The URL can be used to link to this page

1998 07-14 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JUNE 9, 1998: (APPROVE WITH CORRECTION) MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1998: (APPROVE WITH CORRECTION) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A CHURCH PARKING LOT FOR MERIDIAN GOSPEL TABERNACLE BY BURTON ROBERTS -LOTS 3, 4, 5 & 6 OF BLOCK 4, MERIDIAN NIDAYS 2ND ADDITION: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL) 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR HOME CHILD CARE BY AMY GILLUM - 2347 E. APRICOT DRIVE: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, APPROVE ACCESSORY USE PERMIT) 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR HOME CHILD CARE BY KRISTI RICHMOND - 2311 MONACO WAY: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, APPROVE ACCESSORY USE PERMIT) 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1.66 ACRES (C-G ZONE) BY KANTI PATEL - I-84, EAGLE ROAD, GENTRY WAY & ALLEN STREET: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL) 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORA 3 STORY MOTEL BY KANTI PATEL - I- 84, EAGLE ROAD, GENTRY WAY 8~ ALLEN STREET: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL) 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ARTIFICIAL NAILS SALON BY DARLENE JEROME -1324 MERIDIAN ROAD: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL) 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 7.58 ACRES (R-T ZONE) BY WESTPARK COMPANY, INC. -NORTH OF VICTORY & %. MILE EAST OF LOCUST GROVE:: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL) 8. TABLED JUNE 17, 1998: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT (31 LOTS ON 11.01 ACRES) FOR PROPOSED SHERBROOKE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY, INC. -NORTH OF VICTORY &'/.MILE EAST OF LOCUST GROVE: (APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL) 9. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1.18 ACRES (R-2) BY WILLIAM C. HUMPHREY FOR LAND LOCATED AT 939 E. PINE: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL AUGUST 11, 1998) 10. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTORS' YARD BY DONOVAN HANSON d/b/a HANSON EXCAVATING -LOT 2, BLOCK 1 OF PLAYGROUND SUBDIVISION: FFC(„ 11. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TABLES AND CHAIRS FOR OUTSIDE SEATING BY WILD WEST BAKERY - 611 E. 1 sr STREET: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 12. FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 36.71 ACRES TO R-4 FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC -EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: (TABLE UNTIL JULY 22, 1998, SPECIAL MEETING) 13. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION (260 LOTS ON 51.88 ACRES) BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC - EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTIGK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JULY 22, 1998, SPECIAL MEETING) 14. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC -EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JULY 22, 1998, SPECIAL MEETING) 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (48 UNITS ON 8.53 ACRES) -THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT- NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1-NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAtl1~ 16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT (48 LOTS ON 8.53 ACRES) FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT- NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL AUGUST 11, 1998) 17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER BY DAKOTA COMPANY, INC. - SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EAGLE & FAIRVIEW: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL AUGUST 11, 1998) 18. AMENDMENTS TO ZON-NG AND SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAVI~ MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JUNE 9, 1998: GL/J~rvv~,e wf~- cv~~z~f,'~ MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1998: ~p~rvvP ui~Z-h Ga~eGh'ti~ 1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A CHURCH PARKING LOT FOR MERIDIAN GOSPEL TABERNACLE BY BURTON ROBERTS -LOTS 3, 4, 5 & 6 OF BLOCK 4, MERIDIAN NIDAYS 2ND ADDITION: ~"PPryve f/-~ ¢ c% ca~~rove rec~.n..~..-cC~-fig,., ,~ c~c- 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR HOME CHILD CARE BY AMY GILLUM - 2347 E. APRICOT DRIVE: ~~rvve ~l~ ~~L G-/'~"'°~-.e gccessv-+- y ,c.rz /..~.~-~2- 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR HOME CHILD CARE BY KRISTI RICHMOND - 2311 MONACO WAY: ct/ipn>ve ~/~ ¢ ~!~ ~Pprv,~t ar~e3s~~ ct.re ~e~.~..~?~ 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1.66 ACRES (C-G ZONE) BY KANTI PATEL - i-84, EAGLE ROAD, GENTRY WAY & ALLEN STREET: ~vpprv/c ~l~ f c% a~yrn~.e r~ccv-cl,~ib,.- ~ c% 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORA 3 STORY MOTEL BY KANTI PATEL - i- 84, EAGLE ROAD, GENTRY WAY & ALLEN STREET: GL~YJYb vt j'lF ~ c!c ~yrovt reco~rn.-n.~+^-tCafilor~- ~ ~rc- 6. FINDIN/G_S OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ARTIFICIAL NAILS SALON BY DARLENE JEROME - 1324 MERIDIAN ROAD: / ` /l~`alr.~ ~G ~~ C` C (~/Jl~rnve /'eC6mq,.e~G~~~- ~ Cl~- 7. FINDIN~S OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 7.58 ACRES (R-T ZONE) BY WESTPARK COMPANY, INC. -NORTH OF VICTORY & Y< MILE EAST OF LOCUST GROVE: ~p~rov~e f ~f ~ clc cz;~prn v.e ~e cvrn~~n- ~u-~ ~"- r4~ clc 8. TABLED JUNE 17, 1998: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT (31 LOTS ON 11.01 ACRES) FOR PROPOSED SHERBROOKE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY, INC. -NORTH OF VICTORY &'/a MILE EAST OF LOCUST GROVE: /,~%~JlJravc !'e.carwr-~.~-oCa~fitri- -fr> C~cr 9. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST. FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1.18 ACRES (R-2) BY WILLIAM C. HUMPHREY FOR LAND LOCATED AT 939 E. PINE: 10. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: RE UEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTORS' YARD BY DONOVAN HANSON d/b/a HANSON EXCAVATING -LOT 2, BLOCK 1 OF PLAYGROUND SUBDIVISION: L~o~-tihiz ~0/h' ~r.~tr1 ~ ll~i~~. 11. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TABLES AND CHAIRS FOR OUTSIDE SEATING BY WILD WEST BAKERY - 611 E. 1ST STRE~E~T~' ~l~ ~clL 12. FINDING OF FAC S AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 36.71 ACRES TO R-4 FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC -EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: ?a~ee a,..1>7 J2c~~ ZZ ~,.e.~,ae ~~. 13. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION (260 LOTS ON 51.88 ACRES) BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC - EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: can-f~h..c..e f~/~/~.-~2 s ~i~ 22 ~Spev~e a+-t~- 14. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC -EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: Cm.~i~uceoC P/mow--~2 Jk-~~ 22 .r~cc~'~.-2{~ct~ 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (48 UNITS ON 8.53 ACRES) -THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT- NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1- NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: 16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT (48 LOTS ON 8.53 ACRES) FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT- NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: L'er~fihuR~ P/!~ lvr~fjl f}u ~!!~ . 17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER BY DAKOTA COMPANY, INC. - SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EAGLE & FAIRVIEW: Co~~iY~ue /~/i~ r,~X•Y l9u.~. !1!z ~/~ 18. AMENDMENTS TO ZONING AND SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES: r~~ ~~ ~/~putie alt ~c/C r C~ MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 14, 1998 The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Malcolm MacCoy. MEMBERS PRESENT: Malcolm MacCoy, Byron Smith, Tammy de Weerd, Keith Borup. OTHERS PRESENT: John Prior, Bruce Freckleton, Will Berg. MacCoy: First order of business we have is the review and approval of the meeting of June 9, which is now on our hands. Commissioners do you have any comments and so on? Smith: I have none. De Weerd: I have none. Borup: While I don't know if this is, this is probably a typo, but there was a wrong month for a date in which page 4 one of your quotes that you had continued the hearing to May 17 but it was June 17. On the June 9th Minutes. MacCoy: So you're looking at page 4 of the documents? Borup: Of the minutes. MacCoy: Halfway down the page it says Wednesday May 17 Borup: Yes. MacCoy: That should be what? Borup: June 17. MacCoy: June 17. Borup: I'm assuming because it was on June 9 when you said it. MacCoy: Yes. Good point. Any other corrections? Borup: I have none. De Weerd: I move that we accept the minutes as corrected. Smith: Second. MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 2 MacCoy: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. Borup: Did we just do minutes for both meetings? MacCoy: No we are going to do minutes for the June 17th meeting. Okay what is yo4r desires on that one? De Weerd: I have no changes. Borup: I have none. Smith: I have none. Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion to approve these minutes as written. MacCoy: One moment I've got one correction I would like to make, in the minutes. On page 2 of the documentation of... I guess I got myself crosswise and I said that, starting with my comments, I said about 20-25 hours per- I said week but 1 thought I was saying month and I want to have that corrected to month is the way it should read. And with that correction, I have no other corrections. Smith: I would like to make a motion we approve these minutes as amended. De Weerd: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM #1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A CHURCH PARKING LOT FOR MERIDIAN GOSPEL TABERNACLE BY BURTON ROBERTS -LOTS 3, 4, 5, & 6 OF BLOCK 4, MERIDIAN NIDAYS 2ND ADDITION: Borup: Mr. Chairman. MacCoy: Yes. Borup: I know that the Meridian Planning and Zoning commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Smith: Second. MacCoy: Roll call. MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMIoIISSiON • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE3 ROLL CALL: Borup, Aye. De Weerd, Aye. Smith, Aye. Nelson, Absent. MOTION CARRIED: All Aye (Nelson, absent). MacCoy: It stands approved. It will be moved on to City Council. Borup: Mr. Chairman. I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council and City of Meridian, that it approves the conditional use permit requested by the applicant, the properties described in the application. The applicant shall satisfy the conditions set forth in Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the paving and landscaping requirements and all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the applicant by the city. De Weerd: I would second that MacCoy: Thank you very much. MacCoy: All those in favor. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR HOME CHILD CARE BY AMY GILLUM - 2347 E. APRICOT DRIVE. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. MacCoy: Yes. De Weerd: I move that the Planning and Zoning commission of the City of Meridian, hereby adopt and approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Borup: Second. MacCoy: We have a statement and vote of second. ROLL CALL: Borup, aye. Smith, aye. De Weerd, aye. Nelson, absent. MOTION CARRIED: All Ayes. De Weerd: I move that the Planning and Zoning, hereby decides and hereby approves the accessory use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION • J[JLY 14, 1998 PAGE4 and Conclusions of Law. More particularly set forth at paragraph 12 of the Conclusions of Law and that the property shall be required to meet the water and sewer requirements the fire and life safety codes and the uniform building code and other ordinances of the City of Meridian. The accessory use shall be subject to review by the City upon notice of the applicant. Smith: Second. MacCoy: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR HOME CHILD CARE BY KRISTI RICHMOND -2311 MONACO WAY. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian hereby adopt and approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Borup: Second. MacCoy: Very good. ROLL CALL: Borup, aye. Smith, aye. De Weerd, aye. Nelson, absent. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. MacCoy: What's the decision. Smith: Mr. Chairman the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby decides and hereby approves the accessory use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the condition set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or particularly set forth in paragraph 12 of the Conclusions of law and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, fire and life safety codes uniform building codes and other city ordinances of Meridian. Accessory use shall be subject to review upon notice of the applicant. Borup: Second. MacCoy: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe you need to state which item that was. MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION NLY 14, 1998 PAGE 5 MacCoy: It was item 3 on your agenda. Borup: Right. MacCoy: Richardson? Richmond. De Weerd: Any the only thing, the action that we need to do is pass those findings and now the next step is that you would go before City Caundl for your public hearing and their decision. D. Richmond: Okay that's my question because we thought this tonight was the final approval. MacCoy: For us. De Weerd: Oh, it is. MacCoy: For us. De Weerd: It is the final approval. D. Richmond: Well I meant for the City Council so there is still one more step. (Inaudible) Berg: This is an accessory use which the P & Z commission has the ability or authority to pass this accessory use, it doesn't go to the City Councl. De Weerd: Okay, so this is your final step. ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1.66 ACRES (C-G ZONE) BY KANTI PATEL - I-84, EAGLE ROAD, GENTRY WAY & ALLEN STREET. Borup: Mr. Chairman. MacCoy: Yes sir. Borup: I move that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these provings of Findings of Fact and Conclusions. De Weerd & Smith: Second. MacCoy: That's two seconds now. Okay Commissioner Borup. MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 6 ROLL CALL: Borup, aye. Smith, aye. Nelson, absent. De Weerd, aye. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council, City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above and the conclusions for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth and the Findings of Fact and Contusions of Law and that the applicant be speafically required to meet all of the ordinance for the City of Meridian. Speafically including the development, time requirements, and that if the conditions are not met, then the property will be de-annexed. De Weerd: Second. MacCoy: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. ITEM #5; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORA 3 STORY MOTEL BY KANTI PATEL - I-84, EAGLE ROAD, GENTRY WAY & ALLEN STREET. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopt and approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. De Weerd: I second. MacCoy: Thank you. ROLL CALL: Borup, aye. De Weerd, aye. Smith, nay MOTION CARRIED: 2 ayes, 1nay Borup: Mr. Chairman, 1 move that the Planning and Zoning commission hereby recommends the City Council, City of Meridian approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions that justified and appropriate by the City Council. That the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements the, fire and life safety codes, uniform fire code, parking requirements and the paving and landscaping requirements and all of the ordinances for the City of Meridian. The conditionals use should be subject to review upon notice to the applicants by the city. De Weerd: I second that MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 7 MacCoy: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. ITEM #8: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ARTIFICIAL NAILS SALON BY DARLENE JEROME - 1324 MERIDIAN ROAD. Smith: Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion to Meridian Planing and Zoning Commission adopt and approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. De Weerd: I second. ROLL CALL: Borup, aye. De Weerd, aye. Smith, aye. Nelson, absent. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. McCoy: Decision. Smith: Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian, that they approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application. With the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, uniform fire code, parking requirements and the paving and landscape requirements and all ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the applicant by the city. Borup: Second. MacCoy: Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 7. 58 ACRES (R-T ZONE) BY WESTPARK COMPANY, INC -NORTH OF VICTORY & %. MILE EAST OF LOCUST GROVE. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. MacCoy: Yes. MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION • J[JLY 14, 1998 PAGE 8 De Weerd: I'd like to move that the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions Smith: Second. ROLL CALL: Borup, aye. Smith, aye. Nelson, absent. De Weerd, aye. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. MacCoy: Yes. De Weerd: I would like to move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Councl of the City of Meridian that they approved the annexation and zoning as stated above in the conclusions for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Contusions of Law and that the applicant be specifically required to meet all of the ordinances of the Ciiy of Meridian and the conditions of these findings and conclusions and that if the conditions are not met at that property be de-annexed. Smith: Second. MOTION CARRIED: Aye. ITEM #8: TABLED JUNE 17, 1998: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT (31 LOTS ON 11.01 ACRES) FOR PROPOSED SHERBROOKE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY, INC. -NORTH OF VICTORY &'/. MILE EAST OF LOCUST GROVE. Borup: Mr. Chairman. MacCoy: Yes. Commissioner Borup. Borup: I move that we recommend the City Council approval of this preliminary plat. Smith: Second. MacCoy: Is there any discussion. De Weerd: I have none. ROLL CALL: Borup, aye. De Weerd, aye. Smith, aye. Nelson, absent. MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION • JiILY 14, 1998 PAGE 9 MOTION CARRIED: All aye. ITEM #9 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1.18 ACRES (R-2) BY WILLIAM C HUMPHREY FOR LAND LOCATED AT 939 E. PINE. MacCoy: Is the applicant here this evening? This is still an open hearing, is there anybody who wants to comment on this, this evening. A R-2 is a housing thing, a thing to do with acreage. I want to give you a key piece from our staff over there. Bruce, would you answer that for the code. Freckleton: R-2. MacCoy: R-2. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, R-2, two units per acre. MacCoy: Residential, right? Freckleton: Yes. MacCoy: Does that answer your question? Is there any other comments in the audience? Any other person who wants to stand up and make a statement? Smith: Mr. Chairman. MacCoy: Yes Mr. Smith Smith: I believe the applicant at the last hearing testified that he had just discovered that his land was in the flood plain and he wasn't sure if he was going to develop it or not and ask for a continuance which we did and I would like to move this along and either give him the opportunity to be heard before the Planning and Zoning Commission or if he wants to have it withdrawn and off the agenda for next months meeting and have the city staff contact the applicant and continue the public hearing till next months meeting until we know what the applicant desires to do. Borup: I second that. Smith: I would like to make a motion we continue this item till our August 11 meeting and ask city staff to contact the applicant. Borup: Second. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZONING COMMISSION • NLY 14, 1998 PAGE 10 ITEM #10: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTORS' YARD BY DOVOVAN HANSON d/b/a HANSON EXCAVATING -LOT 2, BLOCK 1 OF PLAYGROUND SUBDIVISION. MacCoy: Is the applicant here tonight? Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak this evening on this condition? Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion similar to what I did on the last item, which was to ask staff to contact the applicant and continue this item until our August 11 meeting. De Weerd: Second MacCoy: Any discussion? Borup: One comment. Yes. From what I remember, what we are waiting for is landscaping plan, was that mainly- MacCoy: That was one of the things yes. Smith: I think the applicant was going to determine from a cost stand point whether what kind of fencing was cost effective or in his budget to put around the equipment and landscaping and just take a look at the costs associated with what we were asking him to do. Borup: The main two things were fencing and landscaping. Smith: Yeah, that's... yes. MacCoy: I think the other item too was that ACRD had not sent anything in and we have that in our hands too. I think Commissioner Smith is correct because it was going to be quite costly and we recommended that he do some homework. Borup: We do have the ACHD? MacCoy: Yeah. De Weerd: Do we? MacCoy: Based on the... remember the playground we had a couple of years ago? They reissued it. That's all they do. Borup: Oh, I didn't get that in my packet. MacCoy: Okay. All in favor of Commissioner Smiths statement. MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZONING COMIvIISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 11 MOTIONED CARRIED: All aye. Borup: I'm sorry did...you did the same thing staff was going to contact. MacCoy/De Weerd: Yes. Borup: I have a question to whether Mr. Hanson ... I wondered if he realized that he needed to complete the rest of what he was asked or if he might of thought he... De Weerd: No, I ..I ... Borup: I think that needed to be emphasized to him that it is still pending. MacCoy: Our Clerk said he was called so that is all we can do. Borup: That's all I had, thank you. MacCoy: Commissioner De Weerd, do you have anything else you wanted to comment on? De Weerd: No. MacCoy: We will continue Item #10 until next August 11th meeting. ITEM #11: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TABLES AND CHAIRS FOR OUTSIDE SEATING BY WILD WEST BAKERY- 611 E. 1 ST STREET. MacCoy: Is anybody here...very good, come forward. We missed you last time. CAROLYN JANSEN, 708 SPY GLASS WAY, EAGLE 83616 WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Jansen: Well, I just wanted to put my tables and chairs out. And I want to get them out there right away. I have customers all of the time asking me when we could sit outside. So, and t have drawn pictures and submitted them and I have talked to ACRD and got the license agreement underway so 1 think we are all squared away on that. Do you have any questions for me? Can I put them out tomorrow? MacCoy: Just a minute. Commissioners do you have any questions for the applicant? Smith: I don't have any MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • J[TLY 14, 1998 PAGE 12 Borup: No I have none either. It looks like the only concern of anyone is that it doesn't block the sidewalk and you have already indicated that in your plan that there would be room there. Jansen: You guys apparently wanted 8...5 feet and the ACHD wants 8 feet and have 9, so.... De Weerd: Good Job. Jansen: Make everybody happy. De Weerd: I think it's a great idea and t'll be sitting out there tomorrow too. Jansen: Thank you very much. McCoy: Is there anybody from the public who would like to make a statement at this point. Okay, we will close the public hearing at this moment. Commissioners, what is your desire? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we... the city attorney prepares the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on this application. Smith: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All aye ITEM #12: FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 36.71 ACRES TO R-4 FOR WILKINGS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC- EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD. Smith: I'm not so concerned about annexing and zoning this property but the applicant has never submitted any revised plans for the subdivision. There was a number of items discussed. in the last meeting I was kind of surprised that this was on the agenda. The preliminary plant and the conditional use permit for something we never had received any more information on anything that had addressed looking at the comments that had been made by staff or commission. So, personally I really don't feel comfortable annexing and zoning property for something that were kind of in a arm wrestling match over how it should be developed. That's my only comment on this. MacCoy: That's a very good point Commissioner Smith. Staff? Bruce? MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 13 Freckleton: Mr. Chairman and commissioners, yesterday, Shari and I met with Mr. Campbell he showed us his revised plan there were several items on it that we still are not happy with from staff standpoint. I kind of got the feeling from the meeting that there was a lot of differences of opinion. We weren't happy with the plan, he wanted to push forward the plan he had. I'm kind of surprised they aren't here tonight. Yesterday was the first opportunity I had to see the revised plans well. Smith: Were you under the impression yesterday that they were going to be here tonight and pursue going forward with the... Freckleton: Yes I was. Borup: Do you think because the length of the agenda they thought they would be further down? Freckleton: I do. Borup: So, they still may show up? MacCoy: Okay, lets move it to the end of the evening and we will revisit it again. Is that okay? Berg: Mr. Chairman, the indication from the developer to me was a conflict with a meeting in Eagle and I think they looked at the lengthy agenda and they were trying to hit both meetings. My indication was they had plans to be here, both the developer and his attorney. (Inaudible) Berg: If we don't have too many hearings and Dakota Development which is the last item on the agenda, inquired how long was the meeting going to last just before the meeting. I said it is hard to tell how fast some of these public hearings are going to go. So, I know they left. This may be interesting. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, one thing I would like to point out is I saw the plan yesterday, you have not seen the plan at all. Even if they do show up tonight, you're going to get it fresh. Smith: I know on my own standpoint, I will not be ready to move on this tonight. I have not seen it. Borup: I would agree with that too. I don't know how much time we have on the tirrre, if it's going to be twelve o'clock when we are finished I don't think we want to stick this on the end of the agenda after that. Can we defer that and decide toward the end of the meeting whether it would still be on today's agenda or move it to the next meeting. MERIDIAN PLANNING ZONING COMIvQSSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 14 MacCoy: Make a motion. Borup: I guess the other statement I'd... I don't have quite the same concern as Commissioner Smith on the annexation on this particular property just because of the location that is surrounded by ...it's adjoining other sub divisions. It's obviously going to be developed, but I do have the same concerns as far as the plat. I don't see that annexing it is going to move up their time table so I don't have a problem with either way, likewise, preceding with annexation wouldn't help them any either. It doesn't look like it will make much difference either way. So were waiting for a motion, is that correct? MacCoy: Yeslam. Borup: I would move, well he's not here now, we're not going to wait so either way, we need to move on so I move we schedule this toward at the end of tonight's agenda is time permits. MacCoy: That's a good statement. Berg: Excuse me, you may want to include the several items on the agenda. Borup: Okay, Items #12,13,14. Berg: Those are all Steiners. Borup: Okay that's true. That's a different... 15 and 16 are different properties, but they're not here either. How about 12-16? Smith: Second that. Borup: Hey we're almost done with the agenda. MacCoy: You did a good job there Keith. Is there any discussion before we take a... Borup: Did we have a second on that motion? MacCoy: We had a second. Yes. Smith did. All in favor of the motion? MOTION CARRIED: All aye. Borup: I do have one other observation, Mr. Chairman. I believe Mr. Hanson just came in, however you want to handle that. That was Item #10. That we already passed. MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION J[JLY 14, 1998 PAGE I S De Weerd: Continued. Borup: That we continued. Did he leave again. MacCoy: The correct procedure I guess is for if you want to do this Mr. Borup, you can make a motion and... Commissioner Borup? Borup: Yes, I would move that we reopen the, bring up agenda Item #10. MacCoy: Is there a second? De Weerd: Second. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. ITEM #10: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTORS' YARD BY DOVOVAN HANSON d/b/a HANSON EXCAVATING -LOT 2, BLOCK 1 OF PLAYGROUND SUBDIVISION. MacCoy: 1 understand Mr. Hanson has arrived this evening. Do you want to come forward; Is there anything you would like to add to the open hearing, yet? You have nobody who wants to talk or for you, either way. Hanson: Moving a little fast in that direction. MacCoy: This is unusual for us. Attorney: I'm sorry sir I'm being distracted. DONOVAN HANSON, 4601 N. FIVE MILE ROAD, BOISE. SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY. Hanson: Okay, I guess I'm applying for a conditional use permit for a contractor's yard on Lot 2, Block 1 of the playground subdivision. The last hearing we went over everything and we got to bushes and fence. Um, the proposal I have is I will put an 8 foot fence across the center of the yard with the slats in it and a 6 foot to go around the side perimeter and the berm up front, I will match the neighbor. MacCoy: Who is....Sesko, yes. Hanson: I'd put the trees behind the tractors, I'll put them in front. What else do you need to know? MacCoy: Okay commissioners. MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 16 Borup: I think those are exactly the items we discussed earlier, other than staff may want a written landscaping plan. Would that be right, Mr. Freckleton? Would that be appropriate for the...come in on paper or do you want to look at it when it is done? Freckleton: Commissioner Borup, I think it would be a good idea to put this down on paper, have a plan to look at. I think this was discussed at the last meeting. Borup: That was my recollection. Hanson: How big of a piece of paper do you want? Freckleton: Do you have a sketch, Mr. Hanson. You do have a sketch. Yeah, if you could submit that for our Planning and Zoning administrator to look at. Hanson: You get that? Freckleton: Probably submit it through the City Clerk (Inaudible) De Weerd: Can we see that? MacCoy: While they're looking at that, Bruce...does he have a copy of the ACHD report for the playground. Have you talked that over with him? Freckleton: I have not. MacCoy: You have not. (inaudible) Borup: Mr. Hanson I think this addressed our concerns. If you could do this, do you have a pencil with you? Hanson: No Smith: If you could finish off the left side of the site with your fence, indicate what that is and indicate where your gate is. Hanson: Okay. Smith: Then give it to the City Clerk and I would be satisfied with it. Hanson: Okay. MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 17 Smith: 1 don't know about my other fellow commissioners... Borup: Yes, I would too... Was that, did that just get cut off on the copy machine or was that to have a fence along the west side. Hanson: Yeah, there should be a fence on the west side. Smith: If you just indicate that and give it back to the City Clerk, I'd be willing to move this along. Borup: I would too. De Weerd: Would Bruce like to look at that real quick? MacCoy: While he is doing that, Mr. Hanson, did you receive a copy of this from the ACRD? Hanson: ACRD. Probably not. MacCoy: This was one that was issued to us on...the latest one was on June 24 of this year, but the actual document is November 10, 1995 document which was made by ACRD for the playground and they're saying they're standing by the same document. MacCoy: Does that look familiar? Hanson: I got one from the police department, from the fire department, not from the ACHD. MacCoy: We will give you a copy of this too. Hanson: It would be nice to have a gate to get in and out. (Inaudible) Freckleton: Commissioner De Weerd, I do think the plan looks good with the changes and gate location showing the fence on the west and am satisfied. De Weerd: Thank you. That was exactly what we were looking for. Hanson: Okay, is that it? MacCoy: It is still a public hearing. Does anyone else want to come up and comment while Mr. Hanson is here? If not, I will now close this public hearing and commissioners? MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 18 De Weerd: Mr. Chairman? I move that we move... or ask that the Assistant City Attorney to provide Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Smith: Second. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. MacCoy: Mr. Hanson, it will be moved forward. (RECESS TAKEN) ITEM #17: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER BY DAKOTA COMPANY, INC- SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EAGLE & FAIRVIEW. MacCoy: Is the applicant here this evening? LARRY DURKIN, 380 E PARK CENTER BLVD, BOISE 83706. WAS SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin, I'm the president of Dakota Company Inc. of Boise. I'm here tonight on behalf of Hermes Associates, asking you to approve our conditional use application for the family center at Meridian. The project will include about 70 acres. I will turn around and show the audience the plan in just a moment, but first I will show it to you, okay. The project as stated on the intersection of Fairview Ave and Eagle, this is Highway 55 it's an area we have intentions for a theatre, an entertainment area on the far east end of the project. We are proposing a warehouse dub store in this area, similar to a Costco or Sams Club. We have development in this area that includes an office supply superstore, a Shopko store, a general merchandise discount department store. Apparel and linens going into this area. Then 1 need a road near the Blue Cross/Blue Shield and in that area we are happy to say we have a new retail grocery operation that is coming to the area, with a 65,000 square foot store. We have a large sporting goods store that will be going into this end of the project. And then on the project furthest to the south we have a consumer electronics and similar related type of retail uses. I'm going to take a moment and show the audience, is that okay? MacCoy: Sure, go right ahead. Durkin: In addition to the uses I have talked about in the retail area. We have a series of pad uses on the perimeter of the project and they are...they include a sit down family restaurant, some fast food, a financial institution. We have a copy printing operation, and I guess I would just say they are the traditional types of pad uses you would see in a development like this. Some new tenants to the area and some are expanding within the area. The former owners of the MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION • J[JLY 14, 1998 PAGE 19 property obtained a conditional use permit for a shopping center use, but we are required to ask to seek a separate conditional use permit for the actual development and that's why we are here tonight. Every effort has been made on our part to meet the city ordinances relating to this type of project. We have exceeded the landscape areas required in the ordinance. We have exceeded the set back requirements required in the ordinance. We will be applying for pylon sign approval at a later... (END OF TAPE) Durkin: Completed. The conditional use application doesn't require that information at this time, only the location of those, which are indicated in your packages. Beginning with my comments on the staff report my... usually the way I do it here, I go through the staff report I have very few comments if (...we're in full agreement and then I will take a little more time where we would like to discuss some areas. As far as the fire department report, we will meet and exceed all fire codes and follow their comments. The central district health report will meet or exceed the comments of central district health. The storm water management report, we will meet or exceed those comments relating to storm water management. Police department report, while the police department made no specific comments we expect to meet or exceed all of the codes in that area. Mr. Freckleton's report will take a little bit more time. What I norrrlally do is, I'd like to just go quickly through what we are in full agreement on and then I'll take a little bit more time in some of the other sections, but as far as his staff report the general comments section 1-10, We are in full agreement on those. I'll be happy at the end to answer questions relating to those if you would like, but we are in agreement to the... his suggestions and recommendations. In the section of the report labeled Site Specific Comments, I'm going to hit those one by one here. Our use, the shopping center use is listed as an allowed use in the conditional use permit obtained in 1991. I presume you have copies of those in your packets. I did bring that along with me tonight if anyone would like to see that. The property has always had several large signs on display which clearly state the intended use. As part of a conditional use the city may impose additional conditions which we agree with. In addition the city may allow changes in certain requirements some of which I'll ask for later. As far as the comments in section 3,4&5, we have-we are in full agreement. Comment #6 states that we are at- we are kind of pushing the edge on the landscape ordinance. We-by our numbers we have a 10.2% coverage in the common area/open space. The ordinance does not say that the areas in the parking lot are questionable and we feel confident that our plans meet the standards set by the City. An area we are having a problem, it relates to his comment #7 and that's regarding the trees. Our plan shows 979 (3") caliber trees, which is short of the ordinance. Our landscape architect has had trouble finding space for an additional 317 trees. We will provide a plan identifying the species and the size of each tree and their specific location when we submit our detailed landscape plan. You have the authority to improve or reduce the amount of trees and tonight we are going to MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZONIlQG COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 20 request that you do so. I do want to say that it isn't a matter of saving money on the trees. We would be happy to put those trees in other areas what we find is that it's a maintenance problem to have that many trees in a project and we are looking at the viability of the tree being healthy and growing in some of the other areas. We can talk about that a little bit further in a moment. As far as this comment #8 the comments aren't consistent with the ordinance. We may be able to add trees in some of the areas of the parking lot, but again, we are concerned about the trees being-trees are nice, dead trees aren't and it's difficult to keep them alive in some areas. Our landscape plan far exceeds any other commercial project in the city. No other development can compare with the overall amount of planting that we are proposing, it's just a large development. I admit that there is a large parking area, but the ratio of parking spaces per square