Loading...
2005 06-16 Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina June 16.2005. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June 16,2005, 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, Jessica Johnson, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Bruce Freckleton, Craig Hood, Joe Guenther, Josh Wilson, Mike Cole, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Keith Borup X X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X X Chairman David Zaremba David Moe Michael Rohm Zaremba: Good evening, everybody, and welcome to this regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for June 16th, 2005. We will begin with a roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Zaremba: Next on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we will take these in order and I do not have any foreknowledge that any of them are planning to drop out tonight, so if I hear no objections from anybody else, we will assume the agenda adopted as is. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of May 5, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of May 19, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: Zaremba: Okay. Next item is the Consent Agenda, consisting of the minutes of May 5, 2005, and May 19, 2005. And I, myself, have a change to one of those. On the minutes for May 19 -- let me ask first, does anybody have any changes to May 5? Moe: No, sir. Newton-Huckabay: No. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 2 of 93 Zaremba: Okay. On the minutes for May 19th, on page two, the presentation by Ada County Highway District made by Mr. Morgan, Mr. Morgan's first name is Errol, E-r-r-o-I, and it appears incorrectly in my statement and the next statement where he introduces himself. Both cases it should be E-r-r-o-I. And on page 41, the third time that I speak I say we aren't actually -- it missed the contraction for not in there and what I was saying is we are not going to make the legal decision and when I said the contraction my voice probably trailed off, but that should be aren't. Not are. Those are the only changes that I have. Anybody else for May 19th? The Chair would accept a motion on both sets of minutes. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we accept the minutes as amended for May 5th and May 19th, 2005. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. 'All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Presentation - Idaho Smart Growth by Jon Barrett: Zaremba: Next I'm very pleased to tell you that we have another in our series of presentations that are educational and informative for both the Commissioners and the citizens of Meridian and tonight I'm very pleased to have the executive director of Idaho Smart Growth, Mr. Jon Barrett with us. He is an expert on what's happening all over the state in Smart Growth and has some very good ideas for us and I welcome Jon Barrett. Barrett: Thank you. First, I want to put your minds at ease. I know you have a full agenda and this the sum total of my comments for you tonight. I'm, actually, pretty proud of myself for keeping concise. It's a pleasure to have an opportunity to spend a few minutes just introducing you to Idaho Smart Growth, if you're not familiar with us, and bringing you up to speed on what we are doing if you have heard of us before. We are a statewide nonprofit organization, engaging citizens of Idaho in various activities to promote responsible planning and development. We do that by offering information and technical assistance to communities and all of the different various interests within the community that are concerned about how their community is growing, which is, basically, all of us. We also offer public forums and different kinds of educational opportunities and will be doing more of those this summer, both on our own and with other organizations. What I have handed out to you is -- on this side it's what we have been working on in 2004. I want to direct your attention to the other side that has the banner that says 2005 initiatives. That -- the top, above the banner, I think describes Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 3 of 93 really clearly and effectively what do we mean by Smart Growth, those -- those bulleted or partial sentences there under where it says we want our community leaders to plan for growth, so that we accomplish these outcomes or objectives. One of the things that we are watching and participating in very closely and educating folks about is the regional discussion and planning that's going on. Specifically, the Communities in Motion Regional Transportation -- Transportation Plan and the Blueprint for Good Growth. Maybe some of you have come to public involvement meetings that were started to be held last fall and they are continued in through the winter. People at those meetings said very clearly, you know, we see the status quo, we see where this valley is going, and we are not sure if we like that. In fact, we don't like it. We want something else. We want some of the best open space protected. We want real transportation choices, including a real transit system in the Treasure Valley. We want real healthy, exciting downtowns. We want real neighborhoods and not just a collection of haphazard subdivisions. People are saying that more clearly now than even five years ago. And so I think Idaho Smart Growth's roll in all of that discussion is after that plan is adopted, which identifies those as where -- what we want to achieve and how we want the valley to grow, Idaho Smart Growth's role is to find those people throughout the valley that came to those public involvement meetings and said we want to grow in this direction, this is how we want to grow, and help those folks continually remind our elected officials that we came to those public involvement meetings and we said those things and we weren't kidding. We really want investments made in our transportation system that meet these goals. We really want our zoning ordinances changed and updated to achieve these goals and I want to take a second and applaud you all for the -- I know the real hard work you have been doing on your zoning ordinance this past little while, since I believe last fall, and I, frankly, haven't looked at it page by page, but I just want to honor the work that you have done there. I want to now direct you to these. And actually -- when I have talked to people in the past about Smart Growth, the typical response is, well, that only happens in Portland. Or, you know, that's not what we are here in the Treasure Valley or in Idaho, that just isn't going to fly, or it's a nice theory, but, you know, it's all pie in the ski, it doesn't really happen. So, here is what we did. We developed these score cards to use as an educational device and to help citizens understand that, no, these things really are happening here and you can actually take a proposed development, whether residential or commercial or mixed use type development, roll it out on your kitchen table and use this score card and rank it for these various 25 criteria. So, on this yellow one, which we call our neighborhood development score card, the front side is land use criteria, the flip side is transportation criteria, and the maximum points for any particular development is a hundred points. This was our first -- this was our first scorecard. This is our new one, the blue one that's our commercial development scorecard. We realize this just didn't cover it all, so we have done this one now. Now, we have taken it a step further and we really want to -- we really want these to get out into people's hands. My dream is somebody -- you have a public hearing and somebody -- one of your citizens comes up and testifies holding this card and says I talked with the Idaho Smart Growth people or they helped me score the project or I scored the project by myself at my kitchen table and it seems to me it comes up with a -- you know, an 85. I really endorse and encourage you to approve this project as a planning and zoning commission. Or the inverse, I scored this project Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 4 of 93 and it only comes out to a 23. We can do better. So, we think that these are helpful. They are going to be on our website. They are not quite on there yet. Now we are taking these and we have created a Smart Growth awards program to award development projects throughout the state and so, in fact, next week -- this is, actually, breaking news. Next week we are going to be sending out press releases across the state publicizing this awards program and people will have until the end of July to nominate projects for awards. So, you can be darn sure we will make sure the city gets the information about how to apply, developers in the area get that information, and I can get them to each of you, actually, as well. We are not just going to award physically built projects; we are going to award efforts like Meridian's new zoning ordinance. I candidly -- I'm not sure where you are at with your downtown revitalization planning, but if that -- if you feel strongly about the quality of that plan, that should be nominated for an award. So, we are not -- we are awarding planning efforts, as well as actual constructed developments. And we are also awarding citizen-led advocacy efforts. In other areas of the state there are other small grass-roots organizations all working to promote better development and growth and they are doing some great work and we want to recognize that. I'm just about done. We have come up with an expanded membership program. Up to now you can only be a member of Idaho Smart Growth as an individual and businesses and organizations and cities started coming to us saying, well, we want to become a member as an entity, not just as individual people. So, we have created an affiliates program and in coming days and as soon as practical, we would like to meet with your Madam Mayor and talk to her about that idea of Meridian becoming an affiliate member of Idaho Smart Growth. We have many other cities and counties that have joined us and as an affiliate you are -- you receive benefits that individual members don't receive, such as fixed hours of consulting time with us, presentations like this one, and so we think there is -- there is value to the community in that. That based -- we established a base membership level for a local government of 200 dollars a year. We -- that's kind of for any community regardless of size. So, we may -- we may go to this -- to the Mayor -- Mayor de Weerd and ask her for more than that, given Meridian's size. In many cities we are asking for much more than -- you know, we are asking anywhere from 200 to 5,000 dollars. So, I want to ask you if you will consider calling the Mayor and asking her if she -- asking her to consider supporting Idaho Smart Growth in this way as a planning and zoning commissioner. So, thank you for your attention. That's all my entire sheet and I didn't wander too far from it and I actually have a whole Powerpoint that's photos that educates folks more explicitly on what do these criteria mean. You know, what is a four? What is a two? You know, how do you actually use this and we use photographs to illustrate, you know, how you actually use that and, you know, given -- you know, in a half hour or 45 minutes we could go through that on both -- actually, a half an hour on each score card we could thoroughly go through that and if there was some other kind of workshop you're having in the community where you think this is appropriate, call me back and I will come out and do that, help citizens -- you know, my thinking -- my feeling about citizen -- citizen planners I call them, you know, that really care and that really turn out, you know, sometimes it's very easy and tempting just to complain about how we don't want things, you know, and I think it's really nice as a planning and zoning commission -- I think if I were in your shoes to hear somebody once in awhile say this is good development Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 5 of 93 you're considering and I think it's good for our community and I encourage you to recommend its approval or approve it, if that's -- if that's your process. And that's where we can help. We can help bring citizens out to say, yeah, this is -- this is -- this is a good thing we are doing for our community. We need that, I think, that kind of positive reinforcement. So, is there any questions I can answer from you about the kinds of -- Zaremba: Questions from the Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I actually have one. I was just curious how your organization is organized. Are you part of a national program? Barrett: There are -- there are a couple national organizations that help statewide organizations like ours, you know, provide information, provide -- provide assistance, share -- you know, share information about what's going on around the country, but it's not a -- it's not a case of anybody outside of Idaho telling us what smart growth has to mean here. It's more -- it's a case of we define it the way that it makes sense here in Idaho and, then, if we need help, we can go -- we can go ask for that help to -- you know, to be effective in our -- you know, in our advocacy towards those -- towards those goals. So, you know, there is not -- there is no Smart Growth, incorporated or, you know, some large huge organization that we are a chapter of or anything like that. But the term is used all around the country; there is no doubt about that. Newton-Huckabay: Are you organized -- are you a nonprofit -- Barrett: We are. Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: How do your members -- Barrett: How do we solicit members? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. What are your members predominately made up of? You say just citizens -- Barrett: Yeah. Yeah. They are citizens of Idaho, mostly from the Treasure Valley. A fair number from the Coeur d' Alene and Sandpoint area. We haven't -- we have been out and made presentations and helped folks out in eastern Idaho, but we don't have a lot of members from out there. Our mailing list is about 2,000 people. Our dues paying membership is about 350 and it's -- 35 dollars is a basic -- you know, a basic membership. We do have a newsletter, we will be sending out in about the next two or three weeks in early July to that membership. And, actually, everybody on the mailing list gets a newsletter, whether they are a member or not. And are donations start from that 35 dollar basic membership, all the way up a thousand dollar membership and lately, actually, we have been having quite a bit of success increasing the number of people donating or becoming members at the 500 to 1,000 kind of level. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 6 of 93 Newton.Huckabay: My ignorance is going to start to show here, but how does your organization say differentiate itself from like the Urban -- Urban League? Barrett: Urban Land -- Zaremba: Urban Land Use Institute. Barrett: Urban Land Institute? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. How are you -- Barrett: They are more of a developer-oriented organization and they are a chapter of the national Urban Land Institute. I think it's called the Idaho chapter, in fact. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Barrett: Right. And so they are primarily -- they are primarily developers. We have a lot of developers on our membership list as well, but they are almost exclusively people involved in developers and real estate law and right now -- in fact, I think the City of Meridian is part of a research project that we are doing with the Urban Land Institute on in-fill development and that research will be done by the end of this summer and be released this fall, about in-fill development that, at the time of the construction or approval, it was controversial, maybe five or ten years ago, whenever it was constructed. And now we are going back to those sites and looking at were the concerns of the neighbors really valid? Did it really decrease property values? Did it really increase the traffic by a hundred percent like they feared. Did it really, you know, overwhelm the neighborhood with a huge -- you know, a project that's out of scale with the neighborhood, so -- Newton-Huckabay: And when will that be done? Barrett: By the end of August and, then, in September there will be some kind of forum or event where those results will be presented. Newton-Huckabay: That will be fascinating, I think. Barrett: I n-fill development is a big deal. Newton-Huckabay: Yes, it is. Barrett: Yeah. I mean -- and if we are -- you know, the whole point of Communities in Motion is to ask ourselves -- you know, if we are going to have 300,000 new people move here between now and 2025, where should they live and how should we transport ourselves around this valley? Coming out here I had an epiphany, I have concluded it's no longer predictable about how long it takes to get from Boise to Meridian. I don't come out here very much -- that much and I gave myself an hour and I realized I better Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 7 of 93 give myself an hour, because I don't know, it could take 20 minutes or it could take 50. And so we have got -- we have work to do, especially with more people moving here and that presents a tremendous transportation challenge. So, thanks for your attention again. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Appreciate all the work Idaho Smart Growth is doing and you and I think it would be interesting feedback to hear about some of the completed projects and, you know, did they work like you say. Thank you very much, Jon. Okay. Now, we come to the Public Hearing portion of our meeting and I will begin by telling a little about our procedure, for those of you who don't come to our meetings very often. The applicants for each project, of course, have spent quite a bit of time with our professional staff, so we will begin with a presentation by our professional staff on each hearing that tells us where the project is and what the project is and identifies any points that we need to know or issues that still need to be worked out. Following that, the applicant themselves will have time to state anything that they wish to say about the project and they will have 15 minutes to do that, including in that 15 minutes any engineers or architects or anybody that's supporting cast for them, and to answer issues that the professional staff has raised and make any other points that they wish to. Following that we invite the public to participate in the hearing by coming forward and speaking and it's important for us to hear you. If you thought it was important enough to come down tonight, we want to make sure that we hear you and that you get on the record. So, we do ask that you only speak when you're at the microphone and everybody that speaks, including applicants and others, please, begin by stating your name and address for the record. We do ask that the general public limit their remarks to three minutes each. That way we get through our meetings before 1 :00 o'clock in the morning, if you're helpful with that. We do make an exception to that. If there is somebody who is, for instance, a president of a homeowners association or for some other reason is speaking for quite a few people, we do allow them ten minutes and we need them to identify themselves as a spokesman before they begin, so that we get the timing right and I may ask who else they are speaking for and ask you not to speak. Then, after you have said what you need to say and raised any concerns or told us whether you like the project or don't like the project or little things that you think should be considered about it, the applicant will have been taking notes all the time you're speaking and they will get a final opportunity to clarify for us anything that can be fixed or explain anything. They have ten minutes to do that. Let's see. We often have a little light system up here that tells us that. I see it's not in place tonight, so we will estimate the timing on these. Then, after everybody has spoken, the process usually is that we close the Public Hearing and the Commission deliberates, maybe with some discussion from staff, and, hopefully, the end result is a recommendation that we will make to the City Council, where, again, they will have a Public Hearing. So, there is the process for this evening. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: AZ 05-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 28.65 acres from RUT to R-15 and L-O zones for Silver Oaks Subdivision by Charter Builders, Inc. - north of West Franklin Road and west of North Ten Mile Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 8 of 93 Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: CUP 05-024 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for multi-family / clubhouse / office / daycare development with no minimum street frontage and multiple buildings on a single lot on 28.65 acres in proposed R-15 and L-O zones for Silver Oaks Subdivision by Charter Builders, Inc. - north of West Franklin Road and west of North Ten Mile Road Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 05-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 1 multi-family residential building lot and 1 commercial office lot on 28.6 acres in proposed R-15 & L-O zones for Silver Oaks Subdivision by Conger Management Group - west of Ten Mile Road and north of West Franklin Road: Zaremba: And with that I will open some public hearings. The continued Public Hearing from May 19th for AZ 05-016 and also reopen the continued Public Hearing for May 19th for CUP 05-024, and a third hearing that is part of that that was not previously opened, is new tonight, so I will open for the first time the Public Hearing on PP 05-023. We will discuss all of those items together. They all relate to Silver Oaks Subdivision on, let's see, north of West Franklin Road and west of North Ten Mile Road and as I forewarned you, we will begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. the Silver Oaks development is -- I don't have a pointer here -- is -- there we go. It's roughly 28 acres located west of Ten Mile Road, between Ten Mile and Black Cat and north of Franklin, with a slight connection point to Franklin, approximately a quarter mile to the west of Ten Mile. I'll point out a couple of features on this aerial photo. There is the Kennedy Lateral, which is the property boundary that intersects at the western border of this project from the northwest to the southeasterly direction. These white buildings here, that is Avest storage unit. Earlier this year we did approve the annexation of the Avest storage units, with a conceptual development for storage units to the western portion of -- this is Ten Mile Creek in this location. Again, there is another application later on this evening for the Cherry Lane Christian Church, which is this property here. They all sort of relate to each other through development agreements and cross-access for this type of site, so that's why I'm pointing them out to you. The overall Silver Oaks development is for five commercial buildings in an L-O district. On Lot 1 of the preliminary plat, which is heard for the first time tonight, that is the closest portion to Franklin Road, with a new collector road running from Franklin Road approximately to the location in this -- where I'm pointing right now. I'll detail it a little bit here as we have extra conceptual plan here. In my discussion with the application earlier tonight, it is anticipated this building number 21 might be removed. Currently this is a little bit too far for the fire department to access, is what they are anticipating. With that, the original application was for 77 multi- family units, so if they can relocate that somewhere on site, then, that would still fit in with the conceptual design for this project, but it's looking like that this one may be removed. There -- this also -- this slide also shows the court area of the open space lot. It's not a lot, this is all one lot, but this is the portion of the planned development. The Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 9 of 93 second one here is the northeasterly portion. This is where the border of the Avest property would lie and, again, this is the layout where the parking would be in a commercial -- more commercial style of a cross-access for all of these lots. One point I guess I should have pointed out already was that the applicant has provided an estimate that upon this development these units would be condo platted after this planned development is approved, which is what we are hearing tonight. The planned development is for the multiple multi-family units on one lot, but through the condo plat, actually, is -- would be separate ownership of each unit within there. These are estimated to be four-plexes at 77 four-plexes within this 28 acres, roughly. The clubhouse and pool are the other amenities that will be provided to this site. This is, essentially located open space area that would be accessible to all of the buildings in the development. They are providing a trail -- internal trail-ways and appropriate landscaping. With this slide I'm going to point out one fact that in discussions with the applicant and with ACHD and fire for emergency access, as well as for addressing issues, this shows that the road is a collector system to this point for public, is the original proposal and, then, at that point the rest of this would become private. This would be a private road with the Cherry Lane Christian Church to the east and the subject development to the west. Staff has made a recommendation and has put as conditions of approval in this -- for this site that they provide a public access across to the Kennedy lateral. ACHD has supported that and has made it a recommendation that they would support that if the city would require it. This would facilitate a more public transportation system and we wouldn't have the competing private road system within this entire section. Staff feels that's very important, as there is no access to the north for crossing the railroad on this site, as well as the site to the west of this project is also scheduled for high density development under the comp plan and they are going to be facing similar issues as what staff anticipates in the future and to have the actual public street provide more of an internal circulation to the major point of access to Franklin Road. This will be an intersection that is potentially going to be controlled, it's going to have turning lanes going to the east and west and also onto this site. The applicant has shown me a rendition how this would layout and it appears to be very well thought through. With this -- this is the commercial portion. They have proposed five buildings. This is in a limited office development, so it would be subject to the L-O district requirements, so we don't anticipate any high retail or commercial uses there. They have proposed a -- the largest building to be a day care, which does support the uses of the multi-family development and staff is supportive of this. The plan would need to be redrawn prior to City Council, if -- if this -- if you make the recommendation according to staff's conditions, to provide this public roadway system from this location across to the Kennedy lateral. ACHD did put in a condition that if that was the case, then, they would need to -- the applicant would need to provide for half of the bridge for that site. The elevations for the buildings are -- the multi-family development or multi-family units are to the top of this slide, which shows that they are a similar design, split down the middle, with four units. And the commercial units are similar in nature and single story, which should provide some of the appearance of being incorporated into the development. condition that they need to provide a Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District letter in order to have the requirement that this be tiled waived. It's not actually a designated -- a major canal, as far as we can determine, so they would just need to have the appropriate Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 10 of 93 documentation for the piping requirements on that canal. With that, staff will stand for questions, recommending approval as listed in the staff report, with two more changes now. The first would be the park's conditions, numbers three, four, and five on page 22 would be eliminated. They were carried over from a previous staff report and it's more of a -- I'm sorry; it's one, two, and three of the park's conditions. They are carried over from a previous staff report and don't apply to this site. Again, then, the second one would be on page 12, under the required landscaping, under site specific conditions of approval for the preliminary plat, the second portion on there says depict and construct a 20 foot wide landscape strip along the collector street. The collector street -- Zaremba: I'm sorry. Guenther: I'm sorry. Did you say -- Zaremba: Is it 25 feet or 20? Guenther: Twenty. Zaremba: Okay. Guenther: Just for clarification, from Franklin Road to the -- towards the north to this location, that is the collector street that will be designed according to ACHD standards. The local street that staff has recommended is that connection between Lots 1 and 2. That would require the ten-foot landscape buffer. And so the comment should read: Depict and construct a ten foot wide landscape strip along the local street between Lots 1 and 2, with the remaining portion of the right of way being landscaped with lawn or other vegetative cover. And the second one should be exactly the same thing, only depict and construct a 20-foot wide landscape strip along the collector street, which would be the roadway to the east of the site. I'll stand for questions. Rohm: Did you get that, Dave? Zaremba: I didn't. Newton-Huckabay: I didn't. Moe: I think Commissioner Borup got it. Guenther: Would you like me to read it again? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Guenther: Okay. It should read -- if you're on page 12, site-specific condition number two. Depict and construct a ten-foot wide landscape strip along the local street. And, then, it should also read: Depict and construct a 20-foot wide landscape strip along the collector street. The local street would be the east-west division of Lots 1 and 2 and the Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 11 of 93 collector street would be the north-south division between the Cherry Lane Christian Church property and the L-O district in this location. And that's it. Zaremba: While we are on page 12 and discussing paragraph two, which is the landscape plan, keep a finger there and look back at page 22. The Meridian police department, their items three, five and six would also add additional conditions to the landscape plan. We normally say when we say including all staff comments, that also includes the police and public works and everybody else. But your -- your ending sentence that no other changes can be made, leads me to question whether in paragraph two we should add one more bullet that says see the police comments. Does that make sense? Guenther: We will make a recommendation after you hear the applicant. Zaremba: Okay. May be premature. Maybe they have fixed the questions the police had. Guenther: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Questions from the Commissioners? Moe: Yes. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I have one. Joe, I just wanted to make sure -- is there any indication at all, other than the day care, what's going to go in the lots up front, in the commercial lots? Guenther: From what I have seen of these buildings, it's your standard light office, professional buildings, professional service buildings. Moe: And they will be required to go to a CUP if, in fact, they decide to do something -- Guenther: They would be required to do the CZC. This is their CUP for the planned development. Moe: Okay. Guenther: And as long as their use is consistent with the L-O district, it would just be a CZC. Moe: Okay. Great. Baird: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Baird. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 12 of 93 Baird: If I could chime in on your question. I think that on page 12 when it talks about the approved landscape plan, the approved landscape plan would, indeed, incorporate the conditions from the police department, so I don't think you need to make an additional cross-reference there. Zaremba: Thank you. That helps. Just want to make sure it doesn't get dropped. Thank you. We are, I believe, ready for the applicant. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. I must be losing my touch. I don't have anything to argue about tonight. I think we are ready to move this forward with a recommendation of approval. Read through the staff report. Joe made those corrections as you noted on pages 12 and 21. Commissioner Zaremba, you pointed out the police department's comments, and we are in agreement with all of those as well. Joe, if you could go back to the overall site plan, so we can see the whole thing at once. What we have tried to do with this project -- and as Joe pointed out, it's three separate applications. The first is the annexation. The Comprehensive Plan says multi-family and we have provided multi-family and it's about 12 units to the acre. And we have provided some office uses and a day care, which work together with the -- so that these people don't have to travel elsewhere to go to day care and drop their kids. So, they work together. And, then, we have some office uses. Commissioner Moe, you asked what those might be. We don't know at this point, but whatever uses the L-O zone typically would have in this area, typically professional offices for insurance sales, we see a lot of dentists and doctors offices as well in these locations. And as far as the annexation goes, we really have no questions. I talked with Bruce Freckleton a little bit and he may want to address this, but on page nine, the first bullet point, it's on condition number four of this development agreement, right at the top of the page, the first bullet, it talks about how the sewer is -- and the extensions of water and sewer are all on the developer for cost. And I talked with Bruce about this and, Bruce, if you want to chime in, you can. What we'd like to do is -- like Bruce will address this as well -- is we'd like this comment to be revised to say that we will work with the Public Works Department on a cost share. This is a Public Works project bringing the sewer line through and underneath the -- the Union Pacific Railroad and we just want the opportunity to sit down and talk with them about that and how the reimbursement can take place there. If we come in ahead of the city, then, we have to pay for it and there would be a reimbursement agreement, similar to the old latecomers agreements. We just want a chance to sit down with them and work that out, rather than laying it all on the developer at this time and I think Bruce is in agreement with that. Zaremba: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I guess the proposal I would have for modifying that condition would be on the second sentence where it talks about sewer and water service extensions, if we struck the word service and put main line, the city is doing -- we are under contract and design is currently being done for the trunk line Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 13 of 93 extension that will come underneath the railroad tracks and traverse southeasterly across this project and the church project. That is a city project, but main line extensions will be the responsibility of this developer, but not the trunk line. So, I think if we just modified that to say main line extension, I think that would address Dave's concern. McKinnon: That's fine. Zaremba: Thank you. McKinnon: Thanks, Bruce. Like I said, three is applications. The next part of the application is a preliminary plat. This is a two-lot subdivision. Joe alluded to that. We have one lot that's zoned L-O per the annexation, and one lot that's zoned R-15. That's, essentially, the whole of the preliminary plat, two lots, and we are asking for a Conditional Use Permit. The third part of our application, which is to allow this type of multi-family project, with a 20 percent land use exception, and that's the office portion of this project. What we have tried to do with this project, instead of just trying to cram as many units on there as possible, we actually tried to create somewhat of a more up- scale multi-family neighborhood, rather than just a complex. That's why we have included the swimming pool, the court area, the playground area, and the clubhouse. This isn't your typical just straightforward four-plexes with no amenities, there are a number of amenities within this project. As Joe alluded to the fact that we have had discussions with the owner. In the future he may wish to condo plat the entire subdivision and create individual ownership of each one of the units within the four- plexes themselves. Joe, I don't know if you have got copies of the elevations in the presentation. Go through those a little bit slower. Different elevations, different colors, different designs. I think we submitted three different designs of the four-plexes. They are not all going to be identical to each other. The office project -- you see similar rooflines, you see a similar type of treatment between the two, so they will all have a similar look to each other. And I really think that's about all that you need to hear from me tonight, because I don't have anything else to add, other than we agree with the staff report and the conditions that have been requested and those have been modified tonight. Ask if you have any questions of me at this time. Zaremba: I, actually, have two. I'll start with one. Address the changes that would be required for making a road go east and west and across the lateral, please. It sounds like you're agreeing to do that, but how would it look different than what we are looking at? McKinnon: Do you guys have the overhead turned on? If you could turn it on real quick. I can address that and I have got a couple of quick drawings and see how it would change. Obviously, the east-west corridor would be right here. It's about 500 feet from Franklin Road. Coming up Franklin Road at this point we had initially intended on stopping the public street and, then, having a service drive running through here. With a service drive, like you typically find in apartment complexes, you can back your car out into it. With a local street you cannot back a car out into the local street, you Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 14 of 93 know, you don't have garages right onto a local street. Similarly, we can't have carports backing out directly into that. So, you would see all this on-street parking eliminated. You would see a wider street. You would see a 36-foot street section and a 50 foot right of way. Currently, that's only 25 feet wide, with 19 feet for parking on either side. See, you would see a wider road. You will see less open space, you will see less landscaping, but what you will see is a large portion of this being lopped off and, then, possibly a cul-de-sac here that would go across the road here. ACHD did not make this a requirement. ACHD said they would support it if the City of Meridian made it a requirement. In talking with ACHD at the tech review, they felt that what might be most appropriate here would be a pedestrian bridge, but the City of Meridian felt it was necessary to have an emergency access or public street access here, that they would be supportive of and they made it a requirement saying that if the City of Meridian did that, then, they would be supportive of that and it would require it to be a local street and for us to pay for half of the bridge crossing. We really don't want to make the changes. The developer -- we contacted him to let him know that this was the desires of the City of Meridian, that said that -- they said that that was something he could work with. It makes it really easy for my part of the job. Of course, we would rather not have to redesign this, we actually like the design, being able to back out onto the street. We don't believe that any -- Joe, could you go to the overall again? We don't believe that there is really a whole lot of people that are going to come through her to get out to this access point. I don't see a major reason for a public street to go through what, essentially, is a driveway and it's going to be a driveway going over to another multi- family project. Zaremba: Except that the collector road where it connects with Franklin may be the only signal between Ten Mile and Black Cat and that would become attractive to the people to the west, it would seem to me. McKinnon: Chairman Zaremba and Members of the Commission, it is a good point there and there should be some discussion as to where that traffic light should be. Typically, ACHD would rather move it more than -- more than a quarter mile away from the intersection. This point at Franklin is approximately one-quarter mile from the intersection. You would come back on this piece of property -- and I have got a couple of overheads. I can just show you and -- they are not really big and I promise to show everybody else. Overhead working, Josh? I'll just go ahead and pop over to the staff table really quick and I can show you a couple different drawings. Okay. What you see in front of you right now is -- we have a laser pointer really quick. The intersection of Ten Mile and Franklin right there. A quarter mile back is our access. That's this point right here. We initially intended only to go to this point with a public road. The staff is recommending that we take that public road and bring it across right here, approximately 500 feet north of Franklin and, again, traverse about 600 feet to the Kennedy lateral and make that a public road. From there we cross across here. Commissioner Zaremba.- or Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, the half mile point is right here. They would be allowed to have one more unlimited access point right there and when I say unlimited, meaning not right-in, right-out. This would be a right in, right out, left in, left out, a universal access point. They require those to be 440 Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 15 of 93 feet apart. They have enough area there to put one at the half mile, another access that's unrestricted between that property and, then, our property right there. ACHD would prefer to have a traffic light at this location. We don't believe there will be a lot of cross-traffic coming through our project to get closer to the intersection. I believe it will be a direct route -- a more direct route to come straight down or to come through this project out to this, rather than coming across the Kennedy lateral, through another multi- family project with roads coming down through to it, accessing the road between the church and our property and, then, coming out. That's where we believe the intersection will be. If we were to go with a public street access, all the way across Kennedy lateral would be located right here. Sorry I don't have a full size drawing with the whole thing. We did a couple of sketches today, the architect did. Ten Mile and Franklin would be this intersection right here where my laser pointer is at right now. Coming up you find a cul-de-sac, some sort of turnaround, and, then, you have a large, wide roadway system. No parking -- as you can see, no parking backing up to it. The parking would be moved up in between the buildings. The buildings would be moved out, you get rid of open space, then, you have more parking. So, you have got more impervious surface, instead of green space. Coming straight across, ACHD requires a turnaround at the end of every one of their public roads. Even included a cul-de-sac turnaround, 55 foot radius, at this location. You can see what it does to a number of buildings, as well as to the open space. It reduces the number of buildings by a couple of different -- by a couple of office lots. Another idea that the architect came up with was to bring that public road in and, then, bring it down at a jog, so that, in fact, you would have a 500 foot access here, come across and, then, about 400 feet have another access across. The reason for doing that was to cause as little interference as possible with the four-plex project. So, it does change it dramatically. You increase the amount of roadway and you gain a whole lot, other than the City of Meridian fire and police would have a greater access to and through. In talking with your staff, we suggested that this could remain as an alley -- not an alley, but as a driveway with parking onto it, coming across and doing a cross-access over the bridge and building a bridge there, but not making it public, that way we would preserve the 25 foot drive aisle, we would be able to preserve people being able to back in and out onto that roadway and not having to get rid of the open space and getting rid of a few buildings with this. We think that that's a more appropriate route. Like I said, the developer said he was fine working with the city on that. I think that we end up with a better product if - - because this is actually a community, it's not something that we expect people to be driving through. It's odd shaped, granted, but we think this, actually, is enough access points here, we believe, that if we were to come across here with just a driveway, that 25 foot wide, just like you would see -- the fire department requires 20 feet, we would end up with just as good of product. If I can -- Joe, can you hit control alt. Right here -- you're going to see the church project tonight. I'm going to come back up to the podium, if that's okay. Tonight you're going to see the Cherry Lane Christian Church. It's moving to Franklin and I'm kind of excited to see if they are going to change their name to the Franklin Road Christian Church now, too, but that's a discussion for you guys to have tonight with them, but they are going to show the church site here and they are going to have two other access points here with, as Joe pointed out, Avest Mini Storage being located basically directly this direction. Joe, can you go back one more Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 16 of 93 and we can show Avest. Avest Mini Storage right here. You made a requirement on Avest Mini Storage to provide a cross-access. You didn't require a public street to come all the way through Avest and, then, connect to our project, you required a cross- access. We think that the same should be appropriate -- would be appropriate to come across here, just to provide a cross-access across the street there. We feel that that's the best solution to the problem, but we can work with the city, but if we have our own druthers, we'd rather be able to keep cars backing onto it and using the design that we have right now. Zaremba: Discuss with me the condo idea. If this is one project under one ownership, residential I guess being Lot 2; is that correct? McKinnon: Yes. Zaremba: And all of the residential being under one ownership, then, the private drive aisles are not a concern to me, because it's obvious who maintains them. Having private drive aisles for separately owned condos -- that wasn't in our notes, so this is a thought to me tonight and -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- Zaremba: -- worries me a little bit. McKinnon: -- it's not a decision that's been made, but when that decision is made, I think I heard some whispering over here from your attorney, there is an association, you would have a -- just like a homeowners association with that, they would maintain that and provide a cross-access -- Zaremba: Put it in a separate common lot and -- McKinnon: Exactly right. Each building would be sitting on that -- as you know, with condos you only own the interior of the home. From wall to wall I think is how they typically say that. You don't own anything solid, you just own the interior space. So, everything else is handled by an association. Zaremba: Including maintaining -- McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: -- a private drive and, as you said, cross-access. McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: That would be a later application that could happen even after the buildings were built, I take it? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 17 of 93 McKinnon: That's correct. You have seen that happen a couple of different times in Meridian. The only one I can think of real quick offhand is the Goldstone building in Silverstone. That project. Goldstone. It was condo-ed after it was built and so they had to go in and survey the whole interior of it and it's actually kind of arduous to do. As a surveyor, you have to go .- just go from wall to wall and show all the interior dimensions. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: It does happen. Zaremba: Questions from other Commissioners? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I had one, again, on the -- on the east-west private road, talking about going to a public. The only thing I have not heard addressed is that the only access from the office area; correct? McKinnon: Well, you know what, I have got -- Joe, can you -- I'm going to ask you to do something really funny. Can you go all the way to the church property? Borup: I mean that is the only access out of the office, would be on that street. McKinnon: Right. That would be the only access. Borup: So, all the office traffic would -- would also be a potential to conflict with the parking there. McKinnon: I think you're right. Let me see if I can address that, Commissioner Borup, looking at this picture. You have this one access road coming in, but you have one access at the western terminus, you have a center access and somebody came in here. If this area was blocked, they could come down and around and come out. If they came in this area, they could come out and around this way. Back up, around, and, then, down. Or they can come across to the church parking lot. If they come in here, they can come either -- out either one of those. See, you actually have multiple access -- Borup: No. I understood that. I just -- I was just wondering about the conflict with parking pulling in and out. You had mentioned that as a 20 -- McKinnon: Twenty-five foot wide drive aisle, 19 foot parking spaces, just like you'd see at Wal-Mart or any other store. Or any other apartment complex, for that matter. Borup: So, the same time the cars could be pulling in and out, you have got traffic going in and out of the office space, too. McKinnon: And, that's, really, the place that would be most effective would be these right here. These parking spaces. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 18 of 93 Borup: That was alii had. Rohm: Could you address that one building lot up in the northwest corner? This one right there. McKinnon: Uh-huh. In fact, Joe, I think there is one more picture that shows that over there I left. A yellow sheet of paper. I don't know if I have got it still. Okay. We are looking -- he's looking for us. Okay. We went ahead and took measurements. As you know, you can only go 150 feet from where the fire truck parks, you have to drag the hose around to the back-side of the building. It's not as the crow flies, but, actually, how the hose gets to it. Went ahead and measured how far back we came, 211 feet, 220 feet. There is not a whole lot we can do to bring that back within 150 feet, because we are in a really tight corner back here. Essentially, we realize that -- it's note number six from the police department saying that they have a problem with that. The fire department has a problem with it, too. I have talked with Joe Silva about it and we have come to the agreement that lots number -- or building number 20 and 22 would actually curve inward, bringing them closer together this way and we will get rid of lot -- or building number 21. There is just no way we can squish that any further forward and it doesn't meet fire code and the police department has a problem with it. So, we will have to either relocate it or it's gone. We understand that. Borup: That's it. McKinnon: That's it? Okay. I don't know if there is anybody else here tonight to testify. Zaremba: We, actually, have nobody signed up for Items 5, 6 and 7, which is why we have held you in the hot seat a little bit longer, probably. So, Commissioners, are we ready to proceed or do you have more questions or things we need to discuss? Borup: The only thing I think -- Zaremba: Go with me for a minute -- a thought that mayor may not come up, but as you have observed, we are going to have discussion of the church property east of this tonight. If that discussion included -- and I'm trying to think of the cross-access to Avest property and all -- these three properties needing cross-access to each other and I think you even mentioned it. Under the current design, you envision that possibly people coming and going from this project would actually have to drive across the church parking lot for direct access to Ten Mile, if they chose not to go out on Franklin from your project. And I guess my question is -- let's see. Can we have, Joe, a larger aerial view that -- that shows the Avest and the church property? There was one that just had black lines outlining the properties, I think. It was probably the first thing -- yes. That one would do. It probably will come up during the church, because I'll probably bring it up, but if this were to be a road along the Avest property line and would have the north boundary of the church property, would you be agreeable to this collector being a public road all the way to that point? I don't think you had any parking on that upper portion of it. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 19 of 93 McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, ACHD, as you will note in your staff report that Joe put in there, ACHD actually asked us not to continue it all the way up and so-- Zaremba: I think that was assuming it was a dead end, but-- McKinnon: No, it doesn't a dead end. In fact, the fire department has an emergency access. You're going to get to that with the Cherry Lane Christian Church tonight. Zaremba: All right. McKinnon: But there is an emergency fire access road. Zaremba: I jumped the gun. I just was wondering your opinion on this project. McKinnon: And I can address that. I can address that. What you would see -- I don't believe there is going to be a traffic volume enough further up for a collector street and, then, the other difference would be that you would see sidewalk and there is not going to be a whole lot of people using the sidewalk there, because the homes are interior to one side and the church people are parking going the other direction, but ACHD will still require a sidewalk there. There is really no nexus for that, because nobody would necessarily utilize that, because everything is away from the street they are going to. There is nothing they go to from either project to each other. On that one strip. Further down, absolutely, people are going to be going down to Franklin. Hopefully we will have some mass transit, like Jon Barrett brought up, or something will happen here. We know that Ten Mile and Franklin is going to become a busy intersection sometime soon, hopefully sooner, rather than later with the Ten Mile interchange. There is going to be a lot of retail here. This is going to be a service area and this is going to provide housing near that retail area. Zaremba: I have exhausted all my questions. No questions from staff? Guenther: Just waiting for questions of staff. McKinnon: Commissioners? Members of the Commission, Mr. Chairman, thanks for giving me some extra time tonight. I think I probably went into more than I was planning on going into and I appreciate the questions. As I stated, we'd much rather prefer to see this remain as just a private drive. We are agreeable to bringing an access road across the bridge, just like you did with Avest and requiring the multi-family project that happens over here on the cattle farm in the future to connect to that, so there is emergency vehicle access, and if people need to get across they can. I feel that's a better solution, rather than taking up more space with right of way and more space for parking. Ask for you approval at this time and ask any other questions of me and I can answer them for you and, then, I'll sit down. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 20 of 93 Zaremba: Thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Zaremba: Discussion, Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, you appear to have thoughts building up. Rohm: Oh, just the one -- today's comments on the cross-access and, actually, quite frankly, I like his solution. If you have cross-access between this parcel and that to the west, it almost keeps all of the traffic within this development here and doesn't -- don't end up having people fighting each other between this apartment complex and any other development that may occur and I think it -- it will flow better leaving it that way, than trying to put a roadway through. That's just my opinion on that. Zaremba: Are you speaking of a cross-access that -- even though it's not a public roadway, still would be usable by vehicle? Rohm: Absolutely. Yeah. Zaremba: Would require a bridge across the-- Rohm: Right. And the cross-access and development of the bridge would a joint venture between this development and the property to the west. That seems logical to me. Zaremba: I like having the connection. I'm not stuck whether it's a public road or some other arrangement and, as you're suggesting, I think that's fine, but I like -- I mean that is a solution to having a connection, as you say, and if that's not where the signal is going to go, I guess I was thinking of -- and assuming, since the signal was mentioned, that this half was the half mile, as Mr. McKinnon pointed out, it's not in the half mile. Rohm: Yeah. As a matter of fact, that kind of goes into the logic of leaving that just as a cross-access, because I think that the signal being placed at the half mile is a much better idea than a quarter mile from the Ten Mile-Franklin interchange. Zaremba: All right. I think you and I are agreeing. Other Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: Well, I have a question. This area is going to get particularly dense and if it would stand to reason where -- regardless of where your inter -- your signalized enter interchanges, traffic is going to try to get there to, you know, get out. We talk a lot when we are talking about Eagle Road and things like that, how nice it would be to have frontage roads and that type of thing and, to me, it seems to me, you know, a public Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 21 of 93 road would kind of serve that purpose to help defuse some of the heavy traffic with something similar to a frontage road that's moving to the west and I will -- Zaremba: Well, we are all agreeing that there needs to be some circulation pattern for traffic, but I think what Commissioner Rohm and I are questioning is whether that really needs to be a public street. Do you feel it needs to be a public street? Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think -- I was trying to -- I didn't have my Comprehensive Plan with me, but it could stand to reason that you could end up creating a public road that went west eventually all the way down towards -- and connect to Black Cat. It's just a thought. I'm not really strong either way. I just think a lot of times we get a lot of this development and we fill up these roads and, then, we have situations where we are going why didn't we think of that before. I don't think having a public street is a bad idea. I would look at it as hedging for future development myself. Zaremba: Which is why staff is proposing it. I mean it's exactly the reasoning behind making it a public street. Newton-Huckabay: Right. What are you gentlemen's thoughts? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup, you appear to be -- Borup: Well, you and Commissioner Rohm were talking about leaving it as a private street, but still having the access. Is that what I understood? Rohm: Yes. Cross-access to the west. Borup: My feeling would be if that's -- if that's the way it went -- if that's the direction, that maybe a little more width. It would be a lot easier to redesign also for the developer, but -- Zaremba: And still allowing the back-outs kind of parking, just make the drive aisle wider? Borup: Yeah. Rohm: And that seems reasonable, too. Zaremba: That's a good suggestion. Newton.Huckabay: This property next to it is industrial. The property to the -- all the properties to the west to Black Cat and beyond are zoned industrial or -- Borup: Oh, that was -- yeah, I did have another -- I did have a question. I thought Joe had mentioned that the property to the west was future multi-family. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 22 of 93 Guenther: It's high density. Borup: Pardon? Guenther: It's high density and, then, everything -- Borup: But what's the buildings that's on there now? Guenther: It's a farm. It's an actual -- Borup: Those are all farm buildings? Guenther: Those are all farm buildings that are on there currently. Borup: To the west. The property to the west. Guenther: Immediately to the west across the Kennedy lateral. Borup: That looked like a lot of buildings on the overhead photo. Guenther: It's a good size farm. Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Right. That's what I'm saying, is that as land use goes to the west and you run into an industrial zone, those -- Rohm: That's beyond the half mile. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. It is. Rohm: Yeah. The half-mile -- west of the half-mile is industrial. Moe: As I guess I'm the only one that hasn't spoken on this yet, I would somewhat agree with Commissioner Borup. Actually, I would like to see it go private, but I would like to see if we can widen it up a little bit. I think that's the -- in between them, but both -- I don't think it needs to be a public street and I would like to see a little bit more width. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Zaremba, just to make one comment. In terms of the parking, whether you -- whether you choose to go public or private, I think if the row -- if that street has parking on the oath south boundary, recognize that the volume of traffic, whether it's public or private, will still probably make it worth not having parking on that. I mean that wasn't necessarily brought up in the hearing portion, but, then, you could go private without the -- and narrower than a public street, but still with no parking backing up, and I think in terms of potential conflicts that would be created with parking there, with the day care operation, especially right on the corner, and I think the way that the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 23 of 93 you move traffic -- he showed a couple of different options at the beginning, which seemed to be workable and none of those actually -- I don't think -- they didn't show parking, actually, on that private street, so -- Rohm: Well, let's put one of those back on the screen. Borup: So, that would be leaving parking on the north side of the street, but eliminate it on the south side. Zaremba: These are hand drawn. I think they were intending it to be a public street with no parking. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. But a similar design could be for private. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Or if it was private, there could be parking on the north side. Hawkins-Clark: Well, staff would probably -- would not recommend parking on either the north or the south. Zaremba: Well -- and that design works for me. It wasn't attractive to the applicant, because they lose a building or two here and there. Hawkins-Clark: Well, if that street was narrower, though, it might be able to get buy with a narrower street. I'm assuming that they may -- they may have drawn, they may be able to get the applicant to clarify if that was drawn with -- Zaremba: The Public Hearing is still open. Hawkins-Clark: -- a 50 foot right of way. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just to follow up on what Brad said. We, actually, did draw this with the 50 foot right of way. As you can see, it was drawn with a Sharpie, it's not exact. But it was done with just, you know, taking a piece of onion paper, putting it on top of something that was to scale and, then, going ahead and outlining what it would look like. This isn't just a straight forward -- if you were to narrow it down, but, then, still not allow parking, I don't think you have gained a whole lot. It wouldn't gain much in the sense of building. You know, the City of Meridian requires a setback, but a ten-foot landscape buffer is what you're going to get, regardless of whether it's public or private. I think that the volumes to the site are going to be tremendous. There will be -- there will be a number of vehicle trips that's generated here, but those of you that have shopped at Wal-Mart and Fred Meyers and other shopping centers, you know that people are able to back in and out safely. I don't believe that -- and living in an apartment complex and having managed apartment Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 24 of 93 complexes, people tend to be able to get in and out of parking that they are backing out into a drive aisle and they are able to do it safely. Borup: But this is not a parking lot, though, and -- McKinnon: On this drawing this is not a parking lot. Borup: Well, on the original drawing. I mean you're not just going to a single store, no matter how big it is, you're going to multiple buildings. Let me throw out one other idea. McKinnon: I'm sorry; I didn't follow you there, Commissioner Borup. Borup: Well, no, you're talking about the -- I don't think your -- your analogy of a parking lot at Wal-Mart is a good analogy is what I'm saying. Another option may be is public street width to this point right here and, then, narrow it down at this point, which I think would -- and no parking on this side, on the north side. I think that would have a tendency to force the traffic down this street here and, then, you could still have the parking in this section. McKinnon: Commissioner Borup, I'm really glad you brought that up. That's -- I had a -- I'm glad you brought that up, because that is something I should have brought up. With this drawing -- I lost my laser. We talked about this with one of the architects on staff, is that people are going to come around this roundabout, this cul-de-sac area, and all of a sudden you have got people backing out with people coming around this. I think you make a very good point that this area right here should be restricted for parking. I think you make a good point there, because people are going to be coming through this area off a public street, coming back in there. I think -- I agree with you that maybe this area right here have some restriction to parking. Borup: Take that maybe from a 36 foot street down to a 28 or something and -- McKinnon: Twenty-eight would be fine. That's just three more -- Borup: I would -- I don't know, wouldn't that -- I would think that would have a tendency to move the traffic at the first -- at the first entrance there, rather than driving down further. Hawkins~Clark: Can I ask a question? Is the day care site that's shown on they're pretty firm or is it possible that it would move around? McKinnon: Oh, the day care site could move around. I think the reason why it's back there is to protect it from the higher volume of traffic, plus be able to pick up and drop off easier, separate from the other office projects. You can see they have got this drive aisle here that's separate from the rest of the office. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 25 of 93 Zaremba: Between this drawing and the one that shows the public road with no back-in parking along it -- McKinnon: Uh-huh. Zaremba: -- you don't actually lose any of the office buildings. McKinnon: Oh, that's -- Zaremba: Did you -- McKinnon: Can we go back -- Zaremba: How many of the four-plex residentials did you lose? Just one or two? McKinnon: Three. I would lose 76. That's where that parking lot was. Zaremba: Uh-huh. McKinnon: I'd lose 74. Again, the parking lot. And, then, another parking lot right here to protect that. And if you go back, we actually do lose some office as well. You got to go back a 30-foot setback from a public street. Zaremba: Lose a few feet off of it. McKinnon: And so you lose some more. So, you're going to lose at least one building, if not two buildings. In fact, both of the drawings that you see actually show two buildings being eliminated from the office side. One of the drawings shows two four- plexes being gone and the other drawing that had the straight across to the cul-de-sac that didn't jog down, it showed three four-plexes being eliminated. Extra parking. Again, Sharpie drawings. We haven't put this all onto -- just trying to figure out -- we thought you might have some questions tonight, so we thought we would put something together. Zaremba: Let me ask this: When -- when we know at some point in the future that a road is going to be put through, the full radius turnaround isn't always required, is it? Once it's a connecting road, there is no need for a turnaround there. I realize that there is a temporary need, but is there another solution that wouldn't take up so much land? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I did talk with ACHD about that and there is some possibility of doing a hammerhead, a Y-shaped turnaround. Actually, the fire department here doesn't like the Y-shaped turn around. A hammerhead or a snoopy. But that whole section of it has to be public road or you have to provide an easement for that and it needs to meet the fire department and ACHD standards. Typically, the simplest way to do that is with just that cul-de-sac. You know, you could Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 26 of 93 do a snoopy or a hammerhead, but I don't know if it creates a whole lot, but, yes, they do require you to provide a turnaround according to their standards. Borup: No matter what the depth is. No matter what the distance is. McKinnon: Well, there is some language that if you go back less than 150 feet you don't have to provide a turnaround, as long as it's servicing no more than two homes. Borup: Right. And wouldn't this be less than 150 feet and servicing anything? McKinnon: Well, the public road itself -- I've got to get a new laser. Borup: Well, I assume that Commissioner Zaremba was talking about the tie in here. McKinnon: This public road itself would stop right here and not continue and so you'd have to provide a turnaround at this location. They required us to put a turnaround at this location if we stopped it here. Zaremba: I'm not -- yeah, I'm not questioning the collector turnaround, I'm questioning the west turnaround, since it would only be temporary. McKinnon: Okay. Like I said, I did talk with Andrea over at ACHD about that -- in fact, this specific question, that if we go to here do we still have to provide a turnaround. The answer was, yes, you still have to provide a turnaround. Yes, you can provide it in an easement or you can go ahead and provide a permanent turnaround. I'm trying to think back. Those of you that were on the Commission with Elk Run Subdivision, when it came through off of Ten Mile, they were required to put in a turnaround that came into the driveways and into part of the house and one of the lots and they said in the future when this connects we are going to tear out this sidewalk, we are going to build the house out into it, because ACHD required them to put the turnaround in the little subdivision with just nine lots, even though it had a stub street going north. ACHD requires a turnaround at the end of every public street, regardless of whether or not it stubs to a property. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Zaremba, I think there might be some miscommunication here, because I think Dave is -~ are you assuming, Dave, that this would be public when you're saying all of that? But I think where the Commission is headed is that if this goes private, do you still need a turnaround here and I think the answer is no, because our fire department can already -- this is a turnaround for the fire department. They can get through here just the way that they have drawn this. McKinnon: Thanks for helping me out, Brad. Exactly right. If it was -- if it was private, no turnaround. If it was public, there would be a required turnaround. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 27 of 93 Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: It seems to me that if we could eliminate a couple of the parking spaces here to address the traffic that's coming in around this corner on the north side and, then, maybe eliminate the parking along here and leave that private and that will lead for a larger drive aisle, even though it is private, and leave the balance of things as -- as it is. That seems as if that would address -- Zaremba: Plus an easement and a bridge across the -- Rohm: Right. Exactly. Yeah, to -- Zaremba: Do you -- okay. If I lost one, two, three, four, five, six -- if we lost 15, 18 -- let me ask staff. If we lose 18 parking spaces, do they still have adequate parking for the office buildings? Guenther: That would be analyzed through the CZC. It's going to be dependent on the size of those buildings. Zaremba: Okay. Guenther: The conceptual in front of you is an approximate. What actually comes in for a building permit is what we would scale the parking requirements on. Zaremba: Okay. So, let me summarize and see whether we have consensus here. Thinking that it would remain a private road, that three or four parking spaces on the northeast side would go away, the row of parking on the south side would go away, giving a wider drive aisle and the landscaping would be pulled back a little bit, so there would be a wider drive aisle, with back-out parking only on the north side, except for the right three or four spaces wouldn't be there, and there would be a bridge across -- this applicant would be responsible for half of the bridge, but there would be a bridge and a cross-access across Kennedy lateral. Rohm: To the west. Zaremba: To the west. Is that -- Rohm: That's -- I think that's -- Zaremba: I see people screwing up their faces. Moe: How many spaces were you talking about getting rid of up on the -- up in the corner? Zaremba: I'm just saying four or five, probably. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 28 of 93 Moe: I'm looking more like eight to get it to basically line up with the curbing. Okay. To line up right into that area, you're going to lose about eight spaces. Excuse me. Line up right here. Borup: If you go back the whole way. Moe: Right. Borup: I think Commissioner Zaremba maybe was talking about just right at the east end. Zaremba: The ones right at the driveway were connection -- Borup: I really like the idea of eliminating eight and, you know, have the curbing come in and narrow that street down and discourage the traffic from even going straight -- discourage the office traffic from even going that direction. Moe: You have the planter area right here and, then, just kind of line -- if you take it out from there to there, it just lines up a heck of a lot better all the way through there and I do agree with taking out the parking spaces on the south side and I think that would -- that would work well and keep it private. Zaremba: Does staff have any further comments? Guenther: If you're going to go private, then, we need to know what standards for which the bridge will need to be built, which staff would recommend that be built to ACHD standards, that bridge, and that the applicant be required to bond for 110 percent of half of that bridge. Zaremba: I can see that, because, conceivably, fire trucks would have to go across it. Needs to be able to support -- and probably moving vans and stuff like that are going to use it if it's there. Guenther: Yeah. And so, essentially, if you're going to make it private, then, the city needs to maintain the construction standards of that. If it was public, then, ACHD would be responsible for that. Borup: When you're talking about ACHD standards, you're talking about structure and weight load and that kind of thing, not necessarily width, so it doesn't need to be public road width? Guenther: It would be for public road width as well. It would be a minimum of 24-foot improved surface. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 29 of 93 Zaremba: I wasn't terribly uncomfortable with the private road, but thinking of a private bridge 75 years from now, when it's falling apart, somebody has to replace it. Guenther: Most likely it's going to be a large culvert style bridge across the Kennedy lateral. Zaremba: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, more than likely it would just be a culvert crossing. It wouldn't be a concrete bridge structure like you would typically think of when you talk about a bridge. It would be a culvert crossing. Zaremba: And in long-range thinking that would not be as expensive for a homeowners association to maintain if it were a private -- Freckleton: Correct. Zaremba: -- culvert crossing. Freckleton: Correct. Zaremba: But it would still support a fire truck and -- Freckleton: Absolutely. Yeah. As long as it was -- you know, as long as we place the condition on there that the Ada County Highway District standards be applied, that would cover the loading -- loading requirements and all the design criteria that ACHD would apply. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: While I've got the mike, I'll take this opportunity just to clarify a point that Joe made. When we talk about the developer putting up half the cost, typically what we have done in the past that it's in the form of a bond or a letter of credit, it's a cash deposit. That way, basically, the developer is done at that point in time and, then, when the property to the west develops, those funds are, then, turned over to that developer to the west to complete those improvements at that point in time. So, it would be 110 percent of half the cost of the culvert crossing. Zaremba: And who figures out what that dollar amount is? Freckleton: Well, it would be -- it would be done during the time of their design and, then, their bid for construction. It would be based on a contractor's written estimate. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Then, do they get the ten percent back? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 30 of 93 Freckleton: The ten percent is basically there to account for any inflation costs or costs of materials and that sort of thing. So, it's 110 percent of the cost. I see our city attorney making faces. Got a comment? Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Are we ready to make a motion on this? Zaremba: Well, let me ask. Basically, the rest of the project hasn't raised any questions. Are we saying that -- that, basically, we are in favor of the project, what we are noodling out is whether or not this needs to be a public or private road and what form that takes. Is that really the only issue we have to discuss? Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I would, actually, like the applicant to come back up and maybe make a point as to what we have been discussing here, as to whether or not they are in agreement with that. Zaremba: Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission, I'm sitting in a good position where we know that we can accommodate either position that you have taken. We would like to preserve as much of this design as possible and I like the direction that you have been going as a group. I know that individually there may be differences among you, but as a group we like the direction that it's headed. I think some great points have been made. I really like some of the comments that are being made. The increased width of the driveway, blocking some of the parking up on the north side to make it safer, I think these are all the appropriate directions to be going tonight. That's alii have to add. Borup: But we have talked about several different things, that's what we were trying to maybe narrow in on. One to one in talk to the last was to have a wider entrance off the public road and, then, neck it down as it passes -- as it comes passed the entrance to the -- McKinnon: I think that's a great comment. I would support that. That was, actually, like I said -- I thought about it, too, but I just didn't mention it to you tonight. Borup: And that's one of your preferences? McKinnon: That's fine. I think it -- Borup: So, we just need to discuss the road width, then, do we? Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: What's appropriate for that width? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 31 of 93 Zaremba: Would that make you need to find extra parking for building 77? McKinnon: We may end up losing that. Zaremba: It makes that inconvenient for them. McKinnon: We may end up losing another building and that's-- Zaremba: But you would only lose one building. McKinnon: We would only lose one building. Exactly. And so we end up better than -- Borup: Or you may be able to shift everything partially. McKinnon: I don't know if we want to design this to be anymore dense than it really is. I think we have, actually, got a product here that's got a nice amount of open space. It's a little bit different than everything else that's out there in the status quo. I don't think the intent is to try to squish it and move things around to make it better. Borup: That's still losing less buildings than what you had on your other concept. McKinnon: That's absolutely correct. Zaremba: You'd probably lose 77, would be the one you would lose. McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: And still maintain all of the office buildings and maybe put a couple more trees where 77 is and nobody would miss it. McKinnon: Or you spread it out. Zaremba: Yeah. Thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Zaremba: Commissioners? Borup: We were just discussing what do we make that width, then. If the drive aisle now is 25, I mean what are we looking at, 30 feet for the other? Thirty-two? Probably 30. Zaremba: Twenty-five is the standard requirement in most parking lots. Any park you have driven through recently is probably 25. Borup: I'm talking about just that little stretch there that's going to be wider. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 32 of 93 McKinnon: Members of the Commission, just one last thing -- Borup: Or do we let this work out with staff? Zaremba: What were you going to say? McKinnon: The wider the street gets, the faster traffic tends to travel. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Well, I understood that. That's why I like the neck down. That's going to slow it down. So, can our motion just be a wider entrance and the width work out with staff? Newton-Huckabay: I think that's a good idea. Zaremba: That's a good solution for me. Rohm: That works. Zaremba: Are we ready to close the Public Hearing -- public hearings plural. Borup: You go ahead. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Oh, 1-- Borup: Commissioner Huckabay was ready to do it. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Because I'm ready to close this Public Hearing. Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the public hearings on AZ 05-016, CUP 05-024, and PP 05-023. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: I have one question. I still prefer the idea of the public street to the ideas that were presented here, so should I just vote against the preliminary plat or all of it or -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 33 of 93 Zaremba: My suggestion would be that you make the motion and make it a public street and see how we vote. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I -- Borup: But it wouldn't just be on the plat, I believe. Zaremba: Oh, yeah, it's not an annexation, it's not a CUP. It's a plat issue. Rohm: I think it would be better if a motion -- Borup: Is that correct or would it be part of the CUP, too? Moe: No, I don't think so. Zaremba: Well, I'm going to -- Borup: Because the plat is only two lots, isn't it? Zaremba: Yeah. The plat is only two lots. Guenther: Mr. Chairman? Borup: The design is -- is that a CUP issue or -- Guenther: If it's going to be public, that road will need to be included with the plat and also the CUP is for a planned development, which is for the overall site layout. So, it would be -- if you're going to vote no on those, you're going to have to vote no on both the conditional use and the planned development -- or the preliminary plat. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Well, before we go either way, let's try and crystal ball into the future and the development of the properties next to it. If it's a public road, that's fine. If it's a private road, not built to public road standards, we virtually can never go back. Visualize what you think the development west of this will be. Visualize if this is ever going to need to be a public road. Guenther: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: I'm not helping, because I could go either way on it. Guenther: Mr. Freckleton just brought up a good point and that is that by -- if you make this private and this is -- half the reason why we actually went with the public in the first place, is you're forcing the applicant to the west to maintain his project as private as Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 34 of 93 well, so he can't come through and do a plat for multi-family, because you can't go from a public road system to a private road system to a public road system. Zaremba: Right. If ACHD refused to connect-- Guenther: ACHD would refuse that. Yes. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: But the property to the west has a half-mile access point. Zaremba: Well -- and that may be attractive to these people as well. They may wish to go west to that signal. Rohm: I, actually, think it's better to break it up just a bit. You're going to have these -- this development that's going to dump out onto Franklin at the quarter mile and the property to the west will dump out at the half mile and it doesn't get everybody congested at one point, so from my perspective, maintaining it as a private drive enhances the development of both properties, rather than hinders it. That's just as I look at it. Zaremba: You could get traffic to do that by not making the connection, which is back to the way it came in in the first place. Rohm: Well, I -- Newton-Huckabay: You guys are killing me. Borup: I feel there does need to be some connection. I don't have an opinion whether it's public or private, although I -- I could see that some year down the road we may wish it was public. Newton-Huckabay: I just think this is going to become a very busy corridor when you have the Ten Mile interchange, we are going to have -- I think -- I see, you know, development from Ten Mile all the way down to the cheese factory, I mean that's what you're having developed now, you have a car lot and different things and I envision that's probably what we are going to see and I think public roads -- you know, like I said, we are just hedging the possibility of, you know, a real congestion problem and people are going to migrate towards controlled intersections. If you have a public road through here, people leaving from the church, you know, may head that way to get there and people heading from the industrial area, if there is a public road to get to a controlled intersection. And I think if that never -- because if it never develops that way, you know, you, at least, have a -- it's still a usable road. I think we should make a motion, then, and vote a it. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 35 of 93 Rohm: Before a motion is made, where do we make the changes in the staff report to address the elimination of the lots -- the parking spaces, if we are to address that in our motion? Or do we just simply state that the developer work out the parking with staff? Guenther: Generally, if you're going to make major changes to the design, we'd like to see a redesign -- I'd like to have a design that you're comfortable sending to the City Council. Rohm: Okay. So, would that be a site-specific condition? Guenther: Yes. Rohm: On the preliminary plat? Guenther: Conditional Use Permit. Rohm: Pardon? Guenther: Through the CUP. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Borup, do you have a motion already prepared, the details? Borup: I have got the staff comments written down, but not on this road thing. I'm a little up in the air. Moe: Page 19, I would assume, on number seven. Borup: Yeah. That's where it would go. Moe: Yeah. I'm still unsure what-- Zaremba: Well, to muddle it farther, I'm -- Borup: Commissioner Rohm, are you -- Zaremba: -- the farther we think into the future the more I'm leaning towards Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's opinion that it -- we will some day wish it were a public road at least to public road standards. Borup: See, I don't see that if it stays -- I mean if the property develops as multi-family like this, they are never going to be torn down and something else built, it's always going to be the same. It depends on how far in the future you want to go. Rohm: Commissioner Borup, if you make a motion I'll second it. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 36 of 93 Newton-Huckabay: I think we are to that point. We need to make a recommendation and -- Borup: Yeah. Commissioner Rohm, did you have a motion written out on the road part? Is that where you put it, on 19? Rohm: Actually, I put it on page 14, item 12, but that's -- I just added -- on a site specific condition and, then, just -- I just wrote the -- Borup: That's under the annexation, though. Rohm: Okay. So-- Borup: Just take your same motion and move it to 19. Rohm: To 19. Moe: And make it an Item number seven. Newton-Huckabay: How about if we make a motion for a public road and then -- Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: -- you can see who will vote for that. Zaremba: You, actually, wouldn't need to make changes, because that's what staff recommended. Newton-Huckabay: Exactly. Right. Zaremba: Are you making a motion? Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: The Chair recognizes Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. 1-- Moe: Before she does, may I make one more comment, please? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I guess just one last point I would probably -- I still somewhat agree to the private road aspect of it, but at the same time, as I have heard, the applicant tonight has made statements that he, in fact, can work with it either way. I guess as we go through this thing, you know, if the applicant is of the opinion that they could work through that and Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 37 of 93 make it a public, I guess that would probably be the best case all the way around for future use and whatnot. So, having said that, you go right ahead. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-016, request for annexation and zoning of 28.65 acres -- do I have to read the whole thing? Zaremba: You don't need to read the whole thing. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: Just referencing the file number is fine. Newton-Huckabay: To include all staff comments from the transmittal date of May 18, received on June 10th. Moe: Not done yet. Newton-Huckabay: I'm not done yet. Moe: Then you need to go with page nine and make the change here. Newton-Huckabay: Everybody, you will be happy to know this is my first official motion to the City Council. Okay. And on page nine we want to make the change that the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water main line extension, so strike the word service. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Rohm: Nay. Guenther: Mr. Chairman? Newton-Huckabay: I forgot the landscape portion. Guenther: You forgot page 12 and, then, to strike the parks comments. Moe: That would be on the -- Guenther: I'm sorry. Borup: This is just the annexation. Moe: That's the annexation only. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 38 of 93 Zaremba: I missed that. Is the motion complete or are we -- Guenther: For the annexation, yeah. I jumped the gun. Zaremba: Okay. So, I believe we have four ayes and one nay. Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, I recommend we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-024, to include all staff comments of the memo dated May 18th, received by the City Clerk June 10th, and with the change to -- page 12? Moe: No. Newton-Huckabay: Page 21. Moe: You want to strike -- Newton-Huckabay: Page 21 we want to strike the first three comments from the Meridian Parks Department, comments one, two, and three. End of -- Borup: That's it. Newton-Huckabay: What about the ~~ oh, no. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Rohm: Aye. Borup: Aye. Zaremba: Motion carries three ayes, two nays. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 05-023, to include a memo -- staff memo dated May 18th, received by the clerk June 10th, with the change on page 12, bullet number two, needs to read: Depict and construct a ten foot wide gravel shoulder on the local street abutting the site. Is that right, Joe? That doesn't sound right. Guenther: What was ~- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 39 of 93 Newton-Huckabay: I'm trying to restate your site-specific condition on the preliminary plat number two. Guenther: It would be -- for the second portion it would read: Depict -- depict and construct a ten foot wide landscape strip along the local street between Lots 1 and 2, within the remaining portion of the right of way being landscaped lawn or other vegetative cover. And, then, in addition, it would say depict and construct a 20-foot wide landscape strip along the collector street, which would be on the eastern property boundary south of the private road, the Lots 1 and 2. Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to have my motion include the statement just made by city staff and that would be end of motion. Guenther: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Guenther: Also the ACHD comment that says if the city requires on -- it would be page 23. It should be incorporated that the city does require that stub street to be connected. Newton-Huckabay: So noted also. That comment. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Rohm: Aye. Zaremba: I believe we have four ayes and one nay. The motion carries. Thank you all. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Zaremba: We are approaching the time we traditionally take a break. I think I will suggest that we do take a ten-minute break and reconvene. (Recess. ) Item 8: Public Hearing: RZ 05-008 Request for a Rezone of 2.61 acres from R-4 to C-G zone for Walgreens by Hawkins Companies - 3150 West Cherry Lane: Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 05-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 14,490 square foot retail pad with dual drive thru for the pharmacy on 2.61 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Walgreens by Hawkins Companies - 3150 West Cherry Lane: Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 40 of 93 Zaremba: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll reconvene and let the record show that all Commissioners are again present and I will open Public Hearing RZ 05-008 and Public Hearing CUP 05-029, both relating to Walgreen's at 3150 West Cherry Lane and we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject site is located on the northeast corner of Ten Mile and Cherry. There is currently a church on this site that, as you mentioned, a new Walgreen's store is proposing to rezone this property to C-G, general commercial zone. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map depicts the subject property as public, quasi-public, due to the existing church use of the property and it's zoned R-4 in the city. As I mentioned, that church that's going to be removed is around the corner. Surrounding uses to the north, there is a city well site to the northeast of the church. There are two residences also north of the church and as well as single-family homes along the eastern boundary. Across Ten Mile is a medical office. Albertson's and some other commercial retail businesses are across the corner from the subject site and there is a bank and St. Luke's Medical Center on the other side of Cherry Lane. The submitted site plan depicted the Walgreen's building and dual drive-thrus, with a future pad site to the east in this general location. The proposed landscape buffers along Ten Mile and Cherry Lane were substandard. I talked to the applicant about some of the landscape buffers and this also did depict a full size access. They had tried to receive a full access to Cherry Lane, as well as Ten Mile located at the north property line and, in fact, shared with the city well site and there is a property owner here that is their primary access to the property. I'm unaware of the consent from this property owner being obtained so far. We are going with the assumption that the application can obtain that consent. If not, basically, this -- the Ada County Highway District does want to see this again, reevaluate the project. I think the city should do the same. I doubt that an access near the north property line will work. It will probably have to be moved further south, maybe in alignment with the driveway across. But that changes things anyway, so -- but since those original discussions they have submitted a revised application. A couple of changes that may note for you -- now, the staff report is primarily based on what was submitted. This revised site plan was just given to me late last week and the staff report was pretty much prepared at that time, but they have at least shown steps in the right direction to comply with staffs comments in the report. A major change, they have shown the dedication of right of way for both Cherry and Ten Mile, required by the highway district, and a 25 foot wide landscape buffer along both the frontages as well. By losing some of that property, they did lose a bank of parking that was originally shown on the submitted plan and increased landscape buffer here. The full access driveway that was shown near the east property line has now been shown as a right-in, right-out, as approved by the highway district, with a 25 foot wide landscape buffer and they are now proposing a CMU wall along this property line up to the city well site. I believe those are the major changes. This patch I did flip a little bit. Originally, it showed a drive-thru kind of in this location and, of course, that would require a separate CU when a user does need a drive-thru for that. They did lose a couple of other parking stalls, but it still complies with the ordinance as far as number of required parking stalls being provided. Here are the Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 41 of 93 elevations submitted. The east elevation would show the drivewthru. Pretty standard for the Walgreen's. I think this is their pretty typical elevation that they request. There is a 14,490 square foot building, I guess just for your reference, and staff has included conditions for the future development of -- any future development on this site, specifically this pad site or the redevelopment of the Walgreen's store or anything like that, will be required to come back before you for a separate Conditional Use Permit approval and the hours of operation also were limited in the staff report from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Both of those conditions were put in place, because primarily there are residences adjacent to the Walgreen's. So, those were kind of hours of operation based on some of the other hearings and past action by the Commission and Council. Staff believe it's 6:00 to 10:00 and requiring a future CUP, so neighbors can come in and testify about a future use on this site. I did receive a letter from the applicant yesterday or the day before. Yeah. Dated June 15th, stating that that was the only issue they really had in the staff report was the hours of operation and would not like to have those restricted. Did also received a letter of June 3rd, I believe it was, from Mr. White. Now, he is the property owner on Ten Mile right here -- or he had several concerns, primarily regarding access and access in traffic, some also with -- regarding noise. Did you all get a copy of the letter? Okay. Staff is recommending approval of the subject rezone request and Conditional Use Permit for the dual drive-thru lanes with the conditions listed in the staff report and I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Does this site plan resolve that access issue that was on the north there that was on the first one that you spoke to? Hood: The proposed access on Ten Mile is off site, at least a portion of it -- a large portion of it is off site. What the city does not have yet is proof that the property owner that uses that access to get back to their home -- he's back here -- has consented to them constructing this driveway and using that as a shared driveway. So, if that does not happen -- it hasn't been resolved yet. There has been a condition imposed that says you need to acquire this. If you don't submit a new application. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I just wasn't clear if this one, like moving it off of that. Hood: No. It's still on the property line. Zaremba: And the city also has a right to that easement, I would assume, to get to the well site. Does the city have a position about what appears to be either curbing or a landscape buffer being put over a portion of that easement? " Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 42 of 93 Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the city has a 20 foot easement through there to access the well lot. We just need an all-weather access road as the water department. It doesn't need curb and -- Zaremba: Okay. So, there is still enough space to -- Cole: But it is north of the -- it is north of the curb there. Yes. The water main is -- comes out of the -- more of the top of the building there in the upper edge of that shaded area. It appears my mouse is not working. Have I answered the question? Zaremba: Yes. Thank you. Cole: Thank you. Zaremba: Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant care to come forward? Hawker: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Colby Hawker with Hawkins Companies, 8645 West Franklin Road. I guess just in listening and reading staffs comments, we have got about four items that I'd like to discuss. The other comments that have been made and conditions of approval we are all agreeable to. We have made modifications to the site plan, as you see up here, and there is some additional modifications that we have made that are not reflected on this site plan, they have to do with some land -- interior landscaping islands that was a comment from staff that we will place within the site plan. So, I guess to go to the issues, I'll start with the access up on North Ten Mile and, as staff has correctly indicated, ACHD has approved that access in that location. If you will see the -- this dashed line right here, in the middle of that access point, that's currently where the property line between the existing properties is. There is another property line here that goes up for Ed Vance's property that sits in this location and, then, the White's property sits in this location. So, Ed Vance actually owns this strip of land that comes back, you know, that's how he gets to his property. There is an easement across that property and an easement across this property that accesses the city well lot right here. In designing this site plan and talking with ACHD in an effort to get the access points as far from the intersection as possible and knowing that there was additional uses back here, number one being the city lot and this property here that took access to the road, we felt it would be the best place to put access for this development in this furthest north location. We feel, eventually, these properties here will have a higher and better use than what they currently are used for. There is existing residential houses on those. We think in the future it's likely that those are redeveloped into some sort of light office use and this is a natural place for all of this area to share that access. If we do not and cannot get an agreement with this property owner to share this access, we will be forced to move our access further to the south and in the future, when this property redevelops and currently at -- there will be two access points right next to each other here on the property. So, we think that this location is the best overall place for it, given future conditions and existing conditions that are out here. So, that's my first comment. The second comment will be in regard to hours of operation. Walgreen's is primarily a drugstore and the customers that are Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 43 of 93 frequenting this location have certain needs for prescriptions at many hours of the day and evening and Walgreen's likes to maintain the flexibility to allow their stores to operate late in the evening. In fact, some of the stores they like to operate 24 hours. They don't have plans at this point to operate this store at 24 hours, but they like that flexibility to do that. Also, it's a competitive environment, obviously, and Albertson's is just directly kitty-corner to this site, which will be a direct competitor of this location. We don't believe that there is any restrictions placed on that use across the street as far as hours of operation are concerned. The store directly abuts residential, as we are, and so we are just asking for the same consideration that the Albertson's across the street has as far as their hours of operation are concerned. The third item of concern is something that the police department has brought up and it has to do with the vision corridor between these two buildings, once this building is developed at some point in the future, and I really don't know how to address that. We did have a meeting, I believe, with our architect and another individual at our office and talked about how we provide some sort of visibility in there. Obviously, we are not restricting the visibility by placing anything in the area. This is a landscape island right here. One of the things we talked about was in this location here that we would install, as required as commented on in the staff report, every 12 stalls there needs to be a landscape island, so we need to install two of those. So, we talked about installing the first one right in this location that would allow, you know, a ten foot area where there is nothing parked that could allow a vision corridor in there, so when they are driving by they can, I guess, see what's happening between here. I don't know what they really envision to happen between here, other than the cars driving in to access the drive-thru, but that's a solution to that comment. The fourth and final comment that I will make has to do with this access. We have shown it moved further to the west here. Our original application had it shown further to the east. We are proposing to have a block wall, a CMU block wall, to separate ourselves from the residential here. We would like the ability to place this access where ACHD has approved the access and that is all the way at the property line and just have it neck down right in this area here to pull that access, as ACHD requirements are, to pull these accesses as far away from the intersection as possible. We think it makes a better site plan through here as well, so we can align these curbs, these two curbs, and allow for better stacking to this access. Those are the only comments I have. I will stand here for questions. Other than that, we would agree with all the other comments that staff has made in the report and agree to those conditions and ask for your approval this evening. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have one. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Hawker, you didn't answer the question, I don't think, about whether or not you have an agreement on that north -- I mean if you don't have an agreement now, I would think it's a little bit premature -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 44 of 93 Hawker: We currently do not have an agreement with the property owner for this property. Again, our property line is -- exists in this location right here. So, ACHD has said if we can't get this agreement, then, we will have to come back for approval with access shown in a different location on our site. So, we have accepted that condition from ACHD and would live with that condition as it exists. If we can't get an agreement across this property with this owner, then, we will come back to ACHD with a revised access in a different location for their approval. Borup: Have you called the Vances? Newton-Huckabay: Why didn't you try to get one before you came here? Hawker: We have called Ed Vance several times, talked with him briefly on a few occasions. He works late hours and just has not been real responsive to our phone calls at this point. So, we will continue to work that out, to talk with him. Again, I feel, from a planning standpoint that this is the best place to put this access point. Certainly, if we can't get an agreement, we are going to come back in here and put an access point somewhere else on the site plan. We need to have access off this road to make this development work and, again, the city has access right through here. This property has access through here. We think it's the best option to combine these access points into one access point for everybody involved and, again, this property -- these two properties, in my opinion, will be developed at some point in the future and a shared access point for all of these properties is the best possible solution, because if we come in and develop with an access point down here, this access is always going to be here to serve this city lot and, you know, we are going to have two access points right here in a close proximity. We need to try to pull those away from the intersection. Newton-Huckabay: I don't disagree with you that that's the best access, but I think it's premature for us to recommend approval not knowing whether or not that will be the access. Hawker: Well, it's already been approved by ACHD. I mean we will abide by what ACHD has said. The condition of approval that ACHD has given to us is if we can't get access from that location, that we will be required to resubmit and get access in another location. So, regardless of what you do to the access point, we still have to go -- would have to go back to ACHD if we don't get that agreement. I mean it's a condition of ACHD's approval that we either get that agreement or we move the access point and we will abide by that condition. Hood: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Craig. Hood: I just wanted to clarify, too, for that, that maybe to ease your mind a little bit, that if that does happen, in worst case they aren't able to acquire Mr. Vance's consent, that a new CUP come back before you, because I think that's a substantial change, Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 45 of 93 depending on where that access goes, and, then, you have another chance to review this in that new location. ACHD also has a chance -- that's, really, their only way to re- review it if it's a new application to them. They have already acted on this one. And, then, they would re-review that application with a new recommendation to the city on access to Ten Mile. So, you would see this again if the cards don't fall that way. Zaremba: If I understand the thought -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, I just didn't really want to see it twice. Zaremba: Well -- and if I'm understanding the thought behind Commissioner Newton- Huckabay's question, I agree with her, the City Council does not like us to forward things to them with loose hanging ends and I think the discussion probably at some point after we have listened to the other people and had other discussion, may be that before we make any recommendation to the City Council we would want to continue this until that agreement is in hand. I absolutely agree with your logic about where the access ought to be. That's, to me, where it should be. But I also agree you can't use somebody else's property without getting their permission. Hawker: Understood. Zaremba: The one piece of leverage I would suggest is if you can't get his cooperation and you must move your access, ACHD, even if his property and the White's property some day converts to something else, ACHD is unlikely to give them a public access within 150 feet of your public access. I mean that may still be there as an easement for the city, but it doesn't mean they are going to be able to convert their property and have another driveway 20 feet from your driveway, which will make life difficult for them, which I think gives you a little leverage to have him cooperate on everybody using the same driveway. That's just a personal opinion. Hawker: Sure. That's a good thought. I agree. Zaremba: I think what Commissioner Newton-Huckabay is suggesting and I agree with, regardless of what else we discuss, we probably will consider continuing this until you have that agreement in hand or have given it up. But anyhow -- Newton-Huckabay: And I have one other question. Zaremba: Go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: What are the Albertson's hours that -- we didn't limit those, I don't -- that was -- Hood: Mr. Chair, I did call Albertson's this past week and their operating hours are 6:00 a.m. to 1 :00 a.m. I don't -- I think they have limited themselves to those hours. I do not Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 46 of 93 believe the city has imposed those hours or any hours of restriction on them, that's just their business hours. Newton-Huckabay: Did we restrict any of -- the one that came through to the west? We did that one, didn't we? Or, no, we didn't. Zaremba: Well -- and there is an actual difference that -- the buffer behind Albertson's is pretty sizeable before you get to the residents, including a canal or other waterways. I'm not sure whether it's technically a canal, but -- Hawker: Craig, do you have a picture of it? Do you have a picture of that Albertson's on the overhead there? Zaremba: And there isn't really public use of the back of the building. They do have deliveries in the back of the building, but that's not really an activity location. So, even during most of their hours of operation there is nothing going on in the back of the building. So, there are some differences. Newton-Huckabay: But from a retailing standpoint, it's a disadvantage. I mean I -- Hawker: Yeah. I'll just make, again, the additional comment is from Walgreen's directly that their typical hours of operations -- they have got another store here in Meridian. I think those hours that they are operating that store are probably 8:00 in the morning until 9:00 in the evening right now. But they just like the flexibility, as they need -- as they see the community and the people from the community coming to those stores and having that need to come at later hours, they want to be able to operate and serve those needs at those hours. So, again, they feel that if you're going to place a restriction on their hours and not on the Albertson's across the street, that they are placed at a competitive disadvantage as well. So, that's where we -- Borup: Maybe while we are on that subject-- Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I -- maybe I have missed it, but I don't see where that's in the staff recommendations. It's in -- it's addressed in -- in the considerations, but is it part of the site-specific conditions? Hawker: Because I asked the same question to the pre-development -- Borup: All right. Hawker: -- gal in our office that was unable to be here that's been working with Greg. It's listed on page eight under the special considerations of the rezone and I asked the same question, I said it's not on a site specific comment, so does that mean it's just a Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 47 of 93 recommendation from staff or we have to agree to it and that's why we objected in the letter to make sure we brought it up here tonight, because we wanted to make sure. Zaremba: It, actually, is mentioned on page nine as part of what would be the development agreement. Borup: Okay. That's where I missed that. Zaremba: In the zoning amendment, the development agreement is being required and the hours are put there. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: The comment that I would have to that is that at some point there is going to be -- the issue is, really, the drive-thru, not the store, and the microphones and the cars and that sort of stuff, and in thinking of the residences, I realize you're talking about building a CMU wall -- is that cement masonry unit or does it stand for something like that? Hawker: That's correct. Borup: Correct. Zaremba: A wall, as opposed to a fence, that's there. And there will at some time eventually be a second building between that drive-thru and those houses. My inclination would be to let the staff report stand at this point. The staff report also puts a condition that they do need to come in for a CUP for that second building, since it's only a concept at the moment. Hawker: We understand. Yes. Zaremba: And whatever use is going to go into this as well and my thinking is there is a process that down the line at some time those hours could be changed. My instinct would be for the protection of the neighbors at the moment, I would support staff's limiting from 6:00 to 10:00, which at the moment is outside of the hours they will probably need, within the understanding that someday several things will happen. Some of the properties around it may change their use, there will be another building there, the hospital across the street will probably go to 24 hours, Albertson's will probably go to 24 hours and at that time it would be appropriate, through a CUP, to ask for relief from those hours. Hawker: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I understand your logic and appreciate that. I guess if we were to talk about a restriction on hours, I would ask that we have the same ability to operate that Albertson's is currently operating under, if we want to place a restriction on the hours that we would work within -- within a restriction that Albertson's is currently -- currently operating. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 48 of 93 Zaremba: I would agree with that if you didn't have the drive-thru. It's the drive-thru that makes this a different situation. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: One man's opinion. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Well, in regard to that, I have just got a fairly simple question in regards to that drive-thru. Are we doing any type of screening at all to the north? Hawker: Yeah. Craig, could you throw up the site plan again? In our landscape plan that is not on this site plan here, we are -- we are doing screening with landscaping with trees in this area and would propose to put a block wall or wood fence -- whatever would be appropriate here. This, again, will have to be in the conversation that we want to have with Ed Vance to talk about this, but we do recognize that there is cars that are sitting in this drive-thru that are -- that are shining their lights right in that direction. So, we are aware of that and are certainly -- you know, if it's not a condition and if it's not on our landscape plan, we would certainly be willing to a condition that we place some sort of screen wall, whether it be a CMU wall or a wood fence, whatever this property owner feels is more attractive in that area, so we can screen those lights from their vision. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: Any further questions from the Commissioners? Moe: No. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. We will ask you to come back again later, but we do have some other people that have signed up. Lee White, would you care to testify? White: Lee White at 1750 North Ten Mile. I didn't hear -- hadn't heard anything about the possibility of a driveway going further south than the existing one that they are planning on out of the drive at this time, but from my point of view that would be an extremely better thing to happen, because of all the lights and the traffic coming directly at my place. I have a pole fence at this time, which is probably two and a half, three feet high, and all these cars coming out and noise, the lights, I foresee being quite a concern. A couple other concerns I had is the possibility of partying in a public lot, music, and, then, this -- if there are people that like to hang around -- I guess I lived too long in California. People like to hang around in an open parking lot. There is a tendency to take a look at the neighbors' property and say, oh that looks good; I'd like to have it. I don't necessarily want to have anything like that happen. So, with that as a concern, the lights and the traffic, I would like to see the driveway go a little bit further south, if it is going to go through at all. I have a couple of needs for access there. I have a workshop and an RV parked there right near the Ed Vance property. I also have a second gate -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 49 of 93 Borup: Sir, would you use the pointer that's on the podium there to indicate where you - - where you make that access and what the question I was going to ask you later, but since you brought it -- White: Since it works -- all right. There is one access to my lawn, yard. This one. Appears to be to my shop and where I park my RV. This particular driveway is going to be cutting off part of my corner. My mailbox sits approximately there. That will change. In due time it looks like I'm going to have some more property removed as a right of way for Ten Mile, but that doesn't really pertain to this particular operation. I'm concerned that if we have this driveway at this point, people will try to make a left turn. The traffic is getting heavier and heavier here on Ten Mile and backing up down quite a ways from my driveway. These people are not going to be able to make their left turns readily. I foresee them making a right turn and Woodmont comes in right about here, they make a fast turn to the left to go to Woodmont and make a u-turn and come back down this Ten Mile Road. Or if -- one scenario may be that they will make an immediate right into my u-turn driveway, drive through it, make a left turn, because they have got another hundred feet to make a left turn and come back down Ten Mile. Those are concerns to me. Whether they are valid, will happen, no one can tell, but there is a possibility. Questions? Zaremba: Commissioners? Moe: Yeah. Mr. White, as far as from the property line, how far, you know, into your shop and whatnot do you go? I'm basically -- on your access your shop and whatnot, how far off the property line is your shop? White: I have got 30 feet from this property line back to the entrance of my shop. Moe: Okay. White: I have on this property line a grape vine and approximately eight feet between it and my shop. Back further, of course, the garden area and so on. Sufficient answer? Moe: Yes. Thank you. White: If there is nothing further -- Borup: I just -- Mr. Vance -- or, Mr. White, you had -- just a couple of your comments, you had mentioned about the partying. Does that -- White: Yes. Borup: Is that one of your concerns? Does that happen quite a bit across the street at the Albertson's or the medical building or any of those? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16.2005 Page 50 of 93 Zaremba: Or even at the existing church there is a big parking lot there. White: There is a big parking lot there or I do not -- I can't honestly say there is partying going on. Borup: Okay. White: I wouldn't try to pull your leg, but the potential exists. Borup: Well, but the potential is there now. I mean it wouldn't be -- White: But with the different type of business would create the possibility of more people that would be -- have that inclination. Borup: Then, I was just thinking of Commissioner Zaremba's comment on future value of your property. It appears that's not really a concern that you have, then? White: Right at this time it looks like if I have that type of an access and that type of traffic by me, my property value has decreased at this point. Borup: You think your property value is -- okay. White: I personally feel like it will be a great decrease -- Borup: As a residential property. White: As a residential. Borup: Have you any idea what it would be as a commercial property? White: I haven't looked into it. I have no clue. I'm just a poor retired farm boy. Borup: Okay. I think what Chairman Zaremba was implying that there is much greater value in a commercial use than residential. White: I'm open to offers. Borup: Well, but -- what with the access not available, it wouldn't be as valuable. Zaremba: And I, actually, wasn't proposing that. I was picking up on what the applicant said, if it did go that way, you know, here is things for the neighbors to think about. Borup: It could devalue your property by moving the driveway. White: It could, but I have still got my U driveway-- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 51 of 93 Borup: Right. White: -- would be just about have to be maintained as an entrance to the property. Borup: As long as it's a residential use, yes, sir. White: That would have to change with -- yeah. That was probably-- Borup: If it was redeveloped, then, yes, that would be up to ACHD. But that's your choices. I just -- it's good to have all information. White: Well, you know, I have never been to a meeting like this before. I have never had any concerns like this before. Moe: One other question I have for you, as far as access to the back property of yours, is that roadway the only access you have to get back there or do you have another access? White: I have no other access, sir. Moe: Okay. Borup: But is that -- but that is -- that road -- I assume that that access is, actually, the property of Mr. Vance. White: It is. Yes. It has not been taken off of my property, it has been -- Borup: So, you have been using his -- his property to access? White: They have and I have. I use it. That's what it's there for, I guess. Borup: Well, it's there for him and it sounds like he's being a good neighbor and allowing you to use it, too. White: I hope so. We are good neighbors. Any further questions? Moe: Yeah. No, that was exactly what I was kind of going with is just trying to verify what other access, if any, you had, more or less to try and come up with another possibility of fencing or whatever to screen your property from any access, you know, into the parking lot area, but it sounds like you can't use the screening, because you need access to your property as well off the road. White: A screen would not be a desirable solution to my mind. Moe: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 52 of 93 White: But I -- Moe: I appreciate the answer. White: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Newton-Huckaby: Thank you, Mr. White. White: Thank you. Zaremba: Barbara White, is she here? She's supporting what her husband said and we also have a letter from Mr. and Mrs. White. She -- you need to come to the microphone, please, and identify yourself. Thank you. B.White: Well, I'm concerned mainly about our -- Zaremba: Please start with your name. B.White: I'm Barbara White. Zaremba: Thank you. B.White: I'm concerned about our circle driveway, because if they come out this way and turn right, the traffic will be fed and we will not even be able to get out of our driveway. And, then, right now as it stands, there is a lot of people that use it a turning place. Then, if we have traffic coming out to the -- turning to the right puts them right smack in our driveway. Borup: Is that quite a problem for you now when the Church lets out? B.White: No, because nobody goes that way. Borup: No one goes that way B.White: They go out this other way most of the time. And the church meets -- their population is not that great, so they -- no, the church don't use the driveway. They have their own entrance that they use, so -- but that's my main concern is the -- because if they make a U-turn they are right in my porch. I don't want that. Whatever. Zaremba: Thank you. B.White: You folks are the bosses. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 53 of 93 Zaremba: Let's see. That's everybody that was signed up, but there is an opportunity, if anybody else cares to add anything, please, come forward and identify yourself. Smith: My name is Theresa Smith. I live at 1653 North Victor Avenue. I'm one of the homes that will back up to the proposed development. Right now we back up to a church, which is wonderful. It's quiet six days out of the week. We only have one day that we have any sort of people back there. I have small children, so I like the privacy of my backyard. The big thing for us is we prefer to not have a drive-thru along that fence line. Right now there is -- there are trees and landscaping in place that provide a bit of a shield between us and the church. When we talked to one of the people about the project, they said they were going to take the trees out. I would like you to keep the trees there or have them replaced, again, building a little bit of privacy between my backyard and the development. And, then, of course, the wall that they propose is something we definitely want, because right now we just have a wood fence. So, mainly for us we just want to maintain our privacy, so that we have a backyard that we can use in peace and quiet and, then, also to maintain the value of our property. That's it. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: You're on the east side? Smith: Yes. Do you want me to try to-- Borup: Please. Moe: Please. Smith: I am that house right there. Our neighbor right there on the corner, they are elderly and were not able to make it, but they also would like a wall and that was important to them also. Moe: Okay. And at the present time what's planned is -- is, number one, the drive -- the drive entry moves over and, then, basically, you have 20 or 25 foot between the drive-in and, then, the block wall, so you're -- Newton-Huckabay: There is more than that, because there is going to be a building. Moe: No. I'm talking -- she's over here. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, the other -- Borup: So, would 24 feet -- ma'am? I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman? Ma'am-- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 54 of 93 Smith: Sorry. Borup: Would the 24 feet leave the existing trees? Is that plenty of room for -- Smith: I believe so. I just know at the first meeting I went to -- Borup: Right. The original design. Smith: -- they were very close and they were going to pull everything out. So, I think with that -- I'd have to measure it, but I would imagine -- if they kept the strip of grass that's right there -- I guess I don't know how much feet that is, that would be wonderful for us, because there is already mature trees there. Borup: Maybe we can get an answer from the applicant on that, but right now they are planning a block wall and a landscaping area there and I would assume probably leaving the trees. Smith: Okay. And, then, the proposed future development, will that be a drive-thru? Will it have that capacity? Because that would be the other thing is I wouldn't want cars just driving right along that section. Do we know that? Moe: We really don't know what that's going to be, but it would also come back before - - before us anyway. Zaremba: You would be notified in the same way that there would be a Public Hearing about it. Smith: Okay. Zaremba: We use shorthand sometimes when we talk among ourselves, but when we say we require a CUP for the new building, that's what it means, a Conditional Use Permit, which means a Public Hearing and you would be notified to come talk about that building as well. Smith: Okay. That's alii had. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Anybody else care to speak? Okay. Mr. Hawker. Hawker: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, Colby Hawker. Just two quick comments. One in regard to the property owner just to the east there. We are, again, going to have a 25-foot landscape strip. I don't know where those trees are currently, whether they are within that or outside of that, but any trees inside that 25-foot landscape buffer we will remain -- we will keep there. If they are outside of it, obviously, they are going to have to go, because they will be in the parking lot. So, we will commit Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 55 of 93 to keep the trees inside that 25-foot buffer. The other comment that Mrs. White made in regard to U-turns and traffic, obviously, this development has been in front of ACHD, they have looked at it, we are really capturing existing trips that are already on this road. It's the reason for Walgreen's wanting to be here. The traffic is already there. The traffic that passes by this site is already there, we are simply capturing that existing traffic, so that existing traffic is driving by her house right now, we are simply capturing it and sending it back where it's going originally. Those are my only comments. Any questions? Zaremba: I was just going to comment on the trees. If they are outside of that 25 foot landscape buffer and, therefore, removed for doing something, you're aware of the city requirement that anything over a four inch caliper has to be mitigated for, which means replacing them, but that doesn't count the other trees that -- the trees that are required by the landscape ordinance don't count towards that mitigation. Hawker: I understand. Zaremba: That's additional trees. Hawker: And that's a condition of the approval that we have read. Zaremba: Yeah. I mean that's typical for everybody. I just wanted to make sure you knew that. Hawker: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Hawker, do you -- Walgreen's drive-thrus operate always at the same hours as their stores? I know a lot -- say, for example, an Albertson's pharmacy will close at 8:00 o'clock in the evening and the store will remain open. How does Walgreen's -- the drive-thru is predominately for your pharmacy? Hawker: It is only specifically for the pharmacy. Yeah. It goes right into the pharmacy. Newton-Huckabay: So, are your pharmacy hours the same as your store hours? Hawker: Typically, the hours are the same. I can't say that that's the case in all their stores. So, again, it's predicated on their customer counts and what they see their customers doing when they are using that. So, I would say typically those hours are the same, but they may change the hours slightly and open an hour earlier and, then, have the pharmacy open. I can't specifically comment there. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 56 of 93 Newton-Huckabay: I would propose a compromise on the pharmacy, that as long as their pharmacy hours fall within the same guidelines as what Albertson's -- because Albertson's has standard pharmacy operating hours, which I suspect are going to be between 6:00 and 10:00. I agree with you that your store should be allowed to stay open as many hours as the Albertson's store should be open, but as far as your drive- thru and your pharmacy, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that your pharmacy hours will be, you know, limited -- your drive-thru pharmacy hours are limited to Albertson's pharmacy hours. Hawker: No. I understand that. I guess our comment is they are currently -- although that's Albertson's operating hours right now, there is no restrictions on those. So, once we agree to a restriction, certainly, Albertson's can increase their hours of operation and have something different is our issue. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Hawker: Anyway, that's just our comment and I understand your point. Zaremba: Other Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I do want to go back to my original comment. I think that we should probably consider continuing this hearing until the access to the north is resolved. I don't want to make recommendations to the City Council on something that's not resolved. Rohm: I guess the only comment -- Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: The only comment that I would make to that is if the applicant feels strongly that they can resolve that prior to this same package being heard by City Council, then, there would be no need to continue it if -- if you feel that you can come to resolve. If it's your feeling that it's the action of this body that will entice the neighbors to come to the table, then, you know, I'm looking for a little bit from you as well on that. Hawker: Commissioner, Members of the Commission, I wish I could respond better than what I'm going to be able to. I don't know when we can resolve it with Ed. We will diligently pursue that to the best of our ability. I don't know when that time is going to be. I will say that as part of this process, obviously, there is an existing church that's there that we are going to be relocating to another site. We have made submittal for that annexation and rezone and I believe we are on the agenda next month for that. We have got some pretty hard fast dates. Met with the property owners as far as what we can do in our purchase agreement. So, we need to have some sort of finality to this as soon as possible. That's my only comment. Borup: Mr. Chairman? .- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 57 of 93 Zaremba; Commissioner Borup. Borup: Yeah. Continuing what Commissioner Rohm said, I don't think it -- it's been fairly common to make recommendations on an application that's had conditions. I mean we do that a lot. But I had a question on something Craig said. Mr. Hood, did you say if ACHD does not approve this, that the application would have to come back to a Public Hearing or just back to staff or -- Hood; ACHD has to approve that driveway. Borup: Right. But if they are not able to get the approval. Hood: Yes. Then they will have to reevaluate a new application for a new driveway location. Borup: ACHD would have to re-evaluate it? Hood: Correct. Borup: Okay. That's what I was looking for clarification on. So, if ACHD approves a new driveway, then, there is no other approval by the -- Hood: Significant change, there would be a new CUP, they start back over again. Borup; Is that considered significant to move a drive-way 50 feet? Hood: Oh, yeah. Definitely. Borup: Okay. Hood: And that's the only way we can get ACHD to re-act on an application is to actually give them a new application to act on. Borup: Okay. So, if ACHD -- I mean if they were not able to get the approval, then, it would be back before us anyway. Newton-Huckabay: I guess for that reason I would think that Mr. Hawker would want this to be continued for -- Borup: Why? Newton-Huckabay: To get an opportunity to make -- resolve this issue with Mr. Vance and, then, he's on the -- because if it doesn't get -- if he cannot make -- if they cannot make an agreement with Mr. Vance, they started over. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 58 of 93 Borup: That's the risk they take. Hawker: Yeah. I guess I was unaware of that condition, that we have got to go back in front of ACHD through a new process. My understanding of the condition was that we would -- if we couldn't get that approved, that we would come back in front of them I didn't know it was a new application, so -- Newton-Huckabay: So, what would your preference be? Hawker: I guess my preference would be to continue the hearing, so we can work it out at this point. I mean I don't -- I don't know when I can get that agreement done. I would hope I could get it done in a short period of time, but I can't guarantee that I can. Rohm: I guess my thoughts on that are if you cannot come to an agreement, you're going to have to make a new application anyway, so it doesn't seem to me that by continuing this -- Borup: It could save you time. Rohm: You think by continuing it it might save him time? Borup: It would save time over getting it turned down and start from a new application. Rohm: If they have to make a new application if the neighbor doesn't agree, then, whether we continued this or not won't be of any value to him, because he's going to have to make that a form that was silent. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Rohm -- Borup: Not with -- Newton-Huckabay: -- there is a lot of things there is value in continuing the hearing. Hawker: Mr. Chairman, I'll -- Members of the Commission, I'll make one further comment, because I don't know the answer to this, but if we do move on to City Council, does City Council have the same ability to table the hearing at that point until we get an agreement done? Moe: They don't like to. Zaremba: They have asked us not to send things unresolved. Rohm: Well, then, it sounds like the continuing is the best answer. Moe: I guess one other thing I would like to bring -- a question I would have, if, in fact, you are to work a deal with Mr. Vance, I'd be a little bit curious, what happens to the Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 59 of 93 White property, then? I mean are they going to still have access to get into his property in the back? At the same time, the comment was made .- and I would agree a hundred percent with him -- I'm not sure I would want to see all the headlights every night coming into that parking lot right through my front windows all day long, too. Hawker: Yeah. Sure. The comment there is we'd certainly work with them. As you stated before, there is no written access agreement across that property now. They have some sort of good neighbor agreement where he's using it and he's got the benefit to do that. We certainly would allow, through an agreement, him to utilize that access, as well as a joint access in there. We don't have any problem with that. On the flip side of the coin, I guess we would also be willing to put some sort of screening up there if you would like to do that. That is the -- that south side of his property there is the side of his house. The front of the house faces towards Ten Mile. So, it's a different situation than the Ed Vance property, where we are shining headlights right in the front of his house, versus, you know, the side profile of this house and into the White's property. So, we would be open to both options, if they'd want to put some sort of screen wall there to protect those lights, we'd look at that. We would also look at maintaining the access for their RV there, so -- Moe: That's going to be a little bit of a Catch 22 there, because you also have to have line of vision and whatnot turning right and whatnot, so -- Hawker: Yeah. I mean looking at the site plan, I believe that the access to his RV can be maintained. I mean the access to the RV is -- his RV location in this location right here. So, that can be maintained and I believe in talking with Mr. White that this is just like a gate into his yard and, you know, I would think that the best of both worlds would be to put some sort of screening in this area, whether it be a fence or some, you know, place some dense landscaping right there in his yard that would restrict the vision of these lights in this location here, if that truly is just a -- I guess a pedestrian access out of his yard to there. So, I think that can be accomplished. And the answer to your question is, yeah, we would be willing to work with him. Zaremba: Not to re-engineer, but since we are in that area, if you shortened this island a little bit and lengthened this island a little bit, cars, instead of being right here with their headlights shining out, might be -- I'm not sure exactly where their house is located, but I'm just saying even if you move this like five feet to the east, you might save them some headlights. Hawker: That's true in that the cars are going to come out right there, but they are still going to drive right down this drive aisle. I mean we can't shift this drive aisle any further than we have it, so the cars, as they are circulating around here, are going to come here. When they would exit, then, they would just have to turn and make that motion, so I don't think you're going to -- Zaremba: Safe the headlights. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 60 of 93 Hawker: I don't think you will see that benefit. Zaremba: All right. Newton-Huckabay: It was the CMU wall, that was the six foot wall; right? Hawker: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: Tell us what -- and you said you were coming back with the property where the church building is actually being moved to. What date is that? Hawker: I believe, Craig, we are on -- I believe we are on the agenda in July. Zaremba: Actually, I have got the draft agendas I could look at. Hawker: The 22nd I want to say. Zaremba: If it's in July it would ~~ Hawker: I know it's in July, I just don't know the exact the day. I believe it's the 22nd. Zaremba: For July 7th. Hawker: Oh, July 7th. Okay. Zaremba: Which is our next meeting. Hawker: Okay. Zaremba: I'm thinking if we were to continue it to that same meeting, two, almost three weeks away -- Hawker: We'd certainly like the option to be back in front of you there. You know, if we don't have the agreement, it will be quick. Zaremba: Well, it will be a quick meeting either way. Hawker: Correct. Right. Zaremba: Essentially, the only thing we are waiting for, so -- I mean we have discussed everything else. Hawker: True. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 61 of 93 Newton-Huckabay: Is that time to re-notice it? Zaremba: If we continue it -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh, that's right. Zaremba: Have we come to any resolution on the hours? I'm inclined to say -- leave them the way the staff said, with the opportunity to change them later when the CUP -- but it doesn't sound like that's the way everybody else was thinking. Moe: I really don't have any problem with going with the same hours as Albertson's is doing right now, but I agree, possibly limiting the drive-thru hours. Zaremba: My feeling is once that other building is there, depending on how it's configured, it may shield the drive-in from the neighbors. At present it doesn't, but -- Borup; I'd like to make one comment on the drive-thru. It's not scientific, but I live off Locust Grove and I -- because there was a lot of concern on the Walgreen's at Locust Grove and Fairview when it went in. So, I -- every time I drive by there I look. In the last two years I think I have seen three, maybe four cars in that drive-thru. Zaremba: I didn't even realize they had a drive-thru. I patronize that store and I didn't know they had one. Borup: You just don't see -- I mean, apparently, there must be traffic sometime of the day, but not when I go by and -- Hawker: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the other thing is this -- the information that's being exchanged out of that drive-thru window is confidential-type of information. So, this is not like a speaker system that you would see at McDonald's or Jack-in-the-Box or that type of -- it's more along a financial institution and they have decibel -- things that they can do with their decibels to turn those down, because they -- the prescription industry is kind of a private thing and when they are pulling up, getting their prescriptions, they don't want to be announcing it to the whole world, even the people in the adjacent lane to him. So, we did, when we went through the Fairview and Locust Grove, we went through a whole noise study, we put up a block wall there and there are neighbors just on the opposite side there, there is a -- there is a street that's in between us, so they have a little more separation. But, in reality, the noise that comes out of that, you won't be able to hear that drive-thru window, what's coming out of there on the other side of that building. In fact, the road noise on Cherry Lane Road will be louder decibel than anything that's coming out of -- out of that -- out of that drive-thru window. Borup: Have there been any -- any survey's on people that use the drive-thrus? My thought is if it's elderly, they are not going to be there at night, they are going to be there in the daytime. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 62 of 93 Hawker: You know, I'm sure Walgreen's has some sort of data, but it's really more of a convenience use. A lot of people that are sick that have an illness that -- parents with children that are sick, that don't want to get out of their car and haul their children back into the pharmacy and, you know, elderly people that don't want to do the same thing, so it's a convenience for those customers that don't want to get out of their car for whatever reason and I -- you know -- Moe: I would anticipate that if we are continuing this, this isn't something that we have to decide on tonight. Zaremba: Okay. I just was trying to get a sense of -- I'm trying to make the next meeting shorter. We will have a few weeks to all think about it. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, just for-- Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: -- what it's worth, I personally don't think that the headlights from this drive-thru here are going to be as offensive to this residence as people leaving the parking lot. So, the issue of the drive-thru, in my mind, isn't as big of an issue as -- as the egress period. So, I don't think that necessarily limiting the hours of the drive-thru is an issue at any point, because there is plenty of screening that they should be able to protect the neighboring property adequately with the location of the drive-thru, just as it is and it doesn't appear to be an issue to me. Zaremba: Good point. My main concern was the sound carrying to the properties to the east, but he made a very good point, all things being considered, the block wall, the landscape buffer, an eventual building and the point he makes about this not being a blaring public address system. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, I guess the question I have of the applicant is when do you think that you can come back to this Commission with some resolve on the property to the north, the ingress-egress? If we continue it to -- Zaremba: July 7th was -- Hawker: Yeah. I'd like the ability to continue it to the next meeting to match up with our annexation of the church property that we are in for moving this. So, I'd like the ability to keep those on the same docket and, obviously, we will work diligently to try to get an agreement in the meantime. Rohm: Good. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 63 of 93 Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Let's see here. I move that we continue Public Hearing RZ 05-008 and Public Hearing CUP 05-029, to the original -- to the scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of July the 7th, 2005. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 1 0: Public Hearing: PFP 05-003 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval for 2 building lots on 1.84 acres in a I-L zone for Marce Subdivision by James Wylie - southwest corner of Fairview Avenue and North Eagle Road: Zaremba: All right. We will open the Public Hearing for Item 10, that's PFP 05-003, regarding Marce Subdivision on the southwest corner of Fairview Avenue and North Eagle Road and we will begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for making one lot into two lots. The location is in the existing Krispy Kreme Subdivision, which is the greater part of the Treasure Valley Business Center, which is in the corner of Fairview and Eagle. That picture is -- okay. Fairview is to the north here. This is an approved certificate of zoning compliance. This building has already received its building permit. Essentially, it is two buildings, a longer, skinnier one to the south and, then, a square one to the north. They share common patios. The lot line will split the patio and there are no public services, extensions, or anything of major concern. The parking has already been calculated and, essentially, this is just to make the building salable to different owners and at that staff is recommending approval and stand for questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Zaremba: Okay. Would the applicant care to come forward? Wiley: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Marceline Wylie, representing James Wylie, 1676 Clarendon Way. I'll keep it short, since I know you guys want to go home. I'm just here to answer any questions that you might have. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions. All right. Thank you. Let's see. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 64 of 93 Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: I don't believe we had anybody -- I'm sorry. Commissioner Moe. Moe: I assume that you agree with all staff comments? Wylie: Yes. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. Don't believe we have anybody signed up, but would anybody care to comment? Okay. Then, we don't need rebuttal from the applicant either, so Commissioners? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I make a motion to close the Public Hearing on PFP 05-002. Newton-Huckabay. Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor-- Moe: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Excuse me. That was wrong. It would be PFP 05-003. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PFP 05-003, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of June 16, 2005, received by the city clerk's office June 10th, 2005. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 65 of 93 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 05-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 39.47 acres from RUT to C-N zone for Cherry Lane Christian Church by BRS Architects - NWC of Ten Mile Road and Franklin Road: Zaremba: Open the Public Hearing, Item 11. This is AZ 05-023 relating Cherry Lane Christian Church, northwest corner of Ten Mile Road and Franklin Road, and we will begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is for approximately just under 40 acres in the northwest corner of Ten Mile and Franklin. This is the property that we also pointed out earlier this evening. The Ten Mile Creek does split the property in this location and currently this is just for annexation. This is in a mixed-use regional comprehensive designation, so you will see a detailed Conditional Use Permit that will accompany this. The proposed use on the site at this time is that it is a church, with a church school, and possibly a cafeteria and any type of accessory use at that. The layout -- actually, it didn't get in the presentation, put I'm going to put it up, though. Get the orientation right. The church will lie fairly central. There is the existing -- there will be a park with a pavilion, et cetera, along Ten Mile. As we saw earlier, there is the access point to the west and there is two access points to the west off of the collector street. The collector street, half will lie on this property. And the approved -- the accesses to Franklin, there will be a full access approximately at the -- 200 yards from the intersection of Franklin and Ten Mile, as well as there will be right-in, right-out accesses. These accesses have been presented to ACHD and have not received any denial letters or anything of major consequence. Again, this is conceptual, so we are not approving this plan or this site layout or anything along that line tonight, this is specifically for the annexation, and I'm not going to get too detailed, so I will just stand for questions at this time if you have any. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Just one quick one. I realize it's conceptual, but in your report you talk about having a -- one full access point onto Ten Mile and they are, actually, showing two on there. There is one up to the north. Guenther: That is correct. I did miss the fact that there is one from the recreational area in the northeast portion of that. I was mainly concerned with the number of parking stalls that is in this location that would be accessing that one location to Ten Mile. Moe: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 66 of 93 Zaremba: I don't know if I want to open this can of worms or not. Typically, churches ask for an L-O zoning, since we have made that the preferred church zoning. A school makes a difference to what zone they need to -- Guenther: Not necessarily. This is also in a mixed use district and if -- if the school -- church project doesn't need all of this parking, they are still eligible to come back and do additional uses on this site and the C-C zone actually fits the overall mixed use regional better than an L-O does. Zaremba: C-N zone. Guenther: C-N. Community neighborhood. Zaremba: Yeah. Okay. All right. Any other questions from Commissioners? Okay. Would the applicant come forward, please. Woodward. My name is Larry Woodward, I'm one of the ministers at Cherry Lane. My address is 1701 North -- or on Almaden, which is just north of Chinden. I'll just make some brief comments, because as was said, this is a request for annexation and zoning only at this stage. We do plan to relocate from our present location on Cherry Lane. We are a regional church already, drawing people from as far away as Ontario, Payette, and Weiser, and so we are averaging right now about 1,200 a week and we are confident that on relocation that will double within months. We plan to develop, eventually, the entire 39.47 acres and our primary focus will be as shown up here, will be a major worship facility that ultimately over the years, as it's built in stages. could accommodate up to 4,500 people in a single setting. We envision also two other major buildings, an administration building and, then, a multi-purpose gym or educational facility. And that latter one could be used, possibly, for a charter school or for a private Christian school. We have worked closely with your staff over the last year and gotten to this point and we are anxious to go forward with their recommended zoning as C-N. I think it's consistent with the long.range city plans and we have a church history of cooperation with the city. Most of you have probably been in our present facility for one meeting or another, with various Chamber of Commerce and other meetings of that nature at our church. And we think that cooperation will continue. Right now we have been working with your city parks on the pathway along Ten Mile Creek, which will run on the south side up through the Avest property and, then, hook on up into the Chesterfield. We are comfortable with that. We have also talked to the Parks Department about working together on what we call the three acre pocket park up here in the northeast corner and that would include a large grass area, some walking paths, a basketball court and a covered picnic area. We have been working with the city Public Works Department and our plan is to sell a lot of 100 by 150 feet to the city for a well site. They have already drilled their test well and they are waiting now this summer to build their production well and from what they have told me, they have got a real boomer there. This is an artesian area and we already have one artesian well on our property. We have been also in negotiations with JUB Engineering about a major trunk line that the city proposes to build across our property and eventually up the west line Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 67 of 93 between the property you just talked about, the Silver Oak, and, then, on up into eventually hook up with the Black Cat pump station. We want to clarify that that is a city constructed trunk line and we are not party to funding any of that. And so we want to make that clear. We have been working with the Conger Management Group, which you had up first this evening. They have worked well with us. I might just add we are proposing -- I see a joint access off of Franklin and this will, eventually, become a small traffic circle here and you have talked about that at length already tonight. But, then, you know, they will go west into their mixed -- their high-density area and we will go right into our church parking lot area. We have notified our neighbors about our proposal tonight. We invited them to a public meeting and nobody showed up, except for the Conger Management people that were here earlier. We have done a traffic study and have hired Doby Engineering to give us data about Franklin and Ten Mile and we intend to negotiate vigorously with ACHD for three access points, both on Ten Mile and on Franklin. So, we want to make that clear. We are active supporters with the city for the Ten Mile interchange and if you recall when the governor was here and signed the GARVEE bill and it showed up in the picture, a placard held that said number ten that was our sign. So, we are active supporters of that interchange. We have looked at your staff report and we are pretty comfortable with it, but if we -- if it is -- if our annexation is approved tonight, we would like to sit down very early with the city attorney and work out a development agreement and we will start off initially with just some general concepts, we have given, really, some advance look at what we are thinking about and, then, we will build that probably over a 10 to 20 year period in stage development, coming back each time we propose a new building or addition to something for the specific permits. Again, we are looking at three major buildings on the site, plus a three acre pocket park, and our program could include over the next few years programs that would serve the community and, again, we have mentioned the possibility of a private or charter school, a cafeteria in the facility that might accommodate some of the public, but we are looking even so far as a possible branch campus for Boise Bible College being on this site. But, again, these are things that are still in the conceptual stage. We have talked to the Park and Ride folks and they are anxious that if this parking lot is developed here, they'd like to use that as a Park and Ride lot, because they said Franklin is going to become a major commuter route for them in the future. So, I guess with that I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Borup: I don't think I have any. Looks like an ambitious project. Woodward: It's an ambitious project. Yes. Consistent with the growth of Meridian. Newton-Huckabay: Ambitious. Woodward: Ambitious. Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 68 of 93 Zaremba: Well, I can agree with you that your church has been community minded. I'm one of those who has attended other meetings there. I don't attend your church, I'm sorry to say that for you, but I know how public minded your church has been and I'm thrilled that you're needing to do this kind of expansion. The other thing I would say -- I also appreciate your willingness to provide a conceptual plan. We do ask for that with annexations to make sure that we are talking about the right zone and we do take it as that, just conceptual. Woodward: That's right. Zaremba: But we do appreciate your willingness to put that in. I would ask a couple of questions, since you were here for the discussion with your neighbor to the west. Woodward: Yes. Zaremba: Are you comfortable with the amount of traffic that might be crossing your property from their -- what is now we are recommending be a public east-west road? It appears that their residents might consider your driveway as an extension of that road and the shortest way to get to Ten Mile. Is that comfortable for you? Woodward: No. Let me clarify this. Zaremba: Okay. Woodward: Up at our northwest corner we have already entered into a cross-access agreement with the owners to the west to provide emergency access, which was requested by the fire department, so that they have a second route in along the north side of our property. But that is not -- and that will be gated with a knocks box, okay? So, that is not a public road by any means to get to Ten Mile. In fact, there will only be a foot-bridge basically across Ten Mile Creek. So, the only access directly onto Ten Mile from the main church parking lot is going to be down here. Zaremba: Well -- and that's actually the -- I was going to ask you about that upper area, so I appreciate that, but I was focusing here. Woodward: Okay. Zaremba: They are likely to have a lot of traffic in what will be this intersection and it would look attractive to me to go straight across here to Ten Mile and are you either calming that or accepting that or -- or does that not seem to be a problem? Woodward: I don't think it's going to be much of a problem. If I live back there and, frankly, with the traffic I'm seeing on Ten Mile right now, which oftentimes backs up beyond Avest, I would tend to come out here to catch the light. Zaremba: That will eventually be there. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 69 of 93 Woodward: Which will eventually be there. Which I think is supposed to be built within a year. Zaremba: Okay. Woodward: So -- yeah, there may be people driving across, there may be some coming down Ten Mile that would turn right. That would be more likely to cross our property. I'm not too concerned. Zaremba: Okay. And let me -- while you're there, let me ask staff a question. As part of the development agreement would it be appropriate, perhaps, to make the dedication of this, what will eventually be public right of way, to make that be part of phase one, so that it's one of the first things that happens or does ACHD have an opinion? Guenther: It would have to be a portion of phase one, because of the access points that are required, as well as ACHD has specifically in the conditions of approval for the multi-family development, stated how the road should be built with or without this project being included. So, they have got two designs and, then, when this project is included, basically, what they will add is another lane and, then, a turn-in lane, so -- Zaremba: So, that will happen whether we mention it or not? Guenther: Right. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Hawkins-Clark appears to-- Hawkins-Clark: I do have something to add. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask a question of the applicant. And this does somewhat relate to your first application tonight, but it relates to this one in terms of this emergency access and the knocks box that you had mentioned and it sounds like at least what you have put on the record tonight that you don't have a time frame for construction, but if that is to be used as a secondary access for the four-plex project, they would, obviously, need that access constructed in order for their approval to proceed and I'm assuming that that might be earlier than what you are anticipating construction. So, I guess it relates to will there need to be a construction of a roadway of some sort on this site. Has that been an item of discussion between you and the Conger Management folks? Woodward: It hasn't up to this point and, you're right, we do not have a fixed timeline when we would begin construction of our primary facility. So, if that were not built at the time they want to go forward, which I am told is apt to be a year before us. We are looking roughly at 2007 and they are looking at 2006 as starting. So, there is going to be a hiatus there. Zaremba: We did not ask them about phasing, but I -- if they started from front to back, would that be an issue within the first year of their construction from south to north? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 70 of 93 Hawkins-Clark: I think it's probably difficult to say. You know, we don't allow more than 100 multi-family units without two points of access. Zaremba: Yeah. Hawkins-Clark: So -- and I think they had 77 buildings -- Zaremba: Four-plexes. Hawkins-Clark: -- three hundred and some units. So, you know, less -- probably about a third of their project before they would have to have a second access and, yeah, I think the more that we are talking about it, the more I think that it really is -- the burden is on Conger Management to obtain that access and to provide that and it probably isn't something, now that we are talking it through, that would need to be placed on this annexation. They would just have to prove to us that they obtained the church's consent and they obtain an easement and, then, they have to provide that easement to the city before they get to move beyond their one hundredth unit in the future. Zaremba: So, they would get a permit for the first one hundred and they'd have to prove they have the second access -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: -- before it could go any farther. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. So, I think that it could probably be handled privately. Woodward: Brad, let me ask you this: Would that route have to be a paved route? Could it initially be a graveled route? Hawkins-Clark: It could, yeah. Capable of handling a 70,OOO-pound fire truck. Woodward: Okay. Zaremba: Commissioners, any other questions? Thank you. Mr. Woodward was the only one signed up to speak, but if anybody else cares to. Thank you. Hearing none, then, we don't need a rebuttal again from Mr. Woodward. Commissioners? Close the Public Hearing? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-023. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 71 of 93 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Before you make the motion I would make one comment. On page two of the staff report, the paragraph that begins location, it's say the subject site is located on the southwest corner, that should be northwest corner. It did say it correctly other places. Guenther: Which page was that, Mr. Commissioner? Zaremba: Just a small typo. Guenther: Which page was that, please? Zaremba: This is page two, the big -- big title is location and it says the subject site is located on the -- it should be northwest corner. Just a typo. As I say, it was correctly identified other places. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-023, to include all staff comments received June 10th, 2005, for the hearing date June 19th, 2005. End of motion. Moe: June 16th? Rohm: 16th. Moe: I will second that. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: PFP 05-002 Request for Preliminary I Final Plat approval for three building lots on 5.93 acres for Monica Subdivision by B2 Investments, LLC - north of West Franklin Road and west of North Linder Road: Zaremba: Okay. Item 12. I'll the open Public Hearing for PFP 05-002 and this relates to Monica subdivision, north of West Franklin Road and west of North Linder Road and we will begin with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 72 of 93 Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is for Monica Subdivision. It is for three building lots in the I-L zone and as such, being under four lots, is eligible for the preliminary and final plat process, meaning that it receives preliminary plat approval and final plat approval at the same time. So, this is the only time you, as a Commission, will -- well, I guess you wouldn't see it as a final plat anyway, that would be Council, so that doesn't change a whole lot from your standpoint. This site is on off of the west side of Linder, north of Franklin. There is a typo in the staff report that's saying that the site consists of 5.93 acres. It's, actually, closer to 3.6. The applicant originally submitted, including, if you can see the black outline here, it was originally thought by staff that they did need to include this small portion here, but they were able to prove through ownership records that that was legally split off and, then, they didn't modify the number 5.93 in their application, so this is actually closer to 3.6, if my addition is correct. It is an L-shape or pork chop shape, if you will, with the narrow portion out there on Linder and, then, extending back into the site. To the west there are -- there is an existing building here with some businesses in it. I think one is A&A Securities and there is a couple of others. To the north of this site on Linder Road is storage cubbies and a couple of other continuing further north there are more businesses. Across the road -- across Linder to the east is an Ada County sub with some one-acre lots and some rural residences. And, then, to the west is a large vacant light industrial parcel. Just a few things to bring up on this application. We have required a cross-access agreement to the -- to Lots 2 and 3, because this will be a drive aisle for access to those two lots, so that they will be required to create that cross- access agreement on the face of the plat. And, then, the fire department has -- they have provided a permanent fire turnaround that meets the fire department standards back there in order to gain fire access for these two buildings. We have asked that they provide the required street buffer along Linder Road of 25 feet and I think that the landscape plan is in here. Along Linder Road there is a required 25-foot landscape buffer. We have asked that they place that in an easement, which is a standard condition. And, then, also it did in the staff report ask the applicant to clarify at the hearing the use of the rear area and what the surface materials would be. I did confirm with the engineer that that will be paved in the rear of the building there. Staff's concern and our policy is that anywhere with vehicular access does need to be paved for dust abatement reasons, but I did confirm that that will be paved. One thing that wasn't in the staff report that was recently brought up on receiving the ACHD report is ACHD has asked them to move the driveway. Currently, it's depicted approximately seven feet north of the south property line. ACHD has requested 37 feet north. I will let the applicant address how that changes their lot configuration and building configuration and how significant of changes that is going to require. It appears workable from my standpoint, but I'm not an engineer, so won't comment beyond that. And with that I think at this point I'll stand for questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? All right. Thank you. We are ready for the applicant, then, please. Jones: Chad Jones, B&A Engineers, 5505 West Franklin Road. For the most part we are in agreement with everything that staff has brought up. I have taken the opportunity Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 73 of 93 to sit down with the staff at ACHD to discuss that approach at great length. We feel that we can move that, really, without much of a problem at all. If you will notice we have -- we have that 25 feet of landscape to help transition the vehicular access and exit off of the lot. What it will ultimately mean is there is one, two, three -- six spaces right in there. Zaremba: There should be a pointer on the podium. Jones: Oh, I'm sorry. Zaremba: Sort of connect the dots over there. Thank you. Jones: Right there. And what's going to happen is this approach, when moved up into this area, it will be a stacking distance of about 30 feet and, then, transition back down to give that -- for the most part it will be for truck access for deliveries to this loading dock area. And for the employee parking area it would generally be in this area. We don't think it's going to really impede anything, really, up in here. Zaremba: So, you can rearrange the parking lot a little bit, you don't have to touch the buildings or anything else? Jones: It's not a big deal. If anything -- if anything, it's going to allow us a little bit of space right in here to maybe collect some on-site drainage and maybe provide some solutions that way. The site lends itself naturally for that condition, so, if anything, it will just kind of help us a little bit. We don't have any objection to it at all. Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, any other questions? Borup: Just one. You had stated you agreed with the most part on the staff's recommendation. So, was there something you did not agree with? Jones: No. Borup: Okay. Jones: Only the time. Borup: You meant all, then. Wilson: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Yes. Wilson: Just one quick point that Brad was kind enough to bring up. The specific parking and building layout aren't really plat issues. I mean we do bring them up and discuss them -- discuss them at this stage, but they aren't really issues for approval at Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 74 of 93 the time of the plat. They will be approved with subsequent -- with the CZC applications for the buildings, so just an FYI. Zaremba: Thank you. Wilson: But it is worth discussing. Zaremba: Okay. Patrick Minegar. Okay. From the audience he says he doesn't need to add anything. He's marked as for on the speaker's list. That was the whole list. Anybody else care to testify on this one? All right. Thank you. Then, we don't need any rebuttal. Commissioners? Moe: I move that we close the Public Hearing on PFP 05-002. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we forward onto City Council approving PFP 05-002, to include all staff comments of the hearing date of June 16th, 2005, received by the clerk's office June 10th, 2005. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion also carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: And we've had a request to take another short break. Let's take about five minutes and we will reconvene. (Recess.) Item 13: Public Hearing: RZ 05-007 Request for a Rezone of .13 acres from R-8 zone to 0- T zone for Meridian Counseling & Wellness Center by Ruth & Jeff Ulmer - 934 East 5th Street: Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 75 of 93 Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 05-028 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a counseling and massage therapy center in a proposed O-T zone for Meridian Counseling & Wellness Center by Ruth & Jeff Ulmer - 934 East 5th Street: Zaremba: Okay. We are ready to reconvene and let the record show that all Commissioners are present again and with that we will open Items 13 and 14, the Public Hearing for RZ 05-007 and the Public Hearing for CUP 05-028, both relating to Meridian Counseling and Wellness Center, 934 East 5th Street. And we will begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As stated, the two applications before you are a rezone and a Conditional Use Permit on East 5th Street in downtown Meridian and at the corner of State -- of 5th and State. Jeff and Ruth Ulmer have applied for a Conditional Use Permit for the Meridian Counseling and Wellness Center, a professional office use in an existing single family home and with some remodeling, but I'll get to that more specifically here in a moment. The rezone is a rezone of .13 acres from what is currently R-8 and this first map will depict that better. The medium there being a large portion of the screen in the upper right and middle being R-8 zoning. They are requesting O-T, which would be the orange color over here. The Comprehensive Plan does depict this property as Old Town. The current zoning does yet reflect that and as properties develop and change, we will kind of get the checkerboard effect. You can a see property down here that is zoned Old Town. This is R-15 that separates the R.8 from the Old Town there. But under the Comprehensive Plan what we expect to see is over the years as downtown redevelops, that you will get more and more of the Old Town in this area as the area develops. For the rezone application it is worth noting that it is two blocks east of the nearest Old Town zone. The nearest nonresidential uses to the property, as near as I could tell, are a couple of churches here and, then, there is an antique sales shop on State at the corner of 2nd, which would -- let's see, this would be 3rd, 4th -- the second, so it's actually there. So, this would be the closest nonresidential uses. The rest of the properties between there still being residential uses. The Conditional Use Permit is for the professional office use in the Old Town zone. That is a conditional -- that does require a Conditional Use Permit. The site plan depicted here may be different from what's in your packets. You should have received this revised plan. Initially, the applicant had requested through ACHD to put some angled parking out in State Street. I did not attend that tech review, but it is my understanding that ACHD was not in support of that, so the applicant did go in for a site redesign, eliminating the current garage, which is shown in these kind of light lines here and bringing the parking into the site with the associated drive aisle and parking spaces. The only thing that would be in the ACHD right of way would be the loading area for the required handicapped space here. That will require a license agreement with ACHD and that is one of the conditions of approval in the staff report. A couple other things I will touch in quickly here are the applicant did depict the drive aisle adjacent to these parking spaces as 20 feet. Meridian City Code does require 25 feet, the applicant would be required to expand that parking, which does a couple things, it moves that parking closer to that east property line, reducing that -- what was a seven Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 76 of 93 foot strip to a two foot strip, making plantings fairly impractical. For that reason and otten staff discusses alternative compliance with the Commission, what it allows is that on sites such as this with the constraints, code would require one tree per 35 feet along that property line. Well, I take that back. It would actually require a 60 percent visual screen at maturity, which can be reduced to one tree for 35 feet, with a solid fence. So, staff would recommend a six-foot solid fence along that property line and also the south property line. We recommend those as conditions of approval. And, then, I have also included some fairly specific recommendations for how they can provide plant materials that come close -- that do meet that one tree per 35 feet. The one tree per 35 don't have to be spaced at, you know, one tree per 35 feet. I would recommend an additional tree in the -- there is my mouse arrow. It came back. If this tree was moved a little bit to the west, you could get an additional tree in this corner, creating a nice little area back there and with -- I believe did recommend another addition of another tree along that line to get them to the one per 35. And, then, also along this east property line, if a tree was added in this area as part of the license agreement with ACHD, because they will have to provide some along here, that's another condition, to meet the one tree per 35 feet along the north property line. If one is provided in this area, staff feels that with that, combined with the six-foot fence, is a reasonable tradeoff, because of the space limitations of the site. As mentioned, they will be required to meet the one tree per 35 feet and a ten-foot landscape strip along both State Street and 5th Street. They are local streets. And this site -- you can see that the edge of the pavement is, actually, quite a ways away from the property line, so ACHD has a much more expansive right of way in here than the road would actually reflect. So, that landscaping will be provided in the -- in the right of way, requiring also part of that license agreement with ACHD that they would require for this -- this paving to be placed in their right way. The police department did make some comments and in looking at this I do believe they were looking at an old plan with the garage still attached to the home. They did make the comment that they were concerned over the lack of windows on the east elevation. The applicant's architect did represent to me that there is three windows on that side of the building and that is what it appears to me as well, so my take is that the police department was looking at the plans with the garage still attached. So, I would say that there are windows along that elevation of the building and they do provide some view of the parking lot. I will mention for the record that we did receive a petition and it should be in your packets as well. It was signed by 26 individuals and I will just briefly read the heading at the top here for the record and it states: Opposition to RZ 05-007 and CUP 05-028. We would like it to be noted to the Commissioners that we opposed the request for the rezoning of 934 East 5th Street from R-8 to OT. We want it noted that we oppose the Conditional Use Permit for Meridian Counseling and Wellness Center. We do not want a business increasing traffic and bringing troubled individuals into our residential neighborhood. This is where we live, where are children play, and where we keep our valuables. The requesters do not live here and, therefore, assuming none of the risk that the residents are. There are many more reasons for the objection, but to be brief, we simply oppose RZ 05-007 and CUP 05-028. So, I did want to mention that for the record and I think with that I will stand for questions. I think we do have some elevations of the existing home in the presentation here for reference. And with that I will stand for questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 77 of 93 Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Seeing none, we are ready for the applicant, please. Ulmer: Hi, my name is Ruth Ulmer and I am with Meridian Counseling and Wellness Center. I am Meridian Counseling and Wellness Center. And my address is 18589 South Cloverdale Road, Kuna. And I agree with everything that was stated, except the east side of the building has four windows, so -- looking out on the parking lot. Zaremba: So much the better. Ulmer: Yeah. Rohm: Would you like to speak to the petition received by -- Zaremba: Have you seen it? Ulmer: No, I have not seen it and I'm very surprised -- very surprised by this. No one has come to me expressing any concerns at all. I have been trying to go about meeting all of the neighbors. I have been in the building since September and haven't, you know, met anybody who has expressed any concerns. So, this is very surprising to me. In terms of more traffic, with the counseling center versus a person's residence, yes, there will probably be increased traffic, so I don't know what to say about that. But I think that that is a reasonable statement to make. In terms of a counseling center, massage therapy place, we deal with everyday people who -- you know, children with ADHD, children who have everyday issues, couples who have marital problems. We don't deal with drug abusers. We don't deal with pedophiles; we don't deal with -- with anything like that. We just deal with everyday people who, you know, need someone to talk to. So, we certainly wouldn't be dealing with high class, you know -- or severely deranged people. So, that is a misconception that many many people have about counseling services. This isn't a detox center or anything like that. So, you know, that's often a misconception that people make, so -- Zaremba: Are there any official levels of counseling centers or licensing that vary, depending on whether you're dealing with drug rehab or -- Ulmer: Well, I choose not to work with those people, just because that's not what my license is and I find -- Zaremba: So, there is some kind of a license? Ulmer: There is -- yeah, there is definitely people who are licensed in doing that and I choose not to work with that group of people and I'm not going to rent to people who see that type of people. You know, I'm going to have other people in my office building and what I want to have is a wellness center. I want people who see children, I want people who see couples, I want people who do massage therapy, you know, on -- sorry, Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 78 of 93 but on wealthy women. I mean that's going to be the clientele that we have is wealthy women who want a massage for two hours. We are going to have a nutritionist who will work there. We are going to have that kind of a people who work in my office building. So, you know, who affords therapists, you know, we cost a hundred dollars to 85 dollars an hour. We are not dealing with people who -- who are, you know drug offenders and sex offenders. And I choose not to rent to people who see pedophiles for a living and I'm not going to choose to rent to people who see drug addicts for a living, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. Ulmer: So, I hope that answers that. Zaremba: Nice clarification. Ulmer: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Questions from the Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: You said you have been in there since September, so you have been operating this already and nobody's had a problem before or you have just been -- Ulmer: I purchased it as a home and I have been using it as a home office, so I personally have been there. I'm a child and adolescent therapist; I have been seeing clients there and no one has had any issues. And, again, I have been trying to go out and meet my neighbors and I have not had anybody make any complaints or issue about the increased traffic or about, you know, any clients or any problems. Not at all. And the goal of, you know, this is -- is I believe that I'm trying to increase the value of the neighborhood, you know. You know, I think I'm going to be a good neighbor. Yes, I'm not going to be there all weekend long, but I think that, you know, we are going to be there from 7:00 a.m., to maybe 8:00 p.m. at night. A lot of my therapists are going to be working on Saturdays. We may not be there on Sunday, but we are not going to have barking dogs, we are not going to have parties, we are not going to have loud children playing in the backyard. You know, I think we can be a very good neighbor to the neighborhood, so -- Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Ulmer: You're welcome. Zaremba: Okay. We have Susan Dodds signed up to speak. If you will come forward, please. Dodds: Thank you. I am Susan Dodds. I live at 438 East State Avenue. I live caddy- corner to the questionable property. I live right here. I have lived there for about ten years. I work during the day, but I am there most of the evening and weekends and have not noticed any traffic from her current -- if she is having current a business there, Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 79 of 93 I have not seen -- seen her over there. I'm sorry. I'm freezing. And I'm full aware of what counseling does. I'm an educator and we have counseling in our schools. I am also raising two small grandchildren and I do worry about the traffic. I do worry about it leaving a family-oriented neighborhood. We are Old Town and many of us have moved there, because it is Old Town and we can walk down to business and we do have families, we have a variety of people living in this neighborhood. Right here we have -- let's see. I'm right here. We have a rental house here. We have another family here. We have a deaf family here that has a child living with them. And we are a family neighborhood. We'd like to keep it a family neighborhood. And we are not against counseling, but we look around Meridian and where it is a business and it is a needed business, we would like to suggest that it go into a business area. There are plenty of open business -- open buildings around our -- excuse me -- our community and so there are places for this business to go and still for the people to be of need and I am representing a group of neighbors that has stated that, yes, we aren't against home business, we are not against people making a living, but we looking at a business coming into a family neighborhood that's going to be open in the evening and on weekends when our kids are out there riding their bikes and playing in the neighborhood. And we would like to keep it a neighborhood as long as we can, even though we do love Old Town Meridian, because that's where many of us choose -- we are a combined group of elderly, middle age, young renters, young people, so -- and we do have home businesses in our neighborhood. We have a beauty shop in our neighborhood. But those people live there. They are there to see their neighbors, to make sure that -- I don't know, just to make sure that the community stays a family- oriented community down in that end. And we are aware that Meridian is growing and Old Town is changing and one of these days we are going to have to change with it. But right now we just would like to keep it a community and a family neighborhood as long as we can. We are proud of it. And we are there and I have never had anybody come to my door and ask about it. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? All right. thank you. Let's see. No one else has signed up. Anybody else care to testify? Okay. Mrs. Ulmer, you're welcome to come back up again if you have anything to add or comments or -- okay. Staff, any comment? Wilson: No. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Can I get the site plan back up there with the new parking layout? And that's taking access off of 5th? Wilson: That's actually State. State would be to the north. 5th would be to the left. Yeah. State would be up. 5th would be left. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 80 of 93 Moe: Okay. Zaremba: We are open for discussion or are we ready to close the Public Hearing at least? Rohm: Yeah, I think we are ready to close. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 05-007 and CUP 05-028. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Discussion? Newton-Huckabay: I'll say something with Old Town zoning, this is where I personally run into problems, because I am a long time, up until just recently, resident of Old Town and Old Town for me just -- I felt like was going to diminish the value of having a residential neighborhood in Meridian. There are places in town where I think the Old Town zoning lends itself to facilitating people putting businesses in their homes, which is along Pine Street. In this particular area, I -- it is predominately residential, you have two blocks -- two blocks until you hit -- hit businesses that are closer to the main street and I have to tend to agree with the 23 people who signed this and they also have a unique situation in this particular neighborhood that a lot of Old Town doesn't have, in that they have a cul-de-sac and most of the residents in Old Town don't -- you know, they have more of the grid system to deal with. And I -- although I don't think that this type of use is particularly invasive, I would say invade a neighborhood, I tend to agree with the residents that it's not an appropriate time to rezone it for business. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I guess the thing that I like about the proposal is that they are actually able to take care of the park and things such as that on site, as opposed to having to weight parking space requirements, because of lack of room and I thank it was kind of nice to actually see one that addresses those issues, that we always are having to overlook as other applications within Old Town come before us, so from my perspective it was refreshing to see some of those things addressed. So, that's kind of my take on this. Mae: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 81 of 93 Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I would somewhat concur with Commissioner Rohm. The only thing I would have -- you know, that would make it much nicer is if, in fact, the access to the property could have been somewhat off of 5th, that way you're getting more traffic coming off probably Pine into 5th, than, you're going to come going down through State, which I think most of the people that signed the petition are living on State Street. So, you are still going to have the traffic coming through there to get into the parking, but I guess I'm going to go back to somewhat of our charge is to review the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan is showing that this area is going into -- is going to be within Old Town and it's going to take facilities like this to extend that, you know, in some of the areas with some different mixed use in the Old Town area like that. So, having said that, I -- I think it's a good fit for the area. Zaremba: We have discussed before that the Comprehensive Plan designation of Old Town and as wide as it spreads, we know there is going to be an extended period of transition as things change. To me, this is a low impact choice, among other choices that could be there. I would jump very quickly if it were two streets farther west, you know, closer to the areas that are already beginning to transition. I think it is what is envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, which is pretty much where our guide is. These kind of things will transition. Like I say, I wish it were a couple blocks farther west, but it is still within the Old Town area. Newton-Huckabay: I guess that's where I have the problem is what is Old Town supposed to look like when we are done with it, you know? I mean -- and that was the problem with -- with the property that I lived in, if I thought, you know, what's next door to me could go to a hair salon and, then, my house and, then, you know, an accounting office, then, another house and, you know, I -- that's where I -- but I personally struggle with the Old Town zoning for that reason, because I don't -- it has not set aside Old Town residential zones and, in my opinion, this particular State Street is one of those situations where to me that is a perfect example of where you would want an Old Town residential area. Now, I mean that may be -- I mean I may not have a foot to stand on, but that's just how I feel about it. That, you know, there is -- you know, you do have a cul-de-sac area and you have, you know, within walking distance of downtown, I just think it has a lot more potential and highest and best use as an historical -- more historical residential area. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Newton-Huckabay: But I haven't got to get on my soap box about how I feel about the Old Town zoning, so -- Zaremba: Well, it's a difficult thing. I mean we -- it's -- and we struggle with all of the mixed use subjects. You know, what's the mix and how close to each other are the Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 82 of 93 mixes and, you know, do we -- even within a zone try and keep the mixes separate or -- or what. Borup: I think I have got, Mr. Chairman, the same concerns as probably everyone expressed. Maybe the only comment I would have -- this is also a -- under a Conditional Use Permit, that does give us some control if there is a concern. If there is any problems with the neighborhood, likewise, the conditional use can be used to address that, so it's not -- Newton-Huckabay: In the future? Borup: Yes. I mean that's where -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That's-- Borup: Yes. Only that is -- that is an option within a conditional use, if you don't have -- Zaremba: If it creates a disturbance, the conditional use can be revoked is what you're saying. Borup: Yes. And we can place any additional conditions that, you know, Commission deems fit, if there was any concerns that can be addressed that way. Rohm: So, are you suggesting something like approve and, then, if, in fact, there was opposition to it six months from now, if the neighbors petition yet again, that you would rehear it? Zaremba: It would have to be a proven disturbance. Borup: Right. I mean I'm saying that's an option if it's a legitimate concern, a legitimate complaint here or a legitimate violation, that's what it would need to be. A violation of what they were approved for, I would assume. Newton-Huckabay: I don't really see that this would be a concern. Zaremba: Well, the applicant needs to be confident that if it is recommended by us and approved by the City Council that they have that approval and everybody knows that they are subject to -- you know, if it comes to a disturbance, then, that can change, but I wouldn't make it as general as if it gets approved and, then, the neighbors circulate a petition again and they don't really have any grounds for a disturbance. Borup: No. No. It's got to be -- you know, if it's approved for four office buildings and they are trying to have ten counselors in there and cars are out in the street, you know, something like that, which -- I mean it doesn't look like that's going to be the case, but -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 83 of 93 Zaremba: We may have some input -- Borup: _. I mean -- I mean a business like this, I don't know -- I don't know how long a beauty shop takes -- I mean how much turnover they have, but that's -- Newton-Huckabay: Probably more than -- Borup: Would it be? Newton-Huckabay: I would think so. Borup: I mean once an hour for a beauty shop? Zaremba: Mr. Baird, do you have -- Baird: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to point out that if you set certain restrictions as part of your approval of the conditional use, that if they go beyond that, it's merely a code enforcement issue, it doesn't necessarily put it back here in front of you. So, I would encourage you to be as specific as you can about what requirements that you want to see to make this compatible, if that's what you're inclined to do. So, it's very clear what the expectations are and if the operations go outside of that, then, the neighbors have a recourse that they contact from the city. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Well, Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: The applicant has -. has already stated in her testimony that her intent is not to see certain classes of the public as part of their counseling services. Maybe we should just put those down and say not to be seeing pedophiles and -- Newton-Huckabay: You can't do that. Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, my recommendation would be to limit it in a more positive way, that this will be a family counseling center, as she has discussed it, and that would necessarily, because of the limitations of the license for the family counselor, would you preclude those types of individuals. Rohm: Okay. Let's see. Family counseling service. I like that. That's much better. I didn't -- I don't like that other word anyway. All right. Let's see. Well, there you go. All right. So, where do we put that? Zaremba: Well, I think that addresses what I was trying to discover with my question about the different levels of licensing. If there is a named license that says family Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 84 of 93 counseling center and that means a specific thing, that's what the applicant is asking for and nobody later could change that. Baird: And, Mr. Chair, I would encourage you to get input from the applicant to be specific about what that means. You may want to reopen the public hearing for that, if it goes beyond information that you have got right now. Zaremba: I'm willing to do that, if somebody wants to ask the applicant. We'll reopen the hearing first. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we reopen hearings RZ 05-007 and CUP 05-028. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The hearing on RZ 05-007 and CUP 05-028 are reopened. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I guess another thing I would want to -- when the applicant does come up, I would assume we would want to put some time restrictions as well. Zaremba: Some hour ones? Moe: Yes. Some hour limits on these. Zaremba: Mrs. Ulmer, would you return to the podium, please. Okay. Center spot light. Thank you. Would you give us a more thorough description of apparently -- is your license a family counseling license? Is that what it says? Ulmer: My license is a licensed clinical professional counselor and so I can see children, adolescents, and adults. There is another license in Idaho that is a licensed marriage and family therapist and so they are licensed specifically to see couples and families. I do not possess that license. Zaremba: But you might hire somebody who does. Ulmer: I might hire somebody who does. The type of -- Zaremba: So, those two sound okay to me. Ulmer: The type of-- Zaremba: Those two sound okay to me. What else is there? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 85 of 93 Ulmer: There is a master's in social work. Social workers do primarily the same type of work that we do, so what I see as clients are children, adolescents, adults. I consider seeing couples, families, again, massage therapist, so that's the type of person that I want to hire. I'm looking at trying to hire -- not hire, but rent my space out to a nutritionist. A nutritionist would see people who are either just heavy and they want to lose weight or maybe somebody with an eating disorder, so that would be the type of clientele that we would see. I'm playing around with the idea of maybe having somebody who is an acupuncturist licensure. I don't know about that. I don't know if they have a lot of equipment or whatever. I don't know. But I want to be a wellness center, so I want to look at, you know, the whole family, a whole person, and see if I can, you know, make sure that they can be well. So, those are the type of people that I'm looking at hiring, either psychologists, therapists, master level social workers, nutritionists, massage therapists, possibly an acupuncturist, but I haven't done any research on that. But those are the type of people that I want to lease my building, those are the types of clients that I want to see. Newton-Huckabay. I think it's probably fair to say that she thought we were talking about a certain market nitch and, you know, you're talking about people -- that's a different marketing altogether when you start talking about people with drug addiction and things like that. You're marketing your -- that doesn't mean that those two don't even jive. Ulmer: Yes. Zaremba: I think our issue is how do we quantify what licenses those are? Or do we want to do that? Newton-Huckabay: I guess I would state from a business standpoint -- I mean a business person is going to find their nitch and that's what they are going to market to and if she -- I mean if that's not your area of expertise and there is -- I mean, then, I would agree with you that there is probably not a lot of money to be made in that, because you're talking about subsidizing health care at that point. Ulmer: Right. Yeah. And, you know, when you look at it like -- I have people calling me everyday, do you take Medicaid. I don't take Medicaid, because Medicaid reimburses me at 50 dollars a session. I don't want to make 50 dollars a session, so I don't do Medicaid. Zaremba: That's after doing 25 dollars worth of paperwork. Ulmer: Exactly. And so, you know, that leaves me out of a whole certain level of clientele, so I'm not taking Medicaid kids, I'm not -- you know, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 86 of 93 Newton-Huckabay: I guess I would -- I would feel comfortable not putting that -- of course, I'm not going to vote in favor of this, but in all fairness, I would say that making that a recommendation or what I would feel necessary -- Baird: Mr. Chair, after hearing the additional testimony, I have come to the conclusion that it would probably be difficult to craft something that would be specific to exclude a certain class of clientele, so it would be my recommendation that you steer clear of that. Zaremba: Okay. Let me ask a question of staff, if I may. Probably Brad would be the one to answer it. And I think I have asked this question before and gotten an answer, but I just want to clarify. The CUP belongs to Mrs. Ulmer; right? If she ceases -- my concern is if the CUP goes with the property and she moves off someplace and somebody else comes in and says, oh, I can be a counselor, I am going to do drug counseling, but if she ceases to do business, the CUP is gone; is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, no, not necessarily. I mean another user who operates a similar use, such as a counseling or wellness or acupuncturist, et cetera, that would substantially meet the same kind of use that you're approving tonight, could potentially use that permit at that address. Zaremba: The key word, though, is the same; right? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. If-- Zaremba: It couldn't be more -- Hawkins-Clark: If another use in the future were to come in, we would ask for a very detailed description of what that use is. We would pull out this permit, if you were to approve it, and compare the two -- Zaremba: It couldn't get more intense, though -- more intense counseling, a higher level of counseling with drug addicts and so forth? Hawkins-Clark: Right. I mean I agree with the attorney, I mean those are tough things to enforce, I mean, unless you -- you know, you can, like a day care, I mean, require the applicant to, you know, acquire the license and, then, obviously, the state -- in this case I'm assuming a state agency, would be the jurisdiction that is watching over that licensee and, you know, we wouldn't get involved in that side of it. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if I could add onto that, what you're really looking at is secondary effects of the use and the effects that they are going to have on the neighboring properties, rather than identifying, you know, we don't want Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 87 of 93 orange people or we don't want purple people, it's -- if purple people have a negative effect on the neighbors that you can quantify, then, you can somehow, you know, put a condition and regulate that, but, again, I want to encourage you, after listening to the specifics, to steer clear over any level of counseling, because what you're looking at is how many trips per day, how many cars in and out, you know, those are the types of things that staff would have the ability to look at if there was a change in the ownership and a change of use, as to what's required to come back to you for a new approval. Borup: Mr. Chairman, this Commission -- this Commission in the past has made recommendations to tie the CUP to a specific individual. We have done that before. Zaremba: That would be comfortable for me. Ulmer: I don't plan on going anywhere. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move to -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh, what about the hours of operation? Moe: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Would we say 8:00 o'clock? Ulmer: With my renters, you know, when I rent my office space out, you know, therapists -- therapists are like herding cats, you know, they are very independent folks. We are very independent folks and so we might have some therapists who want to see a client before they go to work and so we might have a therapist who wants to make a 7:00 a.m. appointment or an 8:00 a.m., appointment -- I certainly don't make those kind of appointments. And, then, there are going to be therapists who want to see 7:00 p.m. or 8:00 p.m. appointments. So, you know, when I'm going to rent out the office space, it's going to be kind of up to them, you know, when they use the building, and that kind of thing. So, I can't imagine anything before 7:00 a.m. I can't imagine anything after -- when they leave the building at 9:00 p.m., you know, I can't imagine anything like that. I don't think too many therapists want to work on Saturdays, but there might be sometimes that they do, so -- Rohm: Are those good hours, then, 7:00 to 9:00? Newton-Huckabay: What if we just use the standard we have been using? Rohm: 6:00 to 10:00? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 88 of 93 Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Ulmer: I can't imagine anything going earlier or later than that. I mean, you know, therapists are supposed to have good boundaries, so -- Zaremba: Yeah. It doesn't mean it has to be there 6:00 to 10:00. That's an outer limit. Ulmer: Yeah. Zaremba: But you would be comfortable with having hours? Ulmer: Yeah. Yeah. Zaremba: All right. Thank you very much. Ulmer: You're very welcome. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we re-close public hearings RZ 05-007 and CUP 05-028. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, are you up? Rohm: I think so. The time issue was only on the CUP, not on the rezone? Zaremba: Correct. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of RZ 05-007, to include all staff comments for the hearing date June 16th, 2005, to encompass the transmittal date of June 9th, 2005. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Newton-Huckabay: Opposed. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 89 of 93 Zaremba: We have four ayes and one opposed. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05- 028, to include all staff comments for the hearing date June 16th, 2005, and the transmittal date -- transmittal date of June 9th, 2005, with one change, that we include in hours of operation maximum of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. Moe: Are you going to need her-- Zaremba: I would suggest that you tie the Cup to the owners or the -- Rohm: Oh. Oh. Yes. And this Conditional Use Permit be only to the applicant that's before us. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Newton-Huckabay: Opposed. Zaremba: We have four ayes and one opposed. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 05-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 building lots and 1 common lot on 1.74 acres in a L-O zone for Woodpenn Subdivision by Pennwood III, LLC - 429 SW 5th Avenue: Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 05-030 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial Planned Development on 1.74 acres in a L-O zone for Woodpenn Subdivision by Pennwood III, LLC - 429 SW 5th Avenue: Zaremba: Thank you. We will move onto Items 15 and 16. I will open the Public Hearing for PP 05-022 and CUP 05-030, related Woodpenn Subdivision at 429 Southwest 5th Avenue and we will begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This application is for Woodpenn Subdivision. It's a preliminary plat for four building lots and one building -- and one common lot on 1.74 acres in an L-Q zone and also for a Conditional Use Permit approval for reductions to the minimum requirements for street frontage in the L- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 90 of 93 0 zone. The site is located in Troutner business park. On Southwest 5th Avenue in the L-O zone. That portion of Troutner is zoned L-O as above if you will, from the C-G zoned lands within Troutner and the -- I believe R-8 -- yeah, the R-8 zone subdivision to the west. And it is located near the intersection of Pennwood and Southwest 5th. The applicant has proposed four office buildings, with a common lot that provides parking and landscape areas. The reason for the planned development is the configuration of this common lot as a cross, if you will, here in the middle, it does give frontage to the common lot and these two front lots, but the two lots in the rear do not have any frontage, therefore, requiring a PD to reduce those frontage requirements. Just a few brief things to touch on. As a planned development it does require two amenities. The applicant has proposed -- and here is a nice overhead isometric drawing here of the buildings and landscaping. As amenities the applicant has proposed two things. A seating plaza with a picnic table located here at the north end of the development and, then, also they do meet the ten percent landscaped open space requirements for the second amenity, a large portion of that being in the extra large land use buffer here. From single family residential to an office use would require 20 feet of land use buffer. I don't have an exact measurement, but it's in excess of 40 feet across that landscape berm. And, then, there is also the landscaping adjacent to the buildings and on the perimeter of the site. So, those -- providing those two amenities are a condition of approval. One other condition of approval. The street buffer -- same situation as we saw earlier. We do like to see those placed in an easement. In this case to benefit the business owners association and what that does is to simplify and facilitate maintenance of that street buffer by the business owners association, if it's in that easement, and it also protects -- protects that buffer from any encroachments or structures. One small item -- and I'll let the applicant address this. I did mention to them that with the 20-foot parking spaces and six-foot sidewalks they have depicted, we would require some parking bumpers, wheel stops, the concrete blocks. We want to keep that five-foot clear sidewalk. It has been staffs policy and we would -- we would require those wheel stops to do that. What an option for them is is to increase that sidewalk to seven feet, drop the stalls to 19, they don't lose any -- any footage in the big picture there. That 19 feet does meet our requirements and, then, the seven-foot sidewalk eliminates the need for wheel stops. We figure about a two-foot overhand from vehicles and so you still have that five-foot clear sidewalk. So, I will let the applicant address whether they prefer wheel stops or just widening that sidewalk. One issue that wasn't mentioned earlier today and I will go over the elevations here just briefly. It seems to be a fairly standard limited office product we see. The residential type single story building with the large slopping roofs and some building materials that are pretty consistent with what we see in our residential areas. One issue that was mentioned earlier today is is Pennwood Drive or street, whichever it is, and why it doesn't extend through this property. You can see here this is Pennwood Drive within this subdivision. And, then, there is also -- Pennwood continues over on this east side of the property, with a slight jog and the question was raised, you know, why was Pennwood not brought through here. I was not able to find out a definitive answer. I believe -- and maybe Brad can help me with his recollection, but as part of the Pennwood Subdivision platting process, that was determined not to continue through there. ACHD has not asked for it to be continued. There is a permanent fire Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 91 of 93 department turnaround provided at the end of it in the neighborhood there, a hammerhead-type turnaround. That's -- and that is -- you can see with the little notch out of this lot there that that is part of his property, that is a permanent fire turnaround. So, I guess, basically, I don't have a definitive answer on why Pennwood didn't come through and that was determined before this proposal and ACHD has not required the extension of Pennwood through this property. Could be because they don't perfectly line up. It could be to keep some traffic out of that residential neighborhood. I'm not exactly sure. Maybe the applicant has a better understanding of that then staff does. And with that I think I will stand for questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Zaremba: I don't see any. Mr. Hawkins-Clark were you indicating you wanted to add something? Apparently not. Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward. Newton.Huckabay: He's just trying to stay awake over there. Newton: Good evening. Matt Newton. 25370 Volendam Drive, Caldwell. Representing Pennwood Three, LLC, as the member who drew the short straw, so I'd love to answer any questions. Newton-Huckabay: And, boy, if you had any idea. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: You guys agree to all of the staff comments? Newton: Yes, we do. Moe: And what about the parking bumpers or wider sidewalk? Newton: We have chosen to use a seven-foot sidewalk and eliminate the parking bumpers and the 19-foot parking stall. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: I'm just curious. Do you know anything about the road? Newton: I'm not familiar with the road, but one thing I do know is that at this point there is a permanent walk path right here. It's also an all service -- it's a fire department access, there is a knock box or break away bollards, so fire trucks can access from here the subdivision. So, it's a -- it's been established somewhere in history, but there is fire department access, but I don't know why the road doesn't continue. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 92 of 93 Zaremba: Okay. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Thank you very much. We have no one else signed up to speak on this, but would anybody care to add anything? In that case, we don't need any rebuttal from Mr. Newton. Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: The benefit for going last. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I guess I'd ask staff. As far as the seven foot walk or whatever, that's -- nothing needs to be noted in the -- Wilson: No. The condition said that the applicant needs to either provide wheel stops or do the seven-foot walks, so we just want to see one of those two. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on PP 05-002 and CUP 05-031. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: 030, I believe. Moe: Excuse me. 030. It's getting a little late. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Okay. Good. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 05-00 -- excuse me. PP 05-022 and CUP 05-030, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of June 16th, 2005, received by the city clerk's office June 10th, 2005. Roh m: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. ,.,_. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 93 of 93 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we adjourn. Zaremba: Did you -- did we approve just 05-022? Moe: No. I approved them both at one time. Zaremba: I'm sorry, I wasn't listening that close. All right. Thank you. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: We are adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:39 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED DAVI~~AN f!3 I c/ I ;;(CO5 DATE ÄPÞRQVED - ,.-' --~ --~.. - .--------- .,---"/- >..-----