Loading...
2004 07-15 Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina July 15. 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: Chris Gabbert, Jessica Johnson, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Wendy Kirkpatrick, Craig Hood, 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 of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. Start with roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of July 1, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Borup: The first item will be that of minutes for July 1 st. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I have one small very picky item to suggest. On page 18, about halfway down the page, I am speaking and I say same lot and block number and it would become an L-shaped lot. Borup: Instead of I-shaped? Zaremba: Because of the font that this is printed out in, a lower case L looks very much like the upper case I, and I would suggest for future clarity of people reading it, that the lower case L be changed to an upper case L. That is my only comment. Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15. 2004 Page 2 of 67 Borup: Okay. Do we have a motion? Zaremba: Seeing no others, Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of July 1st, 2004, as amended. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 04-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1+/- acre from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - 2490 North Locust Grove: Item 5: Public Hearing: PP 04-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 residential building lots and 1 other lot on 1 +/- acre in proposed R-8 zone for proposed Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - 2490 North Locust Grove: Item 6: Public Hearing: CUP 04-022 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential and office in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - 2490 North Locust Grove: Borup: Okay. Our first Public Hearing will be three of them for Secret Garden Subdivision, Public Hearing AZ 04-015, request for annexation and zoning of approximately one acre from RUT to R-8 zone for the proposed Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers at 2490 North Locust Grove. Accompanying that is PP 04-020, request for preliminary plat approval of seven residential building lots and one other lot. And CUP 04-022, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for single family residential and office in a proposed R-8 zone. I'd like to open all three of these hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. This first item, No.4, was submitted to the city as an annexation application. However, as I noted in the staff report that you received, the property has already been annexed, was annexed in 19 -- or '89, as a part of the Chateau's -- Chateau Meadows annexation. So, just for clarity on that item before going further into detail. The property is outlined here -- Borup: So, it was zoned at the same time? Hawkins-Clark: It was annexed and zoned, yes, sir. Borup: To? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 3 of 67 Hawkins-Clark: R-8. Borup: R-8. Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. And that's reflected in the coloring here on the slide. It is 1.1 acres and it's located on the east side of North Locust Grove Road, just right about the half mile point between Fairview and Ustick and as this slide pretty well demonstrates, it is an in-fill parcel surrounded by all built-out residential uses, for the most part. So, the request, then, what staff had asked in our application, was for them to basically modify. It's no longer an annexation request, it's -- the R-8 zone is what they requested and it's already zoned that, so they are proposing one office lot within the project and so we are recommending that Planning and Zoning Commission require them to zone the office portion L-O and, then, the remainder can just remain as it is today. So, that was our recommendation on the -- number four. The aerial photo is shown here. It's a little bit difficult to see, I guess, but you might make out there is a couple of different structures on the property. Existing house in the northwest corner and, then, some outbuildings as well. For Item No.5 on the preliminary plat request, they are proposing seven -- what was shown was seven residential building lots. However, it would be six residential building lots and one common lot, which would include all of the drive aisle and parking area, as well as a landscaped area and, then, another building lot, which would be an office lot. So, you actually have six residential platted lots and one office platted lot, along with the common area lot. So, those are the lots that are included in their application. As far as a breakdown, the use breakdown, about 18 percent of the site is office, 51 percent residential, and 30 percent is the common area. The common area, again, is shown here on the south side and it does have some very large, nice, existing trees that they are proposing to retain and we, obviously, encouraged that in our pre- application meeting and they have done that, so I think that's definitely kudos to the applicant for that. They have also shown a couple of picnic tables as a location for probably both employees of the future office, as well as the residents. As an in-fill parcel they don't actually have to provide amenities. The planned development ordinance says if you have -- if you qualify as an in-fill, you don't have to do the two amenities, which is what we usually see on planned developments. However, in this case they are stating that one of their amenities would be the picnic table. On Item No. 6, the Conditional Use Permit for the planned development, the reason for the planned development is three fold. They are asking for three different deviations and those were listed on page two of the staff report. The first deviation that they are asking for is lot size. The R-8 minimum lot size for attached dwelling units is 4,000 square feet and they are asking for 3,946. So, they are asking for it to be reduced there by 54 square feet. And the second item is for lot frontage. Each of these residential lots that has the attached units is supposed to have 40 feet of frontage on either a public or a private street and they are showing -- they are proposing 31 minimum. The 31, actually, I believe, only applies to a couple of them. The only ones are closer to the 40. But because of the nature of the site, they are asking to squeeze those frontages down a little bit. And, then, the third deviation from the code that they are asking for has to do with the private streets and during our pre-application meeting we actually talked about, Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 4 of 67 you know, how -- what would be the best way to get vehicles in and out of this tight site and what they have, actually, shown is, you know, this entry here with parking on either side as part of the common lot and, then, as you come into the residential area, there is the hammerhead that is 20 feet wide and, then, 20 feet in front of the garages. So, basically, it's 40 feet from the edge of the common lot to the face of the garage in this area and that would apply to all six of these units. But the reason, again, for the planned development is that a private street -- you can't do a common driveway for any more than four units and since they are providing six units, they can't do a common driveway, so they have to do a private street and a private street standard says that you're supposed to do 24 feet of asphalt and, then, you do five foot sidewalks. So, 24, plus the ten, would be 34 feet and while they have that here at the entry, they don't have that width here on the hammerhead. So, that's -. the request there is to -- is to reduce that 24 to 20 in this area. The minimal house sizes, they are meeting the minimums, as well as I guess all the other dimensional standards that are required in this zone. So, I was just going to point out the two special considerations that I had listed on -- starting on page 11 of the staff report and I guess the first one I already touched on. There is the private street waiver. Another part of that waiver that would be necessary in order for the Commission to approve this would be the five-foot sidewalk on the north side. They are showing a sidewalk along the park open space area, so that would presumably come out and attach to the Locust Grove sidewalk, so that would provide access for pedestrians that way. On the north side they are actually not showing a sidewalk in front of the office building right now. In order to get the parking aisles and the parking depth and the sidewalk on the common drive, they are unable to do that. So, that is another part of the waiver that you need to discuss tonight. And I guess staff feels that the in-fill policies basically encourage planned developments in these areas and it says that buildings can be clustered to provide more open space. So, I guess one of the trade-offs is, obviously, you could get -- you could reduce the size of their open space and meet the standards or provide the current open space and reduce the standards, so I guess that's kind of the trade-off that you're looking at. And, then, the second consideration I had on page 12 had to do with the building elevations and this is -- one of the elevations that they submitted in their application and, as you can see, they do have the garages in the front, with the living space above, access on the sides, either end of the building. The floor plans are shown here. They are generally the same. I didn't include all the elevations here. The main thing I wanted to point out is that the existing building, which is shown here, is all brick and the planned development does encourage these to be developed, so that they -- you know, it kind of looks like a uniform project. There is no brick shown on the building -- on the new buildings at all and so we just -- there is not a requirement for that to happen, but to help for cohesiveness, since that's encouraged in planned developments, we wanted to throw that out. So, I guess I will stop there. If you have any other questions. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Brad, I did have one question and it's -- it's a subject of options that I think we have discussed before. The other option would be .. this is in relation to the zoning question. Since it's already zoned R-8 and they are submitting this as a planned development, which was allow a 20 percent use exception and they are only asking for an 18 percent use exception, I guess what I keep asking and forgetting the Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 5 of 67 answer to, which I'm sure I have heard, is what is easier to administer ten or twenty years from now, allowing the use exception and having it all be R-8, which probably would be simpler for the paperwork today, or is it still better to go through the application process of changing that L-O section? Does that reduce confusion in the future? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, I think staff's opinion has changed a little bit on that over the years. I think where we have come to now and -- Zaremba: That's why I can't remember. The answer keeps changing. Hawkins-Clark: Where the current director stands is that to have the underlying zoning reflect the actual use is preferred. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: I think from the real estate standpoint on MLS listings, et cetera, assessor's data, I guess those are the two that stand out, to have the zoning reflect the use is probably just a cleaner way to go. Zaremba: Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry; I guess I did forget to mention one other thing. We had asked for -- the Sanitary Service Company had some concerns initially about how they are going to pick up trash in this location and I don't know if the Commission got it, but I was given by the applicant today -- Dave McKinnon brought in an approved site plan that was stamped by Bill Gregory at Sanitary Service Company. What they are looking at is two different concrete pads that would be in these two landscaped areas and -- so the trucks would come in and the residents would bring their containers to a pad seven foot by three foot, I think it was, and have the pick ups there. Borup: Okay. presentation? Any other questions? Would the applicant like to make their McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. Brad did a good job being thorough and basically going over everything that we need to, I guess, address. I'd just like to start with the two items on the last page of your report, the two outstanding items that Brad mentioned that need to be resolved. The first having to do with the reduced street section and we are dealing with a site with some constraints. Right now the way the site's organized right now it's really hard to tell from the aerial -- it's not easy to tell from here. There is, actually, a U- shaped driveway that services this existing house. Ada County Highway District didn't want us to keep the U-shaped driveway, they'd rather reduce the number of accesses onto the arterial and they have asked us to make that down to one. What that created was a problem to get emergency vehicles back into the houses, even back here, and provide a turn around, so we provided the hammerhead. In providing the hammerhead Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 6 of 67 turn around, we ran into a problem of the private street standards, as Brad explained, and we decided that with the private street standards requiring a five foot sidewalk on, essentially, what is a driveway, it wouldn't be utilized for the amount of money that it would cost and the amount of open space that it would take up. We felt that it would be more appropriate to have landscaping in that area, rather than sidewalk, because these are just being utilized for these people's driveways. Right there. And as Brad pointed out, there is 20 feet in front of the garage, plus 20 feet there, so the actual turning radius is for a fire engine, they can get back in here, do their three point turn, and get out. And that just brought up the -- the second question was from SSC and it's the secondary item that Brad brought up. In meeting with SSC, they were afraid that they wouldn't be able to bring their garbage truck in, pick up garbage at these end houses. They'd have to pull in, back up, and, then, pull back out and back up and they felt that that was inappropriate. So, what they decided to do, in talking with Bill Gregory today, was probably to pull on Locust Grove, have someone jump out, wave the truck in backwards with the beeper on, back to here, and have these three houses here bring their garbage to the concrete pad located right here and have these three houses bring a concrete pad -- to a concrete pad located right here. We felt that that was adequate. You have to get rid of garbage. It's not something that's an option. So, we felt that that was something we could live with. And so Brad's got a copy of the stamped approval from SSC and we can get copies of that to you. I just had one copy that Brad made before I came back, so I wasn't aware you didn't have that. I apologize for not having that tonight. As far as this project goes, it's nice to see the in-fill projects happen in Meridian. This has been a site that when I worked for the City of Meridian I met with many many people about what to do this with site. It's nice to finally sit down with a developer that wants to do something with this site that meets the vision for the city. The idea behind this project is to try to get up to the density that the city is requesting. The city has stated in the past they'd like to see density in their in-fill. The R-8 zone -- we like to encourage density up to eight units per acre and it's very hard to get the eight units per acre under the existing code, so we have asked for the reduced lot sizes to be allowed and for the reduced street sections to be allowed for this. Brad, if you can go backwards one more. There you go. We would agree, as Brad pointed out, and as you asked, Commissioner Zaremba, to make this office property zoned L-O and we anticipated that. We'd like to see this property rezoned to the L-O zone and keep the remainder of the property as R-8. It helps in the future, because 20 years from now no one's going to know why that office was allowed in a residential zone, now we can say it's an office use in an office zone and so we can agree with that. In trying to work through the ordinance, we know that the City of Meridian wants to keep open space within their projects and they want to keep their mature trees. We have some very large mature trees that we are keeping on this site. As Brad pointed out, the trees are very large in size, you know, in the 48 inch type caliper, so these are very large trees and we'd like to keep those and so have put the open space down in the south end and put some sort of passive recreation area for being able to eat there. The existing building, as Brad pointed out, is made out of brick and it's very dated looking from that photo. The brick isn't something necessarily that will remain. They'd like to renovate the brick house, whether that's through painting or through stucco of the brick, to give it a more updated look. It's going to be a real estate office and they'd like to update that for the Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15. 2004 Page 7 of 67 real estate use and to update it they include changing that. So, we wouldn't want a requirement for the stucco -- not for the stucco, but for the brick wainscoting to be on the remainder of the buildings, rather, we'd like the buildings to reflect -- the new buildings to be more of the reflection of the old, rather than the old having to match the dated look of that building. If you can go back, Brad, one more picture. We'd like to update that look, rather than keep it as is. Zaremba: I'm not sure I'm understanding which way you're going with that. McKinnon: Which way we are going with that? We'd like to update this building. Rather than keep the red brick building there, we'd like to update that to make it look newer, whether it's painting the brick or putting -- Zaremba: You would use some of the similar materials of what you're planning to do with the -- McKinnon: Some of the color, some of the materials, that's correct, rather than having to match the old and have the new be more in line with what we want -- Zaremba: The end result is they match, but they match the new buildings, as opposed to matching the old buildings. McKinnon: Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: In a nutshell, that's our project. Brad did a good job explaining it. I'm very happy for staff's support. Staff's been very integral in helping us get through this project. SSC was very gracious today in working with us and getting this approved and so I think we have met the requirements of SSC to meet that requirement and with your approval tonight to recommend this to the Council, we will move forward, and I'd ask for your approval of this project with the requested exemptions that Brad's outlined and ask if you have any questions at this time. Borup: Question? Any other questions? Zaremba: I do have a couple, of course. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: I wonder if it would solve the problem to -- I'm talking about the entryway roadway, to kind of compromise and really only call the front section the public street and, then, somehow identify this as driveway. It's a matter of semantics, but it would change the rules to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15. 2004 Page 8 of 67 McKinnon: I have thought about that, too, Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, to bring this in and call this the private drive and, then, at this point you could have three houses off of one private drive, split it down the middle, and three houses off the other private drive. The way the city ordinance currently reads, though, is you can only have up to four off a private drive and it's really hard to split this private drive those three ways. Zaremba: That's why the hammerhead has to be called part of the street. McKinnon: That's correct. And that's why we'd ask for the waiver on that. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: And so it meets the intent of the ordinance without actually meeting the -- I guess the full guidelines. Zaremba: I have one other half question, half suggestion. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: But since you know the site better that I would, you would know whether it's a logical suggestion and, then, I would also ask Brad to chime in on it. My concern is that traffic from this busy arterial, having to turn in here, if a car turning in meets a car here backing out, you at some times could have a traffic jam and the thinking -- I'm posing it as a question. Would it be possible to turn this parking -- I'm not so worried about the outbound side, I'm worried about the inbound side. Turn this parking and put it here or is that getting too close to the trees, so that you damage the trees that you're trying to preserve? McKinnon: You would absolutely fall in the drip line of those trees to do that. In order to turn that parking around you'd have to come in and you'd actually chew up a great deal of that space and you'd absolutely lose at least one, if not both of those trees. Zaremba: Okay. That's not desirable. Those were my only questions. Borup: Commissioners? Rohm: One question I have, Dave, is wouldn't the sidewalk serve the project better if it was adjacent to the commercial development? McKinnon: Looking at -- yeah, it would, actually, make a little more sense to be up in this -- and we could make that a condition of approval. Rohm: It just seems like as people come in and leave the real estate office, if there was a sidewalk in front of the parking, it would be easier to come and -- and if you're only going to have it one or other, it seems appropriate to have it on that side. Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 9 of 67 McKinnon: We would encourage that as a condition of approval. We would be happy to accommodate that request. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: Let me ask Brad -- is that significant enough that it needs to be a condition or can it just change on the next drawing? Hawkins-Clark: If the Commission could just include it, I think it would be best. McKinnon: As part of your motion? Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry. Why were we only doing one sidewalk again? McKinnon: Well, there is limitations on the size of the site. If we were to add the additional sidewalk up here, we'd have to shift the parking down, it means you'd just have less open space in this area. We can't shift the driveway any further to the north, because of the existing building. Newton-Huckabay: Right. McKinnon: And if we just shift it south we would use up additional landscaped area with concrete. So, we'd just have more impervious surface, rather than landscaping. Plus it gets you closer to the drip line of these existing trees. We'd like to stay as far out of that as possible. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thanks. Borup: Now, the house designs that were submitted with the application, are they just-- are they supposed to be the actual plans or just representative of that style? McKinnon: Representative of the style, Commissioner Borup. Borup: Okay. Because these plans don't fit on some of the lots. McKinnon: Some of them are too wide. Borup: You realize that? McKinnon: Uh-huh. We do realize that. Borup: And, then, you had a couple of special considerations in the staff report. One of those was on the tree mitigation. Was there plans to -- trees planted in the rear yards? Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15. 2004 Page 100f67 McKinnon: If you received the letter that I submitted with this application -- the letter that I wrote in response to the staff report, we would agree to plant one additional tree in the backyards. Zaremba: I didn't receive the letter. Borup: Okay. I was afraid I was the only one. So, really, you were in agreement with everything in the staff report. McKinnon: Yep. Borup: Okay. Okay. I have no other questions. Thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else who would like to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Items 4, 5 and 6. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council Item 4, Public Hearing AZ 04-015, request for annexation and zoning-- Borup: Yeah, do we -- how do we -- do we need to restate this motion, since it's already annexed and zoned? Rohm: But the zoning will change on -- Borup: The L-O. Rohm: To include the L-O, which is included in the staff comments, so if we just forward with our recommendation to accept staff's comments, that would change it from strictly R-8 to include an L-O lot. That seems appropriate. Hawkins-Clark: Normally I guess I would agree with that. I mean normally you're acting on the application that was submitted to the city. The application that was submitted to the city was for annexation and zoning. The staff report did correct that, but I -- and I don't know, maybe Mr. Gabbert has another opinion. But I'm not sure that the Commission can, you know, just by virtue of your motion change the type of application Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 11 of 67 that they submitted. I think you're okay to still recommend approval of the type of application with the conditions that were mentioned. Borup: Well, now, I do know on an annexation and zoning application we can change the requested zoning if we want, but in this case it would be a rezone, so in a rezone does the applicant need to apply for that or can we -- Hawkins-Clark: Well, the application itself is an application for annexation and rezone. Borup: So, we could restate Lot 1, Block -- is it Lot -- Lot 1, Block 1, as L-O zone, then. Was that where you were going on your motion? Rohm: Well, I -- that's included in the staff comments, that they are -- and so if you accept staff comments, that's all already there. Zaremba: Let me ask what the applicant is going to have to do to comply with that staff comment? Can they -- can the applicant modify the current application or does the applicant have to make a -- file a whole new application? Hawkins-Clark: Normally, we would just require them to submit a new legal description that just describes the new rezone. Zaremba: So, the number AZ 04-015 isn't going to change, except that it should be RZ, instead of AZ. Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Zaremba: Does that make a big filing difference or -- Hawkins-Clark: If we changed it now, it -- I think it's -- yeah. If you required -- if you really wanted to see the file number reflect the application, then, they would need to file a new -- I think a new application, because right now the way that all agencies have received this transmittal is under this AZ 04-015. Gabbert: Chairman, Commissioners, what I would suggest is -- if that's the case, if there was no discussion of the rezone in the actual application -- and I didn't see any in my review of the matter -- that rather than amending it at this stage -- and I don't mean to delay anything. I'm certainly in favor of the project as much as anyone else, but maybe that it be withdrawn and, then, amended outside of this process. Dave? No? Not in agreement with that? It's just that I'm going to have to agree with staff that this has been submitted as an actual zoning -- annexation and zoning to all the -- to the police and to the fire and everything else. Zaremba: Well, then, the question would be whether we ought to reopen the hearing and continue it or the mechanics of it -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 12 of 61 Rohm: Well, I think the staff comments already addresses the issue associated with the L-O lot and -- Zaremba: And if the revision can be made before it goes to City Council -- Gabbert: And that's the other option. Borup: And it can be re-noticed -- and when the notice goes out for the City Council, it can be noticed properly. Gabbert: It can probably be amended before that point, as long as the motion is pretty clear what you guys are intending at this point. Rohm: Right. I think the intent's included in the staff comments and that's been my contention from the get go. Newton-Huckabay: I agree with Commissioner Rohm on that. Zaremba: I second supporting that. Borup: Yeah. I mean we all -- it's going to have the same result either way and if that's the case, let's go the easiest route. Okay. Commissioner Rohm, go ahead. Rohm: Okay. All right. Continuing. Let's see. I think I will start over. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Public Hearing AZ 04-015, request for annexation and zoning of 1 +/- acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Incorporated, 2490 North Locust Grove, .including all staff comments dated July 15th, 2004. I believe that's the end of the motion. Zaremba: I will second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council Public Hearing PP 04- 020, request for preliminary plat approval of seven residential lots and one other lot on 1 +/- acres in proposed R-8 zone for proposed Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Incorporated, 2490 North Locust Grove, including all staff comments with the following amendment: On page eight I'd like to add an item nine that the developers place the proposed sidewalk on the north side of the common lot coming into the subdivision. Including-- Zaremba: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 130f67 Rohm: Including all staff comments dated July 15th. End of motion. Zaremba: That I will second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council approving Public Hearing CUP 04-022, request for a Conditional Use Permit for the planned development single family residential and office in proposed R-8 zone for proposed Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Incorporated, 2490 North Locust Grove, including all staff comments dated July 15th, 2004. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Public Hearing: RZ 04-008 Request for a Rezone of .23 acre from R-8 to proposed O-T zone for Larry Knopp by Larry Knopp - 713 North Meridian Road: Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 04-019 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a retail and professional office use in an existing building in the proposed 0- T zone for Larry Knopp by Larry Knopp - 713 North Meridian Road: Borup: Thank you. I just realized on the next -- on the next application we probably should have said something before and I apologize to anybody that is here. Items No. 7 and 8 were not posted. Because of that we are not able to hear their hearing tonight. They did not have a legal posting and I guess, Commissioners, then, we need to -- if we are going to continue it, we need to open the hearing, don't we? Zaremba: We would table it. Do we have a date specific to table it to? Borup: August 5th would be the first available -- well, the 20 -- August 5th isn't too bad. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: August 19th we are pretty heavy. Borup: Yeah. The 19th was heavy. The 29th, there is not time to do the notice, so it's either the 5th or into September. And so looking on the agenda for August I did not think it looked too bad. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 140167 Zaremba: We have said in the past that it takes about three weeks to do proper notice, doesn't it? Borup: That's why the 29th would be -- Zaremba: And at this point we would be exactly three weeks. So, it's doable on the 5th. Borup: Okay. The clerk said it was ok~y. Zaremba: All right. Mr. Chairman, I move that we table Item 7, RZ 04-008, to our meeting of August 5th and that before that time the hearing be properly noticed. Rohm: Second. Borup: Item 8 is also accompanying that. Zaremba: Yeah. I was going to do it separately, but do you want me to combine them? Borup: Either way. Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table Item 8 on our agenda, CUP 04-019, until our meeting of August 5th and that before that time all proper notice be given. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 04-020 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a pharmacy in an L-O zone for Medicap Pharmacy by Larry Knopp - east of North Ten Mile Road on north side of West Cherry Lane: Borup: Item No.9 is also the same situation. Same applicant on both of them. Zaremba: Okay. Are we still saying we have enough space on the 5th? Borup: I think so. Zaremba: All right. Borup: I mean these look fairly -- Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15. 2004 Page 150f67 Borup: We'll put them last and if we don't make it, then -- Zaremba: That works. Mr. Chairman, I move that we table Item 9 on our agenda, CUP 04-020, until our meeting of August 5th and require that all proper notice occur before that. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Item 11: Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 04-014 Request for Annexation & Zoning of 30 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc. - north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road: Public Hearing: PP 04-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 136 single-family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc. - north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road: Public Hearing: CUP 04-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a residential subdivision for proposed Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc. - north of West Ustick and east of North Linder Road: Borup: Thank you. I apologize to anybody who came and was waiting for that. Our next Public Hearing is Sienna Creek Subdivision. Public Hearing AZ 04-014, request for annexation and zoning of 30 acres from RUT to R-B zone for the proposed Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development. This is north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder. And Public Hearing PP 04-019, request for preliminary plat approval of 136 single-family residential lots and 30 common lots. And CUP 04-021, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a residential subdivision, again, for proposed Sienna Creek Subdivision. We would 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, again, Sienna Creek Subdivision. It's located on 30 acres. It's currently in the county with RUT zoning. They are requesting R-8 zoning. It's located adjacent to the existing Baldwin Park Subdivision. I don't have a pointer. Baldwin Park Subdivision is the subdivision north of the subject property. And Cedar Springs Subdivision is located just to the east of the subject property and the Baldwin Park Addition is that yellow square just to the north of the subject property. So, I just wanted to go through where this is Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 16of67 located. It's half a mile east of Linder Road, just west of the infamous Venable Lane, and a third of a mile north of Ustick. The project consists of 136 building lots. I'll go to the plat. A hundred and thirty-six building lots and they are -- so there are three applications, annexation and rezone, preliminary plat, and the Conditional Use Permit, which is a plant development, where they are requesting reduced lot sizes, reduced frontages, and permission to have two blocks exceed 1,000 feet in length. I will see if I have a -- this is a little cleaner copy. Through the planned development they will be providing two amenities. The first of these is their common area, which will equal about 12 -- a little over 12 percent of the subdivision will be common area and open space and the applicant will give us some more details tonight on the proposed parks and picnic areas that they are going to have for -- for one of their amenities staff was concerned when we initially reviewed the application that we didn't have enough details, so they'll fill some of those details in this evening. And I wanted to go through some of the issues associated with this application, although staff is definitely in favor of the application and recommends approval. There are a couple of issues. I don't know if you will have a copy of the draft ACHD report on this project. I just got this -- I think it was today. And it hasn't been finalized; it hasn't gone through their commission yet. One of the changes they are requiring the applicant to make is to have Ashby -- it's either Ashby Way or Ashby Court -- I think it's a court, because it doesn't go through yet. They want to have Ashby Court go through and connect to Venable Lane. So, the applicant will speak to that. ACHD is requiring that. Staff would like to see a second -- a second stub street. There is currently one -- anyway, there is currently one -- thank you. One stub on the western side of the subject property and currently the applicant is exceeding the maximum 1,000-foot block length. Staff would like to see a second stub go through, preferably connecting North Arches Avenue to the subject property to the south. There are -- let me see if I can go back to the vicinity map. There are two -- two properties south of this subject parcel and, generally, you know, when we are looking at areas developing, we'd like to see a stub to each of those -- I would like to see a stub to each of those properties. And ACHD is supportive of this recommendation of staff, but they are not requiring it, so this decision will be up to the Commission and the Council. But, generally, it's a good idea to provide connectivity between areas where you see potential development happening. And the third issue I'd like to go through -- I'll go back to the plat. On some of the smaller -- these smaller lots, they are 50 feet in width and the applicant -- they didn't request this as an initial part of the -- initially for the application, but they'd like to request the ability to do attached single family homes on those lots. It's permitted in the zone. They wouldn't need to do -- to get any exceptions through the planned development, they would just like to -- and they are not certain if they would actually construct attached single family, but they'd like that ability to do so and staff is fully supportive of that. It's another housing choice for the citizens of Meridian and it's a good thing. So, that wraps up the staff report. Are there any questions of staff? Zaremba: I do have one question and this goes back to discussion long ago about how block length is measured. Is it still being measured along the back property line, which means that the measurement that you got actually would be along this whole U-shape? Is that's what's over 1,000 feet? Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 17 of 67 Kirkpatrick: We would be measuring it from -- from that stub on the western end to the end of the cul-de-sac. Zaremba: Okay. Not around the U? Kirkpatrick: Not around -- not around the U. I don't -- no, I don't think we have ever -- I have never measured it that way before. Zaremba: So, even putting a road through to Venable still leaves the block length more than the 1,000, by the way we measure it? Kirkpatrick: It does. And the applicant's also proposing moving that stub on the western end to the center of the subdivision, which would solve the block length problem. It doesn't provide two stubs to the properties to the south, however. And the road on the western edge of the property, that exceeds 1,000 feet in length, but that's -- there is a school site adjacent to this subject property and there really are no options and there is -- they can't stub, so we have to allow that. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Rohm: Wendy, did you say that the property to the west is going to be a school? Kirkpatrick: I believe it's going to be a middle school. Newton-Huckabay: It is an existing middle school. Kirkpatrick: Oh, it is. It's been constructed? Borup: It's already there. Rohm: Should there not be some sort of a pathway? Kirkpatrick: There is, actually. Rohm: Oh. Okay. All right. Good. Thank you. That's it. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle, here tonight representing Sagewood Development Corporation in the development of Sienna Creek Subdivision. Thanks, Wendy, for your staff report. She went through the majority, so I'll try not to -- I'll try not to be too long. The developer is here tonight, she'd like to get up and kind of introduce herself and kind Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 18of67 of explain the fun stuff of the subdivision. I'll just talk about some technical issues and get on with it. As staff stated, there is 136 residential lots, 13 common lots, and kind of colored up, this is what it -- this is what it looks like, so, as you can see, the 12.3 percent of the open space has been greatly laid out to kind of spread out throughout the subdivision and provide a lot of nice large open spaces and as you can see -- as you can see, it's got -- it's got open space along the main roadway, which will provide for a nice pathway detached sidewalk along there, in addition to a large park area here. Park area here. This will be used more for combination drainage and open space, be that slight detention area, but this will be strictly open space, park space, and that's where we expect to have our amenities and those will include kind of a tot lot equipment apparatus for children and also kind of a gathering picnic area, seating -- the developer does have some examples that she's going to show you. A lot of landscaping and, you know, kind of a community gathering area, in addition to the .over ten percent open space that we are providing within the development. We are asking for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development, as stated by staff, and that's to allow for the reduction in the lot sizes, both widths and square footage. As you can see, we do have an alleyway located right here and this is the area that staff was talking about. We want to have the option of the zero lot lines to provide a builder, if he wants to come in and. attach some of the houses over there. And I believe that is allowed currently in the R-8 zone, we just want to get that on the record that that is our intent to have that option. Hopefully it will happen, but that -- you know, that's market driven. With regards to the stub street, this block length does not meet the 1,000-foot maximum width. What we are proposing -- and we have met with ACHD and they are agreeable to this -- is to relocate this stub over to this area right here, which would, then, allow that -- allow that block length not to exceed that 1,000 feet. I don't think it's necessary to have two stub streets, because when these properties develop, they will develop with stub streets as well and you will have connectivity throughout -- you know, through these subdivisions and throughout the community. We are providing a pathway to the school. That's the Sawtooth Middle School and it is under construction, it's about complete, I think they are going to start in the fall. So, that's one. That's basically the only condition or recommendation that we are not in favor of. Everything else in the staff report is very specific, we have no problems with those, with the exception of that second stub street, we would like the ability to move that stub -- existing stub over to that block. That would reduce that length. Borup: So, that was in alignment with one of those other streets or -- Zaremba: Yeah. Nickel: I think what we are proposing is right here. Borup: About in line with the alley? Nickel: It would align with that alleyway. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 19of67 Zaremba: I was going to discuss that with you after you concluded, but since we have brought it up -- Kirkpatrick: Oh, and, Chairman, Members of the Commission, I misspoke. The street that I was recommending that they stub wasn't Arches, it was Anton. That's a little bit -- that's one street over to the east. Nickel: And that brings up the other question with regards to ACHD's requirement. They are going to require this street right here to be connected out to Venable. We have agreed with them to do that. It's not going to massively affect our design, we won't lose any lots. We have a pathway there right now, so that -- we'll just go through and it will line up with the street to the -- the existing street to the east. Zaremba: My opinion would be the combination of making that connection and moving this stub street over, would probably satisfy me, and I would hope it would satisfy staff, but I still want to discuss whether or not that should be aligned with the alley. The problem is for me that you have a street aligned with the alley on one end and if you, then, make this the connection into the next subdivision, I think that alley is going to be used as a raceway and I would like to suggest that you pick one of these. Nickel: And that's probably -- and we could do either, probably. Either that one or that one. That is a good -- Zaremba: And I feel I would be satisfied with that. Nickel: Okay. Borup: Shawn, maybe while we are -- while we are on that stub street, has there been any discussion with either one of these two property owners to the south, especially this one right here? Nickel: I'll defer that question to the developer. Borup: Okay. Nickel: Because I believe she has met with both of those property owners. Borup: Okay. Nickel: With regards to the Comprehensive Plan, again, as staff states in their -- in their findings, this does meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. We are asking for 4.53 dwelling units per acre, which falls in line with medium density. Again, we are not asking for a bonus density through the PD, strictly for the reduction to allow that diversity in lot sizes, with the understanding that we might have the ability to attach over in that block right there. My engineer is here if you have any specific questions on Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15. 2004 Page 20 of 67 drainage or anything like that. We did work very diligently with staff and we appreciate all their help and support. We did have a neighborhood meeting that was attended by just two neighbors. There is not many neighbors out there, but they did appreciate us having that meeting for them. We also met with Wendel Bigham at the school district to stabilize that pathway to the school and he was satisfied with that. So, I'll stand for any questions you have. Borup: Questions? Any other questions? Zaremba: You answered my question. I was going to ask that, whether the -- I appreciate there being a pathway to the school and I was going to ask if you discussed with them their happy location and it sounds like you did. Nickel: We usually meet with Wendel before we do a development to make sure he's happy with those. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. And you said the developer wanted to comment, too? Nickel: Yes. Wanner-Sisler: Good evening, Chairman Borup, Commissioners. My name is Lisa Wanner-Sisler, I reside at 2752 South Goshen Way, Boise, Idaho. I have been developing residential subdivisions in Kuna, Caldwell, and Boise, but this is my first development in Meridian, so I wanted to take a chance to introduce myself to you personally and speak to my development. My husband and I do have a little bit of an industrial presence here, we are currently building Steelhead Collision Center over on Baltic in the industrial area and we will be opening that in a couple of weeks, but this is the first residential project that I am bringing to the City of Meridian. As far as the features in the subdivision go, in the first park area my plan was to create a restful, peaceful, passive park, if you will, in that area, heavily landscaped, with a circular area that comes in off of two meandering sidewalks into a large circle, similar to what you see in this photograph. This is actually outside of Eagle City Hall, if you have ever ventured out to Eagle, and having a combination of concrete, some fancy brick, you know, possibly in a herringbone pattern and, then, wrought iron benches. This is a photograph of the wrought iron benches, they are right down the street in Generations Park, and those benches would be placed throughout this area, again, in a circular fashion, with significant landscaping behind them in the form of trees, shrubs, and perennial flowering bushes that are low maintenance and easy to keep in subdivisions. This is a perfect example of that in that you see the ground cover roses, some of the perennial day lilies and so almost you could loosely call it a park-like, you know, botanical area that would be peaceful and restful. I also have a detached sidewalk that goes from the first park area past all of the common areas to the second park-like area and so there is a great deal of connectivity that runs throughout the subdivision, so that people could feasibly come from just about any point in the development, connect onto Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 21 of67 that common area pathway and walk throughout the development. Now, Shawn had mentioned that I was going to put all my amenities up front and that, really, isn't quite what I wanted to do, but -- but if you look at this second park that is the smaller park area, that would across the street from the alley-loaded houses, I plan to put a tot lot that is similar to this photo right here in that area. Now, my thinking was that the densest part of the development is right in that area and so it made sense to me those are going to be the folks, if they do have children, who will not have as much space for, you know, the swing sets and so forth and so it made sense to me to locate that closer to the dense area, so that was my thinking with the tot lot. And, of course, these are -- I think very realistic to what I will do, but not necessarily the exact feature that I will place on there. Then, I wanted to share with you what kind of homes I envision in the development. Because I am new to the city, these are three homes that are actual photographs from some of my other developments, this home being the smallest. It sold in Kuna in the 130s. My guess is in Meridian, because lot prices are a little bit higher, it would probably be in the 140s. This home is a little bit more expensive and this one is selling in the 280 range and probably about the same. I see these homes being very representative of the homes that will be built on the standard size lots that encompass most of the perimeter of the subdivision, close to Baldwin Park, Cedar Springs, and the middle school. And, then, in the area where there are 50 feet width lots proposed -- I hope that I see this home built. Now, I'm a developer. I don't build. This is a floor plan that I found and I really hope that one of the builders will want to pick this up and build it. I specifically designed some of the 50-foot wide lots to be deeper than 100 feet and that was for two reasons. One was to allow for some floor plans like this one that has fairly -- a fairly jogged back end to it, but allows for a lot of use out the back, if you can get a little more depth on the lot, and I have some of those deeper lots in that first park-like area and I think that would be a great place to site this type of home. I also wanted a few deeper lots there, just because, you know, people like garages in the valley and with that deeper -- with that deeper width you could get a four car garage, you know, two deep and two wide. So, that was my thinking there. And as far as the alley area goes, I envision a home that would be similar to this photograph here. I hope that I will see some front porches, particularly on the side that looks out over to the common area space, because there is a fair amount of green and it would be conducive sitting on your front porch and looking out at the open space. So, that's my thinking with the development. This is just another example that fell off my board that was supposed to have been right there. So, those are the home types that I think will be very representative in the development. As I said, I'm not a builder I don't know that there will be any attached housing going in, but I can see on the south end, just below -- just below my property line to the south is a designated neighborhood center in the Meridian Comp Plan, so it is feasible that there may be apartment buildings or, you know, light retail or office space down there, so I did want to leave the door open that if somebody comes with a great design, that is a zero lot line or attached, that I would perhaps have the option of entertaining that down there. I will operate with a fairly strict set of CC&Rs. I think they need to be reasonable, so people can live their lives, but I do work with a good attorney, they will be very enforceable CC&Rs, actively involved in architect control committees to make sure that what is developed is esthetically pleasing to the eye from the curb and would certainly carry those into this development as well. Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15. 2004 Page 22 of 67 So, on that basis, that was the design -- oh, as far as shooting the street through. Ada County Highway District wanted that. I don't really like it, because I liked having the one entrance with all my amenities, but I realize that it's necessary, so we will put that -- we will put that street through. As far as the neighbors to the south go, a couple of years ago I was able to a reach the one neighbor to the south on the -- the more easterly side. There is a house there that's vacant and from what I understand, the person that owned it past away and some younger people inherited it. I have not been able to reach anybody as of anytime late. We did hold a neighborhood meeting and, you know, we noticed everybody we could and we didn't get any respondents from the south. So, one of you asked a question related to stub streets to the south on that side and I have not been able to find anybody to talk to south in that particular quadrant, so that is an unanswered situation at this point and I'm not sure how to find somebody, given that the house is vacant, there is nobody living there, and we don't get any responses from any mailings. So, that's -- that's kind of where that sits right now. But, anyway, based on that, I think we bring a good development to Meridian. I feel comfortable that it's very marketable, that it's harmonious with the existing housing, and I stand for any questions that you might have. Borup: Okay. If I do have a name that -- Wanner-Sisler: Paulson. Borup: Yeah. Wanner-Sisler: Do you know how to reach those people, by chance? Borup: Yes. Wanner-Sisler: Pardon? Borup: I think so. I mean he contacted me about six, eight month ago. Wanner-Sisler: Okay. A couple of years ago I talked to somebody about potentially, you know, trying to buy that piece of property and that didn't happen, so -- Borup: Yeah. You can find him by turning around. Wanner-Sisler: Oh. Oh. Okay. Hi. You own the piece directly to the south? Okay. Borup: Okay. Yeah. You two can get together afterwards. Wanner-Sisler: Okay. Okay. Very well. Any other questions? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Wanner-Sisler: Thank you very much. Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 23 of 67 Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to testify on this application? Come forward. Paulson: Good evening. My name is Jim Paulson, I reside at 645 Wickham Fen Way in Boise and, as just mentioned, I own the property with my father there at 640 West Ustick and I agree with Wendy's comments, with staff, that it does make sense to have a stub-in street on that side and I know I would be willing to work with Lisa if that could be shifted onto our parcel, because I am in favor of what they are doing here, but the one concern that I have is owning that other parcel with Venable Lane going through, there is some gray area from the people that are helping me develop our parcels and because of the neighborhood center we would like to do that as multi-family housing, either a four-plex, duplex, apartment complexes, so it would be great to have access through there to get back to the school, so the children don't have to go out onto Venable Lane and wrap out around. It would make it convenient for them to get back to that facility. The one question that I have got is because of that gray area, getting back to Venable, if there is not a stub street on the -- between our parcels and this project, then, it may land lock ours from being able to go forward somewhat and that we could not even work with the property to the south of ours to put an additional stub street down, because of the requirements by ACHD to put additional access roads within a certain distance of a collector and we don't have the width on our own property to run a second street in, so I'd love to work with the developer and everybody here to make sure that we have guaranteed access to the ten acres that we own on the southeast quarter. Borup: Is your property size -- are they going to require two -- two entrances? Paulson: They are not going to require two, but we just have to make sure we can at least maintain one. Borup: But you have got access on Venable, don't you? Paulson: There is a gray area there. We have been trying to fight that a little bit to see for sure. There is some reason to believe -- some believe we don't. I believe we do. So, we haven't really pushed that one through the system yet. Borup: Won't this project kind of maybe clarify that? Paulson: No, because the access that -- what's happened is there was an individual that had gone through and tried to claim rights to the eastern boundary of this parcel and -- at least of our parcel. It doesn't impact this particular subdivision, but I know it impacted ours, and so when that easterly strip of ours is still in dispute, we don't have guaranteed access to Venable Lane through our property, even though I believe it to be adjacent to it. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 24 of 67 Borup: Then your other concern was access to the school, but not necessarily vehicle access. Paulson: Right. Because-- Borup: So, a pathway would accomplish the same thing as far as school access, wouldn't it? Paulson: It would. Yes. Rohm: So, your property is this parcel right here? Paulson: Yeah. If you can flip back to the map that was just up there. Or the one prior to that. It would be this parcel -- the parcel that we have is just due north -- let me see if I can spin around and use that mike. Borup: That comes off. Paulson: So, these -- this is the ten acre parcel here with the existing home and so some question whether our parcels have access to the new road that was just put in here and because of that road we don't have the distance to be able to put a secondary access even through this parcel that we don't own. I just want to make sure there is an access point. So, as long as the Commission is looking at the possibility of putting -- changing that stub street, if that would be stubbed over here on this end, as opposed to this end, I think that would fit everybody's needs and objectives. Rohm: What about the parcel to the west? If they put the stub street here, won't this parcel be land locked? Paulson: I don't believe so. That would be a question for ACHD, but I don't believe that it would land lock that other parcel, because there would be sufficient space for the distance requirements from the street that was just put in to the west for another access point to go in and from that direction, because -- forgive me for not knowing the exact, but I believe it has to be 1,000 feet off of this street before you can put another street in that's serviceable, because this one being deemed a collector and so through anywhere through this parcel there would still be ample room to meet ACHD's requirements to be at least 1,000 feet away from another existing collector. Zaremba: Can you discuss or envision the configuration of your property where you had access west, instead of north -- turn around and see what I'm doing there. If you were able to access out, but say the stub street moved to about here, it's not actually on your property, but the assumption would be that the next property would have some configuration that would be handy for them to have a stub through your property, would that be a configuration that would help you or do you have something else in mind? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 25 of 67 Paulson: I don't have anything exact in mind, just wanted to bring that to everyone's attention to make sure that we don't end up with a land locked parcel when it's all said and done. Zaremba: Okay. Paulson: Thank you. Moe: Could we go back to the development map? Borup: Wendy, is it your understanding that this part of Venable is being developed as part of this application or do we need clarification from the applicant. Maybe the engineer could answer that, too. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, Cedar Springs Subdivision is constructing Venable Lane to Ashton Drive. Borup: Right. Kirkpatrick: The half plus 12. Borup: Half plus 12. Mr. Bailey, maybe you could -- I guess I had some question on -- I don't know if you can shed any light on what Mr. Paulson said about access to Venable. Are you familiar with -- Bailey: Yes, sir, I am. Borup: Okay. Bailey: Venable Lane -- Borup: Go ahead and state your name, please. Bailey: Oh. David Bailey, Bailey Engineering, 1117 East Plaza Drive in Eagle. Borup: Okay. Bailey: I'm sure you know more of the history of Venable Lane than I do, actually, but we have done the surveying work out there. Right now there is 29 feet of right of way on the east side of Venable Lane that goes all the way up. There was some question as to a strip of ground in there that the previous owner of the Cedar Springs property had some claim to at some point. Lisa has actually obtained the property that was the strip of the front that was adjacent to Venable Lane and -- it's right along this area here and it consists of about one acre. Ada County Highway District is requiring us to dedicate 25 feet of that, make a total of 54 foot right of way, and we will build curb, gutter, and sidewalk on our side of the street, on the north end here, so I suspect the Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 26 of 67 same is going to happen to the property to the south and if there is some spite strip there that's preventing them access to their property on that piece, I'm not aware of it. What I'm showing -- the old -- the old old Venable Lane when it was a private land that went up there that the maps currently show that as a piece of right of way. So, who has claim to that I couldn't tell you for sure, but there is a little strip there that's immediately adjacent to the 29 feet on the east side of Venable that Cedar Springs has dedicated. Borup: So, is that strip under a different ownership than the bulk of this property? Bailey: Actually, on the -- Borup: Or is it a different -- Bailey: Actually, on the assessor's map right now it's shown as public right of way, that little strip. Borup: It doesn't show a claim to deed to that or anything? Bailey: Not to my knowledge, no. Borup: That should probably be the same case to the property to the south. Bailey: Correct. Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Wasn't it Venable Lane in the last meeting that had the -- Borup: That was on the other side of Ustick. Zaremba: South of Ustick it's a headache as well. Newton-Huckabay: Well, but, what, 20 feet of the lane belonged -- or was deeded to the public use? Is that not the whole north and south? Borup: No. I think that was just to the south, wasn't it? Newton-Huckabay: It was just on the south? Oh. Okay. Borup: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Bailey? All right. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. Borup: Did we have anyone else to testify on this? Any final comments, Shawn? Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 27 of 67 Nickel: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, again, Shawn Nickel. I'm glad the neighbor was here to express that, because I don't want to land lock anybody or keep them from getting access. I still believe that moving that existing stub street over will provide property connectivity. However, if you -- to kind of safeguard the neighbor until we can do some more research on it, if you'd like to make a recommendation to have that second stub street put in there and, then, by the time we get to City Council we probably would be able to figure out exactly what the access issue is for that gentleman. Maybe we can do it that way. I'll leave it up to you. With regard to -- I guess just in conclusion with regards to this subdivision, I just need to point out that we did take a lot of time and a lot of redrawing to come to this design that you have in front of you, with the topography -- we have a main canal that has to be relocated. The school site. The existing stub streets, as you can see, they are kind of an interesting stub. that we were left with. I think the developer did a good job at -- and the engineer at laying this out with the open space. I think it's going to be a fine addition to the City of Meridian and I think with the diversity that you will find in there in the housing types, it's going to be a nice, compatible addition to the area. So, with that I will answer any further questions you have. Borup: Any other questions? I think Mr. Paulson's concerns were two. One, access to the school site through a -- you know, a walking path or et cetera. Pedestrian access. And, then, just that he wouldn't be -- that he would have access to Venable. It sounds like that may have been solved with the -- probably with Cedar Springs going in is what probably solved that, but -- Nickel: Right. Borup: But I'm concerned about the pedestrian access also. Newton-Huckabay: I think you meant if there was a street with sidewalks, get up and -- Borup: Right. But that parcel and this parcel have access through here. If there is a stub street from this parcel to here, then, they would have access, but with the school site there, I think the pedestrian access is essential. Otherwise, they are going to be busing them to go, you know, a few hundred yards. Mr. Bailey. Bailey: Mr. Chairman, If I could bust in for Shawn here real quick. Mr. Chairman, David Bailey again. On this we are kind of concerned about putting this thing too close to the center, because it makes the same problem that we had up here about, you know, how we get the lot lined up. We would like to keep it to this. This parcel is, actually, physically now land locked without an access point to it and we think it's more important that we keep the stub on that site. When we move this over, we do have a common lot here that's adjacent to this and we have no problem moving over into this area here and we have, oh, 21 feet there, which we could probably provide a 25-foot landscape pathway through this area -- that we could provide that and, then, provide the stub street probably -- I would prefer across from this, but I see the point in this area, so either of these locations would work fine for us. But in this location, then, we do have Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15. 2004 Page 28 of 67 access to this parcel down here, which may develop in the future. They have great access to Venable Lane, I think, in this area here and an additional stub street here I'm not sure is going to make things a whole lot better in that area. When this parcel develops they certainly will be required to provide a street to the east there that -- to the back of that property in that area there, so -- Zaremba: Well, that sort of aligns with the question that I had. If the property to the southeast has an access to the property to the southwest, then, in addition to your making a pathway somewhere else, which is an appreciated suggestion, where ever your stub street goes, if it goes here, and, then, it connects to that, they also will have a way to get to this school pathway. Bailey: Correct. Zaremba: Even if you don't move your footpath. But your suggestion is appreciated. Borup: Well -- and that's what -- I was thinking the same thing. Zaremba: Eventually, when there is a road there I believe I feel the same way, as what I think you're saying, is that your stub street is going to connect to something that goes east through his property and as long as the Venable Lane connection is fixed, that should help them. Borup: It probably gives more flexibility in the design of the other property without having to work around a pathway. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, since staff could not see the suggestion, would it be possible to point that out on the slide, please? Borup: On where to move the stub street? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: Well, I don't know if we got a specific area. They are saying here. Bailey: My preference would be to put the stub street across from the alley here, but the Commission expressed some concern that that might cause a continuous pathway through this area here. So, I -- we would have to either align it with this street, this street, or with the alley, and we did discuss those options with the highway district, they would be fine with either -- any of those three options as far as where we align the stub street. We would put a bulb cul-de-sac, similar to the northwest corner in this area here in order to turn the traffic around and move that. Rohm: If you placed the stub street here, would it not service both east and west parcels to the south? If you put it here? Because this is the property line between their Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 29 of 67 west parcel over here and the east parcel over here, so if you put this stub street down here, then, it would, in effect, service both parcels, would it not? Bailey: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Rohm, I agree with you that it would get closer to that, but the problem I have with that -- this one here is that it doesn't serve either one of them very well, because it comes in on the property line and they have got -- like I was pointing out on at the north end here, we ended up with a stub street right adjacent to our boundary and you can see what kind of a little mess it made us up in the corner there and we would end with that same kind of mess in this area here to get around there. If that's what we need to do, we can certainly do that, I just think it wouldn't serve either one very well, although it would service both. Rohm: Thank you. That's a good explanation. Thank you. Appreciate that. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to remind you that if you do choose to require or recommend the applicant to two stub streets, you will have to make it a site specific comment. We will have to add that in and staff's still recommending that you recommend the two stub streets. Strongly. Rohm: Wendy, is the two including this one out and one to the south? Kirkpatrick: No. I believe we need -- Rohm: Or two to stub. Kirkpatrick: No. I believe we need -- Rohm: Or two to the south. Kirkpatrick: We need one stub to serve -- to serve each parcel to the south. Rohm: So, one here and one over here. Got you. Kirkpatrick: Well, depending on how -- I mean, you know, we are speculating on how a future parcel is going to development, but -- having the stub street come here on the property line between the two really wouldn't be much different than this stub street. You know, it depends on how far south it continues, but they just have a lot adjoining the street, which is how any stub street is. It's not the same as coming in here. This is coming in at a corner. This is -- well, I guess that's coming in the corner, too. Newton-Huckabay: Wendy, are you recommending that they leave the one stub street on the west and put the second one where? Kirkpatrick: Well, it might actually be preferable to go ahead and move that stub over to the next street over, which is -- it looks like Anfield, to go ahead and move one stub there and, then, to do a second stub probably off of Anton Drive would work. But I think Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 30 of 67 -- I think if you were to move that stub a little bit to the east, you wouldn't have that one long continuous drive, it may help slow down traffic speeds potentially. But I think the most important thing is that we have one stub serving each parcel, because they are ten acre pieces, there is a lot of development in that area, and I see this area as developing probably pretty quickly. Borup: So, what was your last statement? It's more important to have one stub per parcel you said? Kirkpatrick: Then I -- I think, probably, just the existence of the two stubs is more important than where they are located, but I'm not a traffic engineer. Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I have to agree with Wendy. I think if those properties on the south develop, that provides more options for people and you are going to have -- Borup: Well, I'd normally agree with that, too, other than we have one of the property owners here and this might be an opportunity to have the input on where they would like it. If we. are going to put one, maybe you'd rather have it on the property line between the two. Mr. Paulson, could you shed -- I mean I don't know if you have got very specific before on what your preference was, other you don't want to be land locked, but Paulson: Again, my name is Jim Paulson. My recommendation, for what it's worth, would be to have me work with the architect and just workout something that's mutually agreeable there that will meet with staff's recommendation, instead of having to specifically state exactly which lot and where that would go, if that's a viable option, because as long as we are trying to gain access and I think that would be workable. If they are willing to work with us, we are willing to work with them on that. Borup: But are you thinking that one access in this location would be able to accommodate both properties? Paulson: Well, the one thing that I'm familiar with -- there was a subdivision that was done in Boise called Abram Place and we had to do quarter streets on that and as long as there was a way to make sure that the street is done per ACHD standards in the long run, so one person doesn't bear all the burden of doing the street or that it's not a viable option until both parcels are done. For example, the one recommendation that you folks were making earlier was having the stub street on that side and that we would have access to ours when the property to the western portion is completed, then, we wouldn't be able to do anything with our parcel until whoever whenever decides to work on our -- the adjacent ten acre parcel. Rohm: And I think that that's what we are trying to avoid. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 31 of 67 Paulson: So, if we can do it in such a way that -- I don't know the logistics of how to make this happen, but if I can work with staff, work with the developer and the architect and as along as we can meet the goal and objective of having a stub street, whether it be partial access or full access, I would be all in favor of that. Kirkpatrick: And Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to remind Mr. Paulson that this hearing we are going to make a recommendation. It's still going to go to City Council, so we have the period between tonight's hearing and the City Council hearing to work with you and -- so we still have that period, but I think we probably want a clear recommendation tonight, maybe Council, so -- Borup: And that's what I was going to say, would that be enough time that -- Mr. Bailey, do you feel that would be enough time to work with Mr. Paulson before City Council, maybe, to have something worked out? Bailey: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. It's either that or continue it and let them work out -- okay. Is that enough direction, Commissioners? Zaremba: I think so. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on AZ 04-014 and PP 04-019 and CUP 04-021 be closed. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: I'm still a little confused, so go ahead. Borup: Well, do we want a little discussion first? This might be appropriate for a little discussion. Zaremba: Well, let's see. Borup: Well, at least on the preliminary plat. Zaremba: Yeah. I don't think there is any question on the annexation and zoning. On the preliminary plat I'm prepared to go with a combination of suggestions. One would be to move the stub street that is currently at the very southwest over to Anfield and require an additional one at Anton or a place that is mutually agreed on between this developer and the property to the south and staff, plus require the connection of Ashby to Venable. Rohm: Is this Anton? Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15. 2004 Page 32 of 67 Zaremba: That is Anfield and that's where I would move the existing stub street. Borup: If we added another stub street, why does that one need to be moved? Zaremba: Well, that's a good question. Borup: Unless they -- Zaremba: It centers more on the other property, but I'm not that concerned one way or the other. Rohm: I kind of like leaving that one where it is and that services this parcel and, then, put the second stub street off of here, which serves the parcel to the east. Zaremba: Then, there was a good reason for us to discuss it. I agree with that. That's not what I would have said, but I have no problem with it. Borup: So, that would be one. The other try to do a single access that would access both properties. Or would that -- Zaremba: I would support the idea of having two. Rohm: If we have a little better feel for when the west parcel was going to develop, this one stub here would service this parcel very well and these two parcels would connect via a stub from west to east, but we don't have any way of knowing when that -- Zaremba: When that would happen. Rohm: -- when that would occur. Zaremba: Well -- and not to do the engineering, but in my opinion there is a couple of lots along this southern boundary that are the larger, plus the applicant has available a 21 foot strip here. If the applicant gave up that 21-foot strip of open space and squeezed a lot or two by five or ten feet, a road could come through here without actually losing any lot count. Rohm: Well -- and, besides that, it would break up that 1 ,OOO-foot block -- street. Zaremba: Yes, it would. Moe: I guess, Keith, what I would -- Mr. Chairman, what I would note -- I was somewhat in favor of going with the single road as well -- stub only, but if you're -- if we were to go to one single, then, you're moving the stub off the west, then, you're going to have problems with the two lots that are left over on the west side, so it's better to go ahead Mertdian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15. 2004 Page 33 of 67 and take and put a second stub street in, that way they are not having to deal with those two lots as well. Zaremba: That's true. That would make that southwest corner pretty difficult. Moe: Yeah. So, quite frankly, it's for the developer they are probably better off, in my opinion, to go ahead with the second stub, as opposed to moving that one on the west, to just make it a single stub street. Zaremba: So, all of that discussion is a preliminary plat issue; right? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. I got it. Borup: And, again, it depends on how it develops. Mr. Paulson had mentioned maybe multi-family. Newton-Huckabay: Does that make an extra long block when the next -- is it still the same the block when this property to the south develops on that straight road? Borup: No, because it's two -- oh, it could be. Newton-Huckabay: On the existing stub street. Borup: No, because they would have a stub street coming into it. Zaremba: Uh-huh. If it's broken here, then, the people to the south also would have about an 800-foot block. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, is your reference to McKinley Park Avenue and if that's extended would we be creating an even longer street? Newton-Huckabay: That's my question. Kirkpatrick: I think we would be. Newton-Huckabay: So, you could end up with a -- Borup: Oh, that one, yes. Kirkpatrick: So, I think it would be advantageous to have the stub on Anfield to break up that -- to break up the length of that road, that straightaway. Newton-Huckabay: Because, then, you could be -- yeah, you're going to limit -- Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 34 of 67 Zaremba: The pathway doesn't break up the measurement? Kirkpatrick: It's not -- it's not breaking up -- I mean that vehicle trip down that road. I mean it's-- Borup: It's just another lot. Kirkpatrick: I think maybe technically it breaks it up, but I think so far as like how that road functions, it's not breaking up that road at all. Borup: It's all the same block. The pathway doesn't form a new block. Zaremba: Well, the issue is the same and I was thinking if you connected that alleyway to a long straightaway -- and you're right, if -- if McKinley Park continues on to a logical development of the property below, you do have a long raceway there, so moving that stub street over to Anfield certainly would be a traffic calming measure. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I can go with that. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-014, request for annexation and zoning of 30 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc., north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of July 15th, received by the city clerk July 12th, 2004. 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 PP 04-019, request for preliminary plat approval of 136 single family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc., north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road, to include all of staff comments from their memo for the hearing date of July 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk July 12th, 2004, with one change. On page eight I would add a paragraph nine that says the stub street depicted in the southwest corner that currently shows continuing McKinley Park Avenue onto the south, that that, instead, be stubbed at Anfield, so that there is a south stub, continue Anfield Street, that the applicant comply with ACHD's request to connect West Ashby Court on through to Venable Lane and that in addition there be one more stub street, which potentially would extend Anton Drive into the property to the south and that location is subject to discussion between the current applicant, the property owner to the south that would be impacted by it, and staff. End of motion. Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 35 of 67 Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-021, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a residential subdivision for proposed Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc., north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of July 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk July 12th, 2004, and with the knowledge that this leaves the applicant the option to make some of the properties attached dwellings in an area where they requested to have that option. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. Commissioners, would you like to proceed on or a short break? Zaremba: Five minutes. Borup: Okay. We will take a short break right now. (Recess.) Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 04-013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 13.5 acres from RUT to CoG zones for Stow-It Storage Facility by Lyons Development, LLC - southwest corner of Stoddard Road and West Overland Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 04-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a storage facility with a caretaker residence and future office/retail use in a proposed CoG zone for Stow-It Storage Facility by Lyons Development, LLC - southwest corner of Stoddard Road and West Overland Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our Planning and Zoning meeting. The next item 13 and 14, AZ 04-013, request for annexation and zoning of 13.5 acres from RUT to C- G zones for Stow-It Storage facility by Lyons Development, LLC. It's at the southwest corner of Stoddard Road and West Overland. And also Public Hearing CUP 04-017, a Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 36 of 67 request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for the same facility. I'd like to open both of these hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As you mentioned, this site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Overland and Stoddard. It is approximately 13.5 acres in size. The 2002 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates this property as mixed-use neighborhood. The surrounding properties -- and I guess general properties in the vicinity, directly to the south of this parcel is another parcel that's owned by Idaho Power Company, they are the current property owners of the subject site as well. They have a substation on that site and an access road -- as you can see on this aerial photo, it goes out to Overland Road running along that western property line. To the west of this site is a single-family residence. On the north directly across the street is some industrial commercial type businesses on the north side of Overland Road there. On the west side is the Queenland Acres Subdivision and Bear Creek Subdivision. Queenland Acres is the northern part that has the R-1 stuff. You can see the frontage, single family homes, on the south side of Overland Road there and, then, the other part is RUT, the larger parcel just to the south of those R-1 parcels, and, then, Bear Creek is zoned R-4 and has been annexed into the city. Just a little bit of history, I guess, before I go with the current application. This site may look a little bit familiar to you. Last year this -- there was an application on this site for a similar project, definitely not the same. It had a -- a contractor's yard was an element of that application, different layout for the storage units, and they didn't have as much of an office and retail component to that application. That application was denied by the City Council. They found that the proposed contractor's yard was not consistent with Bear Creek primarily and what the city envisioned for this site. The applicant of that -- the applicant at that time also requested a Comp Plan amendment for a CoG zone on this site and the City Council just couldn't make the findings for that. So, just briefly, that's some recent history there. The current CUP application is required because the applicant is proposing multiple buildings on a single parcel. There is not a plat associated with this subject application, its all a planned development, one lot with multiple buildings. Now, it may be subdivided in the future when the office and retail come in, but right now multiple buildings on one lot. And because there is an existing -- or there is a proposed residential component as well, they are proposing to have a caretaker's unit right here above this -- there is office space on the ground floor for the store unit complex and, then, a 1,600 square foot caretaker's apartment above that. Residential uses are prohibited in a CoG zone, which is what the applicant is requesting, but with the use exception through the PD process, the city can approve those, much like the first application you saw tonight, as a use exception. The applicant has not requested any deviations from the standard dimensional standards for any uses. They are meeting all setback requirements and frontage requirement, etcetera. A lot of that is because they don't have a plat and it's an existing parcel. The detailed CUP portion of this project is about 11 acres in size, with the remainder two and a half acres being this future retail office area right on the intersection. Included with the 11 acres that's going through the detailed is nine mini storage buildings, containing 150,000 square feet of storage space and 28 boat and RV outdoor storage spaces located in this -- along this west property line here. I'll come back to those in just a minute. Included within the Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15. 2004 Page 37 of 67 buildings I mentioned before is 3,200 square feet for the office for the storage complex and a 1,600 square foot caretaker's apartment. There is 27,265 square feet of future retail and office shown in this future development area on the corner. The applicant is proposing three access points onto Overland Road. Let me see if I can find them all at this scale. There is one right in this area here north of -- or, I'm sorry, east of that, north on this map. It is a full access driveway in this location and a future right-in, right-out for the retail office approximately here. I can't see that far. And, then, there is two driveways to Stoddard. Again, a future access point here to the retail commercial and I think that's it right there. Gated entry to the storage complex. The applicant did submit elevations for this application. Staff is supportive of the proposed elevations and material shown on them. Moore Design Associates submitted those drawings and staff believes that the design features, the architectural features that are included with the elevations will blend in with the existing residences, as well as the commercial and industrial in the future. They really look nice and think that they will bend in very well in the area. Just a couple of the outstanding issues or issues raised in staff report, as well as in the applicant's response letter. I'm going to try to kind of go in -- in order on this in the staff report, beginning on page 14, site specific number three for the CUP. Staff is requiring -- again, there is a single-family residence currently in the county approximately here. Meridian city code does require a land use buffer between different land use classifications. Outdoor storage adjacent to single family residential requires a 25-foot wide landscape buffer. Staff is requiring a 24-foot wide landscape buff~r along this entire length. Did want to note that there are currently steel Idaho Power lines in that location. They have a 75-foot wide easement there for maintenance of those lines. They did have some concerns with the height of those trees being placed in the berming and landscaping that's required by the city. Staff concurs with that, anyway, that a maximum height of 25 feet for any landscape materials constructed along that west property line as appropriate. I talk with Mr. Hawk today, which is -- he is the owner representing Idaho Power and he thinks that should work fine, they should be able to get in through there and to do any maintenance they need, as long as the height doesn't get into the power poles. The other thing I want to -- while we are stiil on that side, the other thing that I wanted to talk about was the boat RV storage. I mean 25 feet is quite a wide landscape buffer. I talked with the applicant in the hall before this hearing. I don't know what they are going to do regarding that requirement. It would either cause them to significantly redesign to get any type of outdoor storage there or significantly cut it back on the amount of outdoor storage for boats and RVs. So, not quite sure exactly how that's going to go. I'll let the applicant address that requirement and maybe it just goes away. I guess that would be staff's initial response, would just -- maybe it's not appropriate there, having those people who want some landscaping there, outdoor storage adjacent to that, although I don't think it's going to get a lot of use. People only park their -- their RV and their boat for the winter, come and get it, you know, in the spring or whatever. So, not that it would be too intrusive, but I'll let the applicant touch on that, I guess. Amenities were the other thing that I brought up in the staff report. There were no proposed amenities. As you know with a planned development, even for a commercial or office use, the city does require amenities appropriate to the size and use proposed. So, the applicant did, in that meeting that we just had out in the hallway, give to me a couple of the pictures of what they kind of envision. Also, in their response Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 38 of 67 letter dated yesterday I believe they kind of detail what they propose to do there, five to six foot tall water fountain, some brick pavers around -- right at the intersection of Overland and Stoddard. I think, you know, this looks pretty nice with some benches as well, so I'll leave that up to the discussion of the Commission, I guess, but I'll let the applicant describe that a little bit better. The Hardin Drain, did note in the staff report -- it's a good size lateral, I don't know, Bruce could probably say what size pipe that would require, but it's a big one and the applicant has requested, since this has gone on, that they be able to leave that open. I believe that condition, which is site-specific condition number seven on the page 15, can remain the way it is. It says if the City Council approves a waiver of having to tile or cover the Hardin Drain, if not, they have to cover it. So, I don't believe that needs any modification by this body. Sewer service I think is the last thing. Sewer service, I guess, and, then, one more -- is not currently available to this site. They have worked with Mr. Freckleton and the Public Works Department on coming to some type of an arrangement to allow the caretaker's unit and this office area to utilize a septic system until sewer is available to the site, with a non-development agreement for the remaining retail and office use. That was the same situation that the last applicant had to go through a year ago when this was before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Public Works Department has included conditions that they are comfortable with anyways, so that's site specific number ten on page 15. I did want to address -- because in the applicant's letter they did have some comments regarding phasing. For simplicity I made up the phasing. I called phase one the detailed storage and office and phase two the future stuff. They further clarified that and said, actually, there are three or four phases in what I called phase one. The intent of that is just that, your detailed -- the detailed stuff can utilize a septic, because the storage units don't need to utilize septic, only the office and apartment. But that -" the remainder portion does need to hook up to sewer. So, that may need to be clarified a little bit. The current verbiage I think is a little bit confusing, maybe, and just to clarify that the existing office and apartment, you know, for the storage use only or something like that. And, then, the last thing I just wanted to have the applicant touch on the hours of operation. I'll just leave it at that, I guess, and let the applicant -- I don't know if you have an idea if this is going to be a 24 hour facility or a -- depending on -- I don't know how, again, intrusive that would be, but just a point of discussion, I guess, for this hearing. And that I believe concludes staff's report and I will stand for any questions. Borup: Question from any of the Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, Craig, just curious, how do you envision this parcel to be fully sewered down the road, if, in fact, this is a temporary solution to allow it -- septic and well, what -- how do you see it being served down the road? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, the sewer that's going to serve this entire area is going to -- is the Black Cat Trunk Line, which has not begun yet. It starts north of the interstate and is going to traverse down through this area. It will follow the Hardin Drain and currently the Bear Creek Subdivision has a lift station in it and this trunk line that would be extended to Black Cat Trunk will take that lift station off line and, then, the whole Bear Creek will gravity sewer. So, one of the things we have asked for Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 39 of 67 in our staff report -- and Becky has acknowledged in her written response, is the need for an easement along the Hardin Drain for that future trunk line. Does that answer your question? Rohm: Uh-huh. Freckleton: Okay. Zaremba: Yeah. Part of the -- the development agreement or non-development agreement is that at such time as that's available within 300 feet they will abandon the septic system; is that correct? Freckleton: Yeah. As soon as it's available. And I don't really necessarily want to lock them into a septic system. On the -- out in Overland Road we do have -- we do have a sewer that has -- is at Stoddard Lane, but it's at its absolute end. It is very shallow. There are currently Western Electronics, which is on the north side of Overland Road. They pump their sewer to that manhole and this apartment office could put in a grinder pump and pump up to that point, too, if they -- if they wanted to go that route. So, I just kind of want to leave that door open. It's either a septic or they will have to pump it. Zaremba: I don't remember seeing that option in the report, but should we add that? Freckleton: Well, the way that the report is written it says may, if I remember right. Zaremba: Okay. I may have missed it. Okay. I do have one other question and this would be on the landscaping and, again, once -- whether or not my memory is playing tricks on me, but my recollection is that when this part of the project -- although it's a $eparate thing, was being discussed, that's where Idaho Power has their -- I forget whether it's a contractor's yard or a substation or both, but, anyhow, they needed access along here, but at the time my recollection is when this was approved Idaho Power was required to say this is my drive aisle and Idaho Power was going to put in 25 feet of the landscaping. This map is turned sideways, but west of their drive aisle, that their drive aisle would be right up against their property line and I thought they were having to put in 25 feet of landscaping. Am I not remembering correctly or -- Rohm: I was thinking that that was to be abandoned. Once the substation was completed, that access off of Overland Road would be abandoned and until future development, which would, then, place a roadway under an application for a roadway, that that road would be gone altogether. That's the way I remember it. Zaremba: Now that you mention it, I remember that part of the discussion. What I don't remember is which way it ended up going, so -- I remember both of those being discussed. Rohm: Yeah. I'm pretty sure that that's the way it ended. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 40 of 67 Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I do -- I don't remember the landscape requirement. I do know the history behind that access drive. It is a temporary access only and was to be abandoned once their access to Stoddard and the substation -- there was a contractor's yard component there, but -- and they do have access now to Stoddard, so it's currently hard surface, but it's not being utilized as best as I could tell and it was a temporary access point. The applicant is -- I believe -- and she may have to help me out a little bit here, but ACHD's commission, I believe, was supposed to act on it last night, so that access point is in the general location that that temporary access was there and I know that ACHD staff originally said, no, this is a temporary access, you're perpetuating that, it needs to go away. I don't know how that came out last night, so she may be able to just shed some light on that. And, then, the landscaping -- I don't recall seeing that as a condition, but, again, this application was denied by the city. It was approved in the county for the substation and there is a condition in this report, which I'm going to ask the Commission to remove, it says comply with all the Ada County's requirements as the applicant requested. That was actually a carry over from that last staff report that I -- I asked the staff person why that condition was in there and I didn't get there and the condition still remained in the staff report, so that's the best I can help you out with some of the access and landscaping requirements, but that is still in the county -- the substation is still in the county and any requirements would be of the county right now. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'm representing the applicants in this matter. As Craig indicated, this particular site is part of a larger site that's -- or the southern portion that's owned by Idaho Power. My understanding was when they purchased the property for their substation, that they had to purchase the 19 or 20 acres, approximately, and -- but all they needed was the seven acres to the south of the Hardin Drain and so they have been trying to sell this northern portion. Craig also indicated that an application came before the Council here awhile back and it was denied. Prior to even coming up with any concepts, we did meet with the staff, we talked to them about what had transpired and the staff indicated to us the main objection that the Council had at that time was the contractor's yard. The esthetics of it, the fact that the property does slope south, so Overland sits high, so you would have a view, you know, into the property being the fact that it is sloping to the south and just the esthetics of it, since the City of Meridian does have the community park at Bear Creek approximately 600 feet south of the southern boundary of this northern portion. So, my recommendation to the applicant was to get with an architect and try to come up with, one, a creative site plan that showed some mixed use and, secondly, a style and type of mini storage building that would, obviously, compliment this area, since you're going to have a considerable amount of public traffic going down Stoddard as the community park, you know, for their destination. Since we do have people in the audience, I will stick it up here. Now, obviously, with the Idaho Power substation, we have the substation located here, designated as a quasi-public use on your Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 41 of 67 Comprehensive Plan. They are very sensitive right now to residential being constructed adjoining these substations, so the input we have received in the past anytime we are doing any development next to an Idaho Power substation is that it did not have a residential component. Over here to the east you have got low density residential. Over here this is designated for commercial, even though those lots in Queenland Acres are currently utilized as single family dwellings, they are rentals owned by -- Mr. Burgess's mother, I believe, still owns them. To the north we have a designation of commercial and, then, industrial where Western Electronics is and, then, oh, to the west this is designated on your Comprehensive Plan as residential. So, in working out this site plan, we came up with the idea of this retail office concept here right at the intersection. We are going to enter into a development agreement with the City of Meridian that that is un-developable and would have to come through for a site specific Conditional Use Permit in the future only at such time as the Black Cat Trunk comes through here and is available. We currently have central water available here in Stoddard and I believe it's out in Overland. Bruce can correct me if I'm wrong. So, we will not be putting down any wells. The only issue is the issue of sewer and, like Bruce stated, sewer is in Stoddard, but it's just a lift station and a pressure line and, then, they have got a manhole up here that is flowing south -- or north across the freeway and there is a question about the capacity of that, but we would like the option to work with the staff in finding the best solution for the service to the apartment and the office that's associated with the mini storage facility. The phase one that Craig indicated would include, obviously, the apartment and the office and, then, this climate controlled area here, all of our parking, as you can see, is on the interior between the buildings. This would be a full access to Overland Road. This would be a future right-in, right-out, a future right-in, right-out, and, then, this would be a full access here to Stoddard. Also part of phase one we would build this building here and, then, the perimeter building and landscaping along Stoddard and, then, obviously, improve this Overland frontage here. Phase two would be this building, the I building, the H building here, and, then, phase three would be these three buildings and, then, obviously, that would be dependent on the sewer extension across the freeway. I'd like to show you the buildings that -- that they are proposing. I was very pleased when the architect e-mailed these elevations to us. I thought he did a very good job in trying to come up with a concept that was esthetically pleasing. This would be the Overland corridor, so what you would see is you would have the -- obviously, the landscaping and trees, you would see some facilities that would be setback behind that future office commercial area and, then, this would be the gated area coming into the facility. This is the apartment up above and this would be the office. In that office they would also have a little retail shop that would sell packing tape, packing supplies, you know, locks so forth. Anything that, you know, would -- you would need if you were storing your stuff at this facility. Along-- this is a closeup of this same elevation