foot of development is less than the Fred Meyer, it's less than the new Albertson's grocery store, the ratio is lower than any Intermountain Sports and it's lower than the new Home Depot. We're putting all these types of uses into one project on a state highway just off of I-84 and we will need a large parking area to serve the customers of ADA and Canyon counties. Comment #9 is fine with us. #10 the engineer encourages a wider landscape berm along Fairview Ave and Eagle Rd. We're showing a 20 foot berm. To give you a comparison with some other properties in Meridian, this is 13 feet wider than the new Hollywood Video store that's open. We are not familiar with an ordinance requiring more than twenty feet and we are hoping with the over atl plan that 20 feet will be agreeable to you. In # 11 the comment there is that the developer must submit detailed sign plans with the application. Well, the application doesn't actually require that, the application requires that we show a plan similar to this with the sign locations marked, but as far as the detailed plans we'll be providing those through the signed permit process and will be back in front of you to discuss that in detail at a later date. As far as comment #12, we have read the ordinance and I find conflicts in what is required in different sections of the ordinance book. The off street parking ordinance requires a four foot landscape area adjacent to residential areas. The city engineer sites the planting strip ordinance, which escaped me in the book, but he did cite where it is located. Our planning and development we have been relying on the off street parking standards, however, the additional buffer zone that we are applying for adjacent to the residential properties is ten feet and we are asking for that approval tonight. As far as the other comments in section 12 as it related to a masonry wall, and I'm going to walk over to the plan again. There was a suggestion that you consider a requirement for a masonry wall running all along the project. There is a wooden fence along here now and the engineer thought an eight foot high masonry wall would offer more screening. That's really not an acceptable to us for a couple of different reasons. To my knowledge there is no other zone site that has such a wall requirement. The back wall we find is unattractive, it's expensive to maintain, and ftequently it looks bad, it's a graffiti attraction. If the fence is six feet high or eight feet high, it-from our site line studies there is not a difference in the visibility from the adjoining residential areas. The comments that the fire-that a wooden fence and a 10 foot landscaping area might be a fire MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 21 hazard, the fire department makes no comments about it being a fire hazard in their review. In my experience in developing more than a 100 such projects throughout the west, I have no experience in that being a fire hazard. There is no ordinance requiring a masonry fence and to my knowledge none exist under these circumstances anywhere in Boise or Meridian. Comment #13, we've provided the utility and lighting plans to the city and will be glad to work with the staff to meet all of the codes required. I did bring those with me, again tonight if anyone has questions. #14 we do not intend to subdivide the property the reference the engineer refers to is for our internal planning purposes. There is no intention of subdividing that's all-will remain one parcel. #16 we really hope to gain approval for the overall project tonight. We agree to come back on a building by building bases for any drive-thru that we have on the project. The details provided for the Shopko store architectural theme and materialslcolors will flow throughout the rest of the shopping center. We hope the staff will be given the go ahead to work with us on each building permit application. We are okay with #17, 18, & 19. And frankly, 1 might just ask the city attorney aquestion-I really had-I don't understand what comment #20 is, I'm not familiar with that, maybe you can answer that later. But, I'm not prepared to say that comment #20 is okay, because I just don't -Oh, I'm sorry I had the wrong-confusion here. As far as the scale on the plan I believe it is correct, if it isn't we will correct it. There is another question I have later. As far as the ingress/egress for #21 will show that on our building permit plans and #22 will provide this during the building permit process. We're okay with #23. A big area of concern for us is comment #24 in the staff report for the people in the audience may not have the staff report available to them. The comment here addresses the loading docks and the back of the project and we feel it is a big concern to the adjacent property owners, but I would like to talk about it a little bit. The engineer uses the example of Honve Depot in Boise and I think that is an extreme example. And that the use requires a constant use of heavy equipment outside of their building. Home Depot had to change the zoning from office use to retail use for a home improvement store and in that process concerns were raised and Home Depot promised to keep it quiet, they broke their promise. From what I understand, they have corrected the problem, but this properly has been approved for retail center long before there were adjacent residential uses. In fact, the industrial zoning that underlies the existing conditional use would imply more noise than our intended use ever would. All of the trash compactors are internal to the building, so they are quiet; that will be shown in the building plan but it's the same type of trash compaction that you will find in the back of the Fred Meyer store it's within their store. There will be dumpster in back of some of the smaller shops and that will be shown on the plan but there won't be any compactors exposed to outside noise to the general public. I will say that the normal operations of the loading dock area are between lam and 3:30pm. Shopko, the food retailer, and others post that on their dock, but I also know from my experience that there are cases of later deliveries, depending on the season and depending on the needs of the tenant. It's real difficult for us to restrict the hours of operation for the loading dock. On the other hand, we manage the shopping center, the day to day operations of the MERIDIAN PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION • NLY 14, ]998 PAGE 22 center, the sweeping, the trash pickup, these types of things. We have full control to restrict the trash pickup from -within certain hours and we have control to restrict the sweeping of the shopping center to certain hours, but as far as the operation of the retail stores, we don't have that control. We are asking for you to look at our design and our building permit and believe us, it is completely different than the Home Depot operation. We are okay with # 25. We are okay with #26. #27 is my area of confusion. I don't know what that comment means it's a-so I'm not prepared to say yes or no. I just don't know what that rr>eans. Maybe I could ask - Prior: You could ask. Durkin: Can I ask? MacCoy: Bruce would you enlighten him. De Weerd: No. MacCoy: No, what? De Weerd: Our assistant attorney is probably more qualified to answer that Prior: Sir, what that basically says is that this is a recommendation from Mr. Freckleton and he took the liberty of noting that a conditional use permit will be subject to review. If in fact we grant you this conditional use permit it's subject to review, we give you 10 days notice and then we bring you in and say you have done something that we don't agree with, either you remedy this situation or we revoke the conditional use then precede with whatever action the city deems necessary against you to correct that violation. That's really what that means. That's something that is subsequent that will be included if in fact this commission decides to approve this conditional use permit, that will be a term of condition that you will be understood that there is-that's how~ust to notify you of the action that we may take if there was some type of problem. That is all that applies to. Durkin: Mr. Prior is that part of the city ordinance procedure. Prior: Well, that doesn't -and that brings up, that is a typical city standard. That brings up another-- Durkin: Is this a standard city deal? Is it unique to this project. Prior: No, no and in fact, some of these conditional use permits we passed today I didn't include that provision, I included the provision that we will just notifying the applicant that their conditional use is going to be reviewed is all that is necessary. Sometimes the 10 days, sometimes I don't, a lot of times it depends MERIDIAN PLANNING ADD ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 23 on the commission, a lot of times it's whatever I include in that. I should point something else out to you. I noted that you did mention that---is that something in the ordinance, you have said that a number of times tonight and just for a clarification for you, on a conditional use permit we are not necessarily required to follow the ordinance in every single instance, in fact, we can go above and beyond the ordinance and every single one of these items you have said and because this is a conditional use permit we have the authority to do that sir. As far as the sign ordinance is concerned, if we decide to impose something stricter than the ordinance we can in fact do that, because this is a conditional use permit we can impose any restrictions the commission deems necessary. Just for clarification, it dcesn't mean they are going to, it's just for clarification. Durkin: As a point of clarification and 1 have taken more than 20 conditional uses through the city. I acknowledge that right in my opening that you have that right. 1 am familiar with that procedure. Prior: Yeah. Alright Durkin: #28 the agencies have had adequate time to review our application. The engineer require --recommends a delay on this in order to here comments back from ACHD, but we have to gain separate approval from ACHD. In addition, ACHD now has the approval rights for Eagle road. Rather than continue the hearing since we are hoping to get started on our building design and our site engineering, I would hope that you would incorporate the future requirements of ACHD as part of your approval tonight. We have had an informal meeting with ACHD. We have delivered a traffic study to them. We have had ---there aren't any problems that I'm aware of with ACRD. We are scheduled to have a hearing with them on the 24th of this month. That is my presentation as it relates to the comments in the staff report. I would like to just ...I have mounted on the board, I have a elevation drawing of the Shopko store for this project. A couple things, I'm pleased with the store design. I have traveled to three of the stores and looked at them, so I can tell you, I know what they look like and they look nice. This elevation doesn't tell me I can't display this to you tonight in a way that truly represents. We have submitted a color rendering and the color sample chips to the city, but as far as my ability to show you something tonight, this is the only thing I was able to gather. I can talk you through this a little bit and I'll turn it around and show the audience in a minute. The exterior~ve have a front elevation drawing here. Let me step back a moment. The Shopko store that is located at Fairview and Milwaukee Street in Boise was built in 1983. That vintage changes and changes and changes, in fact if any of you have been to the east side of Boise and seen the one on Broadway, you'll see that it's a little different than the one at Fairview and Milwaukee. Shopko is a 30 some year old company and they've been evolving and trying to improve and upgrade their stores as the years go by. This store is what they call their series 2000 this is a nicer looking-I think the nicest looking Shopko store that they have ever come up with, but it's a upscale store with brick, split faced block, and tile. The colors MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMWIISSION • J[JLY 14, 1998 PAGE 24 are blue and gray with blue metal trim. Signage I think minimal on the building. There is a little bit more glass, it's a far fancier design than the one on Fairview and Milwaukee. The interior of the store is completely different, a lot more like a department store with wood floors broken up differently and it's a higher end general merchandise discount department store and I think you would agree. The side elevations are really not relevant since they will have buildings next to them, although this plan shows a typical side elevation. I think what is important is the rear elevation that will be facing some residential areas. The rear elevation of the store-there are three loading docks in the back of the building. My experience with this tenant is that one of the loading docks is used on a regular bases. The others are used during seasonal times of the year, special deliveries. The docks are recessed. The colors and materials of the entire back of the building are similar to the front, the same types of colors---the same colors and the same types of materials that I used in the front of the building. Those are really my comments on the Shopko store and I will happily answer any more questions that you may have. Borup: Sir, just a quick one on the Shopko. Location, did you point out the location or did I miss that. Durkin: I will. The Shopko store is 96,900 square feet and it's located on Fairview Ave. I have a scale with me somewhere tonight or ruler, but it's off of the Eagle Road I would guess about 400 feet. Borup: Thank You. Durkin: The docks on the back of the Shopko store are about 135 feet from the rear property line. Borup: And that's parking between the docks and the subdivision. Employee parking or something? Durkin: Yeah, it's intended. Anything else? Borup: Well, I've got a list of things. MacCoy: Why don't you start off then. Borup: Okay, Maybe I'll save--you went through quite a list of tenants and are most of those firm at this point, or some of those conceptual or---it looks like you probably named every anchor store almost. Is that pretty much the status your at? Durkin: Actually, I only named one anchor store. 1 will rely on the tenants to make their announcements but we have... MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ 7ANING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 25 Borup: Well that is what normally happens, that's why I was wondering. Durkin: We have a number of firm transactions. I'm speaking Shopko's name with their permission tonight. They wanted to do a press release today, they were unable to get it together and they call and asked me to freely use their name. Borup: Okay, but it sounded like most of the others are fairly firm at this point. Durkin: Mr. Commissioner, I want to be clear on that fairly firm is a very good descrip#ion, we have some that are firm and many that are fairly firm. Borup: Well, I understand how it goes in these situations. We did not receive a copy of the original conditional use permit. At least I didn't in my packet. Smith: I didn't. Borup: So that-You had mentioned earlier saying we were familiar with that. So, I guess we are going to have to say we are not. It may be appropriate if you would, I think rather than use trying to read it now, is there anything in that you think would be pertinent to point out. Durkin: Sure Borup: One of the questions I guess I would have was transferability Durkin: It's transferable. I'll provide it to the... Have you read it? Borup: I have not. I think this was the one, was this one that was back to 1991; did you say? Durkin: Yes. There was an ordinance. Borup: That was before the time of everyone here. All the commissioners, rather. Prior: Mr. Chairman, may I make an inquiry? MacCoy: Yes sir. Prior: Sir, it does say in that conditional use permit, obviously I wasn't here in 1991 either; does it say in that conditional use permit specifically that it is transferable to another applicant, sir? Durkin: If it does not say that clearly in here we have gotten an opinion from Cumer Green, who has talked to your city attorney, Wayne Crookston, and gotten an opinion to that effect. I believe it says it in here but in addition to MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZONING COMMISSION • JULY I4, 1998 PAGE 26 covering tha# base prior to purchasing the property, we got an opinion from Wayne Crookston to that affect. Is he still the city attorney? He was at that time. Borup: Yes, that would be correct. Was there anything in there that you felt that would be pertinent to point out? Durkin: Well, I think it is pertinent to point out that it was passed unanimously. It's a planned general development conditional use permit. It's specifically states that the uses would be harmonious with and accordance with the comprehensive plan as amended, that the zoning ordinance has amended, but it does require a conditional use to allow the intended use that we have. It does s#ate that it has to have utilities, which it now has. The possible proposed uses would not create excessive additional requirements at public costs for public facilities and services. They don't. Borup: It sounds like most standard items. Durkin: It specifically allows for a shopping center. The approval of Findings of Facts and Contusions of Law were approved unanimously and signed by the Mayor. Borup: A shopping center was mentioned specifically? Durkin: Yes. Borup: Is it your understanding that the reason for the conditional use is because looking at retail usage rather than industrial. Durkin: Yes. Borup: Which is what the original zoning was Durkin: Yes. The original plan for the area was done by Gemtone, a Boise based corporation. They developed the industrial park across the street with the BlueCross/BlueShield. They came in for a conditional use permit for that plan unit development as an office industrial park. They identified this L shaped property as a commercial shopping center and identified the residential area as a residential subdivision. They then sold that land to Raymon Yorgason for a residential construction. They've sold parts of the land across the street to different industrial and office users. They have sold the L shaped property to us for a shopping center. Borup: I think you have covered a good part of the other thing I was maybe going to request. More so for the benefit of the people in the audience is a little bit of the history of this property. Thank you, you have covered that from 1991 on. Is there any comment you care to make on-This was originally annexed in MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 27 1984, I believe. Durkin: I don't have that information. Borup: Okay, well my comments are from what I gained from staff comments, it was annexed in 1984 as the industrial property. I think intended for some commercial type of use at that time. Durkin: It's clearly- Borup: Apparently the residential part came in 1991 at the same time was the PUD from- Durkin: The residential development occurred after 1992, 1993 or 1994, in phases. Borup: Okay, the other couple of quick comments. Loading areas, you said typically they are going to be during the morning and through the afternoon hours. The plan that we have are-How much of this is conceptual? Or is any of it? Or are most of those buildings these specific designs that you are anticipating at this point. Durkin: Most of these buildings are specific designs for specific tenants. Borup: Okay, so those that are showing the loading docks now are intended to have loading docks in those areas. Durkin: That's correct. I'm having a hard time I'm getting distracted with when I turn this way I hear people out in the hall but I can't ... The loading docks, there could be some non material changes. For example, if they are facing south right now, and we come in with a building permit and they face north, there could be some minor modifications to the outlines of the buildings, in accordance with conditional use standards. Borup: But at this point it is anticipated that the loading docks are going to be necessary for whatever business or anticipated for that use. Durkin: I can say that the loading docks here, there has been two different areas and these are fairly well set, they would be here and here. This type of loading dock could be here or could be here, but there will be one on the back. Shopko's are specific to that area. The grocery stores are specific going this way. The two areas with the most active loading docks that you should expect in a center like this would be the grocery store and the activity is in the morning. 1 don't know if you have been to a grocery store in the early morning, but you see a lot of vendor trucks coming in early in the morning. Eddies Bakery, Miller beer, you know a lot of them are fifth wheel trailer type of operations. There are a lot of MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION J[JLY 14, 1998 PAGE 28 activities in the early morning at a grocery store. On a general merchandise store like this, you generally get trucks a day, so it isn't 18-20 trucks a day, it isn't anything like a home improvement lumber type of operation. It's about two trucks a day, five days a week, but if it's April and they are running a special on Huffy Bikes and they sell out of them, they put an emergency flash to the distribution center which is on the other side of Boise out at Gowen Road and the freeway. They throw a load of Huffy bikes on a truck and they zip it over and if it's 7:30 at night, they respond that way. If you go to a loading dock in front--back of a Shopko or Kmart or Fred Meyer, you'll see signs posting that they are closed after 3:30. Frankly, they do make exceptions for emergency deliveries. It happens most often between Thanksgiving and Christmas. Borup: That would seem logical. We had one last question and maybe clarification on your comment on masonry fencing. You made the comment that none exist, and I wasn't sure were you referring to there is no reference in an ordinance to a fence or that the city is not requiring any masonry fencing. I wasn't sure what your comment was referring to. Durkin: I'm not familiar with a large shopping center where masonry fence has been a requirement, for example, I was the developer for the Fred Meyer project, there is no masonry fence required on that project. That is a combination of wood or storage buildings, I'm not familiar with it being required in Boise anywhere with the exception of when Boise square- Borup: Home Depot. Durkin: Let me maybe I should be more clear on what I'm talking about as similar use. If I were coming in tonight and saying this is zoned residential for an apartment building or office building and I want to build a shopping center, I would-and the people who were living there bought their houses, buik their houses with the believe that there was going to be additional residential or office building there and I came in and said I wanted to build a shopping center. I would do lots of different things differently. I would build to meet their-to satisfy their needs. So, Home Depot is a rezone, but the masonry wall for this type of development we don't feel it is a good idea. I've seen it done behind the Waremart store at Fairview and Milwaukee Street. There were existing residential homes, they came in and rezoned took down some residences and built that store. You know what happens you go behind that store and you leave a semi running and you unload that semi and that goes through the whole neighborhood. It's a cave back there. I personally don't think it's a good idea and it's a good design standard. The additional-when you have a none heated masonry wall, they don't hold up and they look shabby, quickly. If you look around, go back and drive around the Waremart at Fairview and Milwaukee, take a look at it and you'll that to be the case right now. Borup: Okay, 1 think that clarifies that. What do you feel is the best buffering for MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 29 that situation, rather than a masonry wall? Durkin: I like the idea of landscaping of trees. One of the things-we are having a hard time figuring out what to do with all of these trees. We have extra trees I can't fit them on this plan. I'm aware that they are about 38 or 40 residences that back up to our project. If the residences were interested, we would provide some trees for them to plant on their side. We have our trees planted to the maximum density. Borup: Okay, it looks to me that you have got trees lined right up-I mean it's a continuous line of trees right now. Durkin: They are every 12 feet. So I can't get-if I plant them closer than that, they will die. So, we have the density along the back is maximum. If you are trying to screen the shopping center, I would be kidding you tonight to tell you that we can do very much. The people that live in the houses adjacent-if they are in their second story, they will be able to look out and they are going to see the shopping center. I can't plant anything or build anything to screen that, so that's just a fact. As far as additional buffering from noise the landscaping has been our-feel the most successful tool. A combination of Pines and other trees, is best. In addition, I was going to say is a condition of approval if there were adjacent property owners that were desirous of trees, we would provide them trees on their side. Since we can't fit anymore on our side. I'm happy to make that offer, but I don't know how-I can't force them to plant a tree in their backyard. Borup: Is it your understanding that the existing fence is continuous, at this point Durkin: It is. Borup: That was all the questions I had at this point, Mr. Chairman, at this point MacCoy: Commissioner De Weerd. De Weerd: At this point, I don't have any questions. MacCoy: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I might have one or two. You stated when you were going through this site specific comments initially-I don't want to beat this masonry fence to death. You said you felt that this masonry was unattractive. So, the Shopko Masonry is not unattractive. Durkin: Well, it is a different thing. Commissioner, are you familiar with a masonry wall? Can you think of one around the city that you can be familiar with? MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ Z,ONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 30 Smith: I am very familiar with masonry walls. I'm not so sure that the masonry wall is the right solution here. I think probably what I would rather see is a some adequate landscaping back there. I think when the vegetation matures that it will provide a better barrier. The only thing I'm concerned about with the cedar fence just is durability and ability to hold up over time. Of course, that is both property owners' responsibility to maintain that fence. Let's move pass that. I'm more concerned about the front-I'm very concerned about the buffering to the neighborhood, but I'm also concerned about the landscaping. I look at this site plan and I see a sea of asphalt here with very little relief from landscaping. I think one of the problems why you are having trouble getting the extra 317 trees planted is because you don't have enough landscaping, landscaped areas out here. There is a minimal separation between Eagle Road, Fairview and your development. There is minimal breaking up of the parking lot across the whole frontage on the streets with some landscaped areas and I think both of those things need to be looked at and addressed. Durkin: I'd like to just go back to the masonry fence real quick. I think we left that a little bit untied. There is a difference between the masonry building that's heated and maintained and not covered by landscaping and anon heated masonry wall. In my experience in building 79 Shopko stores throughout the United States and quite a few other types of developments that about a three year otd, free standing masonry wall that's covered by asphalt, it starts to-the mortar deteriorates, the color, it's difficult to maintain. A wood fence is easy to maintain, so it last longer and the maintenance is easier on a wood fence than on an unheated masonry wall. It's a conditional use, the city has the ability to step in and say fix it, maintain it, that's a tremendous burden on a mile long masonry wall and it's one that is difficult for me stand here tonight and say "Sure, no problem, I'll do that." I'm telling you right now that's adifficult- Smith: Well, f don't agree with you, but I don't want to get stuck on this fence. Durkin: As far as the separation between Eagle and Fairview, there is one project in the City of Meridian that I'm aware of that has that separation and that's Fred Meyer. There is no other project in the city that has that separation, that I'm aware of. My awareness is from driving all of the streets. I'm aware of you. giving, the city giving a wide range of approvals, I'm aware of time when the city requires sidewalks and sometimes, they don't. That's past, as we are going forward today, there is no project of this scope in the City of Meridian with a 20 foot berm, of heavily landscaped berm along the gateway streets of the community. I think what we are proposing far exceeds the ordinance, which I understand you have the right to require that, but it also far exceeds any other type of development in the city. I think it is attractive and I'm very proud of it, I'm very happy with it. As far as the sea of asphalt, it's a challenge the City of Boise has areas that they want to reduce and reduce and reduce the asphalt area. It's a balanang act that we find trying to accommodate the shoppers and having MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 31 them have a place to park and trying to get enough landscaping and this is a larger tree than you have required in the past and these are-this is a three inch caliber tree. If we put landscaping areas in the parking lot and if you go and look at those and in this valley that we have trees planted within the parking lot on larger scale like this they get hit by snow plows, they're broken, they're cracked and they die. They are replaced and repaired constantly. You have got an expense there but it's not sitely. They don't mature with the rest of the landscaping and it's very difficult to get them to work. If you take out a lot of parking area you can get it to work. Then I go below that parking ratio that I need to have a successful shopping center. So we feel we are trying to do our best. Smith: I think citing bad examples is unnecessarily justification for doing something a certain way and I think that some of these problem areas are design problems. They are just poorly designed and not adequate. As far as what has been done here in the city in the past, I would be lying to you if I sat up here and told you I was happy with a lot of the projects that I have seen approved by the city in the past and that is one of the reasons why I express an interest in filling a vacancy on the commission here. I think with good design that these things can be addressed and we can end up with a good design. As far as your amount of parking, I see how many spaces you have and everything, but I don't see anywhere where you've tabulated the amount of required amount of parking based on the square footage you are proposing. Durkin: The required amount of parking for the City of Meridian I believe is four cars per thousand square feet of development. We are at... Smith: 6.11? Durkin: That's correct, 6.11. Smith: By ordinance, not necessarily what your tenants require to have adequate parking but by ordinance, you are two cars over per thousand square feet. So you have exceeded the parking requirement. Durkin: We have far exceeded the City of Meridian's parking requirement, that's very common. When we built the Fred Meyer store and that shopping center, we had a similar parking ratio to this. Your Home Depots are going to have a far, far greater parking ratio. There is a balance, it's a difficult balance, but I have to provide-if I design it and built it with three cars per thousand or four cars per thousand, businesses would fail. We would have a failure of a center, which isn't... Smith: Sure. I guess I'm looking for what that right number is. Durkin: Boise Town Square is a good example. Boise Town Square is a 1,100,000 square feet and have a 4.9 parking ratio. It has certainly been a MERIDL4N PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • JiJLY 14, 1998 PAGE 32 success there is no doubt about it, but it's a nightmare as far as finding a place to park. They bust people from-they rent vacant lots down the streets and it's been a real challenge for the parking in that area. That's a different kind of shopping, that's were you go and park and sit all day and this is more of a turn over type of a shopping center. Smith: Do you anticipate any kind of business by-consumers come in by mass transit? Durkin: Not that I'm aware of. I have no... Smith: I mean buses and specifically buses. Durkin: I would be really surprised, Mr. Commissioner. Smith: Okay. Durkin: However, if your question was going to the participating or cooperating with a bus, as far as coming in to the project, we have always been willing to do that. Smith: I don't see any place on here that looks like it was designed for-with that in mind, that's why I ask. Durkin: I'm not familiar with the bus system that would service this site from the City of Boise, but I don't believe that k's available. Smith: I don't think it comes out that far. As far as phasing goes, how was the phasing going to evolve here. Durkin: We would expect to begin construction around December of this portion of the project. It may be this portion of the project, in December in this immediate spring. We do not have a construction schedule for this overall parcel but we do have a construction schedule for some of the uses out in front. I do not have a construction schedule right now for this portion of the development. Smith: Okay. That's all I have right now. MacCoy: Is there any other questions from the commissioners that have popped up since we have started this. De Weerd: Well, I might have a comment. You had mentioned that this indeed will be a gateway to Meridian and we have not had a project of this size so it is very hard to compare it to anything in Meridian, because we don't have anything. So, you will be setting a trend and it is very important to this part of Meridian that it is attractive. Also to the residents, I'm sure, behind it. On your comment about MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 33 the masonry wall, if you wanted to increase the size of that buffer area and add some more of the trees in that, that might serve as a compromise. What kind of fencing is there-so you are going with the existing fencing that is there right now. Durkin: Mrs. Commissioner, let me ask you, what is your desire with-what would you like to see the fence wall or buffer accomplish. Because if you gave me some direction there, if you are looking for a block out of the shopping center-these aren't going to accomplish that. De Weerd: I don't think the masonry wall... (END OF TAPE) De Weerd: ...area with more landscaping, and I think we have a lot of residents here that are going to voice their opinion so we might even appeal to what they would like to see. But I agree with you mature trees do block out things. They are visually more attractive than a concrete wall. Durkin: I guess if I were living here, I would like the noise factor dealt with. That would be the most important thing to me as a neighbor to a shopping center. You may disagree with me, but I've gone to most of the shopping centers in this country, and when you put a masonry wall six feet, eight feet, ten feet a hundred feet away from a 20 foot masonry wall, and you pull an eighteen wheeler in there or you put a sweeper through there, it amplifies the noise. De Weerd: Well, I don't if I was clear. I don't like the masonry wall either. I do think that you could utilize your buffer with a berm and trees and you can get more trees on there if you increase your width of a ten foot buffer. Durkin: Maybe it would be a good idea to let the audience comment on what their desires are, but that isn't quite true. I can get more plantings, but my trees, I have to have a 12 foot separation in order for them to grow and do what we want them to do. So, I could get - I could stagger the trees if I made it wider and get some bushes and trees, but it doesn't accomplish anything as far as visibility. It's on the other side of the fence from their house so they can't see it. And I don't know if that would affect the noise. I can modify the back of the building and I can modify that planter area, but it would reduce that drive lane around the back, but I would be willing to listen to the comments of the audience tonight and try to adjust it. But I it would be foolish of me to stand up here and represent to you that sure we can plant -make it 20 feet instead of ten feet and that's going to block the buildings when it isn't going to do that. It may help the noise slightly but De Weerd: One other question t had was the trash. I know that you had indicated that you would be supplying that information with the building permit. MERIDIAN PLANNING A1QD ZONING COMMISSION • JiJLY 14, 1998 PAGE 34 But I think probably most of the people here would be interested where the trash is going to be. Durkin: As a condition of approval, I'd encourage you to impose the condition that no trash pickup occur after 7:00 p.m. at night. We'll contract with the local company, and the trash pick up will occur. We have complete control over that. It will occur during daylight hours, and that just isn't a problem for us. The large buildings, the grocery store, the Shopko, the apparel store, the membership warehouse club store, the way they handle their trash and a way to look at this you can drive right up on the street and look real dose, is drive behind the Fred Meyer store is the street that wraps around that. The trash is inside the building. There's no -behind the Fred Meyer store itself, there's no trash dumpster or - there's metal part of the building that the trash goes in there from the inside of the store, the collection truck backs up, picks up that unit, drives away and puts a new unit on it or it empties the compacted trash that's already been compacted in the store into the pick up. But if you look at an old store, if you go behind an old grocery store, an older Albertson's store, an older unit like that you'll see big dumpsters or you'll see outside trash compactors but it's not a safe way to do it anymore. It's not a dean way to do it, and it's not the way we're doing it here. For the small stores, behind the Hallmark Card, for example, you may have a small dumpster you know the blue dumpster that is picked up once a week, twice a week depending on the need. If it's a food place, they would pick it up daily. If it's a card store with boxes and that type of thing, they'd pick it up on an as need basis. But we control the time. We contract with those people, and we can definitely control the hours that that's picked up so it isn't being picked up in the middle of the night. The larger stores, the food stores, and particularly I think it's real important that all the trash is self contained in the building. k's not out in the bads in the dumpster. Once the building is open. During the construction you are going to face some of those issues. De Weerd: I just have one more question. On your trees you do have a significant amount of trees and plantings. I did read on your plans that you have a one year guarantee on those. After that who replaces the tree if it dies? Durkin: We do. It's a condition of our approval that we have these trees. So as a condition of that approval, we have to continually maintain and replace the trees. That's my understanding. That's the way most cities work and when we worked on our other projects in Meridian - De Weerd: Well, it's always assumed, but I just wanted to make sure. Durkin: That's that little sentence that the city attorney was clarifying, paragraph 27 I think it was. Yeah, that would be if we had trees that didn't survive, the city can call us in with a ten day notice and say replace your trees or you lose your permit to occupy the premises. MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • J[JLY 14, 1998 PAGE 35 Smith: You had a question on the comment about the scale, and your drawings. noted as one inch equals a hundred feet, but your graphic scale is drawn as one inch equal two hundred feet. I think that is what the comment was regarding. MacCoy: Any other comments from commission? De Weerd: Just if staff wanted to make any comment at this point. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner De Weerd, I'd like to wait to hear from the audience. MacCoy: Anything else you want to comment on? Durkin: I guess I want to comment on thing. A couple of the commissioners mentioned that if you would have been happy with the way things have been done all these years in Meridian, you wouldn't be up here tonight. I guess 1 want to say that as a developer, I live in Boise. I've developed two significant shopping centers in this valley where we have lead a trend in both centers from tasteful signage that's well accepted in the neighborhood, significant landscaping, berms and design. In both centers the fire exceeded the code. In both projects, one is the South Shore Shopping Center at southeast Boise at Apple and Park Center. There's K-Mart and an Albertson's store there. We haven't won any awards, but in my opinion it's an award winning center. The landscaping is matured, and it's a great project. The adjacent property owners all the way around are generally please with the project, and at the beginning we had to work out some bugs on hollow lighting shined in their yards. Something I never thought of before. Now we know all about that. I went and read the newspaper in a man's backyard in the middle of the night just from the lights a block away. So we figured out how to control that. We're experienced with this. We know how to maintain our landscaping and we do a greatjob. The center will be a proud cornerstone for your city, and if you look at the type of landscaping that will plant, the quality of the construction that we do, 1 feel that it will be the nicest project in the City of Meridian. And I feel it will far exceed any of the previous project. Our design is based on the future and not on what's been done in the past. I'd like to come back and respond to - MacCoy: You will. Durkin: And while I sit down, I'd like to leave the original condition use with the city attorney for - is that okay? And you can pass it down? (Inaudible) MacCoy: This is an open public hearing. Is anybody from the audience want to get up and make their statements? MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • J[JLY 14, 1998 PAGE 36 MAYNARD MARTIN 3668 E. JUDICIAL WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Martin: First of all, I wondered if I could ask the commissioners do any of you have a major retail mall behind your house? And I would like to ask the commissioners and the city attorney and the city clerk, would you like a major mall behind your house? Berg: Do you want me to answer that, no. Martin: Would you? Smith: No. Martin: Would you like a major retail shopping center behind your home? De Weerd: Well, hadn't thought about it, but right now I have thistle blowing into my backyard, so I would say yes today. Martin: Okay. Keith Borup? Borup: No, I do not live near one, but I am not in an industrial zone where my house is either. And so that was the choice I made. Martin: Right and it sounds to me like the residential didn't come until after the fact that it was already commercially zoned, right? So see a lot of us when we moved in there, were hoodwinked. So that's what you're dealing with here, right? Homeowners that are fired up that this guy wants to come in who does not have a regional shopping center behind his home and wants to build one behind our home and wants us to be happy campers. I don't care what kind of berm or trees, I say no to the shopping center. I'm not very affluent so I just can't -it's harder for me to just pick up and go elsewhere. Do you see what I'm saying? So all I'm saying is you guys be considerate of us homeowners that are sitting here who do not want a big nasty Shopko. I don't care what colors you paint it. What new twentieth century -you don't want that sitting behind your home property. You see what I'm saying? Because it's going to take our property values and it's going to plummet them. And they are going to go in the dirt. Because you wouldn't want live behind one, so you're not going to go over there and look to buy some place and I don't think you would either, Mr. Borup or Mr. Prior. So all I'm saying is be considerate and mindful of us homeowners that live there. That's all I have. Borup: Mr. Martin, I had a couple of questions. I think a lot of what we do is try to get a feel for people's whole attitude and where it comes from. How long have you lived there? MERIDIAN PLANNING APD ZONING COMMISSION • J[JLY 14, 1998 PAGE 37 Martin: Going to two years. Borup: When you moved in, was there a sign down there on this property talking about the future shopping center coming in? Martin: Yes, but there was no indication given that it was going to be something this humongous. Borup: What did you visualize was going to be on this property? Martin: We were thinking more little shops and doctor type offices. Borup: Okay. Thank you. MacCoy: Anyone else? DON BRYAN 2070 N. LOCUST GROVE WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Bryan: Well commissioners, I have a shopping center in my backyard and I was here in '91 and watched this thing go through, this Crossroads and it was amazing then at the time how they could put a retail surrounding residential, but that was our city fathers at work and I don't think anybody was here, but Mr. Freckleton and myself and Will might have been here. It was always zoned that way. I feel sorry for the homeowners. I wouldn't want it in my backyard. I lived next door to Fred Meyer. I worked with Larry Durkin before. He developed Fred Meyer. They do a good operation. I'm not taking sides, but I have trouble feeling sorry for the homeowners when they move in after the fact. However I think there's sorry things that need to be addressed that is going to affect them, like the buffering, the truck docks, the trash. In my experience, I live 500 feet away from Fred Meyer and I listen to those trucks idle all night long. He can say the trucks don't come in at certain hours and only certain trucks and so many trucks a day, but he has no control over that. When they pull in there, and you hear something outside and you figure out it's a truck idling all night long waiting for the store to open 500 feet away, then these people are going to be affected by that. Now I think the block wall is something that is going to make that worse. And I think landscaping is the best way to go, but in my experience of living next to a shopping center, there is also other things that corrre to mind and a lot of it is litter. The traffic is more, the foot traffic is more and the litter is everywhere, and the parking lot Leaning, when they clean the parking lots, they go around with the big vacuum truck and they suck it all up and make a bunch of noise and it goes right straight up in the air and blows over wherever off the lot, and these things need to be addressed. And 1 guess the only reason I'm talking tonight is to inform all the property owners in the surrounding area to stay informed with the project. Work with the developer and come to the city council meeting and voice your opinion and don't stop here and protect your rights as property owners. And MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 38 I guess the only question I have for the commission is with this size of development going in here and what it's going to bring, do we want another Emerald and Milwaukee and all the problems in traffic over in Meridian in the future five years down the road. And I think I know the answer to that question. Do you have any questions of me? Thank you for your time. SHERRI JAYNES 3510 E. EISENHOWER WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Jaynes: As far as the zoning, we've been in our house about two and a half years. When we purchased, we were told that that is industrial zone. They did not say that is retail zone or were we given any indication of that. And the zoning may have been retail, but we were never told that. There may or may not - I don't remember, have been a sign on the corner there but we were never ever ever in a million years given any indication there would be a shopping center of this volume there with the noise, the traffic, the problems, the trash and everything else that comes along with a shopping center of this size. If there was to be a center there, the sign that they did have at one point was like a little neighborhood shopping center. We were thinking small retail shops. We were not thinking grocery stores and warehouses and Shopko's. Never in a million years would we have guessed that or we never would have bought there, and I'm guessing that most of the people in the subdivision would feel the same way, and as far as industrial zoning being louder and that may or may not be true, but Coor's doesn't have trucks loading outside their plant on the other side of our subdivision at three o'clock in the morning or at five o'clock in the morning. They are there pretty much eight to five Monday through Friday, so they don't bother us at night. And that's industrial zone as well. So I mean there's a big difference between industrial and retail. At least as far as what our other neighbors on the other side as far as their traffic and their noise because we don't have that kind of problem with them at all, and from my bedroom which faces Eagle Road, but is not on the very edge of the subdivision. I'm four or five houses in, I can hear Eagle Road from my bedroom, and I cannot imagine what it's going to be like to have an Albertson's or some other sort of grocery store right out my back window outside my bedroom at night while I'm trying to sleep, and I'd just like everybody to think about that a little bit when they are thinking about the quality of life of the people that do live there. MacCoy: Any questions for her? Borup: You had mentioned that you didn't visualize something this size. I think we've got 72 acres. What type of thing -did you think just a lot of open space and parks around or - Jaynes: We didn't know that this was all going to be one owner, because at that point there was - if there was a sign out there, it was just for basically the corner property, not clear down both sides. So we had no idea that this was all going to MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 39 be one owner and one development. Borup: So was it your feeling you thought houses would fill in that vacant area? Jaynes: We were told industrial, so we were thinking office buildings or something like a distributorship like Coors, some of the other businesses that are along that area. Borup: Maybe just -industrial is not zoning for office buildings. It's things like and maybe just for information, but junk yards, lumber yards, machine shop, mobile home manufacturing, motor vehicle repair, contractors' yards. Jaynes: Well there's other industrial along that Executive Drive (Inaudible) Borup: Those are permitted uses in an industrial zone. They don't even need a conditional use permit for. So industrial zone is really heavy duty type of uses. Jaynes: Well when we moved in we were told it wouldn't be that kind of usage because we lived right neat to it. Smith: Who were you told by? Jaynes: The realtors. Smith: Your realtor. Jaynes: And the developer. Smith: That's what I thought. Borup: Well but those are all uses for industrial. I mean the retail really is a step down in zoning from industrial usage as far as some of this type of stuff. I mean a contractors' yard and a junk yard and things like that - Jaynes: True, but nobody is going to build a junk yard right there, I mean realistically. (Inaudible) Borup: Well, no, I don't think we would but some of these things are permitted uses. Well, the junk yard is not a permitted conditional use, but a lot of the others I read are permitted uses that they don't even need to come here. Jaynes: True, but we still have to live with this in our backyards. MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ 7ANING COIvIl~IISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 40 Borup: We understand and that's why we're asking for everybody's comments. Thank you. MacCoy: Anyone else? CHANDLER LEGARRETA 3683 E. JUDICIAL DRIVE WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Legarreta: Either all of our realtors got the wrong information or they were all corrupt, because the three or four people that have spoke here tonight already have all the same story and believe it or not we don't have the same realtors. So evidently there was a problem somewhere, a miscommunication whatever it might have been, but I like the young lady before me would have never in a million years bought property in this area had I known something like this was going to be built there two years after I bought my home. What is this going to do to our home? I think it's going to devalue it and I think it's going to devalue it by a lot. Right now you have 100 to 150 homes in this subdivision, and right now the turn over time for people selling a home in there is fairly minimal. It's an area that's in substantial demand like most of Meridian. And I think if you build something like this, we're all going to either lose money or we're going to have to stay there for a long time. And it's as simple as that. I think we all under the impression of buying a home and securing our interest in a home and being confident in that decision and then something like this occurs and that all goes away. So that's something that I want you to be conscious of. The other thing that I'm concern with is according to this picture here, the main driveway into the whole subdivision, now we're talking about a little just barely developed road that connects to Fairview currently. And one main driveway that goes into the whole subdivision off of Eagle Road. According to that picture now, that's going to be an inlet for traffic for I don't know how many stores. Ten? I don't know. Eight to ten stores and that's just counting the ones that are adjacent to the property lines. That's not counting the ones that are adjacent to Eagle. Well, I am concerned with the fact that right now is extremely at times to get on to Eagle. Now, not only do we have to deal with Eagle traffic, but we have to fight with people coming and using a shopping center to get in and out of our homes. I don't know how that's going to work. I have to be real honest with you. Unless somebody is going to be willing enough to put a stoplight again at our subdivision entrance and the again a quarter of a mile down the road at Eagle on the corner. That's going to start blocking a lot of things up. He said that they had a traffic report done and submitted to ACHD or whoever they submit those to, but I would be really concerned with how that's going to turn out being that is the main and probably considered the only entrance into our subdivision due to the fact that the other one will probably be dominated by retail shoppers, so those are my concerns and I hope that you guys make the right decision. Thank you. Borup: Again, I'm just trying to get a feel for a trend here. What was your MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZONING COMMISSION • JiJLY 14, 1998 PAGE 41 understanding that your realtor told you? Legarreta: Our understanding from our realtor was that that area would be filled with doctors' offices, dentists' offices, professional buildings, offices building such as the one built across the street. And to that size and to that magnitude I don't know. Are you familiar with the insurance building they built across the streets? We thought that it was going to be something similar to that, but small medical facilities - Borup: Did they mention what the zoning was? Legarreta: I don't recall. No, I don't recall. If he would have told me the zoning, I would have went well, that's mean? Tell me what's going in there, and that's why I know exactly what he told me as far as the things that were going to be going in there. I mean to be honest with you, I don't know that it was - Borup: When you saw the sign down in the corner it said shopping mall coming in, what did you think that meant? Legarreta: You know, that sign -that sign - Borup: Well, there was one before that. Legarreta: Okay, the only one that I'm aware of, the only one I remember seeing is the one that was put up there, the real large ones were put up there maybe six months ago. Maybe not quite that long ago. I'm not sure how long ago it was, maybe somebody else knows. Borup: Maybe the others were up and down before you moved in then. Legarreta: If there was one there, it wasn't very big, and I guarantee you it didn't display the magnitude of this project. That is for sure. Borup: No, I think the other has been several years ago. Legarreta: Okay, we've only owned our home for approximately two years. If it was there prior to that, I wouldn't have known that, no. Any other questions? Smith: When did you buy your home? Legarreta: We bought our home in September of '96, so it's going on two years now. MacCoy: Anyone else? LORELL ROGERS 3426 E. FLORENCE DRIVE WAS SWORN BY THE MERIDIAN PLANNING A1QD ZONING COM~IISSION • JCTL.Y 14, 1998 PAGE 42 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY Rogers: Well I'm naturally concerned because I live on Florence, which is adjacent to the property. I'm not trying to be antagonistic in what I say, but I am concerned about the noise. I know Mr. Durkin has addressed the concern about the loading docks and the trucks and I appreciate that consideration. My concern though is still as a person, as a person who is not a physicist, I don't have any proof about the masonry walls echoing or reverberating or whatever. I think that it would be fair to do an investigation for the benefit of the homeowners of sorrle sort to find out to have something that's actually factual or documented or some type of finding to say which way is better, whether it's trees or masonry, because I'm going to be sharing that space with them. And you know, I have my own considerations. My husband works nights part of the year. Even during the day I'm going to be affected, so I would like something from someone officially about which is better before anybody says masonry is bad or trees are better. I think that's fair. And also I came before this council about eight months ago for a preschool and there were noise considerations with the children, and I think this is going to be a whole lot more noise. And I think if I have to make considerations for five children in my backyard, for half of the day, then a big shopping center should be considered as a big noise factor and 1 think the masonry wall, forme at least, is a consideration since I'm up there. If it's not the best solution, I would like to know why and which is better. And I'm also concerned about the street that the last gentleman mentioned, I believe it's called Records Drive. I'm having visions of Boise Town Square at Christmas and traffic cops and not being able to get into my own neighborhood and that worry may be unfounded, but I would like it to be addressed and have the commissioners consider that factor. I would like to be able to get into my subdivision during the months of November, December and January, and those are considerations. Does anybody have any questions? MacCoy: Anyone else from the public? LYNN ANDERSON 3592 E. CONGRESSIONAL WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Anderson: When I first moved in, we first moved in about a year and four months ago, we did know that there was going to be some sort of offices or very small shops. We didn't hardly expect to see a mall that was going to be comparing almost to the size of Boise Town Square, at least that's what we heard on the news is that you know this is actually going to be compared to the size and traffic of the Town Square Mall, and the traffic is what I'm very concerned about here. Right now coming in and out of Eagle Road, I go to work about 7:40 in the morning, and now that the construction is finally getting completed on Eagle Road, there is becoming more and more traffic every morning leaving our subdivision. In fact this morning traffic was backed up about a block away from our entrance and you know to me that's a lot of traffic for 7:30 in the morning and MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMN~IISSION • J1JLY 14, 1998 PAGE 43 if that's when most of the trucks are going to be coming in and doing their deliveries, I rr>ean that's just going to multiply the traffic even with lights or any stoplights, it's going to be just horrid coming in and out of there. I can see visions of me sitting waiting ten minutes just to come back home trying to get by those lights. Another thing about the traffic is just the access. We've got two accesses into subdivision. What's going to be stopping people from saying okay I've got to go from the grocery store over to one of the stores further south, what's going to stop them from going right through our subdivision. Because it's going to be a lot easier than going out to Fairview stopping at the left hand turn lane for five minutes and then turn left. Pretty much most of the people are going to say hey I'm going to go through that subdivision. And we're already getting a lot more traffic now that we've added that additional inlet into our subdivision, and plus that's going to also cause a lot more crime because people have two ways to get in, one way to get in do their crime and get out. To me that's -when we first bought that we didn't even know they were going to put in the second inlet, but it's there, and so we've got to deal with it. And then the trees, personally I see no reason why the width between our subdivision and the mall shouldn't be twice as wide to put more trees in there. I feel like that extra width would help us quite a bit so we wouldn't have to see the mall and everything. That's my two cents. MacCoy: Got any questions for him? Okay, thank you very much. DAVID YORGASON 2304 N. COLE ROAD, BOISE WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Yorgason: Are we having fun yet? I am here I guess on behalf iwo halves. One is the Crossroads Neighborhood Association and second is the developer of Crossroads Subdivision. The Dakota Group has contacted us three or four times, and they have, not me personally, but spoken to my boss also my father Ramon Yorgason who was the original developer of Crossroads, and they have been working to add things like this buffer that is between the stores and the residents. Generally we support the store conceptually for the City of Meridian, for Ada County, we think it's a good thing to have some retail here. This size, that's another question, I'm not going to go there. But generally having retail in this location it's a good idea. We have a couple of concems and that would be as all of our residents, or many of our residents have stated and I think that all them would state the same as sufficient buffer between the buildings and the residents. Personally I'd rather see landscaping. That's my personal opinion. We think - we have actually had discussions about three inch caliper trees as of recent, and this is going to be nice back there. Is the distance between the buildings and the properties, is that sufficient. I think that might be worthy of consideration. In addition to that, the big sea of asphalt. Personally I agree. I think it's a big sea of asphalt. And landscape islands or something would help reduce cars cutting diagonals or whatever the case may be, it will also enhance the appearance. Generally I just want to go on record to say that we support so long as these concerns of our residents for Crossroads are heard and MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 44 addressed. We support the project. I'll answer any questions you might have. Borup: Mr. Yorgason, were you involved on this conditional use permit that took place in '91? That was before your company was involved with that project; is that correct? Yorgason: That's a good question. I'm not certain. I believe it is. Yes, I believe our first phase of Crossroads Subdivision recorded in 1994. 1'd have to go check the records. It usually takes about 18 months, sometimes more sometimes less from the starting point to get your first recorded plat. Borup: That was our understanding that the conditional use was done by the previous applicant that allowed for the residential use in that area. Yorgason: I think another term is mixed use. I heard that word thrown around as mixed use residential and - Borup: At that time did you have any concept or understanding of what project could be going in this area? Yorgason: No. Borup: You had no idea at all? Yorgason: I personally wasn't working for Capitol Development at the time. If I asked Ramon, we've actually spoken on a couple of occasions in the last year to the prior land owner and I even hope to expand our subdivision, and it became known to us as soon as the billboards went up advertising the retail shopping center. No wonder he's not flexible or willing because he had better visions and obviously this property of this directions sells for a higher price than a residential development would sell. So I'm sure the prior owner is making more money is what I'm getting at is a better deal to go this direction than residential. As far as what it would be, you may want to ask my father Ramon. Personally I think this much land - I don't know -really there's a lot of land there that's being taken over and being used by building, and we're not talking about five acres here. This is 70 plus acres. That's a pretty large parcel. Borup: And the land is there. Either you fill it up or you let it go iMo weeds. Yorgason: It's a prominent corner of Eagle Road and Fairview. Those are pretty major intersections. As far as traffic, (inaudible) the highway district and I would sure hope there's a stop light out there, but I know that's not for this discussion. Borup: Okay, thank you. MacCoy: Any other questions? Anyone else out there would like to have a MERIDIAN PLANNING AFD ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 45 chance to say something? KEN KALDHUSDAL WAS SWORN THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Kaldhusdal: I think a lot of the concerns have been addressed, but I'd like to address the misinformation one. I'm assuming you people know Greg Orland. He used to serve on this board. I used to work with him. I used to be part of his design team. What amazing me is he served on this board and I have lived in my home probably three plus years, and he didn't tell me about this. I walked in here tonight expecting like the rest of these people maybe a few shops, you know, doctors' offices have been kicked around, office buildings that kind of thing, and I'm just amazed that he wouldn't inform me and I talk to him on a monthly basis probably. He works for another firm down in California now, but I think people are not walking into this (inaudible). I think they've been misinformed. When the commission on this board doesn't tell me what's going on, or he doesn't know what's going on. People like me got to think what's going on here? I don't want to say slightly underhanded, but I'm sitting here listening to this gentleman here, and he's I don't know walking over people if you ask me, and I heard him say that unless it's planned before '91, most of these homes are built after '93 '94 and things change, and just because somebody made rules back in '91, t don't see why another use cannot be found for this property. You know, office buildings, there's a nice office complex across Eagle. And another thing I don't think has been addressed is the traffic issue. I don't Ada County has addressed that issue yet. And until that's done, I don't think anything should be done. I think you folks ought to sit on it. Let's see how it plays out here. Borup: More of a comment, you made reference to Greg Orland and the information that we would have on a project a couple of years ago is just what the zoning was. At that time there was no development planned to the specifics, so there's noway that he would know that. He could have looked on a zoning plat, seen what it was or all you got to do is drive down the street and tell that. I've been aware of it for ten or fifteen years, but that's just because I live in Meridian, I drive down Fairview all the time. Back in the 80's the talk was a major shopping center was going in there. I've been waiting for years to see something happen. Nothing ever happened and a bunch of houses popped up. Kaldhusdal: This whole thing has changed. Borup: Obviously that part did. So I'm not surprised to see this. My only question is what took it so long, but the people that owned it and did the zoning and stuff back in the 80's I guess no longer have an interest, but it's not something that was just in the last minute after the neighborhood moved in. Kaldhusdal: I thought about this. I got a call from Mr. Bear here. This afternoon I found out about this. I walked in here tonight expecting office buildings, a few other shops like the rest of these folks have been talking about and I'm looking at MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION • J[TLY 14, 1998 PAGE 46 a Milwaukee Street here now, and I think it's too much. Borup: Well, it is a lot , and I think and maybe I'm being redundant, but you know the difference between commercial zoning and industrial and the type of use you can have. One of the permitted uses is a feed and fertilizer store like we have right over here on East 1st. You know that's a permitted use in an industrial zone. They don't have to come in to this commission. They just get a permit and do it, so those are the types of things that can go in an area that's zoned industrial. But as far as what Greg knew and what we know as far as this specific thing, we got the information a couple of weeks ago -last Friday. Kaldhusdal: Well, all I ask is please serve the people. L Borup: And that's why we're asking for comments. Thank you. BARBARA SANSOUCIE 3526 E. FLORENCE WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Sansoucie: Everybody has said some wonderful comments here, and I can appreciate Mr. Durkin and his economic issues. I feel stupid, but I didn't even ask my realtor about -and we can see the sunset and we can see Bogus and this is great, and so I'm stupid Mr. Borup for not asking. And then when I saw the sign and it said Family Center I thought we're going to have a gym maybe or like a recreational center for the kids. I'm a little nervous. The traffic is a concern, the noise is a concem, and because my backyard is right there by Shopko, that's a big concern. But I was just stupid. I'm all for free enterprise though and you know there's that balance. I just didn't think the seesaw was going to be in my backyard. One thing that Mr. Durkin said that kind of (inaudible) was he had said that this was prior to the homes being put in there. This was all decided -not that it was all decided, but that they had changed it from industrial to retail, and then he said if it had been zoned differently then he would look at it differently, and I don't know if I heard him wrong or if I took it wrong, but when he said that I felt like it was like that last gentleman said, sorry, you know this is just how it's going to be. You were stupid to move in there because this is what we planned on doing. But if the idea had been residential and then we would come in later, then we'd try to do something else, and so maybe I just misunderstood you but that just kind of the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. One of my questions was this already a for sure thing, but it looks like it is. I mean I kind of wonder why we're even here tonight except to decide how far away from my house you are going to be. So there. Thank you. Any questions? MacCoy: Thank you. DAVID SOIJTHERS 104 S. CAPITOL BOULEVARD, BOISE WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 47 Southern: My company is Southern Properties. We've been involved with this project since about February of 95, and I thought maybe shed a little light on the clarification at least for the last three years or better on the sign issues. We brought the first developer in February of '95, we got started with them, and they signed the property. Prior to that there were small signs that Thomas T. Wright Company has. Tom's one of the partners in Gemtome the former owner of the land. They had the small signs the small green sign 4x8 or 4x4 even. But those went down about April of'95 and the sign that went on the corner where the large one is today is identical to the same size. It did not feature the layout the way the site plan does now or proposed site plan.. (End of Tape) Southers:... and then we had two smaller ones out on the corners that were there. They were 4x8 signs, but just a little clarification on the sign issue. But they were all -the big one there was pretty - I would think most of you are aware for years it's been known as The Crossroads or The Crossroads Center, and I believe that's the name of the subdivision bordering it, but anyway I just wanted to make that known or clear. At least for the last little over three years. Prior to that as I said there were smaller signs. MacCoy: Any questions? Borup: Just a short one. I remember the larger sign being there. That's why I brought that up earlier, but I don't remember what size that was. You say that was comparable to the size that's there now? Southers: The one on the corner. The big one that faces the intersection. I think it was the same size. I think it was exactly the same size. We used a different sign company. But I don't think we added anything to it. We had to beef it up because of the wind, but I don't believe it's a bigger sign. I think it's exactly the same size. Borup: Do you remember what the sign said? Southers: Oliver McMillian was the developer name that you may remember. San Diego developer, but it was the standard sort of a "coming soon" or known as The Crossroads Center, and it announced that it was - Borup: Did it say retail development or what their office buildings or - Southers: You know I wish I had them. If I would have thought I would have brought those or I could get them for you. I've got all the renderings. But they were informational purposes, but it definitely was a retail tone. There was no intent at that time or ever since I've been involved with it to do anything but retail. Smith: No offices? MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 48 Southers: No. We never had -that was never the intent. And as Commissioner Borup mentioned, or wondered what took so long as I'm sure you all know in the retail business as we say in the trade the tenants drive the deals and there's now a market for this property with all the road that's oxurred and Boise and Meridian seem to be growing together. tt's an excellent site. Eagle and Fairview is a big big big location in this area, in all of Ada County period. Any other questions? Borup: Thank you. MacCoy: Thank you very much. Anyone else? BROOKE BARGEE 3670 E. FLORENCE DRIVE WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Barcee: I'm actually a little emotional about it, but I don't care how big the sign was, it says the Family Center. And I guess it was our fault in believing our realtor in saying it was going to be a family medical center and offices for lease. And that's a point I want to make across, which maybe that's something I have to take up with him. We have been in our house since the beginning of June. I'll admit I'm young and don't understand zoning, but 1 certainly will now. And I just wanted to let you know how I felt about it. Do you have any questions? MacCoy: Thank you very much. Anyone else? PATRICK HARPER 3644 E. JUDICIAL DRIVE WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Harper: I've been a resident, purchased our house a little years ago. I do strongly agree with most of the comments made by my friends and neighbors here. When we moved in, I did see the sign. It was one of my largest concerns along with the future development of Pine Street and how that was going to work and affect our property values. I called the number on the sign and had left a message, didn't get a response but in lieu of that I did talk to the realtors, the promoters, these various people. The medical plaza and this whole concept was put forth at that time although it was nothing guaranteed. A grocery store was mentioned which I thought would be perhaps nice and beneficial. Fred Meyer wasn't there at that time. These are things that I did not at that time believe would be harmful or detrimental to our property values. Though I did expect the retail development, I did not expect this. I think the scope and scale of this, it is unprecedented for Meridian for the area. It just seems like we've taken this whole piece of land and tried to pack as much development in there as possible. I think something even scaled back at this location is going to be successful. But this is just overwhelming to me. Those are my main concerns. t think the whole project is excessive in scope, and what's been discussed here and the size and the fact that it extends passed both of our entrances and traffic. You know MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 49 certainly hindsight is 20!20, but I think we all have a lot of regrets now seeing what we do today. That's all I had. Any questions? MacCoy: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Commissioners anything else you want to discuss yet with anybody? I was going to invite you up next. Durkin: Would you like me to wait? MacCoy: Come right ahead. Prior: Sir, would you do me a favor and just state your name again. You're still under oath. Durkin: One of the things brought up tonight is something I overlooked in my earlier presentation. And I thank the gentleman for bringing it up, and I am going to move this site plan back across the room because I failed to talk about a particular traffic issue that we tried to resolve. There will be a traffic signal at the intersection of Records Drive and Fairview Avenue. It's a signal that we are installing and paying for. In addition the ACHD has significant expansion plans for Pine Street and the state and ACHD have designated Pine Street and Eagle Road as a signaled intersection. The control of that when that goes in is really in the control of ACHD and the state. However the funds to pay for it will come out of the impact fees for this project. So the funds are there. The timing and the warranting of that signal will be up to ACHD and the State Department of Transportation. There is those two signals are shown on the site plan. I would ask you not to make the Pine Street one part of our approval because it's totally out of our control. Pine Street has not been installed yet and it will be installed ACHD at some later point. That's on the far south end. Records Drive is the street that we own. There is an easement for the people in the subdivision to use the street to get to and from their homes. The residences may not be able to look at the site plan and tell this but the plan calls for widening of Records Drive and curb and gutter and sidewalk on both sides. There will be an all movement signal at the intersection at Records Drive and Fairview. Is it okay if I stand here. Some of these comments I'm just going to address to the concerns of the audience. There's an access off of the future Pine Street for the development, but the major access points are primarily this one on Fairview and this one on Eagle Road, in the traffic study business they call these pods of cars, but the signal here and the signal here will synchronized with this signal to free up the access along Eagle Road and along Fairview. Another point that was made tonight and it's made in public hearings that I've gone to for years and years and years. Everyone says we don't want another Fairview. We don't want another Fairview Avenue. We don't want another Fairview and Cole. Well, you're not getting that in this project. If you go down Fairview if you go to the intersection of Fairview and Cole you'll see access drives every hundred feet, sometimes eighty feet, sometimes forty feet apart. This is a controlled access subdivision. So from a traffic standpoint, it's designed with the latest and best technology. It isn't MERIDIAN PLANNING ADD ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 50 anything like Fairview and Cole. The access is controlled. There are limits and standards set today by ACRD. They are more strict than they were a year ago. They are far more strict than they were five years ago, but if you notice on Eagle Road, there's no access on to Eagle until you get to this point. If this were Fairview, there'd be at least ten access points in that amount of distance. There's no access point between Florence Street coming from the industrial park across the street until you get to Presidential Drive. There's zero access points along here, and there are no access points along here. So the access is controlled and it isn't like Fairview. The traffic will run more smoothly. The width of the streets, Eagle Road has been designed for this use. It's fully capable of handling the traffic for this project. Fairview evolved over years and years and years. They can't expand it without tearing down buildings. And that really isn't the case here. Eagle Road is perfectly wide enough for this project. Fairview Avenue has been completely widened expanded to handle specifically this type of development, and specifically the way the accesses are designed here. We work closely with Dan when we built the Fred Meyer center. We tried to accommodate the adjacent property owners' needs. I'm sorry about the trash and litter and if he'd call, I haven't heard about it, but it's something that we can look into. As far as the intended use, the zoning, the conditional use permit that's in place now, it's a matter of public record. When I was first looking at the property I called the dry of Meridian and I had the information in five minutes. 