Loading...
2004 10-21 CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, October 21,2004, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: --L David Zaremba --L David Moe ~ Wendy Newton-Huckabay --L Michael Rohm --LChairman Keith Borup Adoption of the Agenda: 2. 3. Consent Agenda: 4. Public Hearing: CUP 04-039 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a women's fitness center in a CoN zone for Lot 1, Block 1 of Cherry Crossing Subdivision by Robnett Construction, Inc. - northwest corner of Cherry Lane and Linder Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 5. Request for Reconsideration of the Denial of Preliminary Plat for Kingsbridge Subdivision PP 04-030: No Action 6. Public Hearing: CUP 04-038 Request for a coffee shop with a drive-thru window in a C-C zone for EI Dorado Subdivision, Lot 6, Block 5 by W.H. Moore Company - north west comer of East Overland Road and Bonito Way and west of South Eagle Road: Recommend Approval to City Council Continued Public Hearing from September 2, 2004: AZ 04-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 43.18 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Application Withdrawn 7. 8. Continued Public Hearing from September 2, 2004: PP 04-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 164 single family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 43.18 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Application Withdrawn Meridian Planning and Zoning Commi..ion Agenda- Odober 21. 2004 Page 1 of2 9. 10. 11. Public Hearing: ZOA 04-002 Request to amend the text in the Landscape Ordinance (MCC 12-13-7-8) to include gravel/rock as acceptable mulch in commercial landscape areas for Wenco. Inc.: Recommend Approval to City Council Public Hearing: AZ 04-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Christian Family Matters, Inc. by Don Weber - east of South Linder Road and south of West Overland Road: Recommend Approval to City Council Public Hearing: PP 04-034 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 83 single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 25.86 acres in an R-4 zone for Milliron Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - NEC of North Black Cat Road and West Cherry Lane: Continue Public Hearing to November4, 2004 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commies;o. Agenda - October 21,2004 Page 2 of2 ! .« Meridian Planning and Zoning Meetina October 21. 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 David Zaremba, Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner David Moe. Members Absent: Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Others Present: Bill Nary, Jessica Johnson, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Craig Hood, Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X David Zaremba X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X X Chairman Keith Borup David Mae Michael Rohm Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for October 21st. We'll start with the roll call of Commissioner attendance. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3: Consent Agenda: Item 4: Public Hearing: CUP 04-039 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a women's fitness center in a CoN zone for Lot 1, Block 1 of Cherry Crossing Subdivision by Robnett Construction, Inc. - northwest corner of Cherry Lane and Linder Road: Borup: And we do not have minutes for this evening. I might just -- some of you have not been here before -- explain a little bit about the workings of public hearings and we have -- this Commission mainly -- well, not mainly, we make -- for the most part make recommendations to the City Council regarding annexations and rezones and conditional uses and as we get in -- we have a -- as we get into the public hearings, the procedures -- I think there should be -- I don't know how many were out there in the back, but the staff makes a summary report of the project, the applicant has 15 minutes to add anything extra or explain, and, then, time for questions from the Commission, And, then, it's opened up for public testimony of up to three minutes at that point. And if something is complex, at the Commissioners' prerogative, that may be extended. And -- now we do have a timer to help -- to help us keep on schedule. So, we would like to begin with our first Public Hearing, It's CUP 04-039, request for a Conditional Use ~ .~ Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21. 2004 Page 2 of 46 Permit for a women's fitness center in a CoN zone, Lot 1, Block 1 of Cherry Crossing Subdivision. Application by Robnett Construction. We will open the hearing at this point and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject application proposes to construct and operate a fitness center on a portion of a site that is blocked out in black on the screen. It is only a portion of the site. Ada County does not have the most up to date -- or at least the city hasn't updated our records to reflect the parcel lines for this subject property. It is a flag-shaped property starting from Cherry Lane with the flag running by the Pizza Hut and, then, is more rectangular shaped as it -- it runs to the north. The subject property is generally located on the northwest corner of Linder Road and Cherry Lane on the south side of Emerald Falls Drive. Again, this site does have quite a bit of frontage on Emerald Falls Drive and just 50 or 60 feet or so on Cherry Lane, Here is an aerial view of the site. It is currently vacant. As I just mentioned, there is a Pizza Hut located just to the south of this site adjacent to the flag portion of this parcel. To the north and to the west are single-family homes. A portion of those homes are in Cherry Crossing Subdivision, which this is also a portion of. Cherry Crossing had 15 or 20 residential subdivisions. On this aerial you can see that some of those hadn't been constructed at this time when this 2003 aerial was taken, To the south is a Maverick convenience store gas station and some other strip mall type development. Across the street is a church and a single-family residence or two. Here is a picture of the site plan and, again, this is just a portion of the existing parcel. There are two other future pad sites with unknown uses at this time that are also conceptual in nature. This site has been subject to detailed and conceptual CUP review and approval by the city. In 2001 was the first time and that's when the 15 residential lots, three commercial lots, were platted originally. At that time they were thinking a drive~thru pharmacy, some other restaurants and retail uses on this site. In 2003 that CUP was modified and that Pizza Hut restaurant obtained detailed Conditional Use Permit approval on the site. Most recently, just a couple weeks ago, the City Council did review a miscellaneous application. That applicant is requesting to modify the business hours that were previously approved on this site with those detailed CUPs. It is also a condition in this staff report for those business hours to be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week. Again, this use is for a fitness center. Here is the proposed building elevations. I will leave that at that. The landscaping adjacent to this site -- at least adjacent to Emerald Falls Drive, Cherry Lane, and Linder, have currently been constructed and improved with the platting of this site. There will be some requirements for internal landscaping with this application, but all the perimeter landscaping is in. I did receive a letter from the applicant -- or an e-mail, excuse me, from the applicant this week -- I believe you received the same from Jessica Johnson, an e-mail saying there are Bo rlP> DO b I é.hJ esMb1ns ~rrofa rb~e otdheit ILxmrstm i s:\:ga iTf¡ rsfi1 e A1ræýf his gretœrrap~1i darg ~rtevJatlŒladd?WlJ]œtæltbfwaædYfqwtBtlons you may have. ~ Meridian Pianning & Zoning Oclober 21,2004 Page 3 of 46 Robnett: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I appreciate your time tonight. I started working with .- Borup: Name and address. Robnett: My name is Mike Robnett. I reside at 655 West Oakhampton. I started working with this piece of property a couple of months ago and Total Woman Fitness was the client going to take the parcel up on the screen there. They needed the hours of operation starting at 6:00 o'clock in the morning, so we had our neighborhood meeting and I personally walked the street a couple of times and met with all the neighbors. Their main concern was the hours of operation going late into the evening. Didn't want it -- you know, something open until midnight or 2:00 o'clock, So, we limited the hours of operation to 10:00 p.m., which works with Total Woman Fitness and it worked with the neighbors. When it comes down to the use, there is not a list of use in the schedule of use control for a fitness center, but the purpose of a CoN zone is to permit the establishment of a small scale convenience business use which are intended to meet the daily needs of the residents of an immediate neighborhood. I feel that a small fitness center pretty much fits that description fairly well. It's going to have a relatively small impact on the neighborhood. It's not a -- it doesn't have any outdoor speakers, it doesn't have any offensive odors or -- from a kitchen or a service garage. We have parked it with one parking stall per 125 square feet, which exceeds the city requirements by quite a bit, so there is plenty of parking. We are not going to have any overflow parking on any of the streets surrounding it. We haven't maxed the site out even with the planned future development on the other -- the other pads which are not in this conditional use. There is about 20 percent less square footage than what is already approved on there and given this information, I would ask that you approve the conditional use for Total Woman lVIt:ræsMr ~dljrættrllltáor 8oja¡sæiStithal,you take no objection to any -- to the staff and the 6:00 to 10:00 is okay? Okay. Zaremba: I have just a curiosity question. I think there is a fitness with maybe a similar name in Linder Crossing, which is diagonal across the street in what's probably a thousand square foot or 1,500. Is that the same company moving into a bigger place? Robnett: No. Zaremba: Or is that -- Robnett: It's different. It is different. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone here to testify on this application? Anyone else? Seeing none, Commissioners? Mae: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing. 1.. Meridian Planning & Zoning October21,2004 Page 4 of 46 Zaremba: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Mae: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-039, to include all staff comments and conditions of the hearing date of October 21st, 2004, the transmittal date of October 18th, 2004. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Request for Reconsideration of the Denial of Preliminary Plat for Kingsbridge Subdivision PP 04-030: Borup: Thank you. Our next item is a request for reconsideration. This was a denial from this Commission of a previous preliminary plat. I think we all have the information. This is not a Public Hearing, it's for us to make a decision whether to consider -- to reconsider, Do we have anything staff would like to input or add on this? Siddoway: Maybe just a brief comment on process. The applicant has requested reconsideration of the findings for denial, has submitted a packet of information to show from their perspective how they have addressed the reasons for denial. The question before the Commission tonight is does what they have presented warrant a new Public Hearing. If you agree that it does, then, we need to set a specific date and ask the clerk's office to notice that date for Public Hearing, like the original Public Hearing, with mailings going to all of the residents within 300 feet and the other noticing requirements and, if not, then, you would just uphold your -- the findings for denial. But the question is just whether or not the motion for a reconsideration and a new hearing should be granted. I guess I'd look to the city attorney if there is any other process issues that need to be brought up. I do believe we can take verbal testimony from the applicant, if you so choose, but with that I will just stand for any questions. Borup: Okay. Questions? Zaremba: I do have one question. In reading through the new materials provided, they have dealt with a number of the issues that I brought up as a reflection of what the audience had said. The primary reason for denying the preliminary plat was that we recommended denial of annexation. Has the city acted on that? If it's not annexed, we don't have jurisdiction. So, there is no point in having an opinion. Nary: Mr. Chairman? 1. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 5 of 46 Borup: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the annexation and the Conditional Use Permit were before the City Council two nights ago on October 19th. What they did was they set that matter over, knowing this matter was pending before you for reconsideration of the plat. They set that for November 3rd for them to take that matter up again. What was anticipated is that pending your decision, then, on November 3rd, the Council would have either an appeal of this decision from the applicant, if you chose to not grant this reconsideration. Or if you choose to grant this reconsideration, as Mr. Siddoway said, you would have to set this for a new Public Hearing, the Council would anticipate remanding those other matters back to this Commission to again review this matter in total, rather than parts, because that would make the most sense, And all that is before you tonight, as Mr. Siddoway stated, is, essentially, your prior decision of denial of the plat. You can certainly take limited testimony from the applicant, but, again, this is not a Public Hearing and they have submitted written material that is part of the public record that is probably sufficient for you to make a decision on whether to reconsider. You're welcome to take testimony if you want, but I guess I would caution both the Commission and the applicant that you probably don't want to vary from what's already been submitted as part of the public record, because, again, this is not a Public Hearing. If you choose to reconsider again, my recommendation would be to set this matter over for a Public Hearing, giving aaæ tlaæ tKð1œ~rl\it().