Loading...
2004 05-06 2, 4. CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, May 6, 2004, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: ~ David Zaremba ~ David Moe ~ Wendy Newton-Huckabay ~ Michael Rohm ~Chairman Keith Borup Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: MCU 04-002: Request for minor modification to the original Conditional Use Permit to utilize the new setback of 5 feet for the two story residential buildings for Havasu Creek Subdivision by Havasu Creek LLC - south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Approve 5. MCU 04-001 Request for minor modification of the original Conditional Use Permit to utilize the new residential side yard setback of 5 feet for Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest LLC - west of North Linder Road and north of West McMillan Road: Approve 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 15, 2004: RZ 04-006 Request for a Rezone of 16.1 acres from R-4 to R-8 zone for Sutherland, Farm Subdivision No.4 by Sutherland Farm, Inc. - east of South Eagle Road and north of east Victory Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 7, Continued Public Hearing from April 15, 2004: PP 04-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 79 single-family residential building lots & 8 common lots on 16.1 acres in proposed R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No.4 by Sutherland Farm, Inc. - east of South Eagle Road and north of east Victory Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 8. Continued Public Hearing from April 15, 2004: CUP 04-009 Request for modification of the original Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the elimination of five office lots and the addition of 47 single-family lots in addition to the 32 residential lots previously approved for a total of 79 single-family lots for Sutherland Farm Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda - May 6, 2004 Page10f2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13, 14. Subdivision No.4 with request for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and front yard setbacks by Sutherland Farm, Inc. - east of South Eagle Road and north of east Victory Road: Recommend Approval to City Council Public Hearing: PFP 04-004 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 2 building lots on 2.3 acres in an I-L zone for Haztech Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - 475 North Linder Road: Recommend Approval to City Council Public Hearing: AZ 04-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.22 acres from RUT to CoG zone for Magic View Court by Larry Hellhake - 2855 Magic View Drive: Recommend Approval to City Council Public Hearing: PFP 04-005 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval for the re-subdivision of Lot 10 and portions of Lots 9 and 11, Block 11 into 3 building lots on 3.46 acres in a CoG zone for Copperpoint Subdivision by Larson Architects - east of South Eagle Road on the south side of East Copperpoint Drive: Recommend Approval to City Council Public Hearing: MI 04-002 Request for removal from the City of Meridian's area of impact for Fred Schuerman by Fred Schuerman - west of North Cloverdale Road and north of East Fairview Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council Public Hearing: CUP 04-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 100-foot monopole communications tower in a CoG zone for T-Mobile by T-Mobile / Terry Cox - southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: Recommend Approval to City Council Public Hearing: PP 04-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 6 commercial building lots on 5.23 acres in a L-O zone for Valencia Plaza Subdivision by Aspen Grove Development, LLC - east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Overland Road: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda - May 6, 2004 Page 2 of 2 Ali materials presented at public meelings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodalion for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the pubilc meeting, Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina Mav 6, 2004 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P,M. by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay, Commissioner David Zaremba, Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner David Moe. Others Present: Jill Hollinka, Tara Green, Bruce Freckleton, Wendy Kirkpatrick, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Craig Hood, and Dean Willis. Item 1, Roll-Call Attendance: x X David Zaremba X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X X Chairman Keith Borup David Moe Michael Rohm Borup: Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen -- gentlemen, mainly, in the audience. We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting for the Planning and Zoning Commission. I hope with this big crowd everyone found a place to sit. We'd like to begin with roll call of Commissioners. Item 3. Consent Agenda: Item 4. MCU 04-002: Request for minor modification to the original Conditional Use Permit to utilize the new setback of 5 feet for the two story residential buildings for Havasu Creek Subdivision by Havasu Creek LLC - south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Borup: The first item on the agenda is MCU 04-002, request for minor modification of the original Conditional Use Permit to utilize the new setback of five feet for two story residential buildings for Havasu Creek Subdivision by Havasu Creek. This is not a Public Hearing, it's a modification of Conditional Use Permit and we will turn the time over to staff for the report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, I'll give you some background on this application. Havasu Creek Conditional Use Permit was approved in January 2003. At the time that it was approved the setbacks for two story homes, according to the zoning ordinance, were -- it was required a ten foot setback. When they applied for their CUP, planned development, they requested a seven foot side setback for two story homes, which was approved, and since that was approved our zoning ordinance has changed where now you're only required to have a five foot setback for a two story home. So, the applicant's requesting that they modify their original Conditional Use Permit to -- so they are able to use the current standards for the five foot setback and there were a couple of glitches that came up while I was researching this, but they have all been smoothed out. There are plat notes -- there are plat notes for the majority of the final your plats for Havasu and also for Lochsa Falls, which we will talk about next, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 2 of 52 that state it as a seven foot setback. So, I talked to the County surveyor to make sure that these plat notes didn't need to be vacated, that they weren't going to prevent the CUP being modified and, in his opinion, because the developer was submitting an application to modify -- to modify this development and because it's supported by our current ordinance, it's fine to go ahead and grant this modification of the CUP. I also ran this past Bill Nichols, our City Attorney, and he also thought that this was an appropriate way to go ahead and modify the original Conditional Use Permit. I also talked to Mayor de Weerd and Keith Bird, they know that this topic was discussed this last -- I think this last June at a hearing and at that hearing the minutes stated that the cleanest way to go in and fix these situations that have also come up on Bridgetower, is to go in and do a modification for the CUP, so that's what you see here this evening. So, it's supported by City Councilor by Keith Bird, who was at the original hearing, and by Mayor de Weerd and supported by on code and so as far as I can tell this is the correct way to go is to modify this and it's supported by staff. So, basically, their -- the plat notes will not change, but when they come in and pull building permits for Havasu Creek, they will be able to pull building permits with the five foot side setback, rather than the seven foot setback that was on the plat. And if they had never gone to the trouble of modifying the setbacks through the CUP, they wouldn't have to go through this today. So, if they had gone ahead with the ten foot setback that was ordained -- that was permitted through the code when this application went through, they wouldn't be having to go through and change this today, but - Rohm: You're saying that they would be able to go ahead and assume the five foot, because they hadn't requested a conditional -- Kirkpatrick: It's because they modified this through the CUP, they are required to go in and modify the CUP. Rohm: But they are modifying. Kirkpatrick: Right. Rohm: Got you. Kirkpatrick: So, hopefully, that made sense. I know it's a little convoluted and confusing, but do you have any questions of staff? Borup: Now, in the modification, I'm not sure if we have done one. Isn't the applicant usually here to have anything to say? Kirkpatrick: You know, it's not a Public Hearing, Borup: Right. Kirkpatrick: I'm not certain. Maybe we could ask our legal counsel. Borup: Is the applicant here even? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page 3 of 52 Höllinka: Chairman, members of the Commission, I -- since it isn't a Public Hearing, I don't think you're required to hear any testimony, unless you have any questions, I guess, that you needed addressed, but -- Borup: Yeah. We could ask questions from the applicant. Hollinka: I would say questions for clarification purposes. Borup: Right. Okay. Any of the Commissioners have any questions for either staff or the applicant? All right. Zaremba: That being said, I do have a comment on this proposal. For many, many years the ordinance was that there was a requirement of a setback of five feet per story. I remember when these and the next one came through, there were a lot of good elements to the proposals that were made, and we didn't have much discussion, although we accepted that a seven foot setback for a two story building would be okay. And it was since that time that a developer made the request that the ordinance be changed and it worked its way through the process, I was against the change to, period, five feet, regardless of how many stories, for a couple reasons, and even though it, eventually, was approved by the City Council, I voted against it. I am now on a committee that is revising our current patchwork of revised and revised and revised ordinances and on that I will fight to put it back to five feet per story. I mayor may not win that battle, but that will come through a hearing as well. I feel there are a couple of reasons that this was in the ordinance for a long time, One of them is esthetics and that has not changed, The piece of it that has been talked about is the safety aspect of it. There was a time that I believe that that actually was fire requirement and, apparently, something has changed in the International Fire Code or otherwise that it is no longer a requirement, but you also have to realize what happens in Meridian. If you have a five foot setback, there are a lot of things that are allowed to be in that setback, side patios to a garage, air conditioning units, overhangs, and gutters and stuff, and that five feet can disappear pretty quick. We have had a few proposals come before us in the few months since the ordinance was actually changed to say five feet and I have always made it a point either of making it a condition or getting the developer to agree that they had no intention of putting fences between the two buildings, so that if you have two buildings that are ten foot apart, because they are each set back five feet, you're not splitting that distance in half for the Fire Department by putting a fence there. As staff has made very clear, we cannot add such a condition to this request, that there not be fences splitting that distance, It's either yes or no, Either they can have the five foot setback for all heights of buildings and fences would be possible, so that the Fire Department would have only five feet less whatever in the way to make their way through that, and I feel, even if the Fire Department doesn't defend it on their behalf, I feel that that's a safety issue and what I'm signaling is that in this interim period where there is an ordinance that I feel is wrong and that I hope to get changed back to the way it used to be, I am adverse to going back to previous applications and saying, okay, it may be wrong, but you can do it. What I'm signaling is I plan to vote no on the change. "m comfortable with the seven feet that we agreed to before, but not five feet. Personal opinion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page 4 of 52 Borup: Questions or comments? Rohm: Just an additional comment. Commissioner Zaremba, I agree with you wholeheartedly in the logic trail that you have presented on here, but what would happen, I believe, is if we were to deny, then, it would just be overturned at such time as it made its way to City Council and I think that the ordinance supports the five foot setback, whether you and I think that it should be or not, and so -- Wendy, did you have -- Kirkpatrick: Oh, I just wanted to go ahead and note that this application will not go to City Council, you all will make the final decision this evening. Rohm: Oh. Oh, Kirkpatrick: Think hard, That changes things just a bit, then, doesn't it? Zaremba: Well, the question would be if an applicant disagreed with us, could they appeal it to the City Council? Kirkpatrick: I believe they could. They could appeal it. Rohm: I believe that, too. And that's kind of the logic trail that I was trying to present here, but thanks for interjecting. I appreciate that. In any case, I agree with you in principal, but I think in the end all we would be doing is slowing the process down by denying and so, albeit that I support your logic, I think I'd probably go the other way. Zaremba: And, in support of your logic, I would say that's why there are five of us up here, instead of just one person making the decision, and I appreciate that. Moe: With me being in the middle of these two guys, I would say I'm a little bit -- I'm torn both ways, so I guess I do have a question of the applicant, if possible. What's the two foot -- what's the two foot going to give you -- you went to seven foot to begin with, why the five? I mean this has been out there for a while, McColl: Brian McColl, representing the applicant. It's really a matter of consistency and appreciate -- I appreciate very much your position. Unfortunately -- and I think it's somewhat ironic that, you know, for years we always feel like you can't fight city hall and now you're almost on the other side fighting city hall. The change was made and so all subdivisions that have been approved since the change was made, they got the five feet. We are standing out there with only seven feet and it really does have some actual impact from a competition perspective. You get builders that will say, I'm not going to buy one of your lots, we can go down the street to Baldwin where, under the ordinance, for a two story it's five feet. So, we wanted to have this -- some level of consistency and if the rules change back, we will all be, you know, forced to live by the change. Borup: Any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 5 of 52 Moe: Thank you very much. Borup: Okay, Thank you, sir. Commissioner Zaremba, I just might -- maybe a little to expand on what you were talking about, the safety aspect from the Fire Department. I had assumed or you were talking about ladder access, You were talking about getting through there with equipment was one of your concerns? Zaremba: Ladders and equipment and, you know, what if they had to make a second story rescue or get to the back -- Borup: Okay. Well, that's what I was wondering, if that was what you were referring to or -- Zaremba: Apparently-- Borup: Or just getting through with equipment to get to the back yard. Zaremba: Any obstacles that end up being in that space. Borup: Okay. There is only five feet. Zaremba: With only five feet and if there is no fence, then, they have ten feet, because they have five feet that they can walk on the neighbor's property, but -- Borup: But on a single story you have got five feet, so that if you're just accessing -- Zaremba: But they may not need ladders. Borup: Right. But if it's just accessing equipment to the backyard, that's not going to be any different in that aspect. Zaremba: Well -- and I can see that the Fire Department is not here defending the extra space on their own behalf, so -- Borup: And most -- and depending on which side of the house it's on, even if there is ten feet, they usually have a fence in the way, anyway, that they have to break down, I guess. Wendy, was there -- I mean this goes back a ways, but there was Fire Department input back when the ordinance was changed, wasn't there? Kirkpatrick: You know, I wasn't involved with the ordinance change. That may have been before I started working here at Meridian, I'm going through and looking to see if there are any Fire Department comments. I don't remember there being any. Borup: Not in our packets. Zaremba: And I don't remember that the Fire Department weighed in when it was going through the change process either, because I remember asking that question and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 6 of 52 Borup: If they didn't, they should have. Zaremba: I either wasn't satisfied with the answer or there wasn't an answer. remember that part. Borup: I would have thought they would have. Newton-Huckabay: Do we have to make a motion to do the modification -- Borup: Yes. Oh, right. We have no hearing to close, so -- Zaremba: It is a final, so it's not a recommendation. Borup: Right. So, we just need to make a motion to -- in this case approve with staff recommendation and comments or otherwise. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I'd like to recommend approval of MCU 04-002, including all staff comments, dated April 29th, 2004, for the hearing dated May 6, 2004. End of motion. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Anyopposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 5. MCU 04-001 Request for minor modification of the original Conditional Use Permit to utilize the new residential side yard setback of 5 feet for Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest LLC - west of North Linder Road and north of West McMillan Road: Borup: Our next item is MCU 04-001, request for minor modification of the original conditional use -- in fact, they are the same conditions that we were discussing here, only this one is for Lochsa Falls Subdivision. Anything additional you want to add, Wendy? Kirkpatrick: Very similar to the last application. The only difference is Lochsa was approved in 2002 -- let's see, We have -- I guess the only minor difference would be there is 12 phases of Lochsa and ten of them have been approved by the city. There is still two more that need to come through the city, whereas Havasu, all phases of the Havasu and Cobre Basin have gone through the city, So, that's, essentially, the only difference between the two applications, otherwise, it's the same proposal, to modify the setbacks. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 7 of 52 Zaremba: And since this is a different record, I will only restate my objection on the basis of both esthetics and what i perceive to be a safety issue and leave it at that. Rohm: Okay, Mr. Chairman, with that being said -- and I appreciate your comments. Mr. Chairman, I recommend approval of MCU 04-001, including all staff comments dated April 29, 2004, for the hearing date May 6, 2004. End of motion. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second, All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 6. Item 7. Item 8. Continued Public Hearing from April 15, 2004: RZ 04-006 Request for a Rezone of 16.1 acres from R-4 to R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No.4 by Sutherland Farm, Inc. - east of South Eagle Road and north of east Victory Road: Continued Public Hearing from April 15, 2004: PP 04-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 79 single-family residential building lots & 8 common lots on 16.1 acres in proposed R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No.4 by Sutherland Farm, Inc. - east of South Eagle Road and north of east Victory Road: Continued Public Hearing from April 15, 2004: CUP 04-009 Request for modification of the original Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the elimination of five office lots and the addition of 47 single-family lots in addition to the 32 residential lots previously approved for a total of 79 single-family lots for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No, 4 with request for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and front yard setbacks by Sutherland Farm, Inc. - east of South Eagle Road and north of east Victory Road: Borup: All right. Thank you. Next we have Items 6, 7, and 8, continued public hearings from April 15th, 2004, RZ 04-006, PP 04-009, and CUP 04-009. All three of these are for a request for Sutherland Farms Subdivision. Again, these are continued public hearings and we'd like to start with the staff report, Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. I'm pitch hitting for Steve Siddoway tonight on this, so I will try to kind of hit the highlights of his staff report that you have received. The first item, number six, is for the rezone and what is shown on the slide is the full boundaries of Sutherland Farm Subdivision. Original -- their existing approved preliminary plat and as you can see, they have started development already, They are phasing from Victory Road going north, but they also have frontage here on Eagle Road, Silverstone -- the Silverstone development is to the north. The Ridenbaugh Canal is between Silverstone and Sutherland. So, the piece of Sutherland Farms that our -- that is the subject of all these three applications, is here in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 8 of 52 the northwest portion of their project that fronts on Eagle Road. They have an R-4 zone today on the full 120 plus acres and they -- item number six is proposing to rezone just a portion of that 16.1 acres to the R-B. And as outlined is Steve's report, staff is recommending approval of the rezone. The Comprehensive Plan is medium density residential, so it does allow the R-B. This shows you the approved preliminary plat, which was a mix of uses, They had an office development that was approved on the Eagle Road frontage, that came in several hundred feet, and what they are proposing to do is take these five office lots that were approved and, essentially, change those to a residential -- medium residential use, instead of the office use. No changes to the -- to the entry collector street. They are proposing this open space area that was shown here along the Ridenbaugh Canal, as you will see on the next slide, to shift to the south. But that's the area for the plat that they are proposing to change. Here is the preliminary plat that was submitted and, as you can see, they are still maintaining the office lots that have the Eagle Road frontage, proposing largely attached dwelling units. There are -- let's see, What do they have? They have -- they are adding 47 single- family residential lots, for a total of 79 in this section. The open space area in this revised preliminary plat does come to, I believe, just over 20 percent of the area. They have this central feature, which is a -- about a two acre park that they have, again, shifted from the Ridenbaugh. They are maintaining some open space for the public multi-use pathway that would ultimately become the cities and maintained by the city parks, but they are now shifting houses that would back up to that regional pathway, whereas before this was largely just open space. So, I think that's probably the main change in terms of the layout. Again, the addition of these attached units here. The applicant does submit a two-page response to Steve's staff report, which I don't know if the Commission -- did you receive that in your packets? Rohm: I don't think so. Hawkins-Clark: Dated April 15th. Zaremba: I don't recall seeing that. Hawkins-Clark: It was addressed just to Steve Siddoway, so I wasn't sure if the Commission had received this or not. We can certainly get that to you for your review. But I will just touch on the five or six main issues that were outstanding and I think the bottom line is tonight, I believe, that the applicant is agreeing to -- to all of the staff -- proposed staff conditions. The main -- there was some concern about -- from the police department about access -- sort of public surveillance into this open space area, since it is backed up to residential houses or with residential lots and what the police chief has asked for, as I understand, from Mr, Fluke, is for this -- some of these lots to just get a little bit narrower, so that they can have access from more directions into this central area. There is a sewer easement that is platted that runs north and south here that kind of bisects the open space and they are proposing a grass crete type design for that, so that vehicles could actually get in there. It would have to be the 14-foot minimum for the Public Works Department. There would be man holes, et cetera, in there, so that's one of the issues that the police department was looking for and they feel that if they can get that grass crete, they can, if necessary, get vehicles in there. So, that was one of the reasons for the request to reduce the frontages, which the applicant's going to also Meridian Piannlng & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page g of 52 address tonight. There is a shared driveway that's down here in the southwest corner that has four dwelling units on the south side. The public street comes here and, then, they have their driveways accessing off the south. The staff report had recommended that the lot to the north also take access and I think originally was to make that a private road, since the ordinance says you can only have four lots on a common driveway and, then, if you go more than that, you have to pump up your design standards, et cetera, to a private road, The applicant would prefer to keep that as a common driveway. There is an emergency connection also into this from Sutherland Farms Phrase Three up here in the northeast corner, that there would -- bollards shown originally on phase three up here, those would be removed and the connection extended into this phase, so that would provide the secondary access into this for emergency. This is the primary, of course, down here on the south off the collector road. Here is the layout of the landscape plan that they propose. And I will just -- one other thing, just touch on the planned development reductions that they are asking for. They are summarized on page two of the staff report, dated May 6 -- or for the hearing date of May 6. Excuse me. And the three areas that they are asking for exceptions to are the front setbacks for living areas and side entry garages, they are asking to go from 15 to ten. The minimum lot size they are asking to go from 6,500 square foot for detached, to 5,000 detached. For attached units going from what was originally approved -- because this property does have a planned development already on it that was approved with the original plat, so they did get a couple of reductions a couple of years ago and now they -- with adding the attached units they are proposing to decrease the lot size by about 200 square feet again to 3,700 square feet for attached units. They originally were 3,829. And, then, the third exception that they are asking for is minimum lot frontages. The prior planned development was the same as the ordinance, 65 feet for detached. They are proposing 50. And, then, the attached units of 40-foot is the attached minimum in our code and they are proposing 37, Are there any questions? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Brad, I have two questions on slightly different subjects. One is this emergency access, which is identified up here, and I did have a question about whether there were going to be bollards. I did think I remembered from phase three that they were there. In approving this, though, we can't make the modification to phase three to remove the bollards from phase three, can we? Even though it makes sense they shouldn't be there, can we, as a condition of this one, say that the bollards won't be there or just make a gentleman's agreement to not put bollards on -- Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I guess the bottom line to your question, Commissioner, is correct. I mean on a different phase, yeah, I guess the question is are the bollards technically on the property line or are they within this phase or not, but if the applicant could address -- I'm not even sure if Sutherland Phase Three is final platted, so -- Zaremba: I agree with not having them there, but " like you, recall that it was a requirement. Second unrelated question, When it was envisioned that this would be -- as I recall, this portion was going to be developed to L-O standards or something like that, that would make Silverstone north of it, which I believe is all CoG, not have so much of a transition requirement or buffer requirement. If this gets changed to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page 10 of 52 residential, I'm not sure I see that it would be fair to require Silverstone to handle the buffer zone, I would think because this one is changing, whatever buffer is needed between residential and CoG should be this project's responsibility, That's a question, not a statement. Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Yeah, The ordinance does talk about the buffer between land uses as being from the property -- from a shared property line, so between two different types of uses and it does require the higher intensity use to put their -- put the buffer on their side. The Silverstone plat is complete and those kind of buffers would just happen lot by lot. So, as Silverstone lots develop on the north of this project, if -- typically, you know, you would see those buffer requirements to just be dealt with case by case. Zaremba: But the Silverstone people assume that this area is office buildings, not residential. Or is there a -- Hawkins-Clark: A portion, correct. The entire area was not -- they were previously approved for -- as you can see, some of it was residential under the original approved preliminary plat, but, you're correct, I mean there is a couple hundred feet here where they were anticipating office and beyond that there was this open space here that was separating them, Zaremba: I'm just -- as much as I like this project, I'm saying I don't think it's fair for Silverstone to have to bear the results of the change, Is that a fair statement or is there anything we can do about that? Hawkins-Clark: Sure, I mean they were certainly noticed as part of this process, so I think that's probably a good item for discussion for the Commission. You know, they do have, bear in mind, the Ridenbaugh easement is - Zaremba: Pretty wide. Hawkins-Clark: Right. It's 80 feet. Zaremba: Plus a roadway on both sides of it, so it's -- it is a pretty good size buffer all by itself. Okay, Those were my only questions. Borup: Anyone else? I had -- back to the original approved plat. Did we -- have they increased the number of lots and the density of lots on -- in the area that was previously approved? I'm having trouble following exactly what happened. I mean, you know, all these lots and this lot became a part of the residential; is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: So, has the size of these lots changed? Hawkins-Clark: I believe they -- Borup: I didn't have an original plat to compare it to. That's why I -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page 11 of 52 Hawkins-Clark: Right. I believe there were some slight reductions. Certainly, the reason that they are asking for the R-8 is because the gross density went above four. Borup: Well, yes, Hawkins-Clark: Before they were below. Each of those -- that particular section I would have to check, You know, I think they are probably pretty similar, because they do have still some detached units. Zaremba: My recollection was that the area that you're talking to just east of the current application was -- Borup: No. Well, the current application has this area included. This area here is east of the current application. So, they are taking -- correct. They are taking this R -- this residential area, combining it with this office area, and making a new residential area. Zaremba: Okay. I was missing part of it. Because, I do remember this as being fairly high density, Borup: Yes. But it looks like they have even increased it beyond what it was originally. That was my question. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Just to answer that question, Commissioner, I think they were previously about 50 feet frontages and they remain about 50 feet frontages. Fifty foot. Borup: Okay. presentation? Any other questions? Would the applicant like to make their Fluke: Mr, Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you. My name is Darin Fluke with JUB Engineers, representing the applicant in this matter. I think I'll just make a couple of general observations, try to answer your questions, and, then, I have just two specific requests on the conditions of approval, so I will make it brief. Could we see the old plat, please, Brad? I just want to point out that it is by way of a general observation that we did have a planned development approved for the entire boundary that you see here, the mix of land uses from detached single family up through attached single family, multi-family, office, and general commercial, all within the bounds of this project. The project before you tonight modifies that slightly, gets rid of some square footage of office uses and replaces that with some attached and detached single family dwellings, so it's not that large of a change, In the context of the overall project, all the numbers still work. The open space actually increased through this -- through the change by about 3,900 square feet. So, about the size of one of the lots. It got a little bit bigger and we think it got a little bit better. It got more centrally located and more usable from the previous application, So, just in response to your questions that you had, the Chairman is correct in stating that this is number three right here, that's about a couple of days away from being recorded right now, The boundaries of the current application Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page 12 of 52 come over to here and come along here. So, essentially, what we did is a mirror image of this and just flipped it over and sort of fit it to the topography of the site. To do that we had to work around an existing sewer line that comes down here to serve the project and comes all the way down, That line is about 25 feet deep and so it wasn't going to be easily moved and that does serve this whole project by and large, so -- if we could just see that -- the new plat, Brad. So, like I said, what we did is, essentially, took this and just flipped it over and added lots there and moved the open space down into the middle. I think we have addressed all the issues with staff. The reason that we asked to be tabled three weeks ago -- in the letter that Brad referred to was my response to the issues that we found as we went through the preliminary plat with the other agencies, including the police department, the Fire Department, and the others. We made some changes, we skinnied these lots down a little bit, so that we got wider pathways into here. You will notice in the staff report that they do ask to widen these paths up to 15 feet as well. That's going to require knocking the frontages down on these and I'll get to that in just a minute, They also want to widen this pathway up here, We show a pathway connection going to this path along the Ridenbaugh. They also want to connect that path to this office lot, which we are not opposed to, but we do need to pick up a little bit of room here and so we might as well talk about that now. On page 12 of your staff report, condition number ten, limits the frontages on detached units to 50 feet and 5,000 square feet in area and on the attached units, 37 feet of frontage and 3,700 square feet in area. Because we need to pick up those additional frontages there, we'd like to just knock those numbers down just a little bit. On the attached units we'd ask to go to 44 feet of frontage and 4,400 square feet. Really, that only affects these three lots and if you want to write the condition to that effect, that's fine with us. It just seems easier to knock it all -- to just say 4,400 square feet with 44 feet of frontage is the minimum for detached units. As far as the attached units go, they are showing 37 feet frontage along here, because that's the way the numbers work when it's laid out. Thirty-six feet actually makes more sense, because we try to keep it at even numbers and if we need to pick up some area here anyway, we'd like to just go ahead and define 34 feet as the minimum frontage, with 3,400 square feet as the minimum for attached units. Again, that won't affect all the units, it will probably just affect this tier right here and I doubt that they will have to go down to 34, they will probably be 36. And by doing that, we can meet all the other conditions that you see in your staff report for making those pathways wider and dealing with the concerns of the other agencies. Borup: So, you would not be adding any additional lots you're saying? Fluke: That's correct. That's just an effort to not lose any lots. With this issue of the bollards, if I remember right, I don't believe that it was a condition on the final plat of Sutherland Number Three and so I don't think we are running into any procedural difficulties there. We had, in fact, offered it up on number three, thinking that it made it work better, Really, whatever the city wants we are happy to do in that regard and so we are happy to leave the bollards out there. And, then, finally with regard to the questions about buffering next to Silverstone, I would just point out that those buffering requirements are keyed to land uses, not zoning designations. The previous application had approved all uses that were allowed in L-O and our narrative talked about having not only office uses, but multi-family as well. Apartments. You know, not knowing into the future what they might want to build, they left their options open and all of those Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 130f52 uses were allowed and so, really, you don't change anything for Silverstone now, because when those lots develop, they are going to have to react to what's on the other side as far as land use goes, not zoning designation, and they would have had to have done that previously anyway. So, that's just the cost of doing business. They always knew that something was going to go in there. And I think we do have a really effective transition that -- with the Ridenbaugh in there, not only is it wide horizontally, there is also some vertical relief there of about 30 feet -- well, 20 feet, I guess from the toe up to the top of bank on that and so there is a good separation between those two projects. We think we have designed a really attractive project here. We are going to use one builder on this whole thing -- or one builder is going buying the whole thing and going to build the whole thing, so it will be a nice looking project, with a nice looking product in there, and we would just ask for your approval. Borup: Questions for Mr. Fluke? Moe: Actually, would you -- I didn't catch your -- the change you wanted to make on detached units. Could you go over that one more time for me? Fluke: On detached units we just asked that the frontage go down to 44 feet and the minimum area to be 4,400 square feet. Moe: And the other was 34 and 3,400? Fluke: Correct. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Borup: So, at this point, other than that, you're saying that you're in agreement with all staff report items? Fluke: That's correct. I think all the issues have been resolved. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: You answered my questions. Borup: Okay. I think -- one more question, Newton-Huckabay: It's just a general question, why there are no stub streets linking these subdivisions together, like most of the other developments that come before us. Fluke: Well, it's all part of the same project. They are connected by way of that residential collector that goes through the -- could we see the whole project view again, Brad? This is a residential collector that comes in and connects everything in the development. There are other streets coming up from the south. Two different product types. The developers wanted to keep these two as separate as they could and so what we did was provide that as a secondary emergency access. With this being a divided road there, with this median, essentially, you have got to ways in, if one of those Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 14 of 52 were to be blocked. So, that was the compromise with the Fire Department on that. So, really, there is nowhere for a stub street to go. You're not going to go north against the canal. You're not going to go to the west because we don't necessarily want these people driving to get here anyway, they can walk when there is a pathway connection here. Newton-Huckabay: I was talking about to the east. Fluke: Okay, Newton-Huckabay: Where your emergency access is, why there wasn't a stub there, Fluke: Right. That's why. Borup: Okay. All right. Thank you, Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Larsen: Chairman Borup, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, my name is Cornell Larsen, I'm here tonight actually on another matter, but since the Silverstone issue came up, I have been involved in that project for quite awhile, so I thought I'd speak to some of your concerns. Along the south side of Silverstone most of the lots in here have been developed or are in for a permit at this point in time. There is a Limelight Studio going right here. We have in for a permit for this portion here. We are before you tonight for a two-lot split in this area on this portion, All the other lots along here, with the exception of this one on Eagle Road and one right there, have been developed next to Sutherland Farms, so there is only two lots that might be adjacent to Sutherland Farms and it appears they want to keep these as commercial office uses, so most likely they would be fairly compatible along there. Wouldn't see too many issues regarding that. I would be happy to answer any questions. Borup: So, you're saying the buffer issue would not affect anything in Silverstone, because they have already been either built or approved? Larsen: Correct. And, in addition, there is -- I believe there is a 50 foot or a hundred foot canal right of way there, plus Silverstone's provided an additional ten feet along there on their additional plat for -- I mean on their plat for landscaping buffer at the base of the slope of the canal and we can't really do too much on the slope of the canal, unless you get a license agreement and they just -- we just recently paid to line that canal along there, so that there was no water infiltration down on the property below Sutherland Farms, so we have taken all the precautions to make sure that it is weed free as best we can along the canal facility and still landscape properly. Borup: Okay. Does that answer your question, Commissioner? Zaremba: Thank you, Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Seeing none, Commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page 150f52 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that these three public hearings be closed. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second, All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 6 on our agenda, RZ 04-006, request for a rezone of 16.1 acres from R-4 to R-B zone for Sutherland Farms Subdivision Number Four by Sutherland Farms, Inc., east of South Eagle Road and north of East Victory Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of May 6, 2004, received by the city clerk May 4th, 2004, with no changes. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second, All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr, Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 7 on our agenda, PP 04-009, request for preliminary plat approval of 79 single family residential building lots and eight common lots on 16.1 acres in proposed R-B zone for Sutherland Farms Subdivision No, 4 by Sutherland Farm, Inc., east of South Eagle Road and north of East Victory Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of May 6, 2004, received by the city clerk May 4th, 2004, and, again, with no changes, Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second, All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our agenda, CUP 04-009, request for modification of the original Conditional Use Permit for a planned development to allow the elimination of five office lots and the addition of 47 single family lots, in addition to the 32 residential lots previously approved, for a total of 79 single family lots for Sutherland Farms Subdivision No.4, with requests for a reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage, and front yard setbacks by Sutherland Farms, Inc., east of South Eagle Road and north of East Victory Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the hearing date of May 6, 2004, received by the city clerk May 4th, 2004, with no changes. Moe: Uh -- yeah. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page 160f52 Zaremba: I'm sorry. There was a change on page 12. Thank you for that correction. We didn't discuss this, but let me phrase it this way: On page 12 of the staff notes, paragraph ten, we will say that attached units may have a 34 foot frontage, minimum lot frontage, and that attached units may have a minimum lot size of 3,400 square feet and that three of the detached lots may have a 44 foot frontage and those same three detached lots may have a 4,400 square foot minimum lot size. End of motion. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES, Item 9. Public Hearing: PFP 04-004 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 2 building lots on 2,3 acres in an I-L zone for Haztech Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - 475 North Linder Road: Borup: Okay. Our next item is Public Hearing PFP 04-004, request for preliminary/final plat approval of two building lots on 2.3 acres in an I-L zone for Haztech Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers. I'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, this is a preliminary/final plat request. The property is located on the west side of Linder Road, south of the railroad tracks. There is an existing day care facility on the east side of Linder Road. Franklin is about a quarter mile to the south. The property has been annexed. It is zoned light industrial. Their request tonight is strictly for a -- essentially a lot split. City of Meridian code does not allow for one-time divisions, other than through a plat. We are a little bit different that way than some other jurisdictions in the valley, so the reason that this is before you is -- is for that reason, there is no other mechanism for them to split a parcel. As you can see, there is a line that's shown on the base map that shows that there are two parcels there today. They did do a record of survey that divided that. However, the city doesn't recognize that record of survey as creating legal buildable lots, So, the staff report is before you, We did received written comment that I think was on your desks this -- as you got into the chambers this evening, dated today, May 6, from Dave McKinnon Pinnacle Engineers. As you can see there, the majority of staff's recommended conditions they are in agreement with. I will just go to the plat here quickly. There is a private road that runs along the south boundary of this site that was approved a year and a half or so ago under a separate miscellaneous application that went directly to City Council. That applicant at that time was this property to the west for -- Marcon is a company that stores cement barricades and they needed to have a -- basically, a storage facility for those and so they came in needing access into that area and this was approved. As you can see, it does lie wholly on this -- the plat that's before you tonight. It's 24 feet wide and it was approved as such. It's already built. They would propose to take access off that private road for this rear lot, which is the only one that doesn't have a building on it. The front one does have the Haztech drilling company building today. Let's see, I guess we didn't put in the landscape plan. There was a few comments on the landscape plan that I had made. We -- since the final plat, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 17of52 typically, we like to see detailed landscape plans with the species and planting standards, et cetera, so we are just basically asking that that be provided before the city engineer signs the plat, so we can review it at staff level. Item number four, site specific comments, is one of the items that Mr. McKinnon raised in his letter, response letter, stating that the 24 foot three inch landscape buffer is - on Linder Road is already in place, already planted, and they are, essentially, indicating compliance with the condition. So, I think that's more of just a housekeeping thing. If the Commission wants to keep it in, that's fine. Staff's fine with either way, frankly. And, then, the only other one I'd point out is under Fire Department comments, number six. The - talking about fire sprinklers being required for all buildings associated with the project and, then, the proposal is to add if required by an adopted safety code, such as the International Building Code or National Fire Code. Understand that Joe Silva, Deputy Fire Chief, did verbally restate that he was okay with that. So, I think those are the only two issues staff has to point out. Is there any questions? Borup: On the landscaping buffer, are you saying that since ifsin place they don't need to show that on the plat or that it will be done prior to final plat? I don't know if I understood which way that went. Hawkins-Clark: Let's see. The condition as it's worded is a 24 foot wide street buffer is required beyond the North Linder Road right of way. Prior to the city engineer's signature, existing landscaping shall be inspected by the P&Z Department to confirm compliance. Borup: And the applicants addressed that it was in compliance, so that's -- Hawkins-Clark: Right. And, essentially, it involves, you know, one tree every 35 feet and I do know that that's correct. I was mainly trying to -- Borup: It's just not showing on the plat is what you're - isn't that -- Hawkins-Clark: Actually, the landscape plan that was submitted with the application does reflect all the existing trees on the site. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Brad, my inclination would be to leave that in there, because the real requirement is a 25 foot buffer and this paragraph acknowledges that we realize that we are accepting the 24 and, actually, they have 24 three inches, but I would leave it in, so that it's clear that we understood that we are making an exception to the 25 foot buffer. Hawkins-Clark: And also, as I read through it, I guess the last -- second or third to the last sentence does reference that there is a minimum ten foot wide street buffer on the north side of Marcon Lane, which is that private lane here that we are asking for and I believe there is a fence that mayor may not be within the required ten feet, but we want to makesureth~t that gets addressed, so-- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page 180f52 Borup: Okay. Maybe we can discuss that with the applicant. Any other questions? I got to say I particularly enjoyed the school district's comments, though. Zaremba: Boilerplate letter, Borup: Okay, Mr. McKinnon, have you got anything you'd like to add? McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. On the issue of item number four, if you want to leave it in, that's fine. The landscaping is in place right now and it does conform. The only reason why I wanted to keep that out is when the owner takes a look at this, it may be confusing for him to say is it or is it not in compliance and it is in compliance and just wanted to make that statement, that it is in compliance and Brad's made that statement for me, which is great. Joe Silva did leave me a voice mail today about the fire issue, item number six, saying that he's okay if it's required per the Uniform Fire Code or the International Fire Code. Didn't have a chance to get a written response from him. I came back into the office about 4:40 today and happened to talk to Bruce Freckleton today at work and I played the voice mail for him, so I've got somebody to verify that Joe was okay with that. So, those are, really, the only things I have to add and just ask for approval tonight. Borup: I think one of Commissioner Zaremba's comments on leaving the 24 -- or leaving that in there, because it does -- since we are approving to 24 foot, rather than 25. McKinnon: That's fine. Borup: Is that -- other than that -- and maybe for the audience, the school district's comment was that this was going to have a significant impact on the enrollment in all the schools. Zaremba: All the added children in this commercial project. residential subdivision letter. It's their standard Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Put together on in-service day, Borup: Any other questions for Mr. McKinnon? Moe: No. McKinnon: Thanks, guys. Borup: Thank you. Is there anyone else that has any testimony on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that this hearing be closed. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 19 of 52 Rohm: Second, Borup: Motion and second to close this Public Hearing, All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 9 on our agenda PFP 04-004, request for preliminary plat approval of two building lots on 2.3 acres in an I-L zone for Haztech Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, 475 North Linder Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the hearing date of May 6, 2004, received by the city clerk May 4th, 2004, with one change and that is on page five, the comment is actually being made by the Fire Department, paragraph six, reads: Fire sprinklers will be required for all buildings associated with this project and we will add to that: If, in fact, they are required by an adopted safety code, such as the IBC or the IFC. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 04-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.22 acres from RUT to CoG zone for Magic View Court by Larry Hellhake - 2855 Magic View Drive: Borup: Okay. Thank you, Next item is Public Hearing PFP 04-004, request for preliminarylfinal plat approval of two building lots -- excuse me. Public Hearing AZ 04- 008, request for annexation and zoning of 5.22 acres from RUT to CoG for Magic View Court. Like to open this hearing and start with the staff report, Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. This application is just for annexation and zoning tonight. There is no associated development applications with it. The applicant is proposing a CoG zone. The land is currently in the county, RUT zoning, outlined here on the south side of Magic View Drive. The Magic View Subdivision is, essentially, this area here south of Greenhill Estates, east of Woodbridge Subdivision, The applicant is proposing to, essentially, match the zoning that has already been approved on several other lots here in Magic View Subdivision. The zoning in the Comprehensive Plan during the -- that amendment process a couple of year ago, the 20 plus property owners in this subdivision were fairly involved in that process and submitted several different letters asking for a change, essentially, from their current rural five acre lot subdivision, to a commercial. Office designations were put on the perimeter and commercial designations were put on the interior. There is an existing -- actually, two hotels that are being constructed in this area right now on the corner of Allen and Freeway and, then, at the corner of Wells and Freeway. Hubble Homes, Hubble Engineering has their headquarters located on this lot, which is adjacent to the south side of this and, then, there is Medical Imaging and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page 20 of 52 some other clinic and office type professional office facilities that are already annexed and located here. W.H, Moore Company is developing this limited office parcel to the north. The history with annexation applications, as you know, is typically to come in with some kind of development application. We have been hearing more from developers at the staff level lately about the difficulty in marketing property that is not annexed and doesn't have city sewer services. My understanding from the applicant that's the main driving force why they'd like to get this -- why they'd like to get this in. They have submitted this concept plan with the application that shows a basic office layout on the property. If the Commission desires or the City Council, this could be included as part of the development agreement, which would, essentially, encumber this parcel with this plan or one similar to it. Staff felt that being in a commercially designated area in the Comp Plan, one that's rapidly transitioning, there is probably a lot of activity on the market from -- with interstate proximity, that we would kind of be setting ourselves up for a lot work in the future if we set up a specific plan that mayor may not be feasible. So, we did ask for something to kind of demonstrate what they might be thinking about and that's the reason why this was submitted. If you adopt the staff recommendations as we submitted them, this would not be attached as a required element of the development agreement. We didn't even recommend a development agreement be entered into. So, I think I have addressed sort of the main outstanding items. On page three -- I'm sorry -- page four of the staff report, paragraph I, that's the reference to the development agreement that the CoG zone, as, you well know, has a number of uses that may be fairly intensive. We had this discussion with the Southern Springs project that came through several months ago on Overland and Meridian Road and that was also about a five-acre parcel. It was an expansion of Southern Springs One and they were wanting to cross the Ten Mile Creek, five acre -- the Commission and Council both approved that five acres with a CoG without adevelopment agreement for some of the similar reasons, but I did want to point out that that's certainly an item for discussion tonight. And, then, the last thing to point out would be on page five, special considerations, I was wanting to make the Commission aware there that there is an existing residence. The aerial photo here, as you can see, it's up on the north end of the parcel on the northeast corner. There are some out buildings there. And wanted to just point out for the applicant the current owners, the Commission, that if it was annexed to a commercial zone, that existing residence would not be permitted any expansions or significant alterations that change the footprint of the building without a Conditional Use Permit. Zaremba: On that subject, Brad -- Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Zaremba: -- if they continue to use it as a residence until such time as they find a commercial buyer for it, once it's annexed are they required to hook up to city sewer and water anyhow, whether they keep the residents or not or can we grandfather the septic system until such time as it changes hands? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, typically what we have done in the past is as long as they maintain it as a home residence, we will allow them to continue to use their well and septic, If they do expand the structure, like Brad's talking, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 21 of 52 they have to go through the Conditional Use Permit process, we probably at that point in time would make them connect, but as long as it remains basically the way it is today and is lived in as a home, we wouldn't make that requirement. Zaremba: Thank you, Borup: Okay. Anything else? One comment I guess I maybe might make and that's on Brad's comment on in the past we have usually had a project associated with the annexation and I think that makes a lot of sense on some of these stand-alone parcels that are maybe a single parcel next to residential or where ever they may be, But -- and ashe's alluded to, I think we have a different situation here. This is more or less expanding commercial development and I, for one, don't have any concern with a straight annexation and zoning in this situation. Rohm: At such time that they develop, will there be a Conditional Use Permit required for that? Borup: Not at this point. I mean not with this -- if we follow the staff report, other than -- other than the development agreement, which would limit -- isn't that correct, that the development agreement would eliminate a lot of commercial uses or uses that would normally be -- could be approved in a commercial zone? Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Title 11 of the zoning ordinance, you know, outlines all of the allowed uses, conditional uses, prohibited uses, and so if this was annexed as C-G, you just go down the schedule of uses and if it says that your use requires a conditional use, you have to do a conditional use, but a lot of the uses in the C-Gzone are allowed with just coming in for a building permit. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Borup: But are you anticipating in the development agreement to either eliminate some of those or require a conditional use or are you anticipating just following the current -- Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, you just caught me off guard, because I didn't remember recommending a development agreement and, in fact, there is not, so -- Borup: Oh, there is not. What am I thinking of? application. Sorry. I'm thinking back to the last Rohm: So, if there is not a development agreement, then, we'd make the change, then, they can just build anything that falls within that zoning, Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Rohm: Without any additional applications being made. Hawkins-Clark: Correct, There would be no public hearings, et cetera. I mean, you know, there are some uses that would require the conditional use, but at this point if you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page 22 of 52 approve it as in the staff report, it would -- it would just be a building permit for the majority of the allowed uses, with no public hearing. Borup: Okay, Rohm: And staff is okay with that? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Brad, as you pointed out, this area has already been subject to a lot of public comment and public hearing and we haven't found out yet if there is anybody here tonight specifically to speak on it, but I -- even before we hear them, at this point I would agree with staff that there has been enough said about this that making it a CoG zone and the allowable and conditional uses that are established in the chart are comfortable for me, Unless I hear some objection from public testimony that they want further restrictions, I would not go with a development agreement or anything, I would -- just normal process, Personal opinion, which I can reformulate if we hear public testimony to the contrary, but -- Hawkins-Clark: Last week the Commission, I believe, heard an application on Ten Mile and Ustick for that McNelis Subdivision, where somewhat similar situation, just a request for annexation and I think one of staff's recommendations has been that if it's on an entryway corridor where it will receive a lot of high visibility from the public, we typically would like, in that case, to recommend a conditional use for those that are on the arterials. You know, Magic View Drive certainly is going to carry more and more traffic as the subdivision builds out, since it does connect out to Locust Grove Road, you know, indirectly, but Woodbridge Subdivision has, you know, over 250 lots, so -- but it's not an arterial and so we felt being more internal to a project that it was okay to move ahead as we recommended. Borup: The only permitted use I noticed on the chart that may not be desirable was a bus or rail station and I don't think we have to worry about either one of those going here. Zaremba: If I were designing either one of those, this is not where I would put it. Borup: Okay, Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Hellhake: Thank you, Mr, Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Larry Hellhake, 3837 North Hall Drive in Eagle and I represent the owners of the property Bob and Kathy Barnes, who are also present. And, basically, in reviewing the staff report, we agree with all of the points, I would like just to point out two areas, the ones that you have discussed. We have had several people approach us over the past time that we have had the property marketed and each person seems to have a different need, but all of them do fit in the C-G zone. We have looked at motels, a couple of motel people have looked and there is still one. Right now we are negotiating with a medical group Meridian Piannlng & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page 23 of 52 that is talking about build two buildings, We did make the plan that you -- that we presented to Brad as a possibility that if we did not have somebody to purchase the property, we may do it ourselves and, then, have maybe six lots. So, we wanted to keep it as broad and as open as we could and allow the most uses, which, obviously, the CoG zone allows us to do, So, we would like very much to have that CoG zone and allow the flexibility to work with any entity that would comply with that zone. As far as the residence, we fully believe that that will be taken out of there, It's not anything that could be even remodeled or fixed that would work as an office or anything like that, so the residence I would guarantee will be removed, destroyed, hauled away in a truck, or donated, Anybody want a house? But it's nothing that really has any value for the property at this time, Other than that, we concur with all of the conditions. We would like very much not to have a development agreement at this time, but be allowed to come back, either ourselves or with a purchaser in the future, to work with you on a CoG zone and we would ask that you would approve this, Borup: Okay. Hellhake: I would be happy to answer any questions. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Hellhake? Rohm: I think staff's answered most of my questions. Thank you. Zaremba: That's true. I would only comment -- thank you for supplying the concept. That does help us make sure that we are all envisioning the proper zone for it, so it is handy to have a concept. And we accept a concept as just that. It's not etched in stone, necessarily, That being said, we can't put any conditions on a concept, but I would comment that I like that you are suggesting that there will be at least drive aisle access to the undeveloped property to the west and to the south and would only ask that you maybe consider whether or not one could be put on the east through the Hubble property. It mayor not be possible by how they are designed, but -- it's not a condition, it's just a comment to consider and thank you for providing the concept. Hellhake: If we do decide to do that ourselves, we would consider that. I'd meet with them and -- they have landscaped and fenced that, but, obviously, D-8 Cats can open up fences real quick, so -- Zaremba: True. Cross-access is a handy thing. Hellhake: Definitely in an area like this, Borup: Okay, Thank you, Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Seeing none. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing, Zaremba: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 24 of 52 Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Okay. Mr, Chairman? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Before a motion is made, maybe just a point of clarification. I understand the house is going to be demolished and hauled off, but I'm under the understanding that it's lived in and it will be until such time that an application does come forward or that somebody comes in to develop the property. So, I would request that we add a condition, if you would, simply to address the sewer and water issue for that existing structure. I have got one formulated here if you want to consider this. That we just not require the existing home to be connected to city sewer and water unless the use changes from residential or the home is expanded in the future. Rohm: If that's going to happen, it won't make any difference. It won't change things a bit. Freckleton: Right. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: And the purpose for that is annexation would normally require connection. Is that your point, Mr. Freckleton? And this allows that to continue. Freckleton: Yes, sir. Hawkins-Clark: Just one other point of clarification. Annexations without development agreements, they are not technically conditions on the property, they are just comments that are made as a part of the findings, You can't condition an annexation or condition a rezone, so it's just for that clarification. It would be in the findings, but it would be comments that would be for the public record. Borup: Okay. Moe: I'm there. Borup: Yeah, And then, staff already has that in their report, in sight specific comments. So that that we have would be comment number seven, I guess. Moe: Oh. Yeah. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda, AZ 04-008, request for annexation and zoning of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 25 of 52 5,22 acres from RUT to CoG zone for Magic View Court by Larry Hellhake, 2855 Magic View Drive, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of May 6, 2004, received by the city clerk May 3rd, 2004, with one change. Under site specific comments, which begin on page five, we will go to page six and add a paragraph seven that says as long as the existing residence continues under its same use, the use is not changed, or the building is not modified in any way, they may continue to use the current septic and well system. End of motion. Moe: Second. Borup: But not require hook up to city sewer and water implied in that, I assume. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Okay. Second? Moe: That's a second. Borup: We had a second, All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11. Public Hearing: PFP 04-005 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval for the re-subdivision of Lot 10 and portions of Lots 9 and 11, Block 11 into 3 building lots on 3.46 acres in a CoG zone for Copperpoint Subdivision by Larson Architects - east of South Eagle Road on the south side of East Copperpoint Drive: Borup: Thank you, The next item is Public Hearing PFP 04-005, request for preliminarylfinal plat approval for a resubdivision of Lot 10 and a portion of Lots 9 and 11, Block 11, into three building lots on 3.46 acres, C-G zone, for Copperpoint Subdivision. We'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Like Brad, I, too, am pitch hitting for Steve tonight. I just read the staff report for the first time about an hour ago, so bear with me, but I will try to highlight some things in the staff report, just for the general public. This is a preliminary/final plat for a three-lot subdivision on 3.46 acres located in Silverstone on the south side of East Copperpoint Drive, This is just north of the application -- three applications ago on the agenda tonight that Mr. Larsen referred to. This property was originally platted as part of the Silverstone Phase Two. It was recorded in October of 2002. There was a record of survey done on this property in 2003 and moved some of those lot lines around from the original lots in Silverstone Phase Two were approximate size and the lot hasn't changed that much, but the legal description now is a portion of three different lots, There is a CZC that's been issued on this site. The applicant -- this subject application is to provide two mirror lots within the developable area here, That CZC was issued on Lot 3 of the proposed subdivision. I don't know if your eyes are very good, but I can't see which one is Lot 3 and I don't know what the CZC was, but -- the southeast corner Brad says. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page 26 of 52 Borup: Yeah. It looks like this is Lot 3. The big one, Hood: So, the Northwest are the new lots are buildable lots in this subdivision. I do not see a letter from the applicant in the file. I did read through the staff -- the conditions that staff has put on this application. I do not believe there should probably be any problems with it, but I will let them speak for themselves and stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to add anything? Larsen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Cornell Larsen, address 210 Murray in Garden City, We are in agreement with the staff report and the conditions in the staff report. So, there is not too much to talk about. The CZC was filed on this lot and I do have -- I had a stack of color renderings on my desk, but I only remembered to bring one, so I can pass that around that shows the project. The first building would be in this location here, then, there would be an attachment to it for a second phase and there would be a single story there and a single story there. This building is a two story as it's currently proposed. This is the canal setback we talked about in the previous easement. We do own to the centerline of the canal. That's pretty much all I had. I can certainly give you this if you'd like to look at it or pass it around, but on this rendering this building right there is the first building. I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have them. Borup: Questions for Mr. Larsen? Okay, I think we are -- it looks like we are feeling okay about this. Larsen: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none -- Zaremba: Mr, Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on Item 11 be closed. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES, Borup: Do you have a motion, Mr. Moe? Moe: Yes. I'll take over for you there. Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend to City Council of file number PFP 04-005, request for a preliminarylfinal plat approval for the resubdivision of Lot 10 and portions of Lots 9 and 11, Block 11, into three building lots on 3.46 acres in a CoG zone for Copperpoint Subdivision by Larsen Architects, east of South Eagle Road on the south side of East Copperpoint Drive, as presented in the staff Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 27 of 52 report dated for the hearing date of May 6th, 2004, and transmittal date of April 30th, 2004. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12. Public Hearing: MI 04-002 Request for removal from the City of Meridian's area of impact for Fred Schuerman by Fred Schuerman - west of North Cloverdale Road and north of East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Thank you. Next item is Public Hearing MI 04-002, request for removal from City of Meridian's area of impact for Fred Schuerman by Fred Schuerman. I don't know if I pronounced that right. West of Cloverdale Road and north of East Fairview Avenue. I'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is my application, so I'm somewhat familiar with it, but the applicant has submitted a request, a miscellaneous application to remove this property from the City of Meridian's area of impact and will subsequently ask to be annexed into Boise city's area of impact and, then, into the city limits. The property is located on the north side of Fairview Avenue, approximately a half mile east of Eagle Road and about the same distance west of Cloverdale Road. To the south is Terrace Lawns Memorial Gardens. To the north is a residential sub, Venture Subdivision. Both of those properties are zoned RUT. To the west of the site is also RUT zoned property and this was before this board in 2002, I believe it was -- yeah, November of 2002, the site directly to the west of this site was denied annexation by the City Council due to traffic reasons and some other concerns that neighbors in the area had with annexing the property, as well as there was some questions about serviceability with sewer, and so that kind of puts this property in a little bit of a bind. Their path to annexation has been taken away from them, basically. There are other possibilities for annexation. Terrace Lawns I do not believe that they will annex anytime soon. They will be little benefit. Same with the residential subdivision to the north. Those are approximately one-acre lots and annexation for those lots I don't see in the foreseeable future anyways. Further, some background information, The applicant owns approximately 16 acres, which is in Boise city, currently annexed into the city of Boise directly east and does have a development plan for that site, as you can see here. So, the 1,6 acres is off to the left there, kind of the L - - thank you -- portion of the site plan in front you, with the remainder portion being in Boise city. This application -- I guess Idaho Code requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission hear changes to area of impact and make recommendations to City Council, much like development applications, and that's what we are going through here. Currently, there is not a mechanism or we don't have an area of impact application, that's why you're seeing a miscellaneous application, Included in the staff report is -- I was hoping to get some discussion from the board and eventually City Council on amending our fee schedule to set up strict guidelines for area of impact, adjustments, so I don't know what thoughts the Commissioners may have on that. Just Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 28 of 52 to further that, I guess, it does take quit a bit of staff time. This staff report you see before you today did not take staff a lot of time to prepare, but this is the first step in a long process and that miscellaneous application is fairly inexpensive and will not cover the cost of staff time and going to meetings and preparing other correspondence between the county and being in those negotiation meetings that have to occur between the city of Meridian and the city of Boise and Ada County to move that line. So, we just -- again, for discussion purposes, if you wanted to put a special recommendation in or something like that with this application, that would be great. I have not heard anything back from the applicant. I got them the staff report a little late in the game, I think Monday sometime, so do not have any response, The staff report did not make a recommendation. I'm going to leave that up to this board to make a recommendation to the City Council. There aren't a lot of planning issues when someone requests an area of impact boundary adjustments. Relied on Public Works to come up with some findings or some facts, I guess, about serviceability. That's one of the main reasons that the applicant is requesting to go to the city of Boise. He has services stubbed to this property from the east and he's ready to go and would like to protect some of those existing buildings on that property. So, as far as the planning issues go, there really aren't a lot and I guess I will leave it at that and any questions you may have I will answer them. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Yes. I have one comment and, then, a question. I thoroughly agree with staff that there probably should be a fee associated with such an application and I would like to discuss it. I probably would ask that that become an Item 15 on our agenda for tonight for a thorough discussion. My own instinct would be not to apply that to this application anyhow. This applicant filed the application not having any idea that there might be such a fee, although I agree there should be. I still wouldn't apply it to this application. So, my question would be can we make that an Item .15 on our agenda and discuss it separately? Because I think we should discuss it and have a fee. Borup: I think -- well, yes, I think we can discuss something. I don't know if I personally agree with that assumption. If we already had a boundary adjustment schedule and a fee established, then, yes. In this case, they were doing an application that did not have any fees connected with it at all. Zaremba: Right. Borup: So -- and I'm assuming they didn't -- they weren't assuming there would be no fees at all, so they had to assume there would be something. If it's not -- if it's not on the schedule, then, that needs to be determined, other than it did come in as a miscellaneous, but -- Zaremba: Okay. Well, in that case it makes sense to discuss the subject now, rather than put it off. Borup: Well-- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 29 of 52 Zaremba: I, actually, had a suggestion -- Borup: And I think there maybe needs to be some other discussion. The question I would have from staff is I don't think we can establish a fee, There needs to be a recommendation from staff as far as assessment of time and what would be a fair -- Hood: Yeah, And we talked with the applicant early on in the process about that and there being some ambiguity in what the city had done in the past with these applications and the miscellaneous app. Borup: But I think there has been very few boundary adjustments. We really don't like to -- we don't like to give up any of our area of impact and in the past there has been some that I think this Commission has approved and City Council denied, so-- Hood: That's why staff was a little hesitant to give a recommendation on this application. Borup: You don't want City Council mad at you. Hood: But just as far as a fee schedule goes, it could be interpreted that this is a Comprehensive Plan amendment. In that case, that application is 12 or 15 hundred dollars, That didn't seem to be appropriate either, so something in the middle may be appropriate for that discussion, but for this applicant the miscellaneous app was consistent with the previous three, I think, is what the city has seen in the past three or four years. And so that's what the director decided would be appropriate for this application as well. But, you're right, we don't see them very often, but it would be nice to add that to the fee schedule, so there is a process that those go through and there isn't questions about how much fees are and whatever and this discussion of size, too. I mean this is a fairly small adjustment that's being requested. I don't anticipate huge requests for area of impact adjustments, but maybe, you know, that's the criteria, if you're underneath it's this much, if you're over -- although staff time would be -- Borup: That's what I was going to ask, whether it's small or large, the time with the county and stuff is going to be pretty much the same, isn't it? Hood: It would be the same. And I guess just thinking out loud, for those discussion purposes, I, myself, have not sat in on those meetings, but the director has and is well aware that it does take a lot of staff time and effort to follow this through to the end, so -- Borup: So, did staff come up with a recommendation on a fee? Hood: I don't have a dollar amount, I guess, in mind, Something, I guess, in between the 250 dollars for this application and the 1,200 dollars that a Comprehensive Plan amendment is, would probably be appropriate, something in there, but -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Craig, the suggestion I was going to make is that there be some calculation of the time involved in not only the application process, but carrying it through Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council, Boise would, then, have to deal Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page 30 of 52 with it, Ada County, then, makes the final decision, if both Meridian and Boise agree. That there be a fee calculated on that much work, with a knowledge that if it got to Meridian City Council and they denied it, there might be a refund of a portion of it. Borup: That's-- Zaremba: Because there is a different level of work if it proceeds and if it doesn't and my suggestion would be to come up with a full price and, then, establish what a refund might be if it's denied. Borup: That makes sense to me. Zaremba: Just a suggestion, Borup: I think that's a good one. Zaremba: I would collect it all up front, as opposed to saying if it goes on there is an additional charge, but I'd make it one fee and collect it all up front, but have a possibility of a refund proportionally. That being said, to discuss the merits of this issue, if we may, I agree, the initial instinct is not to give up any property. However, this is along a borderline where there is discussion and, eventually, the question is for Bruce, about whether we can service it or not by gravity sewer and other things. The applicant has stated that eventually this could be connected at a cost of about 100,000 dollars and I'm sure that's a fair assessment, but I throw into the mix in a situation like this where an applicant is trying to put together two pieces of property, the great bulk of which is already in Boise, it's kind of the reverse of what we did with Winston Moore's property on Ustick and Eagle where Boise gave up some impact area to us in order to join his property into one jurisdiction and I can't see asking Boise to give up 16 acres to us in this case, it makes more sense for us to give up the -- what was it, 1.6 acres. Anyhow, whatever it is, The small piece. My inclination, although my instinct is to be against approving any of these, that this is probably one that's valid, which brings me to my question for Bruce, does it make more sense for them to hook up to Boise? Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, the city, as you guys are well aware, have paid considerable sum of money to have a facility plan generated for the entire urban service planning boundary, The purpose of that study was to determine the serviceability of the lands. According to that facility plan, it does indicate that this parcel can be served. The sewer currently stops right about there at that little out parcel that you see. That's about where water stops now, too. We didn't make a specific recommendation because of the issues historically. Zaremba: Well, let me ask a bigger question, because at sometime -- probably a property south of this - we had some discussion about making a realignment and even along the Ridenbaugh Canal, you know, so that we didn't have ten feet on the other side of the Ridenbaugh Canal that we had to do something about. Has that sit down with the county and Boise happened? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page 31 of 52 Freckleton: There have been meetings between their city engineer and our city engineer. We have identified several parcels. This particular one wasn't one of them. With the cemetery here, we know that they more than likely will not ever need service. The county subdivision up here potentially could be serviced through the Kliner property when it develops. To get back to your original question, does it make sense, it may not make real good sense to try and keep it in the city. It's not going to be cheap to try and bring services to this parcel. From the applicant's application, they have services that are available on their east side. Readily available, I guess I'd lay the cards out like that. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: I think my question on that, Bruce, would be if, in fact, you were to service it off of the Meridian system, would there be a loop in and through this property to service other property? And from what it looks like, the answer to that is probably no? It would dead end -- it would -- to that parcel, if, in fact, you did take service to it? Freckleton: Commissioner Rohm, the service -- basically our service area stops right there. So, as far as looping goes, no, this would be basically dead end for sewer, Now, water, you know, eventually, we will probably want to bring water up -- up this road, so that it can tie in, you know, to this Kliner property someday in the future. You know, I would envision that some day this subdivision probably would be on city services. Rohm: Well, I guess my point was -- is if, in fact, the City of Meridian would ultimately have to go through the expense to sewer that, even though it wouldn't be serving it, then, I would be inclined to speak against removing it from our area of impact. But if, in fact, that's not the case, then, there would be really no compelling reason to keep it within our area of impact, from my perspective, Thank you. Borup: I think one other factor that the buildings on this side are already existing, at least what they show on the application. I believe they are all existing and I don't know if they are anticipating any new structures or not, but it's not adding anything new at this point that I can see. Okay, Would the applicant like to add anything? Schuerman: My name is Fred Schuerman. My address is 6134 Emerald in Boise. This application comes about by the unique problems that are caused by our property being bisected by the boundary for two different entities and their area of impact. Could I have the commercial -- the development plan, please? This is the boundary line now between Boise and Meridian. This building is constructed and in the city of Boise and there is sewer right there within a few feet of our property line. There is also water, both in the front and back of this building, The property to the west of us -- an application has been made to be annexed to the city of Boise and it was -- or the City of Meridian and it was denied, It may be years, I don't know, but there is no way to tell how long it would be. It just makes common sense, with utilities within a few feet, to be served that way, rather than wait for I don't know how long or if ever and I had an engineer and a utility contractor give me the estimate of 100,000 dollars -- there would have to be a boring under Fairview and it's -- I think it's just -- you know, it's just -- because we are bisected by this line and we are doing this as one project, it just makes sense that it should be under one area of impact. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page 32 of 52 Borup: I understand. Are you trying to get water over here for sprinkler systems for the building? Schuerman: One of my main concerns -- this is an historic old barn. It's presently being occupied by a produce company and I really would like to get that fire sprinklered, as I said in -- or in my application there was an historic old barn recently lost on Ustick and I would hate to have a similar fate happen to this, The rest of the buildings probably would not fire sprinkler. There is no -- this is an old house with a red tile roof, a neat old house, but -- and there are a lot of other reasons that I feel are compelling reasons, besides the utilities. It just makes it -- I mean addressing is a problem. We are 4380 East Meridian here and this is 12570 West Fairview, Boise, and if the -- life safety problems if there is some kind of an incident, it's real confusing to have two different entities there in two different areas of impact. Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? All right. Thank you. Schuerman: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman -- Borup: Oh, wait a minute. I did have a question for Mr. Schuerman. I'm sorry. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: I wrote a note here and then -- and that's the discussion of the fee. Have you talked with staff on that and -- you realize the dilemma a little bit here as far as fee schedule on this type of application? Schuerman: Early on when we made the application there was a discussion. Borup: Do you have any input on that that might help this Commission maybe -- Schuerman: Not really. Borup: So, you don't care which way it goes? Schuerman: I'm not sure what -- Borup: Staff's recommendation was -- as we mentioned, this was maybe a Comp Plan issue, kind of, which was 1,200 dollars, The miscellaneous application, usually for little minor things, which was the 250, Staff's recommendation may be somewhere in the middle there, Schuerman: That's fine with me, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page 33 of 52 Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Zaremba, you were starting to say something? Zaremba: Mr, Chairman, I was going to move that we close the Public Hearing and I will do so. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing, All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES, Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a two-part motion. The first part is that I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval -- Borup: Okay. Are we going to discuss the fee part of this application? Or I guess your motion will determine that. Zaremba: The second part of my motion was going to involve the fee, but not a dollar amount, just following up on the suggestion I made earlier that the fee be established based on carrying it through the whole process, with a possibility of a refund and let staff determine an actual dollar amount before it gets to the City Council. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Is that -- staff is having some discussion. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I don't believe that -- if you're thinking -- Borup: No, we are not talking about establishing fees on the books, I don't believe, but we are talking about attaching a fee to this project, isn't that -- wasn't that the request from staff? No? That's what it says. It says staff is requesting the city assess fees for this application, Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, my instinct would be to create a fee structure, but not apply it to this applicant. Which is sort of why I wanted to make it a separate motion. Borup: Okay, Well, the staff application -- or the staff report says this application. Rohm: I kind of like your first idea, Dave, of adding a 15th item on our agenda and we will talk about that separate and aside from this application. Especially if there is not going to be a fee structure applied to this application. I don't see why it would even be part of any motion. Borup: Yeah. So, maybe that's the first thing to establish. Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 34 of 52 Borup: Yes, Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Perhaps some input from legal counsel, but to establish a fee -- to set a fee, it's going to take a lot more discussion and it's going to have to be established by the City Council. This Commission can't establish a fee -- Borup: Well, I know we can't, but we can make a recommendation to the City Council, but you're saying they can't either? Freckleton: It's going to take public hearings to establish stab fees and -- Borup: Even a -- okay, Well, then, that really answers that. Zaremba: Okay. So, it can't be part of this application. In that case -- Freckleton: I don't believe so, Jill, do you have any input? Hollinka: I did talk about this a little bit with Bill Nichols this afternoon and he had suggested I think what had been suggested earlier on, was treat it as a Comprehensive Plan amendment, but we never really came to any kind of final decision or conclusion on whether or not that should be applicable to this particular application. But maybe go forward with trying to work through some revision to the fee schedule to add a fee for this particular instance, which would be a separate issue for this particular application. Borup: Okay. That's another -- that's a different -- Zaremba: In that case, I would like to go back to my suggestion that we have an Item 15 on our agenda tonight for further discussion. Borup: But that still doesn't address this application. Let me ask you a question. Can-- is there any provision for a reduced fee? I mean can you reduce a fee that's in the schedule? Hood: The City Council, I believe, can reduce fees, I don't know if the Planning and Zoning Commission has that -- Borup: Well, I understand that. We don't have any authority to do anything, Hood: And they waive fees for non-profits and the like. so they have the ability to do a lot of things, I don't know that it's written in the ordinance that way. Borup: My thought was, per Mr. Nichol's recommendation, is it could go through as a Comp Plan fee with a reduced -- Rohm: Mr. Chairman, no, that's not the application, though. Zaremba: This applicant already paid 250 dollars; right? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 35 of 52 Rohm: Right. That's where we got to leave it. Zaremba: For this applicant we are done. Hood: And just to set it for future applications, we will bite the bullet on this one, but let's establish something for future applications. Zaremba: That's where I would like to go with it. Borup: Okay. Let's proceed with your motion. Zaremba: Okay. Then I have a one-part motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of MI 04-002, request for removal from the City of Meridian's area of impact for Fred Schuerman by Fred Schuerman, west of North Cloverdale Road and north of East Fairview Avenue, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of May 6, 2004, received by the city clerk May 3rd, 2004, with one change. On page two I would delete the paragraph entitled Miscellaneous. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: Which refers to the fee structure. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Moe, Moe: Just a small recess. Borup: I was just going to suggest that. I told Anna yesterday that we were going to be out of here by 9:00 o'clock and I see we are not going to make that. Zaremba: Almost. Rohm: I was thinking 8:30. I don't know what's going on. Zaremba: I'm trying to stretch it to 11 :00. Borup: So, we will have a short break, We will be back by 9:00 o'clock to continue, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page 36 of 52 (Recess.) Item 13. Public Hearing: CUP 04-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 100-foot monopole communications tower in a C-G zone for T-Mobile by T-Mobile / Terry Cox - southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to continue our hearing this evening. Item No. 13, Public Hearing CUP 04-010, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 100 foot mono pole communication tower in a CoG zone for T-Mobile by T-Mobile, Terry Cox. We'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the third application in this general location tonight. We are moving just a little bit further north, It is a request for a 100 foot tall mono pole with supporting equipment in the C-G zone in Silverstone. It is approximately 1,200 feet east of Eagle Road and 1,600 feet south of Overland, The lease area the T-Mobile has acquired is within Lot 6, Block 2, of Silverstone Subdivision. The site -- that Lot 6, Block 2, does have an existing building on it today and this would be going -- the cell tower will be going in this approximate location back in here, This is Copperpoint Drive here. And the previous applications were in this general location. So, the cell tower is there, It is a 24-by-16 foot area they are leasing out. They are going to be using the existing driveways for when they need to do any type of servicing of the facilities. Just a couple of items, it doesn't look like -- sometimes you get a lot of public coming out to cell towers. There aren't a lot of public members here tonight, so I'm just going to breeze through this real quick. But just a couple of items in the staff report. In the application they show a six-foot tall chain link fence around the compound. Code does -- wants to see a sight-obscuring fence. The application has responded to this request and has agreed to construct -- originally a wooden fence. We are all right with wooden or vinyl as what they are now proposing. Either one would be fine. Landscaping, city code also requires a five-foot landscape buffer around the development. There is some existing landscaping. I do have pictures that I'm going to show here in a little bit the applicant has provided on the site, but there is some existing landscaping near this area. It is fairly well hidden. Additional landscaping staff does not believe will serve a great purpose, so, it is recommending that waiver as requested by the applicant. Also in the applicant's submittal letter they have agreed to allow two additional wireless carrier antennas to co-locate on this in the future, And just in conclusion, they have submitted most of the documentation required by Meridian City Code and all of the requirements for -- regarding the radio frequencies required by the FCC and Federal Aviation Administration standards for construction. The last one that I just wanted to talk about real quick was site specific number six and in the applicant's letter, dated May 4th, they have asked at this hearing that a specific color be identified for the mono pole. That was also in the staff report, that an earthen color be painted, so it's not reflective and kind of blends in more with the general surroundings, Staff does not have a preference on color, Understand that the applicant would like some direction on that, just in case in the future staff says, no, we don't really like that shade, but even if you wanted to specify that, you know, whatever color the applicant prefers that isn't steel in color, that would be fine. So, I will leave that up to the Commission to make that recommendation. With that I will stand for any questions. Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 37 of 52 Borup: Questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to -- Zaremba: I do have a couple questions, I'm sorry. Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Before we go. One comment. If you look on page five, this was just a typo. Paragraph D, tower design, the second paragraph esthetics. About the third line down it says where the color is dictated by federal -- I believe that word should be or -- state authorities. Then, on the subject where you were, page six, item six, on the subject of color, the most recent pole that was put up is just off of Ten Mile in the storage area there and we had this same discussion with them. What color did that end up being; do we know? I can see it from my house and it's not at all obtrusive, it's a mat something. But it appears to me to be more in the gray zones -- Borup: That's what I was thinking, too. Zaremba: -- than an earth color. And it's a very acceptable color to me. Hood: I do not recall the color that they did with that CZC. I did look at that staff report, but I didn't follow it through to the CZC to see what actually they submitted for it, so I apologize for that. I do not know, Zaremba: And part of the reason that they wanted to establish the color before it went through the approval process is that they could order it from the factory with the color baked on it or whatever they had to do and, you know, not have it up in the air. So, I'm sure that would apply to this application as well. Hood: We have that information. If you'd like to condition six to be of similar color to the one at Ten Mile -- Zaremba: That works for me. I don't think it's an earth tone, but that certainly would work for me. Rohm: Well, I'd like to hear the applicant's response to that. Borup: Yeah. Let's get some input from -- Zaremba: Then, let me ask another question first. Newton-Huckabay: He wants to know what color to paint it. Zaremba: Yeah. That was his question. Go back to the aerial view if you would, of the area. Can you identify for me where the other call center is going to go? And my thought is how close are they going to be maybe to be able to share this tower. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 38 of 52 Hood: This is for that call center. This is -- T-Mobile is going in right here. It is an off- site cell tower for them back in this location. Zaremba: Oh. Okay, Hood: So their facility is in this location. Borup: I got it. Hood: But their tower is a little bit -- Zaremba: So, the likelihood that the other -- I forget the name of it. The other call center, they could share this tower? Hood: Yeah, They will -- they are building this, so they could co-locate with two other wireless carriers in the future. Zaremba: Great. Then I had one other and it's kind of a question, On page seven, the Meridian Fire Department comments number two posts the building address with six inch numbers. I would assume there may be an address for this, but those numbers -- I would specify that they should be on the outside of the sight obscuring fence, not on any building that's inside the fence, Does that make sense if we add that? Hood: That makes sense to me. Zaremba: To the Fire Department's comments, Those were all of my questions. Borup: Anyone else? Moe: Just one question in regards to the fence. They were proposing chain link with barbed wire and now we are just -- we are requiring just solid fencing, wood or vinyl, and no barbed wire, no nothing -- Hood: Let me see what the site specific - sight-obscuring fence at least six feet, no taller than eight. So, they could do six-foot tall wooden fence or a vinyl fence and put the barbed wire on top. That is allowed in the CoG zone and for security purposes is pretty standard, so -- you don't see a lot of them with fences with barbed wire, but-- Zaremba: You're on page six, item two? Hood: Page six, number two, Yes, Excuse me. Zaremba: It just doesn't specify the material of the fence and we are happy with that, right? Hood: Yeah. Unless you want to specify it has to be wood or it has to be vinyl. Site obscuring is how it's worded. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissicn May 6, 2004 Page 39 of 52 Moe: I'll wait for the applicant. I'm just kind of curious in regards to the barbed wire and security as who's going up the pole. Borup: Okay, Would the applicant like to come forward? Harris: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, My name is Clark Harris, I live at 1571 East Harvard, Salt Lake City. As you know, I'm here on behalf of T-Mobile. To address your direct questions, I think the first one we can start with is the pole color. Yes, we do order it from the manufacturer it comes baked on, that way it's there for the life of the pole. We don't have to go up and paint and it looks a lot better. I was just looking for direction of color, baize, green, gray, something that would kind of give me in a -- pointed in the right direction of how we wanted to go with this. Personal experience, a little bit darker gray, flat gray, seems to be a good generic color for most daylights -- you know, crystal clear, blue, sunny days it's a little more visible, but if there is any kind of haze in the sky at all, it blends in really well, I don't recommend light blues or anything like that, because that usually sticks out more often than not. In this particular case I don't recommend a dark green, because it would stick out, because there is no foliage or anything around it. Baize, again, mayor may not work. It's just kind of a personal preference. But that's where we are coming from. I would recommend a kind of medium to darker gray, again, flat, so it's non-reflective. Rohm: Maybe that's where we should leave it is just a non-reflective flat -- Zaremba: Light color. Borup: Yeah. Medium to dark gray sounds -- I think you can tell, the city doesn't have a specific color scheme, they just don't want a shiny metal that's going to maybe reflect and -- Zaremba: Purple with orange polka dots. Harris: Yeah. And we are also open to placing the condition that we mirror the color of the existing pole as close as possible, I'm perfectly acceptable to that. That's easy to do as well. Borup: I think that -- maybe I would be more comfortable with their past experience, if you're saying medium to dark gray. Harris: Yeah. And I'm not talking about a deeper dark gray, it's a -- Rohm: Well, it's to your advantage to be -- Borup: Inconspicuous. Harris: So, that answers your question there. And the fencing I spoke with Sundance Company today, this afternoon, and their architecture, in order to blend with the whole park design, business park design, they requested that the fence be vinyl. We are totally fine with that. They recommend a baize color, versus a white color, kind of Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page 40 of 52 offsets, blends again, better with the landscaping that's there, Six to eight feet high, as staff recommended, is perfectly acceptable, and no barbed wire. The reason the drawing showed chain link with three strands of barbed wire, that's the cut and paste standard, off-the-shelf cell site design and, again, it's not applicable for everything. In this particular case it's not. And we are perfectly amenable to a six-foot high vinyl baize colored fence. Borup: So, you're not -- you don't have any security concerns on this site? Harris: Not in this particular case. We do have sites that are in public parks without any fencing at all. The equipment is designed to be weather and, you know, vandal proof. The fencing more of a hazard. This particular jurisdiction we need to remove the bottom 20 feet of pegs -- 20 feet, so that that inhibits people to climb the pole. Normally, we do it, because we are concerned with the liabilities. We have all been teenagers and we have all been curious and always wanted to climb something, so you get someone that jumps the fence and wants to climb a pole. In this particular case it shouldn't be an issue, unless they are really good climbers. And the last item I wanted to kind of help clarify for you folks a little bit is who is this for. And, yes, T-Mobile is building a call center that will house up to 700 employees. That is a top concern, but the other side is in this whole business park, again, just being out there today, this is a vacant building waiting for someone. You have the tenant here that was here earlier tonight looking to put three new buildings with tenants, There is a three story large development, tilt up construction, and it's almost put up as far as the walls today. The growth is there. Whether it will be for T-Mobile or for others, there is going to be additional growth not only for us, but for other carriers and by us putting the first installation in, it allows for other carriers to come and provide the need that's going to be there for whomever. Maybe AT&T or others that may come along? So, yes, we have a call center desire, but it's also for the whole business park and that whole area that has been growing. And with the residential units that were also here earlier that was down even to the south, we will cover that as well. Borup: Okay, Any further questions? Harris: Thank you. Zaremba: I just have a comment. Since the building and all is likely to go through the process without hearing before this Commission, this is probably our only opportunity to say how much we appreciate T-Mobile choosing Meridian as a place to locate. They could locate probably any place in the world, has decided to spend their money and I hope you will pass onto the T-Mobile people how much we appreciate their trust in our plan for the future of Meridian. Harris: Thank you very much. I will definitely pass that along. Borup: Well said. All right. And I don't know if it makes any difference to ask this, but is there any other public testimony on this application? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on Item 13 be closed. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 41 of 52 Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES, Zaremba: Okay. Items we have discussed are the fencing and I think item two leaves it -- at least the material and the color unstated, I'm comfortable with the applicant working with the developer in coming up with a satisfactory solution, as long as it's at least six feet and no taller than eight feet, which is the way it's stated. On page six, item six, shall we say a mat gray, medium to dark? Borup: Per applicant's choice, Zaremba: Well, I will take out the words: Or otherwise. So, what I'm suggesting is paint the mono--pole structure and antenna array a mat gray color, medium to dark, to camouflage the structure and antenna to reduce glare and visual intrusiveness. Do we want a final approval by staff or can we leave it at that? Hood: Medium to dark I think we can figure that out. Zaremba: That's comfortable. Okay. That way the applicant knows what to order. I did have one question. It is, actually, in the ordinance that no signs or banners or anything can go on a tower; is that correct? I remember we discussed it when the ordinance was going through, but -- Hood: Any signage would require a separate signage permit. I don't know that signs are specifically prohibited from being constructed on cell towers, but there aren't any allowed. Zaremba: Okay. That's what I thought. I was worried about somebody putting a big advertising banner 85 feet up the tower. I don't think that's allowed, so we don't need to mention that. In that case -- and, then, the only change I would make is the minor one to the Fire Department statement to add that the six inch numbers of it be on the outside of the fence, not on the building, If we have no other discussion, I'm ready to make a motion. Borup: Please do. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of Item 13 on our agenda, CUP 04-010, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 100 foot mono pole communications tower in a CoG zone for T -Mobile by T-Mobile, Terry Cox, southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road, to include all comments of the staff memo for the hearing date of May 6, 2004, received by the city clerk May 3, 2004, with the following changes: On page five, paragraph D, tower design, the paragraph that says esthetics, the third line down, where the color is dictated by federal, I would change the word of to or, so it reads federal or state Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 42 of 52 authorities. On page six, paragraph six, change that paragraph to read: Paint the mono pole structure and antenna array a mat gray color, medium to dark, to camouflage the structure and antenna to reduce glare and visual intrusiveness. And on page seven, under Meridian Fire Department comments, their paragraph two I'm adding to it, so that it reads: Post the building address with six inch numbers on the outside of the site- obscuring fence. End of motion, Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14. Public Hearing: PP 04-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 6 commercial building lots on 5.23 acres in a L-O zone for Valencia Plaza Subdivision by Aspen Grove Development, LLC - east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Overland Road: Borup: Thank you. Next item is Public Hearing PP 04-010, request for preliminary plat approval for six commercial building lots on 5.23 acres in an L-O zone for Valencia Plaza Subdivision by Aspen Grove Development, LLC. We'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report, Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Before you I have another resubdivision development application in Resolution Subdivision. This site is generally south of Overland Road and east of Millennium Way on the south side of Gala Street. It is 5.23 acres. Currently vacant. The applicant is proposing a six-lot subdivision, This was Lot 1, Block 1, in Resolution Subdivision No.1. As part of that original CUP for Resolution, as you may recall, all uses require a separate CUP and approval prior to construction. I'll let the applicant touch on that a little bit more in their presentation. We are currently working with the applicant on either amending the development agreement for Resolution -- this kind of goes back to some of the discussion that was had earlier today, It takes a lot of the applicant's time, as well as staff time, to process CUP's in L-O zones for professional offices. It was envisioned at the time that Resolution was approved they had just a general concept, a mix of uses, and so when each phase came in, detailed approval would have to be submitted. I don't believe this particular site was anticipated to be an ice skating rink. It is zoned L- O. The applicant does not want to have the burden to come back with each of these professional offices and obtain CUP approval, so we are currently working with them on a way to get that question before this board, possibly, or maybe just City Council, to see if modifying the development agreement or maybe one CUP for the whole site. But, anyways, I'll let the applicant touch on that some more. A couple of changes to the submitted preliminary plat as outlined in the staff report, The main entrance off of Gala Street -- I call it the main entrance -- does align with the other access across Gala. There is a center island, a median that they are proposing. The Fire Department does have concerns. There is only, I believe, about 14 or 15 feet from the curb faces. They need a minimum of 20 feet for the fire trucks. So, the applicant, I believe, is going to be able to widen one or the other of those to provide a fire lane into this site, but that was Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 43 of 52 one of the comments, Moving over to the stubbed drive aisle to the west. Staff had made a recommendation that this drive aisle stub slash easement be moved to the south five feet. They are showing it -- you can kind of see here, This is an existing property line separating Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision and Lot 3, Block 1, of Resolution Subdivision. The stub -- the drive aisle was constructed, the pavement would be right on that property line, and so the extension of that drive aisle would not allow for the five foot landscape buffer along that property line. So, that's the nature of the staff's request. So, when it's extended you get some landscaping in and you're not building that drive aisle right up to the northern property's property line. The other comment has to do with this drive aisle. It is longer than 150 feet. Therefore, the Fire Department wants to see a -- either a turn around here or shorten this up to 150 feet. I believe they will lose about four stalls if they shorten it up to 150 feet. I'll let the applicant state that. Or how they propose to meet the Fire Department's requirements there, The last comment I believe that's pertinent that the Fire Department has, except for their standard comments -- this is, again, outside of their current five-minute response goal area. Just like to point out that, these are coming on a pretty regular basis. I know it's just going on the record that this is currently outside of that five minute goal for the Fire Department. And, then, also on the record staff did receive a letter from David Wishney, who is representing Gaudry Seegmiller and they are supportive of a cross-access to Lot 3, Block 1, to the south of their property. With that, I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from Commission? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Craig, on the subject of the Fire Department and this lower right area in there, would the Fire Department be satisfied if instead of ending -- I realize there is no development proposal for the property to the east, but if that were made a cross-access driveway as well, instead of being a dead. end parking lot, would that satisfy the Fire Department eventually? Hood: They would still need a temporary turn around until such time as that was extended. So, some type of a turn around would have to be provided there, even if it were stubbed. Zaremba: Okay, Hood: But it could be temporary in nature. And we did analyze this for cross-access, the reason just to kind of -- why that is a recommendation, Gala Street is fairly close and so that interconnectivity is there, we believe, and that stub -- I don't remember the exact dimension, but it's only a couple hundred feet, anyway, between the public street and that drive aisle you see there to the south, so -- Borup: I have got an additional question on that, too. The concern on the 150 feet is what? Hood: They get a fire truck back in there and, then, they have to back up that whole length, so -- Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page 44 of 52 Borup: So, if the -- so it would be shorting the road about 20 feet or so? Hood: Approximately 20 feet, yes. Borup: Is that going to make the building any smaller? Hood: It shouldn't have any effect on the building, Borup: So, can't the fire truck just quit backing up that last 20 feet, instead of -- Hood: You would think that they could see that the road ends there, but I -- it's a standard requirement. It's the Fire Department's requirement. Borup: And I understand that. In most instances it makes sense. I mean they have got a distance -- how about striping the road, say fire trucks do not pass this line or something. Hood: That may be an option and, basically, they just need to please the fire marshal in that respect. I think they could use the other northern part of the drive aisle to service this backside of the building anyway. It would just be if they had a service call on the southern part of this development would they even have to get down here. I would imagine that the truck would stop probably in this area and they can pull their hose to 150 feet of that building anyway, so -- Borup: And if their options were to, you know, shorten the street or the turnaround, I -- I mean I could maybe see the point of a turnaround, but I don't see what shortening the street really accomplishes. Okay. Maybe we can have some input from the applicant. Newton-Huckabay: Well, if I'm in the south side of the building and I'm having a heart attack and the Fire Department is the first one there, I don't want them to have to worry about whether or not they could turn down there. Borup: Well, they already can turn down, they just can't drive on the last 20 feet. Newton-Huckabay: something -- But if they have a sign painted fire trucks do not enter or Borup: Well, no, I meant have the striping right here in their no man's land. Rohm: Well, an alternate to that would be just to not put those spaces and when adjacent property develops, then, you will put the cross-access in and at that time you would put the spaces in and carry it on out. That seems like that would -- Borup: Well, they are saying this Gala goes to that same property, so that it -- Rohm: Well, all I'm saying is when they put this cross-access in -- Borup: Well, staff isn't recommending that at this point. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 45 of 52 Rohm: No, but -- Borup: If they did you're saying? Rohm: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Okay. Would the applicant like to add anything to this conversation? Guho: Good evening. My name is Mark Guho and I reside at 362 Rooster Drive in Eagle, Idaho, I don't think we object to the -- any of the concerns of staff whatsoever. And as far as the -- that rear -- it would be the southeast corner of the parcel there, yes, we would probably go with your idea, Commissioner, and bring back those four stalls, omitting those and if they need the cross-access, we can provide that. And when that cross-access comes into happen, then, we could gain back those stalls, but right now our parking ratio, I believe, is somewhere in the neighborhood of about one to two hundred square feet, so we have a pretty good parking ratio on the project. Borup: So that's not a concern for you, the parking? It sounds like that's not a concern. Guho: Well, it's nice to have the parking, because that equates to four spaces, which is enough for a thousand square feet, so -- I mean it would be great to have it, but I mean if it's a stumbling block, we are -- I think we are okay on -- Borup: It sounds like it's mainly with the Fire Department. Or could that parking be redesigned with straight in parking in that location? You'd get back two of your spaces. Is it possible with that type of design? I mean it's not going to be. blocking anybody else backing out or anything. Guho: Yeah. That's -- in fact, that's probably a great idea. Zaremba: I missed that. Say it again. Borup: Well, I'm not trying to design their project, I'm just saying that these last two spaces, that parking could be here, straight in here, because now it would come clear out that space and they are going to have 20 some feet. Guho: So, the spaces that are going this way would -- we would lose those, but gain some this way. So, the net effect we would probably lose maybe two spaces, in lieu of four. Rohm: I think the point is just to adhere to the fire marshal's -- Guho: Sure. Right. I will agree to that. Rohm: And whether you eliminate four and bring them back at such time that you have a cross-access or otherwise, as long as you address the fire marshal's concerns, then, we are covered. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 46 of 52 Moe: Which means, then, you do agree to item number four in the conditions? Borup: On the entrance? Is that -- Rohm: There we go. Borup: So, that's -- you plan on redesigning that entrance to get it wider? Guho: Correct. Yes. Borup: On probably the entrance? Guho: We will provide that additional width. Borup: Okay. And I don't think -- and you said everything else you had no concerns with on staff comments? Guho: No problems, Borup: Okay, Guho: I would like to maybe comment a little bit on what Craig had stated. And this is sort of a -- somewhat of a unique problem that we have and when we started the project out, we submitted just for the subdivision process and upon -- here about a week ago Craig -- Craig brought it to our attention that we were in the need to file a Conditional Use Permit on the project, which involves a considerable delay of maybe an additional three months and we would like to see if the Commission, possibly, has any ideas or maybe some insight on filing for amendment to omit that process. We are not necessarily trying to get around anything, we are just trying to gain three to four months of time. Borup: Is this still the site plan you would be using? This would be the building footprints and everything or would that change? Guho: No. No. That's -- we are going for that. The building exact footprint -- Borup: Well, how about the parking? Guho: Yeah. We are -- our intentions are to go ahead and build the complex like it is right there and develop -- Borup: The building may change a little bit within those -- Guho: Yeah. Continue it. Borup: That makes sense. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 47 of 52 Guho: We have -- currently we have in the upper -- it would be the northwest corner, we have lot number one and Idaho Gastroenterologists is going to be building a surgery center there and so we are in the process of right now to submit plans to the city for that project and, yet, we just found out here last week that we have this Conditional Use Permit, which could take us another three to four months in time. Borup: Mr. Hood, has staff contemplated a solution for this? I mean in -- I'm trying to remember why a conditional use got put on everything in there. I think it was from some concerns on some of the stuff to the west, but -- Hood: Well, it's mainly because the applicant at that time submitted a conceptual plan for this. Like the other application you had tonight, if they would have just asked for annexation and zoning of the property, there wouldn't be that second step in the CUP process. They got conceptual approval, therefore, you need detailed on the next one. Borup: But where this is -- I mean it's an all L-G zone, they are keeping the same parking configuration and -- Hood: They are subject to that development agreement and that approved conceptual CUP. So, that's what we are playing with. We are trying to see if we can't amend the development agreement to either exempt this lot from having to go through the CUP process or possibly -- and it doesn't -- with that initial building it won't save the applicant that three or four months time, but with that first one, go through a CUP for the whole site, so not every single building has to come in, but you submit that first one for the gastroenterologist surgery center and show the other buildings and all those other buildings will, then, have just CZCs, rather than CUPs, Borup: So, is there any recommendation that this Commission can do to help? It doesn't sound like it at this point. Hood: I think he was just wanting to brainstorm. Those are the two that staff's come up with. I'm waiting to here back from legal, because that development agreement now has other parties that -- at that time it was the G.L. Voigt Company that entered into that agreement with the city, now there is several property owners that are subject to that development agreement, so do they all have to be a party to amending the DA or do they all have to consent -- so I'm just waiting to see if that's the correct hoop to jump through to get the applicant at least before the City Council to say this is what we want to do, so -- Borup: It seems like a logical change in this situation. Zaremba: Yeah. I can see why the decision was made several years ago to go the direction they did. I mean the high school wasn't there, none of this was anything but open property, and the Commission and Council at the time wasn't probably willing to just leave it so open, but I think there has been enough development around it that it certainly is reasonable at this point to say, okay, now we can understand how this is going and if it's going to be an L-O and fit in, I would be comfortable working out some Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 48 of 52 arrangement not to have a CUP on every one of these buildings. That's a reasonable request at this point. Hood: And staff is supportive of that, too. Like I stated earlier, it saves us a ton of time and the applicant time and money as well. So, we would be supportive. And just to follow up on that, I can also see why that development agreement and requirement for the CUP was put in place. There is a lot of visible frontage on Overland Road. This property is back in and you will have buildings and similar to Magic View, it's kind of hidden back and most of the buildings -- you're not going to get a lot of traffic by these buildings. Not that we don't want to see a nice development, but a Public Hearing just doesn't seem to be the right process, so -- Zaremba: Well, then, who would come? The school is probably the only thing within 300 feet, right, that would get notified. Rohm: All those students. I think, though, to address the applicant's concern about the three month delay, I don't -- it doesn't sound like there is any way to get around at least one Conditional Use Permit application being generated, which would address the first building and any additional buildings that would be part of this development. That seems like that's the only option that's available. Zaremba: Would a CUP as a planned development just covering the whole piece of property -- I mean it's going through the plat process now -- Hood: Yeah. That's what we were -- Zaremba: -- so each property is separately identified and if he -- instead of calling it the first building, just call it a planned development. Hood: And that's what we are trying to do. I think what Mr. Guho's problem is is that this first building is the most important one and the rest after that one. So, it's that three or four month time frame for that initial CUP approval. To answer Commissioner Rohm's question, the development agreement modification is the other way to go and even that process is a six to seven, eight-week process. So, they are picking up a few weeks by modifying the DA, but there is no guarantee with that. Rohm: Well, I think you will ultimately have to work that back through legal counsel to see if you would have to get buy-in from the other property owners that have now purchased that are part to that original agreement. Hood: The e-mail has already been sent out. I'm waiting for a response. Rohm: Okay. Cool. Guho: He's all over it. Rohm: It sounds like staff's addressing your issue as we go, Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission May 6,2004 Page 49 of 52 Guho: We just wanted to see if anybody else had any creative ways to solve the dilemma, so -- Rohm: It sounds like we are working the process. Guho: Well, thank you very much and I appreciate everybody's cooperation. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed, Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Let's see. I don't think there is much, really, to discuss. Pretty much everything was agreed to. Moe: Yeah. Borup: I did maybe want to -- Zaremba: Did we want to make clarifying comments about the southeast comer or just leave it 150 feet and let the applicant work out how they are going solve that? Rohm: I agree. Borup: Yeah, Zaremba: I would like to encourage the eventual resolution to be cross-access into the east property, but I think we have heard from them that they are not planning to develop for a long time. We will just leave it the way it is. Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 14 on our agenda, PP 04-010, request for preliminary plat approval for six commercial building lots on 5.23 acres in an L-O zone for Valencia Plaza Subdivision by Aspen Grove Development, LLC, east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Overland Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of May 6, 2004, received by the city clerk May 3, 2004, with no changes. Rohm: Second, Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES, Rohm: Thank you for sitting through this. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 50 of 52 Zaremba: At least it's not 1 :00 o'clock in the morning, Often the last item is hanging on at 1 :00 o'clock in the morning, Item 15, Fee discussion: Borup: Okay. We are going to look at Item 15. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest any resulting thing is going -- anything that involves a fee change, as was pointed out, I believe by Mr. Freckleton, is going to eventually have a public hearing, so I think our -- our move at the moment would be to enable staff to use their time working on this and I would phrase it in such a way that we direct staff, so that it's clear that we want them to spend staff time on it -- we direct staff to prepare a proposal that would establish a fee for area of impact adjustments somewhere along the lines of the Comprehensive Plan fee, with the knowledge that if the area of impact was denied, there could be a partial refund, and staff put together a proposal that would come through the Commission and eventually the City Council for a fee structure. Rohm: Or at least explore that possibility of a refund, if, in fact, they didn't move all the way through the process. Zaremba: Yes. That would be one of the Items in discussing -- I'm not saying it has to include that, I'm saying that should be a -- something that would be considered in the discussion of putting the proposal together. And I don't know if that needs to be in a motion or just a consensus of-- Rohm: Yeah, I -- Zaremba: I'm in favor of what I said. Borup: Yeah. Is anybody opposed to that? Rohm: Yeah. I don't think it really even should be a motion. I think it's just direction from the Commission to staff to explore that, just because I'm a little uncomfortable putting something in the form of a motion that wasn't on t~e agenda in the first place. So, with that being said, I'd just leave it at that. Borup: Okay. Moe: I would agree with you as well, Borup: All right. Any other items for tonight? Rohm: I move we adjourn. Borup: Well, maybe one thing just quickly before we do, our next meeting, May 20th, we have -- actually, there is only -- there is five public hearings, but three of them are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 51 of 52 one project, so we have three different projects we will be addressing that night. A small residential and an couple of commercial. The reason I bring this up, we have talked about adding some other things -- I mean we have talked coming early to address some of the things we want to discuss. Would we want to maybe look at adding that to this -- this meeting, rather than coming early sometime? Is there any desire for any of that? Zaremba: I would support that. Borup: We may not have an opportunity like this again for a long time. I don't know. But I can't remember what we were discussing that we wanted to -- Zaremba: In-house discussion items or-- Borup: Well, we still have -- Newton-Huckabay: Because I told her what shirt I wanted today. Zaremba: Well, if we put it on as an agenda item and we discover we don't have anything to talk about - Borup: Well, we have still got our list from discussion of the laundry list and probably Dave and I are the only ones here that was even -- when that started, weren't we? Anything else that staff would see beneficial? A lot of that was undecided. I know I think the director would like to do all those changes at one time and I would be more in favor of maybe hitting small groups and make some progress, rather than waiting for two years and doing them all at once, Zaremba: Well, I certainly would think that one of the items that could be discussed would be a report from the director on the progress being made by the group that is currently reviewing the ordinance to change it, maybe an update on that and what direction it's going. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Because there is a group that's meeting once a week trying to write a whole new ordinance. Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I don't get to speak for Anna very often, so I'll take this opportunity. I'm sure if you put something on an agenda she would come up with things to discuss with you, Any opportunity to speak before you, I'm sure, would be appreciated, So, specifically, I don't know of anything. Borup: Well, yeah, and she had mentioned -- well, I think that would be one of the things, the updating. And, then, she had said last time that she'd like to spend some time going over some general things at the meeting and -- I remember her saying that, but I don't remember what it was. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6. 2004 Page 52 of 52 Newton-Huckabay: Are we talking about lunch meetings or where are you going? Borup: No. She was talking about, I thought, some extra time at these meetings, like -- Zaremba: Well -- and one of the other things -- and she may want to suggest. We depend very heavily on our professional staff. We are all private citizens intentionally selected because we have different fields of interest, most of which are not the professional planning business. She has made the suggestion that we discuss some ongoing training, I mean so that we -- not that we are ever going to become professionals, but that we know more about this business than just a general citizenry would indicate, And I'm in favor of learning anything we can learn that makes us -- Borup: I think we all should have gone to that planning convention in Washington DC. Zaremba: Yeah, We should all go. Rohm: Or maybe one in Florida in January. Zaremba: Isn't there one in Hawaii? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Meeting adjourned at 9:50. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:50 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ;¡f/1Afi!b ~Iìl~ DATE APPROVED A