1 wish that the people, I've been through these hearings before, and I've heard people getup and say the realtor said this and the realtor said that. I'm really sorry about that. But I'd like them to name on the public record under oath who their realtors were, their name address and phone number. Shame on the realtor, but it isn't shame on me. What we're proposing is a matter of public record since 1991. There's been a shopping center coming soon sign on that property since 1991. We acquired the property, we went under contract for the property in December of 1997, and there were three large signs installed in February of 1998 with this site plan, very similar to that site plan on the plan. The Family Center is a registered trademark name of all the shopping centers that belong to this developer. There's been no intention to mislead -that's the name of all their shopping centers in all of the states that they operate. They are all the Family Center at Taylorsville, the Family Center at Mid Valley, the Family Center wherever they are. The sign that is up right now, I ordered the. installation of it. The day that went up, they took the other one down. Not a day went by since 1991 where the property hasn't been signed. We had a wind storm this spring and one of the sign located at Presidential Drive and Eagle Road blew down, but there's never been another moment when the property hasn't been dear and obvious to the public announcing a shopping center. If they choose to listen to a realtor, a developer, a home builder, I'm sorry. That's been the plan for this property. It's been in the comprehensive plan for the City of Meridian, which is a matter of public record, for some time. If we went by city development, we could pack a lot more in here. This is designed to be a successful tong living shopping center that will be successful for tenants that operate in this valley today and tenants that are expanding into this valley from other places. There are ways MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ZOMNG COMMISSION J[TLY 14, 1998 PAGE 51 that we can maximize make attempts to maximize the development further, and there are ways that we could reduce the development, but as I mentioned the Family Center is a registered trademark of a 45 year old shopping center development company and they have a really good formula. They operate nine successful shopping centers in the Salt Lake Valley, and they understand that balance. I've worked with them on many projects over the years, and this is a successful combination for a long term valuable shopping center. Mr. Yorgason got up and talked and supported the project with some conditions, and I appreciate that support, but I guess I'd like to comment that we are now seeking a conditional use for our specific use. The residential developer is operating under a conditional use permit for their subdivision. The residential developer has minimum setbacks in their backyards with no buffering. We have larger setbacks in our backyard with buffering. I'm happy tonight to commit to you if it was an emotion or if it was a condition to expand that landscaping buffer along the back, but 1 don't necessarily think that's the answer and I think there might another solution. And I would encourage a motion if anyone were to consider it to have us work with the staff someone in your city that's an expert or has expertise available to them to come up with a combination of possibly a wider berm and a fence. But let's be honest tonight in front of all these people. Because if they are back two years from now saying they can see the shopping center, they are going to be able to see the shopping center no matter where we put it. There they are back saying they can hear the operation of the shopping center, they will be able to hear the operation of the shopping center. They may not be able to hear Eagle Road anymore, because the shopping center will block that noise, but they will be able to hear the comings and goings in the shopping center, and I guess I want to go on record tonight Dearly in front of you and in front of the audience which is primarily adjacent property owners, that the buffer we're proposing or that we're will to go with is not going to end the visibility or the noise issue. I think a combination of fence, buffer and breaking it up, there may be some more to do, and I think that there might be an idea to get an expert involved, but if you made a motion directly staff to come up with not less than a 20 foot buffer along the back but give staff the latitude to break it up, making it shallower or deeper with the other methods, I think that might bean idea. Prior: Mr. Chairman, could 1 interrupt briefly? I took the opportunity to read the conditional use permit from '91 and just for everyone's general information, I'm referring to page number six on the conditional use permit from 1991, and just Mr. Durkin for your information as well as far as the terming and some of these other things are concerned that this conditional use permit from '91 states that all development in the area shall be controlled and guided by design review. So not only once this thing gets going, if this thing is approved these plans are going to be coming back to this commission again for a design review here in front of this commission and everything will be reconsidered as well all over again. So this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as that's concerned because this is subject to design review and as such this commission will be given an opportunity to go over all of these things again and make any adjustments they deem necessary. MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING CO1vIlvIISSION • J[1LY 14, 1998 PAGE 52 Durkin: We can't begin that process Mr. Attorney until we have your approval tonight. We can't go hire an architectural firm to come up with a design unless we -without getting this step forward tonight. I'm aware of all the steps and procedures that we have to go through. We've gone through it on other projects in Meridian but we can't come up a landscape design - we can't come up with more than - we would be guessing at what your desires might be and what the adjacent residents desires might be. If the adjacent property owners desires for the prgject to go away, it's not going to go away. It's going to go forward. If the adjacent property owners desires are to work with us and with the city to come up with the buffering plan that is more desirable to them, and it's workable for us, we'll happily do so. We have a very good reputation in that regard in this city and in the city of Boise. I'd like to talk just for a minute about the zoned differently comment that I made earlier. I saw those words hanging out here after they left my mouth, and I guess sometimes 1 speak and I'm basing my comments on hundreds of these types of applications in different cities and different projects. And my point was that if I were going into this subdivision and taking SO lots and combining them into one, there would a whole different approach. I would be going through rezone first. Prior to getting a rezone I would meet with all of the people that were trying to sell the lots. There's a whole different procedure as a developer that you go through. The end product is the same. The end product we want it to be nice. We've owned it for a long time. We maintain it forever. So there's no intention to build one quality one way or another quality the other way. All of our projects all of the Family Center projects are of a high quality and so any comment or statement that I made that would imply otherwise, 1 would like to correct right now. I think those are my only additional comments. I do have one of the principals and officers in the Family Center accompanied from Utah here tonight. I'd be happy to answer any other questions you may have. Borup: Mr. Chairman just a clarification. Entrance widths, it looks like your major entrances have three lanes on the exit; is that correct? Durkin: I have a note to that effect. Borup: i was looking at the main entrance on Fairview. So there's going to be a right, left and straight ahead essentially? Durkin: It is indicated on this plan. I don't know that -- there's a right turn, a left turn coming from the west, there's a right in or a straight in. I don't know. If you're going out the entrance here is about five lanes. Borup: Okay, that's the one. Plenty of width for the cars on exiting. Durkin: Yeah. The same with here. There's a free right turn lane and a left turn lane and a one lane coming in. MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION • J[JLY 14, 1998 PAGE 53 Borup: You said you've already done a traffic study and made that available to ACHD. Durkin: We have provided a traffic study both to ACHD and to Shari Stiles at the City of Meridian. It was done by Dolby Engineering dated June 22, 1998. I'll happily leave another copy here tonight if anyone would like to look through it. I'd also be happy to leave one with - if there's a neighborhood representative here tonight. You know if there's somebody ftom the neighborhood association that would want to have it available to the residents, I'd be happy to leave it with - or provide them with copies at a later - Borup: The traffic lighting that you made reference to was that in line with what the traffic study indicated would be - Durkin: Exactly. Borup: The other question I had was on Pine Street and as you indicated, we don't when that is going to come through, but would your studies indicate that the Pine Street light is probably the only one that's going to be in line with what ACHD is going to allow along there? Durkin: The State of Idaho has a limitation on how close signals can be on a state highway. This is the Gosest point. I would think that it would be more desirable here to absolutely positively guarantee not to be against the rules of the state. We can appeal it at a November hearing, but this is the minimum. Borup: From Fairview Durkin: From this intersection. This is the minimum distance for a stop signal and in fact the state and ACRD have had a planned signal at this intersection for some time, and our traffic study shows that when Pine Street is extended to meet a new school and some other development here, that a signal will be required. The big thing is signals don't go in very rapidly on state roads or county roads when there isn't funding. The funding is in place with more than a million dollars worth of impact fees from this project. Borup: It sounds like you may be asking for alight -was that Gongressional? Was that the street that goes in? Durkin: We have requested a light off of Records. Borup: Okay, right. I was looking at Congressional. Is that the other one? You indicated would be -Presidential would the best location as far as traffic usage in that area? Durkin: The county and the state are taking a longer view, and in the long run, MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • JiILY 14, 1998 PAGE 54 they may be correct. Today with the shopping center built here, and no Pine Street it would sure be nice to have a signal at Presidential. However, it violates every rule the state has for distance. They don't allow it in Idaho Falls. The state won't allow it. But I believe that would serve immediately this subdivision. On the other hand, Pine Street will continue from downtown Meridian all the way through to I want to say Maple Grove. There will be a significant traffic carrying street. If there was a signal at Presidential and Eagle Road it would be way too close to Pine Street and I can see within five years or eight years, Pine Street wilt carry significantly greater traffic than this entrance on Presidential. So in the long it's the right thing to do. We ask for - to take a shorter look at it and possibly consider moving it and it's - Borup: I think that answers part of the other question I had with the signal at Pine Street why you didn't have a more significant entrance at that location. And from what I gather from what you were saying because the (inaudible) could be continuing on. Durkin: Well I think the big reason is the property depth on Pine Street isn't very substantial, and so I can only get one entrance as you can see there's one entrance to that whole end of the project there. So if I had a more substantial entrance -this meets the criteria that ACHD has. I could make it wider, but it only serves that smaller ten acre parcel. We're trying to develop the center to encourage the primary access points to be at Florence and directly in front of Shopko on Fairview Avenue between those two pads. You can see we feel that those two entrance points will be the more significant and I think you'll see that reflected in the study. This is done by a local traffic study engineering company. That's where I'm getting my information. Borup: So in your design the signage and such, that's what you emphasize as the entrance. Durkin: Yes. Borup: That's all I have at this time. MacCoy: Okay, any other commissioners that have any questions right now? De Weerd: I wondered on your entrances, are you going to have a turning lane? Durkin: We have - at the entrance points we have what we call de-cel lanes, so if you were going north on Eagle Road and you wanted to turn in here, you'll veer over into a lane that's specifically for turning right into this center. If you were going on Fairview and you pass the intersection here, you'll drop into a deceleration lane and turn in. tf you're leaving here, you'll pull into what we call an acceleration lane. It's indicated on the plan. You kind of merge into the three lanes of traffic that are already on Fairview. So yes we will have accel and decel MERIDIAN PLANNING A1QD ZOAIING COMMISSION • JiJLY 14, 1998 PAGE 55 lanes at all the entrance points, and that's our design by the tenants' requirements and by the ACHD's requirements as well. De Weerd: I know you had mentioned the litter aspect, but I didn't hear the solution to it. Durkin: The litter? Frankly it's the first time I've ever heard of it. We have the property maintained and swept, and I think that Don, is he still here? He lived right behind our project at Locust Grove and Fairview, and it was a 40 acre alfalfa field that changed from a lush green 40 acre alfalfa field into a shopping center and mini storage, and I can only think that that's what he is referring to. I've never had a call or comment from him, but it's something that I said I would look into. I think when you get more people in an area, you're going to have more litter, but as far as the blowing of the litter from the shopping center to the residential neighborhoods, my experience has been that happens more often when there is like a wide open field adjacent to it, that without a berm or landscaping, you can get some blowing of litter. But I just wasn't aware of it being a problem at Don's house. De Weerd: One other issue that he had brought up is the idling trucks waiting for loading docks to open, and that sort of thing. Is there a way to address that concern as well? Durkin: The only thing 1 can tell you is that the trucks behind the Fred Meyer shopping center are parking on a private street. We tried to dedicate the street and haven't been successful at it. It's a private street to serve the mini storage and the shopping center. It's signed "no parking". The Meridian Police, they don't enforce that because it's a private street so it's kind of been a no man's land. We don't have that issue here. But a lot of the trucks that park back there where we've gone and asked them to leave are just in the area. It's an area that they can pull off and park and it's safe and well lighted, and that's what they do. will say that one user that will have a noisier truck is the grocery store because they have refrigeration units on the vehicle, so if they pull up and drop a trailer at the loading dock, drive away and come back to pick up the trailer after the employees of the store unload it, the whole tirrle there is a refrigeration unit on top of the trailer that does run to keep whatever is inside frozen or cool. But they - it's rare that they would accept or have a delivery after 3:30 or 4:00 in the afternoon. I have to tell you it's extremely rare that that would occur. Once a month type of rare. It's a real unusual event. De Weerd: Mr. Yorgason also had mentioned landscape islands in the parking areas. Durkin: Well, I just have to go on my experience. I'm a developer of more than 150 shopping centers, primarily in the northwestern quarter of the United States. I have done some in the southwest, but my experience has been primarily in MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 56 what we call snow country. I built 79 Skopko stores in 11 states. I managed them, operated them for a long time, and from a management and operation of a shopping center, it's not a good idea in my opinion. As the owner of the land the person paying for the installation of the trees and paying for the replacement year after year after year, and in 15 years when we have small three inch caliper trees in the parking fot because they can't develop and they can't grow or they are broken or they are sickly. I don't like it. I'm basing that decision purely on my experience as an operator of shopping centers and a developer of many shopping centers. I'm not trying in any way to save money. I'm happy to donate the trees that we are "saving" from the development to other areas. I will load up every square inch that I can on the site. But from my experience everywhere that I've developed in this climate, it's not a good idea and it's not viable. You can do things to make it work. You can install big walls around it. You can have the big planters. You have cars smash into them. You have snowplows smash into them. Sanding trucks smash into them. Delivery trucks smash into them. It's dangerous. It's not a good thing and that's based on my experience as a developer. Borup: I would like to follow up on a couple of things Tammy said. And that was for me to clarify on the trucks idling. It sound like you are saying that the trucks are not on -again talking about the Fred Meyer property. The trucks are not on the property. They are on the road waiting for - it that your understand? Durkin: That's my understanding. The Fred Meyer store has three docks behind it, and we have had comments that there have been trucks that pull off of Fairview Avenue and pull up on the road. There's nowhere else to park behind the Fred Meyer store except on that road. Borup: But you're saying on this property since there is not a road private or otherwise back there, the trucks would not be coming on the property until their loading time or how would you control that differently? Durkin: I would sign it. The stores managers and employees have the right to police it. The residents that are adjacent residents have the right to call the properly management company 24 hours a day to report a problem on it. They have a security company that patrols the premises. Borup: What's different from that from the Fred Meyer? Durkin: We don't do that at Fred Meyer. Borup: Part of it because of the road. Durkin: Part of it because of the road, and part of it because there aren't any adjacent residents. There's a mini storage project between the road - MERIDIAN PLANNING AIQ6 ZONING COMMISSION '~ J[JLY 14, 1998 PAGE 57 Borup: I'm by there a couple of times a week. Durkin: We have had comments on that and it is signed. But in this case it would be much more of an active project. We would agree to sign it, we will sign it whether you require us or request us to or not. De Weerd: And you'll have a phone number on that sign that these residents can call. Durkin: Sure, be happy to do so. I'll be happy to -they will be notified who is the contact person at all times. Borup: I drive down that street once or finrice a week and I have not seen a trash problem behind Fred Meyer. I wasn't specifically looking for it, but it wasn't something that was noticeable enough. I don't think - Smith: I'm over there more than that and I have never noticed a trash problem (Inaudible -off the microphone) Durkin: We have a real aggressive maintenance on that, and I've never had a - we've had calls on other things. I've had calls on the trot ~e leavin t ar sofa n the last three years, four maybe. I've had calls on being peop 9 middle of the street or leaving furniture or dumof thinhl~l've nevesone titme had a didn't get picked up. We've had calls on type 9• oulr normallmeaintenanlce program, and I'veNnever had la comment u tetonight.t's B the load ng dock?al know diesel trucks oan Ibehesometimes they see I keling they always want to go. Durkin: Well we have a similar situation at South Shore Shopping Center. I would encourage anyone here tonight to contact the president ou'IPI (find that the Homeowners Association by the way in the southeast Boise, y home v housingtincreases, andcel havent t no home has been onthetmarkeda County behind our shopping center for more than month or two, so there hasn't been an unusual marketing, but the - I lost track of the question. The truck Idling issue, company, and it's now been we had a problem at Albertson s with one delivery We don't allow overnight parking so this would be signed. No truck idling. arkin , no truck idling. signed in such a way, no skateboarders, no ° the backs of the buildings and dock area. 1 do like to light it up in the back, which I There will be those red and white signs along throughout the whole to ~I n9 property owners should be real Iconn ent ~ t ~ ght ou Knpyy that adj ~n af'oUnd behind the shopP 9 thinK Y don't like People hang s that We MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 58 and we want it lit up in such a way that it doesn't invite that type of activity. But then we don't want the backyards of the adjacent properties affect with the lighting. So we install this type of security lighting all along the back of the buildings. And they are adjusted to shine directly down and not into the backyards. The is the specific spec sheet on the one that we use, and so it lights that area up so if the residents are in their house and they can easily see what's going on in that area. They can contact the name and number and who to contact to take care of it, and then we have active management and security. MacCoy: Would you mind showing that to the audience out here? Durkin: Sure. They are mounted on the building. The (inaudible -away from the microphone). Prior: Speak in the mike Durkin: It's an educated estimate on my part. I think they are about 12 feet, ten to twelve feet off the ground on the back of the Shopko store, and they aim straight down. Smith: They look like they are about sixteen feet. I don't have a scale. Durkin: Mine is in the car. And then on the shop, some of the buildings, some of the buildings will be lower and so obviously the lighting would be Tower. Smith: Getting back to the landscaping again in the parking lot. Do you have the same problems that you refer to with cars and snowplows? I'm going to state that we don't get that much snow here in Boise really. But anyway, where you have the planters along the drives with the - it looks like there's no dimension on the width of them. But the ones between the parking stalls and the drives, do you have the same problems with them? Durkin: 1 don't because there's a raised island there, and so the snow would be pushed in that direction. That's typically how we pile it. We pay the snow removal bills on two shopping centers and we do get - we have to plow if it's an inch or an inch and half or more. We are out there regularly although it isn't like - I grew up in Wisconsin and it's like Hawaii compared to that. We don't have a problem with it in the areas that we have designed on the plan. We say we don't have a problem with it, I mean there's always a replacement of trees necessary in all of our centers, and it's a budgeted expense that we do all the time. WE have the least amount of trouble in the areas where the trees are shown now, and they have the best success of growing to the full -the best hope of growing to the full mature - Smith: And it would be safe to state that if you were to take that same island configuration and locate it at half points or third points along the length of the row MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 59 of stalls in the same orientation, you could still plow your snow around those in the same manner. If you took these two trees in this island and say you repeated it there and there so where it's going in some fashion like that. Durkin: You know it's something that we can argue about all night. 1 will never convince you and you'll convince me. The only difference is I pay for them all the time in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Helena, Montana, Boise, Idaho. I know it happens. I know the realities of it, and it's based on experience. There's nothing we can say tonight to convince me otherwise. They die, they get diseased. They get sick and it's not successful anywhere that I know with this type of traffic. At a doctor's office or a dentist's office where the cars come in and park all day or an office complex where there's that type of activity, it's different. With the kind of activity car traffic activity that you get in a center like this, I swear to you, Commissioner, it's a bad idea. It's a bad idea based on my experience in doing it time and time again. So I always seek this. I end up doing it differently a lot of times, and I can't think of an example where it's a been successful move. Smith: Okay Durkin: All I can do is answer truthfully under oath. Smith: I appreciate that. Durkin: I promise you what I'm saying is true and that's it MacCoy: Any other questions? Smith: Not from me. MacCoy: Anything else you have to offer to us? Durkin: I want to thank you for the opportunity to present this tonight. I would like to ask you for some type of a motion that we can continue this moving forward. I would like to pledge to you that I will happily leave my name, my address, my phone number with all the people present tonight. I have met with the developer of the adjacent residential property, the developer is in a rather unusual position that he - I think it's true to say he is the president of the homeowners association and the developer and seller of lots in the projects, so it's a little bit unusual. I think it's more difficult for him to actually really relay what the residents would like to see in this development. It's just more difficult, but I would happily give my name, address and phone number. I'll come out and meet with any of these people or any of the other people in the subdivision at any time. I'm available for questions for them, and as we go forward. Thank you. Borup: Just one last question, Mr. Chairman, and that was I think one of the concerns we have is not having ACHD's report. You said you've discussed it MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 60 with them. You're pretty confident on the direction they're going. Durkin: Well, they have a hearing requirement. They have a tech review meeting on the 24th. The access point on Eagle Road is a licensed access point. That's a defined exact spot. So we're not asking for any more on Eagle Road than we already have a license in hand for because of the state highway, they have license access versus the other ones. I can tell you that what we're asking for on Eagle Road -excuse me on Fairview is well within the guidelines set out by Ada County. Borup: Are you talking the light or access points? Durkin: The light, the number of access points, the spacing on the access point is well within their guidelines. We've shown this to them in a tech review meeting. They were pleased with the plan and they set up a formal rr~eting for the 24th, so I can represent to you we've had no concerns from ACRD. The time we met with them they did not have the traffic study. The traffic study gives no - there's not anything in here that would give cause for concern that the project can't be handled with the road network so I'm pretty confident of that. Again I'd like to ask you that as far as the ACRD approvals, you make that part of your process. I'm not trying to dodge that. Whatever conditions they attach, I'm happy to live with. Borup: Were you aware I think the city just received this today, essentially saying they haven't had time enough time they felt to review the project. Durkin: I wasn't aware of that Borup: And that's all it said. It was short and to the point Durkin: We have met with their complete staff on two occasions, one in a formal off the record formal tech review meeting. In other words, it wasn't advertised, it wasn't published, but we went in and showed them what we were doing. It's a workshop session that ACHD has. We met with them in that format with these exact plans. They ripped them up, we went over everything measured and talked and they were real encouraging that it was well within the -- (End of Tape) Durkin: ... I could see from my experience of-the there isn't a traffic concern for this project. De Weerd: Will your next meeting with them be public? Durkin: I'm not sure how they do the tech review. They have a tech review meeting-their tech review meetings are on Friday mornings. It is scheduled for the 24th on Friday morning. As a result of that meeting, they have a staff report that is developed from the tech review that goes to the commissioners for their MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 61 public hearing and that will be public and that is an unscheduled date. I don't know when that will be; it will certainly be before we can continue with any permits or approvals with the City of Meridian. It's arequirement-it's a county requirement that before we can put a driveway cut we have to have a public hearing, so. MacCoy: Anything else? Mr. Borup? Borup: Not to Mr. Durkin. MacCoy: Okay. Mr. Durkin, do you have anything else you want to add. Durkin: No. MacCoy: Okay, Thank you for your comments Borup: Well, I just would like to have some discussion among the commissioners before we close the public hearing. MacCoy: One moment, okay we have a public open house still here forum. Anybody have any additional comments they thought about since we gone through this much or make a statement? Rogers: Is there anything that-can I just ask the commission and Mr. Durkin, is there gonna--could we find-is there any information that we could get our hands on to tell us what is the better buffer, either the wall or the landscaping. Is there anything out there, because 1 haven't found a lot of books in the library about that sort of thing. It's just not something that the general person would know where to look for. De Weerd: Dces Mr. Freckleton have any comment on that? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner De Weerd, I don't. To be quite honest with you the masonry wall was my suggestion. It looked like Mr. Durkin did have some response to her question. Durkin: And there is information on that. I've done some research on freeway noise and residential. Rogers: Well, where is it? Freckleton: I might say commissioners, the ADA Planning Association in downtown Boise, on Idaho Street. They have a library that has planning information in it. KEN SANSOUCIE, 3526 E LAWRENCE, MERIDIAN, 83642. WAS SWORN IN MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • J[JLY 14, 1998 PAGE 62 BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Sansoucie: My question refers to snow removal. I would like to know what are appropriate hours for snow removal. I know people in the industry; they remove snow for the businesses that they contract to whenever it snows and if that happens to be 2 o'clock in the morning, then that is when it is. I would like to be comfortable in that that's not going to apply in this situation. Just a general comment, this shopping center is a profit center for Mr. Durkin and I can appreciate that, but just south and east of the Shopko is my sanctuary from the world. That's why this is emotional for a lot of us. I want that disturbed as little as possible, regardless of public records. That is all I have to say. If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer. MacCoy: Are there any questions commissioners? None, okay. Anyone else, some thoughts here. Anderson: I just had a couple of questions for you. Where exactly would the trucks~ioe you have planned, where exactly will they be entering and exiting? Are they going to be on this-are they going to be coming in through here? Borup: Mr. Anderson, you may want to direct that to the Chairman and then he can ask the applicant that. Anderson: 1 was just wondering where the trucks will be entering and exiting into the mall area. If it was-if they were going to be doing it or if the main traffic was going to be through the areas that are currently developed for our subdivision- or not. Right now it looks as if that is where most of the traffic will be entering and exiting, at least to my view. MacCoy: Okay we will take other people and then we will ask him back up here to answer your question. Sansoucie: I also wanted to mention there was a development that has these islands of tress in Boise. To me it is quite attractive, it's right next to the original Albertson's, I think it's like State and 16th, to me that's a very attractive use of trees and islands. I don't see why they couldn't use something like that idea to fit here. It would be quite appropriate, to me at least. That's about it, except I was going to mention the traffic study that was done; did he say June 22 or... I was just, that again was still before the completion of this Eagle widening that they have. Ever since in the last two weeks it has been quite a difference in the traffic, I have noticed just getting in and out of our subdivision so it might be wise to possibly even do another study once the Eagle Road widening has been completed, just to get a more accurate view of the traffic. MacCoy: Brings up a good point. Anyone else have something to say? MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • J[TLY 14, 1998 PAGE 63 Martin: Here again, the traffic. I can sit here and filibuster all night, but honestly, the traffic. Currently right now, honestly, at about 5 o'clock-ish-yeah three minutes or less-but Mr. Durkin got longer than three minutes, trust me. Around 5 o'clock-ish your major traffic hour times, no kidding, the traffic comes back to about here, currently right now, with out the mall there, right, our subdivision main entrance that I always come out of and exit, 90% of the time is right here. You add a mall with people coming in, it's going to be a zoo. Alight back here is not going help. There going to have this extra lane that-ale-acceleration lane, that people can come in. We will never be able to leave our subdivision. You know? It will be a major fight to get in and out. All I'm saying is, does Meridian truly need something this huge? Do we need it? You know? I get the feeling from looking at the commissioners and stuff, like over here these two, it's a done deal in their mind. It makes me wonder why we the citizens even came. You know, it's like-and especially for Mr. Borup, buddy you didn't do your homework and you're screwed, that's the honest feeling I get from Mr. Borup with his questions about, didn't you notice the signs, didn't you do all this, and all I'm saying is be considerate of the people that live here. That's all we are asking. Be considerate. All he is out for is money, and here again, that's the American way. Like the one gentleman brought us, that is our sanctuary, that's where we go to get away and no our sanctuary has become the hub of Meridian. Where everybody and their flea bitten dog is going to be. You can guarantee you that at night trucks will be idling. No body wants to wake up at 7:30 in the morning and here a truck backing up beep, beep, beep, beep, beep. Any questions? De Weerd: Yes, I have a comment for you Mr. Martin. We have a certain set of guidelines that we can only respond to your testimony is being heard and hopefully the developer of the project is going to be working with you. We have a specific set of guidelines that we can only adhere to. 1 stood up exactly where you are, I know the emotion that you are feeling, because I felt the same. What I didn't know is-the only, the limits that we up here can make decisions on. I understand how your quality of life get effected. I have an empty field behind my house. Fortunately, or unfortunately, it's residential. So I will be looking at more who my backyard neighbors are going to be. Sometimes that can be even worse. This was here before that subdivision. We're going to be making a decision based on something that was already zoned, that was already determined before you moved in. I'm really sorry that you did not know that. I didn't know it either. I saw the signs, I knew a shopping mall, 1 thought it was a strip mall, you know, I had no idea what it was. The only thing we can do is try and make decisions that will help ease it for you. Mr. Borup, or Commissioner Borup, has made some good points along the way we can only deal with the things that are set before us and the decisions that have already been made and the plan for the city. We want to make it as nicely planned as we can, but we have our limits too. Because those property owners have their rights as well. Martin: So, can I ask the question? The commission, do you guys have the power or no, to say he can do it or not? You guys have the power, right. MERIDIAN PLANNR~G ARD ZOAIING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 64 Regardless that it's his land, right? No. Prior: Theses folks may make, may I Mr. Chairman? MacCoy: Yeah, go ahead. I was going to do it, but you go ahead. Prior: Merely sir, this is going to be a recommendation to the City Council, one way or the other. What they do have the authority to do is tell this developer, after hearing all of this testimony and I assume directing me to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The recommendation can be for a denial of this project or can be for an approval of this project, but it is merely a recommendation that is sent on to the City Council sir. Once again, you will be given another opportunity when this project goes on to the City Council to submit further testimony to that group of folks, then offer testimony at that hearing as well. So, yes, this commission can have a recommendation to deny this project or approve the project, depending on how they feel about it. It is merely a recommendation to the City Council and our City Council has the final recommendation. Borup: I might add also that the recommendations that come from here need to be in compliance with the city ordinances, the comprehensive plan and in this case apre-conditional use that was granted. So, the decision we make need to be in line with those rules and regulations and city ordinances. The flexibility, one of the reasons we are looking for testimony from all of you, because there are some areas where we can influence. The commissioner already mentioned the rights of both property owners, I don't think you would be happy if we came and said you can't plant a tree in your backyard or put up a swing set or whatever else you want to do. Those are rights you had when buying that property, these people bought this property with existing zoning and existing usage, and they assumed they would be able to develop it in line with what the zoning when they bought it. Now, the area that there is some flexibility is what they put on it and how they put on it. I for one feel that there's some obligation on proper buffering and things like that. So, that is one of the reasons we are looking for the testimony and input, as far as... Smith: If we outright turned it down our attorney can address that but there has to be some strong legal bases for us to do that. The City Council has a little more flexibility there, they can change the ordinance. They can make a new one. We can not do that. Martin: The last question I had was-can-apparently you commissioners can't, but can the City Council determine how big this will be, or no? Store wises and stuff like that. Do they have that power. Borup: I don't know if I can answer, other than the size of the property normally determines that. The building can be so much percentage, the parking so much MERIDIAN PLANNING ARD ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 65 percentage, in this case, the landscaping area needs to be so much for percentage. So those are what will limit you as to size and what can be done, the overall acreage of the project. MacCoy: Mr. Martin, will you... Smith: I'm not done. MacCoy: Go ahead Commissioner Smith Smith: I think I better calm down a minute. I don't appreciate being told because of my body language or the particular questions that I have asked, being accused of having some project being presented in front of this commission as being a done deal. In fact, I have been accused of projects being done deals, in other words, out the door, I'm not going to approve them before the person up here presenting not the other way around. I think any one of my fellow commissioners will tell you, I am as critical or more so of the applicants that come up here in front of this commission. I'm a licensed architect and I do this kind of thing for a living everyday, so I know what to look for in a project and I know what to look for in planning and ask for. Quite frankly, I resent the fact that you make us out to be the bad guys up here, because we are going to approve a project that has been zoned and approved five, six years ago because your realtors told you whatever they had to tell you to Gose the deal. I'm not the bad guy, I listen to this month after month, people coming up, testifying against a project going on a piece of property adjacent to them because their realtor told them it was going to be office building. We just went through this with Eagle Partners, doing a Chevron across from St. Lukes. Same stories, I hear it month after month after month. You peoples issues isn't with this commission approving or disapproving this project, your issue is with your realtors lying to you. That's where it is. That is all I'm going to say about that. Martin: Just my rebuttal back to you is. You answered my question, you guys are going to approve it. That's what I needed to know. Smith: Nobody has-we haven't voted on this. I have no idea how Mr. Borup is going to vote. I have no idea how commissioner De Weerd is going to vote. I don't even know what I'm going to do yet. I think this parcel of land has been planned for retail development, I've know about it for three, four years. This is in complete compliance with what was approved there in 1991. The thing that boggles my mind is how we can get a residential development in the middle of an industrial area. To me that is bad planning and zoning. Martin: I agree, but you guys have... Smith: But, this didn't happen and evolve around a residential area, this residential area was plunked in the middle of industrial. In fact, your home is MERIDIAN PLANNING ARD ZONIDIG COMMISSION • J[JLY 14, 1998 PAGE 66 zoned light industrial. The property that your home sits on is zoned light industrial. Did you know that? Martin: I did not. Smith: Well, I was shocked when the first in home day care came through in your sub division and it was zoned light industrial. What are we doing with residential in light industrial for. Martin: Honestly, that's what I thought somebody brought up is, yes that's been zoned that way, but now we possibly have a chance to maybe hold up and reconsider this, right? Because like you said you have commercial, right smack dab with the residential in the center of it. That is lousy planning and that's all I'm saying. You know. Smith: Fairview and Eagle are going to grow commercially. That's the nature of the streets, the development is going to go that way. It's conducive to the area. Martin: Yeah, but what about across the street where the feed lots at, there's no homes over there. See what I'm getting at. But they put it by the homes. The other lots just feed lot, and I know they don't own the land, hey- Smith: What we do up here is listen to your concerns and what the issues you have with the development. We try to work something out that is fair to the developer, it's fair to the home owners. Sure this is adversely going to effect your neighborhood, I know it is. Would you rather see this come in piece meal developed. Personally, this has access from one side of the site all the way to the other one. This isn't these little strip centers like you see down Fairview, one right after the other, right after the other. Granted maybe the scope of it may be, you know, huge, it's a big project, it's huge. I didn't really grasp it, right away myself. It is a humongous development and there is going to be development here, unless you want to buy the land... Martin: I don't have a couple of billion left hanging around. Smith: I don't either, but... (Inaudible) Smith: I sympathize with you and I'm really sorry, but-we just hear the same thing every month, with the same reasons coming up. I don't know what to say, but if I was going to get upset about it, I know who I'd be getting upset with. It wouldn't be the developer. Martin: Well, it's not his fault. It's not his fault. Hey, thanks. MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 67 MacCoy: Before you leave, I would like you-have you know, there are people here in this room that are your neighbors and friends that this is-as you know, we're a new commission as of this past year. We were not here in 1991. There is quite a bit of difference, I just want you to understand that all the people up here are qualified these days. We didn't have that back in 1991, so things were done which we have no control over, but we are professional people, we deal day in and day out with the same things we have been talking about tonight. This is our lifestyle and we've been around for a long number of years. Commissioner Smith is right, we hear this quite a bit and what we do, this for your own information, we are very critical of ourselves, we try to balance out what the commercial side is for our city and what the people need. That's where we think we sit. We are in the balance, we have a hard time with this, we go home and think about this, we worry about this, you may not think so, but we do. We hear about you and everybody else here. Igo home and I can picture you and I can picture other people here many weeks away and what you had to say. These people do that, they take this very personally and to the heart. This is going to be a hard decision for us. We want to do the most we can for you within the law and give you what you have because you have already bought the home. You're not going to pick up and leave like you would a tent. So we want to be as best we can in the decisions we make so that you people can come off with the best deal we can make for you. So we are going to stand on the buffer zone for you. We appreciate hearing how you view this. You give us ideas that we can work with and so on. So, don't feel this was in vain and what you heard from our council down below here on the other end of this table, do be sure to go and keep track of this thing and at that time you can have your say again. I stress for you to do the same thing you did for us tonight. You have a good chance of doing what you want to do. We will do what we can for you before that happens. Thank you very much. Martin: Thank you. De Weerd: You are certainly invited to also-they will updating our comprehensive plan if you want to put some input on where things should be and where they shouldn't be. We'd invite you to attend. Because that is what we need, we need citizens input. Fortunately, or unfortunately if you get too involved you might be sitting up here too. MacCoy: She does raise a real good point, there is a visionary plan and program that is now working within our city for the year 2000, 2010,2015 and the one beyond and that comes from just you people coming out to those meetings. What hurts us is the fact we work on these commissions and we ask the public to tell us what they want and we get one, two, three people period. Then you expect us to have the real brain power to design everything and you're going to like it. You ought to come out to these meetings. They are going on and advertised in the newspaper. We have done everything we can do to get people to come out and it's difficult. It's very disappointing to us when we don't hear MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 68 from you people. Okay, we need to move on to another subject. At this time, is there-oh by the way, excuse me, I'm glad you raised your hand. Come back and make your comments, because we have some questions. Durkin: I'm going to respond to some questions that were directed to you, for me. Is that okay. I encourage anyone to contact the land group, it is a local company, we have hired them to make recommendations to us for landscaping, berming, widening the area. They are on the application and anyone is welcome to call them, they do have books in the library on proper buffering. My response to the snow removal question, we can control the hours of sweeping, we are obligated under state--city ordinance to keep the parking lots safe at all times. So when it snows, we have to plow. If it snows at two in the morning, we plow at two in the morning, if it snows at two in the afternoon, we plow at two in the after noon. Snow removal can be a 24 hour operation, sweeping isn't. As far as the truck entries, they will enter around the perimeter of the building, from a variety of- there will be two way truck traffic in the back. We have different docks facing different ways, so that-our plan is to have the trucks go either directions, but they will go around the buildings around the back of the store and out-I can't perceive the circumstances that there would be traffic through the sub division. For trucks, I don't know if it's signed prohibiting trucks or not. The trucks service will be going out on Highway 55 or Fairview, I would imagine. The traffic study question, does it take into consideration Eagle Road, it does. This man is an Engineer and Scientist that prepared the study and they take into consideration, not only the completion of Eagle Road, but the completion of other road projects in the coming years and how they will effect this property or this traffic in this area. Real quick reference to Albertson's Market Place, I just want you to know that Albertson's Market Place is divided in half. If you are facing north the Albertson's store is owned by Albertson's the shopping center to the left is owned by others. The trees in front of the Albertson's store are lovely. It's their flagship store #101 and I have no idea how they do it, but they are lovely. The trees and landscaping in front of the shopping center are not. That is a very good example, so I frankly don't know how Albertson's does it. It's a good example looking to the left or the west side of that development. De Weerd: I'll tell you what they are the most popular parking spots too. Durkin: Under the trees, I bet. That's just my quick answer to the questions that were directed to me, I think. I continue to be available for questions. MacCoy: Okay, thank you very much. With that... MARGUERITE BEAR, 3576 E PRESIDENTIAL, MERIDIAN, ID 83642, WAS SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY. Bear: I just wanted to know how you determine who you notified for this hearing. I live in this neighborhood, I don't live on the perimeter, thank goodness, but I do MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 69 live in the neighborhood, it effects me. The traffic particularly and the noise are going to effect me. I can hear the Meridian Speedway from my house, so I know the noise is going to effect me. We weren't notified of this hearing, except someone called us about it. I was wondering when this comes up to City Council, are they going to notify our whole neighborhood or just select a few to be notified. MacCoy: Council, do you want to make a statement? Berg: According to state statute we notify people within 300 feet of the adjacent land. Now, we do notice it in the Valley News, which is our city paper, which according to state statute is what the paper we advertise in. We hope with Homeowners Associations and groups, that they would get together and notify other people. It's just like day cares are obligated to notify within a certain perimeter of the day cares that go in or child care or home care. We are just governed by that thing. Where we put the limits if we start notifying people, I don't know we could be sending out hundreds of notices to certain people, but we are obligated by state statute. That's what we do. Bear: But this is in a closed area that's effected our egress and ingress. Berg: I understand what you are saying and it's not any different than any other type of development, but hopefully with Homeowners Association and friends and neighbors, in your group you can notify people. Bear: Well, the problem is the development is not complete yet so our Homeowners Association is still in the hands of the developer. I don't have a complete list of names and address of people to go to. My limited knowledge of my neighbors is jus my immediate neighbors, I don't know anybody who lives on the other streets and they don't know me. So, it's hard to get the word out, there have probably been four times as many people here if we had been notified, is what I'm getting at. It effects us all. Berg: Things that are built on the other side of town effects me. I don't argue that it doesn't impact you one way or another. Developments can impact schools, my son goes to this school, there is a lot of different things. What I guess I'm saying is that you have to adhere to you neighbors, read the Valley News, you can come and pick up an agenda for Planning and Zoning or City Council meetings, we have them at City Hall. Call down here, ask about particular projects. Bear: Is that 300 feet still pertain to when the City Council has their hearing Berg: Yes, that is according to state statute. Bear: So, we won't be notified for that either. MERIDIAN PLANNING ARD ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 70 Berg: If you are not... Bear: We don't get the Valley News, so there you go. De Weerd: But you could call the city and ask when it's going to be scheduled and... Bear: Now we know that it is coming up De Weerd: City Council meets the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of every month, so you could call before this next Tuesday or more realistic probably the 3rd Tuesday of August and see if it is on the agenda. That's probably your best bet. Unless you can get one of these that were noticed to give them you phone number and say please let me know. Bear: Okay, thank you MacCoy: One other thing too, in an active neighborhood, I lived in one that we didn't have a Homeowners Association, so we felt that we needed to know what was going on in our community and it wasn't 300 feet it was miles away. We have a commission of a number of people neighbor wise, that as soon as we find out from the city they go out and put handout flyers and also knock on doors. Last time we had to come together, we had over hundreds to show up just because it was door to door, neighbor to neighbor, because we thought it would concern us, which it did or at the time we though it did. De Weerd: It is posted on the property as well. MacCoy: Yes, it has to be posted on the property, these signs. So you can just look as you go around. Bear: Thank you. MacCoy: Anybody else before we close this? Okay I'm going to... Borup: Mr. Chairman, before you close the public hearing, I would like to have a little bit of discussion maybe among the commissioners. MacCoy: Alright, go ahead. Borup: 1 think maybe it's appropriate for us to discuss some concerns or comments or whatever. For one thing I think our attorney would like to have that for his findings. From what I can gather, other than the project not going in, the biggest concerns seem to be traffic, buffering and what traffic and noise. Durkin: Traffic and noise, I agree MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZONING COMMISSION • J[JLY 14, 1998 PAGE 71 Borup: Before maybe get into that, I had a question on the parking, the volume of that area and the view. I guess, Commissioner Smith you had mentioned that several times and the question I have is from what angle and what direction is the concern. Looking at it from the birds eye view there is a lot of asphalt there. No doubt. I'm trying to picture it, the view, from Eagle Road and we're looking through two walls of trees. From Eagle and Fairview there are the trees all along the perimeter plus the trees on the perimeter of the parking. Especially once those are matured, so the view from the corridors from Eagle and Fairview-to me it looks like many of you will be seeing a forest. Looking from the stores and driving around the parking lot, it's a sea of asphalt and cars. I'm not sure which one is the biggest concern, probably both. Smith: Probably both. Borup: From what perspective were you looking at it from. From looking at the outside of the project or from... Smith: Outside the project. Borup: Do you have a concern from outside the project. Smith: Yeah, I do. Borup: As far as seeing nothing but asphalt. Smith: For some time, before this landscaping matures and it's going to be years. Borup: I agree. You can't go in with mature landscaping. Smith: I guess the screening from the street will, it will get less and less obtrusive over time, but I think it's still going to be there and I think you still are going to-there is a lot of deciduous trees that-well you've got deciduous tress in the parking lot, you're going to see it anyway during the winter, but I guess I just would like to see the scale of these lots get broken up with some more landscaping. Borup: That`s in line with the PUD, I believe. The staff has already stated the percentage that the percentage isn't there. As far as the perimeter, you've got a solid wall of trees. You can't put anymore in. I don't remember-well, for one thing as it has been stated, we haven't seen a project of this size, but even some of the smaller ones, I don't remember any with this many trees around the perimeter this close together. The size of the project dictates that. To me there seems to be a pretty nice visual buffering from the two major streets. Smith: I wish I had my scale with me. Do you have an engineer scale? MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 72 Borup: The applicant say that 12 feet on the trees, so is that what you wanted to check, to see if that's- Smith: Yeah, some of them are-I just wanted to see what size they were drawn at. Sometimes, you can draw them out of scale a little bit. I'm not saying that they are I just would like to know what- Borup: No, I don't believe that they are 12 feet. Smith: It says 1:100. Borup: Well, I'm just looking at the parking spacing and they're, I'm assuming they're nine feet or ten. Smith: Nine wide and probably 18-20 feet- Borup: Nine is a minimum, looking at some of those trees along the perimeter they're three parking spaces between them. That is more than 12, maybe there needs to be-and maybe that is part of why-they are designed for 12 feet and the trees aren't on there, maybe that's why, because they have spread them out more than that. Smith: Well, if you look at the depth of that berm too, and on the plan the trees are all pretty much in line and they are not really staggered in and out. That's where you start to get some blockage of your visual through that. Borup: My bigger concern I think is the buffering from the residential. That is why 1 thought maybe-we're looking at ten feet, ten feet right now. I think Mr. Durkin had mentioned... some mention of a 20 foot (Inaudible) with some staggered trees, which would definitely have a lot more appeal to me. I think that is probably the biggest-from what I have gathered, the greater concem from homeowners from homeowners is the buffering from-besides the traffi~is the buffering against their neighborhoods. I don't know if we need more information from a noise engineer, but a few years ago I looked in on some freeway buffering and the trees had a, from what I remember, had a lot higher effect than a fencing did. Smith: Well, I'm not measuring every tree. Most of these are drawn about 25 feet apart, on the drawing and, you know, granted this is a 1:100 scale and it's difficult to show this kind of thing accurately at this scale. That is what they scale out at. Borup: Actually that is probably right for a shade tree Smith: Yeah, I don't know what the right (Inaudible)... MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • JiJLY 14, 1998 PAGE 73 Borup: You don't want them growing into each other. Smith: Well, I have some Maples that are that far apart and they are growing into each other, but it has been 20 years. Borup: Given the fact that this-you know what is identified as gateways to the city. That's one of the reasons I would like to see a nicer wider landscape area along the street, also have the parking lot broke up a little bit. I'm very concerned about the screening with the residential along the back and proximity of some of the buildings on the west side of the along Eagle seem to be fairly close there. Smith: Close to the buildings... Borup: Yes, Eagle is a lot closer than the ones on Fairview. Maybe that is what Mr. Durkin might have been referring to is a variable buffering along there. I didn't ask him that question, but I was assuming he would... Smith: Can I borrow your scale again? Borup: ...some deeper buffering where areas may be a little bit noisier and a little less buffering on some of the stores where that wouldn't be a factor. That is going to take a lot of coordination to maybe work on that, guess that is one of the reasons we have a staff, huh? Smith: The building 2F is around 35 feet off the property. Borup: What was 35? Smith: 2F. Same thing with 1A. Those are the two closest ones. Then on the north the 4C is 50 feet. There are some-the distance between the trees varies but there is some in the back here that are center to center, 20 feet. The grocery store, oh yeah, that's got a little pop up that's 35 feet-maybe a little over 35 feet, little bit more. It's hard to tell at this scale what it is exactly. Borup: Well then, what are we looking at to be the best way to address the buffering? Twenty foot definitely seems like a better situation than ten feet. Smith: I would like to see the neighbors be able to get involved, there seemed to be a couple of them that had an interest expressed in finding out about noise barriers and what the different ones were. De Weerd: Well, the applicant had mentioned that if we wanted to make it a condition, that he would work with staff and the homeowners. I feel comfortable with that, is that a logical or rea-istic conviction to place on that Bruce? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner De Weerd, I think it probably is MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 74 reasonable. We would probably want to consult with people who had a better understanding of the noise issue. If we need to call in certain people that have more expertise in this issue then that would probably be appropriate. I think it would be a very good idea to involve the residents. De Weerd: Can we do that through Mr. Yorgenson or since you're the Homeowners president. Yorgenson: Whether we call it a national formal association meeting the convenience of the subdivision does allow for special meetings, which the association would handle notifying every homeowner in the subdivision, inviting them to attend, we would find a venue be large enough to handle sufficient. Our last homeowners meeting was in the fall of last year and we have a lot of interest. As you can see, there is a lot of concerned citizens here. So percentage wise, back at the last homeowners meeting was 40%, I would dare say we would have close to 90% attendance at this meeting. Currently, there is about 150 homes built and residing in the subdivision. As far as handling the timing of schedule, we could do that, whatever you ask we-the association, representing the homeowners also, I know they would like to do that and we can accommodate that. De Weerd: Bruce would staff be able to, and Mr. Durkin, meet with the Homeowners Association perhaps on the buffer issue, if this were made a condition. MacCoy: Would you like to step up and answer that in the mike? Freckleton: I don't know what is appropriate here, sir. De Weerd: I don't even know if I can ask these questions. I've been told not to whisper... Freckleton: Could you ask again. De Weerd: Is it a possibility if we make this a condition to work with staff and the Homeowners Association on the buffer issue, the 50 foot buffer maximum, I mean 20. Oops! 1 showed my true colors. Durkin: As my suggestion earlier, if there was a-I encourage you to come up with a motion that gives flexibility to the staff after taking further input from the neighbors. If there was a motion saying the landscape buffer shall not be not less than 20 feet, unless it is approved by staff as a result of the neighbors input and the developers input. I think that gives the staff the full authority, obligates me to do a minimum of 20 feet. 1 personally feel there is some variations and we can have some further discussions in a more appropriate environment. MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 75 De Weerd: Perhaps you can bring facts for the homeowners to feel more comfortable too. Borup: I have a question for Mr. Durkin while he is up here. He made a reference earlier providing trees to some of the homeowners bordering the property. I guess that had a lot of interest to me, but I don't know to what extent, I mean you've got- Durkin: I'll commit right now. Borup: You are probably aware of how many lots you have along there and... The other problem we may have is, I don't know if we can require off site improvements or buffering or anything to that extent. To accomplish that, to me it could be a way for neighbors to gain some buffering and also beautify their yard at the same time. (Inaudible) Durkin: The plan that we submitted has 979 3-inch caliber trees, that's 317 trees shy of the ordinance according to the engineer and according to my interpretation of the ordinance. I don't think there is any dispute that we are short of the ordinance. With the amount of modifications that we are talking about tonight I suspect we will have more trees in this project so I think that 317 number will shrink. I offer tonight, I don't know how... (END OF TAPE) Durkin: ...the project, I commit to on record tonight, but we will provide that number of trees either for this project or the adjacent property owners. De Weerd: You know, it might be appropriate when you are working with the homeowners, that you make that offer I'm sure there will be homeowners that would take you up on that, so they do indeed have that buffer. I guess in interest of moving this along, it looks like it is getting kind of late. I don't know. I'm the newest member on this commission, so bear with me. I think that I would prefer to see this continued until our next meeting and in the intern maybe staff and Mr. Durkin can meet with the homeowners to clear up the buffering issue and that way we will have the ACRD report by then and we can take action at our next meeting. I know that's not what you wanted to hear but I think the homeowners will feel better about it and being able to know exactly what that buffer is going to be. I know personally, I feel better after seeing the ACRD report. Smith: Is that a motion? De Weerd: If that sounded like one I would make it. Smith: Second. I think we need to carry it to a date certain. MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 76 De Weerd: I do move that we, oh Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, we did have a lot of comments from staff as Mr. Durkin mentioned. These comments were from myself and also from our Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shan Stiles. Shari is not here this evening. One thing I'd, Mr. Durkin did have some objections to some of the items, one thing I think might be helpful for staff as well as for yourself is if we could get him to submit a written response to just reiterate some of his objections. De Weerd: Could we get that off of the minutes? Freckleton: Can we have that public record. Prior: I'm sorry, I was dozing off. Freckleton: If we have the applicant submit just a written response basically to staff comments, just reiterating what he-the objections. Prior: To continue this public hearing, if that is your intention, we can submit further evidence at the next meeting. If it is your intention to close the public hearing then the record is set and it is closed. It is your call. (Inaudible) MacCoy: We haven't closed it yet. Prior: But that motion hasn't been acted on. MacCoy: No. Prior: That is basically where it stands Bruce. If they want to continue this public hearing the gentleman can submit comments and-to you and we can have those entered as part of the public record and considered in the conditional use permit. If you are going to close this public hearing then we will not accept any further comments and this conditional use permit will be judged on what has been stated on the record as of today, sir. MacCoy: Not yet, we haven't closed it yet. De Weerd: We just ended with so we could talk before it was closed and... Borup: He was trying to close it. De Weerd: He was trying, but we didn't let him. MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 77 MacCoy: Okay, back to the commissioners now, what is your desire. De Weerd: Well, I don't know are you done Bruce or... Freckleton: Yes, thank you. De Weerd: Okay, we can get his responses from the minutes or do you need an official response to your items? Freckleton: I think an item by item would be nice. Seems like we kind of glazed over a few of the items. There were some that were-from our perspective we figured that we were going to get some... De Weerd: Perhaps, if we continue this and you and Mr. Durkin and the homeowners get together or, and/or you and Mr. Durkin get together perhaps those are issues that you can address before the next meeting. Is that feasible? Freckleton: I guess it depends on what you plan on doing tonight. If you continue this.., De Weerd: It is probably my intention, personally I can say for me, I would like to see this continued so these issues can be worked out and we can see ACHD's report before we ask the assistant city attorney to drawn up findings. Smith: Make a motion, I'll second it. Freckleton: I'll put it this way then, if it is your desire and it is your motion to continue this, I would like to have that entered into record, the written response. Borup: That's consistent with other projects we've... MacCoy: Is it required? We always said that it has to be... Freckleton: We typically do this with a plat, but there is quite a few issues on this one that seem to be going back and forth on. MacCoy: I think it's required. Borup: I think he addressed it and it's in the minutes. He went through number by number and I think addressed-and we are probably down to a handful that there was different opinions on. MacCoy: It is asked for written return on that comment sheet. That's what we use it for. Freckleton: It was not a specific requirement of the-in this staff report, Mr. MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZONIDIG COMMISSION • JULY t4, 1998 PAGE 78 Chairman, I'm just saying that it would be nice to have that if possible. Borup: 1 might just... De Weerd: Well, I don't want to require it. Again, that is my personal opinion. I think that you can get it off the minutes and you have some time to work with these peoples before our next public hearing and also the homeowners. I would like to just make my motion and move on. I would like to continue this public hearing for the conditional use permit until our August 11th meeting. MacCoy: Okay, will you hold it one moment here, we had a motion I thought and... De Weerd: I didn't officially make it. I was just making a... MacCoy: Well, commissioner Smith seconded it. Smith: That was unofficially though. MacCoy: Okay, thank you. Alright, start again now. Who is going to make the motion? De Weerd: I will just restate whatever I have been saying, I'd like to continue this public hearing for the conditional use permit for a regional shopping center by Dakota Company Inc. until our next Planning and Zoning meeting which is August 11. Smith: Second. MacCoy: Any discussion? De Weerd: Can I make maybe a condition on my motion. MacCoy: It has to be seconded if you do. Smith: You want to revise your motion? De Weerd: I would like to revise that. MacCoy: Alright. De Weerd: Do you want to withdraw your second. So I can revise my motion. Well, I would just like to make it a condition that Mr. Durkin, staff and the homeowners get together before August 11th to discuss the buffering. Smith: And... MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZONING COMMISSION • JiJLY 14, 1998 PAGE 79 De Weerd: And that we have ACHD's study. Smith: And the other comments too, staff comments. De Weerd: And any staff comments that the developer did not agree with. Borup: Do we need a second on that? Smith: Second. Borup: And that was what I was going to add for -probably the only pertinent comments from the applicant would be those that he has some differing on. I think that's what Bruce wanted anyway. All the others have agreed with that really don't need to go through and answer those. I think that probably would help. Again is noise is one thing. I was just thinking back, I sat through a couple of hours last fall with Home Depot and when they were doing their conditional use permit on a noise issue. Two issues from the neighbors there and they had a concrete wall on the majority of the property. But the only two noise complaints that I can remember from that was forklifts with the back up bell ringing, that was bothering people, and then the trucks idling all night. Other than deliveries, they didn't seem to be a problem with the delivery trucks. You know a lot of the other - any of the other traffic. But just the forklift that had a back up -which was a OSHA law. They didn't have any choice on that and apparently they did have some trucks coming in that were idling throughout the night, so they weren't unloading until the next morning. I think some of those things have been addressed. The other thing I might point out to the commissioners is maybe it would be good for all of us to go through and read the conditional use permit that was issued in '91. There are a couple of things that probably are pertinent. One that was mentioned is the design review and the other future neighboring uses is also mentioned. I think that's two things we are concerned on. MacCoy: Any other discussion? De Weerd: Now I feel very comfortable we are continuing this. MacCoy: Okay. Prior: Mr. Chairman, I'm having a difficult time. I don't believe Commissioner De Weerd you can make a condition of the gentleman pursuant to a public hearing requiring him to meet with every one of the homeowners. I think you can request that he meet with the homeowners and we continue this public hearing and you can request they do these things. I don't think you can require that gentleman to do those things. You can ask him to do it. And if he doesn't do it, it doesn't meet to your satisfaction, you can vote to not approve - MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZONING COMMISSION J[JLY 14, 1998 PAGE 80 De Weerd: Oh, shit, do I need to restate this again? Prior: I would just ask that you make a motion to continue the public hearing. And then maybe ask the applicant to possibly meet with the homeowners association and some of the home owners and request that he possibly meet with them and submit the further testimony at the next public hearing. De Weerd: Okay, I would like to restate my motion again. Okay, I'll withdraw it first. Smith: I withdraw that second De Weerd: I would like to continue this public hearing for the request for conditional use permit for a regional shopping center by Dakota Company, Inc. Smith: Second. De Weerd: I would like to request that Mr. Durkin and staff and the home owners all get together and kind of iron out the buffering. That would be really nice if you could it be August 11th, which 1 continued the meeting until. That wasn't in my motion, but please add it. It's getting really late. I'm sorry. Mr. Yorgason apparently is the contact for the homeowners association, so - (Inaudible) De Weerd: I'm still asking like you told me to. He tells me and then I do it and then it's wrong. Question, I'm ready for it. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes Borup: I might just for general information and I don't know if all the commissioners have this, we are concerned about buffering about neighborhoods and it can be worked out for the best but personally when the neighbors come in with demands and requests that are completely unreasonable and it doesn't carry a lot of weight. I mean we've had some come in and talk about building a 20 foot concrete wall and 200 feet with 900 trees and things like that that aren't reasonable don't really accomplish a lot so I hope that something can be worked out for both people's benefit and if it's something at least from my standpoint that's something that I can think is reasonable for both parties, I'm more inclined to support something like that. De Weerd: And it sure seems the developer is interested in working with you, and offering you extra trees that aren't going to be used in the buffering process that perhaps can help ease the view in your backyard and buffer the sound so .! MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 81 hopefully you can work all this out for the benefit for both of you. ITEM NO. 18: AMENDMENTS TO ZONING AND SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES: MacCoy: Moving on to item 18, just to let you know, if anybody's here for that it's been withdrawn from the thing and we will take a recess for five minutes and we will return to item 12. (FIVE MINUTE RECESS TAKEN) MacCoy: Okay we're going to reconvene now after taking a break. Steiner has come forward and said they'd prefer not doing 12 at this point. Just do 15 and 16 and go that route at this point. So we'll be at item 15 a public hearing. ITEM NO. 15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (48 UNITS ON 8.53 ACRES) -THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT - NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: Prior: Mr. Chairman, just for a clarification Steiner Development, so they don't want to do number 12? MacCoy: No, I didn't say that. I said we'll start at number 12 when we came back. He came up here during the break and said he'd prefer to move it to 15 and 16 since we had people here for this hearing. Prior: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. MacCoy: Now you can come up here, sir. Bradbury: I just thought that maybe these folks might like to get home a little sooner than later as would we all I'm sure. STEVE BRADBURY 877 MAIN STREET, BOISE, WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Bradbury: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. This item originally came to this body in January of this year and was recommended for approval to the city council. At that time it contemplated a total of 46 living units, 37 of them being single family detached 3 two unit townhouses for a total of six more units. And then one three unit townhouse for three more making a total of 36. It reached city council in March and the number of -well, I guess probably very close to the same people who are here this evening I think, appeared before the city council and expressed opposition to the project. These are primarily residents of the Golfview Subdivision and the Cherry Lane Village MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 82 Subdivision and as we understood the concerns that were being expressed at council that night were that the lot sizes adjacent to or near to those two subdivisions were too small and therefore were not harmonious with the existing development. City Council took that testimony under advisement and ask that the plat be revised to enlarge the lots in those areas and Steiner Development agreed and did prepare a revised plat. Proposed that the city council take it up and the city council decided that it should probably come back and we should run it passed you folks first so that you folks could take another look at this. So in fact what has happened is that the plat has been revised from that which you saw earlier and I don't know what the best way to do this so you can see this. (Inaudible) Bradbury: What we did what the developer did - is this thing working? What the developer did is in total - he eliminated a total of living three units so now instead of having 46 livings, there's 43. And the change resulted in 33 single family detached dwellings where before there were 37, and then 10 townhouse units you know two unit townhouse units. So we ended up with a total of a minus three. Among the changes that were made were to move the townhouse units that existed in this vicinity here in what would be I guess the southeast part of the project the southerly part of the project and some of the townhouses that were in this part of the project here again over near Golfview. The first place they used to be over near the Cherry Lane village Subdivision and then some over near Golfview. The townhouses at Cherry Lane Village were taken out all together and replaced with single family detached lots. The townhouses that were next to Golfview were also eliminated except for two which are immediately adjacent to - this isn't a good spot for you guys maybe. Except for the two that are immediately adjacent to the entry way where there's a whole line of townhouses that come along and along Interlachen. So as a result the townhouses are now essentially clustered on the westerly side of the project so that they are away from the existing Golfview development and away from the Cherry Lane Vllage development. So that rearranged the location of some of those structures. The third thing that was done was that the lot sizes were increased in two basically two locations. Along Golfview where there once were six lots, there are now four and those are in minimum of -these lots here will be a minimum of 8,000 square feet and as a matter of fact one of them is all the way up to 9,400 square feet so all of the lots next to Golfview will come out at 8,000 square feet. Actually one of them shows on my map here as being 7,993 feet. Well, we'll fix that and move the line over a foot or whatever it takes to make sure that all of those lots are at 8,000 square feet before the final plat is presented. In addition the lots that are closest to the Cherry Lane Village area were also increased in sizes. Those lots originally ranged between 3,900 square feet to about 6,500 square feet, and most of them along there were originally under 5,000 square feet. Those lots now range from 6,375 up to 9,350, so they're over -one of them is over 9,000 square feet. It must be this one here. And there once were 11 lots, now there's 8, and so the lot sizes have grown and new lots next to Gotfview will come out at MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZONING COMMISSION JULY t4, 1998 PAGE 83 8,000 square feet. Actually one of them shows on my map here as being 7,993 feet. Well, we'll fix that and move the line over a foot or whatever it takes to make sure that all of those lots are at 8,000 square feet before the final plat is presented. In addition the lots that are closest to the Cherry Lane Village area were also increased in sizes. Those lots originally ranged between 3,900 square feet to about 6,500 square feet, and most of them along there were originally under 5,000 square feet. Those lots now range from 6,375 up to 9,350, so they're over -one of them is over 9,000 square feet. It must be this one here. And there once were 11 lots, now there's 8, and so the lot sizes have grown and numbers of lots have decreased. Of course the purpose of that was to attempt to get the density away from the existing development in order to address the concerns that were expressed by the individuals that live in those areas and try to cluster more of the density toward the center of the project and adjacent to this unplatted land to try to deal with the harmonious issue that was raised. The other issue that was I guess still unresolved at the time that you folks saw it is whether or not Interlachen would be required by the highway district to connect through to the road that is the collector road that serves Ashford Greens. And when you saw it at the time, the highway district's official position was that they wanted it connect through. We were in the middle of the process of working with them to explain why we thought it wasn't a good idea. The primary reason was we were concerned it was going to create a lot of cut through traffic and increase the traffic load on Interlachen above that which would be acceptable. And the highway district has since agreed and have abandoned the notion that there should be a connection through, so that issue I believe is now behind us. And I don't know, Bruce, did you get a copy of the highway district's most recent transmittal on that? Let me just give it to you or give it to somebody. Maybe give it to Will. What I've given Will is a copy of the Ada County Highway District's June 3 staff findings which were accepted by the Ada County Highway District on that date. I think it's June 3rd. In any event what they said is that they like the idea of the cul-de-sac. They don't want a connection through. They too are convinced that if it's connected through, there would be too much traffic generated along Interlachen. And that's really all I that I had to present to you. I'd be pleased to respond to any questions that you might have. Smith: Steve, I'm sorry quite frankly I don't really remember what we looked at before. But on this development, you said there was ten townhome lots? Bradbury: Yes. Smith: And I see the two over off Interlachen. Then what is the 25, 30 -- Bradbury: Commissioner, you need to look at lots 20 and 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. Right and then 36, 37 to make a total of ten. Smith: 36 and 37. MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZONING COMMISSION • JiJLY 14, 1998 PAGE 84 Bradbury: Correct. I think there's a note that says that somewhere on there. Smith: Well, I was looking for it and I didn't see it. Unless it's under notes. Bradbury: Yeah, I found it under notes. It's note 13. I hope that you've got a somewhat similar plat to the one I've been pointing to. Smith: Okay, it is note 13. I'm sorry. (Inaudible) MacCoy: What's the date on your map? Smith: This one say November 18, 1997. Borup: Revision there. Smith: I'm sorry June 8, '98. Bradbury: I've got an updated one. The last revision on mine is July 10. You're looking at a map that's got bad numbers on it. Let me show you one more time so you know. Smith: Yeah, (guess - Bradbury: The townhouse lots are here. I don't know what numbers are shown on your map, but these are - De Weerd: 40 and 39. Bradbury: Mine is 37 and 38, but I'm not going to -it's these two lots that are the most southerly. And then it's the lots on the western edge starting with the corner. I'm sorry, you've got to go one lot in. 19 on your map and 20, and then 21 on your map, 22, 23, 24. What's your number across the street? Smith: 25. Bradbury: Okay mine shows 26 and 27, so - Smith: 25 and 30 on here. Bradbury: That's what happened. We jumped somehow. De Weerd: And three and four? Smith: No. Bradbury: No. MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZONING COMMISSION • JULY l4, 1998 PAGE 85 MacCoy: Do we have a copy of that map any place? Can you give us one of those? Bradbury: We'll give them to you. I think what happened is we caught the bad numbers and reprinted it. Smith: And before you called these duplexes and triplexes, is that still the deal or are you just going with duplexes now? Bradbury: Just so that it's clear, I don't want to get lost in the definitions, these are all what we call two unit townhouses, separate ownership. When I hear the term duplex, I'm thing single one ownership. Two units on one lot, we're talking about zero lot line townhouses. So you'll sell separately. De Weerd: They just share a wall. Bradbury: They just share a wall, exactly, and there's a total of ten of those units in here. De Weerd: Ten two unit townhouses. Bradbury: Right. Now that's not 20 units. I mean ten units. It's late. Borup: Am I correct on the old plat you had 21 townhouses and on the new one you have 20? Bradbury: On the old plat, we had a total of 6, 7, 8, 9 what I'll call multiple unit structures. Borup: Six duplex, three triplex. Bradbury: Correct. Total of nine. We picked up one additional attached dwelling than from what was originally presented to you back in January. Borup: No, just the opposite. Bradbury: We had nine. We've got ten now. Borup: Oh, but I mean total units. Bradbury: But in total number of units, we've actually lost three. Borup: Yeah, I was just talking on the townhouse designation units. Bradbury: Right. MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZONING COMMISSION • NLY 14, 1998 PAGE 86 Borup: I still have - I saved my old plat for some reason. I knew this was coming back. De Weerd: Now this is a PUD? Bradbury: It is. De Weerd: You know I wasn't there. Bradbury: I understand. De Weerd: Do you have open space here? Bradbury: Yeah, there's two places. There's this piece of property here, which is remote from the building tots across the canal, and this piece of property is over on the golf course side, and what the developer has proposed to do and it's about a third of an acre. What the develop has proposed to do is to donate that to the city for use as part of its golf course would be without charge. The other area is a path that goes along the southerly boundary and then works it way up along the canal which would be used to access to allow pedestrians and golf carts to access the golf course the relocated clubhouse which will be up in here once that project is completed, and so there's a total square footage of the open space of about an acre, just about an acre of open space including the donated ground just to make that dear. De Weerd: I think during your city council meeting, Councilman Anderson asked about the gate and how it would be respond to emergency vehicles. Did that get straightened out? Bradbury: From what I understand and I don't know a lot about these emergency gates, but I've hear that these gates and how the emergency vehicles are going to open them, but I understand there's a number of different types of systems that can be employed. There's some sort of a use where you can use a strobe. There's some sort of a deal where you can have a remote or an emergency key access number, a number of different ways to accomplish it, and I don't think that this developer necessarily demands that there be one or the other. The intention is to work it out with the Fire Department and whatever other emergency services are involved. Find out what they prefer and install that type of system. De Weerd: And so what are the total number of lots per acre? Bradbury: It comes out to five. De Weerd: And what was it before the redesign? MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 87 Bradbury: It was actually over five. I can't remember the number the density at that time. I can't remember exactly what it is but it was 5.2 maybe. I can't remember. One of the things that Commissioner De Weerd, since you didn't - weren't here before, this piece of property was originally included as a part of the Ashford Greens PUD and during the preliminary plat process for Ashford Greens, this piece of property was identified as what the city council at the time was calling, I think they're calling medium density and it was conceptually approved for up to eight units per acre. The developer of the Ashford Greens Subdivision didn't exercise the option on this piece so Steiner Development picked it up and this application -what they did back then is they gave a PUD approval for Ashford Greens with the preliminary plat. This parcel was shown as an undeveloped conceptual medium density type of an area. Steiner Development picked it up and is now presenting the plat. Theoretically attempting to follow the I guess the conceptual approval that was granted back to Ashford Greens back in whatever year it was. De Weerd: Was Golfview Subdivision developed at that time? Bradbury: I think it was. Although I don't know that for certainty. I think Golfview was in existence prior to Ashford Greens. De Weerd: Do you have any landscaping in this development? Bradbury: There will be a landscape treatment at the entry, and you don't have that. It doesn't show on the plat, but there's a landscape treatment at the entry and then this area which would act as a cart path would also be landscaped. De Weerd: With what type of landscaping? Bradbury: I don't know that I can give you the - I can't tell you precisely. Specifically or are you just trying -there will be a walkway and grass and bushes and trees. I mean that's about as specific as I think I can be. I'm not sure. If you're asking me has a landscape plan been prepare, I think the answer would have to be no. That would typically be prepared at a final plat process. De Weerd: Those are all the questions I have right now. MacCoy: All right. Mr. Smith? Smith: I don't have anything else. MacCoy: Mr. Borup are you finished? Borup: Yes, 1 am. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. I hope I'm not kicking a MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION • JiJLY 14, 1998 PAGE 88 dead dog here, but in this revised preliminary plat, I look back at my original comments from January of this year, we have a pressure sewer main that crosses portions of this property. This is a forced main that comes from a lift station in Golfview Estates and discharges over on I believe it's Turnberry. This forced main goes across the southerly edge of lot 37 and across the southeasterly side of fot 40 as well as along lots 1 and 2. My original comment from January was that those should not be easements. They should be a common lot. If we have a break on a forced main, we need to be able to get in there right now. I don't know -it's looks like we've got one of them on this revised plat as a common lot but it looks like the other one is still within an easement and I'm just kind of wondering -okay you still show it on your plat as an easement though. MacCoy: Steve, do you have an answer for that? Bradbury: Well, all I can tell you is the plat as drawn shows a common lot on part that he's talking about and it does show as an easement on the other part. I don't remember the precise conversations that were going on at the time. But I had the idea that this was a temporary easement that would be abandoned at some point in time. Freckleton: That's true. As soon as Golfview develops out to Black Cat Road, that lift station would be abandoned because the gravity sewer would go out to Black Cat, but until that time in this interim, we have this forced main situation. Bradbury: Right, and my recollection is that because it was a temporary easement that it might make the most sense to provide for just an easement so that when it's abandoned it's got go to somebody, it's got to be somewhere, and I suppose one of two choices. It's either a common lot owned by a homeowners association or it's a part of somebody's building lot. Freckleton: My original comment was that it would be a common lot owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The written response from PLS, the applicant's engineer, was that the sewer easement area will be a common lot owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The area landscape plan will be submitted to the city for review and approval. So, that's why I'm a little confused as to why we're not there now. Bradbury: It sound like we need to make that a common lot, and if that needs to be a condition of approval, that's certainly appropriate. MacCoy: Anything else, Bruce? Freckleton: That was all I had. Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, a couple of other comments that were addressed were MERIDIAN PLANNING A1~9 ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 89 tiling ditches and the potential buffering to adjacent subdivisions. Have those - Bradbury: There are no plans to the either of the two ditches. From what I understand they both are -they both exceed the size limits that the city generally requires for tiling. And actually from the way we look at this, the ditch that is between this project and Golfview I believe sits on a 50 foot easement, and so there's actually in addition to the lots the size of the lots in Golfview, and now the increased size of the lots in the ~Ilas, there's this 50 foot ditch easement that is in between so that it provides the ditch itself provides a fair amount of separation between the two. My understanding from looking at the maps is that the ditch between this project and Golfview is entirely within the Golfview lots. In other words, the easement that that ditch runs through, it's not a centerline. The property boundaries are on in the centerline of the ditch, but the property line from Golfview actually comes all the way over. So the ditch itself is in Golfview. It's in those lots. On the other side between this project and the golf course you have the lots and you've another 50 foot ditch easement and then you've got fairway, and you've got another couple hundred feet beyond that before you get to houses. Now, perhaps the one exception maybe some houses that are more or less in this location over here which I think are among the people that are intending to testify and they are a little bit closer to these units which is why these were all the size of these lots here. The nearest lots to these homes were expanded. And of course then here you've got 7, 8 and 9,000 square foot lots. You've got 50 foot of easement. You've got golf course, then you have the nearest dwelling units. (Inaudible) And so what we're trying to accomplish is recognizing that we've got these existing developments, these people were concerned about the fact that they didn't think that smaller lots made sense next to their larger lots, so we tried to put the larger lots next to their larger lots, and take advantage of and use the separation the natural separation which is provided by each of those two ditches. De Weerd: And the public would have access to the pathway? Bradbury: Yes, that's correct. MacCoy: Anything else? Any other commissioner - Borup: Just a question. When the conceptual review was done for Ashford Greens, was that a public hearing? Bradbury: I got to think it was because it was a PUD and preliminary plat. Borup: So that was part of all that when they did the conceptual. So it wasn't - they didn't have a design at that time then? Bradbury: They didn't have a design for this parcel; that's right. MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION J[7LY l4, 1998 PAGE 90 Borup: How did you have a preliminary plat? Bradbury: Well I think what they did is they did a preliminary plat of the R-4 portions of Ashford Greens. Borup: But not this portion. I was speaking specifically of this portion. Bradbury: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah this was part of their - as I understood it, and the original Findings from the Ashford Greens were in this middle that was made to you folks in January and kind of went through and discussed how that all came to be. My recollection of it was and I didn't go back and read them today, but my recollection of it was that it was kind of -the city was taking an overall view and moving densities around and taking into account the fact that the Ashford Greens property owners were donating property for the city golf course and so it was all kind of a one big package. The city was getting golf course. Ashford Greens in exchange was going to get a little bit higher density in a couple of locations, and since the Ashford Greens developers didn't have a specific development proposal for what they called medium density areas, the council simply gave it a conceptual approval for a density of up to 8 units per acre. Kind of like and unfortunately I probably have said this about every time I've been in front of you folks for the last three months, kind of like the way we tried to handle the Lake at Cherry No. 6 and 7 when we came in with a 40 acre plat with two ten acre lots in it and said we know we have to come back for a conditional use permit to show you exactly what we're going to put in these two ten acre lots. And then that's exactly what happened. They turned out to be the senior portions of that project. MacCoy: Mr. Borup, any other questions? Borup: No, thank you. MacCoy: This is a public hearing. Anybody that wants to get up and make a statement may do so at this moment. WAYNE CROOKSTON 2125 TURNBERRY WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Crookston: I think what concerns me the most is the compatibility between my lot which is as Mr. Bradbury pointed out is approximately right in here. My lot is close to 15,000 square feet. I have approximately a little over a quarter of an acre. And I think that our comprehensive plan basically says that things have to be compatible. I don't think that these smaller lots are compatible with the size of my lot or the size of the lots that are in Golfview. They did enlarge the lots somewhat along Golfview and they enlarged the lots a little bit. They are somewhat larger right across from me. Then they just gradually go downhill as they go west. I don't feel that that's actually a compatibility situation. Unless they put lots that are at least R-4, which is 8,000 square feet. I don't think that MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 9 ] they are going to be compatible, and I think that they should be larger than 8,000 square feet because the lots that abut them are larger than 8,000 square feet. I certainly appreciate what they have done to enlarge some of those lots, but I don't think they've enlarged them enough. As my memory serves me, when we dealt with this property under Ashford Greens, it was placed definitely in an R-8 kind of a situation. It was a planned unit development, but this property was not platted out. So I didn't know what was going to happen to that property at that time. And that's when I got a hold of this thing and I didn't find out about it until it got to city council, and I apologize for that. I should have stepped up before the Planning and Zoning Commission and not just in front of the city council. As I said I have to appreciate what they have done. I would like them to do somewhat more. Thank you. Borup: Your lot is R-4 zone or R-8? Crookston: My lot is R-4 zone. But it's substantially larger than the 8,000 square (End of Tape) Crookston: ... from the west from my lot west of me Borup: So there's some other lots between your lot and this development? Crookston: There's the golf course between my lot and this development, but there are - Borup: When you say west you meant others on your same street; is what you meant? Crookston: No, on my street. I -ive in a cul-de-sac, and the lots go around in a circle. The lots that go around from me westerly are larger than 8,000. Borup: Okay, the other lots on your street. I'm trying to decide where these lots to the west of you are located. You are saying those are on your street. Crookston: Yes. Borup: So between those lots and this development, you say the golf course is in between? Crookston: Yes Borup: Do you know how far that is? One fairway down through there? Crookston: Yes, it's just one fairway between my lot and this development Borup: Thank you. MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 92 MacCoy: Any other questions? Anyone else who would like to make a statement. JOE STAFFORD 4192 W. PLUM ROSE WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Stafford: As I stated I live on Plum Rose which is Golfview Subdivision. My lot approximately is from -let's see I think I attach right in this area here off the Golfview Subdivision. Our lot is approximately 16 to 17,000 square feet. That's abutting this project and those lots again as Mr. Crookston brought up that we do appreciate that they've increased the lot sizes somewhat compared to what they were before, but there's more at issue and that's the density factor for the whole project. There is nothing that high a density on either side meaning Golfview and/or Cherry Lane in that immediate area. The other thing that kind of bothers me a little bit is that they keep bringing up that this was conceptually approved. I think the key is it was conceptually approved for Ashford Greens, which had high density property because they were giving quite a bit of property to the golf course. So they were allowed to cluster high density. This project isn't giving or adding more golf course. They are talking about donating three quarters of an acre to that area. I don't know what that would do or if that would change anything to the golf course. Another issue is that this is the third time it's been - one P & Z, one council and back to P & Z with recommendations from staff from my understanding on modifying some things, showing the easements accordingly, talking about a plan for landscaping and yet there's not a correct map that's been sent to the public. I mean this map is different than the map I got and the map you have apparently. There isn't a landscaping plan for us to look at or talk about or discuss to see if it's good or bad. There's a few comments, well I'll change this or I'll change that. We had originally talked about -there was discussion about the developer meeting with the homeowners to show us the changes so we could talk about it and work things out. There was no contact made at least to our home for that matter. The other thing I think that I'm concerned with is besides the lots sizes, you're talking about setbacks. Frorc my understanding now, this is the last hearing, and I don't know if this is changed, but the setback requirements for the city they're asking for a variance. Am I understanding that that is correct that they're asking for a variance for setbacks like on the rear yards? No? They're going to have a 20 foot setback from the rear yard? Smith: It says 15 on the map. Stafford: 15 on the map. Borup: Which would be that's normal city ordinance. Stafford: Is that normal city ordinance? So all the setback requirements are MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZONING COMMISSION • J[JLY 14, 1998 PAGE 93 going to be normal city ordinance. No variance? Borup: I don't think anybody said that. Stafford: That's a question I have to staff maybe. Freckleton: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. They look standard setbacks. However, when you have the townhouse lots, there will be a zero lot line there understandably so. Stafford: Which is standard for a townhouse. So, there is no ten foot setback on the rear lots for building or 5 and 5 on each side which would be different from the city. Freckleton: Side interior is 5. That's standard. Stafford: On both sides? Freckleton: Yes. Twenty foot on the front, fifteen rear. Side yard with a street is 20. Stafford: Okay, so they're not asking for a variance on the setbacks. The other question I have are the streets standard width along with sidewalks on both sides like we're required and like Cherry Lane has and both attached subdivisions? Freckleton: I'm sorry. Stafford: Street width. Is that the standard size for streets? Freckleton: These are private streets. They are narrower. Stafford: They are narrower. And is there sidewalk on both sides of the - De Weerd: One side. Stafford: One side. Freckleton: One thing that I should clarify from my previous statement, on your side yards setback it's five foot per story, so if you end up with a two story, that's ten. Stafford: But there's no request for a variance on that. Okay so the streets are private streets, and they are not the normal width that we would have in a subdivision, a public street let me put it that way, and they're not required to have sidewalks on both sides. MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZOAIING COMMISSION • NLY 14, 1998 PAGE 94 Freckleton: They are not required to if city council allows them not to. Stafford: Okay. My concern is too this isn't -they brought that they were talking about another project they did that was a senior citizen or 55 and older project. There's no mention of that. They're talking townhouse or higher density. You know we all have kids. I'm sure is going to be a majority or a minority of children in there with one side streets, no yard to speak of, no sizable yard. I think the minimum lot size in there is about 4,000 square feet, which is approximately the size of some of our homes the actual lot size that's abutting this property. So those are all some concerns that I have with the project and he brings out that there's 8,000 square feet along Golfview, but you go down 30 feet or 40 feet and they drop down to 5,000 and 4,000 square feet. So that does have an effect in the immediate area just because my property is touching an 8,000 square foot lot which is considerably smaller, but still granted R-4 type lot doesn't mean that the whole project is done that way. So I think those are some of the concerns that I have and if you have any questions I'd be more than happy to answer them. Borup: Yes, Mr. Stafford, did you attend any other public hearings? Stafford: Yes, I did, city council. Borup: But not the one - Stafford: Not the P & Z. Borup: I didn't recognize you from P & Z. Show the location again of where your house is. I thought the way - Stafford: We're along this lateral right here, and (believe - Borup: I thought the first time I saw you pointing further to your right. Stafford: Yeah, I'm not sure if it ties in this spot or this spot here. Borup: That's why I was confused. I thought you had pointed to the other spot which my plat shows as being part of Lakes at Cherry Lane. Stafford: Yeah, so it would be from this point. Borup: Okay, that's why I was confused. You were pointing to a different subdivision. Thank you. MacCoy: Anything else? Thank you. GORDON MARGULIEUX 2040 INTERLACHEN WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 95 Margulieux: I live again as I mentioned in Cherry Village No. 1. I live at lot number three which is 27.29 feet from the proposed path. Right there is the corner of our lot. It's an irregular size lot. Most of these lots here are 8,000. My lot actually because it is irregular is 13,000. But I'm not as concemed. I think that the developer has done a fairly good job at trying to balance, trying to transition in there, so I'm not that concerned about that. I am concerned about the path. There are some issues that haven't been -they seem to fade in and out. But one is lighting on the path. We have -three or four years ago, I wouldn't have even thought of this, we have a family that's in our neighborhood that has some teenagers that are kind of troublesome and 1 think an unlit path back there 20 feet wide that is gated, it will be gated. This is one of those issues that sort of fades back and forth. At night atone end but not on the other end, and it just happens to be the end that a patrol car if they wanted to look down that way, they wouldn't be able to - in fact from the drawings I've seen of the island where the gate is that a patrol car would not be able to go down to the point where they could look down to see if anything is going on there. So, I'm concerned. The developer has expressed a willingness to maybe light it to a certain extent. But that again it changes from time to time as to what a good solution would be for that. It is again locked at night. The proposal is that it's locked at night so people wouldn't be going back there. On one end, but the other end is open. The comment about landscaping, I'm not sure because again we haven't seen anything on that. But earlier today we talked about that entire 20 foot would be paved and maintained by the homeowners association. So I'm not sure what sort of landscaping would be there, if there would be any trees or anything like that. Twenty feet is a pretty wide area especially for walking or -the idea is that maybe you would drive your golf cart over there. So maintenance is an issue if the homeowners association chooses not to maintain it. I'm not sure exactly how that gets addressed. I did want to make the comment about the platting for R-8. My understanding from talking to people is what happened is they said we'd like to do something like this. R-8 sounds like a good idea. And the P & Z came back and said show us and then we'll talk about it. And they never came back and showed -so they really didn't give it approval. They said yeah, go ahead and show us what you're talking about and we'll talk about it and they never did. So I don't think there's even aconceptual -there maybe but I don't believe there's even conceptual approval. It was you know if you want to try go ahead. Anybody can present something to us. By the way I have been to all the meetings in case someone's interested. I have been to every one of the meetings that I got a notice for. The only other one I wanted to talk about mention is there may be some change that I'm not aware of but there was some requests for changes in the setback and Steve's been very straight forward. I should say the developer's been very straight forward in any of this. I can go over to their headquarters, sit down with them, talk to them. I have in the past and they've been very straight forward. I really appreciate it. But they did talk about some setbacks at the original meeting and if I remember the note, the front was a change from 20 to 15 and the side to the street, whatever side adjacent to MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION JiILY 14, 1998 PAGE 96 the street, was also request a change from 20 to 15 and I thought that they might have mentioned that the rear was to change from 15 to 10 on some lots. Not all of those lots, but that they had asked for that. So again I'm sure that when Steve gets back up here he'll mention those and it was apparently in the original packet that they gave so they're not trying to hide anything as far as I know. Other than that I actually like -I've seen the book. I sat down and looked at it and gone through it and it looks nice. And they've done things that's been brought up in the meetings so I think they are willing to work on it. They have and other than this path, the security along that path, that's the only concern I really have. Any questions? By the way, good morning. MacCoy: Thanks a lot. Borup: Gordon, right now you're living next door to the clubhouse? Margulieux: Actually fairly close. We see the light out on the - Borup: Which of the two uses would you consider more favorable to you? Margulieux: Well the clubhouse - I would like to see the place developed and get it over with and this to me looks fine. I mean they've done lots of things to change it. I'm not opposed to the development. The clubhouse gives us no problems at night unless they have a party. We've had to ask them about that, but that only comes about once a year anyway. So either way it doesn't seem to bother us. We do see cars driving around and we do call 9-1-1 when we see people peering into the clubhouse that aren't suppose to, and if I saw someone in that path over there that wasn't suppose, I'd call 9-1-1 then too. But either way 1 think that the subdivision in general is not a bad subdivision from my point of view, and I think they've done a lot of things to satisfy or try to satisfy the people in our subdivision. Borup: Thank you. MacCoy: Thank you very much. ROBERT PATCHIN 4199 W. PLUM ROSE STREET WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Patchin: I would love to comment, but I don't think I can do it intelligently having a map that you can't read because it's so small and I guess it's not the same map that's on this large display here or the ones that you have. So it's a little bit disadvantage and to make any kind of a reasonable comment at this point. 