œBa:inOåh~lIi.Ne1Jld like to make a comment or two and, then, seek the opinion of my fellow Commissioners. Borup: Okay. discussion. Zaremba: This came before us at a time when, in fact, we did have a legal quorum of us up here, but we were not all here. I don't have any problem with the applicant attempting to have it reconsidered with more of us here than were here that night. I don't have any problem with that. I don't necessarily have any problem with some of the changes that the applicant has proposed. My feeling is that the underlying reason for my motion on the annexation, that that be denied, still exists. The applicant has provided us with a lot more information and I appreciated that. We seem to be getting last minute information when this was in the real Public Hearing when this came before us before, a lot of last minute information, some of which didn't seem to be totally complete. What it comes down to is requesting this Commission either to make a legal opinion about some items that are in the CC&Rs and that were formalized by the Ada County commission when they approved this subdivision ten years ago and there clearly is a dispute on those matters between the other property owners of the original subdivision, which includes some of this property, about how those terms should be done. I didn't feel and still don't feel that it's my job, really, to make the legal decision about which one is right. All I need to know on behalf of the city is that the neighbors have made it clear that they will take this into legal proceedings That's what I was thinking would be good to have some l , Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 21,2004 Page 6 of 46 regardless of which way it's -- and so my instinct is it's not in the best interest of the city to get involved in that. So, I still feel that the annexation should be denied, which means it's kind of unnecessary to reconsider the plat. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Nary. Nary: Then, the only other -- the only other, I guess, process thing I would just add for the record, a motion to reconsider would need to be made by a person on the prevailing side. It can be seconded by any member of the Commission and it needs to be -- if so moved, it, then, has to be approved by a majority of the Commission that's here tonight. So, again, the matter before you, it's your decision, so it's your choice and your discretion whether to choose to make that motion or not, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. And I am the one that made the original motion for denial and at this point I have no problem making a motion for reconsideration, except that I -- if it's only me, it's pointless, So, that's why I need to hear from the other Commissioners. Moe: Okay. Well, having been one that wasn't here last time and I have read through the material and whatnot, what came -- basically I don't want to sound like, gee, I agree, but, quite frankly, going through it all, I have a real problem that there seems to be a consensus that the neighbors think one way and the applicant is going another way and never the two shall meet right now and I have a real problem going into annexation with neither side agreeing with the other and I really am concerned, I think that needs to be somewhat cleared up. And, again, I don't have a problem going and rehearing, but I guess what my concern is is that I think before -- when we do set the date for the rehearing, I think it needs to be out awhile in order for the applicant and possibly the neighborhood to get together and try and work this thing out before it comes back before us. Rohm: I think the two of you have said it all. Zaremba: No alternate opinion? Rohm: No. That's-- Borup: Of course, I was here, but did not vote that, but I think the thing that's different before us now is we have had -- at lease for me I have had an opportunity to read what the covenants say and what county ordinances say and I don't see how they can be interpreted any different than what that -- they are pretty plain. I mean they say it -- I don't think it leaves anything ambiguous about it at all. Everybody that bought a lot in there signed and received that document and it states it pretty plain. Now, whether the design of the subdivision and everything else is appropriate, I'm not commenting on that, I'm commenting just strictly on that it is -- 1. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 7 of 46 Zaremba: Let me pursue that, because I'm -- for myself I'm avoiding deciding which side is right. I'm just going on the instinct that this may turn into a lawsuit or are you saying that you don't think it will? Borup: I have no idea. If someone's opposed to it, there is always going to be a disagreement. I mean us not acting on something because someone disagrees with our city ordinances should not be a reason to detour us from moving ahead on something. If that's the case, what kind of precedence does that set for all future development annexations? Every time someone objects to it we -- and say they are going to sue, we say, okay, we are not going to annex anymore? Zaremba: Yeah. These aren't just neighbors suing, though. These are other signatories to the same CC&Rs. Borup: That have already -- by being a signatory they have already agreed to annexation, though. Zaremba: Well, they have agreed to annexation, but not necessarily -- Borup: And development. Zaremba: -- that density of development. Borup: Exactly. And that's where I say, I'm not addressing that aspect. But they agreed to some type of development, some type of urban development with sewer and water services, And the density, that question needs to be answered. I mean the density is less -- something less than five acres. Something less five- acre lots. So, that's a big -- that's a big area. Zaremba: If we did ask for the reconsideration and, therefore, have a Public Hearing, the thing that I would want to learn from the other people who are part of the subdivision, not necessarily even the other peripheral neighbors, because I agree with you, we can't let -- there is a Comprehensive Plan and there are ordinances and, you know, they have all been worked out in public hearings and if something complies with that, that's fair. But the people who are a part of this subdivision, I would want to hear from them whether they are planning to sue or not. That's probably the only thing I would learn at a Public Hearing. Borup: The other thing that-- Zaremba: I'm already comfortable that the changes comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances, but -- Borup: Well, they have made -- the other thing that 1-- Zaremba: They have made a good effort. ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning October21,2004 Page 8 of 46 Borup: Well, there was still some things up in the air and I'm trying to find which -- I thought they had a range of lots that they were talking about. Zaremba: Well, they enlarged the perimeter lots and they-- Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes, Zaremba: -- did a number of things. Nary: I guess so that you don't get too far a field, I think you do need to confine yourself to the decision on whether to reconsider the decision on the plat and not take into consideration tonight all of the potential changes that are only part of the written request and not part of a Public Hearing, because, obviously, the opposition doesn't have an opportunity to comment on that tonight, but if you have another Public Hearing, then, you have an opportunity for everyone to have that say. So, I would just suggest you keep confined to the decision of reconsidering or not. Borup: Okay. I guess what I was referring to was their comment that they wanted to work with the subdivision, they wanted to work with the neighborhood on design and I'm missing the exact paragraph that said that, but isn't that what you remember, too, that they wanted to work with them on that? Zaremba: Let me ask it this way: If we did not reconsider that, they still have the opportunity to appeal to the higher jurisdiction, the City Council, our final decision to deny. They can appeal that to the City Council. And they would do that at the same time they were presenting all the rest of their meeting in a Public Hearing. Part of the reason we are having this problem is the current glitch in our current ordinance that makes this one thing different than the other two parts of the application. If we -- and I feel all this pressure, because I'm the only one that can make the motion either way, according to the rules, Borup: No. I think -- Rohm: I wasn't here either. Zaremba: No. It was Wendy and I that were here. Borup: Oh, Wendy. Mae: Neither one of us were here. Borup: Oh. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21.2004 Page 9 of 46 Zaremba: So, I'm the only one that can make the motion either way, so, you know, I don't want people to live or die on my own personal opinion, unfortunately. But the out is that if we say, no, we don't need to hear this again, they appeal to the City Council, that appeal on the plat is heard at the same time that their discussion on the annexation and the CUP and all public is notified about that anyhow, I'm, actually comfortable with it going that direction, so that the Council hears all three at the same time and I'm looking at the city attorney to either nod or smile or-- Borup: Well, I think they said they will hear all three at the same time, because they can remand them back. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, yeah, you're correct that certainly if this Commission chooses not to reconsider that decision, the applicant is able to appeal that decision to the City Council. They will likely hear that -- or schedule that the same night as the current other two, the Conditional Use Permit and the annexation hearing, so that they could be decided together. The Council can do a couple of different things, one of them, as Chairman Borup has raised, they can grant the appeal and hear the matter and if they feel there is a significant change in circumstances, they could remand it back to this Commission again to review it. They could deny the appeal and if they were to deny the appeal, they would, then, likely deny the annexation and the conditional use, although they could approve the annexation separately, if they wish. So, they do have a couple of options, but yet the answer to your question is, yes, they can appeal this to the Commission -- or to the Council if they wish. Zaremba: I think I would like to see it go that way and, then, my question is do I need to make a motion not to reconsider or the fact that I don't make a motion to consider is sufficient? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, if you choose not to make a motion, then, no other further action is necessary. And since you were the only person on the prevailing side that's present to make it, if you choose not to, then, the matter is done, the denial has already been approved by this Commission, and they would have the opportunity to appeal. Borup: I think -- and you have got the ability to do that. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, it's my intention not to make a motion. Borup: The only thing that does, it does not give the other two Commissioners any say in the matter either way. Moe: Fine. Rohm: I guess the only thing that I would say is just, historically, the City Council has taken those things and remanded them back to this body to be heard again 1. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21.2004 Page100f46 anyway and that will more than likely happen, so all we are doing by taking that action is postponing the inevitable by another week or two, anyway. Zaremba: Except that they would remand all three back to us and we would be dealing with all subjects at the same time and I'm comfortable with that if that happens. Rohm: Fair enough. Nary: Mr. Chairman -- and just so the record is clear, Commissioner Rohm is correct, if -- I think that what's being contemplated here or sought by the applicant is the avoidance of having a hearing in front of the City Council and, then, a remand back to this Commission and, then, another hearing in front of the City Council and what that puts the applicant through, as well as the neighbors, so it is your prerogative to not hear it today and Commissioner Rohm's correct, it may end up exactly in that fashion, the City Council, I certainly wouldn't presume to know what their decision would be, they certainly are -- they certainly can agree with your denial as well not hear this continuous either, so it could certainly go either way. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Okay. We move on, because no action. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one point of process clarification -- Borup: Yes. Siddoway: -- to Mr. Nary? If the motion for reconsideration dies tonight, I'm just wondering for the appeal process to Council, the ordinance states that they have 15 days from the date of the formal denial to apply for an appeal. If we count that 15 days from the original motion to approve the findings for denial -- Borup: That's two weeks ago. Siddoway: -- it would be tomorrow. So, I'm just wanting for clarification procedurally is their deadline tomorrow or is it 15 days from tonight? Nary: Mr, Chair, Members of the Commission, Mr, Siddoway, their time for appeal would be tomorrow. Siddoway: Okay. Nary: Because it's from the denial. There is nothing in our ordinance that has some tolling of that time by asking for reconsideration. Siddoway: Thank you, Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21. 2004 Page 11 of46 Borup: Well, that can be as simple as a one-paragraph letter, can't it? Siddoway: No. There is an application for appeal and a fee. Item 6: Public Hearing: CUP 04-038 Request for a coffee shop with a drive- thru window in a C-C zone for EI Dorado Subdivision, Lot 6, Block 5 by W,H. Moore Company - north west corner of East Overland Road and Bonito Way and west of South Eagle Road: Borup: Okay. They will be notified -- is the applicant here tonight? Okay. So, you have got notice? Okay. Next item is CUP 04-038, it's a request for a coffee shop with a drive-thru window in a C-C zone for EI Dorado Subdivision by W.H. Moore. I'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. We have a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru coffee shop, with a 1,281 square foot tenant space and an 18,855 square foot building in the C-C zone. The proposed coffee shop, again, is within an existing building and the building permit was issued earlier this year. It is within EI Dorado Subdivision, which was platted as Bonito Subdivision, This is Lot 6, Block 5. It's located on the southeast corner of Overland Road and Bonito Way, about two-thirds of a mile to the west of Eagle Road. Here is the aerial view. To the north are some single-family homes, zoned R-1 in Ada County. To the south and east are properties zoned C-C, which you could see on the previous slide. Everything in the pink is the Community Commercial and everything that is red is the General Commercial zone. And, then, to the west is a retail commercial building, again, zoned CoG. Here is the proposed site plan. Actually, the proposed site plan was the approved site plan for the building permit, certificate of zoning compliance, for that building and the subject CUP is for a drive-thru on the eastern end of this building in this location, this tenant space here. The drive-thru is this aisle here, Noted in the staff report is this seven-foot wide island median separating the main entrance into this portion of the development. Here is a public street, Bonito Way, this is the main entrance into EI Dorado Subdivision. And, then, a driveway off of Overland Road, two-way driveway. People coming to this drive-thru will either have to go around the building this way or come in the main street and around the drive-thru, run south to north. So, traffic patterns will be this direction. In the staff report I did request that the Commission and Council require signage in this approximate location to do just that, tell vehicles that are coming into the development you have to go around, do not enter, wrong way, something to that effect, in this location. The only other condition of note is within this seven foot wide island, extruded curbing, is that something should probably be placed within that island, whether it be greenery, landscaping, or just some decorative, ornamental -- I'll leave that up to you, if you want to get more specific. As far as the planning department, we didn't really have any specifics that we'd like to see. It doesn't necessarily have to be green. Again, this is already existing, running irrigation lines, and things like that to irrigate something that's organic may not be -- it's Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 120f46 feasible, I guess, but it may not be real practical. So, just something, I guess, in that island to keep someone from either running over it or just acknowledging that it's there and running into it and not seeing it. Again, there was a letter received by the applicant. That was their only concern, I guess, as well as putting any live landscaping, low lying shrubs or trees within that planter, having a concern with extending irrigation. With that, I will stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to add anything else? Seal: Good evening. Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore Company, 600 North Steelhead, Boise, Idaho. We are in agreement with the staff report as far as the seven-foot island. I think like Craig has mentioned, if we can do something other than landscaping, just from the point that we have already paved it, would be a little bit difficult. If we simply put some boulders or something in there or something to that effect, that would acknowledge that it is an island, so you say someone doesn't run over it. I think with that, then, I'd just ask -- and maybe the language in here be stricken as far as landscaping and just put something visual that they can see, as I say, decorative boulders or something to that effect. Other than that, we are in agreement with the staff report. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we need to get anymore specific on that? I think you can have some nice looking design with boulders and -- Seal: Yes. I think you have seen the project, you know we don't-- Borup: Right. Seal: -- don't spare, so -- okay. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Zaremba: No. Rohm: Just a comment that as long as you work with staff on -- to that end, I think that that will suffice. Seal: We would be glad to. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, it's actually referenced twice in the sight specific conditions, on page five number two and also number five, condition number five refers to the landscape plan. I did put it in both of those Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 130f46 locations, So, if you're going to modify one, I guess I would request that you modify both. Zaremba: While you're making note, Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Craig, staff's comfortable with that, some decorative -- some type of a decorative design in there? Hood: That's fine. Borup: Non-vegetation? Mae: It's already noted there. It says some type of visual feature, so that's fine. Zaremba: Just clarify that it doesn't have to be green or living. Borup: Yeah. You're correct. Number two could stay the way it is. So, maybe just five is the only one that would need to be modified. Oh. It also says or. Okay. Hood: The condition was really left open for vegetative or non-vegetative, so I don't personally believe it needs to be modified, but if you so choose to modify it Mae: I happen to agree with you a hundred percent. So, noting that, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-038, to include all staff comments, conditions of the staff memo dated -- or for the transmittal date of October 15th, 2004, for the hearing date of October 21 st, 2004. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from September 2, 2004: AZ 04-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 43.18 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 140f46 Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from September 2, 2004: PP 04-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 164 single family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 43.18 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Borup: Okay. Our next two items, No, 7 and 8, are both concerning Bellingham Park. We have received a request to withdraw the application. The applicant is redesigning the subdivision and said when that is completed they will be resubmitting it. Zaremba: And just to clarify, this is a total withdrawal, not a continuation or-- Borup: That's the way I read the letter. Is that correct? Siddoway: That is correct. Zaremba: And I always wonder do we need to move to accept the withdrawal or do we just go on? Borup: In the past we have made-- Zaremba: We often have made the motion. Borup: Usually we go ahead and do it just to cover ourselves, now that we have got some good advise -- Zaremba: Now that we have real legal advise. Nary: Well, I appreciate that, Commissioner Zaremba. The agenda is in your prerogative, so you should move to accept that withdrawal to remove it from your agenda. That would be a more appropriate way. Zaremba: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move that -- let's see. Did you open the Public Hearing? No, you didn't. Nary: You don't need to. You don't need to open the Public Hearing, you can simply move -- Zaremba: I just want to make sure he didn't. Nary: Okay. Borup: No, I did not. Nary: Okay. Sorry. Meridian Planning & Zoning Oclober 21.2004 Page 15 of 46 Zaremba: In that case, Mr, Chairman, I move that we accept the applicant's request to withdraw Items 7 and 8 on our agenda, which is AZ 04-020 and PP 04- 027. Mae: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Public Hearing: lOA 04-002 Request to amend the text in the Landscape Ordinance (MCC 12-13-7-8) to include gravel/rock as acceptable mulch in commercial landscape areas for Wenco, Inc.: Borup: Okay. The next item is Public Hearing ZOA -- I don't know if we've had one of those yet. Request to amend the text in the landscaping ordinance to include gravel and rock as an acceptable mulch -- I don't know if mulch is the right word, but decorative cover in commercial landscaping areas. So, we'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a request to allow gravel, rock in planter beds that are in required landscape areas. Current ordinance does not allow rock as a mulch, it requires that you have an organic material, such bark, soil aid, or something of that nature. You should have a staff report from me, dated October 15th, and received by the clerk on the 18th, that goes through the -- a little bit of the history on this ordinance for you, some of the reasons why we thought that organic mulch was preferable in the original drafting of the ordinance, the language in the current ordinance, and, then, some of the reasons why interest has grown for a change to allow the use of rock. Briefly I would just point out that we did agree to support the use of rock. We did, however, come up with five specific comments that we thought were important. The first one being the coverage, that we did not want street buffers to be just rock, we want them to be planted, and we used the percentage of at least 70 percent covered with shrubs or a ground cover of some type that -- and, then, the rock would just be mulch in and around that -- those plants. Second, that certain types of rock should still be prohibited, such as pea gravel, drain rock, road base, other similar rock products that are not intended in a landscape setting. The third point is that all mulches should be contained by a curb or some form of edging that contains that rock. We know of existing situations in the city where the rock has been used and it constantly rolls onto sidewalks that are adjacent to it. It's a bigger problem where the area -- where it's used in a berm. But the point being that mulches need to be contained by some form of curb or edging. Fourth is that underneath that rock there needs to be a weed barrier. Otherwise, you're constantly going to be fighting weeds growing up and through and so we would require a weed barrier -- one of the fabric weed barriers. The fifth is that one of the reasons why we did agree to allow it is we are interested in Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 160f46 some water conservation measures for the city. Currently, the majority of street buffers we do get our lawn, which are nice, green, and beautiful, but require a lot of water and a lot of maintenance, We feel that they can be beautiful with shrubs or other vegetative ground covers with the use of a rock mulch in and around them. So, we did agree to support this request with those caveats. The recommendation on the third page of the report does recommend some language above and beyond what the applicant had requested and this would be our proposal. With that, I stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Rohm: Just a comment. I think you did a real good job going through that and it certainly makes sense to add the rock as an acceptable ground cover. Sounds good to me. Borup: And you answered -- my initial concern was when it mentioned the word gravel and I think I had the same vision that you addressed and I think there are provisions in there to cover that real well, that we don't have gravel. Siddoway: Yeah. It just allows them -- Borup: Most people -- Siddoway: Rock products. Borup: -- would expect that term to mean. Zaremba: I think it's perfectly legitimate to add this as an additional option to somebody that wants to do it. I have two questions, though. On the weed barrier fabric, I have installed some of that in my own yard and on the packaging it said guaranteed to last six years or eight years or something like that. Should we have something in the ordinance that requires that to be replaced every so often or maintained or-- Siddoway: It would an enforcement nightmare, I would think. If we at least get it up -- Zaremba: Well, if you saw a lot of weeds and discovered it -- I mean they complied originally, but you lose the effect after maybe ten years. Siddoway: Yeah. And I don't know if the commercial grade weed barriers are longer lasting than the residential ones. Maybe the applicant has some comment on that. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 170f46 Zaremba: Then, the other question was if you're talking about landscape buffers or maybe even islands and streets, should we have some control on the height of shrubs, so that we are preserving the safety triangle? Siddoway: That is already built into the ordinance today. There is a restriction that nothing taller than three feet can be placed within a site triangle. Zaremba: Got it. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Is there anything else? We did have a specific applicant on this, even it would apply to all city ordinances. Is there anything else you'd like to add? Come on up. Nagy: My name is Dale Nagy and I'm the applicant. I live at 4977 North Hollow Lane in Boise. But I do own the Wendy's and the two-acre commercial parcel over there at Treasure Valley Business Center. We do agree with just about everything that staff has recommended and we do use a commercial grade weed barrier underneath our rock and what happened on this situation is we were not aware and neither was the landscape architect, that the city had a bark -- wood bark only ordinance and we went ahead and put in a weed barrier with a -- it's colored river rock. It's about a two inch, plus or minus, and we have been using it in some of our stores and what I'd like to do is show you the product that we use. Siddoway: I can project that up for everyone to see if you'd like. Nagy: The first group of photos are from a store that we did in Eagle, Idaho, and it's just about exactly one year old right now and we put this particular product in that store. And it's very similar to what we have at Treasure Valley Business Center. That's just a shot from the street. It's not very clear now. If you will just keep moving. That's up close to the store and you can see it's kind of a multi- colored. We do have a weed barrier under it. It's a lighter color than most of the perma-bark, so it reflects the light, and we have put in plants that are heat resistant. They have just done extremely well and we have not lost one single plant at that store due to either heat or too much water, And it's usually one of the two that hurts it. But as you can see over that year period of time, the plants have grown up and the gravel -- well, the rock that we use there is -- covers that area quite well and it blends in very nicely with the grass buffer that we have. That is -- that is the same store that we have. And this is the last picture of that. The next pictures that you will see are from the Meridian store that we did at Treasure Valley Business Center. Zaremba: Would you hold on that picture for just a second? If I'm interpreting the way that we -- staff has suggested the new ordinance be changed, there would be a requirement for a decorative curbing in that area? Siddoway: Curbing or some kind of edging, so that it's not just grass, then, rock, but some kind of an edge. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 16 of 46 Nagy: Well, we can do that. That would not be a problem. We didn't do it at that particular instance and it hasn't caused any problem, but we would certainly be willing to do it. Zaremba: And I appreciate that and our consideration is we are changing the ordinance. This is for everybody else forever. Nagy: Sure. And I don't have a problem with that. I think it's probably a good idea. What we do have in this store, as well as the store at Treasure Valley Business Center, is a substantial grass buffer between the landscaping and any public street. So, there is no way for that rock to get over there by someone walking through it or kicking it or -- I mean they'd have to pick it up and throw it. It's not going to get there -- this is the -- the new store at Treasure Valley Business Center. Now, that does not look like a very big grass buffer, but, in fact, it's probably 30 feet. It's just bermed slightly. And those -- all those plants in there a year from now will probably be covering that 60 -- 60 percent and within two years probably about 80 percent will be covered. So, you won't really see it that much, it's just going to be an accent piece. That is an area between the two drive-thrus, between the Wendy's and the Starbucks, and if you will notice the dark material along the curb side on the right side and on the left side, that is mulch that we have in our beds that blows out and by using the rock material, we just don't have that problem, It contains itself very well. This is around the drive- thru. And, again, there is a large grass buffer on the other side. And we do not have a containment between the rock and the grass, but we can certainly do that. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Yeah. It looks like you're having containment problems already on that one. I could see stuff going in the grass. Nagy: Okay. Borup: The others looked like they were doing better, but-- Nagy: Yeah, I was out there yesterday morning and walked the entire area and I didn't see gravel in the grass, but we can put a barrier between that -- between the rock and the grass, which would contain it. The biggest problem there would be just for the mowing machines. As I said before, we agree with the proposed ordinance changes. We would just like to be able to utilize the product that we have been using, because we feel that it's a good product and it lasts, it's very attractive, and while it's not perma-bark from a name standpoint, it is a good product that serves us very well. Borup: So, is it more of a crushed gravel? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21.2004 Page 19of46 Nagy: No, it's not crushed, it's actually a small river rock -- Borup: Okay. Nagy: -- that is washed and -- so it is like round pebbles, Borup: Okay. Nagy: And it's multi-colored, it -- I think it looks better than the perma-bark when -- over a period of time. Zaremba: Well, the way I'm reading this, what you have there would be acceptable under this new change. It says including rock products, such as perma-bark or similar products, I would interpret what you have as being at least of similar intent. Not the same color, but -- Nagy: Not the same color, but I mean you can get perma-bark in just about any color you want, but most of them are on the dark side, Borup: And that would fit in with -- Nagy: Yeah. Borup: Yeah, So, it sounds like it's in between the pea gravel and the two inch washed drain rock that would not be acceptable, so this would be somewhere between that. Nagy: Yes. Borup: And, then, the multi-color helps a lot, too. Nagy: It does. Borup: Okay. Thank you, Any other questions from the Commission? Nagy: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the hearing on ZOA 04-002 be closed. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 20 of 46 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of ZOA 04-002, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date -- oh, it doesn't say that, but it's received by the city clerk October 18th, 2004. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT. Public Hearing: AZ 04.027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Christian Family Matters, Inc. by Don Weber - east of South Linder Road and south of West Overland Road: Borup: All right. Thank you. Next item is Public Hearing AZ 04-027, a request for annexation and zoning of four and a half acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Christian Family Matters, Incorporated, by Don Weber. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Item 10: Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. This application is for annexation and zoning, a parcel of land that's on the south side of Overland Road, just east of Stoddard Road. Meridian Road, State Highway 69, is further to the east. Western Electronics -- Bodily RV is immediately across the street. Western Electronics is about a quarter mile to the east. That property that you see in gray there on the north side of Overland is annexed, zoned light industrial. Bear Creek Subdivision is here on the east side of Stoddard. So, as you can see, this would be -- this is the first request for -- well, I'm sorry, actually, this property at the corner is the Idaho Power substation. The Hardin Lateral -- I believe the Hardin Drain does cut through here and that property on the north side was annexed and approved recently with future concept for commercial at the corner and, then, with the storage uses. So, that is the -- the nearest annexed piece on the south side of Overland Road to this. The property -- here is an aerial photo, It doesn't show it real well, but you can see there are a couple of structures on the property. There is a barn and a residence. The owner did go through Ada County and received approval for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a church in the current zone. That was approved, They converted the barn to a worship area and, then, they also have -- had approval to use an outdoor assembly area for -- as part of their Conditional Use Permit through Ada County. Here is a site plan that gives a little bit more detail. As you can see, they do have landscaping on the north along Overland Road, as well as along the driveway, which comes down their east boundary. The main thing that the staff report points out is that the internal landscaping does not comply with Meridian City Code, Don't know if it has rock mulch or not, but I guess we will find that out. But there is -- other than that, normally the City of Meridian, if they have gotten prior approvals through Ada County, upon annexation grandfathered in. Churches are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the R-8 zone. The R-8 is Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21.2004 Page 21 of 46 permitted or an allowable zone in the Comprehensive Plan designation of medium density residential, so that's -- that's why they are not requesting an L-O, which is what most of Meridian's churches are in, they requested a residential, because it is in a residential designation in the Comp Plan. The staff report does recommend that if the facility wants to expand or enlarge in the future, that they basically bring the site into compliance with Meridian city code. I'm filling in for Wendy who wrote this staff report and I didn't actually catch until tonight that it doesn't say that a development agreement is required and I guess I would be interested in the attorney's thoughts, if we need that or -- I mean normally a development agreement is just to add special circumstances or if you want to receive a commitment in writing for something that's fairly unique, there are -- if you go with anything additional, including a change to the parking lot, I mean you can always put it as a comment, is my understanding, in the annexation, which is just informing the applicant, but if you want it to hold the weight of legal law, I guess just had that question as I was reading through this tonight, so should or should we not have a development agreement in order to enforce the Conditional Use Permit condition that Wendy recommended in her report. Borup: Mr. Nary? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think Mr. Hawkins-Clark stated it correctly, is if you want to have some particular conditions, that is, your enforcement mechanism is to have a development agreement or to recommend to the City Council a development agreement, if you simply want it to be a comment, that's fine as well. But that's within your purview if you want to recommend that. Zaremba: Just for clarification if I may. I understand that a use that's okay in the county when it's annexed is grandfathered in that use. Would a change in use trigger public hearings and stuff anyhow? I mean do we need to be specific about what change or does that happen anyhow? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, I think it would happen, you know, according to the ordinances that are in effect at the time that that change would happen. Whatever ordinances are in effect for the -- in this case R-8 zone. So, any use that has a Conditional Use Permit in the R-8 would require a conditional use or otherwise according to the code, so -- does that answer your question? Zaremba: Well, it makes me comfortable not to have to load a whole lot of stuff onto this, I think. Hawkins-Clark: I would point out -- I mean one of the reasons we are seeing this, if you read Wendy's staff report, is that they did request hook up to the City of Meridian water -- municipal water and there were some conditions placed on them getting that service and one of those was to annex, so -- , Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 22 of 46 Zaremba: If you've concluded, I do have a question, actually, for Mr. Freckleton. Would you go back to the very first slide that you showed? We've had some discussion in the past that I think over in this area, whereas it's in the future plan that the front properties might be sewer-able, there is a slope here that means that the back properties can't be gravity sewered. Is there any problem over here with them hooking up to gravity sewer that you're aware of? Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, the sewer line that will serve this parcel does not exist south of the interstate at this time. That's the trunk line, the Black Cat Trunk that's going to have to be built down -- which we have started that project. Our project will take it north of the interstate and it's going to -- we have not had a project to bring it under the interstate to service the other side of Overland Road. Zaremba: I guess my question is even though access to sewer may be future, when it does arrive at the front of this property, will it still be usable at the south end of this property? Is there a slope that makes the same difference that it does about a mile west of there -- east of there? Freckleton: Commissioner, I believe that this -- the land -- you're correct, there is a fairly significant slope here, but I believe by the time it gets down into here it's flattened out quite a bit. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Freckleton: I don't anticipate any problems. This area -- when we had our facility plan prepared, it was done off of topography maps and the surface area boundaries for the particular trunk line are established based on topography and so this area is scheduled or programmed in to going into that trunk line that will serve out to the northwest. Zaremba: Thank you. Freckleton: Does that answer? Zaremba: Yes. Freckleton: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, if I could just add one more comment on staff report. Site specific condition number five -- or comment five states that the applicant shall obtain approval of the site plan from the police chief prior to City Council, but I don't believe that there is any changes or modification to the site plan, so I would recommend that you strike that condition before -- if you choose to make a motion of approval. Borup: Okay. Do you have questions? Is the applicant here? Would they like to add anything to the report? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 23 of 46 Weber: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Don Weber and I live at 1525 South Callistoga Avenue in Meridian and I will be speaking on behalf of Christian Family Matters this evening. Approximately a year ago -- actually, early October I stood before the Mayor and the City Council requesting to hook up to the water line, which we needed for our fire protection for the building that we were right in the process of beginning. There was actually a steel barn there before and we erected a new steel barn -- steel building structure I should say in place of that, which we completed in July and got our certificate of occupancy from the building department in Ada County. So, going back to last October, the need was for us for our fire protection to have the water and we voiced our -- we expressed that we would certainly be willing to annex in the City of Meridian. At that time we really sort of had a gentlemen's agreement that once we got things completed that we'd pursue on the annexation. So, after July I went back to the Planning and Zoning staff and asked them if we could get things going. We, actually, put in the application, I should say, last winter, but I asked them to hold the application until we get all our building project done and our certificate of occupancy in hand. So, they were kind enough to hold off on that until we got it to this point. So, here we are this evening and intending to follow through on what we promised a year ago as far as annexation and rezoning the property. Borup: Okay. Questions for Mr. Weber? Zaremba: You have read through the staff comments and everything is fine with you? Weber: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Good. Yeah. I meant to ask that. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr, Weber, Weber: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? We are running out of projects, people. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on AZ 04-027 be closed. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-027, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of October 21, 2004, with one change, On page six, this is under site- specific comments, on page six, paragraph five, can be deleted. "f Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 24 of 46 Mae: Not going to do a development agreement? Zaremba: Well, I think if they come for any development it's going to trigger a hearing and stuff anyhow, Maybe I was wrong, but I felt from our previous discussion that the city is protected just under general principle. I'm looking at the city attorney. Borup: But if they just add onto the building or something like that, that's not going to be a Public Hearing, is it? Zaremba: Well -- and I don't have a problem with adding on. If they change the use, then, I think it would trigger-- Borup: Right. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission and Commissioner Zaremba, you are correct, if there is going to be a change in use or an expansion of the use of some significant amount of expansion, all that's going to require a Conditional Use Permit, which would require some parking changes or something else to meet that. So, if your concern is whether or not in the future some significant change to this property is going to get heard publicly by either this Commission or the Council, most likely, I mean never say never, but most changes are going to come back here, so -- Zaremba: And I'm comfortable with that without a development agreement if you are. Mae: That's not a problem, Freckleton: Mr, Chair, just one quick comment. The applicant pointed out that it was his understanding that Wendy's comment regarding police chief approving the plan was simply just that. He wanted to have a shot at it if there was changes in the future. So, I think what you're talking about covers that issue. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. If he did a significant change, it would go out to all departments, including the police department for comment. In that case in some point in there I was previously finished with my motion. Mae: Then, I will second that. Borup: Okay, Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 04-034 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 83 single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 25.86 acres in an R-4 zone for Milliron Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - NEC of North Black Cat Road and West Cherry Lane: Meridian Pianning & Zoning Oclober21,2004 Page 25 of 46 Borup: Thank you. Okay. It looks like we do have one hearing left. Gosh. Zaremba: I would move we adjourn. I withdraw that motion. Moe: You didn't get a second. Zaremba: There was not a second. Borup: Item No. 11, Public Hearing PP 04-034. This is a request for a preliminary plat approval for 83 single family residential building lots, five common lots, on 25 acres, R-4 zone in Milliron Subdivision. I'd like to, again, open this hearing and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. The subject property is here at the northeast corner of Black Cat Road and Cherry Lane. The property, as you can see, was annexed sometime ago, we believe in the late 70s, as part of a larger annexation in this part of the city. However, there was never any final plat approved on it, so it remains annexed, but never had any development plans approved for it. So, the only application that you have tonight is for a subdivision. There is no planned development; there is no annexation or a rezone attached to that plat. The surrounding uses include the Golf View Estates No.5 on the north, Golf View Estates No.4 on the east. Just two different phases of the same subdivision there. Those are also zoned R-4, which is the existing zoning of the property. There is a church that touches the northwest corner. Blackstone Subdivision is across the street on the south side of Cherry Lane. The properties at the corners on the west side of Black Cat there have not been annexed. So, the annexation, as I say, is set. What they are proposing here is this plat that was submitted with their application. A couple of highlights for the plat for the Commission. They are not proposing any vehicular access to Cherry Lane. They have proposed to simply utilize an existing stub street that comes out of Golf View No.4 and, then, to construct a new entrance on Black Cat Road at this location. Open space in the subdivision is generally in two locations. They have this triangular-shaped lot here, which is all open space. A lot of the subdivisions that you see do come through with dual use open space with storm water retention, detention in open space. In this case they actually are proposing to run all their street drainage down to the southwest corner of the property and retain that there. So, that's the second open space area that I was going to point out. They do have a linear path open space up here in the corner, which there is -- the main entry into Golf View Estates Five is right at the north boundary of this property. A little bit difficult to see on this slide, but there is a common lot that is also -- would be a part of this Milliron Subdivision. I guess we will have to get an appropriate pronunciation if that's not right, but -- Milliron is the appropriate pronunciation I was just told. They are -- they have lot sizes that range from 8,000 square feet, which is the minimum in the R-4 zone district -- application says up to 26,504 square feet. That 26,000 only applies to this lot here on the northeast corner, that there is an existing house on the property and that's Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 26 of 46 what that lot applies to. There is about 5.5 percent of the subdivision in open space. The gross density is 3,2 dwelling units per acre. I wanted to point out just two items on the staff report that start on page three. The first one has to do with the side yard setback on North Tessa Avenue, North Tessa is the proposed street name for this first north-south street. This just deals with the site setback on this lot here. City code says that they have to have a minimum of 20 feet of setback on this property to the street and there is a small strip of open space that's a part of this -- this lot here that does come along the side, but it's only about ten feet wide. With a five-foot setback, that would only mean a 15-foot side, so we are just asking for that to be cleaned up. The second special consideration was the design of Lot 9, Block 2. This is Lot 9, Block 2, the center common space. There is a little bit of a potential dead area here that the staff had some concern about. We are asking that -- for the applicant just to coordinate with the police department to insure that their patrol officers don't have a problem with the way that this is currently designed. And, then, the last item that we had for special consideration had to do with the Settler's canal access road. Settler's Irrigation District is the irrigation district that serves this part of the city. There is currently a gravel access road along the north boundary. Their plat, actually, shows that to remain and we just wanted some clarification on the record tonight how that's going to be dwelt with, as well as access to the -- to. the clean outs for the Settler's canal, which is back there. There is a 30-foot wide easement on that canal. We have recommended that they complete the vacation, if this is approved, that they complete a vacation of the Idaho Power easement. There is an easement for Idaho Power that runs along this portion of the property to serve the existing home and, of course, that would, then, take its power supply internally and would not need that any longer. Finally, we did receive two items into the record that I wanted to point out to the Commission. One is a response -- a written response from the applicant was received a couple of days ago that was addressing the staff report. They are in general agreement with the recommended conditions. And, then, the other item I wanted to point out -- there was a letter received by Robert and Judith Ricketts, dated October 5, that states that they were going to be out of town tonight and could not make the meeting, so they have submitted some concerns with the square footage of the homes and some of the materials that would be used. And so just clarification from the city's perspective, you know, we have -- we have an ordinance that says that this zone has 1,400 square foot minimum home size and an 8,000 square foot minimum lot size. We do not have any ordinances that deal with materials on these homes. The CC&Rs are a civil document that the city does not regulate, which is normally where an architectural committee or otherwise would review materials and so just to clarify, I'm assuming there might be other comments on that front tonight, so -- and with that I guess I'll end staff's comments. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: I just want to -- Mr. Chairman, Brad, I just want to clarify or maybe emphasize the last part of what you said. Even though this was annexed and Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 27 of 46 zoned as an R-4 in the 70s, many years ago, the fact that the application is coming now means it has to comply with our current codes today; is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? As Brad mentioned, I noticed from the letter agreement with virtually everything in the staff report, wasn't it? Amar: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Go ahead. Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, My name is Kevin Amar, address 114 East Idaho, Suite 230, here in Meridian. As Brad indicated, this is a subdivision for once -- and I'm happy to say that we are able to submit for a subdivision that's already permitted within a zone. We are not asking for any special considerations, we are not asking for any variances, we are in agreement with all of the recommendations that was requested by staff and I will try to go over some of those and we did submit that letter -- did you receive a copy of the letter? Borup: Yes, we did. Zaremba: Your letter, yes. Amar: So, the project itself is 83 residential lots. There is one existing home and 82 new lots within this project. It is an R-4 zone. It was zoned sometime in the 70s. I believe Commissioner Zaremba brought up that we are required to comply with the zoning regulations as of today, not in 1970 whenever it was annexed. With this project we are complying with all of the zoning regulations for this project and for this area. If we look at the surrounding subdivisions, they are also with the R-4 zone, there are on the eastern boundary of this project, as well as -- the eastern boundary, as well as the northern boundary, existing pathways and/or irrigation access roads, along with a pathway. There is a pathway currently that runs as a part of Golf View, as I understand it, all the way on these boundaries. That fencing on our northern and also on our eastern we will coordinate that, as well as the fencing around the park area with the fire -- or the police department to make sure there are no conflicts. Typically what is requested by police departments is no taller than four feet, so it can be seen behind that or over the top of that. That fencing will be put in by us through the course of development. Also, some of the questions that came up -- on this boundary, these lots originally we had at 115 feet deep, which allowed for an easement over and across those lots. We did speak -- or our engineer did speak with Nathan Draper Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21. 2004 Page 28 of 46 from Settler's Irrigation District and r¡;¡ther than making it an easement, we, actually, created a common lot and these lots would, then, be a hundred feet deep and a common lot for that access road to continue, so there won't be any access problems with Settler's Irrigation District. It will also be addressed with Settler's Irrigation District through a license agreement with them. Settler's Irrigation District will be the entity that will maintain our irrigation pump station. It will be built to their specifications and, again, it will be through a license agreement with them. There are other concerns or more in depth concerns with the irrigation district. My engineer is here tonight, he is the one that actually spoke with them and he would be happy to answer any questions. Some of the other questions that came up -- we initially -- on our common area, we initially had a pathway in here. That was for sewer service, but our sewer will come in through this road. We, actually, removed that path. There was some concerns with the lot frontages and it allowed us to created a more -- actually, be in compliance with the zone on the lot frontage. As far as the common space, this area down here, which is for storm drainage, is not counted in our common area calculations. So, we have still above five percent in just this area. So, that common area is for strictly open space. There is no drainage. It will be just -- it will be down in that area, which, again, is another unique feature that I'm not often able to do and it seemed to work out pretty well on this project. The project itself, as Brad stated, will have a minimum home size of 1,400 square feet with a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. Some of the building materials that will be used -- there will be no vinyl siding allowed. There is a requirement for rock, brick, stucco and architectural on the front of the house, so it is, obviously, more of an upscale subdivision, trying to be compatible with the neighbors. As we look at the compatibility on these lots and these lots, I believe we have one more lot in this area than there are -- than there is here and down at the corner there may be one more lot than there is on this run. But, again, as I stated, this also has a pathway and an area that separates the two or the three subdivisions, I guess, with two different Golf Views here. I believe that -- were the staff comments. We are excited to do this project and we appreciate your time, Again, we are simply asking for a permitted use within the existing zone and would end my comments with that and stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: And I would ask one that you may not be able to give the answer to, but I'll try. Even though the ordinance allows the smallest dwelling unit to be 1,400 square feet, given the neighborhood surrounding it, which is also all R-4 and lots of 8,000 square feet, and many of the houses bigger than 14, do you have any assessment of when this gets built out how many of your lots might have a 1,400 square foot house on them? Amar: I can give you my best guess, but the 1,400 square feet, as well as in the other subdivisions, is a minimum. What we have found in our subdivisions is the square footage is significantly higher than that, as that is a minimum, not an Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21,2004 Page 29 of 46 avenue, not a maximum, And what we are finding in the subdivisions in this lot size is we are looking at lots on the average -- or homes on the average of 2,000 square feet. So, they are significantly greater than the minimum. That's not to say that -- Zaremba: Even though 1,400 is allowed, it's more typical that they be closer to 2,000? Amar: Correct. That is what we are finding on other subdivisions. So, that's not to say that there won't be a 1,400 square foot home in here, but there will also be something significantly greater than 1,400 square feet, bringing the average to about 2,000 square feet. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: The other question I have may be obvious and that is did you hold a neighborhood meeting? Amar: We did not hold a neighborhood meeting, Borup: I think we could tell that. Rohm: And I guess the follow-up question to that is why not? Amar: I guess my only response to that is we are doing a use within this zone that's already permitted. This zone was here before any of the neighbors were here, this property was already zoned for that. I, to be real honest with you, didn't anticipate all this opposition, because it is a permitted use within this zone, Maybe that's bad judgment on my part -- Rohm: I'd say so. Amar: I'll accept that. But, again, we are here based on what is permitted in this zone. We are not trying to do anything that's different, we are not trying to do anything out of the ordinary, so I'll use better judgment next time. Borup: And I think that explanation makes sense, Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Amar? Amar: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. This is the time for the public testimony portion. There was one -- a couple things that I went through a little quickly previously and that's on the time. If we do have -- we do allow extra time if we have someone speak in behalf of a group, like a neighborhood association or anything like that. So, rather than the three minute limit, we can go ten minutes. By that it would be expected that those people they are speaking in behalf of would not be speaking. Meridian Planning & Zoning October21,2004 Page 30 of 46 So, do we have that here tonight? Do we have a spokesman for a whole neighborhood? You, sir? Do you want to stand up just quick right there. How many people is he speaking for in behalf of? Okay. So, that means that you would -- he would be saying everything that you want to say? Well, then, does that mean saying that you would not be coming up to testify? Okay. I guess you didn't get your extra time. I'm sorry, they didn't give it to you. Okay. All right. We were hoping to give you some extra. Okay, Then, like we'd to start with that. As I mentioned earlier, we do have a timer. The green light means you keep going. The yellow light means there is 30 seconds. And the clerk will be monitoring that. And I -- we have got a long list of names and I can either go down that or just ask people to come on up, just right in order -- or I mean just as soon as they'd like to, so let's go ahead and start. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Mr. Nary. Nary: If you could, for the purpose of the public record, if you follow the list we'd have a way to acknowledge whether or not they actually appeared and spoke. Borup: All right. We can do that. Nary: Thank you. Borup: Don Burton. That worked out good. Burton: I was here early. Mr. Commissioner and Members of the Commission, thank you very much for the opportunity of speaking with you tonight. My name is Don Burton, I live at 1949 North Pear Tree Avenue -- Zaremba: Sir, will you pull the microphone a little closer to your mouth. Burton: -- Golf View Subdivision. And I am the treasurer, past president of the homeowners association. Our president is out of town tonight. At the end of my comments I would like to present a letter from the homeowners association signed by all the board members and 132 adults residing in Golf View who ostensibly oppose Milliron Subdivision as proposed. I would like to point out the primary reasons for our opposition and some of the possible resolutions, some of which I already heard tonight from the applicant. First is addressing the lot size and house sizes. It is very divergent from what you will find in Golf View. I think this creates a situation where you could possibly have a 1,400 square foot home on the perimeter of Milliron backed right up to a 3,500 square foot home in Golf View and I think we know what that does to property values and which one is going to take the hit in terms of property value loss, Also it is my understanding - - and I have not got this verified -- that there is an option for no garages on these homes. I think down the road that that would be a problem. I'm not positive about that. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21,2004 Page 31 of 46 Borup: No. City code ordinances requires two car garages. BUrton: The second point I would like to make has to do with the egress entrance streets, only two, one on Black Cat, one utilizing White Birch Street, which would take a zigzag pattern through Golf View. I was told that Ada County Highway District anticipates that at full capacity this subdivision would create about 800 vehicle trips per day. If you look at the plat layout of the streets, I think you will see that the travel directions will take more than half of those on that zigzag pattern through Golf View. This has an impact on homes along those routes in terms of nuisance and noise and property values, but, more importantly, safety issues for children who live in the Golf View neighborhood. There was discussion by the applicant about fencing the perimeter, which I was glad to hear of, because of the bike path, walking path, that is owned and maintained by Golf View. We do not want that to become a conduit for bike and walking traffic from Milliron into and through Golf View. I will be brief to get to my three minutes and let others speak, In summation, we believe that you will agree with us that part of planning is the protection of existing developments and properties as new development are brought into being. We also believe that as proposed, Milliron will have a significantly and negative impact on the property values, resale marketability, the investment, and the security in their homes currently enjoyed by the citizens of Golf View Subdivision. We believe it to be in the City of Meridian's best interest to maintain similar developments that share contiguous boundaries and utilize main arterials as dividers between very divergent developments, We see Milliron as proposed as being a very divergent development from what you have in Golf View Two, Three, Four and Five. Thank ji!c!wrU Er~h <Itue,mionärfor. NllStSollltdXø1?arh' IJq~. Burton: Yes, sir. Borup: Do you know the -- what the square footage covenants is for-- Burton: Minimum is 1,800 square feet in Golf View, Borup: In all three phases? Burton: Yes, sir. I'm not sure about phase -- I live in phase two. It was 1,800 square feet there. Maybe someone else can address more accurately four and five. I know there are homes along the perimeter there that -- on the north side that are up to 3,500 square foot homes. Borup: Right. But I -- so 1,800 is the answer? Okay. Burton: To my best knowledge that's the minimum. It might be higher than that in phases four and five. Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 32 of 46 Borup: Okay, Thank you, Any other questions? Rohm: I just had a question. On this ingress into Golf View -- Burton: Yes, sir. Rohm: -- is it your recommendation that the developer have access to Cherry Lane? Burton: We strongly believe that that should be in place and that there should perhaps be a speed bump or something to restrict traffic going on White Birch from Milliron into and out of Golf View through that direction. It's a zigzag pattern to get from there to Cherry Lane, It's going to be a right, a left, and another right to get out of there. I think you can see that on this map right there. Rohm: Okay, Thank you. Burton: Thank you very much, Commission. Borup: Thank you. Steve Pieper, Pieper: Yes. My name is Steve Pieper. I live at 4695 West White Ash Drive. I'm in phase five of the Golf View Subdivision. My main concern -- my house backs up against the new proposed subdivision and in addition to my concerns about the property values with a minimum square footage size of 1,400, that leads to a lot of transition from people moving up after a few years and they start turning into rentals and the quality of my life would go down with rentals behind me, because you have people moving in that may rent and not have the pride of ownership as established in the Golf View Subdivision. It is a more upscale subdivision and I would propose that the board -- or the Planning and Zoning Commission have at least an 1,800 square foot minimum size of the homes. That's alii have. Borup: Thank you, sir. Jason Dams? Is that correct. Would you still like to come forward? Okay. Langland? Ronald Howell? Okay. Thank you. Heather Lainhart? Still wish to come forward? Lainhart: I am Heather Lainhart, I reside at 1801 Golf View. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I appreciate your time. I know this is a long night for you. I have a letter from Harry, our president, who wasn't able to be here. He regrets it, but it was unavoidable. A few points that Don didn't bring up. Golf View has a lot of people who have bought there, they plan to retire and they wanted to make their-- make it their home and it is an investment. So, a lot of people feel like the property value question has just really hit them in the wallet. So, that's why you will hear that expressed probably a lot tonight. My main -- main fear is for the safety of the children. I'm begging you, respectfully, to protect the children in this neighborhood. There is a bike path that runs right across the main street that they are going to pull in, White Birch, and there is a lot of trees and things, Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21.2004 Page 33 of 46 there is not good visibility there at all, and with the volume of houses, there is going to be a lot of traffic, like Don has mentioned, and I feel that the volume of houses is a problem in my book. There is just too many houses crammed into there and I know it's not high density, but just the problems that will come along with that are going to flow right out into our subdivision and so we feel that since it is connected, it should be a little bit more congruent and equitable in the spacing of things and the way they are. Harry, in his letter, noticed that the comprehensive planning of the city in trying to keep subdivisions somewhat contiguous in style and type of areas and structures, seems to be seriously undermined with this development. Like we said, if they are across Cherry Lane or across Black Cat, that would make more sense to us, it wouldn't affect us. As you can see if you go upwards, there is Ashford Greens and, then, on and they will seem to have the same higher minimum of the square footage of houses and the higher minimum of the lot size and we ask that you would consider that and if you do have any ability to control that and to truly have planning in what Meridian develops into, so that we can have different styles of neighborhoods in Meridian to accommodate everyone's needs as citizens of this wonderful city, we would appreciate it. Borup: Questions from any of the Commission? Thank you. I would point out that I think Ashford Greens, actually, has a good part of the lots are smaller than an R -- than 8,000 foot. That's James Place. Okay. I was looking on the map up there. Zaremba: It's a section within Ashford Greens called James Place and they are considerably smaller. Borup: Yeah. It was part of the original application. Wayne Hammer. Okay. And, again, just because your name is on here doesn't mean -- you don't have to come up, but -- okay, Alma Hammer, same thing? All right. And I'm going to have trouble, probably, with some of these names, but is it Don Howell? Okay. Thank you. Donna Learner? David Learner? Rick Bachmeier? Okay, sir. Bachmeier: Yes. I'm Rich Bachmeier. I live at 1865 North Golf View Way, which would be on the easterly side of the proposed development where the pathway is. I think Don's covered most of the things that we want to discuss, but to give you an example, we don't have, unfortunately, photos of our subdivision, but it's been said 1,800 square foot minimum, landscaping at the time was part of our covenants, If you look at Golf View, it's very extensively landscaped. Like Ashford Greens, like all the other subdivisions that have been developed. I guess I can't understand -- and I guess it's one of the big concerns -- is why there can't be an ingress-egress on Cherry Lane, I think that's one of the biggest concerns is the traffic flow and if you look at the subdivision directly to the south, there is an ingress-egress, I know there is some standards by Ada County, I think you have to be at least 150 feet from the intersection to put in an approach. There is an existing approach on the property right at that location, there is a curb cut there. I would assume that's a viable ingress-egress. So, why no access to Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21.2004 Page 34 of 46 Cherry Lane? I don't understand that. I think with access to Cherry Lane it would alleviate the concerns of the traffic going through Golf View, Obviously, you have to share the roadways and there would be some traffic going through there, which we could, I'm sure, put up with, But if you take potentially I would say probably two-thirds of the traffic in that subdivision and push it through our subdivision, I don't think is a good idea. If you look at the access on Black Cat, it's up towards the middle northerly portion of the development. Why would people typically going to Meridian or Boise go up and around, as opposed to going through that subdivision? I think that at least 50 percent -- and I would guess much more would take the shorter route through Golf View Subdivision. So, I think that access to us is probably one of the -- at least for me personally, is one of the biggest concerns, putting some of that access out onto Cherry Lane. Obviously, there is going to be a lot loss. I mean the developer wants to maximize his lots, they are pretty small lots as it is, but could we give up a lot, an 8,000 square foot lot, to put in another access in Cherry Lane. I think that's all I have. Borup: Okay. Thank you. I might mention just for -- part of the disadvantage, maybe, we have not seen the ACHD report. It just came in and the clerk is going to get a copy of it. That may help a little bit. Is it Diane Aschenbacher? All right. Thank you, Moe: Your time's up already. Borup: And I'm not sure on the next one, was that also Aschenbacher? Okay, sir. Nancy Evans. Care to come up? Okay. Don Evans, Evans: I'm Don Evans, 4349 Quaker Ridge. I'm in Golf View Subdivision No.3. I'd like to take just a quick moment and address the size of the lots and the intended purpose of what's going in here. Being a retired builder of not only starter homes, but also upper end homes, I look at a subdivision plot like this or a plan and the first thing I see is starter homes. With the setbacks that is required by the city, the size of these lots, you're going to have probably no more than 1,400 or 1,500 square foot homes on these lots and I assume -- I know that's being a little presumptuous, but reading between the lines this is what we are looking at. We are looking at a starter home subdivision in the corner of upper end homes. I don't think that any of us in any of these other subdivisions are saying, no, this should not be built, that it should not be subdivided, what we are saying is let's get it in compliance with what's already there. Let's save the investment of the people that's already built there, And I think -- there, again, I think the protection of the homeowners that are there should be utmost in your mind. Also, give some consideration is what you are looking at here, in my opinion, is a starter home subdivision. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Andersons? Anderson. Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Oclober 21, 2004 Page 35 of 46 Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Ron Anderson, I live at 4327 West Quaker Ridge. I'd like to start off by telling a little bit of a story. I have grown up in Meridian, went to junior high, high school here. graduated, have lived in several homes, including my parents' home in Meridian, have owned three homes myself in Meridian. Very attached to the community. In fact, served four years on the City Council, as many of you know. And Meridian is very near and dear to my heart and my wife's heart. We plan on making this our home, we plan on living out our lives in Meridian. Having said that, we also, being familiar with the community, have looked at where we want to live in Meridian and for years we had looked at Golf View Subdivision. In fact, I used to drive through Golf View Subdivision two or three days a week on my way to work looking at the subdivision. For those of you who have never been into Golf View, it's a very beautiful subdivision, There is ponds as you come in and a waterfall. There is walking paths that meander through the neighborhood. There is ponds and streams that run along that path. It's a very gorgeous subdivision. We also pay homeowner dues in there to maintain all those amenities in that subdivision. As we have decided to live out our lives in Meridian, we decided to look for a more upscale neighborhood to move into and last year our dream finally came true. As I was driving to work one day, drove through the subdivision and saw the house that I had fell in love with years ago was for sale, so stopped and got the phone number and we called the people and we ended up buying that house and moving into it earlier this year. I am very disappointed to see this project now being presented to come right next door to our subdivision. As you have already heard, Golf View is more upscale. I would say on an average the homes range from 200 to 350 thousand dollars in there, It's people that -- they are not starter homes. And now what's being proposed next to us are starter homes. And I don't mean any disrespect to the developers and the planners on this, but because this was an already annexed piece of property, I believe they felt that we will meet the -- Meridian's minimum requirements, the 8,000 square foot lots and the 1,400 square foot houses and this thing will sale right through. As you heard at the start of this, there has been no conversation, no meetings with the homeowners next door in our subdivision and that should happen I think in every development and see what is compatible. The biggest concern that our neighborhood has is incompatibility with the existing subdivisions. Having served on the Council, I know that's a concern to the Council and to you guys as Commissioners. The design of this subdivision is very poorly designed from the roads that access through our subdivision, to the drainage ponds being on the Bc!Ðn1uIpr. ':¡;h€UlelY~uLane is a gateway to our community and we need to put something in this piece of property that will show that we are proud of Meridian. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, we have just been handed a copy of the ACHD report and I would ask that we have about five minutes to read it, so that I'm not trying to read it when I should be listening to somebody that's talking. Borup: I think that would be a good -- and maybe just -- Mrs. Anderson, do you have anything you want to say, too? Okay. That would probably be a good place Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21,2004 Page 36 of 46 to stop and I think that would be appropriate. We will take about a five-minute break or so. Some here may want a break also, (Recess.) Borup: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we'd like to reconvene our meeting. All right. Thank you. Okay. We have had an opportunity to read the. ACHD report and we will get probably comment on that a little bit later. Again, those that do not wish to testify, of course, don't need to. Next name we had was Tom and Kathy Henderson. Henderson. Tom and Kathy. Henderson: Hi, my name is Kathy Henderson and I reside a 4457 West Dawson Drive and I don't represent our subdivision, but I am from Ashford Greens and we ditto everything that has been said. We live in custom built homes and we do not want to see starter homes on that corner lot. We are going to miss our onion field. Thank you, Borup: Mark Henderson. Is it Kemp? No? Okay. Tony Gallegos. Gallegos: My name is Tony Gallegos, I live at 4440 West White Birch Court. My house faces the headlights of everybody that's going to be driving and making that corner into this new subdivision and I wanted to take it a step further. I'm totally opposed to that inlet to that subdivision. My background -- lawn a small architectural design firm and have drawn probably over 1,000 houses, a number in Golf View and Ashford Greens and James Place and the architectural requirements that I have to go according to draw these house plans for the clients are unbelievable. I mean my landscaping, just on my own home, 63 little plants in my front yard. I mean it was just tremendous. We have put an in- ground pool in. I'm looking at living there a long time. I'm 41, I love the place, we love the neighbors, we have a lot of kids running around in this subdivision, and so my -- in saying that I would like to take this a step further, at the end of Golf View, the entrance that will go into Ashford Greens Phase 5, the developer put in a foot bridge. The street was stopped and there was a real nice railing and archway and all that jazz and so that eliminated a chunk of traffic taking the shortcut and I'd like to propose on my own behalf -- and I have talked to a few other people and they had that idea, too -- obviously, if that road is going to have to be there, that we don't created an ingress, but do put a foot bridge there, if it has to be there. Of course, number one is I'm adamantly opposed to it, I would love to just have the thing just shut off right there. My neighbor across the street, he's going to have people driving into his driveway if they make a wrong right turn or me into my front yard. I had another person who has also voiced concern of liability with all of our landscaping in the subdivision, not so much the personal, but the ponds and whatnot that we pay our homeowners dues on to keep everything up and with the amount of children that might be in there, there are some yards that you actually can walk through, because Golf View does deter, you know, the fencing and everything to give everything a nice wide open landscaped look. He was worried about having people walking through his yard '" , Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 37 of 46 getting onto the paths to take shortcuts. So, we are -- like I said, my biggest thing is that ingress area right there and if it does have to be there or if does have to have a road there or something, if we could just knock it down and have a foot bridge, worst case. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Don Davis. Okay. Thank you. Patty Slattery? Okay. Millers? Miller: My name is Leslie Miller and I live at 1950 North Summertree Way. I, again, support everything that's been said up to this point. The access, in my opinion, is completely unacceptable. If you're going to go through our neighborhood, I think you have to live up to our standards and terms of square footage minimum, landscaping minimum. Otherwise, they need to section it off as proposed by the person in front me. Also, we all know soon enough that the intersection at Black Cat and Cherry Lane is going to be extremely busy and adding this many homes right there without that extra access is just asking for trouble. Thank you. Borup: Darrin and Denise Bushy? They must have left. Okay. Mr. Amar, have you got some concluding remarks you'd like to make? Amar: Thank you, Commissioners. I'm surprised it's my turn again already. There is a lot of people here. Again, for the record, my name is Kevin Amar, I'm here to address some of the items that did come up this evening. One of the main issues, it sounds like this evening, is the access into Golf View Estates and I'm sure you have had a chance to review -- or now I know you have had a chance to review the ACHD report. When we initially went to Ada County Highway District, we did discuss do we take access off of Black Cat or do we take access off of Cherry Lane. As you know, Ada County Highway District is extremely interested in limiting the number of accesses onto arterials and roads that are principally traveled by people. One of the items that came up was if an access is off of Cherry Lane, it's going to be directly across the street from this existing access. Ada County Highway District would rather see a three way stop, meaning this one, we have got this area and this area, than a four way. It is more dangerous to have a four-way access than a three way. That is something they have said over and over again. The other item that was brought up is the access at this point is going to provide better traveling access to the general public. I know the neighbors in this audience may not like to hear that, but that road at this location was stubbed there to provide access for this property in the future. Without that road stub that property would not have been allowed to be developed. In talking to Mr. Milliron, who is here this evening, he would like it all to be onion fields still and he would not have to move. He heard a lot about consideration and he lived here before any of the homes were in here and he has a bigger home than 1,800 square feet. So, his concern is if consideration really is granted, then, consideration should have been granted all around and all of them should have a 25-acre lot. I know that's ridiculous. I know we want to develop. I know we all want to move forward, but what we are doing this evening is providing a subdivision that is extremely compatible with the neighbors. The lots sizes are compatible -- the lot sizes are compatible, it's built within the -- . " , Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 38 of 46 Borup: Wait a minute. You all had your chance and he didn't interrupt you, so let's offer the same thing here, Thank you. Amar: We are -- we are simply trying to provide a subdivision that is better for the city. We could have come in, we could have asked for a higher density, it would have been permitted within this zone, we could have asked for a rezone. We are using the existing zoning and we are moving forward with that. Some of the concerns of protect the children and the nice -- the subdivision that Golf View is, I agree, Golf View is a beautiful subdivision, I have been through it. I think it's a nice subdivision, I don't think this is a starter home subdivision. I'm not even sure where that came from. If you look at the projects around there, in Ashford Greens, in Golf View, Cherry Lane Estates, all of those, they are not starter home subdivisions, We intend on being compatible with those -- with those subdivisions. I really -- I guess the main issue that I heard was the access. What we would like to do is keep that access at this point. I think it will be better overall and it will provide better travel for the general public. I'd be happy to answer any other questions that you might have, Borup: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Mr, Chairman, I'd like to talk to Kevin about a couple of things here. I think that from the number of people we have here in the audience tonight, that if you would have had a neighborhood meeting prior to submitting this for our consideration, it's possible that you could have come up with some alternate traffic patterns that would have addressed the appearance of a primary access through their subdivision, as opposed to I think stub streets traditionally or typically are secondary access at best. Not necessarily -- in this particular case you have got maybe a third of the lots that will egress onto Black Cat and two- thirds of them will access through this other subdivision. I think that if you would have had a neighborhood meeting, you possibly could have avoided that by taking another look at having a second access, one on Black Cat and one on Cherry Lane. I think that that's probably a better conclusion, but having not had that neighborhood meeting you didn't get that opportunity. I would ask you if you would reconsider having a second access being on Cherry Lane, so that you would have one to Black Cat and one to Cherry Lane, so that your primary access or egress out of this subdivision would not be through the adjacent subdivision. Is that something that you would consider? Amar: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, in discussions with Ada County Highway District, they requested that we have one access to either Cherry Lane or Black Cat. That was in the preliminary discussion when we were doing the design. What I certainly can consider is relocating that access from Black Cat to Cherry Lane. Rohm: I think that if you were to go back to Ada County and specifically request a second access to an arterial road, you may get some consideration, but if you don't specifically press for that, Ada County, more than likely, is not going to make it a requirement. And I'm not speaking for the Commission, that's just my , " , Meridian Planning & Zoning October 21. 2004 Page 39 of 46 own belief. I believe that they would take a look at this development and they could see that there would be benefits to your own 83-lot development, as well as the existing neighbors to the east. Would you consider going back to Ada County and requesting a second access, not moving the single access, but have one off Black Cat and Cherry Lane? Borup: Do you need to discuss with your client for little bit? Amar: No, I can make the decision. I guess the concern I have, then, is we have the same -- we can make that request. I'm certain that we can make that request. The concern I have with it is we have sat here tonight and listened to neighbors and said we don't want anybody to drive through our subdivision, when they moved into that subdivision knowing full well there was a stub street to their property. Rohm: Absolutely. There is no question in my mind that the stub street was there with the intent that there would be ingress-egress. It's my opinion that that would be a secondary ingress-egress, not a primary and as you designed your subdivision, that would, then, be a primary egress, not secondary. And I think that there is a possible better way to exit this subdivision via Cherry Lane. That's -- I believe that. Mae: I was just -- just was questioning -- you made a comment that when you had met with ACHD it was on your early design, so they had not really seen your lot layout at the time originally when they discussed whether it be Black Cat or Cherry Lane? Amar: No. They did see the lot layout. Mae They did see it and they did note that, basically, two-thirds of this subdivision is going to get access off the stub street, basically? Amar: They certainly saw this design and saw -- and they requested if we had one access, it would be off of Black Cat. Moe: Well, I agree with Commissioner Rohm, I'm very disappointed that there is not an access onto Cherry Lane, because, quite frankly, I think that's way too much traffic to have to go through a subdivision and -- you know, I realize you made the comment about going off of Black Cat. I live in the area down the way a little bit, I can guarantee you everybody is going to go through that stub street, because they, basically, are going to take a right off Cherry Lane to go into those homes and so the traffic is going to be maximized through that entrance, not the entrance off Black Cat. And so I, too, would hope that we could go back before ACHD and