here. As you can see, it's got a little clock in it. It's got quite a bit of glass. Real cute. Trying to make it look rural. Along the Stoddard elevation -- or Stoddard Road we have this elevation here and what they did was they are breaking that up with these buildings, so we didn't -- what I told them I did not want to see was a wall of buildings and that's typically what we encounter and that's very esthetically pleasing. So, they did a good job with breaking this up and incorporating kind of a little barn, rural type concept. We will have 25 feet of landscaping along Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 42 of 67 Stoddard. I think we showed 30 feet along the Overland corridor. One of the questions that came up and we struggled with was amenities. What kind of amenity can you have for a mini storage facility? Well, after we submitted, we kept pondering that thought and trying to figure it out and we did come up with an idea and this is what we would like to construct right at the Stoddard-Overland intersection. This picture is the Applebee's at the intersection of Glenwood and State. We would install a five to six foot fountain, stamped colored concrete around it creating a little plaza effect. A couple of decorative park benches. It would be located right here. And, then, obviously, highlight it with landscaping, such as trees, shrubs, and flowers. The thought that I had was, then, when somebody turns down the Stoddard Road here that's going to be a really nice visual feature. To tie that in along Stoddard, we are going to duplicate the stamp colored concrete in two locations and, then, have the same decorative park bench kind of nestled into some landscaping. You have seen that in some of the subdivisions along the perimeter on the arterials. Stoddard is not an arterial, it's a collector, so the highway district is asking us to install curb, gutter and sidewalk and expand the pavement on our side or to trust fund for those improvements. Overland Road we will have to construct sidewalk or trust fund for that. It is scheduled for an upgrade in 2007. They will be building it out to five lanes and rebuilding this intersection. So, a lot of times what they do is prefer that we trust fund for the sidewalk, so that there is no mistakes that cause them to have to tear some of it out in the future when they do their sidewalk design. But we think as far as the appeal from that intersection, that's what I would like to duplicate and as you can see with the landscaping and that set in there, it's going to create a nice plaza and I believe that that's the type of amenity that should be installed in this type of facility and it will really give it a nice soft feel. The hours of operation. Craig asked me to address that. This will not be a 24-hour facility. It will be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Fencing. The Idaho Power site has some chain link fencing at this time, I guess with some tan slates. We should probably try to duplicate that along the south boundary to tie in. As far as the western boundary, we do have Reinharts there. They are the property that is -- would be most affected by visually from this facility, so I have talked with my client, we did hold a neighborhood meeting, Sheri handled that for me, and met with the Reinharts. She indicated that their main concern was, obviously, buffering and fencing for -- obviously, for their property. But we'd like to work with them to try to come up with an idea of how best to -- what type of fencing, what height of berming, landscaping, work with them to try to come up with something that would -- they would be satisfied with. As far as the Idaho Power easement, Ada County Highway District did confirm that Idaho Power told. them that would be temporary and that they would, obviously, eliminate it at such time as this redeveloped. But Idaho Power had implied to my client that they needed that access. Now, we do not utilize this access at all, so if it is the -- if Idaho Power made prior commitments to the highway district or the city, then, obviously, they should stand behind that. I believe the 75 foot easement, from what we have been told, is to just access and maintain the transmission lines, because they are coming out of the substation and running along that west boundary. So, we do have to, as Craig said, keep in mind that any type of landscaping installed will have to meet their requirement for that separation -- the horizontal separation and, then, the vertical separation. We also have a pipe -- there is a ditch facility that's piped along here, it takes water onto the south. Sheri indicated that Meridian Pianning & Zoning Juiy 15. 2004 Page 43 of 67 the Reinharts wanted us to coordinate with them on the irrigation. Well, obviously, you know, any small service ditches or so forth will have to be piped, if they have not already been piped. We are requesting that we not pipe that Hardin Drain, it is a large, deep drain, since we are a mini storage facility and, then, you have got a power substation on the south side, I really don't see how that would benefit. You know, we are not going to have a ditch safety issue. We will have fencing on our side and, then, have to, obviously, coordinate with Nampa-Meridian to allow them access to that Hardin Drain. As far as mini storage facilities are concerned, this is the third one that I have worked on. In looking at a market analysis for the demand for storage, there is only one facility south of the freeway right now in the Meridian area and that's that old Valley Storage, which was a chicken farm or something at one time. They converted it. It's not a very attractive facility. But as far as the newer facilities, there isn't anything available south of Interstate 84, so we believe that this will -- there is a need for it, there is a demand out here, a lot of homes in Bear Creek, we believe that this will be a good neighbor, we believe it will provide a service to the surrounding urban area, keep people from having to go across the freeway and to the north, hopefully, cut down on the number of trips. If I lived at Bear Creek and I had a ski boat and I needed to store it, as would most subdivisions, they do not allow you to store recreational vehicles on your lots, the best place to go would there. So, I think there is a need for it and I think this is a good facility and I think an exceptional plan. We worked pretty hard and took a lot of time to carefully come up with an idea and a concept and a style of building that we believe will make this area very attractive. In reviewing staff's conditions, we had, I believe, one condition that we were not happy with and Craig indicated that he was going to eliminate condition number 12 under site specific Conditional Use Permit. As far as all the other conditions, I believe we are in full agreement with your staff. Do you have any questions? Zaremba: I do have one. Discuss, if you would, a little further the area that involves the Idaho Power easement or where you plan to do a storage and stuff. If there is a landscape requirement or whatever that landscape requirement is to buffer the property to the west, are there ways you can work out what you need to workout or -- just tell me what's happening with that. McKay: Commissioner Zaremba, when we first -- when we came up with the site plan, it was thought by the applicant that that 75 feet could not be landscaped, that it had to remain a gravel surface, because of the poles and so forth. Zaremba: Access to the poles and -- McKay: And access to the poles. Zaremba: Nothing growing up under them. McKay: But in Craig's conversation and, then, some subsequent conversations this week, it appears that they -- they are softening and they would allow us to have some landscaping here. The code says 25 feet. One of the thoughts that we had was the .J Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 44 of 67 potential of -- we could put the berm and put the top of the berm right here and, then, berm back and work with the Reinharts, if they want some berm on their side, the landscaping, I guess it could straddle the property line and it could stay just solely here and this could be eliminated. This was just gravel. It was open; That potentially could just be eliminated. That would be one option. I wasn't sure how to handle that buffering, because Idaho Power in the beginning appeared to be so restrictive on what we could do. But it's a reality -- you know, like I said, we have got that single family dwelling located right here and we need to provide something that the Reinharts would be happy to live next to. Zaremba: If I'm understanding you, to put the full amount of required buffer on your side of the property line means that the rest of that area, essentially, becomes useless. Borup: It would just be, I believe, a corridor. Yeah. Now, they may be able to -- Mr. Moore, who came up with this concept, you know, he may be able to, you know, realign these or reduce these and somehow, you know, allow for some limited open parking. We showed -- I believe the site plan only had -- it had five feet right here of landscaping and your ordinance says 25. Zaremba: While you're there, let me ask a different question of staff. Along the Hardin Drain is there ever any thought that that's eventually going to be connected to a pathway system or -- I didn't see any mention of that. I know Bear Creek has pathways somewhere. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba. I was just double-checking on the Comp Plan, but it is not shown as a multi-use pathway on the comprehensive, so the city didn't envision any pathways adjacent to. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions, Commissioners? Rohm: If, in fact, that existing ingress off of Overland is to be abandoned because the substation can be accessed off of Stoddard, then, that's no longer going to be used as vehicle, traffic and I don't know why they can't be fully developed as a berm, as long as the utility is able to drive on that berm to service their facility. That seems to be the proper -- the right answer to me. McKay: Yes, sir, I believe you're correct. That is my understanding. Access to the poles is the issue, not access to their site. Rohm: Right. And so it's not a service -- there is no service road there once the access off of Stoddard became available. McKay: That's correct, sir. Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 45 of 67 Rohm: Okay. Borup: But they still kept the 75-foot easement. McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this? Please. Reinhart: My name is Jackie Reinhart and we, obviously, live to the west of this facility. Certainly willing to work with the developer. Our concerns are for the berm, any landscaping that they are going to do. The original picture with all of the -- all the storage from our end -- I'm not sure how it's going to work. If they did, indeed, keep that, there is not enough room to back in vehicles with the 75 foot easement for the Idaho Power and make it all work -- physically work, have the berm, the landscaping -- I don't know that there is enough room there. Borup: There isn't and that's what they said, when the 25-foot buffer would go in, they would lose a lot of that storage space. Reinhart: And, then, originally there shows an exit right on that western boundary between our house and this property, an access to Overland Road. Does that go away? The Idaho Power road. Rohm: Right here. Reinhart: Right there. So, the access between the two properties would go away, correct? Rohm: Yes. Borup: Well, then, how does that apply to getting access to that area? Newton-Huckabay: It wasn't just access to the poles? Borup: To the poles. Yeah. And that's what -- Rohm: Yeah, it wouldn't be a roadway, but it -- you know, they can just drive up and over the berm. Their vehicles can get about anywhere. It's pretty amazing. Reinhart: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 46 of 67 Zaremba: If I'm interpreting this and remembering previous discussions, there is a gate here for Idaho Power to access their poles. There would be a gate here if this remains at all usable for the storage area and this would close. Reinhart: Okay. Okay. That's all. Zaremba: We can get the applicant to say whether I'm right or not. Borup: We will clarify that, what ACHD finally said. I don't know if that was answered what they said last night. Wasn't that last night? Okay. Zaremba: I believe the answer was they said that's supposed to be abandoned. Borup: Okay. And, then, maybe -- could you elaborate what type of buffering you would like to see there? Reinhart: Well, our concern when we saw the -- Borup: I mean the city has already said 25 feet. Reinhart: Right. Borup: And so is a berm with a fence on your preference or what would you like to see? Reinhart: Right now next to this is a horse pasture and, then, as it goes down further and that's where we keep all the horses. From our property we would be able to see it. I don't know what kind of a wall we are looking at. I don't know. Borup: Well, it -- Reinhart: We would be able to see -- if they had recreational vehicles, we would be able to see all that and one suggestion was wrought iron. I don't know. And we are certainly willing to work with the developer. I just -- yeah. I don't know. Rohm: If I remember correctly, your biggest concern was the ingress-egress office and it wasn't specific to the berm or whatever their vegetation was, it was just that you didn't want to have the traffic back and forth. Reinhart: Correct. Rohm: Fair enough. Reinhart: And with the contractor's yard from last year, that was one of the big issues was -- Rohm: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 47 of 67 Reinhart: -- the traffic and so -- Rohm: So, the 25-foot berm I don't believe is a significant issue -- Reinhart: No. Rohm: -- to you folks. Right. Okay. Reinhart: The details of it. Rohm: Yeah. The details of it. Okay. Thank you. Borup: But you like the idea of the 25-foot buffer, I assume? Reinhart: Absolutely. Borup: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Hödgekiss: My name is Shane Hodgekiss, I'm with DBSI or Western Electronics. There are -- right now there is 75 feet between their property line and the building. Is that right? Where the parking was going to go. You're losing 25 of that to the berm, so you're going to have 50 feet of space just landscaping, then, between -- it would be a total of 75 feet of landscaping. Borup: Well, sir, you need to address the Commission. Hodgekiss: Oh. Okay. Borup: You can talk with the applicant later if you'd like. Hodgekiss: All right. What -- I guess the concern that we would have is what they are going to do with the rest of the space between the berm and the 50 feet, as she was saying, you know, the 50 feet isn't going to give them adequate space to park RVs or anything in there and be -- Borup: Not a very large one. Hodgekiss: I'm concerned about what they are going to do with the rest of it. That's the only thing that I can see that we could have a problem with. Other than the fact that -- Borup: Would that still be a concern if there is no access at this point? Hodgekiss: Well, just that they are maintaining a nice appearance to the lot. There is a lot -- an RV storage lot off of Franklin in Meridian that has the RV parking and stuff that Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 48 of 67 really doesn't look very -- I can't think of the address now. It's just off of Linder, I believe, and it's kind of ugly in there, too. Newton-Huckabay: That's just RVs parked in a field, basically. Hodgekiss: Well, but it's -- isn't it next to a subdivision that's -- it's designated for RV parking and it looks like somebody's renting space out or that's the way it used to look at least. It's been awhile since I have been by there, but that would be our only concern, I think. Rohm: So, your concern is that it's maintained -- the 50 feet from the 25-foot berm to the development and I think that the developer can respond to that. Hodgekiss: Right. Borup: Yeah. And maybe they could clarify on the landscaping, but it looks like if this access is abandoned and this whole landscaping strip would continue on through that and you'd have that whole landscaping buffer clear along Overland. Hodgekiss: Absolutely. Or maybe even move their building further to the west closer to the landscaping and utilize the rest of the space in the -- Borup: Well, I think they would probably like to do that, but -- well, no, they still got that Idaho Power easement there and I'm assuming they could not put the building over that easement. Hodgekiss: I see. So-- Borup: But I'm sure they would rather do that. Hodgekiss; Yeah. I guess -- and, then, the other concern would be that we have got more acreage down between our building and the freeway. The sewer line when -- are they expecting to continue that sewer line through? Borup: Your question is when would the sewer line -- Hodgekiss: Right. Borup: -- be through? Bruce, I don't know if there is an answer to that yet, is there? Freckleton: Mr. Chair, no, there is not. The city in its current budget has allocated funds to start the project. We are going to be building trunk line down Black Cat Road and it will be on the north side of the interstate as part of our project, but -- and that will be right down by Ten Mile Road. So, it's going to have to come quite a ways, you know, still. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 49 of 67 Hodgekiss: Okay. Well, with the expansion that we have done, we have increased our usage on the sewer just in the last two months. We have more than doubled our input to it, so I think there would be a little concern there, too, as to how much that would handle with the future development of -- Borup: Well -- and that's why they are saying that it appears that that trunk line would have to go in before they would allow that future development. Hodgekiss: Right. Borup: But the city would probably love some developer to come along and put that trunk line in. Hodgekiss: I'm sure. Okay. Well, that's alii have to say. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Harwell: My name is Garrett Harwell, I live at 730 West Davenport in Bear Creek. I just had one quick concern to address. We are basically looking -- every time I look out my back door this is what I'm going to be seeing, so -- Rohm: You want to grab this mike. Harwell: Okay. I live basically right here, so I'm going to be looking at that and to my understanding it's basically what I'm seeing right here in the last picture that we had up -- yeah. This is looking like one solid row of buildings to me, which is -- I think we said we wanted to avoid. I was just looking for a little clarification on that. Borup: What you would be seeing, sir, is this row here and this row, if I'm seeing this right. This is elevation on Stoddard. This is the gate that goes into the property. I believe this gate is right here. Harwell: Yes, I believe so. Borup: And, then, this bottom row is the other that you would be seeing. And that is the area beyond their landscaping buffer. That's the buildings right along here and, then, you have got the trees and the landscaping between the road and those buildings. Harwell: Okay. Will there be any hill or berm or fencing or what will there be specifically in there to buffer the view from the side? Newton-Huckabay: I think you're looking at the row of -- you know, the decorative barns. That's the view is it will kind of look like a series of barns, rather than like the ones against the freeway, a series of cinder block buildings. Harwell: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 50 of 67 Borup: Sir, did you understand what -- this is the view as you first come along Stoddard. You would be seeing these buildings. Well, here we go. It's up there. So, this is the main gate into the project. Harwell: Uh-huh. Yeah. I follow that. Zaremba: To make the connection, that main gate is probably this area right here. You probably live down around here and I agree with you that the question to me would be on this drawing these appear to be individual buildings, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven individual buildings with probably a fence in between. On the other drawing that appeared to be a continuous building with just indents. Harwell: Correct. I think that was -- Zaremba: I think we will have the applicant clarify that. Borup: Okay. Yeah. I assumed it was a continuous building with taller sections, so -- Zaremba: Well, the visual variety is there. I think we just clarify how it's achieved. Harwell: All right. Thank you. Borup: And what do you think of this compared to most of the mini storage projects you have seen? Harwell: Honestly, I have never seen a storage facility that I have enjoyed looking at, you know, so I'm hoping that this one can prove me wrong if it does go in. That's kind of the bottom line. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward? Okay. Becky, any final comments? McKay: Becky McKay. I guess just to clarify what ACHD staff placed in our staff report concerning the westerly entrance. They had told us their preference was to abandon that Idaho Power access here. Since that's not utilized by our facility, if Idaho Power was insistent that it remain, it would have to align with Western Electronics and in doing a site evaluation, there is no way it could align with Western Electronics, because of pole contact, one of those poles. So, therefore, the only option is abandon. Borup: So that's your intention? McKay: I believe that's the only -- the only viable thing to do and, obviously, you know, it's the preference of the Reinharts that that go away. Then, that would allow us to continue the perimeter landscaping along Overland to the western boundary, which, then, would make Mr. Hodgekiss happy. Fencing along here, if we were to go with a Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 51 of67 wrought iron fencing, that doesn't -- I mean you can see through that. If they want something that's more sight obscuring, but not wood, we thought like a -- you know, a vinyl-type fencing would be nice, it's low maintenance. I guess, you know, I'd want to chat with Reinharts after the hearing tonight and see if that would be acceptable to them. As far as the issue on the 25-foot buffer, what would happen with the remaining 50 feet, Idaho Power has indicated that they want that left gravel, so they can drive in with big trucks in the event they need to access the transmission poles or lines, which are here and the arms of those poles all hang to the east, so we do have -- you know, we could not encroach into the easement with the building. So, we have got to leave that open for them to have some type of an access, hard surface to get into the poles and that landscaping would go here. If the landscaping is continued along here, which it would be if this were eliminated, then, you wouldn't visually be seeing -- you know, looking in there, because it would be buffered and it is the intent of the applicant to do some berming. The berming that I would say -- the berm would take place right in here. You wouldn't go with a real tall berm here, because you need visibility for the site, the entrance, the office, et cetera. Here with the berming you're going to bring elevations of the buildings even -- make them look even squattier by pushing your landscaping up. As far as the sewer service, if we were allowed to pump into that manhole you'd have probably one, two toilets tops, you know, for a little above apartment and, then, the office down below, maybe three. As Bruce can tell you, that would be absolutely insignificant in the whole scheme of things, as far as what's going into that manhole. This area, you know, it will blossom big time when that Black. Trunk comes across the freeway. At this time, you know, the opportunities for development are limited to what's out there now as far as public facilities. Mr. Harlow talked about living in Bear Creek. I did the Bear Creek development, I was a planner on that, worked with the city on the city park and so forth, so I'm very familiar with that subdivision. The way this is designed, because this property is sloping south, these buildings are stepping down, so what you're going to see is you're going to see it oscillating and stepping down. If you didn't step those buildings down, because that elevation is dropping pretty fast, if you didn't step it down you'd end up with monstrously tall buildings by the time you got to the end. So, the natural topography of the property is helping us bring these buildings and step them down so your rooflines are dropping as you go south. The exterior here and, then, the exterior to the west -- I think it was asked by Mrs. Reinhart what would she be looking at on the backside of that building. Mr. Frizzell has indicated that they will -- they will continue with the little barn-type concept, like the little windows, barn doors, that would have an esthetically pleasing exterior, just like we are going to have here, so if Mrs. Reinhart shouldn't think that's just going to be a blank wall she's going to be looking at. I think that's it. I mean I have covered most everything. Does the Commission have any other questions? Borup: I think just a clarification of that eastern building, if it's a continuous or -- McKay: Yes. That building is a continuous building, but it is dropping -- you see it's coming down and they are changing the elevation on the building. Borup: Right. Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 52 of 67 McKay: The roofline -- if you can see here -- see what they are doing, they are stepping it down and, then, the roofline is changing. It gives the illusion that it is -- that it isn't one continuous building and that was the whole idea, that we not create one solid wall like you find in most mini storage facilities. Borup: Right. And, then, these sections here would just be. taller -- taller storage buildings and this step down here would probably be -- McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: -- a normal height building. McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: That's the way I understood it. Zaremba: I believe I can see it that way now. Borup: There is the power line right there. Okay. Commissioners? Rohm: Well, if there is no other -- anybody else to speak to it, I move that we close these three hearings. Zaremba: Two. Rohm: Two hearings. Excuse me. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Discussion? Zaremba: I think it's an excellent project. It's much improved over the previous iteration. There were a number of people that came and spoke to us against the previous project. The way it would appear, this looks to me to have answered all of the visual problems. I think it will be -- Borup: I agree. I have never seen this much design innovation in a mini storage before. Zaremba: Yeah. I think that's great. Maybe it will start a new trend. That being said, I don't think there is really any question about the annexation and zoning. We do need to Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 53 of 67 talk through the CUP and make sure we have all of those issues corrected in some of the things that we might state differently. Once I find where that starts. Borup: I think the only one there was any question on, maybe, was item 12. Moe: Item 12 I think is the -- 12 you just wanted to eliminate. Borup: And, Craig, you said you wanted to eliminate that? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the site-specific conditions start on page 14 of the staff report. I'm sure you probably found them by now, but condition three was one that staff had asked to be slightly modified. The fifth bullet there, talks about that 25-foot wide landscape buffer along the west property line. If you want to talk about coordinating materials with Reinharts -- also what I would like to have added into that bullet is that any trees placed within that 25 feet -- or within the buffer shall be no higher than 25 feet at mature height. I think we should add that to that condition. Number four, the applicant, if you want to just remove that and have a new condition about how you felt about the amenities, I guess that needs to be addressed in the recommendation to the City Council, so modified, however you so choose. Zaremba: If we can just say the amenities as presented at the Commission hearing will be required. Hood: That's fine. That sounds adequate. Number seven was one that the applicant brought up, but, again, I don't think that one necessarily needs to be amended. Number ten; Bruce has some language that he may be able to recommend to you. Freckleton: Thanks, Craig. I would just maybe suggest striking the word shall in the first sentence and inserting may. And, then, before septic system, put in the word temporary in that same sentence. And, then, right after where it says office apartment uses, scratch the words in phase one. So, the sentence would read in whole: The applicant may be allowed to utilize a temporary septic system for the office apartment uses only. Period. Zaremba: Works for me. And, then, we are deleting 12? Rohm: Craig? Borup: Yeah. I think is what he said earlier. Hood: And, then, the last one was, yeah, condition 12 as noted. And I believe that's -- those are the changes brought up in the staff report and by the applicant in our response letter. Zaremba: Do we want to reference the hours of operation that were mentioned by the applicant? Should we add that? Bullet 22 or something -- I mean paragraph 22? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 54 of 67 Borup: What were the hours again? Newton-Huckabay: 7:00 to 10:00. I think. Zaremba: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. In that case, unless somebody has anything to add, I believe I'm ready to give it a try. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-013, request for annexation and zoning of 13.5 acres from RUT to CoG zones for Stow-It Storage facility by Lyons Development, LLC, southwest corner of Stoddard Road and West Overland Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of July 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk July 12, 2004. 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 CUP 04-017, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a storage facility, with a caretaker residents and future office retail use in a proposed CoG zone for Stow-It storage facility by Lyons Development, LLC, southwest corner of Stoddard Road and West Overland Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of July 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk July 12th, 2004, with the following changes: One minor typo on page two. In one, two, three, four, five -- about the fifth paragraph down it says the subject applications, parenthesis, PP and CUP -- the parenthesis should be changed to AZ and CUP. Minor typo. Then, beginning on page 14 with site specific comments, under paragraph three, the fifth bullet down, it says provide a minimum 25-foot landscape buffer along the west property line. Materials used in the buffer shall be in accordance with MCC 12-13-12-3 and these materials will be coordinated with the property owners to the west, with the final result being that no trees shall be added in the area of the power lines that have a mature height greater than 25 feet. Paragraph four, still on page 14, will be changed to read: Two amenities as presented by the applicant at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing will be required. On page 15, paragraph ten, the first sentence will be modified to read: The applicant may, change the word shall to may, be allowed to utilized a temporary -- add the word temporary septic system for the office apartment use, delete the words in phase one, so that it reads: For the office apartment use only. Period. The rest of the paragraph stays the same. Page 16, paragraph 12 can be deleted and we will add a paragraph 22 that says the hours of operation of the storage facility shall be contained between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on all days. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15. 2004 Page 55 of 67 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 04-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for a re-subdivision of Lot 2, Tramore Subdivision consisting of 16 multi-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 5.7 acres in an L-O zone for proposed Roundtree Subdivision by Big View Builders - east of North Linder Road on south side of East Pine Avenue: Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 04-018 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a reduction to 10 feet for the rear setback, minimum 5-foot side setback, minimum 20-foot front setback and no minimum frontage requirement for lots within the proposed development for Roundtree SubdiYision by Big View Builders - east of North Linder Road on south side of East Pine Avenue: Borup: Okay. Thank you. The next items are for the Roundtree Subdivision. Public Hearing PP 04-018, the request for preliminary plat approval for a re-subdivision of Lot 2, Tramore Subdivision, consisting of 16 multi-family residential building lots and three common lots on 5.7 acres in an L-O zone for the proposed Roundtree Subdivision by Big View Builders. And, then, Public Hearing CUP 04-018, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for reduction of ten feet to the rear setbacks, minimum five foot setbacks and 20-foot setbacks. I'd like to open these two public hearings and, legal counsel; did you have a comment you wanted to make first? Gabbert: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. I just wanted to disclose for the record that the law firm of White Peterson has represented Big View Builders on some of the corporate work. We have not been directly involved in this project as we -- lead counsel Phil Peterson had abstained from any work on this project directly, so we do not perceive that there would be any conflict of interest, and we would continue to advise the Commission on this application. I just wanted to disclose that for the record and let everyone know that that potential interest exists. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. So, then, we'd like to start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This site is also probably pretty familiar to the Commission. It was before this board about four months ago, I believe. Was another one that the City Council denied. I'll talk about that in just a minute. It is located on the south side of Pine Avenue, it is approximately 5.7 acres in size and it's about 1,000 feet east of Linder Road. It's designated as high density residential on the Comp Plan future land use map and it's currently zoned L-O. To the north of this, which isn't reflected very well on this aerial, are the recently constructed Tramore senior apartments and on the other side of Pine Avenue north, as you can see, is a residential development, a couple of them, actually, and they are zoned R-4. To the south of this site is the Union Pacific Railroad. We have a large corridor there and that's currently vacant on the other side of that -- of the railroad tracks. To the east is a 7.5-acre parcel, which also should Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15. 2004 Page 56 of 67 be somewhat familiar. Rock Creek multi-family housing development, which was recently recommended to the City Council for approval by the board a few months ago. And, then -- and approved by Council. Thank you. And the west is Sunbridge Living Center, currently zoned L-O, which you can see on the area map. The submitted preliminary plat -- and I will apologize for the quality of this. The site plan is a little bit better, but here is the preliminary plat. They are proposing to subdivide the existing 4.7 acres into 16 multi-family residential lots and three common lots. As I mentioned earlier, this site was part of the Tramore Subdivision, which was a two lot preliminary final, which was approved by the city in 2001. The other lot in Tramore is the senior apartments and this is the remainder lot. As part of that Tramore development, a 50 foot wide cross-access easement was approved in to intersect Pine Avenue near the west property line. This is the flag portion of the subject lot, which is currently how the senior -- senior apartments get access to the public street system to cross this flag lot on the subject property. And this access is 25 feet wide and has curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the east side of the drive aisle. It currently terminates on the north side of the Nine Mile Drain, which the applicant is proposing to culvert and extend in through this development. The submitted CUP for a planned development, they propose 16 -- there is 16 lots on the plat, so 16 multi-family buildings, each containing one four-plex, for a total of 64 units. The CUP includes a request for reduced side and rear setbacks for the buildings and reduced lot frontage in the L-O zone. The applicant is proposing no street frontage per se for these units and all access is from that common drive, so these will all have access to the common drive easement out to Pine Avenue, rather than having any street frontage. As amenities for the PD, the applicant is proposing to construct a picnic area with a sand court. That's located in this area here. And a shelter. That's Lot 14, Block 1. In addition, to the amenities on that lot, there is some open space areas here and here, as well as a 33 foot area from the back of this building to the property line and included in that is about 1.19 acres of this 5.7 acre site set aside for open space. Now, some of that does include the subject property that goes on the north side of the Nine Mile Drain, some of that is included in that calculation, but about 20 percent of the site is set-aside in open space. There are the current elevations submitted with this application. Quite an improvement from the last submittal, four- plexes, again, much like the last application, staff is pleased with this compared to your typical box type four-flex. We think there is some good design features here and also talk about the amenities; the private usable open space was a big topic at the last hearing for this one and other residential PDs, so I'll talk about that in just a moment. The previous application was denied by the City Council, as I mentioned, for the following reasons: The proposed roadway configuration, along with the proposed access to the east, specifically traffic would cut through the drive aisles causing safety issues for the senior citizens residents of the Tramore apartment complex, as well as Sunbridge. Foot traffic was a safety issue for Tramore and Sunbridge, as well as any future residences within this complex. The multi-family residential use design proposed was incompatible with the surrounding Tramore Senior Center and the Sunbridge complex due to the intense density and the project did not provide an adequate amount of private space or open space for each living unit. I did just want to touch on all of those reasons and let you know how the applicant has addressed them. They may want to further expound on that, but just -- the roadway configuration, we are pretty Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 57 of 67 stuck with whatever happens here, using this flag lot as access to Pine. There have been concerns from neighbors in the area about traffic in this area. It is a concern. Anything that goes in here is going to generate more trips. The applicant has, as mentioned, for reason of denial, removed two of the buildings from the previous application, eight dwelling units has been reduced, and they have added that in open space. It has a significant jog in it. This section is straight, but there is not much else you can do with that and as soon as it's culverted and runs across there is a jog. Maybe some options that could work for further slowing down vehicles. is maybe some speed humps here or, you know, somewhere in there, or some chokers, something like that, where it really narrows down the drive lane, people tend to slow down like that. This is a private driveway and it's not going to be up to the highway district in this case. It is on the subject parcel, so it's something like that, if that's, you know, something you feel. In the last application Tramore was concerned about people speeding next to the senior apartments and that's a concern that staff has as well, but there are some constraints and they all need to use this access point. So, the cut-through traffic concern that was raised, consistent with the previous application, they are stubbing, if you will, this drive aisle to the east and. it will be used for emergency access only. Staff was pushing for true interconnectivity between the developments. The City Council made that a reason for denial, is that they didn't want to see more traffic potentially using this access point. So, staff has put up the fight and is willing to concede that that be emergency access only, a slider gate for the fire department's requirements, as included in the staff report. So, that cut through traffic concern should no longer be an issue. Foot traffic. The applicant is proposing -- there is currently a sidewalk on the north side. The site plan and landscape shows a sidewalk on the south side. Staff did make one change to the landscape plan. In order for this pathway to connect on through and up through the multi-use pathway, there is a little sliver here from the edge of pavement to the property line that needs to be constructed by the applicant, just so they are not wearing a path in the landscaping across, but there is actually an impervious surface there. As I mentioned before, the applicant has reduced the density by eight dwelling units, which was one of the concerns, and they have increased the usable private open space, so that's where I'll talk a little bit about that and, then, let the applicant further clarify. They are proposing patios with some privacy fencing and a -- not a gazebo. That's what I'm trying to think of. Shown on the landscape plan. I hope you all had a chance to look at that and, meanwhile, there are some other pictures that the applicant has brought tonight. I guess to just summarize, the outstanding issues, the -- they have pretty much been addressed from the 48-foot private usable as proposed to the hundred -- 400 square feet of usable. The elevations significantly improved, in staff's opinion. There still are the concerns with the neighbors. I mean it doesn't look like we have a lot of them in the audience tonight, but, you know, those concerns are still there regarding traffic in the area and compatibility with the senior apartments and I did just -- I just want to point out that compatibility issues recently that, you know, the city did approve the multi-family here, you have multi-family to the north and a railroad corridor, future transit corridor to the south. Staff believes that's pretty compatible and recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit application list the changes and conditions noted in the staff report. I'll stand for any questions. Thanks. Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 58 of 67 Borup: Questions? Moe: Yes. I got a little bit curious as far as the storm drainage and whatnot. I did note that they are going with retention. Is there -- do we have a plan showing where retention ponds are going to be located in all this open space area? Hood: It should wait -- Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe -- Moe: They can answer that? Hood: The applicant here may be able to answer that, if you will hold just -- hold on for a minute. Moe: I will wait. Borup: I thought they were waiting for another comment. Sorry. Is the applicant ready for their presentation? Zaremba: I would make one comment while the applicant is working away up here. Craig, I would make a comment on page nine of the staff comments. Paragraph seven says place a note on the face of the final plat no fencing shall be built closer to any building than five feet per story. By including that you have saved everybody from a long dissertation from me on the exact subject. Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to personally thank Craig. Zaremba: And I appreciate that and I'm sure everybody else does, too. Newton-Huckabay: I thought about you when I read that last night. Borup: Okay, sir. Rennison: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Council, John Rennison representing the -- my clients tonight Big View Builders and Walden Hughes, 128 South Eagle Road in Eagle. So, where to start. I will start with the first question that came up, which was in regard to the storm drainage. We will put it underground and -- with seepage beds. That's the plan. I talked to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District also about perhaps a possibility of discharging pre-development stuff to their drain, but nowadays that's not a real likely solution to the storm drain design, but it is certainly doable by just putting in underground seepage beds. Moe: Okay. Rennison: And the comment on the storm water? Borup: Yeah. Any other question on that? Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 59 of 67 Moe: No. That will take care of it. Borup: I was just going to comment we have received your letter saying that you were accepting all staff conditions and is that still the case? Rennison: That's still the case, including the -- there was basically one additional request that Craig had requested and that was to tie the walkway to the west and we don't have any problems with that. Borup: Okay. Have there been any discussion of any type of traffic calming device -- anything on that -- on that long stretch of road? Rennison: There has. Quite a bit. We have talked about it with staff and I guess we haven't selected a device yet, but we are confident that we can come up with one that's amenable to everybody, including Tramore. Borup: And that's what I was wondering, if there had been any discussion with them, because I assume they are still using these access points here. Is that what this is indicating? Rennison: That's correct. Borup: That goes to the Tramore? Rennison: That is correct. That is their access. The long flag of the -- the pole portion of this flag lot is owned by my clients. They own that property and there is an access easement on it, so that both lots share that -- share that roadway. So, there is basically one point of connection to Pine Street. That was the idea behind that, is the entirety of the -- of Tramore Subdivision, Lot 1 and 2, take access off of the one approach to Pine Street. That was the whole purpose behind that and the way that was designed, in order to accommodate frontage requirements, is to have the back lot, our lot, Lot 2, have, you know, typical flag lot design. The pole portion reaches up and grabs the frontage. So, that's what satisfied the requirements with the original application in Tramore Subdivision. So, that's where that lies. Borup: So, I assume you can do -- you own that flag part, then, whatever choker or whatever else you do would be up to your client. Rennison: Up to us, but -- but as Craig has brought up, you know, we did kick out the idea of no speed bumps and, again, Craig reinstated the -- the problem with speed bumps is that it does -- they can be noisy, potentially, from people slowing down and speeding. So, that's not necessarily a solution. It could be a solution, but we want to work with Tramore folks to -- so we, you know, minimize the effects to them and achieve a goal and that is to, you know, potentially slow people down. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 60 of 67 Borup: And it looks like that design is showing the divider; is that correct? Or am I reading that wrong? Rennison: On the drive aisle? Borup: Yes. Rennison: That is a valley gutter. Borup: Oh. Okay. Rennison: Kind of a divider. Not a lot of people like to drive on valley gutters, but -- Borup: That's a gutter down the center you're saying? Rennison: That's correct. Borup: Okay. That's what I wasn't sure. Rennison: I am correct on that, aren't I? Yeah. Good. Zaremba: In that area I would make a suggestion -- and I have no idea of the engineering viability of this, but often you use a meander to do traffic calming, which clearly can't be done here, but how about an undulation? What if -- what if this kind of went up and down like a little bit of a hill? I think that would slow people down a little bit. I guess my concern is the seniors trying to pull out of this driveway. Well, tell me first, how much of this is already built? I mean there is already pavement there to some extent, isn't there? Or can you make changes? Rennison: It's paved to the -- almost to the canal presently. It's paved now. At one point, on a couple of things, there actually is a -- there is a significant grade change between the edge of the pavement today and where we will begin parking the first set of parking stalls. Get my beeper out here. Right there. From there, that point, down to that point, there is a reasonably significant grade change there. So, that, in addition to the fact that the radiuses for those -- for that drive aisle are at about a minimum. In fact, I don't think we would want to even consider the idea of shortening those radiuses on those turns, just so they are navigatable. That, in itself, will slow traffic immensely, that's for sure. Zaremba: Then, one additional idea might even be at the point where they intersect, giving the straight through traffic a yield sign. I don't know whether you would want to go that far or not, but -- Rennison: We would certainly consider the signage. Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15. 2004 Page 61 of 67 Zaremba: Yield to exiting traffic or something like that, that -- I mean that would be a lot cheaper than doing a whole lot of other things and it might be a reminder to all of these people, give up the right of way or something like that. Rennison: There is some good ideas that we can -- that we can explore and that might be one of them. A lot of times with the signage it works for a little while and people figure it out. Zaremba: Then, they ignore it. Rennison: But I think we have got the ability to come up with a good -- kind of a happy medium to address some concerns here. We don't necessarily see it a problem, but there has been some -- some I guess concern that has arisen and we want to address that to the best we can with what we are given. And I think we will be able to accomplish that. And I think a big part it is the turn that we have made to get into the body of the development. That turn that's right there will substantially slow people. Zaremba: Let me ask a couple other questions that may be -- either you or staff may answer this. The subdivision to the east of you, as I recall, we requested that they get together with you and make cross-access agreements. If this is now going to be gated, so that it is only an emergency access, both for them and for you, do you still need a cross-access agreement if the public is not going to use that cross -- Hawkins-Clark: That's a good question, Commissioner. It would certainly not serve the purpose that it was intended to originally, which was to legally grant people, you know, the ability to cross over there without any potential for one property owner to block it off. It's going to be blocked off for both of them anyway. So, yeah, that plat -- the Rock Creek Plat is not submitted for a final plat application. That could be something that could be dealt with at that point -- Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: -- on that property. So, I guess it does leave this one open. Zaremba: Or would we still want that on there and to make a cross-access agreement in case some day somebody decided, hey, let's not have this be emergency, let's open it. Rennison: Right. That's it. Zaremba: So, go ahead and make the cross-access agreement and gate it for now and maybe five years from now somebody may say this isn't really necessary. Borup: It would make it much simpler, then. Rennison: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 62 of 67 Zaremba: Yeah. If it's already in place. Rennison: I think everybody is on the right track in that. For all intents and purposes, this project will be built as approved and those accesses will remain in effect and useful. The bottom line is what we are truly trying to protect each project needs to meet the fire code and the fire code says, hey, we need to provide a secondary access and so we want to protect against way down the road when somebody wants to maybe do a redesign on a tear down and a rebuild, well, then, we still need to provide that -- the means for that to meet the fire code. Zaremba: So, you're okay with the cross-access agreement -- Rennison: You bet. Zaremba: -- with the neighbor? Rennison: Absolutely. Zaremba: Good. Rennison: And I think they equally as agreeable to it -- Zaremba: Okay. Rennison: -- in keeping it there. Borup: Good. Rennison: They need us and we need them and -- Zaremba: That works. Rennison: Yeah. Zaremba: One other question I had. In looking at the elevations for the buildings -- and this was a discussion we also had with the neighbor to the site -- on the ends of some of the buildings that would be facing the amenities, we suggested that they have some windows on the second floor to give extra visibility that might be happening in those areas and I guess my question is -- is that something we'd like to think about here on just -- on the few buildings that have a public area next to them? And the second question is if we wanted to do, is that something that's easy for you to think about doing? Rennison: Who goes first? I'll take a stab. I got the nod from behind me here. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 63 of 67 Rennison: SO, we would work with staff-- Zaremba: A few second floor windows on public areas? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I know the police department, too, would be supportive out there. They like to see eyes on those common areas as well, so I think that's a great idea. Zaremba: Some of them, actually, have an other building that fronts it, so there would be some windows there, but the ones where there is a side, it would be nice to have an extra second story window or something. That's an easy one. Those are my only -- Borup: Anything from any other Commissioners? Thank you. Rennison: Thanks. I will sit down and shut up. Borup: Okay. Yeah. You may have a chance for any other questions. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Come up. Johnson: Good evening, my name is Maxine Johnson. I represent the Summit Real Estate Services. We are the management company for the owner of Tramore Senior Community. And I just want to tell the people with this project that I'm really happy and pleased to see the change, because compared to what they presented the first time, this is about 140,000 percent better. The only thing that I was thinking as I was looking at the road, if we wanted to put speed bumps maybe just as you turn off of Pine before the -- because there are two entrances for the seniors. They go in in front of the -- Borup: One here and one here. Johnson: The first one goes up to the apartments, actual. The second one goes to the garage area and additional parking. And if we had speed bumps and you go out this way, so just before the -- where they turn to the garages, there is -- people coming out would have to slow down, so that if my older people don't look before they turn out, and maybe one coming from the other side to some kind of slow down would be more than adequate to keep people from getting run over. Borup: So, your recommendation would be a speed bump between the two access points? Johnson: Well, where ever it would be, so they would have to slow down before they got to the -- Borup: To the main one. Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 64 of 67 Johnson: Yeah. Because they are going to come out of that -- that one more often than they are going to come out of the other one. Borup: Right. Johnson: So, if they have something that would make -- you know, one, even, speed bump, just something to make them slow down coming and going and so that if the seniors were -- you know, if they came out without looking -- and they drive quite slow -- that, you know, less chance for an accident. Newton-Huckabay: I would think if you put your speed bump there and your speed bump there-- Johnson: Right. Newton-Huckabay: -- and to you, basically protecting them either way. Is that what you're -- Johnson: That's what I'm trying to say, yes. That's all. I'm just -- thank you. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: I believe the staff has already suggested that. The objection to it was the noise. I wonder if a speed dip might do just the same without the noise. Instead of having it hump over, to make a little bit of a dip, you still have to slow down for it. Hawkins-Clark: I believe the one point that we often hear on these traffic calming devices is from the emergency services, of course, and these -- the large fire engines in particular, as well as the paramedics, do really prefer not to go over them if at all possible. Obviously, there are some cases where it's not an option, but if you were to go that route, one thing that staff was just talking about was -- rather than forcing -- since most of the time any emergency access would probably use the northerly driveway to go -- when they are going to Tramore, you know, they would probably go for the first driveway access, so that they didn't have to go over a speed table or a speed bump for that one. So, if it was -- if it was constructed south of that driveway, so that the trucks didn't have to use it. Does that make sense? Borup: And I don't think you're going to get much speed built up in this distance coming in. You're turning a corner and, hopefully, not going too fast. Well, if this road is already built, yeah, a speed bump would be easier and maybe Mr. Rennison can comment on this. If you have got any other final comments, this would be your opportunity not to -- unless we have any other testimony. I don't think we do. Rohm: I think the developers could work with staff to come up with something that's acceptable and full well knowing that it's the desire to have a calming effect on that flag Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15. 2004 Page 65 of 67 lot and you just make sure that that's addressed as part of the development. Work with staff. Borup: And I think that makes sense, as mentioned not have it at the main entrance for emergency and also I think for the seniors, it's more convenient for them not to have to go over it either. Okay. Did you have any other comments, Mr. Rennison? Rennison: Yeah. John Rennison again here. I would like to personally thank Maxine for coming out tonight and sitting here for three and a half hours or so and given us kudos on the redesign. Thanks, Maxine. And I agree, too. Give us the flexibility to work with staff and Maxine and her staff to develop the best means to achieve the goal in slowing people down. Borup: Okay. Rennison: Thanks. Borup: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearings PP 04-018 and CUP 04-018. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: I don't think that there were any changes to the staff comments that I made note of. Zaremba: I don't believe so. The few things that we have mentioned, they have already agreed to work out. I mean things like windows on a few of the ends of the buildings, I don't think we need to officially condition, they have agreed to work with staff on all of that. I think we just -- no changes. Rohm: Good. Good. Mr. Chairman -- Zaremba: I would say before you do that, I also agree, this is several thousand percent happier proposal than the previous one. Rohm: With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to -- Hood: I was just going to -- sorry to interrupt. Just to add that there is not currently the condition for a speed hump, so that one will have to be added, even though the applicant verbally said they -- so if you want to do that, you should probably make it a site specific condition of the CUP, I would imagine, that they work with staff and Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 66 of 67 whoever else to work on traffic calming devices for the main entrance. I just wanted to point that out, that there isn't currently anything addressing that. I mentioned it, but there is not a site specific currently. Same with the windows on the ends of the buildings. If you want to make that a condition and we have to hold them to that, I'd recommend that you -- even though they have testified to that, I would recommend that that become a site specific condition as well. Zaremba: Those would both be CUP issues; is that correct? Borup: Okay. I take it that was Commissioner Rohm getting ready for a motion. Rohm: Okay. All right. Good. All right. Let's see. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward PP 04-018 onto City Council recommending approval of request for preliminary plat approval for a re-subdivision of Lot 2, Tramore Subdivision, consisting of 16 multi- family residential building lots and three common lots on 5.7 acres in an L-O zone for proposed Roundtree Subdivision by Big View Builders, east of North Linder Road on the south side of East Pine Avenue, and including all staff comments of July 15th and received by staff on July 9th, including all staff comments. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Moving forward, I also recommend that we move to City Council with approval CUP 04-018, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for reduction to ten foot for a rear setback, minimum five foot side setback, minimum 20 foot front setback, and minimum frontage requirements for lots within the proposed development of Roundtree Subdivision by Big View Builders, east of North Linder Road on the south side of East Pine Avenue, including all staff comments, with additional comments on page 18, which would be Item 14, which would include work with staff on traffic calming devices on the flag lot entering the said property and, number 15, install additional windows on the second floor of those buildings that are adjacent to the common lot. End of motion. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: All right. Thank you, everyone. One final -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 67 of 67 Borup: Yes. Zaremba: I move we adjourn. Borup: Well, just one comment I need to mention I forgot to do last time. We are scheduled for a meeting on July 29th, which is the third. I made a commitment back in January or February for that date, figuring there was no problem, because that was not one of our normal -- not one of our normal meeting times and I forgot to check that last time, so I will be out of town that evening. Zaremba: Shall we take a poll to make sure we would have a quorum? I expect to be here. Moe: I should be here. Rohm: Right now I have no reason to be gone. Borup: So, we should be able to continue. Okay. That's-- Zaremba: With that knowledge. Borup: That being said, unless anybody has anything else -- Zaremba: I made a motion that was not seconded. Rohm: Second. Borup: Okay. Motion and second to close the meeting. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Meeting adjourned at 10:38. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:38 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APP~ ), KElT ~1~7