1 would like to say though that I still think the density is a little bit too much for the surrounding area. I don't believe it's still is not compatible. I don't know what can be done if they've reached their limit as far as number of lots to their investment that there is no return. That may be a problem. The traffic has got to MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONIAIG COMMISSION • J[JLY 14, 1998 PAGE 97 increase based on the number of lots and if it's not restricted like the other density over there in Cherry with the 55 or older, why it's going to be a lower cost housing and of course there's going to be more children. Just looks like the density is going to be just too much. It's awful hard to follow the numbers and it looked like originally it looked like about six variances were required to do this development. I'm not sure. I kind of lost count of that as to existing. I have not made the meetings. I've been absent unfortunately, but I did write a letter to the city and it is on file. It did address some of the concerns there moving the townhouses or what were duplexes away from the edge next to the larger lots in the other subdivisions. So they have made some progress but I just don't think it has gone far enough. I'd like to have more time to study the real map. MacCoy: Any questions? Borup: What lot was your lot number? Patchin: Well, I'm right across the street. It's lot number 2 and block 5 of Golfview. Borup: You're right across the street from Mr. Stafford? Patchin: Yeah. Borup: Okay, thank you. MacCoy: All right. Thank you very much. Anyone else that would like to come make a statement? Bradbury: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of comments. Where to start? Let me talk about this notion of variances, because I think it's important that we get it as clear as we can possibly be at this hour. You have an application for a PUD, a planned unit development. Under the planned unit development ordinance you allow for certain exceptions to be made to the standard zone requirements in exchange for considerations of open space and issues like that. In this case there's a proposal to provide the city with some additional property for the golf course and provide some additional open space, and as a result the developer is asking for consideration as a PUD. So there are no variances as that term is used either in the ordinance or in general rules of law. There are a number of exceptions which have been asked for under the PUD process. Among those exceptions is that this project be served by a private street. It is after all a dead end cul-de-sac. The intention is to construct a security gate so that the people who live in this subdivision will have the added security of gated community. The streets are lesser width than ACRD standard, but of course ACHD, that is the highway district, will not own and maintain them. Instead they'll be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. There is in fact a proposal that sidewalk be placed on one side of the street only, and MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 98 again as we have talked in times past, because these are streets that dead end and just serve the interior of the subdivision, it didn't seem that a bunch of additional concrete in the form of sidewalks on both sides of the street would necessarily be a good idea. There is a request for exceptions from the standard setback provision. The request has been that the front yard setbacks be reduced from 20 to 15 feet, and 18 for the garage units. And that the street side yard setbacks be reduced from the standard 20 to 15 feet. With respect to the notion that the map is somehow different, it's the same map, the numbers have just been modified so they follow a logical sequence. I think the map you have the numbers simply don't follow a logical sequence. Other than that, everybody is looking at the same drawing. With respect to the idea of this notion of compatibility and larger lots needing to be next to larger lots, I guess I understand to a certain extent. But I see compatibility a little differently. It seems to me that when you talk about compatibility you're talking about compatibility of uses, and the compatibility of uses is to take a clear incompatible use. A hog farm next to Mr. Crookston's house, a nice home. That would be an incompatible use. Residential development next to residential development I don't know what can be more compatib-e than that. In this case I don't think that the notion of compatibility requires that every lot which is adjacent to another lot be the same size as the lot next to it. Because if you take the logic of that, if you start with a 10,000 square foot lot, every lot in the City of Meridian has to be 10,000 square feet because after all if there's one neM to that it's got to be 10,000 square feet in order to be compatible. It'll have to be 10,000 square feet, the next one after that will have to be 10,000 square feet. I don't think that's what compatibility is about. I think what compatibility is about is having compatible uses and in this case we're talking about residential uses in a residential area, separated by the way, -- interspersed is maybe a way to say it with golf course. The distance between Mr. Crookston's house and these parcels it's got to be a couple of hundred feet. The distance between the Golfview properties if they're some 10, 12, 15, 16,000 square feet is there's a 50 foot canal easement in between so there's a couple 3,000 square feet of their lots that are taken up by canal. You have that separation and that distance, and on this developer's side, we're going to have standard or in excess of standard R-4 lots. All of them being 8,000 square foot minimum. I'm having a hard time buying into the notion of incompatibility. Mr. Margulieux was talking about the gated path. It's perhaps some confusing. The path is going to be open on both ends. It's gated so that people from outside of the subdivision cannot come into the subdivision, but people from outside the subdivision can access the path and go all the way along the path without having to negotiate or open or close the gate, so it is open, and I'm not sure maybe we didn't - in our conversations with Gordon maybe we didn't make that very clear. But it's open. The proposal is not to pave 20 feet side to side. It would be a walkway with landscaping with I don't know ten feet of pavement and the balance being landscape treatment. I think I've addressed most of the issues, except perhaps the density one and whether or not this was ever approved. I'm going to read the motion that was made by the city council in the Ashford Greens project. I'm not going to read the whole thing because it covers three pages, but I'm MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 99 going to read one sentence out of it. It says, "The concept of'medium density' parcels is approved conceptually only." So this is not the first time that this idea has come before the city. Anything else? MacCoy: He mentioned the lighted path. Bradbury: We'll work with him on lighting. I think that would be included as part of the landscaping treatment, and I don't think that we have any problem with including in that treatment with some form of lighting. My experience has been that the landscape plans are something that you folks look at the final plat. In due course those would be presented and we're certainly willing to work with these people in any way to help them be as comfortable as they can with it. MacCoy: Any questions from the commissioners? Borup: Steve, did you mention earlier percentage on the open space? Bradbury: I haven't calculated percentage. Let's see, there's 8'/z acres and there's about an acre of open space. So that comes out to about what? 12%? Borup: Okay. Freckleton: I guess I'm feeling a little ignorant now that I talked about the setback issue. The new revised plan that 1 got with my packet dated June 9, is it incorrect then? Bradbury: The only thing that's incorrect about it are the numbers on it, the lot numbering sequences is incorrect. Freckleton: Okay the setbacks are stated right on here just as I had quoted earlier. Bradbury: Under your ordinance - Freckleton: Standard setbacks. Bradbury: Under your ordinance as I understand it the ordinance requires that the zone that the property exists as it exists is required the setbacks are required to be shown on your plat under the zone as it exists, and that's why it comes out this way. Freckleton: No, I think what you need to show on your plat is what you propose for setbacks. Bradbury: Well, let's pull out the ordinance. Does anybody have it? MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 100 (Inaudible) Borup: Yeah, I think that's my recollection too. We had some others where the - I'mthinking of a zoning thing where the current zoning had to be stated, but on your previous fact that you specified which lots you were looking for reduced and which ones you weren't. So apparently that is not with this application. Bradbury: Well, because we've changed those lots - Borup: Well, that's what I mean so this application doesn't have specific lots mentioned on the reduction? Bradbury: That's correct. Borup: Or is it a blanket on all of them? Bradbury: The way I was approaching it rather than trying to figure out which ones were going to need it and which ones were not, just simply make it a blanket. Borup: Okay. Bradbury: And then we don't have to try to untangle every time we move a line. Borup: Yeah. De Weerd: Are those setbacks along any existing subdivisions that you are asking for the variance or the exception? Bradbury: There are no rear yard setback -the existing subdivisions abut the rear yards, and we are not asking for reductions of rear yard setbacks. So the front yard setbacks of those same lots however would be maybe reduced. Borup: Was this reduction the same as what the original application last January? Was it a blanket request at that time? Bradbury: Well there was a little bit of confusion about that because there was a map that showed some of the lots that would need setback reductions and over time - Borup: -specified other than the map which the map didn't even have the lot and blocks on it. Bradbury: That's right. And that map was something that was originally inserted and then over time it got to the point where it became just too complicated and so it was simply, the proposal Ithink - MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION J[JLY 14, 1998 PAGE 101 Borup: I think my question was on this application. I don't think anybody here has the paperwork from last January. I saved some plats and stuff for some reason, but in that application there was a request for reduction of the setback. Bradbury: There was; correct. That's correct, yes, sir. De Weerd: Now on the pathway, who is responsible for maintaining and upkeeping and maintenance? Bradbury: That would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association that would be formed as a part of the project. De Weerd: So when lights go out they will take care of it. Bradbury: It would be part of the homeowners association responsibility. That's correct. De Weerd: Bruce, I had a question for you. Is that right with the -andscaping that we don't see that? Freckleton: Commissioner De Weerd, typically I believe those are submitted to Shari for review. I don't believe that they come before P & Z unless it's requested. De Weerd: Well, it seemed like it was an issue before city council and so I guess I assumed since it was an issue at that point that we might be seeing it. I guess that assumption is wrong. MacCoy: Anyway in past, Shari has done most of them. We see them once in a while. I'm not sure if that's just because -well we have requested some sometimes, but sometimes we get them without even requesting them too. De Weerd: Yeah, I guess I was just looking conceptually what the idea was. Borup: Tammy you said you felt the city council had a concern on it last meeting, is that what you're referring to? Bradbury: 1 don't know if this helps you, but included as part of the submittal, I think drawing went to the city council included as a part of the submittal to the city council was kind of just a real rough outline of what was considered there. De Weerd: And that cirGe is by the gate? Okay. This is all asphalt here? Bradbury: (Inaudible) The access would be on the public side of the gate. It would work its way through and around and up and then there would be a gate MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 102 here. (Inaudible). De Weerd: Thank you MacCoy: I'd like to clarify something with you. You mentioned the pathway and so on would be homeowners. The street is private and so of course the sidewalk that goes with it. That's private. So the homeowners association has got quite a few they've got to take care of. In other words it's going to be costly for them. Bradbury: I don't think this is going to be a cheapo subdivision. That's not the market that these guys are after. These guys are after the market -the bulk of the homes in this subdivision and you don't have the materials that were submitted here six months ago, but the bulk of the homes in this subdivision are proposed to be in excess of 1600, 1700 square feet. So we're not talking about a number of just little boxes. I know these aren't mansions by any means, but they are reasonably sized homes, and the market is to try to find people and I've said it in the past in meetings with you is to try to find people who want to have nice homes in a secure environment but have a bunch of yard and maintenance duties and you're right, these folks are going to have a fair amount of homeowners dues in order to maintain not only the private road but the pathway system and what not. De Weerd: Now are these - do these have specific designs that you are marketing or they can go in and build whatever they want or do you have uniformity? Bradbury: There are specific floor plans and elevations that were presented to the city originally as well and they are included in the books. But again unfortunately you don't have. De Weerd: And are those their only choices, or can they just build something? Bradbury: The idea is that this is as a part of the PUD we're proposing specific floor plans and elevations that would be built in the project. Now, I'm not going to try to say that every single one is going to be exactly like that and there may very well be an occasion where somebody will want to build something a little bit different, but conceptually we're trying to show you here's the floor plans that we think are going to work here and we've laid it out for these floor plans. These are the elevations we think we're going to use. These are the materials that we expect to use and the standards will be meet or exceed these standards. De Weerd: And landscaping? Do you have minimums on that? Bradbury: Included in the restrictive covenants will be minimum requirements for landscaping. MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 103 De Weerd: Will you provide any of that? Bradbury: To the city? De Weerd: No, to the buyers. Bradbury: Absolutely. You bet. The restrictive covenants will be created and recorded before a lot is sold. And as a matter of fact as a part of the final plat process I expect the city will review these restrictive covenants. At least if what has happened in the past holds true to form. MacCoy: Anything else? Smith: Just a clarification since it's so late. You salcl earlier you don't have identified on here which lots are in excess of qr mg@t Rf are in excess of 8,000 square feet and which ones aren't.. We don't; hays a calculation on a number and we don't know which ones are going to rggUire ~h~ variances on the setbacks? Bradbury: Well, I could tell you lot by lob , had the sizes are because I have it on the map that I'm working with. So if you'r' interested in that information we can certainly provide it, but what I didn't try to do is try to figure out on a lot by lot basis under this layout which lots going tp need a 15 foot setback and which one can deal with a 20 foot setback and what might need a 19 foot setback and all of that. Smith: It would be helpful to know which ones are what size Bradbury: Sizes of the lots? Smith: Just to get an idea of -you know we've got this many that meet the R-4 zoning and this many don't. Bradbury: I can leave the map that I have here. It's got the square footages on it. Smith: You know you're required to do that anyway. You presented it. You lost it. I don't have - I'm just tired. De Weerd: I do have one more question and that's about security issues. I think the point was raised that the police would have the opportunity to respond to that pathway if there were problems or patrol that pathway or -you don't see that as a- Bradbury: I don't understand that either. I mean it's not gated and locked and I think if an officer wants to stop his car and go down that pathway. I suppose theoretically if you wanted to he could just drive his car down there because it's MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION • JCTLY 14, 1998 PAGE 104 twenty feet wide, but it's not closed. Smith: You are going to put in a bunch of little nice landscaping so it won't be wide enough. But this gentleman I think was under the impression that the pathway was gated, not the street. When you showed us where that pathway originates, that's off of your property. If it's going to have access - from what I saw in your sketch and what I'm looking at on the property line here, the gate is like right on your property line? Bradbury: Right. Smith: And then that thing is stuck out down to the soU~heast a little bit, which is off of your property? Bradbury: I believe it's going to be in the ACF~D right-of-way. Smith: Okay, I'm just confused. Bradbury: It's late and this is maybe not as easy as we'd hoped. MacCoy: Anything else? Okay, thank you very much, Steve. is there any other comments from the audience before we close this? Stafford: My name is Joe Stafford. Just one quick comment. You know you talked about compatibility that every lot has to be 10,000 square feet and the whole City of Meridian be 10,000 square feet. Twenty percent of the lots from what I've heard him say tonight on which ones they raised to 8,000 square feet meet the minimum standard there. There isn't an 8,000 square foot lot abutting this property. So 80% don't meet the minimum of 8,000 square feet for an R-4 zoning, and I understand it's a PUD. But that certainly is not compatibility. You know I understand every lot is not the same. We have a variance in sizes in our subdivision, but 80 % don't meet the 8,000 square feet, and he's trying to sell that that's compatible with my 18,000 or someone else's 12,000. So I just have to bring that up. Thanks. MacCoy: Anyone else? Margulieux: This is Gordon Margulieux. I just want to clarify that about the locked gate. I know that this is a gated community, so there is going to be a gate that is on the street that crosses the street that people have to open in order to get through, but there was a discussion at one time that for security reasons that they may put a gate across the path too, so that at a particular time in the evening time that that gate would be locked. And so that the gate wouldn't be open 24 hours a day, but it would be locked on the -now if that's changed, again, things have fluctuated so if that's changed, that's fine. Again it's just a situation of really sort of knowing or getting the idea as to what they plan on MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 105 doing. The other one in talking about the gate that I was reminded of and that is the existing road does not line up with the proposed road that's there. There is between the existing curb right now and the new curb, there's ten and a half feet. So it's 10 %Z feet the new one moves the road over. But the old road is owned or maintained by the highway district so I'm not sure exactly what sort of situation that ten and a half is going to be moved out now. That road is not going to be part of somebody's but we don't know who's because it belongs to the highway district right now. So it will be a curb in there and so I'm not sure how that's going to work out. I haven't quite figured that out yet. But it is if you look at the old one, and go from that corner on the old - on Cherry Lane's Subdivision 1 from the end it's ten and a half feet shorter than if you go from the drawing out to the curb. So I'm not sure exactly - I'm sure they'll all figure it out, but I'm not sure how that area gets controlled over there. I should also say that with the changes in the lot size, maybe that can be brought back in to line with that, because it had before, you had four houses along that section. Now you only have two, so the lots sizes -there's room that can be maybe moved around there. So maybe that could be brought in line with it. I don't know. MacCoy: Steve, do you want to answer that? Bradbury: I'll try. Are we talking about the ten feet highway district thing? Yeah, we've had conversations with the highway district about that and I needed to be reminded because I couldn't remember exactly where that all came out either, but as -we're going to buy it from the highway district so that it all lines up. I mean it's an engineering thing between Mr. PLS and the ACHD people and if there's extra right-of--way that's not going to be needed, the notion is that Steiner Development would buy it. De Weerd: Is this fenced in? Are you fencing this subdivision in or is it open? Bradbury: You know I don't know. I haven't talked about fencing. Mr. Campbell says that it's likely to be fenced everywhere but along the golf course. MacCoy: Any other questions? Thank you. Any other comments to be made before we close the hearing? Yes. Come ahead. JACKIE STAFFORD 4192 W. PLUM ROSE STREET WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. J. Stafford: Just one comment. These people have been up here three times. You'd think they'd have some type of landscaping. Something to give us all that we wouldn't have all these silly questions that we keep having to ask. That's it. Thank you. MacCoy: Thank you. Anyone else? I'm going to close the public hearing at this time and commissioners, what is your desire? MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 106 Borup: This is back before us because of a substantial change in the plat that was originally recommended; is that correct? MacCoy: That's correct. What's your desires? Borup: My desire is to take a nap. MacCoy: Well if we get with that, we can do that. Borup: Well I don't know. We seem to have a lot more concerns and questions on this now than we did six months ago, and I'm not sure why. Smith: I don't recall anybody coming in and testifying against it six months ago. MacCoy: You got a point there. Borup: That maybe the difference, but it's got three less lots, (End of Tape). Borup: .. I guess these are the things that came up at city council. The question I would have then. I don't know if we can answer that is if these changes satisfied city council's concerns. De Weerd: Yeah, I guess that was my question too. I know the issue of compatibility was high was on that list, and you know I don't know if that's been met. I think it certainly has been improved and you know I look at the example of Meridian Greens where they were compatible and then they kind of filter in and then you can have a higher density, and 1 believe in that too. I do believe that multi land uses is a good idea. But 1 don't know what their definition of compatibility was for the perimeters that would be shared with existing subdivisions. MacCoy: I think what the -since we didn't get any guidelines given back to us on this thing because of the change from what he had reviewed and what they received they felt that it should go back here and be again opened up to the public. We would then hear that and make a new decision. If it's to go back and get more facts, put it in that direction or - Borup: One of the criteria we use when we're talking about incompatibility between residential and commercial is buffering. And you think on the one side we have a 50 foot canal as a buffer. On the other side we have a golf course fairway as a buffer. And then the smallest buffer is the pathway. On my standpoint, I'm thinking I don't have as much concern about compatibility as maybe some of the other aspects. Is that correct that the only discrepancy on the plat is just the numbering is my understanding, lots sizes all stay the same except for the ones that need to be changed. Well, there was some mention that MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ ZONING COMMISSION • J[JLY 14, 1998 PAGE 107 one was - Smith: Common lot. Borup: No, well the 7900 foot one was going to be changed to 8,000. De Weerd: I don't know. I just don't understand if it's gone through P & Z and City Council, why we don't have a clearer idea of what's going on. MacCoy: I expected you to have that, but we didn't receive that. You can put it back into Finding of Fact again if you want. Borup: Well, that's what I was going to say. That's the procedure we need to go to. These corrections still need to be made. Whether to us or to city council. We can do the findings and go on from there and it ends up back in the city council's lap. De Weerd: Well before we make a motion since we can't talk about this after a motion has been made, have we closed the public hearing? MacCoy: Yes, I just did. De Weerd: Okay. Is it would be our hope that city council gets a more complete picture than what we get if we ask for Findings at this point? That you can give them a better idea of if you're going to fence it and maybe the type of fencing and an idea of the landscape. I think some questions were raised that if these people again show up at the public hearing that they too can have a better understanding of what's going on. So that's my little speech at 1:00 in the morning. Smith: Well and I think if we're going for deviations from an R-4 zoning, we need to know which lots are being asked to be smaller and at a minimum that. It would be nice to know which lots are going to need to have variances to setbacks as well, but I guess you really don't know that until you sell the lot and you know which unit you're putting on it. But at a minimum we should know whether one or two lots are deviating from the R-4 or whether the majority of them are. I mean that's what I don't feel comfortable about forwarding on to city council right now, I mean could go through it myself and figure it out. But that should be something that would be made available to us. So that's my little speech, so I'm not going to going to make a motion for findings of fact. If somebody else wants that's fine. De Weerd: I will. I move that the assistant city attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the conditional use permit for a planned unit development, the Villas at the Lakes Subdivision by Steiner Development. Borup: Second. MERIDIAN PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 108 MacCoy: Any discussion? Smith: Not from me. I said it. MacCoy: I think you did. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 2 ayes, 1 nay. ITEM NO. 16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT - NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: MacCoy: Mr. Bradbury, do you have any statement about this one? STEVE BRADBURY WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything to add. I'd simply ask that the testimony from the previous hearing be incorporated into this one so that we don't have to repeat it all. MacCoy: Very good, sir. Thank you. Since it is a public hearing, is anything from the public that would like to be stated at this moment even to the same point that he just did for his. WAYNE CROOKSTON 2125 TURNBERRY WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Crookston: I would like to like Mr. Bradbury did, I'd like to incorporate the testimony that I gave in the previous public hearing in this public hearing testimony. Thank you. MacCoy: Anyone else would like to do the same? Smith: Can't we speed this along and just make a blanket motion to incorporate everything that everybody said on the last thing. (Inaudible) GORDON MARGULIEUX WAS 2040 INTERLACHEN WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Margulieux: I'd like to incorporate my previous testimony but I'd also like to ask about item number 16 that it's not 48 lots. They've removed three lots. That was kind of confusion on the letter they sent out too, because it had items on it. MacCoy: We didn't have the map. So when we received our material it was written as 48. MERIDIAN PLANNING A1CD ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 109 Margulieux: Okay. MacCoy: Okay, anyone else? JOE STAFFORD 4192 W. PLUM ROSE STREET WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Stafford: I'd like to incorporate the comments I made earlier on the public hearing number 15 on the agenda tonight into this one and also bring out that on the plat map, again, I think there's substantial easements questions and 48 lots not 43 as they have changed, and we don't have lot sizes so I would recommend that it not be approved preliminary plat tonight. Thanks. MacCoy: Anyone else? De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question. We're asked to vote on a preliminary plat that is not complete. I would make a motion to continue the public hearing until our August 111h meeting. Smith: Second MacCoy: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Borup: Is there any chance of us having a correct plat before that time? Orin a month from now are we going to be voting on this same preliminary plat? Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, I'm certain that we can get you a plat that has all the right numbering scheme on it before your meeting of August 11~', which is really the only change. And that's maybe not quite right. Because I guess we've got that easement issue that's got to be untangled. (Inaudible) MacCoy: Anything else you want before we let him go? Borup: I'm not sure if all that was proper, but I was speaking out loud when I said that. I mean I was thinking out loud not particularly professional. Berg: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I think you need to gives these applicants as much direction and demand as much as you can so this doesn't get tabled and continued on, and if it's a plat that isn't drawn to your satisfaction, that should be condition for the next public hearing so you can review it or else it will get continued or tabled. MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 110 De Weerd: I was told that I couldn't make conditions. Prior: You can make requests. Berg: But you can be pretty up front about your requests that if they don't get that in then you'll be at the same position you're going to be in now. Borup: Well, hopefully they understood that Berg: Well, I think they do, but give them enough direction and guidance that we don't get this same continuation again. Borup: Proceeding on the Findings we wouldn't vote on the plat until after the Findings anyway so I don't think that's affecting the timing here. If everything is satisfactory. De Weerd: And that discussion was included in the conditional use permit as requested city council would need, so hopefully it was understood that that's what we would need for the preliminary plat. MacCoy: Mr. Bradbury would you come up here please? Considering the lateness of the hour, (inaudible). (Inaudible) MacCoy: Commissioners, working with Steiner Corporation and they've agreed to end the meeting right now and come back on Wednesday evening, the 22'~ to finish up the three items they have on here. Prior: Has there been a motion to defer these items until the next August meeting. Borup: I think that's consistent with the motion earlier in the evening that this would be deferred if we felt there was enough time to cover this evening. MacCoy: That's right. You already did that for us. Borup: You know if we felt there wasn't enough time and then since they weren't here when they were on the agenda that - MacCoy: That's the reason we're talking right now. I'm trying to - Borup: 1 think that's consistent. So we are having a meeting on the 22""? Is what you're saying? MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 111 De Weerd: I won't be here, and I do have strong feelings about this. I felt that I couldn't discuss this tonight anyway because I don't see anything new. MacCoy: What are you saying? You won't be here because you won't be here. De Weerd: No. I'm out of town. I won't be here. But even if I were here, until there's something new in front of us, the answer, the things that we addressed in our last meeting, I don't see much reason to have a special meeting. MacCoy: Well, they've been place on the agenda and I've got to move them some place. De Weerd: Okay, well then let's move them to August 11`h and they'll have what we need. Bradbury: Excuse me Mr. Chairman. This item was continued from the last public hearing to tonight so that we could present you with the information that you asked for last time, which is what we were here prepared to do. So we're ready to present the information I have. Borup: They just weren't here when the agenda item came up. Bradbury: That's right. That's right. MacCoy: So they've said they've got the thing cleaned up and so - Borup: Are we ready other than Tammy is going to be out of town. MacCoy: Hopefully Mark will be here. Borup: The 22"d is what you're saying. MacCoy: Yeah, does that okay with you? De Weerd: Well then I'd rather just hear it right now. Smith: No, no. MacCoy: He said it will take another 30 to almost an hour. Smith: It will take an hour and a half. You know just feedback from staff tonight, I got the impression that this isn't something to just gloss over and be able to really absorb, and you know just a quick presentation. I guess I was -along with Tammy's comment thinking that we're going to get another submittal of something we'd have time to sit down and actually look at as we did on the previous application. From what I remember there was a substantial number of MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 112 issues that had come up that we wanted to look at. Borup: I don't know that we would make very intelligent decisions at this time. Smith: No, no, I agree. De Weerd: Well, are we going to have anything new to look at if you call a special meeting? Like addressing open space and density and ACRD response and a buffer and a fire access. MacCoy: He said he's answering our questions and so he's ready to present tonight. So, -- Smith: I mean it's up to the applicant to change what they feel is appropriate to change. So, I guess if that's their intention and we call a special meeting, and then you don't like what you see then you take it at that time. De Weerd: Okay, well I won't be here. Smith: Well, the 22"d you won't be here. De Weerd: Right. Smith: So maybe there's another date that can get worked out with the applicant. Tomorrow so we can go home now? 1 mean they can work out a date tomorrow, not that we are going to do it tomorrow. MacCoy: Well, he said he will not be here the week of the 27'". So that's the end of the month, so it's either we do it the 22"d. (Inaudible) MacCoy: So the 22nd is the - Prior: You won't have an attorney here on Friday if you try to meet here on Friday. No, I can't. I'll be in Court. I'm not going to be here Friday night after that. MacCoy: Is the 22"d except for Tammy work for the other two of you? Smith: Yes. De Weerd: But how do we know it works for Mark? MacCoy: Well, the reason Mark is missing tonight is because of the Guard situation. So he's usually here, and I will get in touch with him, and if it doesn't MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ZOI~IING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 113 work we got to have a full quorum any way. De Weerd: Well it looks like you will have three here. MacCoy: Thank you. De Weerd: Not me, but you three. Smith: I'd be willing to go 6:30 if it works for you two. Borup: On some of the previous special ones we've done it a little earlier. MacCoy: That's what we've done before. That's right. Smith: So do we need to make a motion to forward this to a special meeting on July 22nd at 6:30 p.m. items 12, 13 and 14? (Inaudible) Smith: All right. I'd like to make a motion that we defer items 12, 13 and 14 until the special meeting to be held on July 22"d at 6:30 p.m. Borup: Second. MacCoy: Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Smith: Mr. Chairman I'd like to make a motion that we adjourn. De Weerd: Second. Borup: Do we need to do anything about item number 18? Smith: He already did. MacCoy: I already did. We started with that. Berg: Excuse me what was the motion on the item 18? Borup: We didn't have a motion. That's why I asked. (Inaudible) Berg: Yeah, but the council said it goes back to P & Z and you guys as a commission or a body needs to act on it some way or another. MEWDIAN PLANNING A~ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 114 Borup: That's why I brought that up. MacCoy: 18? Berg: Yes, because the direction was - Borup: We can defer it or - MacCoy: You can defer it or - Berg: The commission has to take the - Smith: I thought Mr. Chairman you stated that it had been withdrawn. MacCoy: I said that and I was talking to the attorney and he said I could withdraw it or we could table it or we could anything. Prior: I said you have to take some type of action on it, but I don't think there's going to be action taken on it. Borup: That's what we need to do right now. MacCoy: All do you want to do that before close this meeting then? De Weerd: Well beings how I haven't seen it. MacCoy: That's the trouble. None of us have seen it. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we defer item 18 until our meeting on July 22"d at 6:30 p.m. Borup: Second. MacCoy: You want to defer it until the August what? Smith: Okay, I'd like to amend my motion from July 22"'to August 11~'. MacCoy: Is there a second to that? Borup: Yeah,lsecond. MacCoy: Any discussion? Borup: Yes. I think it would be appropriate to have some input from Shari. MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE I15 MacCoy: There will be. I have talked to Shari. Borup: And also this is part of the five items that we started back in April, and it might be appropriate to get all five of them done on to the city council rather than just these three. MacCoy: We approved three. The two that we have not approved are the ones we're talking about right now, and they - Borup: No. MacCoy: Yeah, we haven't approved two. Borup: Right, but these that we're talking about right now were sent back from city council; is that correct? And because we didn't prepare Findings. We made a recommendation. MacCoy: That I don't know. Borup: And city council is now asking for specific findings rather than just a recommendation. Berg: Are you going to address that John, or do you want me to? Prior: What would you like me to say? Berg: Exactly what the council directed it back to the P & Z. Prior: The council directed that there should be findings prepared on the zoning amendments. Okay? MacCoy: So that's yours? Prior: Yes. MacCoy: That's council to him. Borup: Didn't they send it back to us to - Prior: What they did is they took a different attorney's interpretation of the zoning amendment. Okay? My interpretation is that Findings did not need to be done on matters were not substantial in those amendments. Someone else said they needed to be Findings done, so they took that advice and they're telling us to do findings, so in other words you folks have to direct me to do Findings. That's where we're at. So at the next meeting if you want to direct me to do Findings, then I'll do Findings on them and I'll pass them on to the City Council. That's MERIDIAN PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION JiJLY 14, 1998 PAGE 116 what needs to be done. MacCoy: Let's go on and do that right at this moment then. Prior: Go for it Borup: I'd like to move that we direct the city attorney to prepare Finding - Berg: No, we haven't voted. We have a motion on the floor. Smith: 1'll withdraw my motion. Borup: Have we opened up item number 18? MacCoy: Yes, 18 is open. We're waiting for a motion. Borup: I would like to move city attorney prepares Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and we don't have that in front of us on those three specific amendments that we - 1,2, and 5. MacCoy: Well we're going to do all of them according to Shari, because - Borup: Well the others we didn't have anything to discuss. At this point, we've discussed 1, 2 and 5. I believe the other commissioners said a week wasn't enough time to study those. They wanted more time. That was back in April. So hope everyone has had enough time to study those. De Weerd: I haven't seen them. Borup: So I amend my motion - my motion was just on all three - on those items and we'll discuss the others later. Smith: Second. MOTION CARRIED: 2 ayes, 1 abstain. Smith: Mr. Chairman I'd like to make a motion that we adjourn. De Weerd: Second. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MEETING AT ADJOURNED AT 1:20 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) MERIDIAN PLANNING A~ZONING COMMISSION J[JLY 14, 1998 PAGE 117 APPROV % ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~- MALCOLM MACCOY,CH MAN ATTEST: ~`~.~annurrttgrrr` ~` WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CI CLERK $$gL '~ ~ ~~ i`: ~ ^ITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLI~MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET J U L 1 4 1998 CITY OFIIERIDL~.~' ~ C(/~.~~~f% ' J J~' J C / .C- - BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AMY GILLUM ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A HOME CHILD CARE 2347 E. APRICOT DRIVE MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing on June 9, 1998, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, the Applicant, Amy Gillum appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT The notice of the public heazing on the application for the accessory use permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public heazing scheduled for June 9, 1998, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said heazing; that the matter was duly considered at the June 9, 1998, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. The property included in the application for the accessory use permit is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. This property is located within the City of Meridian, Ada County, and State of Idaho at 2347 E. Apricot Drive. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AMY GILLUM -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME IN AN R-8 3. Pursuant to the application, the Applicant is the owner of record of the property; the property is currently zoned (R-8) Medium Density Residential District; the property is contained in Lot 15, Block 4 of Dove Meadows Subdivision; the surrounding properties are residential homes; the Applicant requests an accessory use permit for the operation of a Family Child Care Home; there exist no accessory uses of a similar nature in the area; and the Applicant agrees to pay increased sewer, water or trash fees if such are required due to increased use. 4. Pursuant to Section 11-2-409 A, Zoning Schedule of Use Control of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian, the operation of a Family Child Caze Home on property zoned (R-8) Medium Density Residential District is permitted by and requires an accessory use permit. 5. The Applicant, Amy Gillum, testified substantially as follows. 6. The Assistant City Attorney swore in Amy Gillum. Mrs. Gillum noted that she would like to be able to caze for one or two additional children other than her own. Commissioner Nelson requested comment from the applicant concerning the letter from Frank Swigert. Mrs. Gillum noted that she would not allow any noise that would disrupt her neighbors. She noted that she will have a newborn in October and has every intention of keeping the noise to a minimum. Commissioner Smith inquired about the CCR's. Mrs. Gillum noted that she spoke with the subdivision manager and there appears to be no great concern. Mrs. Gillum noted that submitting a written request to the Board of Director's is all that is needed to gain approval of the day care. The Assistant City Attorney swore in Sazah Sims. Mrs. Sims inquired about the number of children permitted. Commissioner Nelson noted that the number is FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AMY GILLUM -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME IN AN R-8 five including the applicant's own children. Mrs. Sims inquired about the hours of operation, the expiration date of the permit and whether an inspection was required. Commissioner Nelson noted that generally hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m He noted that the permits are reviewed at any time upon receipt of a complaint. Further, that all applicants must obtain an inspection from Central District Health and the Fire Department. Mrs. Sims noted that she had no objection to the daycaze as long as the number of children was limited to five. The Assistant City Attorney swore in Mr. Frank Swiger. Mr. Swiger noted that he is against any day care regardless of the number of children. Mr. Swiger noted that he has a heart condition and that any additional noise or disruption could aggravate that condition. He noted that the subdivision covenants state that the proposed day caze is not permitted. Mr. Swiger noted that he spoke with the homeowner's association manager, who had no knowledge of the day care. He noted that the Board of Director's ofthe association will be notified ofthe proposal and that action will be taken. 9. Mrs. Gillum noted that she spoke with Mike Farlow, the homeowner's association manager who appeared to have no problem with the day care. He advised the applicant that a letter to the Boazd of Directors of the subdivision is all that is needed. She noted that Mr. Fazlow told her that he has never seen a project denied. 10. Mr. Swiger noted to the Commission that his subdivision has CCR's that aze in effect. 11. The Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, and Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, had the following comments regazding conditions for the Accessory Use. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AMY GILLUM -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME iN AN R-8 Off-street pazking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11- 2-414 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed to not directly illuminate any nearby residential areas, and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-414.D.3. No signage shall be allowed. 4. Sanitary sewer and water to this facility would be via existing service lines. This site currently is assessed with one water hookup and one sewer hookup. Assessments for sewer and water service will be reviewed to see if additional load would justify an adjustment. Please provide any information that you may have with regard to your anticipated water demand. Applicant will be required to enter into an Assessment Agreement with the City of Meridian prior to operation. The use shall be considered a commercial use and charged commercial rates. 5. Zoning Certificate and Certificate of Occupancy for the daycaze are required prior to operation. 6. No employees that are not residents of the home will be permitted. Screened trash enclosures aze to be provided in accordance with City Ordinance. The family child care home shall not adversely impact surrounding properties due to children's noise, traffic and other activities. 9. Applicant shall secure and maintain a child Gaze license from the Idaho State Department of Health and Welfare-Child Caze Licensing Division. 10. Applicant shall provide for screening of adjacent properties to protect children from adverse impacts and to provide a buffer between properties. 11. Applicant shall provide for a fence of appropriate height/construction, to enclose play azeas. 12. If the accessory use permit is approved, Applicant is to schedule an appointment with the Meridian Fire Department for inspection prior to operating. Operation of daycare without proper approvals will result in revocation of accessory use permit. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AMY GILLUM -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME 1N AN R-8 13. Family child care homes aze defined as a child care facility which provides caze for five (5) or fewer children throughout the day. This includes the provider's own children. 14. Violation of any of the above conditions shall be cause to revoke a zoning certificate for a family child care home. 12. The Central District Health Department commented that a permit to operate a day caze must be obtained from their office. 13. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District had no comments on the application. 14. Kenny Bowers, Meridian Fire Chief, requires that all codes will be met, and that smoke detectors and a fire extinguisher are put in. 15. Meridian Police Chief, Bill Gordon, submitted no comments. 16. There was no further testimony given at the heazing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW All the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including; the mailing of notice of the application by certified mail, return receipt requested, to owners of property which abut the external lot or boundary lines of the property, and properties across the street, alley and kitty corner to the property; a notice of the application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks; and a notice of the public heazing on the application for the accessory use permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for June 9, 1998, the first publication of which was fi8een (15) days prior to said heazing. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AMY GILLUM -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME IN AN R-8 2. The City of Meridian has authority to grant accessory uses pursuant to ] 1- 2-410 D ofthe Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian. The City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on an accessory use permit. 4. The City of Meridian has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances and proceedings, other governmental statutes and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and state of Idaho. 5. The Zoning and Development Ordinances of the City of Meridian defines "Accessory Use or Structure", at Section 11-2-403 B as follows: Accessory Use or Structure - A use or structure on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure. An accessory use or structure does not alter the essential characteristics ofthe principal permitted use and does not include a building which is defined herein as a dwelling unit. The Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian defines, "Dwelling Unit" at Section 11-2-403 B as follows, "Dwelling_Unit -Any building or portion thereof which meets adopted building codes and is used as a residence or living quarters of one or more persons." 6. Section 11-2-410 D 1. of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian provides in part: a. The accessory determination shall be based upon the relationship of the building, structure or use to the principal permitted use. Specifically, it must be habitually or commonly established as reasonably incidental to the principal permitted use and located and conducted on the same premises as the principal permitted use. In determining whether it is necessazy, the following factors shall be used: (1) The size of the lot in question; (2) The nature of the principal permitted use; (3) The use made of adjacent lots; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AMY GILLUM -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME IN AN R-S (4) The actual incidence of similaz use in the area; (5) The potential for adverse impact on adjacent property; and (6) The applicant must be the owner of the property under consideration and the user of the accessory use. b. Family child caze homes and home occupations may be considered to be permissible accessory uses in the R-4 and R-8 Residential Districts if they aze approved after applying the following additional review procedures and the applicable accessory use standards of Section 11-2-410D2: These standazds include the following: (1) The applicant shall be required to pay any additional sewer, water and trash chazges or fees, if any aze required. (2) The use shall be considered as a commercial use. (3) Pay the fee of eighty dollazs ($80.00). The property is currently zoned (R-8) Medium Density Residential District. The surrounding properties are zoned (R-8) Medium Density Residential District, and aze residential homes. 8. The Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian defines "Family ChIld Caze Home", at Section 11-2-403 B as follows: Child Care Facility -Any home, structure, or place where nonmedical caze, protection, or supervision is regularly provided to children under fourteen (14) years of age, for periods less than twenty four (24) hours per day, while the parents or guardians are not on the premises. There are three (3) types of child care facilities: Family Child Caze Home - A child caze facility, which provides caze for five (5) or fewer children throughout the day. * ~ ~ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AMY GILLUM -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME IN AN R-8 It should be noted that in determining the type of child care facility that is being operated the total number of children cared for during the day and not the number of children at the facility at any one time is determinative. 9. Section 11-2-410 D 2. of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian sets forth the standazds under which the Plarming and Zoning Commission shall review applications for accessory use permits. This section provides: Family Child Caze Home standazds: It is the intent ofthis provision to provide for accessory family child care homes which will not adversely impact surrounding properties due to children's noise, traffic and other activities, and which aze located away from and properly screened from adverse impacts to the health, safety and welfare of the children. The following conditions shall apply: (1) Secure and maintain a child Caze license from the Idaho State Deparhnent of Health and Welfare-Child Care Licensing Division if required. (2) Acquire an occupancy certificate and/or building permit. (3) Provide one off-street parking space per employee, which may be the driveway to the home. (4) Provide for child pick-up area located offof arterial or collector streets. (5) Provide for screening of adjacent properties to protect children from adverse impacts and to provide a buffer between properties. (6) Provide for a fence of appropriate height/construction, to enclose play areas, protecting children from traffic on arterial or collector streets. 10. This application for an accessory use permit has been judged upon the applicable standazds and guidelines set forth in Section 11-2-410 D of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian, the record submitted to it, and the things of which the City of Meridian may take judicial notice. 11. Applications ofthis nature are difficult because, notwithstanding objections from neighbors, the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian provides that the requested use is permitted as an accessory use if the standazds FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AMY GILLUM -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME IN AN R-8 aze met. The Planning and Zoning Commission concludes, considering the applicable standards and guidelines set forth in Section 11-2-410 D of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian, the record submitted to it and the things of which the City of Meridian may take judicial notice, the Applicant has met the standards. Consequently, if the neighbors' objections are allowed to control it is not government by law. The law controls and the application for an accessory use permit shall be granted, and the use allowed subject to the conditions imposed. 12. Because conditions may be placed upon the grant of an accessory use permit, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes that the following conditions of the grant of the accessory use aze required, to-wit: a. As the ordinances of the City of Meridian only allow up to five (5) children under the Family Child Care Home, the Applicant shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) children, including her own children, to be Gazed for under this accessory use permit; b. The Applicant shall provide for a fence of appropriate height and construction, to enclose play areas, protecting the children from traffic, whether or not the traffic is on arterial or collector streets; c. The Applicant shall keep the children in the fenced yazd at all times except for drop-off and pick-up times when the parents shall be required to bring the children into the Applicant's home and come into the home to pick the children up. The children shall at no time be allowed out side of the fenced azea when not accompanied by an adult; d. The Applicant shall secure and maintain a child care license from the Idaho State Department of Health and Welfaze-Child Caze Licensing Division; e. The Applicant shall provide one off-street parking space per employee, if any, which may be the driveway to the home; f. The Applicant shall provide for child pick-up area located off of any arterial or collector streets; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AMY G(LLUM -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME IN AN R-8 g. The Applicant shall provide for screening of adjacent properties to protect children from adverse impacts and to provide a buffer between properties; h. The Applicant shall meet the comments, recommendations and requirements of the City Engineer's office and the Planning and Zoning Administrator, which include, but aze not limited to the following: (1) Off-street pazking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11- 2-414 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance; (2) Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as not to illuminate directly any nearby residential azeas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-414 D.3. (3) No signage shall be allowed; (4) The Applicant shall provide any information that she may have with regard to her anticipated water demand, and the Applicant shall enter into an Assessment Agreement with the City of Meridian prior to operation. The use shall be considered a commercial use and charged commercial rates; (5) The Applicant shall secure a Zoning Certificate and Certificate of Occupancy for the Family Child Care Home prior to operation; (6) The Applicant shall provide screened trash enclosures in accordance with City ordinance; (7) The Family Child Care Home shall not adversely impact surrounding properties due to the chIldren's noise, traffic and other activities; (8) The Applicant shall forthwith schedule an appointment with the Meridian Fire Department for inspection prior to operating; and (9) The Applicant's operation of the Family Child Care Home without proper approvals will result in revocation of accessory use permit. The Applicant shall meet and comply with the comments, recommendations and requirements of the Meridian Police Department, the Meridian Fire Department, the Meridian Sewer Department, and the Central District Health Department; and Violation of any of the above conditions shall be cause to revoke a zoning certificate for a Family Child Care Home. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 1~ AMY GILLUM -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME IN AN R-8 13. The above-conditions aze concluded to be reasonable and the Applicant shall meet these conditions of the grant of the application for an accessory use permit. 14. If the Applicant meets all the conditions set forth in these findings, including but not limited to, the comments of City of Meridian staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission and all other government agencies submitting comments, the accessory use permit should be granted. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AMY GILLUM -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME IN AN R-8 II APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER BORUP COMMISSIONER SMITH COMMISSIONER DeWEERD COMMISSIONER NELSON CHAIRMAN MacCOY (TIE BREAKER) DECISION VOTED~__ VOTED_ /~~ VOTED_ /1~_ VOTED ,Qds~.~ ~ VOTED The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby decides and hereby approves the accessory use permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, more particularly set forth at paragraph 12. of the Conclusions of Law, and that the property shall be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, and the Uniform Building Code, and other ordinances of the City of Meridian. The accessory use shall be subject to review by the City upon notice of the Applicant. MOTION: APPROVED: ~ ~ 6-29-98 -- FINAL ~/~q f~+o FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AMY GILLUM -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME IN AN R-8 DISAPPROVED: 12 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION KRISTI RICHMOND ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A HOME CHILD CARE 2311 MONACO WAY MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public heazing on June 9, 1998, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, the Applicant, Kristi Richmond appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The notice of the public hearing on the application for the accessory use permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for June 9, 1998, the fast publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said heazing; that the matter was duly considered at the June 9, 1998, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. The property included in the application for the accessory use permit is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. This property is located within the City of Meridian, Ada County, State of Idaho at 2311 Monaco Way. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - KRISTI RICHMOND -FAMILY CH[LD CARE HOME IN AN R-4 3. Pursuant to the application, the Applicant is negotiating for ownership of the property. The owner has consented to use the property as a Family Child Caze Home, the property is currently zoned (R-4) Low Density Residential District; the property is contained in Lot 4, Block 4 of Glennfield Manor Subdivision; the surrounding properties aze residential homes; the Applicant requests an accessory use permit for the operation of a Family Child Care Home; there exist no accessory uses of a similaz nature in the area; and the Applicant agrees to pay increased sewer, water or trash fees if such are required due to increased use. 4. Pursuant to Section 11-2-409 A, Zoning Schedule of Use Control of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian, the operation of a Family Child Caze Home on property zoned (R-4) Low Density Residential District is permitted by and requires an accessory use permit. 5. The Applicant, Krisit Richmond, testified substantially as follows: 6. Kristi Richmond was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. Mrs. Richmond noted that she was working on a lease to purchase for 2311 Monaco Way. She noted that she went around the neighborhood and inquired whether any of the neighbors would object to a Family Child Caze Home. She noted that she is a teacher at the Children's School and that it would be "optimal" for her to work out of her home. She noted that some of the neighbors concerns were over traffic, noise and devaluation of their property. Mrs. Richmond noted that the house is near an elementary school and with five or fewer children she does not anticipate a measurable difference in the current noise level. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - KRISTI RICHMOND -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME IN AN R-4 Commissioner Nelson inquired whether Mrs. Richmond had any children of her own. Mrs. Richmond noted that she had no children. Commissioner Nelson inquired about the tazget age group, and hours of operation. Mrs. Richmond noted that the age group would be birth to two and one half (21/2) yeazs and that the hours of operation would be 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 8. Commissioner DeWeerd inquired about a basement in the home and directed the applicants attention to the Fire Chief s comments. Mrs. Richmond noted that the home is a split level home with no basement. and the home has three exits. 9. Marshall Williams was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. Mr. Williams noted that he was speaking on behalf of his mother, who lived near the proposed Family Child Caze. He noted that his mother was concerned about the traffic and noise. He noted that his mother was a senior citizen and they are affected to a greater extent by noise, traffic and the hours of operation of a day care. He noted that his mother is concerned about the devaluation of her property. Commissioner DeWeerd noted that a new subdivision will be constructed off of Monaco Road, so traffic will increase in the future without the daycare. 10. Troy Richmond was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. Mr. Richmond noted that the day care would be limited to five or fewer children. He noted that his wife has two degrees related to the operation of a child care business. 11. Gordon Schoenfeld was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. Mr. Schoenfeld noted that he is presently living in the house and has made improvements on the home. He believed that the improvements have increased the value of the home. He noted that he did not think 5 children would cause a measurable increase in traffic. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - KRISTi RICHMOND -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME IN AN R-4 ~~ 12. Ashley Seymour was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. Mr. Seymour noted that he was the listing agent for the Schoenfeld property. He noted that he could not fmd any statistical information that showed day care operations devalue property. 13. Mr. Williams noted that there was another day caze on Chateau within a couple of blocks of this proposed operation. 14. The Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, and Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, had the following comments regazding conditions for the Accessory Use. Off-street pazking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11- 2-414 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. 2. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed to not duectly illuminate any neazby residential areas, and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-414.D.3. 3. No signage shall be allowed. 4. Sanitazy sewer and water to this facility would be via existing service lines. This site currently is assessed with one water hookup and one sewer hookup. Assessments for sewer and water service will be reviewed to see if additional load would justify an adjustment. Please provide any information that you may have with regazd to your anticipated water demand. Applicant will be required to enter into an Assessment Agreement with the City of Meridian prior to operation. The use shall be considered a commercial use and charged commercial rates. 5. Zoning Certificate and Certificate of Occupancy for the daycaze aze required prior to operation. 6. No employees that are not residents of the home will be permitted. Screened trash enclosures are to be provided in accordance with City Ordinance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - KRISTI RICHMOND -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME IN AN R-4 8. The family child Gaze home shall not adversely impact surrounding properties due to children's noise, traffic and other activities. 9. Applicant shall secure and maintain a child care license from the Idaho State Department of Health and Welfare-Child Caze Licensing Division. 10. Applicant shall provide for screening of adjacent properties to protect children from adverse impacts and to provide a buffer between properties. 11. Applicant shall provide for a fence of appropriate height/construction, to enclose play areas. 12. If the accessory use permit is approved, Applicant is to schedule an appointment with the Meridian Fire Department for inspection prior to operating. Operation of daycare without proper approvals will result in revocation of accessory use permit. 13. Family child care homes are defined as a child care facility which provides care for five (5) or fewer children throughout the day. This includes the provider's own children. 14. V iolation of any of the above conditions shall be cause to revoke a zoning certificate for a family child care home. 15. The Central District Health Department commented that a permit to operate a day caze must be obtained from their office. 16. Kenny Bowers, Meridian Fire Chief, requires all codes to be met. Smoke detectors and a fire extinguisher put in. No children will be allowed on any upper floors. Additionally, if the house has a basement, and any children are located in the basement, there will need to be two exits; one exit directly outside. 17. Meridian Police Chief, Bill Gordon, submitted no comments. 18. There was no further testimony given at the hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - KRISTi RICHMOND -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME IN AN R-4 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW All the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including; the mailing of notice of the application by certified mail, return receipt requested, to owners of property which abut the external lot or boundazy lines of the property, and properties across the street, alley and kitty corner to the property; a notice of the application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks; and a notice of the public heazing on the application for the accessory use permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for June 9, 1998, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing. 2. The City of Meridian has authority to grant accessory uses pursuant to 11- 2-410 D of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian. 3. The City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on an accessory use permit. 4. The City of Meridian has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances and proceedings, other governmental statutes and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and state of Idaho. The Zoning and Development Ordinances of the City of Meridian defines "Accessory Use or Structure", at Section 11-2-403 B as follows: Accessory Use or Structure - A use or structure on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure. An accessory use or structure does not alter the essential chazacteristics of the principal permitted use and does not include a building which is defined herein as a dwelling unit. The Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian defines, "Dwelling Unit" at Section I 1-2-403 B as follows, "Dwelling Unit -Any building or portion FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - KRISTI RICHMOND -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME TTd AN R-4 thereof which meets adopted building codes and is used as a residence or living quarters of one or more persons." 6. Section 11-2-410 D 1. of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian provides in part: a. The accessory determination shall be based upon the relationship of the building, structure or use to the principal permitted use. Specifically, it must be habitually or commonly established as reasonably incidental to the principal permitted use and located and conducted on the same premises as the principal permitted use. In determining whether it is necessazy, the following factors shall be used: (I) The size of the lot in question; (2) The nature of the principal permitted use; (3) The use made of adjacent lots; (4) The actual incidence of similaz use in the azea; (5) The potential for adverse impact on adjacent property; and (6) The applicant must be the owner of the property under consideration and the user of the accessory use. b. Family child caze homes and home occupations may be considered to be permissible accessory uses in the R-4 and R-8 Residential Districts if they are approved after applying the following additional review procedures and the applicable accessory use standazds of Section 11-2-410D2: * * * ~ These standards include the following: (1) The applicant shall be required to pay any additional sewer, water and trash charges or fees, if any are required. (2) The use shall be considered as a commercial use. (3) Pay the fee of eighty dollars ($80.00). FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - KRISTI RICHMOND -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME (N AN R-4 7. The property is currently zoned (R-4) Low Density Residential District. The surrounding properties are zoned (R-4) Low Density Residential District, and are residential homes. 8. The Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian defines "Family Child Care Home", at Section 11-2-403 B as follows: Child Care Facility -Any home, structure, or place where nonmedical care, protection, or supervision is regularly provided to children under fourteen (14) yeazs of age, for periods ]ess than twenty four (24) hours per day, while the parents or guazdians are not on the premises. There aze three (3) types of child caze facilities: Family Child Caze Home - A child care facility which provides care for five (5) or fewer children throughout the day. *«~. It should be noted that in determining the type of child care facility that is being operated, the total number of children cared for during the day and not the number of children at the facility at any one time is determinative. 9. Section 11-2-410 D 2. of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian sets forth the sandads under which the Planning and Zoning Commission shall review applications for accessory use permits. This section provides: Family Child Care Home Standards: It is the intent of this provision to provide for accessory family child care homes which will not adversely impact surrounding properties due to children's noise, traffic and other activities, and which aze located away from and properly screened from adverse impacts to the health, safety and welfaze of the children. The following conditions shall apply: (1) Secure and maintain a child care license from the Idaho State Department of Health and Welfaze-Child Care Licensing Division if required. (2) Acquire an occupancy certificate and/or building permit. (3) Provide one off-street pazking space per employee which may be the driveway to the home. (4) Provide for child pick-up area located off of arterial or collector streets. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - KRISTI RICHMOND -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME IN AN R-4 (5) Provide for screening of adjacent properties to protect children from adverse impacts and to provide a buffer between properties. (6) Provide for a fence of appropriate height/construction, to enclose play areas, protecting children from traffic on arterial or collector streets. 10. This application for an accessory use permit has been judged upon the applicable standards and guidelines set forth in Section 11-2-410 D ofthe Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian basis of guidelines, the record submitted to it and the things of which the City of Meridian may take judicial notice. 11. Applications of this nature are difficult because, notwithstanding objections from neighbors, the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian provides that the requested use is permitted as an accessory use if the standazds aze met. The Planning and Zoning Commission concludes, considering the applicable standazds and guidelines set forth in Section 11-2-410 D ofthe Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian, the record submitted to it and the things of which the City of Meridian may take judicial notice, the Applicant has met the standazds. Consequently, if the neighbors' objections are allowed to control it is not government by law. The law controls and the application for an accessory use permit shall be granted, and the use allowed subject to the conditions imposed. 12. Because conditions may be placed upon the grant of an accessory use permit, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes that the following conditions of the grant of the accessory use are required, to-wit: a. As the ordinances of the City of Meridian only allow up to five (5) children under the Family Child Care Home, the Applicant shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) children, including her own children, to be Gazed for under this accessory use permit; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - KRISTI RICHMOND -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME IN AN R-4 • C~ b. The Applicant shall provide for a fence of appropriate height and construction, to enclose play azeas, protecting the children from traffic, whether or not the traffic is on arterial or collector streets; c. The Applicant shall keep the children in the fenced yard at all times except for drop-off and pick-up times when the parents shall be required to bring the children into the Applicant's home and come into the home to pick the children up. The children shall at no time be allowed out side of the fenced azea when not accompanied by an adult; d. The Applicant shall secure and maintain a child care license from the Idaho State Department of Health and Welfare-Child Care Licensing Division; The Applicant shall provide for child pick-up area located off of any arterial or collector streets; e. The Applicant shall provide for screening of adjacent properties to protect children from adverse impacts and to provide a buffer between properties; f. The Applicant shall meet the comments, recommendations and requirements of the City Engineer's office and the Planning and Zoning Administrator, which include, but are not limited to the following: (1) Off-street pazking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11- 2-414 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance; (2) Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as not to illuminate directly any nearby residential azeas, and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-414 D.3.; (3) No signage shall be allowed; (4) The Applicant shall provide any information that she may have with regard to her anticipated water demand, and the Applicant shall enter into an Assessment Agreement with the City of Meridian prior to operation. The use shall be considered a commercial use and charged commercial rates; (5) The Applicant shall secure a Zoning Certificate and Certificate of Occupancy for the Family Child Caze Home prior to operation; (6) No employees that aze not residents of the home will be permitted. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 10 KRISTI RICHMOND -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME IN AN R-4 (7) The Applicant shall provide screened trash enclosures in accordance with City ordinance; (8) The Family Child Care Home shall not adversely impact surrounding properties due to the children's noise, traffic and other activities; (9) The Applicant shall forthwith schedule an appointment with the Meridian Fire Department for inspection prior to operating; and (10) The Applicant's operation of the Family Child Care Home without proper approvals will result in revocation of accessory use permit. g. The Applicant shall meet and comply with the comments, recommendations and requirements of the Meridian Police Department, the Meridian Fire Department, the Meridian Sewer Department, and the Central District Health Department; and h. Violation of any of the above conditions shall be cause to revoke a zoning certificate for a Family Child Caze Home. 13. The above-conditions aze concluded to be reasonable and the Applicant shall meet these conditions in order to obtain an accessory use permit. 14. It is recommended, if the applicant meets all of the above conditions, staff comments and other governmental organizations comments that the accessory use permit be granted. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 11 KRISTI RICHMOND -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME IN AN R-4 APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER BORUP COMMISSIONER SMITH COMMISSIONER NELSON COMMISSIONER DeWEERD CHAIRMAN MACCOY (TIE BREAKER) DECISION VOTED VOTED VOTED ~~~'~'*~ VOTED /.~~c VOTED The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby decides and hereby approves the accessory use permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, more particularly set forth at paragraph 12. of the Conclusions of Law, and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, and the Uniform Building Code, and other ordinances of the City of Meridian. The accessory use shall be subject to review by the City upon notice of the Applicant. MOTION: APPROVED: /n ~ DISAPPROVED: 6-25-98 -- FINAL ~L/ 9~4~ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 12 KRISTi RICHMOND -FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME IN AN R-4