date, December 9`h De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion on Items 13, 14, and 15. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I would move that we continue the Public Hearings on Items 13, 14, and 15, RZ 03-009, the request for a rezone of 6.39 acres for the proposed Stapleton Subdivision. PP 03-019, request for Preliminary Plat for, again, the Stapleton Subdivision and, finally; Item 15, CUP 03-034, request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for the Stapleton Subdivision, all by Wardle and Associates at 3680 West Ustick Road to our December 9, 2003, regular City Council meeting on December 9, 2003, at 7:00. McCandless: Second. Meridian City Council November 5, 2003 Page 43 of 76 De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue 13, 14, and 15, RZ 03- 009, PP 03-019, and CUP 03-034, to December 9`h at the regular City Council meeting. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 16. Continued Public Hearing from October 28; 2003: AZ 03-018 Request for annexation and zoning of 43.86 +/- acres from RT to C-G zones for Kissler I Cobbs 1 Eaav /Ruwe by BRS Architects -southwest corner and southeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road: Item 17. Public Hearing: AZ 03.022 Request for annexation and zoning of 5 acres from RT to C-G zones for Kissler iDealy Parcel) by BRS Architects - southeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Eagle Road: De Weerd: Okay. We did have -- Item 16 and 17 are related. Can I open those up at the same time? Any problems? Okay. I will open up the continued Public Hearing from October 28, 2003, on AZ 03-018, request annexation and zoning of 43.86 +/- acres from RT to C-G zones far Kissler, Cobbs, Eagy, Ruwe by BRS -- Ruwe -- Ruwe by -- I'm sorry if I ruined someone's name out there. -- by BRS Architects and also the Public Hearing from AZ 03-022, request for annexation and zoning of five acres from RT to C- Gzones for Kissler Dealy Parcel by BRS Architects, and start with staff comments. Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, tonight's theme seems to be no easy applications. On this project -- I suppose it's alittle -- I'm sorry. This project -- the first hearing on this particular project -- and I'm not really prepared to talk about the second one. The Council directed the applicants to come back with a Planned Development, particularly for the four property owners on the eastern -- the three property owners, excuse me, on the western portion of this application, which is on the west side of Eagle Road and south of Ustick. They -- there is kind of a good news, bad news thing, and that's two of the property owners were able to come to an agreement on a conceptual plan, the third decided to pull out of the application. Eagy is the one that decided to withdraw from the application -- annexation application. That leaves Ruwe and Kennevick, Cobbs and, then, of course, that would be too easy, because they could go across the street and catch Kennevick, but the annexation path, of course, was through Eagy. These two properties in Carol Subdivision provided the annexation path to Eagy and, then, down to Ruwe and to Kennevick. What's preventing the annexation path is this little strip that separates the Ruwe property from any city owned property. I asked that this not be tabled, as the applicant requested, without me bringing this up. I have talked to the public works staff. There is a problem in that we no longer have an annexation path. There is also a problem in that we no longer have a correct description of the proposed annexation boundary. Ruwe is working with the former land -- I think this land is currently owned by the person who developed this subdivision. It was a surveying error. It's just a survey error and what they are proposing to do is divide that there and Ruwe would take ownership of that property, Eagy would take ownership of the property up here. They need to do that through the Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 60 of 68 De Weerd: Okay. Centers: Okay. Appreciate all your time. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Chairman? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: With that I would move that we continue the Public Hearing CPA 03-003, Stapleton Subdivision, to November 5th, 2003. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Item 16, CPA 03-003, to November 5th. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 17: Public Hearing: RZ 03-009 Request for a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones far proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 03-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots on 5.93 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Item 19: Public Hearing: CUP 03-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development fora 41-lot subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes, minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Nary: Madam President, we need to -- do we need to table the other items, then? Bird: We need to open it and, then, continue it. Nary: Oh, open and continue. De Weerd: Do we need to open and continue? Nichols: Yes. Meridian Cify Council October 21, 2003 Page 61 of 68 De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and open Item 17, Public Hearing RZ 03-009, request fora rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for the proposed Stapleton Subdivision. Item 18, Public Hearing PP 03-019, request for preliminary plat approval of 14 building lots and seven other lots on 5.93 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision. And Item 19, Public Hearing CUP 03-034, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development fora 41 lot subdivision, to include the reduction in the minimum size lots, size of homes, minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes and setbacks in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: The public hearings are open. Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that continue RZ 03-009, the request for a rezone for Stapleton Subdivision to November 5th, 2003. De Weerd: Can you do them all? Bird: Do you want me to do them all? Okay. Also PP 03-019, the request for a preliminary plat approval for Stapleton Subdivision and also CUP 03-034, the Conditional Use Permit for Stapleton Subdivision to November 3rd, 2003. De Weerd: How about November 5th. Bird: 5th. I'm sorry. Nary: Second. Bird: I'm two days off. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Items 17, 18 and 19 to Ndvember 5th, 2003. All those in favor say aye. Nary: Madam President before we vote. De Weerd: I'm sorry. Nary: I just want to -- it's probably not necessary tonight. Mr. Crane is here, Mrs. Leighton was here. Part of the benefit of setting -- of opening the Public Hearing and setting them over is we don't have to renotice them again, which is fine, but this may be a fairly lengthy process and although it may not be necessary tonight, I do think in the future we do need to make sure that, you know, these affected property owners that are immediately adjacent and have an interest in this property and development of it, receive notice, because they are not going to otherwise, because we have continued these hearings and so I'm not going to ask for it tonight, but on November 5th, if we Meridian City Council October 21, 2003 Page 62 of 68 continue this again, I will ask that we send Mr. Crane and Mrs. Leighton notice of the hearing, so they don't have to every week look to see if we put it on there, because I don't think that's very fair. But other than that, that was my only comment. De Weerd: And we can ask staff to specifically contact them as well. Nary: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. All those in favor of continuing these items to November 5th, 2003, please, say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 20: Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies: De Weerd: We will move to Item 20. Sewer, trash -- water, sewer and trash delinquencies. This is to inform you in writing, if you so choose, that you have the right to apre-termination hearing at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, October 21st, 2003, before the Mayor and City before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend the claim made by the city that your water, sewer, and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. Your service will be discontinued on October 22nd, and/or October 29th, 2003, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer, and trash delinquency? Okay. Seeing none, they are hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of the city reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho state code. Even though they appeal their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is $33,544.45. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we accept the delinquency for turn off and turn off dates will be October 22nd, 2003, or -- and/or October 29th, 2003. The total sum is $33,544.45. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the turn off dates of October 22nd and 29th for the turn off list amount of $33,544.45. Mrs. Deputy Clerk, will you call roll? Roll Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.