say, look, this is really what we want to do. Amar: I guess for that reason I would request that rather than an additional access, relocate the existing access. You still have the access off of Cherry Lane, it still eliminates the problem that of going through the other subdivision, because you do -- you would have a primary or principal access at this location. , H , Meridian Planning & Zoning October21,2004 Page 40 of 46 So, the need to drive through Golf View would, then, be eliminated, because they can connect at this location. So, what I'm requesting in consideration is that rather than an additional -- Rohm: I think 83 lots deserves two accesses to arterial roads myself. Zaremba: And I would agree. I would support -- my instinct is there ought to be three ways in and out of this, two of them on the arterials and one of them -- that, then, would get very minor use, the current stub street. I have no doubt that it was always the intent that there be a connection to the stub street and that it go somewhere, but I agree with the other Commissioners, to make that -- I live out in that area as well and I know that the people would use that to get to Albertson's, they'd use it to get -- you know, that stub street. And I don't think that's the idea behind stub streets. My preference would be an access to Black Cat, an access to Cherry Lane, and the stub street. If you were only willing to move it forward by giving up the Black Cat one to get the Cherry Lane, I would still see that as a better solution. If you think of where traffic is going to want to go, unless they are going to the LDS church, there really isn't any reason to go out the Black Cat entrance at the moment -- and I'm trying to think of what might develop over the next 20 years that would change that. Borup: Well, traffic studies usually show some traffic to the north, you know, someone going to HP or something, but-- Zaremba: And, eventually, if Highway 16 crosses the river, there will be some reason to go north. Borup: -- generally the traffic is towards the freeway or towards town. Zaremba: My preference would be three accesses, but --and, again, I think 83 residences supports that. Well, 82, because you would lose one, but-- Mae: Well, not only that, I guess I would have another concern and that would be emergency access. By not having anything up to the north, you're going to bring everything through Cherry Lane to get back to the northern side -- northern end of that property. I think the Black Cat should stay as well, just for any reason for that purpose. Rohm: Well -- and as we have had other subdivisions brought before this Commission in the past, basically what we have made it a requirement is that as - - in 50 lot increments they have multiple accesses and I think that this is kind of in that same vein, that if you have 83 lots, that's a lot of traffic to push out one direction and I think that it alleviates a lot of the concerns that have been brought before us tonight if we could just make that step forward. Other than that, Kevin, your proposal complies with ordinance, it's within the Comprehensive Plan, and I think that it's our job to try and help come up with solutions that take into consideration the needs of the community and support development within ordinance as written and I think that that would move a long ways towards resolving many of these issues. , , Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 41 of 46 Arnar: I have said this before and I'll say it again, I want my way all the time and all these neighbors want their way all the time -- everybody wants their own way and I have expressed to this Commission what I would request. I'm not sitting there, I don't hold a vote, and so this, really, is up to this Commission. I do know that we have done numerous subdivisions with this exact same scenario and this board approved those same subdivisions with one access and the other access is through -- through existing subdivisions next door, And, in fact, they were of larger lot size than -- or larger total lots than this one. So, I guess I know what I want, but you guys get to make the decision or the recommendation on what I get. Zaremba: Well, my recollection would be that the stub street in most of those developments wasn't oriented so that it was going to end up being the major one and I think our instinct on this one is that this sub street is going to be your major entrance and exit and my personal feeling is that needs to be resolved. Rohm: And I guess to follow that up, I would like to propose to you that that's the direction we go and have some concurrence on your part prior to me making a motion before this Commission and I will tell that I would like you to agree to an additional access to Cherry Lane at North Wale, in addition to the existing access to Black Cat. Would you agree to that-- Borup: Commissioner, I think he has already answered that, how he feels, so -- Rohm: But how he feels -- I would like to have a yes or no. Amar: I'll say it again, I don't make the decision, What I want is a single access. Obviously, I am not desirous to lose a lot. If you -- if you are only going to move it forward that way, I don't know that I can make a decision. I can't say anything. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: I think that could be -- that can be in the motion. Any other questions for Mr. Amar from this group -- from the Commission? Okay. We have closed the public testimony portion. Zaremba: Actually, we haven't, but-- Borup: Now, we haven't closed the public testimony. We have closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. We have concluded. We have concluded. Commissioners? We have concluded the public testimony. As I said at the beginning, after all the public testimony, the applicant has an opportunity to come up and make a rebuttal. This is not a back and forth discussion. Every time someone else talks, then, he also will come up and has another ten minutes to make another rebuttal and I don't think -- I'm sorry, ma'am. Commissioners? . " .. Meridian Planning & Zoning October21,2004 Page 42 of 46 Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT, Borup: Discussion? Or did we kind of cover a lot of that? Zaremba: I personally am not ready to move it forward with the access going through the neighbors. I agree the stub street needs to be there, but not to have it designed such that it's almost intuitive that it's going to be the primary ingress and egress, I'm not willing to move it forward with that. Mae: The point I just wanted to make is as far as -- as far as the lot sizes and whatnot, quite frankly, it meets the ordinance and such and so, therefore, I have no problem with that. But, again, I'm very much opposed to not having access off Cherry Lane. We definitely need to have that and it needs to be explored, so I don't know whether that means we deny or that we continue this, hoping that the developer will, then, meet with ACHD and get this issue resolved. Zaremba: Technically, to continue we'd have to reopen. We closed the hearing. Moe: But we are just speaking at the present time, so -- Borup: Another option could be approve it with an entrance at that location and have it redesigned before City Council. But, then, we would not have a chance to take another look at it, though. Zaremba: I suspect that once they sit down to do the engineering to put an entrance there, there may be other changes that they wish to make as well and I think we should see those before they go to the City Council. Borup: They may want to reconfigure, you mean? Zaremba: Uh-huh. That may be minor, but my preference would not be to shove it off on City Council, my desire would be to -- Borup: I think they would rather it came to them clean, as we would rather send it to them clean. Zaremba: Yes. Moe: I agree. . " . Meridian Planning & Zoning Oclober21,2004 Page 43 of 46 Borup: I just was pointing that out, that third option. Rohm: Why would we not be able to recommend to -- recommend approval with an addition that they would be required to put an additional stub street and, then, it would be clean from this -- from this Commission, anyway, that that's the direction we wanted to see things go. And, then, the City Council could act on it based upon the motion as -- as stated. Borup: That is one of the options. Zaremba: That kind of a change would require a reconsideration by ACHD, because they are going to have to approve the access to Cherry Lane and, again, the traffic patterns and I think the police department and the fire department could look at it again if that changes and I'm hesitant to send things forward to the City Council hoping that it will look different than what we saw. I would like to see the final thing that's going to go to the City Council. Röhm: Okay, Then, continue with recommendations? Can you do that? Zaremba: Yes. If -- the choices would be at this point leave the Public Hearing closed and recommend denial or reopen the Public Hearing, since I don't think anybody has left and there isn't a notice issue, and continue it. And continue it for specific reasons that need to be resolved before we hear it again. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we reopen the Public Hearing on PP 04- 034. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to reopen the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I would comment for the record I believe at least 98 percent of the people that have been here are still here and are aware that this Public Hearing is continuous. Rohm: Okay. Now, we need to pick a date. Zaremba: Well, we would want staff to have time with it and we would want ACHD to have time with it, so -- and the applicant needs time to redraw it. Rohm: Okay. Would it be appropriate to ask Mr. Amar how long he would like to have to address known issues? Borup: Mr. Amar. ~ n . Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 21, 2004 Page 44 of 46 Nary: Mr. Chairman, the ordinance -- just so you and the members of the Commission recall, the ordinance also gives you the authority to require a neighborhood meeting if you wish. Rohm: I believe we have had a neighborhood meeting tonight. Zaremba: I would support the idea of having a separate one. Rohm: That would be fine as well. Borup: Well, that would be a motion that we could make. Mae: It would included in your motion. Borup: Just the input on timing is what we are looking for. Amar: I can get with Ada County Highway District tomorrow in their -- what I have in front of me, the application did not require commission action, it was approved at staff level, so we can get input from the staff as whether this is a change that they will allow or not. So, I think the time frame to get in front of ACHD is tomorrow or Monday. If Andrea Tunning is available, As far as the redesign, pen markings, but I can show you tonight what it's going to look like. It will be a road in lieu of Lot 9, Block 5. That's the one that lines up with North Wells Avenue. As far as any other redesign, I'm not aware of any. Rohm: That would probably change block numbers, too, then, wouldn't it? Amar: It may change block and lot numbers. It will actually add a block. Rohm: It will add a block, Amar: So, if we are going to ask for a continuance, I would, I guess, ask for a couple weeks. I'm sure that gives more than enough time for everybody to review it. Rohm: Okay, Zaremba: Staff would want ten days after everything is complete and given to them. Borup: Our November 4th meeting is lighter than the 18th. Rohm: Okay. How does the 4th sound? Amar: Sounds great. Rohm: This is good. '>';' ! Meridian Pianning & Zoning Oclober 21, 2004 Page 45 of 46 Zaremba: That would be assuming that staff had everything by the 25th. Our staff had everything by the 25th. Rohm: That's kind of an issue, too. As far as the neighborhood meeting, if we could squeeze a neighborhood meeting in prior to the November 4th, I think that that would be in good keeping as well and so -- Amar: When we do neighborhood meetings we give a week's notice prior to the meeting. We can send out notices tomorrow, as staff has already generated the mailing list, that's not a problem. I can hold a neighborhood meeting. Nary: Mr. Chairman, just for the record as well, the ACHD staff report is dated October 15th and the time to appeal indicates in the document ten days from the date of the decision, which by my calendar appears to be the end of -- next Friday, Friday the 29th. So, there is an opportunity to appeal this decision, so the Commission is aware. Rohm: So, that -- the appeal would be on our behalf or on -- Nary: Mr. Amar's. Rohm: Great. Okay. With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue this Public Hearing to the hearing date of November 4th, with the following provisions: That the applicant pursue additional ingress-egress off of Cherry Lane and have a neighborhood meeting prior to that scheduled meeting date of November 4th. End of motion. Mae: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: I don't think we have ever done this before and I don't know -- you have got an opportunity to announce a meeting -- a neighborhood meeting time. I don't know if it's a little premature to do that or-- Amar: I don't mind announcing a time, I just don't know a location yet, so -- I can certainly announce a time, but as far as a location I'm -- I guess I need to do some research. Can we let this room be the location? Nary: Mr. Chairman, yeah, they can use this room if -- you need to check with the city clerk if it's available on the night you'd like. Borup: That would be the only thing if it would be available. , \' ~ Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 21 , 2004 Page 46 of 46 Rohm: We will check with the city clerk and we will hold it here and now I can't announce a time. I have to check with the city clerk. Borup: But you're thinking next week? Depending on the clerk's schedule. Amar: Yes, it will be next week and depending on the clerk's schedule -- Borup: Have you got the name of the homeowners association? It looked like everyone here was from Golf View, so -- no? Zaremba: Ashford Greens. Borup: And Ashford Greens. associations of those two -- So, the two -- if we have the neighborhood Amar: Don Burton was the secretary for Golf View and I believe Kathy Henderson represented -- oh, who is the president of both? Is this appropriate to do this at this time? Borup: Well, it's out of the ordinary, but it's -- we have got an opportunity here to probably -- Rohm: I don't think this has to take place on the public -- Borup: You know, I tell you what, we don't have anything else on -- let's go ahead and close the hearing and, then, give you an opportunity to do that. Rohm: Absolutely. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT. Borup: Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:53 P,M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APP. ROVED ~ ~:ti ~1/; I ~..;2. I~ " t., ~ Meridian Pianning & Zoning Oclober21,2004 Page 47 of 46 KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED