Loading...
2005 02-03 Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina Februarv 3. 2005. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman David Zaremba. Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner David Moe, and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Bruce Freckleton, Craig Hood, Joe Guenther, Josh Wilson, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Keith Borup X X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X ~Chairman David Zaremba David Moe Michael Rohm Zaremba: Good evening, everybody. I'd like to welcome you to this regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for February 3rd, 2005. We will begin with roll call attendance. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Zaremba: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. If I hear no comments that somebody would like to rearrange it, we will consider it adopted. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Tabled from January 20, 2005 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: AUP 04-016 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for a home occupation for a family day care for five or fewer children in an R-8 zone for Marina Galushkin by Marina Galushkin - 2843 North Wolverine Avenue: Zaremba: Next item is the Consent Agenda. This consists of a Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law that we have talked about previously. I would entertain a motion. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I would move we approve the Consent Agenda. Moe: Second. Zaremba: It has been moved and seconded that we approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 2 of 58 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from January 6, 2005: PFP 04-008 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval for 4 building lots on 8.02 acres in an 1- L zone for Nola Subdivision by Bergey Land Surveying - SWC of East Pine Avenue and North Nola Road: Zaremba: All right. And with that we are beginning the Public Hearing portion of our meeting this evening. Let me make a comment about procedures for our public hearings. The applicant in each case and the professional staff of the Planning and Zoning Department have spent quite a bit of time together on each of these issues and we will begin our meetings with a presentation from our own professional staff telling us where the project is and what it is and any issues that are outstanding that need to be resolved. That will be followed by a discussion from the actual applicant. And, then, it will be the turn for the general public to speak. We do ask that you limit the amount of time that you speak and we actually have a timer that will allow you three minutes. This is so that our meetings don't end up going until 1 :00 o'clock in the morning. We know that many of you are not accustomed to public speaking, but we do ask that you do come to the microphone. If you thought it was important enough to come down tonight, it's important enough that we hear it and that our recorder hear it. So, please, speak only when you're at the microphone and don't be afraid to speak up to make sure that we do hear you. We also -- if there is someone who is a spokesman, for instance, the president of a homeowners association, we allow them more time if there are other people in the audience that say that so and so is speaking for me. And if somebody identifies themselves as a spokesman for a group, we may ask how many other people they are seeking for. We also appreciate it if somebody before you has made the points that you wish to make, it's always appreciated if you say I agree with Joe, he said everything, and, then, if you want to clarify another point or two, that's fine, but you don't need to repeat everything that you have identified somebody that already said it. Then, at the end of the public testimony portion, the applicant, actually, will have another opportunity -- we ask them to take notes while people are speaking and come up and respond to questions that have been raised and clarify anything they can clarify at that point. Then, there will be some discussion among the Commissioners and the end result is a recommendation that we make to the City Council about whether they should approve or deny the application. Zaremba: That being said, we will proceed with Item 4 on the agenda and we will reopen the continued Public Hearing of PFP 04-008. This is a request for preliminary/final plat approval of four building lots on 8.02 acres in an I-L zone for Nola Subdivision by Bergey Land Surveying, southwest corner of East Pine Avenue and North Nola Road. And we will begin with the staff. Wilson: All right. Thanks. Thank you, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a preliminary and final plat for Nola Subdivision. It consists of approximately eight acres at the southwest corner of North Nola Road and East Pine Avenue and it is an application for a four-lot subdivision, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 3 of 58 which is eligible under the preliminary/final plat to be heard at once. This item was first heard at the December 2nd, 2004, hearing and was continued at that hearing and at the January 6th, 2005, hearing for the applicant to get the Planning and Zoning Department some -- a revised plat and also a revised landscape plan that met the requirements of the code. Some key issues I will touch on are the -- the extension and development of Locust Grove Road to the west of this subdivision. It is in ACHD's five-year work program and it is anticipated to be five lanes from Franklin to Fairview, which does run through this -- run directly adjacent to this project. It will be a 96-foot right of way with curb, gutter, sidewalk and bike lanes. They are -- ACHD is also improving the -- and widening the intersection of East Pine Avenue and Locust Grove Road and part of the revised -- the revisions to the plat that we did need from the applicant were due to some changes by ACHD and the applicant has made those changes and got that revised plat to us. The north three lots, Lots 1, 2, and 3, will access East Pine Avenue. ACHD has approved one access for the three lots, so one of the conditions of approval is that the applicant report a cross-access agreement, so all three lots do have access to East Pine Avenue. Lot 4 is an existing business. It's Oak Harbor Freight Trucking Company that has been there for several years. It was determined that this lot was split without going through the subdivision process when this Oak Harbor Freight parcel was sold off and now that's why it's included in the subdivision that you see before you tonight. Some more issues just to touch briefly on. The City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan map does show a multi-use pathway along the east side of this development along North Nola Road. Recently -- through recent developments Locust Grove is going to be extended to cross the railroad tracks. Union Pacific is taking away the Nola crossing in order to grant the Locust Grove crossing. Nola will be cul-de-sac's on either side of the railroad, so as a result we do lose a crossing for that multi-use pathway on Nola. Staff anticipates that that will move over to Locust Grove and, then, along East Pine Avenue along the north -- the northern portion of this development to -- to meet where it would have gone previously and maybe we can -- where North Nola Road -- and I wish I had a laser pointer, but -- that will work. Thank you. Where the path was originally shown to go along North Nola Road and make a connection at this point and go out like that, staff anticipates that that will shift over to Locust Grove and across East Pine to make that same connection. Along those lines, we have asked, as a condition of approval, that the applicant provide an easement and I do have a change to the wording of that condition after conferring with city's legal staff. Site specific condition number six reads that the City of Meridian reserves the right to acquire a permanent pedestrian easement in favor of the City of Meridian. City legal staff did recommend that that condition be changed to read that the applicant is to execute a blanket easement to provide -- on the subject property -- to provide an easement on the subject property of sufficient width to cover a ten foot wide pathway along Locust Grove Road and East Pine Avenue. Basically, the situation is we -- we don't really know where that path is going to end up at this point, but we would like to protect the City of Meridian's ability to develop that path in the future and so we are asking that as a condition that that easement be placed on the property and at such point when it's determined where that multi-use pathway will go, then, we will negotiate with the applicant to get that easement and it will be of only sufficient width to cover the ten foot pathway, where ever it is located. Another issue -- the City of Meridian's landscape ordinance does require a 25-foot landscape buffer Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 4 of 58 along Locust Grove and a ten-foot landscape easement -- or buffer along North Nola Road and that does apply to the entire subdivision along its boundaries. We would ask that the applicant revise the plat to extend the shown landscape easements, which stop at the boundary to Lot 4. We would ask that those are extended to the southern boundary of Lot 4 on both sides. And also on the -- the submitted landscape plan, we do require a couple of changes. One is the removal of a conifer from the street buffer, which is prohibited by Meridian City Code and also it was found that there needs to be four additional trees along North Nola Road in the street buffer to meet Meridian City Code requirements. The applicant is also required to submit CC&Rs for the subdivision prior to the City Council hearing that detail their responsibilities for the maintenance and landscaping -- the maintenance and landscaping of the common and parking and drainage areas or the establishment of a business owners association. And with that I will end staff's comments. Zaremba: Any questions from the Commissioners? I would have the record show that Commissioner Keith Borup has joined us. We are all here. All right. We are ready for the applicant to speak. Com ish: Mr. Chairman, my name is Angela Comish, I'm, actually, the civil engineer for this project. Bergey Land Surveying couldn't be here tonight, so I'm representing them, as well as myself. And we have read through the staff report and we are in full concurrence of what they require. We have no problems with anything they ask for and we just appreciate your patience with all the problems that we have had to go through with ACHD and these changes. So, if you have any questions for me, let me know. Otherwise, I will sit back down. Rohm: That's pretty easy. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Was there a resolution to the question about irrigation water being supplied by city water or does that not need to be resolved until it gets to City Council? Comish: We did talk about that and Bruce can give you his input based on what I told him. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, basically, the ditch that serves this area is sporadic -- the flows are sporadic. The irrigation district -- Comish: Wouldn't lay claim to it. Freckleton: Yeah. It's a users lateral ditch and so, basically, what I asked Angie to do was to get me a letter from the irrigation district -- and I believe I have that in my file. We have had a lot of water under the bridge since then, but I think you gave me that. The City Council is the one that is going to have to make the "- you know, grant the waiver for going to city water on this, in lieu of surface irrigation water. Standard condition when the city does allow city water to be used for irrigation is that the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 5 of 58 applicant would be subject to paying well development fees and we would calculate those based on City Council's decision. If they go that direction, we will calculate those fees and they would be subject to those. Zaremba: Thank you. Comish: We would have loved to have used that water. The guy just said I can't guarantee that you're going to have it all the time, so you will have to put in a dual system, you know, for city water and for that and it's like, oh, my gosh, that was just cost prohibitive, so we passed that on and thought that was reasonable, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. We have no one signed up, but that doesn't stop you from speaking if you care to address this issue. It is a subject that we have talked about before, so this is not new to us. I would only comment that when we are ready for a final motion, that we should reference the drawings that were received by the city clerk on January 20, 2005. I would be ready for a motion, if there is no discussion. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on PFP 04-008. Moe: Second. Zaremba: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? The Public Hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Any further discussion, Commissioners? Comments from the staff? None? Newton-Huckabay: Do we have to restate number six? Rohm: I was going to ask that same question. Could we just use Josh's interjection and just replace that as part of number six, rather than have to restate it ourselves? Could we do that? Zaremba: As we are preparing to make the motion, I probably would ask him to read it again now. Wilson: Okay. And I will try not to butcher it so bad this time. Zaremba: And, then, we will incorporate that as part of the motion. Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, I'll actually be happy to take a stab at that, since I was the one that proposed it. And if you do find it acceptable, if you would just simply state item number six as revised by staff that would be fine. So, item number six is proposed to read: Applicant to execute a blanket easement to provide a permanent pedestrian easement in favor of the City of Meridian on the subject property Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 8 of 58 in the future of sufficient width to cover a ten foot wide pathway along Locust Grove and East Pine Avenue, end of quote. And if I could just add, since I have the floor, the reason that we are proposing a blanket easement, as staff has already stated,. is we can't specify the exact location at this time, we just want everyone to be on notice that when the road comes through that we have got that in our favor. That's why it's proposed that way. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Much better stated than I could have I'm sure. Okay. With that being said, Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of PFP 04-008, including all staff comments dated January 31st for the meeting date of February 3rd, 2005, including the plat received January 20th, 2005, with the following changes: On page five of the staff report, item number six will be replaced by staff comments read just previous to this motion. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 04-055 Request for a Conditional Use Permit I Planned Development for office, retail and daycare uses in an I-L zone as required by CUP 04-009 and a request for a building height modification from the previously approved 40-feet to 52-feet for DBSI Realty Corp. by DBSI Realty Corp. - north of West Overland Road and east of South Linder Road: Zaremba: I will open the Public Hearing for CUP 04-055. This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit planned development for office, retail, and daycare uses, in an 1- L zone as required by the CUP 04-009, and their request for a building height modification from the previously approved 40 feet to 52 feet for DBSI Realty Corp by DBSI Realty Corp, north of West Overland Road and east of South Linder Road. And we will begin with the staff presentation. Guenther: The applicant did not post as required, so we will not hear this one tonight. We don't have the appropriate posting, so -- Baird: Mr. Chair, if I could make a suggestion and I will ask for staff to chime in here as well, since I may not be familiar with your procedures, but since you have the Public Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 7 of 58 Hearing open and individuals may be in the audience who received the mailed notice or the published notice, if you choose to perhaps set a continued hearing for a date certain that would be after the required time for the posting, then, those who received the mailed notice and the publication notice would show up at that continued hearing. Now, if staff has another procedure that they'd like to follow -- I'm getting a nod that they prefer to do it that way. Guenther: Yeah. That is the general procedure that they are required to post the site for ten days prior to the Public Hearing and it was not posted and, therefore, we are just postponed two weeks and allow the application to adequately post the site. Zaremba: Right. Because they would have to get it posted by Monday for it to be eligible for the meeting of the 17th. Guenther: That's correct. Zaremba: Or at least the 7th. Have they indicated they can do that? Guenther: I believe they are here and I believe they have actually got the site posted today. They just missed the actual date that they needed to have it posted by. So, it's posted today. Baird: But they will need to change the date. Guenther: And they will meet their ten days for the next meeting. Zaremba: Okay. What is the date on the posted notice? The Public Hearing is open, so, please, begin with your name. Yancey: Wayne Yancey with DBSI Realty. And the date that posted is today's date. Zaremba: Okay. Yancey: That's on the sign. So, we can change that to the next date that you will have your hearing. Zaremba: So, our procedure would be to continue it to the 17th and they will change the date on the sign to the 17th. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that's correct, and if we could get their commitment on the record that they would make that change, so that it -- the 17th would be on -- displayed on the sign for the required ten days, then, we would know that we are covered on that. Zaremba: If you would care to step to the microphone again and state that you will have that change made by Monday. