Loading...
2004 05-20 CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, May 20, 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 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A, Approve minutes of April 15, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Approve B. Approve minutes of April 29, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: Approve 4. Public Hearing: PP 04-012 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval for six commercial building lots and one common lot on 2.82 acres in a C-G zone for Initial Point Subdivision by Robnett Construction - Yo mile east of North Meridian Road and south of East Fairview Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council 5. Public Hearing: AZ 04-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 36.93 acres from RUT to CoG zone for Market Square by Smith Brighton - northeast comer of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 6. Public Hearing: RZ 04-005 Request for Rezone of 9.47 acres from R-4 to R-8 zone for proposed Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur LLC/Ron Sargent - 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council Public Hearing: PP 04-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 42 single- family residential building lots and four common lots on 9.47 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur LLC/Ron Sargent - 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 7. 8. Public Hearing: CUP 04-011 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for proposed Larkspur Subdivision with request for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and front and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda - May 20,2004 Page1of2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabiliiles 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. street side yard setbacks by Larkspur LLC/Ron Sargent - 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda - May 20,2004 Page20f2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of theCny of Meridian, Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's ornce aI888-4433 at least 48 hours. prior to the public meeting. Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina Mav 20, 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, Jessica Johnson, Bruce Freckleton, Wendy Kirkpatrick, Brad Hawkins-Clark, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X David Zaremba X X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X X Chairman Keith Borup David Moe Michael Rohm Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. Start with roll call attendance. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Borup: We will begin with the adoption of the agenda. Motion to adopt the agenda as printed, Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of April 15, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: B. Approve minutes of April 29, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: Borup: Next item is Consent Agenda comprised of meetings from April 15th and 29th. Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 2 of 70 Zaremba: Mr. Chair, I move we adopt the Consent Agenda with no amendments. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Public Hearing: PP 04-012 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval for six commercial building lots and one common lot on 2.82 acres in a CoG zone for Initial Point Subdivision by Robnett Construction - Y> mile east of North Meridian Road and south of East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Okay. First hearing is PP 04-012, request for preliminary plat approval for six commercial building lots and one common lot on 2.82 acres in a CoG zone for Initial Point Subdivision by Robnett Construction. Like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. This item is on a piece of property that is already annexed into the city limits and has a C-Gzoning on it. It's located on the south side of East Fairview Avenue. It is approximately 2.8 acres, Ultra Touch Car Wash is -- there are two a little over an acre parcels that are on the north side of this subject land. The one on the east is Ultra Touch Car Wash, the other one is JJ Auto. There is another auto facility to the east. There are two residential subdivisions to the south. One of those is Sterling Creek Subdivision, which has, I believe, three homes and, then, there is one home that's within Danbury Fair Subdivision, Creekside Arbor Apartments are located on this larger yellow parcel here on the southwest corner and, then, this commercially zoned parcel here on the northwest corner is a vacant -- about a three acre vacant piece of land. So, that's the area that we are talking about. There is just one application with this tonight, they are proposing to subdivide that into seven lots or six building lots, one common lot. Here is an aerial photo that gives you some sense of the area, You can see the two vacant pieces here. This does still -- well, it almost qualifies as an in-fill. In-fill for Meridian is that 80 percent of the land within 300 feet is developed. So, if you actually take that 300-foot radius, kind of depending on where you take it, but it,essentially, is an in-fill piece of property. It doesn't meet our strict definition, but that's kind of what it is, The plat that they submitted is shown here and, as you can see, the property boundaries actually don't have any frontage on East Fairview. The access for this is taken off of a 40-foot wide easement that runs from Fairview and, as most of the Commission probably knows by now, there is a new signal there at that intersection. It was installed just a couple months ago. Directly north of that signal is the Fairview Lakes multi mixed-use project. So, that 40 foot wide easement, then, is the ingress-egress for this property. It is granted to the auto sales lot to the east and to Ultra Touch and to this 2.8 acre piece. So, what they have proposed is, essentially, a common drive that comes off the end of that -- that easement, actually, goes here clear to the end of the property where the residential subdivisions are and, then, comes across and there is sewer and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 3 of 70 water within that. Five Mile Creek is also a part of the parcel and that's located here in the very southwest corner that cuts across it and, then, heads up to the west. So, they, actually, have shown the building footprints on their plat. As my staff report indicated, the first building that they are intending to construct is this one here in the northeast corner. They do have an application into the city right now and there is a development agreement that's pending that needs to be cleaned up on this property and that's outlined in the report. It really doesn't have much bearing on the plat itself, it's related to development in terms of the use of the property more than anything, It was tied to the annexation. So, I wasn't necessarily planning to give verbal testimony much about the development agreement, since it's kind of a separate track that's going on, but I did want you to know about that. Essentially, what they are just trying to do here is get the property split into these pieces of -- these six buildable lots. So, I think the only two issues from the staff report that I wanted to point out are the three or four special considerations that start on page four, The first one I just mentioned, that was the development agreement, and, then, number two special consideration is the cross- access to the west and the police and fire reviewed the plat and they do have concerns, especially at build out, about getting a secondary access into this piece and we have recommended that it happen here at this commercial drive, would come across and it stubs -- I'll go back here to the -- this vacant parcel here. It would stub in about this location. So, we are recommending that that be a cross-access easement that is provided by this party, obviously, until the other piece develops there won't be a constructed secondary access here, but the easement would insure that we could get that in the future. And, then, item number three under special considerations on page four is the landscape planned land use buffer and I'd just basically ask the applicant to address the timing and the phasing with the Commission tonight. Our initial understanding was that they wanted to have -- to just phase the improvements and get the improvements in here to get the second -- or get this first building done. There really is -- it's unlike a lot of other plats, since there is no public streets and there is no street buffer to put in, there is very little in terms of sewer water, since they are adjacent to the property, But the subdivision improvements would involve, essentially, some landscaping and streetlights and a few things like that. And, then, the fifth -- item number five on page five is the common area maintenance and their application did state that there were no CC&Rs, but the note five says there are, so we just wanted that to be clarified and, essentially, how they are going to maintain that common drive area, which all of the parking and the drive area that you see through here are proposed to be on one common lot. So, I think with that, if there are any questions from the Commission, I think those are the highlights. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Brad. The only question I have would be on parking count. Subtracting the eleven parking spaces that have to be dedicated to the car wash, they still have adequate parking not counting those? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, the application didn't actually include the -- you know, all of the exact uses that they would have and, of course, the parking ratios depend on if it's retail it's more than if it's office. It did appear from an office standpoint, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20,2004 Page 4 of 70 if you just take an office use, one parking space per 400 square feet, it does appear that they meet -- even if you take out that 11, that they are reserving for Ultra Touch. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman. Brad, I'm curious why there was not a dedicated roadway headed south off of Fairview. Can you give me a little history on that? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Rohm, Bruce Freckleton and I are kind of shaking our heads. I think that easement's been there a long time. I think it was probably done -- Well, actually, no, we do know. It was submitted with the application in 1997, but that was, essentially, to accommodate the sewer and water, which maybe Bruce can speak to that, but -- okay. He doesn't want to speak to that. Rohm: I mean it's all right. It just seems like this development would have been easier served had there been a dedicated roadway from Fairview headed south, which would parallel the car wash and this property and, then, there would be that true ingress- egress and cross-access to the property to the west once that whole area is fully developed. It just -- Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I guess the main problem with that is the Ada County Highway District has a minimum right of way that they will accept when they accept a public street and 40 feet is below what they normally accept, especially for commercial development. They really don't have the width to dedicate. And, of course, the other issue is they don't have any ownership outright of the land, they are just enjoying the easement that is there for them, so -- Rohm: That's fine. It just -- in my mind, it would have been better to have seen a developed road headed south from that intersection. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Agreed. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Well, this is a piece of property that has come before this Commission before. I forget, it was like a year and a half, two years ago, something like that, and what was proposed on this property at the time was an existing business in Meridian, a transmission shop, wanted to move into bigger quarters and build on that. We discussed that exact issue of why isn't that a public roadway and I think the applicant at the time explained that there wasn't any way to widen the easement, because on one side of it is a gas pumping area that can't be moved and the tanks are in a certain location and that the owner of the property to the east of it, which is running a used car lot, had curbing and stuff and wasn't willing to move that and I guess we accepted that, one, he didn't have any control over it and, two, he had asked the questions and gotten a no, So, we kind of shallowed that one and accepted it at the time. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20,2004 Page 5 of 70 Rohm: Well, it's not the only piece of property that's developed that way, so we are all right. Thank you. Borup: Any other comments? Okay. presentation? Would the applicant like to make their Kinkela: Good evening, my name is Chad Kinkela, I'm with Bailey Engineering, I'm representing Robnett Construction. I would also like to go over the special considerations with you and in talking with my client, he said that he has no problem with providing an easement to that property going to the west there, we will just move the trash enclosure. However, we would like to be able to hold that construction back a little bit, because of the base flood elevation in the area there, we are going to be filling that approximately two feet and if we had to bring that pavement all the way to the property line, we'd have to install a retaining wall and if somebody did connect to it, it would be just torn down and moved away. So, if anybody's got any comments or questions about that, I will be happy to address that. The landscaping buffer, we understand what's being requested here. However, we'd like to possibly entertain the thought of bonding for these improvements. It's anticipated that this first building will be erected and the subsequent buildings below it will be soon thereafter, so if that landscaping was in place, the likelihood that that landscaping would survive through the construction of three other buildings would be minimal. So, we are not trying to move around the landscape buffer, but we'd like some consideration of timing as far as the installation of it. Zaremba: On that subject, if you were to install minimum landscaping and an irrigation system to keep the current landscaping alive, would you be able to expand that irrigation system? I mean it means going back and starting over on your irrigation system, essentially, not to do all the landscaping at once. Kinkela: We could have -- there could be a lot of main lines that could be pulled. We were talking about that before the meeting, that we could possibly install some trees further away, closer to the paved alley down towards the bottom. Zaremba: Take the portable microphone with you. Kinkela: Is that working? There we go. We could install some trees down here in this lower end and just kind of keep the rest of this somewhat open. We could provide a shield right here until these actually came in and we could fill in with the landscaping. Rohm: As long as you're up there, why don't you just go ahead and give us a development plan as you see it currently laid out. Which parcels do you intend to develop first? Kinkela: My client intends to build this building here first and, to my understanding, that they -- they have a possible buyer at this time and if that ends up working out, then, they will want to build these three buildings right here immediately after and, then, these last Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20,2004 Page 6 of 70 two buildings, So, it would be, essentially, a three phase development, but all of the improvements would have to be in for this actual subdivision to be recorded or else they would have to bond for those improvements and they want to go with the -- creating the improvements. Rohm: And so your intent is to do your landscaping by each parcel as it develops? Is that, in essence, what you're suggesting? Kinkela: Yes, sir. Rohm: Okay. Moe: While you're there, could you also go back over the cross-access one more time, as far as when you were discussing a retaining wall? Kinkela: Sure, because of -- because of the base flood elevation that's created by the backwater that occurs, this site has to be raised approximately two feet, so that puts this area right here that you're requesting cross-access to this property, it puts it substantially off the ground. My client would be willing to show that easement on here if somebody in the future wanted to connect to it, but we are proposing to move the trash enclosure that's there down and allow for the attachment in the future, if somebody so chose to do so. Moe: Brad, I'm kind of curious. In the notes it says to provide secondary emergency access. Is it your intent to try and have emergency access available at that point for that stub street or the sub out there? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Moe, the intent is, really, once the -- the fire marshal didn't say, but I think once you hit that third building at the square footages that they have given, you know, that there is another way, is probably what they would like to see. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: That being said, there is still going to be that elevation difference between your property and the property to the west, so I'm not exactly sure -- will you have to, then, go back and cut it, so that it will be to the level of the property to the west or how is that -- Kinkela: Well, if this piece of property is developed, they will have to fill as well to be above the base flood elevation. Rohm: Okay, But if they are not developing at this point in time and the cross-access is necessary, it looks like you're going to have a drop off there. That cross-access isn't really feasible until -- I'm not sure exactly how that's going to work. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 7 cf 70 Zaremba: Yeah, I agree, I hadn't thought of that as a current emergency exit, I was thinking of it as future to connect when the other was developed, but the current situation is there is a two-foot difference in elevation if one side is filled and one isn't. Rohm: Exactly. And-- Zaremba: It would only go off into a dirt field. Borup: Right. So, that's not the emergency access, because there is no access at that point. Rohm: What I was thinking after the third parcel is developed, the-- Borup: Well, even, then, that wouldn't be the access point. I'm not sure where that emergency access would be. Was that discussed with the fire department? Kinkela: I saw nothing in our packet that talked about that, sir, Borup: Okay, Rohm: I guess we need to figure that one out. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. The -- it did not come up. I guess we are kind of talking about two different issues, Chairman Borup. One is, yeah, the future connectivity between the two retail or commercial projects, as well as the need for a secondary access and, obviously, if -- I guess if the fire marshal -- fire department deems that they really need to get a second way in there, before that other parcel is developed, that would be a city responsibility to work with that property owner, if necessary, to get a gravel road or some other way to get across there and make that happen. If it doesn't need to happen, then, it doesn't. But the easement is in place, nonetheless, from this property owner in order to allow the cross-access to happen. Rohm: Well, I thought you were saying that they could only develop three parcels within this development until that cross-access is available and available as in the easement in place and a two foot elevation are -- it's -- it is and it isn't. You know, it is by easement, but not by -- from the construction perspective, so -- Hawkins-Clark: Right. And I -- it was not a written condition from the fire department that it be by the third building, I was going mainly off of other square footages that the fire department has used. So, I guess I would not use my comment earlier as the basis for a new condition at this point. I mean if -- we can get more information from the fire department on this matter if you would like. Borup: But at this point there would be nothing preventing them from developing their whole site? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20,2004 Page 8 of 70 Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: Okay, Does that clear -- does that straighten out -- Rohm: Yeah. I guess so. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: So, even though the easement is in place, we don't need to count on it as an emergency access yet. It just would be a second way out when the other property develops. Borup: That was your understanding -- Kinkela: The other piece of property, the secondary access, that we don't have -- Zaremba: That as well. A two way -- Kinkela: It would be a two-win situation. Exactly. So, then, moving onto -- Borup: While we are on that, is there -- is there any access to the property to the north? Kinkela: No, Borup: None at all? That parking lot on the west side does not access that -- Kinkela: Well, I'm sorry, I don't mean no, but this also provides -- this 40-foot ingress provides for the car wash. Borup: Yeah, Other than that, is there -- right there, is there any -- Kinkela: No, sir. Borup: It looks like there is a building there. Kinkela: Yeah. There is an existing building there that repairs small engines. Borup: Okay. Kinkela: Item number four says phasing, no phase lines are shown on the preliminary plat. There really isn't any intended phasing as far as the preliminary plat or the final plat are concerned. Pretty much the improvements that are going to be needed are going to have to either be bonded for or be constructed before final plat can occur. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20,2004 Page g of 70 Zaremba: I think the question on phasing is do you have a target date on when you would build the fourth building and the fifth building and the sixth building or is that just going to happen when somebody offers to buy that -- Kinkela: That's market dependent, sir. Zaremba: Okay. Kinkela: And. then, there was -- there was a bit of confusion about the application stating no CC&Rs and the preliminary plat stating that there was going to be CC&Rs. There is going to be CC&Rs. The ownership is going to be determined on square footage of building and ownership and there is going to be a percentage and everybody is going to own a percentage of common Lot 1 and be responsible thereof that percentage for the maintenance. Zaremba: So, you're comfortable with putting on the plat that the common area will be maintained by the building owners association? Kinkela: Absolutely. Zaremba: Okay. I would go back to item one, if I may. Kinkela: Okay. Zaremba: This is, again, on page four and this is the development agreement. I know Brad kind of glossed over that, but my recollection from the presentation that was made -- and I forget now exactly -- a year and a half to two years ago on the other suggested -- previous suggested -- a lot of the discussion happened about why the development agreement had not been accomplished since August of 1996 until then. I was left with the impression that there hadn't really been a good reason for it being long, but that the applicant was going to rush right out the next day and fix that problem, get the development agreement that was required by the annexation done. I'm a little disappointed to see in the packet that that still hasn't been done. Is there any reason why it-- Kinkela: I have to be honest with you, sir, this is the first that I have heard of it was when I received this packet today. I spoke with my client. To my understanding, he has a pre-application meeting set up for June 4th, something to that effect, and they have been working with staff on that to get it taken care of, I have never met -- well, I can't say that. Before this came in front of me about two months I had never met Mr. LaMont, so this is the first time I have heard it and -- Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Kinkela: You bet. Thank you for your time and consideration, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page10of70 Borup: Okay, Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, could I just shed one more piece -- Borup: Yes. Please. Hawkins-Clark: -- that this applicant was not the owner at the time of annexation, nor were they the applicant of the previous CUP application. So, in terms of the responsibility for getting the development agreement executed, it would have been on the previous applicants, not on this one. So, I just wanted to clarify that. Borup: Okay, Zaremba: But in the case of this application, it is -- it is moving forward to go back and fix that -- Hawkins-Clark: Yes, sir. Zaremba: -- now eight year old problem? Hawkins-Clark: It is. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: There is one. Borup: Oh, Come forward, ma'am. Leavell: My name is Lucy Leavell. My address is 2720 -- Zaremba: Can you pull the microphone a little closer? Leavell: -- South Aerial Lane, Meridian, Idaho, doing business as Creekside Arbor, next door to this property. I'm a little concerned just on one point and I came mostly tonight to get questions answered, but I'm a little concerned having the drainage pond not a part of the common area. It seems to me that that drawing gives the drainage pond responsibility and all to the owner -- or the some day owner of the sixth -- I believe that would be the sixth parcel and it would seem to me that that would be better put in the common area and sustained by the whole park. You know, there is some responsibility for it with a drainage pond for mosquito abatement and all those things that might seem an undue cost to one builder and prevent that from being fully developed and that's -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20,2004 Page11cf70 Zaremba: We will get a clarification on that, but the drawing that I'm looking at, it appears to be in common lot that everybody is going to have to maintain. Leavell: Okay, Zaremba: There may have been a series of drawings, but -- Leavell: Okay. The draw I had -- Zaremba: -- we'll get a clarification, if I'm interpreting it correctly, which I believe I am, Leavell: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Yeah. That's what this shows. All part of Block 1 -- or Lot 1. Zaremba: And Lot 1, I believe, is the common lot. It's the driveways and everything. Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. That's what the application proposed -- or the application does proposed it to be in the common area. Borup: Okay, Zaremba: And I agree with the comment that it should be that way. Borup: Okay. Did we have anyone else? Come forward, Jones: I'm Rich Jones, I have JJ Auto to the north, and on the elevation deal that was brought up on the north side, what was -- what's the difference in elevation there? Is that going to be two foot also or -- Zaremba: No. I think the issue is that a portion of this property is within a flood zone that requires some elevation change by the -- and I think that's only -- I can be corrected if I don't have the figures right, but it's only like the first 30 or 40 feet of this property. By the time he gets to his north property line, which would be your south, it's out of that flood zone, so they won't be changing the elevation next to your property. Jones: Okay. And the other thing on that easement, you know, at the general meeting, I guess, we had here a few months ago discussed like coming out of the back side of my property and coming across, that that would work out, you know, and the gentleman that was here was going to get back to me and we haven't discussed it yet and I don't know if that's feasible or not. Zaremba: Is that something you would want to have happen? Jones: Excuse me? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Paga12of70 Zaremba: I mean are you in favor of that happening? Jones: That I could get out the back way and come out -- yeah. And I was willing to buy some of that property there, you know, the last time we discussed that at the general meeting here -- it wasn't a Planning and Zoning one, but just everybody came in and discussed it. I don't see the guy here. Borup: That was a meeting with the owner of the property, developer, or-- Jones: Or like the designer or the architect. Borup: Okay. Jones: And we discussed it -- Borup: So, that would also serve as their emergency access. Jones: Right. The other thing that -- you know, since the new stop light went in there at -- what is it, North Lake, it is difficult to get out of my place and in and out and if I could, you know, get out that way. Plus other people could go out during the day. At night I'd have to put a gate across there, you know, but during the day they could get in and out of there. Zaremba: You would have a building there, is that not true? We were thinking that you actually had a building there that would make that not possible, but -- Jones: No. Zaremba: Grab the walking mike, if you would. Jones: Is it working? Borup: Yes. Jones: Like right here, there is a building here and one over here, but if you came right through here and, then, I don't think -- I don't know what their design plan is, because that way they could leave this parking here, come out here -- this is the property I was discussing to buy, you know, but that -- I don't know what's going to happen there. Zaremba: I suspect the applicant would be willing to hear that -- or happy to hear that you're willing to discuss that with them, We'll let you two get together afterwards. Jones: You know, I'd like to see it develop instead of the weeds, so -- but if we could get -- that way could go in and go out that way or that way with the easement road, I don't know. Because on the elevation thing, made me nervous, because if on the west side they have to raise it up, I will become a lake. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 130f70 Zaremba: We will get that confirmed by the application, but I think you're out of the area where they have to fill and the cost of fill I'm sure they won't go any further than they have to. Jones: Well, that's why I thought I'd put the road there and wouldn't have to fill. It would save them a bunch, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Did we have anyone else? Okay, Would the applicant like to maybe address a couple of those questions and, then, any other final comment you may have. Kinkela: Do I have to say my name and address again? Zaremba: Please. Kinkela: Chad Kinkela with Bailey Engineering. I'm representing Robnett Construction on this project. The question about the storm drain pond being in a common lot, that is part of the Lot 1, and so it will be maintained by all of the lots, I'm not quite sure how to address the access to the north. This -- about three quarters of this site is in the flood way, flood plain, excuse me, of the drain and we have raised it above the base flood elevation, We have -- because the applicant is seeking a building permit, they have authorized us to commence on the entire site design and I have got a set of -- I have a full set of plans, half scale here, and he is going to be two feet below us and that's the only thing I can do. There is -- Zaremba: I must have misunderstood, then. You are filling all the way to your property line? Kinkela: Yes, sir, we are. And I show a retaining wall back in that hammerhead area, Behind the building I'm showing four-to-one slopes. So, I'm not going to be filling on his property, I'm not sure that there is another way to develop this piece of property and not have to have flood insurance on all these buildings, Zaremba: Well -- okay. My previous comments I clearly understand where the end of the flood zone was. I was assuming that the flood zone only went about here and you only had to fill, you know, part of your property, but if you're having to fill it all, then, my comments were not correct. Kinkela: Well, you're fairly close, sir. I mean -- but when you fill up one portion of the piece of property, you have to take the whole property in consideration to make the drainage work and all the building elevations work, So, the area in which building number two on lot number two is going to be -- I don't know if I will be able to read this, but that area needs to be filled about a foot and a half to make all the drainage work and the build pad to work, As far as shifting the buildings around and allowing for a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 14 of 70 secondary access to the north, I'm really not quite sure I see how that would really fit into this development and I'm not sure that -- Zaremba: I don't think we were thinking of making that a requirement. Kinkela: Okay. Zaremba: I think we were suggesting that if the two of you talk and you come to some mutually acceptable agreement, I would be happy for both of you, but it wasn't my anticipation of actually making that a requirement. Kinkela: Okay. Zaremba: He may have something to offer you that would make it worth changing in order for him to gain a second way out of his property that would -- Kinkela: Okay. Zaremba: -- give you one as well, but I don't think that was my intent to make that a requirement. Kinkela: Okay, Zaremba: Just suggesting that you become friends and talk with each other. Kinkela: Very well. Zaremba: But on the question of how far you fill, if you have done your own drainage plan, if you're going to -- if I'm now understanding, essentially, stop your fill far enough back from his property that you can slope it back down to his property -- you're not planning a retaining wall on your property line? Kinkela: The only location that we are planning to have a retaining wall is on -- Borup: There should be a laser at the podium. Kinkela: -- is in this area right here where the parking is, so that we can get the hammerhead, Yes. Rohm: Just North-South, not East-West. Kinkela: No, The only location is going to be this small -- it would be like a 22 foot long retaining wall for the parking area and, then, all the rest of it from the building will slope to the north to his property line at a four-to-one slope. Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 15 of 70 Zaremba: So, the second part of my question on that is your whole plan for the majority of your property is that your drainage would be away from his property, with a possible exception of that last little piece of slope. Kinkela: That is correct, sir, Zaremba: Okay. I just don't want to suddenly be flooding his property, because you have raised it. Kinkela: No. And, as a matter of fact, we will be able to hold that retaining wall back far enough that we will be able to create a small swale and direct all that water in the landscape area, so that it stays on our property. Thank you for your time and your consideration on this and I hope I answered all your questions. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the hearing on Item 4 be closed. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Having seen the previous proposal, which was okay, I think this one is much better than the previous proposal. The lady who spoke and owns the apartments that are right next to it had quit a bit to say about the other proposal as well and I was pleased that she only had a few comments about this, which turned out to be satisfied. That being said, my inclination is to move this along. Mae: What are we going to do in regard to bonding of landscaping and whatnot? Zaremba: Yeah. Shall we solve that? Which things do we need to solve? The applicant was in agreement with almost everything. Moe: Yeah, Number three and, then, number five needs to have the land will be maintained by a building owner's association. Newton-Huckabay: They already agreed to number five, Zaremba: Are you ready to make a motion? You seem to have it well in hand, Moe: No, I'm not. I wasn't sure what we were going to do on bonding and whatnot, so -- Zaremba: Let me ask staff. Is bonding for the -- I can tend to agree that the act of construction may destroy landscaping that would be put in and cause a double Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 16 of 70 expense. My concern is that the underground work be done, probably, and get the sprinkler in where ever it's going to be. Is bonding to have the rest of the work done satisfactory? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it is. Zaremba: Okay. Moe: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I can just throw one quick item in. I was pretty tardy getting my portion of the staff report done, so in your motion if you would, please, just refer to the supplement staff report as well. Moß: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 04-012, request for preliminary plat approval for six commercial building lots and one common lot on 2.82 acres in a CoG zone for Initial Point Subdivision by Robnett Construction, one half mile east of North Meridian Road and south of East Fairview Avenue as presented in the staff reports dated -- to the Public Hearing date of May 20th, 2004, received by the city clerk May 16th, 2004, and supplement of the transmittal date -- excuse me -- received by the clerk May 18th as well, the supplemental staff report, End of motion. Excuse me. I'm sorry. No, I'm not. Along with the following changes to the special conditions on item number three, the landscape plan land use buffer, put that we will bond the landscaping to complete as buildings are constructed and, then, item number five in regards to the clarification that their will be -- the land will be maintained by the building owners association in regards to maintenance. End of motion, Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Public Hearing: AZ 04-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 36.93 acres from RUT to CoG zone for Market Square by Smith Brighton - northeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road: Borup: Next item is Public Hearing AZ 04-009, request for annexation and zoning of 36,93 acres from RUT to CoG zone for Market Square by Smith Brighton, northwest corner of Eagle Road and Ustick, Like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, this application is just an annexation and zoning. There are no -- there are no other variances, plats, conditional Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 17 of 70 use permits before the Commission at this time. The property that is described in the legal description is located here at the northeast corner of Ustick and Eagle Road. There are, actually, two county parcels today, but they are both proposed to be annexed at this time and are both described in the legal description. So, the 36.93 acres is incorporating both of those. As this Commission well knows, the other three corners of this intersection have had recent annexations by the City of Meridian, They have been completed through the Public Hearing process, mostly just some legal documentation that is finishing up, such as publishing the ordinances, But the Kissler -- what was called the Kissler annexation was on the south side of Ustick and involved about 24 acres in this area and also involved about 23, 24 acres over here, with the exception of this middle piece that was removed. W.H. Moore Company also was approved by City Council a couple of months ago for their 58 acres on the northwest corner. There was a development agreement that was required that, essentially, required that they come back to the city with a Conditional Use Permit in the future on -- with a concept plan. The property is also bounded on the north by -- Boise Church of the Nazarene has the property that you can just see a portion of here and to the east is Providence Place Subdivision, which is in Boise city, as is the church. So, this, actually, is the only property that is in Meridian's area of city impact that is in this entire square mile that is bounded by Eagle and Ustick. The Comprehensive Plan does designate the property as mixed use regional, as it did for the other three corners, so all four corners did have the same designation in the long range plan. They are proposing the general commercial zone for the entire 36,93 acres. The aerial shows you a little bit better the surrounding uses and structures, et cetera. You can see the church and the parking lot here. What's not reflected too well on either of these are the existing public streets that are affected. Obviously, you have Ustick Road and Eagle Road, which is under ITO's jurisdiction, but you also have a stub street coming out of Providence Place Subdivision here in this location and there is also a stub street coming out along the north -- the north boundary. The applicant did submit this concept plan with their annexation packet and the way that the staff report was set up is we kind of have two items to talk about on this concept plan. One of them is a more detailed review of this area that I'm outlining with the cursor here, which includes a super store that is probably about 168,000 square feet and the associated parking, They also are showing other out buildings -- out. -- or out pads, I'm sorry, for future development here and, then, a conceptual commercial on the north side here that is about 15 acres in this area on the north. It shows Bald Cyprus Road, which is the road that's -- if you have been out there, it's probably about 80 percent complete. It's not constructed with all of its asphalt, curb, gutter, sidewalk at this point. My understanding from the Boise city and Idaho Transportation Department, there was -- the reason for that is the access to State Highway 55, Eagle Road, was in question, not approved, and so the street was not finished, So, as far as the concept plan, on the bottom of it you can see a cross-section of a new public street that they are proposing as part of the concept. It's a little bit difficult to read on this, obviously, but it is a cross-section for the street, which would go along this east boundary is what they are proposing. The first -- from the property line moving to the east would be 20 feet of landscape buffer, which under Meridian's ordinance does require that to be planted pretty densely if it's a buffer between land uses. Single family residential and commercial requires 25 feet of buffer between land Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 18of70 use and that has to be planted with evergreens and other deciduous -- a mix of things that provide fairly dense screen within three years is what the ordinance requires, so that they have to pick species, et cetera, that grow quickly and provide that buffer. That would be what the city would require within that 20 feet. And, then, you have a five foot sidewalk, curb, gutter, five foot bike lane, and, then, the through lanes here and, then, it repeats on this side, bike lane, curb, gutter, five foot sidewalk and, then, ten feet of landscaping. So, that's kind of how that cross-section moves through there. As noted in Ada County Highway District report, they are proposing a new signal to be installed at that new street, which would at this point, obviously, just service to the north, but could potentially service to the south in the future. They are showing -- besides that new street, they are showing curb cuts off of Ustick Road, which would provide commercial driveway access, one here in the middle of the site and, then, a third one located closer to Eagle Road. On Eagle Road the proposed access points are a -- here on the -- in the -- generally the middle portion of the project and, then, Bald Cyprus is proposed to be a second access onto Eagle Road. The way that staff has recommended that the Commission -- one option for you to consider in terms of how to look and how to incorporate this concept plan into the annexation would be to require a development agreement between the City of Meridian and developers and property owners and within that development agreement there would be a couple of exhibits and this would be one of those. What we have recommended is that at this point just the southern half be what they have in terms of, essentially, a detailed layout approval. And, then, the northern half, which is strictly conceptual with no layout shown to us at this point, would -- would come back in the future, so that you could see more detail on that before any buildings would be constructed. Just a couple of other things to point out. On page ten of the staff report, the first bullet there is the ITD Eagle Road corridor study. Mainly, just a point of information that Idaho Transportation Department is in the final stages of a corridor study that goes from 1-84 all the way up to the city of Eagle and that corridor study involves, obviously, a lot of different things, but part of that is how accesses, especially in this area, would -- this is the most undeveloped portion of that whole ten mile stretch, is, essentially, in this mile in terms of the size of the parcels and they have not published the study at this point, but we just wanted you to know that it is underway, they are looking at some design issues in terms of maybe detached sidewalks, other things that could influence how this site develops and I really have no other information, since nothing's been published, other than that that is underway. We have suggested in that last sentence that, if possible, staff recommends that this property attempt to incorporate those new standards, so that they have conversations with ITD, so that they don't build something, ITD, then, comes back and says, well, we want to change it and they have to modify things. So, that's mainly, I guess, a point of discussion tonight. And, then, the second bullet on page ten deals with the proposed uses that they have here, In terms of the use -. the main use that's shown on the site plan is the elevation that was submitted with the application, What you see on the top here is what would face Eagle Road, The second one down is the rear elevation. The third one down would face the north and, then, the bottom one here would be the south elevation that you would see from Ustick Road. The other uses that they have proposed are -- would incorporate, essentially, obviously, the rest of the site from this quarter -- a quarter of the way through their site up and, then, this northern 15 acres and what's proposed is Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commissicn May 20.2004 Page1gof70 that some uses be allowed outright, others be conditional, and, then, some be prohibited. The use largely matches the city's zoning ordinances that a lot of the things that would be prohibited anyway are prohibited. Some of them would be allowed without a conditional use permit and that's something you can do through the development agreement. We have suggested that five items be required to come back as conditional uses, not be just allowed, and that's bottling and distribution plant, hospitals, molded plastic products, utility facilities, and warehouse storage, and that those be shifted from permitted uses to conditional uses. We have also recommended that there be a definition put in of what a standby generator is. They have proposed that that be incorporated, but there is no definition in our code, nor in the application, so we wanted to clean that up. We have recommended that any structure over 50,000 square feet be a Conditional Use Permit. This would be in addition to the one that they have already proposed with this application. It wouldn't affect this one, obviously. And, then, the final change that we are recommending is to add a footnote that just states that it's not an exhaustive list and, essentially, the planning director or zoning administrator would be granted the authority to make those determinations on future uses if they are not listed. So, there will be two exhibits to the development agreement and I guess those are kind of what we are -- the meat of what you would be talking about tonight, then. One would be this layout, talking about the physical layout, and, then, the other exhibit would be the use list, which was submitted with the application with the proposed changes that we have listed in our staff report. We have recommended that the -- that the vehicular access points that are shown, obviously, have to be approved through right agencies, Ada County Highway District and lTD. Ada County Highway District has submitted a detailed report to the city, which states that, essentially, if they come in with this type plan to the highway district, they would be favorable. The one that's closest to Eagle Road entering Ustick would be right in, right out, as shown here and as Ada County Highway District had in their staff report, The middle one would be full access right in or left in, left out, and, then, of course, the signal would be a full intersection. I think some of the other issues that we have recommended for the development agreement are fairly clear there. If the questions come up during the Public Hearing, staff's happy to go through them. I don't know as part of this initial staff report if I need to do that, but are there any other questions at this point? Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? The applicant has the opportunity to make their presentation first. Turnbull: Thank you, Commissioner Borup. My name is David Turnbull. Address is 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise, I appreciate, as usual, the fine job Brad's done presenting this application. I'd like to note for the record that I left my son at the Pinewood Derby, my daughter with her keys locked in her car out at the soccer practice picking up my other son and I hope my wife's coping pretty well at this point, so -- this particular property has been a topic of considerable discussion over the years, whether it should be in Boise city, whether it should be in Meridian city. We are pleased to bring this application forward into Meridian city. And this is, as Brad mentioned, the final Meridian Piannlng & Zoning Commission May 20. 2004 Page 20 of 70 application to come through on this corner. The other three corners have been through the Public Hearing process, through the annexation process, and are pending final publication. As usual -- and particularly on a project of this size and this magnitude, Brad has done a very fine job. We are in almost completed agreement. There are just a couple of items that we need to discuss. One of those issues that's vital to this project, is access to Eagle Road and staff states -- oh, by the way, I do have a copy of the final report you were referencing, Brad. It has been published now. And we have been working closely with ITD to deal with the access issues on Eagle Road. The new study, which is dated April 2004, does, in fact, recommend access points -- an access point at the quarter mile section, which would be the extension of what Brad referenced, this section road here that was constructed about 80 percent of the way. The reason it wasn't completed is because there was a disagreement between the property owners and it requires a decel lane to make it a -- the application valid. We would propose, through going through this process, to work with the property owners to the north, which is the church people, to accommodate that license agreement they already have, provide for the decel lane, and make that access come to fruition. I would note that when I was driving by here this afternoon right now what they have done is they have connected through this partially constructed road and, then, they go to the north and they go through the church parking lot to get to Eagle Road. I think what we are proposing to do would, actually, make that a safer more viable solution for access to that area. So, we are working with lTD. Brad correctly stated that that's part of their jurisdiction and we will work -- continue to work with them on the access to Eagle Road. And I should note that part of our submission when we went through the process with ACHD, they requested and we have agreed on this roadway section right here, which we think will give even further mitigation to the Eagle Road access situation. In fact, they would like to connect it further to the south and create a connection -- I think it's to Records Drive that will connect on that half section there, all the way up through this intersection, give more or less another avenue almost like frontage road type situation, that should provide relief to Eagle Road. This solution comes at a pretty big price. This section of roadway right there is a million dollar price tag and that's something that we would be funding ourselves. So, I do want to point that out, because I think it does deserve some special consideration that we are going the extra mile. The other area that we need to discuss is the staff recommendation that the Commission requires a minimum of 12 acres be dedicated to professional office or other non-retail uses, I think this is an unprecedented requirement, given the other applications that have gone through on this corner. Staff noted that the southeast corner or the Kissler parcel was approved at a hundred percent commercial retail uses and the northwest corner, which is the Blue Marlin or the Winston Moore property, was approved without any requiring -- requiring any kind of residential uses and we certainly would expect to be treated no worse than those other applications were. Our company - Smith Brighton is a sister company to Brighton corporation. We have probably developed as much professional office space as anybody else in this valley. If I thought it were feasible or desirable to build professional office space on this property, I wouldn't hesitated to do it, that's one of my main lines of business, and I feel like we know that market and we do it pretty well. But given the cost of the land and the cost of the traffic mitigation we are going to have to provide, I don't think it's going to be feasible and I'm not sure that it's necessarily Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 21 of 70 desire. There are some inherent conflicts between office and retail uses and, typically, if you were asking for a mixed use type of environment where you're mixing retail and office, office would be the predominate component, with very limited retail -- service retail as being the mix in the mixed use. This is the prime retail corner in this location, It's the so-called going home side in both directions. That's why this is the prime retail location. In fact, it will be anchored by Lowe's, who is a world-class retailer, and Lowe's has -- I would really have to commend them. We have worked with them on another project and on this project we said, you know, the City of Meridian and we, ourselves, are going to want to really step up the esthetics and we want to do this in a first class manner and they have come in and submitted some site plan elevations that go above and beyond their normal store format. They have submitted some more pleasing architectural designs that I think will be of benefit to this area. So, I think that this whole intersection needs to be viewed as a whole. I'm quite certain that there will be a substantial amount of professional office constructed in this area. I think that probably a lot of that will go in the Blue Marlin project, where he has 58 acres and, quite frankly, he acquired the property at a very substantially lower price and can afford to do more of that kind of product. I just don't know that it's feasible -- if it is feasible, we will certainly take a look at it and we will certainly do it, but to require 12 acres, which is a large area of office space next to retail, to be required to be some kind of professional office, I think is not reasonable and we are asking for that condition to be deleted. So, in summary, we are in agreement with the staff findings and recommendations, with the following exceptions -- and maybe Brad can help me out a little bit here. There is special consideration proposed use list item C, which states that -- delete the -- states that any structure over 50,000 square feet would require a Conditional Use Permit. I believe we submitted with this application a list of approved uses and so I guess, I need to ask a question of Brad, why that would require a Conditional Use Permit, if it were on the approved use list? Hawkins-Clark: The reason that staff recommended it was mainly for the visual impact that it would have at a premier intersection for the City of Meridian and that the Commission and City Council, since the City of Meridian does not have design review on buildings, on a building of that size we felt that it would be reasonable to have some dialogue between the Commission and the Council on the design of that building that would be at such a high visible intersection. Turnbull: Okay, Well, let me state for the record, if that's the intent, that it's not to determine the types of uses that would be allowed, but more or less to provide a -- sort of a design review hook, we are comfortable with going through that process, so that we can discuss site issues, screening, you know, the issues that you bring up, like loading docks and things like that. We did the property at the corner of Eagle and Chinden, which is the Target store, and I know that there are - and there are probably some neighbors here that are going to express some concerns, but, quite frankly, I have driven behind that store between the Hobble Creek Subdivision and the Target store, there are no loading docks, there are no waste receptacles, there are no, you know, really uses that would be obnoxious to the neighbors, And, in fact, it creates a substantial and I think, actually, an attractive buffer to the traffic on the -- on Eagle Road Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 22 of 70 and Chinden Boulevard, So, if the purpose of the conditional use is to go through those site-specific requirements, we are comfortable with that. The other special -- the other condition under the annexation and zoning facts and conclusions, item 3-A-", I would ask that you delete the requirement for 12 acres shown as commercial on the north end of the site be required to incorporate professional office or other non-retail use, As I mentioned before, that hasn't been a requirement of the other corners that have been annexed in this area and we certainly feel like we should be treated at least on an equal footing with them, particularly given the fact that we are creating some mitigation -- traffic mitigation at our own expense. We would ask for your considerable -- your consideration and favorable treatment there. The other two items, I think, are just mostly I want to have a statement on the record and I think Brad pretty well made that statement. There was a condition under the annexation and zoning facts and conclusions, item number 3-D, that refers to loading docks and those kind of uses, I believe we have already worked with Brad and gone over the loading site on the Lowe's facility and he's comfortable with that and I just wanted an affirmative statement on the record that we have worked through that issue. And, then, finally, we are -- there is an item under the transportation policies, as I noted before, We are working with lTD. There are some proposals being put forth for ITD that would limit the access. Right now we-- this property has three deeded accesses. When the property was purchased for the expansion of Eagle Road, three deeded accesses were given to this property. ITD is making some proposals to reduce that number, but we will work with them and complete that application. So, with that I will stand for questions. Oh. And I do have a list for each of you of the four items I just referenced, Zaremba: Brad, could you go to the view that shows the proposed building? Mr. Turnbull, would you walk us around the large building and indicate loading docks and trash enclosures and stuff like that, please? Turnbull: There is a side loading dock right here that will be screened with landscaping. And this -. the trash enclosure -- okay. Jim Manion from Lowe's is here, he might be able to answer that question better than I. Manion: I'm Jim Manion, senior site development manager for Lowe's Home Improvement. I'm at 1530 Faraday Avenue in Carlsbad, California. It's a pleasure to be with you tonight and you wanted to walk around the building, right? Zaremba: Please. Manion: See if I can -- nobody told me how to work this. Zaremba: There may be another one tied to the counter there, Manion: Okay. As Dave pointed out, this is a three dock loading dock and the -- it's not an open dock, it's -- when you look at the elevations, there are dock seals where the -- Borup: Could you pull the mike just a little bit closer? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 23 of 70 Manion: Thank you. Yes. It's a three bay loading dock and it has dock seals, so the trailer directly communicates with the building, so it reduces noise and the trash enclosure -- right next -- I'm trying to see it, but right here is a compactor where all -- it directly communicates with the back room there. This is a receiving area and all the cardboard and trash go into this crusher, then, this is the receptacle that is used to transport the trash away. Towards the back here is a staging area. There is a receiving dock here for a flatbed activity -- well, the flatbeds would, actually, unload here and, then, they would spin off the drywall or redwood or cement bags, more the rough products, into the store this way, but this is the transformer -- I'm having trouble seeing, but I believe this is the transformer and generator that was spoken by -- or about earlier. And, then, there is a canopy here for the lumber loading and contractors. We have, effectively, three entrances that run during the store operating hours. Contractors usually park in this area and collect their goods here and are loaded here. We have our main entrance, offices, bathrooms, and just about all the store personnel and check out occurs in this area here. And, then, we have our garden center, which is right here, and we operate that as an entrance and checkout area also, so the parking throughout the day can be kind of level and the intensity would probably be mostly through here. This would be the less intense area of the store. And, then, there is just one other cantilever or 16-foot gate here that receives most of the garden center product and, of course, this is the garden center here. I hope I have answered your questions. Zaremba: That was a very fine answer. I would only see one thing missing. Is there an outgoing loading dock for your deliveries? Manion: Pardon? Zaremba: Is there an outgoing loading dock for the deliveries that you make? Somebody buys ten sheets of plywood and wants them delivered. Manion: Generally, what we have is a company truck and -- Zaremba: It loads where the contractors load? Manion: A lot of times I have found that there used to be an activity that occurred here and it's traditionally on the large orders carried out here and here now. Zaremba: Thank you. Moe: One question I would have also would be as far as deliveries coming in, are they going to come in off the new road into the property? Would that be the access to that point? Okay. Turnbull: Mostly likely, yes. You need to understand that this is a collector standard road where -- with landscaping on both sides that meets your landscaping ordinance. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 24 of 70 Borup: Mr. Turnbull, clarification on access on Eagle Road. Did you say ITD had approved one access point on Bald Cyprus? That was the one they have approved at this point? Turnbull: I believe the church has a permit in hand. The only reason it wasn't perfected, from my understanding, is they needed a deceleration lane on the property that's subject to the application. Borup: So, is that the one that you were referring to or are you referring to the mid property access point? Turnbull: Well, that's the one -- there has been some proposals going back and forth to have the connection at Bald Cyprus completed and understand that Eagle Road, under the plan, is going to a median controlled access system, I, actually, about the time they were doing this study, had the opportunity to go Tucson where they have several major five and seven lane roads that are meeting controlled access and they work very well. But, then, the second access would be mid point into this property and be a right in, right out only, Borup: Okay. That would be a right in, right out? Turnbull: Right. Borup: Okay. Rohm, you were going to ask a question? Rohm: I was just curious about this generator and I don't know if you have any specifics on the generator itself, but generators have a tendency to have a lot of noise associated with them and can you speak to at all? Do you have any idea the capacity and -- Borup: Maybe just a clarification. Is that for emergency -- emergency generator, I'm assuming? Turnbull: That's correct. Borup: For power failure situations? Turnbull: That's correct. I'll bring Mr. Manion up to answer that. Rohm: Even those types of generators require exercise, Manion: That is correct. Rohm: Yeah. Manion: It's a standby generator and I forget the key right now, but it is a standby generator that has a capacity -- it's for life safety reasons. It also runs our smoke Meridian Piannlng & Zoning Commission May 20. 2004 Page 25 of 70 exhaust systems in case of an emergency and it may have to operate a jockey pump if the water pressure isn't sufficient to aid the sprinklers and there is a once a week exercise of the generator that can be determined -- it's about a half hour and if the Commission so desires to specify when that happens, we would be happy to accommodate you there. Rohm: Well, that's kind of the direction I was going on that and I suppose there is probably some standards on noise levels associated with generators. Brad, could you - - do you know whether we have some noise levels? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Rohm, the city's noise ordinance is 11 :00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., which is administered by the police department and between those hours, obviously, I think it -- it's just a standard wording of a noise ordinance that say you cannot disturb. Rohm: So, it's not a decibel -- Hawkins-Clark: But it's not -- no. The code is not a decibel level. That would - if, that was desired by the Commission that would have to be set as a part of this. Rohm: Yeah. And I don't think so much on the nighttime, but the exercise, I would be curious how much noise is associated with that generator, because if it's like a mag generator, they can put out -- they can make quite a bit of noise. And I was just curious on that. Manion: I will be happy to provide the staff with the decibel level. It's kind of a -- there is a decibel level at point of the engine and, then -- that's where it's taken and, then, how it falls off is quite a science. But I think what would help everybody on this is, I think if there is a concern about the noise level, a half hour in a seven day period, again, the Commission can dictate when that generator is exercised in a seven day period for a half hour. Rohm: I think just normal working hours would probably be sufficient on that, but you wouldn't want to exercise it at 11 :00 o'clock at night. Manion: That's correct. And we would be happy to accommodate, again, the city, the residents, if they prescribe a certain time or a certain day, a certain time on a certain day, to keep that at a minimum. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Thank you, Any other questions? Newton-Huckabay: I think we should move on with the Public Hearing. A lot of people want to testify. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissicn May 20, 2004 Page 26 or 70 Borup: Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. Okay. This is a time that we give opportunity for any of the public to -- any testimony on this application, so now is the time to come forward, any of those that would like to, Yes, sir. Jamison: My name is Allen Jamison and I live on the border -- the east border of that -- right on the border where the street is going to be put in, on the east border, and there is a buffer zone put in there and I want to know whether the buffer is going to be between the road and our houses or is the road going to be next to our houses? Where is the buffer going? Rohm: The buffer is adjacent to your property and then; the road is, actually, west of the buffer, Jamison: West of the buffer? Rohm: Yes. Jamison: Okay. How about those stub streets going out of our housing, are they going to go into this property? Are they going to be traffic going in there all the time? I mean have access off of those stub streets? Borup: We can clarify that at this point. They do not show access to those stub streets, so they would stay as they are now. Jamison: He showed us some a while ago. There are two of them. Borup: Right. Right. But they don't go into this site. Jamison: They wouldn't -- Borup: No. Hawkins-Clark: Actually, they do propose that. Borup: They do propose -- okay. The plat doesn't show it, does it? Hawkins-Clark: Well, correct. I mean it's not a plat, but, yes, the site plan does not actually show, but -- Jamison: That's going to put a lot of traffic in our area if they do go through and it won't be necessary, because there is three other accesses to get into that property. More than that, there would be about four. There are two stub streets that will make it terrible for us in that housing, because it will be an easy way to get in and not much traffic and people use that to get in. And there is a lot of other accesses into that property, without using those stub streets. I know where they are, because I live right behind there. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 27 of 70 Borup: Right. Again, Brad, the site plan doesn't show -- Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, it's listed in the Ada County Highway District staff report, Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: You know these public street issues are largely Ada County Highway District. Obviously, this Commission can discuss them and make -- make those comments, but largely this is a high district system and they are recommending that in their staff report, so -- Borup: And normally -- normally what ACHD's rationale is to allow the residents access to here, so they would not have to go onto Ustick and -- I mean that's -- Jamison: Well, I object to that very generously and that compactor, when does it operate? Borup: Okay, We can get an answer on that. I would assume it's as necessary. Jamison: Well, that should be -- that shouldn't be at night either, like the generator. Borup: And I think that could be a condition that complies with those. Jamison: I think that's alii have. Borup: So, you're saying you'd like it before -- when you say at night, what hours are you talking about? Jamison: Yeah. Borup: Which hours? Jamison: Oh, well, it would be 11 :00 -- like he said about the generator would be about the same thing. Borup: Okay. So, before 6:00 or something like that? Jamison: Yeah, That's alii have, Borup: Thank you, sir, Yes, Come on forward, Bowhecker: David Bowhecker, 334 South Bitterroot, Boise. I am on the board of the church to the north and our comment is that the access point that is shown in the center of the property has been discussed. The developer has not approached the church Meridian Piannlng & Zoning Commission May 20. 2004 Page 28 cf 70 regarding that access point and it was -- information given to me was that the church owns the property to the south of that road one foot. Borup: So, there has been no contact at all? Bowhecker: No. Borup: Is that your understanding that that is a -- you say the church still owns the property or is it deeded right of way? It's not a highway district right of way? Bowhecker: We are talking about the center point -- Borup: Right. Bowhecker: Right there, Yeah. Right at the point -- right there. Correct. The access into the road -- is it Bald Cyprus? That we own the property to the south of that, one foot. Bald Cyprus. Borup: So, at this point it's private property, it's not -- it is not a road right of way or-- Bowhecker: That's my understanding. Borup: Okay. And they have not contacted you at all you're saying? Bowhecker: The developers have not contacted the church. Borup: I assume you would like them to do that. Bowhecker: We would like them to do that. Any questions? Borup: Any questions? Thank you, sir. Bowhecker: Thank you. Borup: Yes. Come forward. Gilbert: Thank you. My name is Carl Gilbert. I live at 3475 East Ustick Road. My wife and own a ten acre parcel right directly to the south of the east part of this complex and from what we are seeing here the proposed signal light on Ustick Road is going to be right smack in the middle of our driveway and that's not acceptable. I mean I don't think that would be much fun. Do I need to point out to you what parcel I'm talking about? Borup: And where is your driveway? On which side of your property? Right there, Gilbert: The property to the west of us, all of this here, is the Kessler property that has just been annexed. As a matter of fact, it's my understanding that the Meridian city is Meridian Planning & Zoning Ccmmission May 20, 2004 Page 29 of 70 now right down the middle of his driveway, right here, which we have a shared driveway, So, the way that I'm seeing this, if I'm understanding correctly, the signal light here is going to be right either in my front room window or right in my driveway, but I'm on the south side of the road, Borup: Okay. I think you're off a little bit, sir. The signal light should be on the east end of the property. About right there. Gilbert: Well, it's not going to be -- well, this -- oh, completely over here? Borup: Right there. Gilbert: I thought it was right here. Rohm: No, Right there. Gilbert: Well, that's still going to back up traffic. We have got traffic on Ustick Road right now -- the traffic on Eagle Road and Ustick Road right now is just -- the subdivision that this gentleman was just talking about has dumped so much traffic on Ustick Road that the people that live there, like us, we have been there 12 years, we used to watch where there was -- you count the cars by the day. Now, there is a three lane road that goes clear over into the -- they make an eastbound turn lane, so the westbound traffic -- or, excuse me, the eastbound traffic comes right down off the gutters right into our fence line, because the traffic has forced them over and there is no traffic enforcement there. So, a signal light right at that area looks to me like it would really cause some problems. Borup: Okay, The center of that road should be about 55 feet from their east property line. Gilbert: It's going to be right at the -- what you're saying it would be right at -- Borup: About 55 feet. Gilbert: Right at my east most property line. Borup: No. No. I assume that other lot is more than 55 wide, isn't it? Gilbert: The other lot next to me -- there is the Summers Funeral Home and, then, the lot next to me is probably 156 feet. Borup: Okay. So, that signal light should be about a hundred feet from your property line. Gilbert: But that signal light is -- if the signal light was there, that is past -- there is two houses right there where you're suggesting and one of them is supposedly on the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 30 of 70 historic register and states that they would never tear it down, because it was built in 18 something, a big rock, sandstone house. Borup: Okay, I think it could be on the register. I'm not sure if it is. Gilbert: I was told. I don't know that for a fact. But, anyway, it was told it was never going to be torn down and that was a condition on the sales, but, then, I'm not a Philadelphia lawyer, so I don't know. I'm just saying that that signal light is going to be - - I'm going to be looking right out the front of my place one way or another, whether it's in my driveway or to the -- on the east side. Borup: Well, you will be able to see it, but it looks like it's from your property -- Gilbert: You'll have to E-mail groceries to us. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Yes. Come on up. Harnden: Hi. I'm Scott Harnden. I live in the east -- Heather Meadow Subdivision there, so thank you for the opportunity to discuss a few things. My main issues involve safety, specifically the safety of the children in that neighborhood. One issue -- if you could point to the elementary school that's right by that new proposed Lowe's? Moe: There is a pointer right there. Harnden: Well, it would have to be a smaller shot, I believe, Could you get a smaller -- Borup: No, That's what they -- Harnden: I believe it's right there; am I correct? Borup: No, Harnden: Ustick Elementary? Borup: No. It's down another half a mile. Yeah. Harnden: Okay. So, often when I go to work the traffic is backed up from Ustick all the way almost to Cloverdale or coming home from work, which is right by that elementary school. So, one question is what will we do with the traffic -- extra traffic from Lowe's? And what about possible safety hazards with the children in front of that elementary school, which is very close? Another issue is something the applicant said. One, he addressed the trash compactor, yet gave no specifications. The applicant said that the trash compactor and loading into the building would not interfere with our subdivision, but yet they are both facing our subdivision. The applicant stated -- the applicant did not state anything about the stub streets. but, yet, they would go right into our subdivision. The applicant did not bring up many of these safety issues and I question Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20,2004 Page 31 of 70 whether the applicant has kept in mind the safety of the children in that neighborhood, It seems that many of the things were not brought up tonight and I hope that this proposal will not result in injury or death of a child in that neighborhood or in front of that elementary school. I hope that you will keep that on your conscious as you vote tonight and I appreciate this opportunity from all of you and, hopefully, I'm not appearing too angry, because I'm not angry at you, I'm angry at the applicant for the lack of details and lack of concern with our safety of our children. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Holland: My name is Steve Holland; I live in the Heather Meadows Subdivision, My main concern is with the sound pollution. I know those loading trucks are very noisy and I'd like to ask you to please impose some kind of restriction on when deliveries of those rough parts, like concrete and wood, et cetera, can be made. Preferably, I'd like to, you know, not have that occur during night, during the typical sleeping hours, I would think that, you know, like from about 10:00 o'clock to about 7:00 o'clock, maybe even 8:00 o'clock in the morning, if we could restrict that, that would be great. Thanks. Borup: Okay, Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Beck: Good evening. My name is Richard Beck, I live at 3723 Bottlebrush Avenue and I represent the Heather Meadows Homeowners Associ?tion and we are, I guess, disappointed with legal description on tonight's hearing, It basically states that it is an annexation and rezone application. But, in fact, in addition to those applications, it is also a detailed -- you know, approving a detailed site plan. However, we have had the opportunity to -- Borup: Maybe I can get a clarification on that. And Brad might clarify that. The other -- the site plan is additional information that was provided. It was not -- it is not part of the application, but we like to have some information on what the use is going to be. So, thi$ was provided so we could have additional information for the city and the public, Anything to add to that, Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I don't think so, You're correct; normally the annexation applications do not require submittal of a development plan or elevations. Staff did recommend that more detail be included in this one, since they wanted to proceed with it with a building, so-- Borup: Okay, So, essentially, that's why this was provided, so there would be more information for you as the neighborhood and us as a city, Beck: Okay. I just -- you know, approval of a detailed site plan -- I read the staff report and it, you know, mentioned -- you know, wanted you to be aware of the fact that you were also approving a specific detailed site plan, so I wanted to mention that. We did have the opportunity to review the application and we, as a neighborhood, find that it does not substantially comply with the Meridian City Comprehensive Plan. The subject Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 32 of 70 parcels envisioned a mixed use regional, envisioned a combination of compatible land uses, possibly developed under a concept or master plan. It may be possible to approve just the CoG zone and it could comply with the regional concept, but we feel that approval of this application would, basically, with a CoG zoning and accompanying detailed site plan, would only increase the possibility of a hundred percent commercial development of an almost 40 acre site with no mixed use. I know city code -- I believe there are sections that require you to consider transitional zoning or even transitional uses between commercial and residential uses. So, this detailed site plan before you does not include any transitional zoning or use. And approval of the detailed site plan also augments the following issue, which I -- some people brought up tonight. The city code asks has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas, which may dictate that the area should be rezoned? For example, have the streets been widened? Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and serviçes, such as highways and streets, et cetera? Will the proposed uses not involve uses that will detriment -- that will be detrimental to any persons, properties, or the general welfare by reasons of excessive production of traffic or et cetera? Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property, which shall be so designated as not to create interference with traffic on surrounding public streets? And, again, in the staff report he references a traffic study that was done and submitted by ACHD that basically indicates at 2010 build out this project will roughly generate about 10,000 additional vehicle trips and if you add in the other areas in this vicinity that also will generate -- generate traffic, like the Blue Marlin and the Kissler projects -- and I think it's a very important issue. Many -- I guess Eagle Road could be considered to be currently operating easily with standards. Ustick Road is my concern. Would it be able to handle the traffic as a two-lane road? I would definitely call to your remembrance the north -- North Meridian Traffic Study that did study this area and did make some recommendations on what could be improved on Ustick Road and, if you remember, those improvements have not been made yet. So, we request that you either deny the application or require the applicant to submit a site plan that shows -- that basically meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, shows mixed use, shows transitional uses. At the same time should you find that this project does comply with your Comprehensive Plan, we would request that conditions of approval that -- I have made a list -- be also included in a development agreement. And, unfortunately, I only have one copy to submit, but who do I submit it to? Borup: To the clerk. Beck: Okay, And I will state that the applicant has not seen the conditions of approval. Unfortunately, I was not made aware of this application until roughly two days ago, And just some other -- Borup: You say you weren't made aware until how long ago? Beck: Two days ago. Borup: Two days ago? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 33 of 70 Beck: Uh-huh. However, I do live outside of the 300-foot radius and I'm not a hundred percent certain if the homeowners association did receive notification. I haven't seen any type of letter. And just as -. just because it's kind of a -- Borup: And you had not noticed the site sign? Beck: I did notice the site sign, Uh-huh. And this is kind of the final comment. The applicant did indicate that -- and I don't know if you could go back to the elevations? Would that be possible? You know, the site -- the applicant said that, you know, Lowe's is stepping up the architecture, trying to come up with something that's visually pleasing and when I read -- you know, when I take a look at this elevation, I just basically see a box, you know, with a few extensions. Just a box. I don't see a step up in architecture. And those are basically our concerns. Again, we would request that you would consider whether this application with the site plan and zoning really complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you, Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Stringham: Hello, my name is Carol Stringham, I live at 3441 -- never mind. 3441 Bottlebrush. It's going to be right back up to the street that will run behind this new development. We originally bought the house with the promise from Heather Meadows that it was a low density commercial. I'm thoroughly disappointed there is going to be this Lowe's. First of all, a beautiful sunset can be seen. I know that I have to give that up at some point, but to such a large building. Instead of the 9:00 to 5:00 low-density commercial low use, a 9:00 to 9:00 I'm guessing high volume, I'm concerned about the noise, privacy, Also resale. We are a -- just a starter home, so we are going to be out of there sooner than later, And something that I would consider -- I'm curious if -- I'm concerned about the connections with the -- I don't know what you call those, the streets that are dead ended right now that will connect to it. Stub streets. Thank you. So Broadleaf is the one that's closest to us on -- and that won't be shielded by the 20-foot sound barrier. I am grateful they are going to put that in, I didn't know they were going to do that. Something I would have you consider is that Ustick Road right now where Heather Meadows is where you turn in, it is three lanes, with the middle lane, and, then, it starts narrowing to Eagle Road and does get back, as was previously mentioned, to our subdivision and even back to the school in the morning hours and at night. And so with that narrowing and the traffic already congested, I see that there is going to be a change in having to widen the road. I want you to consider if they are going to do that, because it is narrow. Also I would ask you to consider not repealing the requirements of having the 12 acres of professional development, since that is what we were told and, hopefully, that would be some less real estate that would be there that would kind of transition, as was used on the sound and the use of that area and those are my thoughts and I am disappointed, but I appreciate the sound barrier going in and wish you to consider those two points I brought up. Thank you for your time. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Mr. Turnbull, final remarks you'd like to make? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 34 of 70 Turnbull: Thank you, Commissioner Borup. I will respond briefly to the comments that have been made. I'll let Mr. Manion address any issues of hours of operation and those kinds of things. Mr, Bowhecker, who represents the church board to the north, mentioned that we hadn't had any contact with their church board. We had discussed this with Merlin Knight, who I think is the president of their board and Tony Bohner, who I think is their attorney. Okay. And, basically, Matt Smith from our office discussed it with those two gentlemen. They said they wanted to form a committee and they'd get back to us and they did return our call and directed Matt to meet with Steve Hill, who I believe is on your board; is that correct? Okay. So, we have had some discussions with them. And I understand that those things don't always get transmitted, but we have made a good faith effort there. Borup: So, I'm confused on the status of the -- of the road. There is not a right of way at this point? You said it was partially completed and -- Turnbull: Our understanding from Mr. Hill was that that road was, essentially, completed, except for the final connection to Eagle Road. So, this was done on private property? No ACHD approval or inspections? Turnbull: No. I believe it was done with ACHD approval. However, when it came to making the final link with ITD, from our understanding from Mr. Hill, I believe, of the church board, there was a deceleration required on Eagle Road and the two property owners weren't able to work out that agreement. That's what we are trying to help accommodate. Borup: Okay. So, they were intending that that would have been deeded to ACHD, but since they couldn't make their link, it didn't happen? Turnbull: Correct. It was a requirement of the Providence Subdivision to connect out to Eagle Road, Borup: Okay. Turnbull: And so I believe Hubble, who developed that project, the Providence development, actually constructed that road over the property I think that's owned by the church. But the final connection was never made and, hence, we have some unfinished business there. Borup: Okay. Turnbull: Let's see. Carl Gilbert mentioned the signal. You know, we -- and there was several other comments made about traffic on Ustick Road, The traffic study that was commissioned and has been through ACHD and been reviewed by them indicates that Ustick Road will require widening with or without this project. The traffic generation that are quoted will happen, you know, with or without this project. We, actually, are working Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20,2004 Page 35 of 70 with ACHD to see if we can enter into a public-private partnership with them to get that -- that process moved up, much like was done at out Silverstone and EI Dorado projects on Eagle and Overland Road projects, Those details haven't been worked out, but, obviously, it's in everybody's best interest to get those improvements done as quickly as possible and at the most cost efficient way possible. So, we are pursuing that. Mr, Harnden, I believe, mentioned safety issues. The safety issues are -- can be mitigated with the collector road that we are proposing to construct, plus the signalization, plus further widening, A couple of people asked about the stub streets. Those stub streets were required in those locations by ACHD when Providence development went in and so those are -- will be required by ACHD to connect to this new collector road. I don't think that that indicates that traffic will be reverse flowing into this development, it typically goes the other way, the residents in that neighborhood will have access -- better access out of their development and access to these retail sections, but I don't think people are going to be driving through their project to get anywhere, because it's not the quickest and easiest to get anywhere, other than the subdivision. Borup: And they'd also have access to this signal light, then? Turnbull: Correct. They would have access to the signal light. Richard Beck mentioned that this application doesn't substantially comply with the Comprehensive Plan. I think the staff-report adequately details that it does comply with the Comprehensive Plan. As per the issue of transitional uses not included, we discussed that at length with staff and concluded that the addition of that street, with the landscape buffering, does, in fact, constitute a transition and does provide that landscape screening. Again, I just -- I would reiterate that this area is designated for commercial uses. That's what we are proposing to do here. We can work with this Commission to come up with satisfactory solutions to any of the noise pollution issues. I think we are -- already have gone a long way in addressing any traffic issues with the mitigation we are proposing to put in and if you have any further questions for Mr. Manion on operational issues, I will defer to him on those items, Borup: Okay. Questions from the Commission? Have you -- do you see any feasibility at all with having a small amount of office space on the site somewhere? Turnbull: It's possible, but I don't think -- I think 12 acres was probably an arbitrary requirement and probably in excess of what I could feasibly project. Like I said, it hasn't been a requirement in some of the other applications. If it's feasible and we can do it, we will certainly look at it. Borup: And I'm not saying 12 acres, but -- and I don't know what -- Turnbull: I'm not unused to doing office. Borup: Yeah. I realize that. So, I guess that's what I'm asking, if a smaller amount would be feasible, ten percent, or something like that. Or have you looked into it to that extent? Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 36 of 70 Turnbull: I haven't. You know, it's hard to quantify. I don't know how you quantify that in advance. But I think what I stated before is probably accurate. When you want to do a mixed use between office and retail, the way it works best is if you have -- well, we have done this in one of our projects, Boise Research Center, we have 1,250,000 square feet of office and we have probably 30, 40 thousand square feet retail, plus another 45 square foot hotel that's about to start construction, So, you know, it usually works the other way where it's predominately office and, then, you supplement it with service retail and those kind of retail uses that augment and service the surrounding employment center, Borup: Okay, Nothing else? Thank you. Maybe we can get some clarification on the hours, then. Manion: Jim Manion with Lowe's, Our hours of operation in Idaho -- Borup: Yeah. I think the main concern was like hours for the compactor and delivery hours. Manion: Okay. Thank you. We have receiving between -- receivers that come into the store between 7:00 and 4:00 p.m. and that's the predominate receiving hours at the store. What we -- we are a little different and I think it's to the benefit of the community in how we operate. We are a DC operating company where we receive truckloads from a company-owned distribution center, so the frequency of deliveries is greatly reduced from competitors that we have and so -- and it's, I think, a less intrusive operation. What I can say is that there is about three truckloads a week for the covered trucks -- truckloads that come from a distribution center to the store throughout the week and they are company trucks, Now, there are a number of other trucks that come in throughout the day that are anywhere from a Fed Ex to a flatbed to a pickup truck bringing widgets and gadgets at a smaller quantity, but -- Borup: Are those trucks usually backed up to a loading dock? Manion: Yes. Generally -- I went by a couple stores -- I have developed all the stores in Idaho, but it's primarily an exchange program. The truck comes in, there is always going to be a trailer at one of the other doors and what happens is from the company trucks -- and it's more efficient for us -- is on this exchange program a trailer is backed in, the full trailer, and it will unhook and hook up to the previously delivered trailer and pull out and leave and, then, the night -- the crew has so many days to unload that trailer until the new delivery shows up. Borup: And that's enclosed trailers? Manion: That's correct. Borup: Okay, So, those are going directly into the building. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20,2004 Page 37 of 70 Manion: That's correct. Borup: I think probably the concern would be, you know, forklift operation and that type of thing at late hours. Manion: That type of operation does run during the business time of the -- over at the other side of the store, the lumber area, that operation is about two trucks a week, company owned, again, coming from a distribution center consolidating and that activity is really during business -- those receiving hours. Borup: Okay. Manion: But what I -- I guess the point I wanted to make and in full disclosure is what happens is in a 24 hour period -- I'm not saying it would happen, but that exchange happens, but there usually has to be somebody in the store and this market doesn't require 24 hour operation in the store, but in our dense populated, high volume stores, there might be a night crew throughout the night and they could receive this drop trailer and, again, here I believe the primary would be during business hours, a drop and exchange. Borup: Okay. Manion: But -- Borup: How about the compactor operation? Manion: I have to admit, I'm informed more on the construction side, but -- Borup: Any problem with restricting those hours to -- Manion: I don't think so. We kind of -- Borup: Probably, the main question would be is the noise level. The compactor is inside the building? Manion: I have to be honest with you, I have been -- I do 11 states and a lot of commission meetings and everything and this is the first time compactor hours was ever brought up or the noise level. It's pretty unique. And I really am not prepared to understand what kind of level that they generate and nor have I ever been hauled back later after a store is open and said you got to do something about that compactor operation. Now, I have heard about trucks and such, but it's kind of unique to me to hear that tonight and I don't believe it will be a problem, but as to the hours it operates and everything, I'm kind of stymied on that. Borup: Okay, Meridian Planning & Zoning Ccmmission May 20, 2004 Page 38 of 70 Manion: Thank you. Borup: Well, let's see. Questions from any other Commissioners? Manion: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Any other comments from staff? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, just a couple of things -- Borup: Did you get a copy of both the submittals? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, we did. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: On the notes that I was taking, I think one thing that was missed -- there was a question about whether or not the homeowners association was notified. I am looking at the mailing list and I do see that Heather Meadows Neighborhood Association -- there was a notice sent to 701 South Allen Street, Suite 103, attention homeowners association. So, they -- that did go there, That was one question. On the question of the historic home, I -- the staff report did raise that. There were three findings that staff felt probably could not clearly be met and one of those was the finding that historic structures be looked at, if at all possible, to be preserved. Staff's understanding it is not on the national register. It is listed on Ada County's historic survey, which is different than the National Park Service list, which, actually, is the register. But I did explain that in the report. Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: It is a sandstone blockhouse that's there in that corner that is on this property that would be removed if this proceeds as approved. Borup: Okay. And being on that survey -- I assume that means if someone wanted to make an application, it would have been considered, but at this point -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. It is eligible to have an application submitted for it. Right. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Any other comments? Hawkins-Clark: As far as Ustick Road, Ada County Highway District report, I'm just looking here, they -- they have recommended that for the first 500 feet from the Eagle Road to the east, that they dedicate 60 feet of right of way, which would make it 120 wide and, then, at that point it would taper down to 48 feet of right of way, but just to clarify, that's just referring to the dedication of the road, not the construction of it, which Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 39 0170 would be an Ada County Highway District project. And to clarify, the Highway District hasn't really -- they haven't had a hearing on this, because they haven't received a formal development application, What they have given the city is conditions that they would probably put on the applicant if they do get a development application. So, that's just to clarify that those discussions would probably still take place. Borup: And there would be a public hearing at ACHD or -- Hawkins-Clark: I can't answer that. Borup: Not sure. Okay, Zaremba: Actually, that's a general question. ACHD's hearings are open to the public, but I don't believe they are noticed in the same way that our hearings are. Often people don't know their hearings are happening. But they are open to the public if you know it's happening. Borup: Okay, All right. Commissioners, I think that concludes testimony. Zaremba: Mr, Chairman, I would move that the hearing on AZ 04-009 be closed. Rohm: Second Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES, Borup: Okay. Anybody want to start any discussion or are we ready for a motion? Zaremba: We probably need to tweak the motion a little bit. Moe: I would be a little interested as to what we are going to do about the 12 acres in regards to the north, as far as showing those as commercial. Deleting that or not. Zaremba: Okay. That, by the Comprehensive Plan, is mixed use area. The zoning requested matches Comprehensive Plan intention, I suspect what staff was trying to do is to make sure that there is some mix to the use. I didn't read that sentence as requiring the entire 12 acres to develop that way. To me, when it says it shall be required to incorporated professional office and other non-retail, I read that as some of it would need to be that way, not all 12 acres, and that the sum is unspecific as to how much it would be. I'm comfortable either way, Newton-Huckabay: So, you're saying a percentage of 12 acres needs to be -- Zaremba: Yeah, I'm not so sure I want to specify the percentage, but I didn't read that as saying that all 12 acres had to be pre-designated as office or non-retail, just that Meridian Planning & Zoning Ccmmission May 20.2004 Page 40 of 70 some should be incorporated, and I think the operative part of it was that the zoning administrator, which means Anna Powell, would make that decision, rather than us, so that it didn't have to keep coming back through us and if we wanted to add the word some, so that it doesn't sound like all 12 acres have to be that way -- Borup: I think if we could make it a little less ambiguous would be good. Zaremba: And not to speak for the applicant, but it may be almost automatic to have some of it in there. I would see that change. Loading docks, which are at 3-D, we have had discussion about loading docks. The thing -- what I probably would add there would be the comments about the operation of the compactor and the generator and, then, perhaps define some hours between which all of those have to occur, It's just on the thought that at some point the retail operation of the store may go to 24 hours -- I mean 15 years from now, maybe, but that could happen. I think it's reasonable to have some restriction on delivery and generator and compactor hours. I probably would be more inclined to go closer to 7:00 a,m., than 8:00 a.m. and maybe cut them off at 6:00 p.m., rather than 4:00 p.m., as suggested by the homeowners association. That's open for discussion. That's just one person's opinion. Borup: That's the exact hours I was thinking, 7:00 to 6:00. Rohm: So, you'd just expand D to include -- Zaremba: The compactor and the generator. Rohm: Generator. Zaremba: And, then, let's say all of those activities have to be conducted between 7:00 and 6:00 p,m, Newton-Huckabay: What about loading dock hours? Is that in there, too? Zaremba: Yes. Yeah. Loading docks are mentioned -- well, what it already says is loading docks, trash collection, out-door storage, shall be incorporated into the overall building or landscape designs so that the visual-acoustic impacts of said functions are minimized. After -- let's do this: After trash -- after loading docks and before trash collection, I would add: Compactor, comma -- that wasn't just generator, it was auxiliary generator -- Moe: Emergency generator. Zaremba: -- Emergency generator at that point and, then, I would add a new sentence at the end that says all of these activities shall be confined to between 7:00 a,m. and 6:00 p,m. Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission May 20, 2004 Page 41 of 70 Borup: Maybe some -- are you talking unloading -- unloading the -- parking the truck during those hours? Not necessarily taking the goods out of an enclosed bed truck that goes directly to the building. Zaremba: Once the trailer is parked and, essentially, attached to the building by the enclosure, I am not limiting that activity, but -- Borup: Okay. I just that maybe. Okay. Well, and I -- that's what I knew you meant, but I -- Zaremba: Do I need to -- Borup: Well, I don't know. I don't think we want to define unloading as being able to load box goods out of an enclosed trailer. Newton-Huckabay: I think the idea was to prevent, you know, backup alarms at 3:00 o'clock in the morning. Borup: Right. Moe: Which is fine. And not only that, you're giving them a couple extra hours anyway for the receiving time. Zaremba: Some of the other issues from the homeowners association about lighting are, in my opinion, pretty well covered by the existing statutes about how lights can be placed and light cannot shed off onto adjoining properties and stuff like that. Borup: Yeah. Those are all standard -- Zaremba: Do we think we can cover those anyhow? Right? Okay. All right. Transportation policies. Okay. Transportation policies, I, in my mind, would refer back to page 11, paragraph 3-A, number three, where the real comment is that regardless of what we say about access points, the City of Meridian is not really approving or disapproving the roadway accesses, those are -- those are the purview of ACHD and ITD and whether we agree with this site plan or not, does not mean that we are authorizing accesses that either ACHD or ITD -- and I think that one covers -- I think 3- A-3 covers the transportation policy, so I would leave that alone. Does that mean we are close to a motion? Anybody have anything to add? Moe: I think you're ready. Borup: Any comments on the submittal from the applicant? Zaremba: Well, that's, actually, what I was working off of. Borup: Okay. Well, you had mentioned on the conditional use aspect. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 42 of 70 Zaremba: He -- I believe the applicant was satisfied with staff's explanation of why it's in there, Borup: Right. And I didn't know if we needed to add -- Zaremba: It's really -- should we add the intention is design review? Borup: Yeah, Design review and not use of -- and not use. Zaremba: Okay. Okay. Rohm: I think it's suffice to just leave it the way it is and our verbal commitment that we are not trying to minimize -- Borup: Well, no, but -- Zaremba: I would begin it the same way, add that any structure over 5,000 square feet shall be considered a new conditional use for design review, Borup: Okay. That was a blanket conditional use and that means everything for any reason, so -- which we have -- that's been a condition in a lot of projects, that anything within that project needs to have a design review. We have done that in the past on a lot of annexations. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Are you ready? Zaremba: I think that covers pretty much that. Okay. Let me give it a stab. Correct me if I miss something. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-009, request for annexation and zoning of 36.93 acres from RUT to CoG zone for Market Square by Smith Brighton, northeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of May 20th, 2004, received by the city clerk May 17th, 2004, with the following changes: On page ten, under special considerations, the second bullet, which is titled proposed uses, paragraph C under that, add the statement: Any structure over 5,000 square feet will -- I'm sorry, Correct that to 50,000. Any structure over 50,000 square feet shall require a conditional use for design review purposes. On page 12, paragraph D, will be modified as follows: The following standard shall apply to all development on the subject property, All loading docks -- and add the words compactor, comma, emergency generator, comma, and, then, continued trash collection, et cetera. In paragraph D add a new sentence at the end that say all such activities shall be confined between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Borup: Did - you had mentioned earlier about page 11-3-A. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 43 of 70 Zaremba: I'm sorry; I missed my one little word in there. Yes. Another change on page 11 under annexation and zoning facts and conditions, paragraph three, subparagraph A, sub subparagraph 2, so 3-A-2, the 12 acres shown as commercial on the north end of the site shall be required to incorporate some -- I add the word some -- professional office or another non-retail use, And, then, the second sentence remains as is, Then, I already mentioned the change on page 12. That still stands. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay, Thank you, And there will be another hearing at City Council in a month or so. That date, again, will be posted on site and, then, those that -- and, then, mailings will also go out, just like for this hearing, I think we will probably take a short break at this time. We will reconvene after the break. (Recess.) Item 6: Public Hearing: RZ 04-005 Request for Rezone of 9.47 acres from R-4 to R-8 zone for proposed Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur LLC/Ron Sargent - 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 04-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 42 single-family residential building lots and four common lots on 9.47 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur LLC/Ron Sargent - 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 04-011 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for proposed Larkspur Subdivision with request for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and front and street side yard setbacks by Larkspur LLC/Ron Sargent - 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening and continue with the next items, Public Hearing RZ 04-005, request for rezone of 9.47 acres from R-4 to R-8 for proposed Larkspur Subdivision and accompanying that PP 04-011, request for preliminary plat approve of 42 single family residential building lots and four common lots and CUP 04-011, request for Conditional User Permit for a planned development for proposed Larkspur Subdivision. I'd like to open all three hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application ,is for Larkspur and it consists of three parts. The first one is a rezone of 9.47 acres from -- currently it's R-4 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20,2004 Page 44 of 70 zoning and they are proposing an R-8 zoning. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this area is medium density residential, which supports this proposed zone change. We also have a preliminary plat -- a preliminary plat for 42 building lots and four other lots and included in the 42 building lots are two lots which would be on the western side of the subdivision which have existing homes and there is also an application for a planned development, which is allowing the applicant to request reduced minimum lot size. These are proposed to be patio homes that will be marketed for seniors, with smaller floor plans, smaller lot sizes, and they are proposing minimum lot sizes of 4,011 square feet. And these will all be detached single family homes. And they are also requesting reduced frontage on a couple of these lots to go down to a minimum of 22,18, I'm going to keep this up and I wanted to go through a couple of the issues with this project. The first of these is that -- currently we have an application for a proposed Southwood Subdivision, which you all saw two weeks ago and it will be going to City Council -- I believe it's June 2nd, The access for Larkspur is dependent on that application going through. If that application does not go through with that road connection, this project will not have access, so that's an important note to make. I just wanted to make sure that was on the record. Let's see. Another thing I wanted to go through -- and, actually, we -- the applicant and I have discussed a few issues I brought up in the report, The first of these is the two existing access points for the two existing residential lots on Meridian Road. Since I prepared the -- there we .go. Since I prepared the staff report, our planning director spoke with someone from -- actually, I don't have the name. Someone from ITO and I think the developer has that name -- spoke with ITD and they told us that, basically, they were amenable to keeping those two remaining access points as long as those points were decommissioned upon redevelopment of the property and we are amenable to that, as long as there is a deed restriction that's incorporated into the approval, so that upon redevelopment of those lots, those two access points will go away. The second thing that I want to go through, the Meridian fire chief has requested that -- actually, requires that there be a secondary emergency access, so we are proposing that there be an access point -- well, what they have shown here is showing it through the center part here and I'll go ahead and address another second issue for that in a moment. And the third issue I wanted to go through and there is a couple things I wanted to make sure you pay attention to. The two existing residential lots, staff felt that there was potential in the future for those two to redevelop, but I wanted to point out that currently there is no push to develop plans for that and the designation for that property is residential, but because of the L-O to the north and the location on an arterial, we thought that there was that potential at some point, so we wanted to make sure that there was access for those parcels, so that they could be developed in the future and there are a couple of different options for how we could provide that access. And I'll kind of go through the three options and, then, I'll go through the third one, which the applicant has agreed to, I'll kind of go through and explain that. The first one would be to provide a cross-access connection between the northern existing residential lot and Southwood. In talking to the developer of Southwood, they are really not amenable to that. That's the first option. The second option would be to go ahead and pave what we are showing as a proposed emergency access road in the current location to do a 42-foot road section and a 50-foot easement and to do a deed restriction on that lot, so that it couldn't be developed as a buildable Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 45 of 70 lot. That's option number two. And, then, the third option, which I think the developer was most amenable to would be to move that proposed road section to the north -- I'll go ahead and kind of show where that would be, So, to move that to the north, so that upon potential redevelopment of those two existing homes in those lots, that would -- you wouldn't -- well, there are a couple things. You wouldn't have those -- you wouldn't have these two homes to the north wouldn't be -- wouldn't be isolated, surrounded by potentially commercial to the west and commercial to the north, you wouldn't have that access road between the two homes, so the developer, I think, was most amenable to moving that up there and, then, we would also want to work with the fire chief to make sure that we still had that emergency access that we go through and to that connection, but we -- staff recommends having the developer go ahead and pave that now, rather than paving it later, because, then, you run into the situation where there is an easement there, but five years down the road you go to continue that road and if the neighbors weren't expecting that road to be in, it's more difficult to put a road in five years down the road, then, to do it now before the homes are there. So, our recommendation is that that road segment go ahead and -- we go ahead and pave that now and it would just be paved like out to there. You wouldn't pave it all the way out to Meridian Road, So, I wanted to go through that. Let's see, another thing I wanted to kind of comment in my staff report, I made mention of the buffer between Southwood Subdivision and Larkspur and I wanted to kind of emphasize that because Southwood is the more intensive use with proposed light office and multi-family, that the burden of providing that buffer falls on Southwood and I have talked to the developer of Southwood and there are just a few places where they are a little bit under the 20 foot requirement for the buffer and they will address that at City Council, but I didn't want -- I didn't want you to think that that burden fell on this project. And the next point I wanted to go through is concerning the open space lots. We have a code requirement that when you have a -- what's considered to be a micro path , which these -- kind of these little arms for the open space lots are technically micropaths, it needs to be, essentially, 15 feet in width. You have a five-foot pathway, paved pathway, and, then, five feet of landscaping on either side, and the developer is just proposing a ten-foot connection. I think -- I think for all three of the micropaths. So, he's going to go through some alternatives he has for that. But the code requirement is 15 feet. And the final consideration I wanted you all to make, we are asking that the fencing along these pathways be constructed to -- to micropath standards. Now, these aren't considered to be micropaths, because they are too long, so we don't have any code requirements, but it's staff's recommendation that to increase the visibility of an area, that they do go ahead and do micropath fencing, which is a four foot solid fence and, then, you can do a lattice at the top. So, we would recommend that that micro path fencing be put in for these residential lots and, then, also for all of the lots that are backing up to the open spaces. And it's just to increase visibility, increase safety in the area. Let's see. So, my recommendation for conditions to be added, if you all recommend approval, these would all be added -- and I can go through these again, but these would all be added to the preliminary plat and that would include -- oh, and, actually, I didn't mention -- we'd also like to see a cross-access agreement between these two existing residential lots and that's to insure that this lot to the south has a cross-access agreement to reach the access point, so they can get out of their property, So, that's a -- I would like to have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 46 of 70 that recommended as a condition for the preliminary plat. The second condition would be to -- that the access points along Meridian Road would be abandoned upon redevelopment of the property. And, then, my third recommendation for a condition to add would be that there be a deed restriction or some type of restriction on the lot where they were going to do the road connection, whether that be to the north or to the center, but we make it clear that that will not be a buildable lot and that that will be a -- that will be a road at some point in the future. Oh, And, actually, I have a recommendation from Public Works that he thinks probably the best solution would be to go ahead and dedicate the right of way and go ahead and construct it as a public street. So, those are staff's comments and staff is recommending approval of this subdivision. I think it's -- the project is proposed patio home development, it adds diversity to Meridian housing stock, and it fits with the Comprehensive Plan and staff is supportive of the project, Do you have any questions of staff? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to make their -- Zaremba: I do have one. Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Just because you said them so fast, I didn't catch them. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Zaremba: I heard them and understood, but I couldn't make the notes fast enough, The three items that you wanted to add, I think, under site specific comments, preliminary plat, would be on page seven, where there are four paragraphs. You wanted to add a paragraph that said, there needs to be a cross-access agreement on the two lots -- Kirkpatrick: Between the two existing residential lots. Correct. Zaremba: Okay. What was the next one? Kirkpatrick: The next one is that the two existing access points on Meridian Road should be decommissioned upon redevelopment of those two lots. Zaremba: Hang on. Kirkpatrick: And, then, when this application goes to City Council we should have a letter from ITD in the files by then. That's why we didn't make mention of this in the staff report. Zaremba: Okay. Then, the third one? Kirkpatrick: And the third one -- and Bruce may want to talk about the best language for this, but I would -- it's basically to make sure that the lot that we are proposing, that the Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commissicn May 20, 2004 Page 47 of 70 access road be put on, be deeded as a non-buildable lot. And Bruce will help me with the language on -- I'm sure there is better language than that. Zaremba: What's the name that's being given to this section of road here? Do you -- Kirkpatrick: No. I mean I'm actually -- I'm talking about the connection that will -- that will -- for the new road that will link the two existing residential lots -- Zaremba: I know that, but I was going to phrase it, so that those lots must have a connection to -- Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, in thinking about this, what -- we try and play the Devil's advocate, If that does redevelop and we want to be able to have this connection through here, I don't necessarily think it has to be public right of way, but I think, you know, a minimum 25 foot width for a driveway should be set aside. I think it's best if it is constructed now, so that, you know, people that are in here, there is no question about what's this going to be in the future. It could be set up as a lot, you know, that is like a common lot in the plat, so that it could be referred to, you know, like Lot 5, Block 6, is a driveway approach or something like that. Zaremba: You mean the roadway itself? Freckleton: The roadway itself being a common lot. Zaremba: The two currently residential lots, not naming those as a lot, but -- Freckleton: No. Zaremba: But providing a name for the lot that would become a road. Freckleton: Correct. Okay, Yeah, Wendy just pointed out that that's South Progress that comes in right there. The other thing I wanted to point out is, again, I was very tardy getting the staff report. There is a supplement that I did. We had a family emergency last week and I didn't get my work done until early this week, so I apologize for that. In my supplemental report I just noticed that, really, the only thing that is supplementary to Wendy's original report is site-specific preliminary comments one, two, and three and the rest of that is duplicated from her report. So, basically, the only thing that I'm hoping that you will get into the record would be site specific one, two, and three on my supplement and everything else is redundant. Excuse me. One and two. Rohm: One and two. Freckleton: Yes. I'm sorry. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Would the applicant like to go ahead? Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 48 of 70 Sergent: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Ron Sergent, 4915 West Camas in Boise. And as staff mentioned, we are proposing to put this development into primarily address the needs of the seniors in the community. We have done a number of these projects in Treasure Valley. By far and away the majority of our buyers of these homes are seniors and even though we don't do age restriction, we find that 60 to 70 percent of the buyers are seniors and of approximately 250 homes like this that we have developed, we have only had one owner that's moved in that has had children. So, we find that they -- you know, people with families typically like homes with bigger lots. We are building smaller lots, so we find that these owners tend to be very good neighbors, because they are typically retired and they don't create a lot of traffic congestion during peak hours, I guess what I'd like to do is just go ahead and address some of the issues. First of all, I think we'd like to go to the whole thing about the access, And, Wendy, could you go to the landscape plan? I think it's -- well, maybe the landscape plan doesn't address it either. Go to the preliminary plat again, These -- this lot here is -- and this lot here is being retained by the existing owners as two separate lots within the subdivision and we have had a lot of debate over the -- right now they have a driveway that goes out onto Meridian Road that Idaho Transportation Department regulates and, likewise, here they also have an access onto Meridian Road. In my discussions with Dan Kuntz at Idaho Transportation Department says these accesses can remain as long as the use of this property is for residential purposes. As soon as it redevelops into something else, then, ITD will take away that access to Meridian Road. So, hopefully, that clarifies this a little bit on the access out onto Meridian Road. Borup: Question on that. Sergent: Uh-huh. Yes. Borup: Does that mean any residential use or the existing residential use? Sergent: I think it refers to existing, so redeveloped -- so, in other words, as long as somebody didn't come in and build four-plexes, which I think would be considered redevelopment, as long as they continued with the existing single family homes that are there. Borup: Okay. That would apply like if this project, if those homes were removed and this project extended over -- Sergent: Yeah, Then that would -- that would be -- Borup: It would be considered redevelopment and those access points would be deleted, Sergent: Correct. Borup: Okay, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissicn May 20. 2004 Page 49 of 70 Zaremba: I would say that I think I understood it the way you just stated it, that what our discussion has been is preparing for after that. Sergent: Yeah. After-- Zaremba: Not that it has to happen today, but it needs to be preserved to happen later. Sergent: Okay. In our original proposal and maybe if we went to the landscape plan, I think it's a little bit easier to see on there, is this lot here we left open and proposed as a common lot and that would be the access from off of this street here to those two lots on the western portion of the property and we have also been requested by the fire department to do an emergency access from here out to Meridian Road and we have put a fence right here in this location, we'd put a fire department lock on that fence, but it could still be used as emergency access into the subdivision if, for some reason, this road was blocked off up here, Since -- had a number of discussions this week with staff and some suggestions. We think that it is better that that access to those two lots take place here, so we are proposing that we move this home down to this lot, make this an access point to these two lots in front and the reason that we are proposing that is that if these two lots in front become commercial, we think it makes more sense that this is commercial, it's going to be located to the northwest, and if traffic comes down this street, rather than coming into a residential subdivision and, then, going into the commercial area, it is better that it comes down Progress Avenue and goes directly into commercial, so it's sort of commercial to commercial. So, that's -- and the suggestion by staff, I think, of doing that makes a lot of sense. So, if we make this lot the access point. As suggested from staff, I think the way, I guess, I would like to term it, is originally we wanted to just build the emergency access required by the fire department and, then, landscape the rest of the lot. I think given all the confusion that's taken place, probably the best thing to do is just go ahead and pave that and create a stub street and I think that staff's recommendation that we do a 25 foot driveway prior would be the thing that we would support in the recommendation and we go ahead and build that at this time and we build it from this road to the edge of our, you know, property and end it there and, then, build the emergency access out to Meridian Road from that point on. Zaremba: Again, with a fence that has a fire department lock on it? Sergent: Yes. Zaremba: For now? Sergent: Yeah. And the only thing that the fire marshal suggested is that we have got to make sure to put a note on the fence that says no parking here, emergency access, and so that we make sure we restrict the parking in that area. So, that's what we would propose to do. Newton-Huckabay: Now, wouldn't that road run into the commercial development that's proposed right to the north to the new road and have that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 50 of 70 Sergent: This is a public road right here. Newton-Huckabay: Right. And that's -- Sergent: And, then, this is commercial just immediately to the north that's being proposed as Southwood Subdivision. Newton-Huckabay: And your new road would -- Seamons: You're talking about going across my property and -- Borup: Well, excuse me, sir, We need to -- you will have your opportunity. Sergent: We are just going to build a stub street to the edge of your property. Seamons: You're not going to do it that way -- Borup: Do I need to repeat myself again? Sergent: Okay. I thought that's what we had agreed to earlier, but we certainly-- Borup: Yeah. It sounds like you still have things to work out. Sergent: Yeah. It sounds like we need to workout some things, And, then, as far as -- the suggested is to be cross-access -- I mean there needs to be an easement to this -- an access to this lot as well and so we -- it was recommended by staff that a cross- access easement and we agree with that. That makes sense, if it's developed at sometime in the future. Let's see. What other -- okay. So, that -- and, then, the only other -- I guess a couple of smaller issues is staff reported this pathway here, this one here, and this one here, we designed as being ten feet. The code requirement is 15 feet. This pathway here we can widen to the feet. I think it would fit in there and we are not going to fence this portion here, so people can have access here and get up onto this pathway that, then, goes up along the canal. Down here we are going to -- we'd like to request as part of the conditional use this pathway and this pathway remain at ten feet, which would be an exception to the code and the reason we'd like to do that is if we have to widen these to 15 feet, we might have to just limit it to one pathway road, than, two pathways. By making it ten feet wide we can have a connection from this pathway through the entire subdivision in that way. We are not sure if we have enough room to add an extra ten -- you know, five feet here and five feet here as well, so we have an extra ten feet that we'd have to find and we were afraid we might end up losing a lot there. And the last thing we request, not only -- we agree with the staff on having the four foot fence at the back of these lots here and these lots here, but we'd also like to -" just add that we also like the option of being able to do wrought iron fences as well, So, that's the only other thing. Any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 51 of70 Borup: When you say wrought iron, you mean open wrought iron? Sergent: Yeah. Borup: At six feet? Sergent: Or maybe four feet. Borup: Well, that would be your choice. I think they stated that four feet with lattice -- have lattice on top of that and, again, that would be your choice, so -- Sergent: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Questions from Mr. Sergent? Zaremba: Yeah. Actually, I have two, Maybe my first question was already answered. What I was going to suggest is this pathway and this house switching locations, so that it was a clearer connection for the pathway across there. But now that you talk about the difficulty or making them 15 feet, my alternate suggestion is when you make the shift over here of putting a stub street across there, this looked to me like a pretty substantial area that was more than would be required for the stub street and my next question, then, is in order to gain these two sets of five feet, can you shift this -- it's -- I'm not trying to re-engineer the project -- if we are talking a driveway or roadway here and shifting these two houses down, could you shift this group left and up enough to gain ten feet? Sergent: It may be close, because one of the issues is right here. We have to have a 15-foot setback, so if you shift that -- I don't -- the problem is whether or not we can shift that -- Zaremba: It would shrink this piece of property too much. Sergent: Yeah. Is that we'd have -- Zaremba: You'd have to have a variance on that to get the other -- Borup: Fifteen-foot setback from what? Sergent: From the rear yard setback is the requirement, so that -- Borup: Oh, from the existing property. Sergent: The other property. So, my setback in the backyard has to be -- is a minimum of 15 feet. And even -- you know, I don't know about -- by the time we shift everything around, I don't know how much that would take. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissicn May 20, 2004 Page 52 of 70 Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: But aren't you going to shift it anyway -- I mean you're going to be putting a roadway in approximately a 50 foot lot, but you have got another 25 feet to do something with, don't you? Sergent: Well, this right here at the front, this existing lot, is 50 feet and .78. Borup: Right. Sergent: Yeah. It's just the right-of-way width that the highway department requires. Borup: Okay. So, you're still anticipating keeping the 50-foot right of way for your future access road? Sergent: That's what we had -- Borup: Originally planned? Sergent: Yeah, because with the uncertainty, at least, we had the -- we were going to landscape that, rather than pave it, but -- Borup: Right. Sergent: But, then, we -- at least we knew we had the 50 foot right of way available for that, which is a -- you know, sometimes -- you know, there is different right of ways, but at least there is 50 feet there. Borup: Okay, And I guess that's where my question is. Wendy, were you anticipating -- on that future access road -- and Bruce had mentioned paving it -- what right of way width were you envisioning? Or would it be a right of way. It will be a private road, I guess, is what it would be. Kirkpatrick: I mean I think we probably would want a 50-foot easement -- Borup: Okay, Kirkpatrick: And I guess it's up for grabs whether we want it to be drive aisle width -- that would 24? Twenty-five. Or if we did a road section it would be 42, so that's still up for discussion. Borup: Well -- okay. Kirkpatrick: But we would want a 50-foot -- Borup: Well, the easement is what I was questioning about, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20,2004 Page 53 of 70 Sergent: So, we may have room for that 50-foot -- Borup: Well, that shoots down Mr. Zaremba's idea that saves 50-foot easement. Okay. Zaremba: Let me ask a clarification question, if I can, since it sounds like it may come up. Tell me the current ownership of the property's that are there and is this currently one piece of property? Sergent: Yes, Zaremba: Of which you're taking part and this is another -- another owner owns that whole piece? Sergent: Correct. Zaremba: And your proposal is to purchase and develop the back part of those two properties and not touch the front two? Sergent: Correct. parcels -- And the existing owners would retain ownership in those front Zaremba: And not be rezoned and not be included -- so, they are not block or lot within your subdivision, they are totally separate? Borup: Yes, they are. Sergent: They have to be a lot and block to make it a legal lot. Zaremba: Okay. Sergent: So, they are not part of the PUD, but they are part of the subdivision. Zaremba: Okay. Sergent: We when you look at our acreage -- if I can remember this -- about 9.47 acres for the entire subdivision, but our Conditional Use Permit is for seven -- a little bit over seven acres. Borup: So, you do not own the property at this point? Sergent: No. Borup: So, your purchase would be contingent upon this application being approved. Sergent: Yes, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 54 of 70 Borup: I see, Zaremba: I sort of thought that was the way I understood it, but I just wanted to clarify it. Sergent: Yeah. No, You're correct. Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: We have been discussing the drive. It's our feeling that 25 foot paved is the minimum standard. There would need to be a five-foot buffer on each side of it, so a total of 30 would be adequate, instead of 50. Sergent: As an easement? Moe: What do we do, then, once the property, then, redevelops down below and you're going to use that as an entrance into that area? That 30-foot is not going to be enough. Freckleton: Twenty-five is the minimum driveway width for that access, Borup: So, it sounds like you could do -- you're saying he could do something less than a 50 foot the other way? Freckleton: Yes. Borup: I mean you could go to 40 and have more than enough and give your ten feet, if wanted. Sergent: My only issue is, really, how all these kind of shift, because this property line, you know, is where it's located, Freckleton: Mr. Chair, if I might address a question to the applicant. Is that property line set, Ron? Sergent: Yes. Freckleton: Okay, So, there is no chance of lopping the corner of it off right there? Sergent: No. Not -- well, I should say there is always a chance, but under our agreement that's not the case. Freckleton: Okay. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 55 of 70 Borup: Okay. Well, that would be up to you how you do that. It looks like you have got maybe more than you need for the road and you may be able to gain something, so I think that's something your engineer would have to work out. Okay. Any other questions from the Commission? Commissioner Zaremba asked the one that I had, so -- on the ownership aspect. Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Borup: Yes. Freckleton: I don't believe I adequately answered your question, thinking about it. I believe that that stub would need to be in a common lot. If you made it an easement, what -- Borup: Well, yeah, I didn't really mean easement. Freckleton: Yeah, I think a common lot would be the best way to handle it. That way, it could be addressed by lot and block in the covenants and just a lot cleaner. Borup: Yeah, I was, I guess, more referring to the size of the common lot, not specifically an easement. Freckleton: Okay. Sergent: Mr. Chairman, yeah, we also agree a common lot, I think, would make the most sense. Borup: Well, yeah, I misspoke when I said easement. I think the same purpose was in mind, Sergent: Maybe you were referring to an easement with the common lot. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Sergent: Okay. Thanks. Borup: Okay. Now is the time for public testimony. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this that would pertain to this application? Seamons: My name is Jack Seamons, I live at 2190 South Meridian Road, and you want to have an access across my property, I will let you have an access across my property where I want it. Borup: Okay. No, sir. Let me clarify that, if I could. Right here. Seamons: Okay. Meridian Piannlng & Zoning Commissicn May 20, 2004 Page 56 of 70 Borup: What we are saying is to have a future access -- I mean as far as this Commission is concerned, to have that go to the property line. Now, anything beyond that was what they were talking about having with the fire department, so it sounds like that part may be a problem, but what this Commission -- besides a fire, the other thing we were concerned about is making the assumption, maybe right or wrong, that your property someday would probably redevelop to commercial property, and at that point there would need to be some access to the road or you would have a worthless piece of property. Seamons: You're right. That's just what you're doing to me right now, making my property a worthless piece of property. Borup: Well, no, we are trying to protect the value of your property in the future. Seamons: See, right here, on this right here, we've come to an agreement that they can bring the access road right down there and through that piece of property. Borup: And they are showing now on the plat, I assume, Seamons: Yeah. As it's shown right now, I'll agree to that. Borup: Okay. Seamons: But I'm not going to agree to a road that goes over to here through my property, It will just ruin my property and I'm not going to let an access road to come to this property. Borup: Okay, Kirkpatrick: Yeah, This is Wendy Kirkpatrick, planning staff, and I was just going to kind of go through and show him actually where it will be located, just so it was clear. So, we would be -- if this went through, the stub would -- instead of being located here, this stub would be paved -- it would be right here. Seamons: And what's that going to do to my property? Kirkpatrick: Well, the stub will end -- will end at this property line and, then, the emergency access easement would continue up here to that stub. There wouldn't actually be -- there wouldn't actually be -- Seamons: You can't make that turn right there, because that's 25 feet from the fence line right there where they are trying to go through and there is a building right there and I'm not giving my building up for a road. Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 57 of 70 Kirkpatrick: You know, and we -- I mean the developer and you can work on the engineering, but that would -- it, actually, would stop there at that property line. Seamons: Uh-huh. And now you want to put -- it's two gates right there, right? To have a gate through there, so the fire department can get through? Kirkpatrick: Well, we would talk to the fire chief, but I just wanted to -- I just wanted to show you that-- Seamons: I realize just right what you're doing. And, then, you said you wanted an access to this property through my property. Kirkpatrick: Well, and that would just be -- Zaremba: Not currently. Kirkpatrick: We would want to make sure that there is -- Borup: Yeah, Maybe it needs some explanation of what that -- what that was, sir, and that was what -- they call it a cross-access agreement that -- Seamons: I'm not going to give it. Borup: No. No. There is no access, What that's doing is saying when your property -- if your property develops -- Seamons: Okay. Now, if I agree to this, I can't sell my property to anything but commercial property. Borup: No. No. Seamons: I can't sell it -- you just said that. You said that I could not sell it. As long as I lived there it was okay, but I could not sell it to anything but commercial. Borup: No. No. No, I said you would have that opportunity. My understanding, you can sell it as residential just as it is now. Seamons: Okay. Borup: It would have to remain as residential; it could not develop into any high use. Rohm: Jack, it's only if it is redeveloped into something else, then, the cross-access agreement would come into play, but as long as the property remains residential, that is a moot point, it's not an issue. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissicn May 20, 2004 Page 58 of 70 Seamons: Well, it's a moot point to me, because you want to make an access back that will ruin my whole property. Rohm: The cross-access is only at such point in time that that property changes from its current residential use, whether it's you living on that parcel or someone else that you have sold to, As long as it remains residential, it's -- the cross-access isn't an issue. It's only under a redevelopment as in if you were to sell that parcel to somebody else and they want to put something commercial on it, then, that person would, then, be required to provide access to adjacent property. Not you. Not you at any point in time as it's residential. Borup: Okay. So, the cross-access agreement wouldn't really affect you either way, but this other road, obviously, does, so that's something that needs to be worked out between the parties. Seamons: Well, I mean to the party right now is that it would just ruin my property as a homeowner right now. I mean to have that road come through there the way you want it to come through just ruins my property, period. Kirkpatrick: And, Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to explain to the property owner that -- I mean the whole reason we have been concerned about access to the property is because we have, actually, been thinking of the property owner and we wanted to help you maximize your property when you sell it off or want to redevelop it. I mean we don't have allegiance to anyone. We, really, were thinking of the property owners in helping you get the most value out of your land if you want to redevelop it in the future. Borup: Does that make sense? Kirkpatrick: It was our professional opinion that -- Seamons: The way you're wanting to put that road over to there -- Borup: Well, no, but do you understand what she's saying, that it's going to increase the future value of your property? Seamons: Maybe. Borup: You think you can sell it at a higher amount as residential than as commercial? Seamons: I really don't care. I don't want to sell it. Borup: Okay. Seamons: And I mean that's beyond the point right now whether I do sell it or not sell it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20,2004 Page 59 of 70 Borup: Exactly. No, it's your property, you can do with it whatever -- you don't have to sell it to this -- to these people. Seamons: I mean I'm to the point right now if that's where that road's going to go, I'm not going to sell it. Borup: Okay. And that's your right and I don't -- again, this city or the Commission is not telling you where it needs to be. I think you need to work that out with the person buying your property. Seamons: Well, I just -- because you guys are saying this is where the road should be and I'm saying no. Borup: No, we are just saying, there needs to be -- Zaremba: It was a solution that -- it's not my place to make the solution, but let me make a make suggestion and all it would mean is that the applicant is not able to develop what eventually will be a buildable lot. For the future purpose, this stub street does need to happen, For current purpose, this emergency access needs to happen and the issue is you don't want the emergency access to connect to the future street, so the current solution that I propose is that the developer, temporarily not develop this lot and it continues to be the emergency access that everybody's agreed to, He's still going to stub the road to the edge of his property here, but not connect it to this. Is that workable? Seamons: That's workable, but it sure ruins one city lot. Why can't they leave it just -- Zaremba: Well, eventually, when the use of your lot changes, if it ever does, then, he can build a house on that lot, because he doesn't need the emergency access. It just delays him building one house. And I can't speak for him, but I'm just saying that may be a solution. Borup: Well, I think that is and that would solve it, but I think the real solution is Mr. Seamons and Mr. Sergent are going to have to work that out to whatever works best for them. Zaremba: We want everybody to be happy. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else like to testify? Okay. Any final comments, Mr. Sergent? Sergent: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, there is one other element, I think, to this and that's this street here, is that we have acquired an opportunity to buy this land down here, so we may be developing this on this direction. There is a public street that comes in off of Meridian Road, Roseland, I think, is the name of the street. We -- this Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 60 of 70 street here would connect to this other public street eventually. When that happens, then, there will be no need for that emergency access and we can eliminate it, so -- Zaremba: You could develop that piece of property, then, Sergent: Yeah, So, that means that this emergency access across Mr. Seamons' property would be eliminated, so sometime, you know, in the foreseeable future that, hopefully, will take place and that emergency access would not be necessary. Borup: So, it sounds like that may be the direction you're leaning, hopefully, anyway, Sergent: Yeah. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Final comments from staff? I know the city -- looking at the overall development, technically, does there even need to be access? I mean what that would me.an is that the property could never develop to any other higher use, it would have to stay as a single -- one single family residence on that property forever. Kirkpatrick: And Chairman, Members of the Commission, I, actually, checked earlier this week with legal counsel, talked to Chris Gabbert about this, and whether we could actually require -- require access and propose -- you know, assuming that that would develop commercially and he was very leery about us requiring. it, because the Comp Plan designation is residential. So, it's a consideration, it's a suggestion we can make, but I don't know if we could actually require that, because they don't have a commercial application and the designation for it on the Comp Plan is residential. Borup: So, it could stay as it is and never be able to develop anymore beyond one single-family residence. Kirkpatrick: And the reason we were proposing this is because we see an area where there is potential for redevelopment and we wanted to maximize that potential, but -- I mean because it is -- it's on a major arterial, it's going to have L-O to the north, but I mean currently the Comp Plan does not support commercial development. Borup: Yeah. And if Mr. Seamons does not want that, I guess it's up to him to determine the value of his property to that extent. All right. That answers -- well, maybe a question or discussion from Commission? And, really, the main discussion point has been access -- or future access roads. Zaremba: Well, I think the applicant has agreed to the adjustments that have been suggested, I appreciate that eventually the problem of the emergency access is going to go away and it sounds like it may go away sooner than later, if the applicant is able to connect through the south property on the east end. Kirkpatrick: But, Chairman, Members of the Commission, I did want to emphasize that a requirement of our fire chief if that we do have that second emergency access, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20,2004 Page 61 of 70 Zaremba: Yes. It would have to exist for now, but as soon as the -- as soon as the applicant is able to develop the next piece of property, it could go away; right? If there is a public road -- a second public road access, then, this is not needed. Borup: Is that correct? Kirkpatrick: I believe it is. I would want to ask -- I would want to ask Mr, Silva, but I believe that's correct. Borup: Again, for Mr. Seamons, we are not saying a road has to be a certain location through your property. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup? So, if I hear you right, Commissioner Zaremba, the -- if Eagle Road -- from what the applicant has stated, if it does redevelop to something other than residential, those -- all access points to Eagle Road are going -- I mean to Meridian Road are going away. Borup: Right. Zaremba: But we are talking about two different things, We are talking about a stub street that will solve that problem eventually and we are talking about separate from that current emergency access, The stub street will go along the north property line, but it will stop at the fence of this new property, The emergency access is going to stay where it was previously proposed and also stop at a fence, but as soon as the applicant has an outlet to the southeast end of this property, which will, eventually, snake back to Eagle Road -- Rohm: Meridian. Zaremba: -- then, the emergency access goes away. Hawkins-Clark: I think what Wendy is saying -- Zaremba: But the stub road never does go away and, eventually, if the residences become anything else, that stub road will be used, Hawkins-Clark: I think staff's main concern is that -- yeah, that those two aren't forever blocked off from that access to the east and it sounds like -- I misunderstood. I thought the Commission was headed towards closing both the emergency and the -- Borup: No, Hawkins-Clark: -- common lot. Zaremba: The stub is -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20,2004 Page 62 of 70 Borup: Even though Mr. Seamons would prefer that, it sounds like. Hawkins-Clark: Right, but -- Newton-Huckabay: Are we just talking about leaving it as it was proposed, except for this first block here will become a stub street? Borup: Right. But that was by choice of the applicant. Zaremba: Yeah, Borup: And he may have another solution, but I -- Newton-Huckabay: Can we just -- Borup: That's assuming that the future solution is not going to radically redesign this plat; is that correct? Did you have a comment, Mr. Freckleton? Freckleton: Yes, Mr, Chair. One other thing I just wanted to point out is that is also the access to the sewer for these two lots. These two lots get their sewer service over to this road, whether it be in this access -- or this emergency access road or whether it be up here, it's got to get out to this road. We do not have sewer in Meridian Road on this side of Meridian Road, so -- Borup: Okay. Zaremba: It was so simple, Borup: Well, no, I think that -- I assume that, too, that -- Moe: Realizing we don't want to put those two lots in on their own island right there, why would we not want to just go ahead and make that access right where it's shown right now, then, and, then, you know, extend it if the two lots did change later. Borup: Again, I think that may be up to the applicant if he wants to have that future road to the north, so it doesn't -- so that traffic would not drive through their division. I mean he should have that option to do that. I think that's up to -- Mr. Zaremba's solution would solve it now or he may work out something with the neighbor. So, let's leave that up to them. Kirkpatrick: And Chairman, Members of the Commission, I mean, actually, when I went through the three scenarios, the third scenario was just to go ahead and leave it as proposed, but we were suggesting that they do pave that stub, just so it's not a surprise to the property owners later on if that property redevelops, but that was suggestion number three was that we go ahead and keep it in that location as proposed. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 63 of 70 Borup: Okay. I think we can move with it leaving those options -- leave it up to the applicant. Kirkpatrick: And you can condition it where this is something to be resolved before Council. I mean acknowledge that there are two options and it's something for Council to consider. Zaremba: Okay, In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearings on these three items, Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of RZ 04-005, request for rezone of 9.47 acres from R-4 to R-8 zone for proposed Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC, Ron Sergent, 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date May 20, 2004, received by the city clerk to May 17, 2004, with no changes. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES, Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PP 04-011, request for preliminary plat approval of 42 single family residential building lots and four common lots on 9.47 acres in a proposed R-B zone for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC, Ron Sergent, 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of May 20, 2004, received by the city clerk May 17, 2004, with the following changes: On page seven, under site specific comments preliminary plat, we will add a paragraph five that says: A cross-access agreement shall be required on the two lots that are remaining -- currently remaining in their residential use, A cross-access agreement shall be required to cover any future development of those two parcels. Add a paragraph six that says at such time as those two current existing residential parcels are developed to anything other than their current use, they will abandon their access to Meridian Road, We will add a paragraph seven, that this project will provide a permanent access to the two current residential lots that will connect them to South Progress when they are developed and that that access shall be platted as a common lot of the subdivision. This is discussion, not motion. That still allows the applicant and staff and the current owner to establish the reallocation of those, Is that correct? Do I need to specify that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Ccmmission May 20,2004 Page 64 of 70 Freckleton: Mr, Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, the only concern I had about that was, I believe, you stated that the access would be to both the lots. If the access is built up here, technically, it's only to this one lot. Zaremba: Yes, but with a cross-access agreement it gets them both. Freckleton: Right. Right. Okay. Zaremba: The only issue would be if the south lot developed first and the north lot remained a residence. Borup: It couldn't develop, then, Zaremba: What? Borup: There is no way for it to develop. Moe: Yeah, Zaremba: It can't be done, because they'd have to abandon their access to -- they all have to agree whenever that's going to happen, so -- Borup: Since we are on discussion, does a cross-access agreement need to be on the plat or could that be done at the time the property developed? Zaremba: Mentioned on the face of the plat? Borup: Does that need to be part of the platting process I guess, is the question? I mean I think it makes sense to do it now, but I wonder if that's mandatory. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, we feel that it would be best if it were noted specifically on the plat, that there would be cross-access between the two lots. Borup: I agree. I just didn't know if it was mandatory, I guess that depends on what -- I guess it depends on what the motion says. Freckleton: Yeah. Well -- and also the-- Zaremba: I would add that to the new paragraph five. I would just say that it needs to be recorded on the plat or noted on the face of the plat. Freckleton: Yeah. We are kind of talking about final plat type issues here, but that common lot would also be covered by a blanket utility easement, because we are going to have sewer and water in there, too. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20,2004 Page 65 of 70 Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: But, like I said, that's kind of final plat stuff. Zaremba: All right. Mr. Chair, I will continue with my motion and the continuation is to back up to page seven. Site-specific comments preliminary plat. I added a paragraph five and I'm going to add a second sentence to that paragraph five, the cross-access agreement shall be noted on the plat. That concludes that motion. Rohm: 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 CUP 04-011, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for proposed Larkspur Subdivision with the request for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage, and front and street side-yard setbacks by Larkspur, LLC, Ron Sergent, 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of May 20, 2004, received by the city clerk May 17th, 2004, with no changes, Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES, Borup: Okay. Thank you, That includes the hearing on this item. Any final comments? One bad -- sad news for Commissioners. Our June meeting -- we do not have any agenda items for our second meeting in June. Zaremba: I noticed that. That is so sad. Borup: Unless we want to divide up the first week and spread it out. Zaremba: Well, I would suggest that we -- Borup: Leave it like it is? Zaremba: -- calendar some workshop items that we have discussed and just have some discussion and maybe it will be a short meeting. Borup: Do that, rather than the fifth -- Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission May 20, 2004 Page 66 of 70 Zaremba: Or are you proposing that we are -- it didn't look to me like the June 6th meeting had -- or June 3rd meeting had all that much stuff on it. Or is it a heavy meeting? Borup: It's not -- oh, someone put it away. It was -- no, there were about four or five commercial and one mixed use residential commercial on it, so -- Zaremba: Have they already been noticed? Borup: Yes. Well, no. I don't know, Well, they are, really, fairly -- one, two, three, four, five -- there is six, if I counted right. I mean there is 13 items, but there is six or seven -- and there is only one that even has residential on it, the rest are all commercial. Newton-Huckabay: Backing up to any residential? Borup: I don't know. I-L zones, Well, no, here is a little residential of two lots. A two-lot subdivision. Zaremba: I have heard that there was a project that the City Council remanded back to us and I haven't seen that show up yet. Can that be done, then, or -- Borup: Yeah, Wasn't that the -- was that the apartment one? Kirkpatrick: You know, actually, it was Packard Acres No.3, believe it or not. That little 20 lot in-fill extension above -- on Wingate Lane. Borup: Really? Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. But that just happened this Tuesday night, so I don't know -- Jessica, is it possible to -- no, they haven't even resubmitted anything to us, so it wouldn't -- we are too -- Zaremba: I thought there was one about three weeks ago that was -- Newton-Huckabay: Out off Ten Mile. Zaremba: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Or Black Cat and -- Zaremba: I think there is one hanging. Borup: Oh. No. Wait a minute. I'm thinking of -- Newton-Huckabay: It's all the little houses squished together. By EI Gato. Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission May 20, 2004 Page 67 of 70 Hawkins-Clark: Oh, right. Castlebury or -- no. Newton-Huckabay: You know, it's Castle or Creek, I can guarantee it. Borup: That was a while ago, Newton-Huckabay: That's the one Anna mentioned, Zaremba: The one I'm thinking about is three weeks to a month ago that it was mentioned, Newton-Huckabay: That's the one I'm thinking of. Borup: That's the one I was thinking of. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: So, I wouldn't mind dealing with that and maybe some workshop issues, Maybe no applications will show up, but -- Borup: Well, the cutoff has already happened, hasn't it? Or are we -- Zaremba: Or would we like to take a week off? I mean, you know, that's -- Hawkins-Clark: I think it's really up to you. I mean as the Commission. You know, we certainly -- there is some items that we could probably, you know, have for discussion related to north Meridian, possibly, related to the follow-up on, you know, like we discussed a couple weeks ago about the lunches, but I think the lunches may take care of that, if we continue to have that monthly or, you know, every other month or something, so -- and July -- July meetings are very very full. We have got-- Borup: So, we may want a break, Hawkins-Clark: -- many applications for the July cutoff. Both the first and second meetings in July are -- Zaremba: Well, just as happy to say a break and I'm -- there are things that we might do with a free meeting, you know, between Brad and Anna and I, we might be able to offer a progress report on the ordinance update. Rohm: I really like that idea. I'd like to have -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commlssicn May 20,2004 Page 68 cf 70 Borup: The ordinance thing. If we did anything, I'd like something on the ordinance and, again, have we decided whether we are going to do them all as a whole or maybe we can group them? Zaremba: The ordinance changes? Borup: Yes, Zaremba: Well, what eventually will be presented is a whole new ordinance from scratch, so -- Borup: But we got some things that have been -- need to have been changed for four or five years. Zaremba: Well -- and that's why I think a progress report would be good, because we need your feedback to say, well, are you remembering to add this or are you remembering to add that. I have a pretty substantial list that, actually, was started by Tammy de Weerd when she was a Commissioner here and handed to me -- Borup: Another option would be is if the next meeting got over early enough, we could do that from whenever it was over until 10:00 o'clock. And, then, leave it at -- I mean that -- we mayor may not have that time. But if we did that, we wouldn't need to do the next meeting. Rohm: We don't have to make that decision now. Zaremba: I was going to say, we could make that decision -- Borup: No. That's something that -- Zaremba: I'm sorry. We are all -- okay. Everybody talk at once. Since no applications can be added to that meeting, we can decide at our next meeting whether we are going to have that meeting or not. Right? Rohm: Good answer. Hawkins-Clark: Special workshops only have 48 hours, I believe. Is that right, Jessica? Johnson: Yeah. Hawins-Clark: Forty-eight hours to notice, so that would work, Borup: Well -- Zaremba: But it wouldn't be open to Public Hearing or anything, it would just be a private -- the public can come and sit, but it's not testimony or anything. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 69 of 70 Borup: Yeah, Our next meeting is the one I was talking about adding that report to. Zaremba: Okay. Well -- and, then, we could continue-- Borup: Can that be put on the agenda if we have time? If we don't, we can continue it to the next meeting, Or continue it for whenever. That way it's noticed, Would that cover the legal requirements? Hawkins-Clark: We could add it on the bottom of your next meeting agenda that would say special zoning ordinance update or -- Borup: Yes, Hawkins-Clark: -- special discussion items? Borup: Yeah, And if there is not time to get to it, we won't. Zaremba: We would continue it to the next meeting and if we don't continue it, we don't have a next meeting, Borup: I like that solution. Newton-Huckabay: How many agenda items are on the next meeting? Borup: Well, there was -- Zaremba: On June 3rd. Newton-Huckabay: Because we only had eight tonight and it's 10:35. Borup: That's it. There were six or -- well, there were more agenda items. There were six or seven hearings. We only had three tonight. I have noticed that. We have a tendency, if it's a short agenda, we like to stretch it out, just so we can't get home too early. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Zaremba: Second. Newton-Huckabay: I second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? Any opposed? Meeting adjourned at 10:34. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20. 2004 Page 70 of 70 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:34 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ~U~~AN '/ LL_I~ DATEAPPROVED -