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 8 of 58 Yancey: Yes. We will have that change made probably tomorrow. Zaremba: Okay. Perfect. Yancey: By Monday at least, yes. Zaremba: Thank you very much. Commissioners, I would entertain a motion. Newton-Huckabay: What do we have for the 17th? How many hearings do we have scheduled already? Zaremba: Well, that's a fairly busy day. The 3rd wouldn't be any better, though. Let's see. It looks like 13 items on the 17th, including a short presentation -- or 14, I guess, including a short presentation from Valley Regional Transit. The 3rd of March is about the same. The 17th would be just as safe. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Moe: Are we in Public Hearing now that -- Zaremba: This is an open Public Hearing. We have discussed, now we would continue it. Moe: Right. That's correct. Zaremba: And I'm not closing. Moe: I'm not going to close anything up, but I don't -- I think the 17th would be fine with me. Do you have a problem with that? Borup: No. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move the -- Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move the Public Hearing on CUP 04-055 be continued to the regular Planning and Zoning meeting of the date of February 17th. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: It has been moved and seconded to continue this Public Hearing to February 17th. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 9 of 58 Zaremba: If there is any members of the public that wish to speak on that issue, we will hear you two weeks from now. Rohm: Was there anybody signed up on that? Zaremba: No. Rohm: Okay. Item 6: Public Hearing: CUP 04-053 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a clinic / office in a L-O zone for OB/GYN Associates by ZGA Architects and Planners, Chartered - south of East Franklin Road and east of North Eagle Road: Zaremba: Thank you for asking. Okay. We are ready for the next Item 6 and I will open the Public Hearing for CUP 04-053, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a clinic slash office in an L-O zone for OB/GYN Associates by ZGA Architects and Planners, Chartered, south of East Franklin Road and east of North Eagle Road. And we will begin with the staff presentation. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The site is in the Touchmark Living Center's planned development. It's for -- Moe: Excuse me. Could we speak up just a little bit. Guenther: I'm sorry. Moe: Thank you. Guenther: The Touchmark Planned Development is generally an office/medical clinic area and this is consistent with what their development plan was. This is for an OB/GYN center for -- essentially it was Lot 1, Block 2, of the development. The issue at hand is that there will be a one-time lot line adjustment that will relocate -- or that won't relocate the lot, but it will redo the legal description for the parcel and that, actually, has been submitted to Public Works and is in progress, which is one of the conditions of approval for this site. Generally, staff does not have any issues with this site that are outstanding, with the exception of the one time division must be filed prior to the site -- okay. This is -- I'm sorry here. The site here is what Lot 1, Block 2, would look like. The portion that is in question is going to be this approximately one acre right in the southwest corner of that lot and this is what the site would look like. This is the fire department's rendition where they can show that they provide services without using this access on this location, because this is longer than 150 feet and does not meet their minimum requirements, but they are within 150 feet of every site -- every portion of the building on the site. There will be compact stalls located just north of the building. This would, essentially, be a staff parking lot for the doctors that will be servicing this Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page100f58 site and the customer parking, handicapped parking, and access is mainly from the south portion of the building in this area. There are five parking spaces to the east of the building that will be utilized, as the applicant will probably discuss, for quick drive- ups, since this is OB/GYN, this is also emergency style deliveries, et cetera, and this is for that type of an issue. One of the conditions of approval states that if ACHD requires this access here to become a public road, then, these parking stalls must go away. Other than that, there will be an additional fire hydrant that will be located here and another one in this location, as per what the conditions of approval have stated, that were not on the plans that were submitted. And with that, staff has recommended approval of this project with the conditions stated in the report. Zaremba: There were, as I recall, sufficient parking spaces without those five. They are not in jeopardy of -- Guenther: That is correct. I believe they are required -- the applicant has proposed 68 parking spaces and the required was 53. So, if they lose those five, they are still going to have sufficient parking for the site. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commissioners? applicant would care to come forward. If the Scoffield: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Tom Scoffield, ZGA Architects. We agree wholeheartedly with the comments in the report and appreciate their time and consideration on this issue. We will comply with the requirement, subject to ACHD approval on those five spaces. Because of the organization of that we don't anticipate that that will become a public right of way, but in that case we will comply with those requirements. With respect to the other items, the cross-access agreement, we have filed that as of today, I understand, and I believe we do have our lot line adjustment in place. Guenther: The lot line -- I saw the lot line adjustment. I don't know what the status of it is. It's in progress, if not completed. Newton-Huckabay: I'm just curious. Are you, actually, going to deliver babies at this facility? Scoffield: No. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Scoffield: No. We are approximately a quarter mile away from the hospital and the intent is that the physicians will service the hospital fromthis facility. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. The emergency parking spaces are just-- Scoffield: Well, you don't want to be running. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 11 of 58 Newton-Huckabay: It's been a long time. Zaremba: Any other questions? Thank you. Scoffield: Thank you. Zaremba: We do have some people who have signed up to speak. First appears to be Jim Owenby. And I forgot to mention, when you come forward, if you would, please, begin by stating your name and address for the record, please. Owenby: My name is Jim Owenby. I live at 3359 North Montvue, the Montvue Subdivision. To be very concise, the questions that we have with this project is probably in getting it started. First of all, there is the issue of irrigation water, which is brought across the backside of that site. Could we change this map, so we can kind of look at it? There we go. Does this work? Zaremba: There should be button on it somewhere. Owenby: Oh, you got to hold it. Okay. That box -- there is a collection box about right here and runs across here and that -- this side here runs the water north to the subdivision off of here, there is a diversion that runs south and back across to the south side of the subdivision. That's a 15-inch irrigation line across there and, typically, when we get into these sites it's kind of an afterthought, realizing, oh, gosh, we have irrigation in here. I would like to be assured that that's not going to be interrupted this year before we start this project. The other concern that we have is probably the berm, which would be on the west side, which is along through here, if that would be continued from the berm that they have between the Touchmark property and Montvue Subdivision at this time. The other concern is the construction entrance, if they are going to use the old St. Luke's entrance, which is approximately just to the south of that, or if they are going to have a lot of traffic back through our subdivision, back through Montvue Subdivision, like we had last year. And I guess the third is probably the dust abatement that they are going to handle, because Mr. Roehr and also Mr. Robinette is right next to this. That's right in their backyard. That's my main concerns. Rohm: Good questions. Owenby: Okay. Zaremba: I saw the applicant making some notes and he will address those when he comes up. Tom Scoffield is listed as next, but he has spoken and will get a chance again. Carl Woods. Woods: Carl Woods, ZGA Architects. I have nothing to add. Zaremba: Thank you. Dr. Phil Agrusa. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 12 of 58 Agrusa: Phil Agrusa from OB/GYN Associates. I have nothing to add. Zaremba: Thank you. The last two speakers had checked off being in the for column and they have nothing to add in favor. Let's see. And Greg Thueson, I believe it is, also marked as for. Thueson: Yes. My name is Greg Thueson. I live 4263 Nystrom Way in Boise and I have been asked by the owner of the property in I believe the northwest corner of Montvue Subdivision to attend tonight. At the last minute he was not able to come, but, particularly for one issue and that is that he is -- this is Carl and Pam Nicolaison that own the property and they have had at one time sold a little piece off the back and retained an easement to the back of their lot -- and if we could have the aerial view a second. And what I was instructed to do is just to point out that they own this lot right there and they have an easement to what they had understood would be the roadway going along the backside of this property and so they want to make sure that they protect the easement right about there going into the back acreage behind the house that they use there. So, I would want you to know that they are encouraging the rezone and the use for what it is intended, but they want to make sure that they are protected in retaining that easement for access to their property from that particular border onto the adjoining road. Their understanding is that that would be a main road that went back to the hospital. That was their understanding. They own many properties and they apologize for not being here and I hope that I have made my comments in the direction that they would wish me to. That's alii will address. Thank you. Freckleton: Excuse me. Mr. Chair, can I ask Mr. Thueson a question? Zaremba: Yes. And I was going to, too. I'm concerned that on what appears to be the proposal, that easement doesn't go anywhere. Was that what your question was going to be? Thueson: Yeah. It will have to go to an exit outside somewhere I suppose. It's a recorded easement. Freckleton: I guess my question was is it on the Touchmark property? Does it -- is the easement -- Thueson: My understanding is it borders all of the property to the immediate east of this parcel that they own. So, yes, it is a recorded easement in the county. They have owned the property for, I believe, something on the order of about three or four years. And I hope I'm not out of line, but that's what they asked me to come and address. Freckleton: Okay. The preliminary plat that was submitted for Touchmark Plaza Subdivision by Briggs Engineering does show 20 feet adjacent to the west boundary and calls out an instrument number for a recorded document, but it is called out as a utility easement. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 130f58 Thueson: No. It's an access easement across -- it's an access easement to the roadway. The understanding they had was it would be roadway there. Public access. Freckleton: Okay. Thueson: That's what I have been led to believe. And forgive me if I don't have more information. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if I might point out that your decision tonight on the matter that's before you will not affect whatever rights exit between the parties. So, it really is up to them to enforce the easement that they believe exists. Thueson: That's fine. Borup: And, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe there ever was a roadway in that location, though, on any other previous plats, were there? Thueson: I don't think there was -- I think it was excavated and showed originally asa construction access to the hospital when they were building at one point, but that's all I know. Borup: Right. But the existing road there -- that's there now is the only one that was ever on any of the designs. Thueson: That may be. Zaremba: I don't remember ever seeing a drawing that had a roadway there, other than construction access. Rohm: Well, an easement would show on the plat, if, in fact, it was within that property, I would think. So, maybe the easement is paraliel to that west line of the property, as opposed to being included as part of the property. I don't know. But I think legal counsel spoke to it properly, if, in fact, you have an easement, then, our actions tonight won't change that in any way. Thueson: Exactly. And the Nicolaisons wanted me to convey that they are in favor of the rezone, they think that's a good thing, but, you know, I'm thinking that they are assuming that the main road entry to that was coming right up along the side of their property and that was going to be one of the accesses. So, they just want to make sure they retain that easement and ability to access their parcel there. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. That concludes everybody that signed up. Is there anybody else that cares to step forward and make comment? We will turn it over to Mr. Scoffield again. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 140f58 Scoffield: Tom Scoffield again. I picked up two comments that I just choose to respond to or -- and maybe I didn't write notes quite quick enough. With respect to construction access, both the developer and ourselves would not find it desirable to access the site through Montvue Subdivision and we can work with our contractors to stipulate that. Insofar as the collector box and irrigation is concerned, as far as we are aware that is actually off our site and it has not been reflected in any grading, drainage plans that we have seen to date. My suspicion is is that it's just a little bit further to the eastern portion of the site -- and perhaps maybe we flip to the site plan. I'm just guessing that that occurs up here and beyond. I will certainly contact Touchmark and bring that up with their civil engineers and get that responded to. But I don't believe that impacts our site. With respect to the berm -- Zaremba: On the -- still on the irrigation subject, just to clarify, regardless of where you find that it is, that the rules are that you need to end up with delivery in the same quantities and the same location -- Scoffield: Understood. Zaremba: -- to the neighbors. Okay. Borup: Mr. Chairman, then, they also -- the testimony was that one of the ditches crossed this property. Are you aware if that is the case? Scoffield: I have walked the property and not seen a ditch. At this time the site is being utilized as a construction parking lot, by and large, and I'm not aware of an irrigation ditch, at least insofar as the boundaries of this site. Borup: Of this particular site. Scoffield: It's, actually, a fairly large site. We are talking about one acre. The composition of the site is, I'm guessing, on the order of seven acres. Guenther: Mr. Chairman, may I just -- I just -- I pulled up the other plat here. The 15- inch irrigation comes in at this location, comes across, and down the border of Lot 1, Block 2. The site in question actually is a portion of that, which is here, and Mr. Scoffield is correct that the 15-inch does not affect this site. Actually, it's in the right of way. Borup: So, it's on the parcel that's outlined in black, but this site is just in the corner of that. Guenther: Once they do their one -- once they do their lot line adjustment, it no longer will affect this parcel. Zaremba: Okay. Which means that nothing that this project is doing changes the traditional delivery from the way it was, if I'm understanding correctly. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 15 of 58 Borup: But as was stated by the Chairman, the delivery still will need to stay in place. The water will still be delivered. On any future development, too. Scoffield: The third item I picked up was the berm. It's our intent to leave the berm to the greatest degree that's possible and if you could flip to the site plan. The berm, apparently, extends sort of in this area. Obviously, with the building we are going to be removing a portion of it to level the site. To the greatest degree possible we are protecting it and leaving it in place. There -- as far as the footage goes, I think that we will probably lose on the order of 18 to 24 inches in this portion right along here. That is the length and breadth of it. I was just looking at the grading and drainage plans this morning. And it's our intent to maintain that. We consider that a benefit to our site and a benefit to our project and something that the users are looking forward to enjoying. Moe: The only other issue he had brought up was the dust abatement. I anticipate, then, on your plan you may make a note that the contractors are responsible for taking care of that? Scoffield: I would be pleased to, along with all our other environmental integrations. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Staff? All right. I guess we are ready for discussion. Thank you. Scoffield: Thank you. Zaremba: Any discussion, Commissioners? Rohm: No. I think it's pretty straightforward. I don't have any additional comments. And with that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 04- 053. Moe: Second. Zaremba: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, you appear to be ready. Rohm: Well, I guess so. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-053, to include all staff comments, dated January 31st, for the hearing date February 3rd, and I don't think there is any changes, so end of motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 160f58 Moe: Would you say those dates again? Rohm: The transmittal date of January 31st, 2005, for the hearing date of February 3rd, 2005. Newton-Huckabay: My transmittal date is January 4th. Moe: I have a 4th date also. Rohm: I have January -- I may have the wrong one. I do. Excuse me. Excuse me. For the transmittal date January 4th, 2005, for the hearing date of 2000 -- February 3rd, 2005. Moe: I will second that. Zaremba: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Good catch, Dave. Item 7: Public Hearing: RZ 05-001 Request for a Rezone of .249 acres from R-8 to 0- T zone for Robert Monson by Robert Monson - 829 North Meridian Road: Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 05-001 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an office / retail use in an O-T zone for Robert Monson by Robert Monson - 829 North Meridian Road: Zaremba: Next I will open two related public hearings, Items 7 and 8 on our agenda, RZ 05-001, request for a rezone of .249 acres from R-8 to OT zone and Public Hearing CUP 05-001, request a Conditional Use Permit for an office/retail use in an OT zone. Both of these are for Robert Monson by Robert Monson, 829 North Meridian Road. And we will begin with the staff presentation. Wilson: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, the Robert Monson rezone and Conditional Use Permit is located at the southwest corner of East Pine Avenue and North Meridian Road. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from R-8 to OT, Old Town. The applicant proposes to convert an existing residence to 599 square feet of retail and 800 square feet of office space. Some key considerations for the proposal are parking and Meridian Road right of way. The parking -- I will note that the applicant did submit a revised site plan at the beginning of the hearing. I will just switch to that now. The applicant has added an additional parking space to the -- to the lot at the west end of the building there adjacent to the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 170f58 handicap spot. The applicant's representative did briefly mention to me that their intent is not to increase the ratio of retail to office space, but in the future the applicant may be interested in adding a little bit of office space to the rear of the building. I would add the condition that I would modify a parking condition that any additional office space must meet the requirements of Meridian City Code in regards to parking, that the -- any additional space added to the building cannot exceed -- for office space it would be 400 square feet for that additional parking spot. The Meridian City Code does require one parking space per 400 square feet for office and one parking space for 200 square feet for retail. So, when there is mixed uses like this, we -- there is a concern to -- that that ratio is limited, that the parking requirements aren't exceeded. If the building was all retail, it will not meet parking requirements and if it was all office they would, actually, have too much parking. So, it's a little bit difficult getting that information this late, but staff is comfortable that as long as the -- any additional building space is constrained to what can be serviced by that one additional parking space, that the new site plan is okay. Meridian Road -- ACHD in their report has requested 42 feet of right of way from centerline to be dedicated for future widening of Meridian Road. With the -- with the special consideration noted in their report to the City of Meridian that Meridian Road may, in fact, be wider through that portion and may require 96 foot total right of way, which would be six feet larger than the 42 they are requesting right now. It would be 48 feet from centerline, which would take an additional six feet of the property. Because the design of Meridian Road is in flux right now and nobody's really sure what it's going to take, the City of Meridian would like to protect that right of way and prevent any development to encroach into that in the event that Meridian Road does become five lanes and require the 96 feet right of way. And in conference with the city legal staff, there was a suggestion of slight change of how to do that. Condition of approval number three requested a temporary right of way easement in favor of the City of Meridian. City legal staff did suggest that the word temporary be removed and an easement for that six feet be placed on the property and at such time that -- it's, actually, if at such time that that is not needed, then, that easement could be vacated. They felt that was a better way to go about that. Another consideration in relation to that right of way, in the staff report -- and the Commission should have received a memo about the sign proposed for the project. The applicant is actually proposing one free-standing sign with the project and has brought details of that sign to the hearing tonight. I would add to the condition of the sign that it be placed outside of that six foot easement in favor of the City of Meridian for that future right of way development. The applicant can speak to site constraints. If that works for them -- I don't have a scale drawing in front of me here to see how that's going to fit in with their plan, but they can speak to that in their application. Between retail and office use like this, any adjacent residences, Meridian City Code does require the 20-foot land use buffer. Because of site constraints, the applicant is able to provide, I believe, approximately four feet along the southern boundary of the property. Okay. Five. And, then, I believe six feet on the west portion of the property. There is a dense -- well, there is some large trees and some healthy shrubs along that property line that do aid in the screening of that property line and staff does support alternative compliance for that -- for that south and west land use buffers, due to site constraints and the ability of the applicant to provide those 20 foot buffers. We would ask that the applicant is willing to work with city staff on any Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 18 of58 additional plantings that would be required in there. The applicant has not shown any and has represented that any additional plantings would not do well along that property line, because of the close proximity of the existing vegetation. It actually sits on the property line, but city staff would like the opportunity to determine the exact locations of that vegetation and see if any additional should be required along there. And also along the west property line where the applicant has proposed the addition of some trees. But we'd also like to work with them to see if anymore could be added. And all this is to reduce the impacts on the adjacent residences and that's why that provision is in the Meridian City Code. Staff is aware that the residence does contain a basement, which is not included in the square footage calculations of the office and retail space proposed. The new development with the added parking space, I would like to -- I would like to leave the restriction on -- or the condition on the application that the basement should not be used. We have been provided information regarding the square footage of the basement and I believe there is some access issues, too. So, we would like -- I would like to retain that condition on there and allow that extra parking space to serve in any additional square footage added to the building in the rear and maybe the applicant could speak to what their plans are in that regard. The applicant is required to install automatic underground irrigation to service all of the landscaped areas on the property. At last I spoke to them, they did not believe that non-potable irrigation water was available and I would ask them to speak to what they found out about that and if it's determined that there is no non-potable irrigation water available to the property, then, they'd need to submit evidence of that to the Public Works Department for a hook up to city water for that pressurized irrigation system. And with that I will end staff's comments and take questions from the Commission. Zaremba: Okay. Questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Zaremba: I have a question about the basement. I understand that it's perfectly logical that it certainly should not be used for any customer area, but would they still be able to use it for storage or maybe an employee -- would they be able to use it for storage or probably an employee lounge or something that didn't involve customers going there? Wilson: Meridian City Code does have parking requirements for storage and warehousing areas. When the application originally came through, they were max'd out on parking and without a chance to evaluate, you know, the additional parking spot that now that they have been able to gain it, you know, it could serve some additional office space in the rear of the building and maybe could meet the requirements of that storage -- of some storage in the basement. I haven't had time -- haven't had time to analyze that yet, but that is a possibility, but if the extra parking space had not been added, no, they couldn't use that basement for storage, because the parking requirements would not be able to be met. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 190f58 Rohm: How many square feet is the basement? Wilson: I, actually, don't know. That information wasn't provided. Zaremba: Okay. Would the applicant care to come forward? Edwards: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Wes Edwards, I'm the architect of record. I'm representing the applicant tonight. I reside at 3486 West Angelica Drive in Meridian. I'm going to answer -- first I'll answer a few of the questions that have been gone through and, then, I will get to some of my testimony. First of all, since we are on the basement, the basement is used primarily just for utility. It's a mechanical room, furnace, water heater, so forth. It will not be used for anything other than that for this occupancy. And the irrigation -- I have been trying to get ahold of John Anderson at the irrigation district, trying to -- I have got an application from them, they want to review the project. I have surveyed the property with my civil engineer and trying to see if there is any irrigation water on the property. We. have seen none. So, I'm trying to figure out through the irrigation district if they know otherwise. And so I will provide that as soon as I can get written notification from the irrigation district. As to the square footage that was talked about in regards to the rear of the building, the applicant is just -- some of the offices that are on the rear of the building, that's where the office space is located, are rather small and there is a possibility of adding two to four feet on the back of the building, which would add maybe 65 square feet to the overall building. So, we are not talking immense amount of square footage, we are only talking about a small amount overall, which wouldn't affect our parking ratios whatsoever. And as far as the landscaping that Josh had spoken about -- Josh, could you put that photograph -- that color photograph up? I think that had the neighbor's landscaping. Well, no, it doesn't. Never mind. I apologize. The neighboring property -- the landscaping and the shrubs are so dense you can barely walk between them and they overhang onto our property and to plant any additional landscaping on that south boundary would be impossible and the vegetation, like Josh said, would not live. And to the west we are indicating some new trees on that side. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Edwards? Edwards: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I know the property behind is still residential. Is the one on the south still residential? Edwards: Yes, it is. And the -- that property owner is here tonight as well. As you can see, the home is a very -- it's a very beautiful home. It's an historic home. It's not on the historic register yet. It may be. The applicant may choose to do that at some point. But it was built -- what year was that built? 1911. It is in very good condition for its age and very beautiful home and it has great character and great spirit for this part of town and it's -- a lot of buildings of this nature are being changed into offices and retail shops in this part of town. As you can tell by our site plan, we were rather restrained in our Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 20 of 58 parking, but we were able to squeeze as much on there as we possibly could. We have attempted to do 45 degree wherever we could, but it just wasn't possible. We have seen other people in town trying to just squeeze in where -- and they just aren't able to do it. The sign that we have proposed, which is on the sheets that we provided, is -- would be a manufactured sign that would be made to reflect the architecture of the front porch. So, it would be in context with the building. It wouldn't just be an eye sore out in the front yard with neon or anything, it would be textured to look like the concrete or the stucco that was on the building and very well designed. Now, as far as the easement and the right of ways, that's where we have a lot of concern. The Meridian Road is in flux right now. There is not a lot of decision -- final -- not a lot of finality as to what is going to happen when. There is a lot of concept as, yes, this is what we want. This would be nice. This is when we would like it to happen. But there is no funding in place to make it happen. There is no plan in place as to when it's going to happen. We have been asked to give up 12 feet of the property already by ACHD as a right of way. And now we are being asked to give up another six feet in an easement, when the decision hasn't really been finalized yet as to what the future of Meridian Road is. We would propose that rather than enforcing easements or -- for future right of ways, until those right of ways are determined what they are going to be, is since this is an historic home that isn't going to be -- we are not going to be adding on a conglomerate of additions on the front of this home, we want to preserve this structure, is just to create a condition that says that we cannot make any developments in the front of that building -- within that -- within that area, prevent us from developing in the front area, with the exception of the sign that we want to reflect that -- that we have shown here. In addition, we would also like the Commission to consider that there have been other numerous buildings along Meridian Road that are currently under construction, new buildings, that have not had this easement -- that have not had this right of way placed upon them that are right -- right out close to where these easements would be, right in their front yard. And we feel that this home is -- needs some consideration and that the -- the applicant should not have to have his property just start being chopped away when things aren't really decided yet on that road. Any questions? Rohm: Mr. Edwards, my question is specific to that easement. If, in fact, the Meridian Road issue is resolved and, in fact, it's not expanded to include that additional six feet, I believe it was staff's recommendation that the easement be vacated. So, I'm a little bit curious -- Edwards: Well, I mean the easement puts restrictions on it -- of doing anything and he has -- I can turn the time over to him and, then, he can speak more of what his concerns are on that easement if you -- Rohm: Well, I'd like to hear that, because from my perspective, the easement is the lesser of all evils, because it doesn't -- it doesn't take it from you, but it gives you an opportunity to have full use of it, if, in fact, the road's not further developed. Edwards: But part of that was saying that the sign couldn't have even been in it. You know, they were saying the sign can't be in the easement. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 21 of 58 Rohm: SO, that was the issue, is the location of the sign? Edwards: No, not just the sign, you know, the easement puts restrictions on us, too. So, I'll turn the time over to Mr. Monson and let him speak to -- Rohm: Somebody else might have questions. Edwards: Other than -- okay. Borup: The right of way that you show on the site plan, is that a -- what is that dimension? Edwards: That is the 12-foot right of way that ACHD is requiring as per their current plan that is in place. Borup: So, an overall right of way of what? The 84? Edwards: The 84 I think was the -- Moe: Yeah. It was the 84 and, then, they wanted the other -- Edwards: Yeah. Borup: Okay. So, this was the -- the right of way you're showing is for 84? Edwards: Yeah. Borup: All right. And do you know what that distance is from the -- from that right of way to your sidewalk, the new sidewalk? Edwards: From the right of way to the existing sidewalk there? Borup: Well, your site plan says new sidewalk. Edwards: The one where we are replacing -- Borup: Oh. Okay. I see. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Borup, do you have a -- Borup: It's about ten feet. Edwards: You're talking about this sidewalk? Borup: Yes. Okay. No. I can see it here. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 22 of 58 Edwards: It's about eight feet. Borup: Yeah. Twenty-two -- a little over 22 total. So, if you had taken 12, then, you have about ten there. Okay. That was alii had. Edwards: Okay. Just -- I mean Mr. Monson just feels like everyone just -- the ACHD, it takes so much and, then, the City of Meridian wants so much, it just -- it just keeps chopping away and keeps getting closer and closer to the building and, you know-- Borup: Well, the City of Meridian is not taking anything. Edwards: Well, they are requesting it. They are requesting that-- Borup: That would go to ACHD. Edwards: Yeah. Zaremba: They are requesting to preserve what ACHD will eventually need for a five- lane road. Edwards: Well, something that mayor may not -- Zaremba: Well, since we are on the subject, let me say where that is in the progress. Edwards: I'm familiar with it. Zaremba: Downtown Meridian Steering Committee meeting has settled on a preferred scenario for handling traffic on both Main and Meridian and their recommendation is that Meridian be five lane in this area. That presentation has been made to ACHD and they agree with it. It's been made to the City Council and they agree with it. The only thing that remains to be done is to have public hearings on it and, then, make it a part of our Comprehensive Plan, so -- Edwards: And funding. Zaremba: -- it's very likely that that's going to eventually be the solution, that there will be a five-lane road during this -- in this portion of Meridian. Edwards: Yeah. Zaremba: And that's not in very much doubt, it just hasn't -- it's not etched in stone yet. Edwards: That's right. I'm aware of that plan. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 23 of 58 Zaremba: Now you mentioned other properties. There is a property probably three to the. south of this that came through six or eight months ago and we had a similar discussion. The decision was not as far along as it is now and we did allow them to build into what eventually may be taken back away from them. Newton-Huckabay: That was my question. Zaremba: And we were very concern about it, then, but at that point there was not enough progress made for us to make a decision on that. I personally feel there has been enough progress made this time that we do need to be leaning towards preserving that space for ACHD to take, so that you don't have to end up moving the sign and other stuff again later. Edwards: Anymore questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Mr. Edwards was the only one signed up to speak on that issue. If anybody else would care to, now is the time. Monson: Good evening. My name is Robert Monson and I live at 254 North Tuscan Road in Meridian and my first comment is you see on the back of the property where it's got the little jog -- Rohm: You have a pointer up there, a laser pointer. Monson: Okay. Right here. This little area, that little jog, that little jog is -- eventually is what's going to be squared away. So, that's going to be -- as long as I'm the owner, that's going to be the permanent, you know, print foot -- footprint of the building, so that was the addition of that, you know, square footage we were talking about. It's under a hundred square feet. But as far as the right of way, I think, obviously, as an owner, you know, I don't want to give up any right of way or easement, if I can possibly do it. And I think from your point of view you want to preserve that or have that and I think currently for any future use or whatever the road requirement may be, there is going to be a lot of property from Meridian, say from Franklin to Fairview, going to be a lot of property, probably, going to get involved in this -- in these easements and widening the road and so forth and under all those circumstances, obviously, I think all your -- the city's interest or the highway's interest or whoever is going to be ownership of this road, that's certainly protected under current administrative law, you know, to go in and access eminent domain and take whatever they need. So, if we do not -- if you folks lift this requirement of me at this time and, then, when the project becomes finalized in the design and there is funding and it actually takes place, you know, there is going to be a whole group of properties which, you know, when you're drawing out the lines, that it will all be taken at that time. So, that's what I'm asking, if I can just wait and do it when it actually, you know, gets funded and built. Rohm: I think the thing that we are trying to avoid is having something built on that portion that we know is inevitably going to be a roadway and, then, have to compensate Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 24 of 58 for the removal of something we know is not going to be available to you at some point in time anyway. Monson: Well, then, you could make a requirement of me, which I certainly agree to, that the 12 feet and the six feet, that no permanent structures go on, other than my sign, and that I would pay any expense to relocate my sign at that time. Rohm: And I think that the easement does just that. That's what the easement does. Monson: Oh, absolutely. Other than I don't want to give up an easement right now for a zoning change, if it's possible. Rohm: I can understand your point. Thank you. Monson: So, I'm asking consideration be given to that fact, because, you know, there is definitely authority based in, you know, governments to -- you know, at that time to take whatever they need. Also down the same side of the street there is -- I don't know about underground utilities, but there is major secondary power lines, there is a lot of things that will have to be moved out of the way, so there is going to be a lot of people involved with it at that time. And I have no problems whatsoever, you know, whenever the project begins, to -- you know, whatever happens at that time, but -- and if it doesn't happen on the -- actually, I have been in the utility business for some years and I have never seen any right of ways or easements vacated in my life that I'm aware of. I imagine they have happened, but I'm sure -- and also it would be a burden on me. You know, I'd have to be the person to, you know, bear the expense to try to get something vacated. Borup: We vacate them every few months in this Commission. Monson: Well -- and I'm sure they have. I'm just saying, you know, I have never seen them happen, but -- anyway, final comment, I just request that that requirement be lifted and maybe replaced by verbiage that, you know, no permanent structures be built, other than my sign, and, then, I would pay to re -- you know, relocate my sign at that time. And, actually, if you have that one picture, you can see where it's a pretty small front yard. I mean there is no room to build anything. And, basically, the edge of the picture on the lower part is probably pretty close to where the actual property ends. Thank you. Zaremba: Is there anybody else who cares to speak on the subject? Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, if I could just add a couple things that I inadvertently skipped over in my presentation. Zaremba: Please do. Wilson: This -- the historic preservation committee did consider this application tonight in their hearing and I think consistent with what the applicant's proposing, they would Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 25 of 58 like to see no modifications to the facade of this building. So, we would like to just get that in the record. That is what the applicant is proposing. So, I think that they are happy with that. In addition, in regards to the new memo about the sign, there was a proposed change to condition of approval number seven that I would just like to get into the record. Staff would propose that condition number seven be modified to read: The proposed sign is approved as presented at public hearing with any modifications required by the Commission. One freestanding sign will be allowed for the project as presented during the hearing and shall conform to the limited office standards for signage in the zoning ordinance. And -- end quote. And under any modifications required by Commission, the matter before you is if that sign should be located in that city -- in that easement, we are requesting and -- you know, how it fits on the site there. I think the applicant has addressed that they would like to place that sign in the easement. Our intent with the easement is to minimize the burden on ACHD and/or the City of Meridian when, in fact, that right of way is developed. I'm not -- I'm not familiar if we can condition that the applicant would pay for the moving of that sign at such time, but the city's concern, you know, is bearing the cost, or ACHD, of that -- of the moving of that sign. Rohm: Don't you think it would be better just to not allow the sign to be put in that six foot area? As part of the Conditional Use Permit, you can add any conditions of approval and it seems logical that you just don't allow the sign to be placed there in the first place. Wilson: And I think staff would support that position. Newton-Huckabay: See, I disagree. Well, we have all these properties in Old Town that we want to see developed. This house is, I believe, empty now and here we have someone coming through that wants to improve it and everybody's concern is to put a sign out near a street and not against the easement, necessarily, but I think that we should explore the idea of whether or not we can put that sign as a temporary use in there. I just don't want to see us discouraging development in Old Town and it seems like every time an application comes through for property in Old Town -- these properties were not designed to fit into the ordinances as we have them and we are always faced with these kind of -- you know, there is not enough room for parking, there is not enough room for a sign -- I mean, personally, I would like to see the property developed into -- into some use and I think accommodating a request for a sign inside, you know, of an easement that the city requires, I think we should explore whether or not we can do that with their offer to move the sign later. Rohm: I'm not opposed to that either. With the -- if we can word it such that the applicant has to cover the cost of relocating the sign, I just don't think that it's right to -- in full well knowing that at some point in time the sign would have to be relocated, that we would encumber the City of Meridian or Ada County Highway District to relocate a sign that we know would have to be moved anyway, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 28 of 58 Newton-Huckabay: Well, that would be -- I mean to explore whether or not we have that option. Zaremba: I would, actually, turn that question over to our city attorney, but I would -- before he speaks express an opinion as well, but, basically, I'm in favor of the whole idea. I think Old Town is in transition and what were formerly residences are being changed into businesses and I would like to encourage that for this property, but it makes sense to me to think of a time line. I'm -- because I serve on the steering committee and other transportation committees, I'm convinced that Meridian is at some point going to be five lane and that we do need to preserve that. However, even if that process happened about as quick as anything could happen, the pavement isn't going to move for five years, seven years, nine years, and I -- if there is a legal way to do it, I would be in favor of the sign being able to be closer to the existing current street where it is, where it would be a useful sign, with the understanding that when some year that change in width occurs, the applicant bears -- I think the applicant had an excellent compromise. The applicant bears the expense of moving the sign to -- I'm very definite in my feeling that we need to preserve the future right of way and I believe the future right of way will be five lanes, but, in the meantime, the applicant's sign is 20 feet away from the street. So, having given that opinion let me ask the attorney whether there is a wording that we can use the applicant's compromise of moving the sign at the applicant's expense. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, in listening to your comments, as well as the comments of the applicant, I don't think you're that far apart, and if it is your decision to include a condition requiring the additional six feet of right of way, you could include language in that condition, as well as in condition number seven, regarding the sign, saying that the only structure to be allowed within the right of way would be the sign as proposed, with the condition that at such time that Ada County Highway District or its successor organization, would need that for actual right of way purposes, that the sign would be relocated at the expense of the existing property owner at that time. You can also include language in the easement itself that at such time that the final determination is made for the alignment of the Meridian Road right of way under the current consideration, if it doesn't require the six foot right of way, that you're requesting that that easement could, in fact, be extinguished at that date that that's determined. So, rather than being a temporary easement. it would be more of a conditional easement, that it's reserved until such time that that determination is made. Newton-Huckabay: And that requires that the applicant wouldn't have to go through the -- Baird: It would still require that documents be made and it would be a process very similar to the vacation process that you go through now, but at least language would be in there that would indicate that the uncertainty that you're looking at right now and acknowledging the fact that you're only asking for it, because everything is in flux, if it's determined that it's not needed, then, it could, indeed, go away, that future Planning and Zoning Commissions and future City Councils would be bound by that language, that it Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3,2005 Page 27 of 58 wouldn't just be an easement forever that would never be needed once that right of way is determined how wide it's going to be. Is that making sense? It's sort of giving -- telegraphing what you're thinking and getting it permanently on the record. And certainly our legal staff would be willing to work with Planning and Zoning to get the exact language to fulfill whatever intent that you want to put on the record tonight. Zaremba: Thank you. I believe I asked if there is any other public that care to make comment. We had some discussion. And Mr. Edwards may care to add more or discuss with us what we have been discussing, give you an opportunity to respond. Edwards: I did have one further comment on the sign. If it were to be -- I mean it sounds like we are getting -- making progress onto the location and I think I just -- if it were not allowed in the easement, it would be forced up against the building, which would be unattractive at this time and unusable, really, and we'd just like that to be considered. We are still not in favor of the easement, but we don't -- we'd like that to be considered still, but other than that, appreciate your time. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 05-001 and for the Public Hearing on CUP 05-001. Rohm: I'll second that motion. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close the two public hearings. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: I think this is your deal. Zaremba: pleasure. Further discussion? Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, we await your Newton-Huckabay: I made my comments and I think everyone knows how I feel about that. I think that we would allow the sign near the road, give the business an opportunity to succeed. If I were putting a business in that property, I would want my sign as close to the road as it could be. Rohm: And I think that's a good comment. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 28 of 58 Zaremba: I agree with that and am seeking a way to have it moved at no cost to the city. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Freckleton has a comment. And I agree. I think what the attorney -- I think Mr. Zaremba: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Is it that obvious? Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just a thought and that is with what Chairman said about the length of time that it possibly could be out in the future and the concern I have got is tracking a condition or -- in the future seven years from now, whenever that this happens, trying to find that condition that says that the applicant is -- this sign gets moved at his expense. I think the best way to handle that is if it is written into the easement language. So, as you were talking it kind of sounded to us like maybe you were for the easement, maybe not -- you know, not going to go for the easement. The concern I have got is that the condition would get lost if it was not in an easement that is actually recorded. Seven years from now when the easement is brought back up, that language is right there, it's a recorded document, and it's not going to get lost in an archive file someplace. So, just for your consideration. Zaremba: That's a good point of discussing method. I would feel that I am in favor of the easement, but I think what we are saying is we are in favor of allowing the sign to currently be in -- within the easement. We are deleting the temporary from the easement, but I would allow the sign on a temporary basis, to be moved at the owner's expense if the easement is needed. But I do agree with Mr. Freckleton, that the easement should exist and that would be the proper place to put the wording for future movement of the sign. Moe: I would concur the same. So, who is going to make that motion? Zaremba: We are awaiting a motion. Borup: Well, the first motion is a little easier on the rezone. We don't have anything that's affecting the rezone. I mean -- and the main discussion we had would be on the CUP. Rohm: Correct. Borup: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'd move that we recommend to City Council approval of RZ 05-001, request for a rezone of 2.49 acres from R-8 to OT -- Old Town Zone for documents from hearing date of February 3rd, 2005. Moe: Second. Zaremba: Moved and seconded to recommend approval of RZ 05-001. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 29 of 58 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Now the tough one. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup? Borup: Well, let me run through this and see if this maybe sounds adequate. And that's on -- well, we have got condition number three and five, that both talk about -- no, five was -- Zaremba: You're on page eight? Borup: Yeah. On page eight. Actually, number three is what we want to look at. So, does this make sense? Prior to issuance, et cetera, the applicant shall provide a six foot right of way easement along Meridian Road in favor of ACHD or the City of Meridian, just as stated, removing the word temporary and, then, so on to say at such time as ACHD is in need of the right of way, that the relocation of the sign will be at the expense of the property owner or at such time if it was determined that the right of way is not needed, that the easement may be vacated. Rohm: That would be added to item three, then? Borup: Yeah. Unless we want to add the sign in there, too. Rohm: I would think that you would want to just leave the vacation of the easement as part of item three and, then, add the discussion of the other sign -- Borup: In number seven? Rohm: -- in number seven. Borup: Okay. Moe: That's going -- Zaremba: I like the way that's stated and I think it doesn't hurt if we repeat a section of it again in seven. I see the city attorney nodding his head. I liked the way you put it and we can mention the sign again in seven. Baird: That way if you can leave it -- pardon me for interrupting, Members of the Commission. If you leave it in number three, that makes sure it -- the language actually gets into the easement and, then, by repeating it again in number seven, it shows what condition the sign is being approved under. So, you're on the right track there. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 30 of 58 Borup: Okay. So, want me to try again? Zaremba: Continuing with the motion. Borup: Well, I was just asking if that wording sounded appropriate, so -- well, let me try a motion, then. Zaremba: Oh, I thought that was. Borup: No. I was just seeing if that wording sounded -- just for discussion. So, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 05- 001, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an office retail use in an Old Town zone for Robert Monson at 829 North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments, the memo for the hearing date of February 3rd, with the following changes: That on page eight, under conditions of approval number three, that the word temporary be deleted and at the end of that paragraph be added -- and as such time as ACHD -- well, wait a minute. Let's see. No. Right. As is stated, which states, and, then, add at such time as ACHD may need the additional right of way, that the -- if, indeed, there is a sign in the right of way, that it be relocated at the expense of the property owner and at such time it was determined that -- and the next sentence -- if at such -- at such time if it is determined that a right of way is not needed, the easement may be vacated. And in item number seven, one freestanding sign is approved on this project and, then, go on to say at such time as -- as per item number three, if the right of way is required and the sign needs to be relocated, it will be done so at the expense of the property owner. And that's all I have. Is there is anything else that needs to be added? Moe: I'll second that. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second on CUP 05-001. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: We are not quite at 9:00 o'clock yet, but traditionally this is about where we take a break, so we will recess for about ten minutes and, then, reconvene. (Recess.) Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 04-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.01 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Klamath Basin Subdivision by Randy Worden - 4625 West Ustick Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 04-045 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 single-family residential building lots and 3 other lots on 4.56 acres in a Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 31 of 58 proposed R-4 zone for Klamath Basin Subdivision by Randy Worden - 4625 West Ustick Road: Zaremba: Ladies and gentlemen, all the Commissioners have returned and people are in place and we will proceed with our meeting for this evening. I'd like to open the public hearings for -- again, two related items, AZ 04-035, request for annexation and zoning of 5.01 acres from RUT to R-4 zone and the Public Hearing PP 04-045, request for preliminary plat approval of 12 single family residential building lots and three other lots on 4.56 acres in a proposed R-4 zone. Both of these are for Klamath Basin Subdivision by Randy Worden, 4625 West Ustick Road. And we will begin with the staff presentation. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As noted this is a 12 lot subdivision. There are three open space common lots included with the development. It's located on the southeast corner of Ustick and Black Cat, approximately five acres in size. As you can see from the map here, it is currently zoned RUT. There are some existing developments in the general vicinity. Directly to the east is Statten Park Subdivision. That's zoned R-4 in the city. The parcels to the south are also still in the county. Those parcels and the large parcel to the north are still in the county. Kitty- corner across the intersection is the recently approved Birchstone Creek Subdivision. That one is zoned R-8. So, this is an area of city of impact and city limits that is rapidly developing to residential densities. There is the aerial view. There are -- there is one home on the side and several outbuildings. The applicant is proposing to remove those. The subdivision plat is here on this slide. The applicant has proposed that all the five plus acres be zoned R-4, low density residential. This is shown as low density residential on our Comprehensive Future Land Use Map. Each lot contains the minimum 8,000 square feet required by the zone. The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 2.63 dwelling units per acre. All housing types are single family, with a minimum house size proposed of 1,400 square feet. Just a couple of items that I want to touch on briefly in the special considerations section of the staff report, the first one being the length of the cul-de-sac. This property does have a stub street from Statten Park to the east that they are proposing to extend and bring into the development as shown here. It does exceed, once extended, our maximum cul-de-sac length of 450 feet. The applicant has submitted that variance request. Those variances are only acted on by the City Council, so site-specific condition number two kind of assumes that the City Council will approve that variance request. It is noted, though, that it does require that approval and it doesn't meet code as drawn. Staff is supportive of that variance. There are some findings there of why that is. I won't go into the details. If you have questions, I will answer them. The other thing is the tree mitigation. As you can see on the site, there are several large existing trees on site. We have encouraged the applicant to get with the city forester, come up with a tree mitigation, tree protection plan for those trees. I just wanted to go on record with that as well, that there are some nice trees out there that we'd like to see retained, as many as possible. So, with that I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 32 of 58 Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Zaremba: I did have one. On page seven in your discussion about the -- again, some of the discussion is the cul-de-sac length, but you say that it would not be useful to have a crossing across the canal that's there. Yeah. Go back to the picture that you had before there. These, what appear to be four different properties, I think are all under one ownership, and are likely to develop, the one that the existing house is actually on, that triangular piece. I agree with what we are looking at, using the stub street coming from there. The logic is that when those parcels develop they will develop as a unit and probably their access will be the stub street here. It doesn't appear that there is likely to be access to Black Cat Road. Just in imagining how that would develop, it would make sense if this stub street came in the depth of the house and there probably was a cross- stub street and, then, something is going to need to go north from that to get a few more houses in here. It would be logical for it to go north and actually connect to the end of the street that this application is proposing and the reason I'm proposing that idea is that it would make sense, actually, to do a culvert or a bridge across at that point. I guess what I'm wanting to discuss is your assessment that this would not allow an efficient development of the other property. I don't want to sound like I'm disagreeing with you, but I would like some more discussion. Hood: I did look at that as well, Mr. Chair, and I don't believe -- and what I failed to do is make sure that all those are owned by the same property owner. I fully intend to -- Zaremba: I just assumed that. I don't know it for sure either. Hood: Looking at the parcel layout, I would say you're probably correct, in that they don't look like they are probably legal parcels that were created in Ada County. That being said, I don't -- typically, the city hasn't required that you put that puzzle back together and all those develop at the same time, if they are in separate ownership. But I guess kind of getting off point a little bit in that, it could work with the stub street to the south. It would, I believe, still have to probably come out to Black Cat at some point, you know, before -- between the intersection and the existing access into Golf View -- Ashford Greens. That subdivision there to the south. Zaremba: Uh-huh. It's Ashford Greens. Hood: Yeah. Ashford Greens. It could happen. To tell you the truth, either way I think would work. The way that the applicants submitted it, they kind of have a little bit of a hardship, in my opinion, that the stub street was put there and if they don't bring it back up to Ustick, which is, really, what we try to discourage, was bringing it fairly close to that intersection, they have shown a cul-de-sacking -- I don't know that it -- just looking at it being one parcel, the triangular-shaped parcel directly to the south, having a full 50- foot right of way go through that and out to Black Cat was the inefficient development of the parcel that I referred to in my staff report, not assuming that all four of those develop together. Your scenario I think would work and is the highest and best use of the land, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 33 of 58 bringing the stub through those properties all the way to connect through. I just think that there is a lot of assumptions that are made with that scenario. That's why the inefficient language I think was put in the staff report, because it just looked at the smaller three and a half acres and bringing the street through that, it didn't seem to be feasible, so -- Zaremba: The way the cul-de-sac is laid out on the current application, it looks to me it's positioned such that it might be possible at some future time to make that connection without ruining a whole lot of property. So, my scenario, I suppose, doesn't even have to be decided tonight, it could be recovered sometime later. The only question would be if we insisted that there be a canal crossing, then, we would ask the applicant to put half the cost of the culvert into a trust or something like that, but -- Hood: Exactly. And as shown it doesn't have the full 50-foot right of way that would be required to -- so it would, actually, have to be a stub street to that property. I mean you're close. I don't know that it would affect any of their build-able lots or anything like that, but, you know, it would be technically a stub street. It would have to be, then, extended by the adjacent property owner when they develop, which is a good policy in general to have, but it does change some of those things. Again, like you mentioned, 50 percent of the road trust for either a bridge or a culvert is typically what we require for a stub street across a lateral. Zaremba: But that would also mean they wouldn't need the -- they would not need the variance for the length of the cul-de-sac, because it eventually would not be a cul-de- sac. I'm not locked into that idea, it's just -- Hood: It's not a bad one. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, are you proposing that they leave the top half of the cul-de-sac and put the stub right there? Zaremba: The part that I would affect would be -- Newton-Huckabay: Leave this and right in here would be the stub? Zaremba: It would stub this way -- Newton-Huckabay: And you would go straight. Zaremba: -- and that would mean you probably wouldn't need as big a knuckle -- it would become a knuckle, instead of a turnaround, at the end. It wouldn't need to be as big, which would enlarge two of those properties if the decision was made now. It's still in such a position, if ACHD wanted to later, it wouldn't take very much off of the two adjoining properties to say later that it had to be done, it's just that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 34 of 58 Newton-Huckabay: Well, I would think that that could really easily be one of those situations where we go, oh, we really didn't think that one through very well, there should be a stub. I agree with you. Zaremba: Well, I feel it should be there. I'm just imagining what the other property is going to do. Go back to one of the big aerial views again, if you would. Just -- if you look across the street and you realize there is a reason why this street did not connect to Black Cat, Black Cat is definitely going to be five lane at sometime and maybe a major arterial, having -- and Ustick is going to be five lanes and a major arterial, I agree with not allowing access to Ustick directly from this subdivision, but I believe there is not going to be an approval of a direct access from this subdivision either, and my feeling is that those two stubs, this stub and that stub, should connect, not necessarily in a straight line, but at least zigzagging around that you can get there. Borup: I just wonder where -- where the existing house was in relation to where we are -- no, on the other property. Zaremba: On the other property the existing house is about here. You can see it. This is the existing house. And they have a barn here and something else. On the other -- on what looks like other parcels, there is a barn and another outbuilding of some sort, I think. Rohm: I guess my only concern is if you adjust the cul-de-sac, with the provision that it's going to be a stub street to the south, then, until this other parcel of ground develops, would the fire department have problems getting in and out to service these lots that are being developed as part of this project? That's a question more than, you know, a position. Zaremba: Well, it's a good question and there is no -- I'm not aware of any action by the other property owner to do anything. I mean they appear to be happy living in their house and I don't know if they have any thought of redeveloping, so who knows how long that would be before there really was such a connection. Borup: Well, I think -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm is saying there would be a turnaround of some type required. Rohm: Yeah. There is not adequate turnaround. Zaremba: Even if it were a future stub street it would still, for the time being, need a turnaround. Rohm: Right. That's-- Zaremba: And I'm kind of supporting that in saying, you know, who knows how long it's going to have to stay that way. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 35 of 58 Rohm: And maybe to take testimony from the applicant might be the -- Zaremba: I was going to say, if we have thrown enough confusion, let's have the applicant -- somewhere in your discussion you might mention whether you have had any talks with the property owner to the southwest I guess it would be. Newton-Huckabay: Is that property owner here? Crawford: The adjoining property owner? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Crawford: Not that I'm aware of. Zaremba: Doesn't appear to be. Okay. Crawford: My name is David Crawford; I'm with B&A Engineers. Our office is at 5505 West Franklin Road in Boise, and I'm here representing the applicant and owner tonight, who is here. And, actually, had kind of a little lengthier discussion about the generalities of the site that I was going to talk about and I think I will choose to take some additional time to address a bridge crossing with the road. We currently -- or we previously had had some discussions about the road extension of Neeman Street and the potentiality of it to cross that Eight Mile Lateral. We discussed that a little bit with ACHD in our pre- application meetings and tech review meetings with them and they always express their concern about the -- two things. Number one is the infrastructure requirements for a bridge and the length -- or the long-term maintenance issues with them and also the proximity of access points to the intersection along minor arterials, which I think is part of the discussion with the variance request that is kind of before you tonight, but not really. But, in essence, it is. And so that wasn't a preferred option by ACHD. So, we did propose the cul-de-sac to fit the site and it's odd triangular shape. The owner just informed me that the -- there is two separate property owners, one here and one here. There is a distinct possibility that those two properties could develop differently and the stub street to the south, given that scenario, would be able to be brought up through over to Black Cat Road a little further south than the canal or, you know, further away from that intersection. The applicant and the owner did state to me that he would be willing to reserve an easement through this area to grant that future extension if it was deemed necessary, but given our discussions with the Meridian staff and ACHD, we don't believe that that's necessarily the best way to keep the access points, you know, further away from the potential for a signalized intersection up there at Ustick and Black Cat Roads. And I guess that's all I really have to say about that, other than the bulk of the rest of the staff report we agree with. The applicant has conferred with -- I, on his behalf have conferred with the Meridian fire district, with some of the other little nuances about the property, and regarding the common drive down here that serves these four lots and it's kind of -- it's a little odd in other areas, we have had jurisdictions that want to keep accesses of all the lots to the common drive and in this particular instance we'd like to see an option for builders to use to take best use of the land to take access from Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 36 of 58 this lot maybe granted either to common drive or out to Neeman Street directly on either side of the common drive, as well as the -- these two parcels taking their primary access off the common drive itself. Joe Silva of the Meridian Fire District has said that that -- common drive that we propose there will function in accordance with his policy and he will be able to deal with that issue. I think that's about all the minor stuff that I have and I will just stand for any questions that you may have for me at this time. Rohm: Just a comment. I'd rather see those two lots take their access off Neeman Drive, I think, as opposed to coming off that common drive, just -- you get too many cars coming and going down the common drive and it might as well be a road. Borup: I think you could visualize a plan that may have the garage access that and the front of the house access the other road, Neeman. I mean that would just allow some flexibility in design, but -- Rohm: Do we have to address that in terms of whether or not they can take access? Borup: Well, I think the staff report does. It says if it is going to be, then, the driveway needs to be wider. I'm assuming that you're fine with how the staff report is worded? Crawford: We can accommodate a wider driveway within that area. Borup: Yeah. You have 30 feet there. Crawford: Yeah. Borup: And that was the only question I had. You had mentioned that you were in agreement with the bulk of the staff report, but I didn't hear anything that you weren't in agreement with. Crawford: Well -- yeah. So, we agree with the findings that are written in there. Borup: So, it really is everything. The only thing the discussion was was on the crossing, which wasn't even in the staff report I don't believe. Crawford: Right. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Well, on the shared common driveway, I think the applicant and staff have probably already agreed on this. I have no problem allowing the builder to make the choice, but I also agree that if the side lots, which are number 12 and number 15, if they take their access to Neeman, then, the paved area of the driveway doesn't need to be as wide, because the only traffic is straight through. If they take their access from the driveway, that's the reason for it being wider, is because they need a turning movement and as iong as everybody knows that that's the condition of using the driveway -- I think Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 37 of 58 the only thing that I didn't see in the discussion on the staff remarks, it's page ten, and it's paragraph three, and I didn't see it on the plat -- that my feeling is there should be a cross-access agreement definitely between Lots 13 and 14 need a cross-access agreement, because each of them is going to have to use half of the other's property to come -- at least on the flag. Crawford: Yeah. Zaremba: And I didn't see a mention of the cross-access agreement. Crawford: That is fairly typical for a cross -- it's typically taken care of as a condition of final plat to dedicate the usage of an easement -- or a cross-access -- that would be a common drive easement is what it would be called -- or what we typically call it on the final plat and -- Zaremba: You're remembering that and you will get it on there. Hood: Mr. Chair? It is, actually, on the submitted preliminary plat that there is a cross- access for those lots to use the common driveway. Zaremba: It must be in the small print. Hood: I'm sorry; it's not in the report stated that way, but on the submitted preliminary plat it is graphically shown. Zaremba: I glanced and I must have missed it. Okay. Then, that question is satisfied. Any other questions from Commissioners? Borup: I have none. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. We had no one sign up, but if anybody has things they care to say about this project, now is the time. Okay. Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I like your thoughts on the stub street to the southwest to tie these two parcels together for possible additional development. I believe the applicant stated that they would be willing to provide easement for that stub street, as opposed to putting the stub street in as part of the development. Does that -- is that acceptable and Zaremba: That works for me. If there were no canal there and this were all flat land, I would say it's obvious that there should be a stub street there. When you're talking about having to bridge or culvert or -- I mean that's a considerable expense to set aside on some assumption that there may some day be something possibly done to the south that might require it and I'm not willing to hamstring the applicant that far, but I like the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 38 of 58 suggestion of providing an easement that would connect in the currently shown u-turn area of the cul-de-sac, so that if at some day the other property developed and ACHD decided this should be connected, that at least we were prepared for that. Rohm: Yeah. I like that, too. And leave the cul-de-sac as it currently is designed. Zaremba: Yeah. I guess we'd have to. Rohm: Yeah. And I -- the applicant's nodding consent, so I think that that seems to address your concerns over the possibility of tying these two parcels together as the adjacent ground is developed. Zaremba: But my feeling is we are going to have the same discussion about cul-de-sac length -- cul-de-sac length with the other parcel, because I am not as -- I don't feel it's very likely that that parcel will have access to Black Cat from any of those four parcels, even if they are separate ownership. Rohm: Other than current access. Is there current access now? Zaremba: Yeah. The one house that exists does have a driveway to -- or maybe a u- shaped driveway with two accesses, possibly. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: But I suspect that ACHD is not going to want access any closer than where Moon Lake is, which is the existing street. So, I mean just preserving the future possibility is good enough for me. Rohm: So, would that be as an additional item on the preliminary plat? Zaremba: Yes. That's not an annexation and zoning issue, that's a preliminary plat Issue. Rohm: So, maybe site-specific item 13, just add an item? Zaremba: Yeah. I don't see another that would join that that would be an additional 13. Rohm: Okay. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I'd just ask you be careful on how you word that easement, if that's the direction the motion maker wants to go. There has been some discrepancies -- these future right of way easements or -- do want it to be a right of way easement for the city, we aren't in the right of way business, so if it's really right of way -- a right of way easement is right of way, according to some of the old plats, according to John Priester, the Ada County surveyor, so just -- typically you don't see those. I like the idea, I'd love to preserve that, but we may be putting something on Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 39 of 58 this property that they will have to comply with, not given the option to comply with in the future that that actually does get extended as right of way. So, wording that easement may be a little tricky. Who is it to? Zaremba: We could say similar to the last one. Well, I would make the easement to ACHD, since they are the right of way people, but similar to we added to the one -- I think it was just previous to this. And when the parcel southwest of it develops and there is no need for that easement, it can be abandoned. Baird: Mr. Chair, I would add to the comments that you don't want to call this a future easement or a temporary easement, it is an easement, and just similar to the way you treated the last application, if in the future it's not required, then, they can apply to have it vacated. Rohm: Well, in this particular case the easement's not going to affect any build-able lots, it's just going to cross the common lot, and so even if it's never utilized, it isn't going to change things any. All it's going to do is provide for a way to put that stub street in, if, in fact, it becomes necessary and so the easement won't hurt this development. Zaremba: Even if it never becomes necessary it doesn't cost them anything. Rohm: Exactly. Other than just the effort to write the description for the easement, you know, and include it in their package of development. That's the only additional cost there is. Moe: Mr. Chairman, staff has a comment. Zaremba: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just one thought I wanted to throw out for your consideration and that is if and when the parcels to the south do develop, if -- if all that is required is an easement, the burden of construction -- the total cost of construction is going to land on that guy to the south. I guess I'll throw that out. If you do feel that this road is viable in the future, certainly how we have handled it in the past when we have had a project where you have had a half a ditch or -- we try and divide that responsibility for the burden of construction and so we will -- you know, we will have the -- one developer put up half the cost of a crossing and that sort of thing. So, I guess it's just kind of a -- if you're leaning that direction of having the street in the future, in all fairness, you know, the cost of construction should be half borne by this developer, I feel. I'm sorry. Rohm: No. That's actually a good point. So, would you suggest that the developer put some monies in a trust for future development at -- you know, I don't know how you -- how far do you take this? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 40 of 58 Freckleton Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rohm, I think that if it is your preference that the road be -- be installed, I think that the improvements up to -- up to the lateral be constructed. I think they could -- probably could do some reconfiguration of their cul-de- sac and make more of a knuckle and probably gain some depth in those two upper lots that are a bit pinched now and, then, possibly for the actual crossing of the lateral, maybe do some sort of a cost share, the half -- half the cost to put into, you know, funds that are just deposited with the city for that future crossing. Did that answer your question? Rohm: I guess I would be interested in the applicant's input, but that seems reasonable. Is the Public Hearing closed? Borup: No. I don't believe so. Zaremba: Well -- and part of my discussion before was if -- if we have this applicant actually make the half of a stub street that we feel is going to be there -- at least I personally feel it's going to end up being there eventually, I think it's fair to say the trade for that is we don't need as big of a turnaround and those two lots can have more property in them and, therefore, the trade off, even though there is expense of doing half the bridge or half the culvert, those two lots become more valuable by -- I'm saying that doesn't need to be as big of a turnaround. But Commissioner Newton-Huckabay raised the point until such time as the other property is developed and that stub street does go somewhere, what do you do for a turnaround? Do we make that a -- maybe we make that a temporary turnaround that can be abandoned, but by, then, all the construction equipment is gone and the road is in place. Borup: And the houses are probably there. Zaremba: The houses are there. Borup: Mr. Chairman, could -- Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Well, from staff, how much area is needed for a knuckle or a T turnaround or something like that? Hood: I don't have the area calculations, but just along those same lines -- Borup: I mean here we have got a 52-foot radius. Hood: It's going to be similar. You're going to need a 48-foot outside radius for a fire trunk to turn, 28 foot inside. So, that's not going to change whether it's temporary or permanent. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 41 of 58 Borup: Well, on the hammerheads we have done, that's been on shorter streets, though, haven't they? Hood: Yeah. You could do a temporary hammerhead; I believe, 120 -- 120 feet. Borup: So, that doesn't apply here then. Hood: What they could do is, you know, basically keep the same design here, stub it there, and, then, you cross-hatch something that, you know, does basically go straight across and, then, that reverts to those adjacent buildable lots at such time as the street is extended. That's how the note reads on the plat, basically, is it reverts to the adjacent property owner. You have an easement for a temporary turnaround until such time as the stub street is extended. And, then, the fire department still signs off on that turnaround meeting their standards, whatever they are, and they have five or six different hammerheads, cul-de-sacs, different types of variations of turnarounds that they can accept, even on a temporary basis. So, you know, there are ways that full utilization of that property in the future could happen as well, you know, having a cul-de- sac -- that turnaround you don't need after a stub street is extended, can, again, revert back, so -- Zaremba: What is the physical -- what are the physical properties of a temporary turnaround? Does it need to be paved or can it just be gravel, so that it can be undone -- Hood: I'm not up on the current fire code. As of a couple of years ago I know they did accept some compacted and some type of pavement, but it doesn't have to be necessarily the full cross-section of a street. So, they don't have like just gravel thrown out there as a turnaround, but they do have an alternative to a full street cross-section. Borup: That's what I have seen in other subdivisions. It's paved. It didn't look like it -- maybe it was up to full street standards, but there was pavement. Hood: Obviously, it's got to be able to handle the weight load of a truck, a fire truck, but I just don't know what that cross-section is. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I had some additional thoughts on this. I certainly agree the idea of having the -- I mean that's part of what we are supposed to do is planning for the future and that access to the other property is important, but we are looking at something here we don't have any idea if it's ever going to happen and if it does and the only way to develop that property is through a crossing, that, to me, seems like that would be more on the burden of the other property owner. This property can be developed as designed now, other than a little bit on the cul-de-sac length. The other property mayor may not be able to be developed, but if it can't, then, you know, that -- it seems to me like that's more of that property owner's concern to make it work for whatever they want to do. I'm concerned about requiring any type of trust or money set aside on something that's so unsure. I know we have done it in the past, but those have Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 42 of 58 been, again, maybe no guarantee what's going to happen, but a lot more -- a lot more to me have been a lot more cut and dry. I mean it was a lot more obvious that something is going to happen when you have 80 acres next to an 80-acre subdivision with a canal between them. Hood: Mr. Chair, along those same lines, if I may. Staff -- in the staff report it didn't specifically say that it's going to cost too much to construct a bridge, but, certainly, you know, this three acre parcel, if they are going to have to put up half the cost of a bridge to get four or five lots, it's just not going to pencil out for them and this is probably going to remain vacant until, you know, property values are so expensive that they can build a bridge. So, that was something that -- weighing the pluses and minuses, I love the interconnectivity, I love not having those other access points to the arterials, there is just a huge barrier to that in this instance and the scope of this property, the size of properties, it didn't seem to be right to have, in this instance, to require that stub street. So, with that I will not say anymore on this issue. Thank you, though. Rohm: Those are good comments. Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question? So, if we move forward with the first proposed access -- excuse me -- easement for a potential future access, are we not providing that connectivity in the future, should it arise, without hindering the development as Craig said, of a rather small piece of property? Zaremba: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I mean we are killing one bird with a stone and wounding the other one. Zaremba: The simple easement preserves the space for putting a road with a bridge or a culvert, whichever, in that area. It doesn't pay for it and I guess the discussion is without knowing what the property owner to the south is going to do, is it fair to hold that much money out -- you know, ask this applicant to put money into a trust-- Newton-Huckabay: Well -- and if that property owner was that concerned about access, they would be here this evening, I think, saying I want access. Borup: And that's why I think having the easement does provide for that property owner. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Borup: If they are in a situation where they absolutely have to have that, it's there for them. Zaremba: It's not blocked off by a house or a building or a wall or something like that. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 43 of 58 Borup: But requiring money to be set aside at this point is -- doesn't seem to -- Zaremba: And that's my feeling. I would want to be able to trade something right now, like saying you could make two of those properties bigger -- Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: -- you know. Borup: But that may never happen. Especially if you have to have a temporary turnaround, it may be 20 years. Zaremba: Yeah. Rohm: Maybe the thing is is put the easement in and leave everything as designed. And, then, if, in fact, the property to the southwest does develop, then, the easement's in place to tie the two together and that's -- Zaremba: And this other property bears the whole burden. Rohm: And then -- right. Exactly. Borup: It may not be easing their financial, but if we didn't have that, it could shoot down their whole project. So, I think that's looking out for their interest. Rohm: It doesn't look like staff has any problem with that. I like that answer. Zaremba: Staff would like the money in the bank. Hood: Mr. Chair, I know I said I wasn't going to comment anymore on this, but just with the easement, if that's the direction you guys are going now, rather than making it a right of way easement, a public right of way easement, make the easement to that property owner, rather than -- because, then, again, it looks like right of way, if it's -- if it's public right of way, make it to -- and, sorry, I don't have the parcel number or the current property owner's name, but make it to that parcel directly to the south. And, then, everyone's clear it's an access easement 50 feet wide, if you want, for that parcel owner to the south. Zaremba: That's a blank that can be filled in later, probably. Hood: Yes. Zaremba: Everybody knows what we are talking about. Borup: We have got parcel numbers. The parcel number is in the -- in our papers. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 44 of 58 Zaremba: Let me ask our city attorney if the direction it sounds like we are going is legal. Mr. Baird? Baird: I don't see any problem with it. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Can we close the Public Hearing? Zaremba: That's probably next. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Borup: Are we assuming that that sounds agreeable to the applicant? Zaremba: The Public Hearing is still open if the applicant would care to -- comment on the microphone, please. Crawford: I believe the current thinking of the Commission tonight is what the applicant agreed to with holding an easement out to the adjoining property owner. Just to get it on the record, a bridge would at this point cause substantial delay and drive the project into next year, as bridges have to be built in the off season and we are coming to the on season here pretty quick and the financial burden placed on -- on this particular project for even half the cost of a bridge, though we don't know how the numbers pencil out, it would dramatically impact it. But, other than that, I think we are okay with withholding a easement in that are for future use. Zaremba: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 04-035 and PP 04-045. Rohm: I'll second that motion. Zaremba: Moved and seconded to close the two Public Hearings. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Just for a point of discussion. The easement -- Moe: Pardon? Newton-Huckabay: I said no more discussion. Rohm: Well, I just need to know how wide that easement should be. Borup: Fifty feet. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 45 of 58 Rohm: Fifty feet? Zaremba: Yes. Moe: Do you have a parcel number on that? Borup: Yes. Moe: Are you doing that? Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: And that's a plat issue, not a zoning issue. Rohm: I was just going to say the parcel to the south, but I can be more specific. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-035, including all staff comments for the hearing date February 3rd, dated January 31st, 2005. Moe: Second. Zaremba: Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? carries. That motion MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 04-045, including staff comments dated February -- or transmittal date of January 31st, 2005, for the hearing date February 3rd, 2005, with the following changes: On page 12 we need to add an item 13 that says provide a 50 foot easement to the property to the south, with the parcel number S1203223400, for the future development of a stub street to that south property. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? carries as well. That motion MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Public Hearing: AUP 04-018 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for a home occupation for a family day care for five of fewer children in a R-8 zone for Pamela Catt by Pamela Catt - 2899 North Anston Avenue: Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 46 of 58 Zaremba: Okay. Item 11. We will open the Public Hearing for AUP 04-018. This is a request for an accessory use permit for a home occupation for a family daycare for five or fewer children in an R-8 zone for Pamela Catt by Pamela Catt at 2899 North Anston Avenue and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you mentioned, this is an accessory use permit. There was one neighbor that was noticed that did submit a letter to the planning department stating that they did have concerns with the proposed daycare for five or fewer kids. That is why this is before you today. The site, has shown on this map is directly to the east of Highgate Subdivision, which is under construction today. They have tiled the irrigation lateral that was directly open and directly behind the subject parcel, shown in purple on the map. They have been constructing those homes in the subdivision south of Ustick Road. This is an existing home. They have -- I believe the - - this is a shot of the driveway. They have added a third slab to the driveway. There are three parking stalls in front of the garage, two of them in front of the garage, one of them to the side. This is on the curve shown on this map. The parcel is surrounded by single-family. To the north and south is a residential subdivision. I did go out on the site a few weeks ago just check out the area, see what it looked like. They did have a fully fenced backyard. I didn't see any other reasons for a daycare of this size to -- why we shouldn't permit that, but with that analysis I will stand for any questions you have. Zaremba: Okay. This is the time for the applicant to come forward. Mrs. Catt. Catt: I'm Pamela Catt and I live at 2899 North Anston in Meridian. Zaremba: Pull the microphone down a little bit, if you care to. Catt: Want me to do that again? Zaremba: No. I think we got it. Catt: Okay. And I am in complete agreement with what the staff has found and have no issues. Have been in compliance with everything that they have asked of me, everything that the homeowners association has asked of me, and in my searching out the business that I want to do, have found that in this community, as also in the Boise city community, that the infant, which I am particularly interested in, child care, people are crying for it and so that's my heart, that's what I would like to do. Moe: And you have no problem with no more than five? Catt: Absolutely. I couldn't do no more than five. Newton-Huckabay: When is the last time you watched five babies? Moe: I watched three the other night. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 47 of 58 Catt: I did raise twins. Rohm: I used to, but see what I lost? Zaremba: Pulled it all out. Yeah. Tell me a little bit about the neighborhood around you. Are there, I assume, families? Are there a lot of children in the neighborhood nearby? Catt: There are. Zaremba: So, adding a few more children is probably not going to be that noticeable. Catt: Well, it's somewhat of a young family neighborhood. Children. Young children. And there are a few homes that elder people have retired and that was the person that objected, was -- they were elderly people. I don't want to do children -- I don't want to care for children any older than age year and a half. I just don't want to run around. I'm specifically wanting infant care. So, babies. Rohm: Boy. Catt: Yeah. It's high stress. Zaremba: I've got to hand it to you. Rohm: Yeah. No kidding. Catt: I don't want to -- I don't want them chasing around my backyard. I don't want any issues of them getting out and -- you know, that was one of the concerns that the neighbor had was how am I supposed to be guaranteed that you're not going to be letting kids run around the neighborhood and I just -- that's not my -- Rohm: Well, if they can't walk yet -- Catt: That's right. Zaremba: We are referring to the letter submitted by Betty Nelson and just to make sure, you don't have stock car racers on your property, do you? Catt: I don't. Zaremba: Any other questions? Commissioners? Staff? Borup: No. I think you answered mine, that the children will not be in the yard and it sounds like you are saying you do not have children of your own that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 48 of 58 Catt: I don't. Well, I do have -- Borup: I mean at home. Speaker unknown: I have four grandchildren. I have a 21 year old son that does live under my roof and -- but we kind of are like ships passing in the night. Borup: Right. I understand. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you very much. Catt: Thank you. Zaremba: Jennifer Seiffert has signed up to speak. We do have long meetings and some people can't stay and she did mark the for column on the sheet that she was going to speak in favor, so -- there are -- just one item, isn't it. There are no other people signed up for this, so Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on AUP 04-018. Moe: Second. Zaremba: Moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: I think the only thing that I'd like to throw out as an item of discussion is even though the applicant has stated that she only intends to care for infants, I think once the permit is granted, she's not limited to just infants, and so it's important that -- that we get that on record that that availability is there, but going with what she was saying, that's probably where she's going to leave it is with infants. But I don't think that the permit actually has those kind of limitations available to it. That being said, Mr. Chairman, I'd move that we grant AUP 04-018 and to include all staff comments for the hearing date February 3rd, 2005, and on transmittal date January 26th, 2005. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We should add to that motion a request that the city attorney prepare facts and findings for approval. That should be part of the motion, I believe. Rohm: Yes. And, please, add that to the motion. Moe: And I would second that. Zaremba: And the second approves that as well, so we have a motion and a second. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 49 of 58 Newton-Huckabay: I believe Mr. Hawkins-Clark has a statement. Hawkins-Clark: Technically, unless the city attorney wants to start doing the planning and zoning's work -- that's fine with us, but -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh, that's right. Hawkins-Clark: It is, technically, the -- Zaremba: Okay. Then, we will ask staff to prepare that. All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Item 13: Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 04-011 REVISED Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.8 acres to R-8 zone for Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson - 4205 North Locust Grove Road: Public Hearing: PP 04-017 REVISED Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 33 single-family residential and 4 common lots on 9.8 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson - 4205 North Locust Grove Road: Public Hearing: CUP 04-015 REVISED Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of 33 residential building lots for reductions to the minimum requirements for lot area, rear building setbacks, street side setbacks and minimum street frontage for Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson - 4205 North Locust Grove Road: Zaremba: Okay. Our final items on the agenda, Items 12, 13, and 14 are related, so we will open all three Public Hearings at the same time. This is AZ 04-011 revised, a request for annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres to R-8 zone. PP 04-017, revised, request for preliminary plat approval for 33 single family residential and four common lots on 9.8 acres in a proposed R-8 zone. And CUP 04-015, revised, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development consisting of 33 residential building lots, for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot area, rear building setbacks, side street setbacks and minimum street frontage. All these three are for Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson, 4205 North Locust Grove Road. And we will begin with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. I believe most of the Commissioners were here when this came through several months go, so I might not go into as much detail as I would otherwise, but the Commission recommended approval of this same property in July. At that point in time the Council -- or the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 50 of 58 Commission included -- the application included office on the front on Locust Grove Road. August 24th the City Council actually closed the hearings and asked staff to prepare findings for denial and the reasons for the denial are listed in my staff report on page two. They had three main reasons. The first two were actually pretty closely related. Generally, they -- they were struggling with the office uses and, actually, the C- N, neighborhood commercial zoning. One of the reasons had to do with strip, nonresidential development along North Locust Grove Road. The applicant has now eliminated that altogether and proposed all residential, so staff felt the concern was taken care of. The second one had more to do with the neighborhood center concept in the Comprehensive Plan, which had the nonresidential uses right at the half mile and this is sort of at the very very north end of the neighborhood center and they felt that that didn't fully comply. And, then, the last one had to do with hours of operation and some of the concerns that were given at both this body and the Council about potential late hours of operation, traffic, et cetera, that might be generated by the nonresidential uses. So, the main difference at this point in time on this item number 12, the annexation and zoning has eliminated any nonresidential zone and they are asking for an R-8 on the entire property. As you can see on the aerial photo, there is an existing residence with some outbuildings on the west end. So, this was the last plan that you looked at. Star Road extending across North Locust Grove. Razzberry Crossing Subdivision, which has already been approved, and is in the final platting, recording process, to the north, shares an entry road. This widens out and heads to the south. That's the same. So, this area right here, which is a little over two acres, is the main change to their subdivision. And this is the new plat and the majority of this project -- actually, it's identical, I believe, with the exception -- well, no, I don't think there were any changes at all to that. Yeah. So, just this -- just this front 2.17 acres. They are proposing the alley-loaded lots. The alley does access their north-south road here and curves to the south. It does retain the 25-foot wide landscape buffer that the landscape ordinance requires. That would be consistent with Razzberry Crossing and other projects to the south that have been approved. And, then, the existing driveway that accesses North Locust Grove Road would be closed off, so that the road would, essentially, turn into the alley. So, in terms of emergency services and use by the residents, they would have that full loop there. I included this slide in here -- and, actually, maybe I will just hit one or two other points and come back to that. It's a street section issue. But on the planned development request, on the Conditional Use Permit, I wanted to point out the areas that they are asking for an exception to the ordinance and these do affect both this new area, as well as the rest of the subdivision. So, again, some of these you have already recommended approval of to the City Council. For rear setbacks they have proposed ten foot rear setbacks on these alley loaded lots and, of course, that would be for the garages. Staff has recommended that they increase that t018 and we have received a brief letter that the applicant prepared for tonight, which I think you will be getting as well, but they have agreed to that. So, that would, actually, be a change on the setback on the rear for those garages. As far as the street side, the ordinance says that street side setbacks would need to be 20 and they are proposing 12. That affects these two lots here and it affects these two lots and, then, this lot down here. So, I think that's six or -- six or seven lots that are affected by that change. Another request on the planned development, the ordinance says 6,500 square foot lot Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 51 of 58 minimums, they are proposing 5,300. And lot frontage ordinance says 65 for an R-8 and they are proposing 45. However, we did point out in our report that they would need 42 in order to make this plan work. We did an analysis of the findings that we are required to do for annexations and the main question that came up had to do with Finding A, which deals with the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan does ask -- or recommends that these neighborhood centers have a minimum density of eight dwelling units per acre in order to encourage the higher densities. They have not provided that within this subdivision. That being said, we recognize that there have been other projects in the area that have already been approved that have not met the eight and so if you think about this larger area and the compatibility of densities, that probably would not function, but I wanted to at least point out to you that that was the case. And the other finding that I raised a question on was E and that had to do with the fire department and the serviceability. This deals with the street section and they are proposing a design that is the same, essentially, as the last time you reviewed this project. It was a question that came up with City Council, but that was resolved at a pre-Council meeting and it has to do with the parking on one side for a 29-foot street section. The Council had raised some concerns about if you only had parking on one side is that adequate for, you know, events or parties or whatever that somebody might have, particularly on the south end of the project, and it was pointed out that that 29-foot street section has been approved in Razzberry Crossing and, actually, several other subdivisions, as well as the fact that they are alley loaded areas, they are proposing some parking that is in addition -- off-street parking that is in addition to the driveways. So, the main question on that issue of the street section -- I'll go to this next slide -- is -- you're not going to see it too well, but there is three different types of cross-sections that they are proposing. This top one is East Greenhaven Street, which is this street along the bottom, along the south, and the -- you're not going to be able to read that, but the actual drive-able surface, both -- actually, for all three is exactly the same and that is a little over 30 feet. So, basically 30 and a half feet back to back. The fire department had some concerns that with 29 feet back to back, with the encroaching of mailboxes and other things -- and this is an ongoing discussion, as you well know, between the fire department and the staff and ACHD. In this case I think the applicant has proposed to go from 29 to 30 and a half to kind of allow for some of those mail box encroachments and I, actually, did not talk with the fire department, I'd like the applicant to confirm that they did, but I believe that the fire department is okay with that, so -- oh, that's right, we did receive a stamped -- fire department did stamp the approved as submitted and that's this one that you see up here. That's the 30 and a half feet. So, I guess I take that back, we don't need to talk to the fire department, they stamped it. Let's see. And, then, I wanted to point out just a couple of other things on page eight of the staff report. If the applicant tonight could just clarify on the open space green easement, which the open areas in this subdivision are kind of mirrored open space lots that are located here and here. Staff feels it is a good design, it does provide good access for a number of the units. It's a little unique in that they are including an easement on the backside of these lots and these lots and on the south side of these common areas that is on an easement that's on the private lot that's included in the common lot and just asking for some clarification on how that easement will be maintained and managed and make sure that that's something that the CC&Rs address, because it would not normally be Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 52 of 58 something that the city gets involved with. And, then, similarly, how the fencing around these common areas -- what type of fencing, if any. So, if we could get that clarified tonight. And, then, two other items I wanted to point out. Here on this entry lot when you come in off of Star, they have proposed their subdivision sign to be located up here on this lot and we had just recommended that that be switched to a common lot, instead of an easement on that build-able lot, and that would also serve for a little bit of a berm for headlights that are coming down Star Road there -- or Star Lane, excuse me. And, then, the last item I wanted to point out is E on page nine and this deals with -- actually, with the west end of the project. They are proposing a flag lot to serve this very back lot here. The ordinance says if you have three lots serving on a common driveway, it needs to be a minimum of 24 feet. They are showing 20. I believe they are proposing this southern lot here to, actually, not take access off of that, which only makes these two lots using the common driveway and so the 20-foot would be adequate, but we just wanted to make sure that it is only the two lots that use that common driveway, otherwise, they will need to revise their application. And I think with that I'll end staff comments. There were two proposed changes that we received in writing from the applicant, which staff is in agreement with. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Moe: What were those changes? Hawkins-Clark: There is something in writing. I think it might be easier -- Moe: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: If that's okay. Zaremba: We are ready for the applicant, then. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, for the record Mike Wardle at 4910 Knollwood Avenue in Boise. This project was approved last summer and I -- just for the sake -- this is the same graphic that I showed you, then, but I just want to -- for orientation purposes, this is what it looked like originally with -- and Brad showed that to you, but it had the office uses or office retail up front. It now is strictly -- oh, excuse me, I'm going to hand out a site plan for each of the Commission members. It will make it easier for you to follow along. Can we start at this end for that purpose and I want to give the clerk a copy of the items that we will present. Here is a copy for the Chair. Mr. Chairman, I'm just simply passing out the items that staff referred to in terms of the changes that we had proposed and I would note also that with that information is a letter from ACHD and also a stamped item from the fire department that does note that they have concurred with the street standards that have been discussed by Mr. Hawkins- Clark. Back to the graphic for just a moment. The issue that the Council had a problem with was the office space just to the north in Razzberry Crossing, the amount of space that has already been approved and partially developed at Heritage Commons to the south and, then, the Brockton Subdivision even south of that. So, there is a fair amount Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 53 of 58 of nonresidential uses along Locust Grove Road in that particular area. So, in response -- in the remand that the Council required us to come back and present an alternative that was strictly residential. We didn't want to change the character of the project, because it is really quite -- all of these lots, really, have good access to amenities and the intent by Mr. Johnson is to have a development that is certainly not restricted to, but, really, addresses the needs for those that are empty nesters, could be an older population, and that speaks to one of the issues that staff noted on page eight when they talked about the landscape easement. Part of the intent is to make these homes and the lots as maintenance friendly or easy as possible and so the intent is along the periphery of these -- these lots that there would be private areas on those lots that would be maintained by the association and be basically kind of a free flow, so that it looks and is taken care of largely by the association, even though there are still private areas on the lots where people would have their own locations, but it's just a matter of being able to make it a little bit more maintenance friendly than what a typical single family lot is. Down to the issues that Mr. Clark addressed, density, while this is certainly not eight units per acre, it's probably the most dense project along Locust Grove Road, because we have smaller lots and we have, actually, two different types of homes that would be available, not only the more standard, but -- and these are all so small lots, 54 foot wide, typically, in here and 120 feet deep, but, then, the lots up front, which are the alley loaded, which are, essentially, the same as those that are around the commons down in Heritage Commons just to the south. Very very similar, except these lots that are proposed are, actually, just a little bit deeper. So, there is a lot of amenity value for all of these homes and, of course, these related to the stubs that come out of Razzberry Crossing, which is immediately to the north, which is, actually, under construction right now. And so we really have a fairly -- it's a formal feel, but everybody has access to these areas, with the exception of those two lots, but they really are very very close. The fire department has -- their issues have been addressed, but I do want to make a comment about the 29-foot street section. ACHD in 1999 worked through the process with the fire departments to come up with that section for parking on one side and other determinations that could be made by the elected officials and in that regard I drove through Heritage Commons tonight on my way here, a project that I designed and this city approved a few years ago and has gone quite well. Most of the streets in that subdivision are 29-foot wide streets. They are -- now the major carriers are 33 to 36 feet, because when the traffic counts concentrate, you need to carry that. But if you drive through there, you will see that the 29-foot street is really not parked on all that much. And, in fact, the fire department I think is ignoring the reality of the way the lots are, but with respect to their concerns, that's why the engineers went to ACHD and back to the fire department and widened them out, so that there was really no question on the part of the fire department on whether or not it met the full 29-foot travel way. So, we have done that. I would also note that the City Council specifically, with fire department concerns, approved parking on both sides of those 29-foot streets in Heritage Commons and you just -- you go out and you drive through it today and you don't find very many cars on the streets and it's really not an issue. But we have addressed that issue, it's been resolved, the fire department has stamped it and said that they approve the streets, so we really don't have the issues that were raised in the staff report with concern to fire safety. We really only have two items that -- not everybody has a copy Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 54 of 58 of these. I have got two more sheets here that I can pass up and that would be on page nine, site specific condition for the preliminary plat, condition number three, which currently reads: No parking shall be allowed on North Heritage View Place and it shall be signed no parking and I want to just point that out, that we are talking about this T turnaround, but as noted that street is the same street width and does conform to the fire department's requirements for the one-sided parking, so what we are asking for is the addition of four words to read: No parking shall be allowed on the T portion and, essentially, that's where the frontage of those four homes occurs, but on the throat of that street coming in parking on one side does meet the requirements and staff has noted that they concur with that request. Certainly, the T portion would be signed as no parking. Then, on page 15, site specific condition for the Conditional Use Permit, planned development, condition 5-F currently reads: Two covered picnic areas with a gazebo and I just wanted to clarify that to say that each of those -- those areas between the homes will, actually, each have a gazebo structure. So, we are simply wanting to note that there will be two gazebos -- I guess my item is dying here. So, there will be a gazebo in this area and there will be another gazebo over here. So, we just want that to note that there will be two, one in each area. I'm not certain if that's the way it needs to be worded, but at least the intent is clear. And with simply those two changes -- oh, I guess one other item that -- the engineers did work with the fire department on the question of this flag lot and common drive and this lot will take access on this street and these two will share that drive and it meets all of the fire department's requirements. There is no need for a fire department turnaround under that scenario, because it's -- the depth is still within their service range. So, on that basis we ask for approval, as you previously did, but in this case for a strictly residential project, with only the two requested modifications that you see on the dias before you. And with that I would stand for any questions that you have. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Wardle: Thank you. Zaremba: I would ask staff if we are comfortable with the parking -- on-street parking issues are being resolved in this manner? Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry. Clarify that question, please. Zaremba: The final statement in your staff report after your recommendation is that we needed to resolve the current discrepancy about on-street parking and its sounds like much has been said about that. Hawkins-Clark: Oh. Okay. Yes. Yes. At that point in time they -- there was still a conflict between the proposed 29-foot and what the fire department was asking for for a free and clear 29, which they believed was not adequate, but I think now that we have received the stamped approved document from Mr. Silva I think that is resolved. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 55 of 58 Zaremba: That, plus the assurances that the applicant has given us, that works. Okay. Then it's the time for general public testimony. We, actually, had nobody signed up for any of these three items, but that doesn't mean you're not welcome to come forward and speak. Anybody care to add anything on these subjects? I don't see activity, so Commissioners? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearings on -- Public Hearing AZ 04- 011, PP 04-017, and CUP 04-015. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: It's been moved and seconded to close these three public hearings. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The hearings are closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Any discussion? Okay. I guess the only question is whether or not we feel that we have resolved the issues that the City Council raised and, therefore, remanded it back to us. Borup: Every issue was related to the office commercial section and that's gone, so doesn't that -- I mean, yeah, it seemed like it automatically handled those issues. Moe: I would say that I think everything has been taken care of and I have no problem in either issue that he would like to change within the site conditions. Zaremba: In that case, the Chair would entertain a motion. Newton-Huckabay: I want to ask a question. Just a general question. When something gets remanded back to us from the City Council, you can't address any of the issues that you already approved anyway, can you? Zaremba: Well, I think, technically, every issue is open. If you make one change, that may -- you know, a decision that we made before was based on the whole picture as we saw it. If another piece of it changes, I think everything's open. I don't necessarily -- my personal opinion is I didn't have any other issues with it myself and I think all the ones that the City Council had have been resolved. But is there some issue that -- Newton-Huckabay: No. I don't have a specific concern. I don't care for these developments with -- where they keep this large parcel in the back. There is another one I think to the north of it that I did -- that I don't think it's -- and I didn't care for that either. But that's not going to change. I mean this isn't the only one to ever come through like that. Zaremba: Well, it certainly reduces the overall density when you put a large parcel in. Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 56 of 58 Newton-Huckabay: Right. But I just -- just for my edification, I didn't -- I was thinking we could only address those issues specifically brought up by the City Council and that's not true. Okay. So, I have nothing specific related to this, I just needed clarification for myself. Zaremba: Well, in the future I would feel free to bring up any issue. I think once it comes back to us, everything is on the table. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, I usually do. Zaremba: Okay. All right. In that case, I believe we are ready for a series of motions. Gentlemen. Ladies. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move -- Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-011, to include all staff comments for the hearing date February 3rd, 2005, with the transmittal date of January 31st, 2005, including all staff comments. Moe: Second. Zaremba: It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval of AZ 04-011. All in favor say aye. That motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 04-017, to include staff comments -- or staff report dated January 31 st, 2005, for the hearing date February 3rd, 2005, with the following two changes: On page nine of 17, site specific conditions, item number three, to insert after the allowed on the T portion of North Heritage View Place and on page 15 of 17, item five, to strike covered picnic areas with a -- and just leave it with two gazebos. Borup: Wasn't that one on the conditional use -- was that under conditional use or preliminary plat? Hawkins-Clark: It was conditional use. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, that's my fault. I'm sorry. Rohm: Well, that's all right. And we can leave it in there and, then, we will just add that to the CUP portion as well. It doesn't hurt to make that change, so I think that's end of motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 57 of 58 Moe: Second. Zaremba: It's been moved and seconded to approve PP 04-017. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-015, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of February 3rd, 2005, with a transmittal date of January 31st, 2005, with the following change: On page 15 of 17, item 5-C, should just read two gazebos. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval of CUP 04-015. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries as well. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Does staff have any further comment? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, I would just -- as a reminder, next Thursday night there is a special workshop and we do have copies here tonight of the proposed zoning ordinance for you to take with you, if you'd like those. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. We will pass those out and that meeting will start at 6:00 o'clock next Thursday, the 10th. Newton-Huckabay: Is it here? Borup: Yes. Rohm: Yes. I believe right at that table. Right over there. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, the round table. Zaremba: At 6:00 o'clock, as opposed to 7:00 o'clock. Borup: On the 17th. Zaremba: On -- this is on the 10th. Borup: Oh,1Oth. Zaremba: A week from tonight. We are, actually, meeting all four Thursdays this month. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 58 of 58 Newton-Huckabay: We are? Zaremba: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: What are we doing on the 23rd? Zaremba: We have a regularly scheduled on the 17th and on the 24th we are having a training session. Moe: I won't be here for that. Newton-Huckabay: He will be in Australia. I make a motion that we close this meeting. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: Motion for adjournment. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Meeting concluded at what appears to be 10:20 p.m. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:20 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED Q~ ~ r-{; DAVID ZAREM - CHAIRMAN ~1~lo5 DATE APPROVED ATTESTED: