The URL can be used to link to this page

2001 10-18CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, October 18, 2001, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: X Sally Norton X Jerry Centers X Bill Nary X Keven Shreeve X Chairman Keith Borup 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of September 20, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Approve 4. Continued Public Hearing from September 20, 2001: PP 00-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 by Gemstar Properties, LLC — east of North Black Cat Road and south of West Ustick Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 5. Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2001: AZ 01-015 Request for annexation and zoning of 34.60 acres from RUT to I -L zones for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC — 3365 North Ten Mile Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 6, 2001 6. Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2001: PP 01-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 34.60 acres in a proposed I -L zone for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC — 3365 North Ten Mile Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 6, 2001 7. Public Hearing: AZ 01-013 Request for annexation and zoning of .66 acres from R-1 to R-8 zones for Ted Cunningham by Ted Cunningham — 125 Blue Herron Lane: Recommend approval to City Council Public Hearing: PP 01-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and 5 other lots on 5.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda — October 18, 2001 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. i "' iY 1� o- y 0 t'}i83I "1 4 � K t` n AJ g 3 t^ K.E ows ?' Y .. 4, ��`� $ q�,✓�. �{ i ,�F E2 fit'{' .; 3�� k �'�4 i "' proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC 2435 South Meridian Road: Recommend approval to City Council 9. Public Hearing: CUP 01-029 Request for a Planned Unit Development for a private RV storage and reduced lot sizes in an R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC — 2435 South Meridian Road: Recommend approval to City Council 10. Public Hearing: AZ 00-019 Request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development — northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: Recommend approval to City Council 11. Public Hearing: PP 00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development — northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: Recommend approval to City Council 12. Discussion of Proposed Elevations for Washington Mutual Bank at the southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Cherry Lane: Recommend Scheme B to Staff Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda — October 18, 2001 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA x Thursday, October 18, 2001, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: X Sally Norton X Jerry Centers X Bill Nary X Keven Shreeve X Chairman Keith Borup 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of September 20, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Approve 4. Continued Public Hearing from September 20, 2001: PP 00-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 by Gemstar Properties, LLC — east of North Black Cat Road and X , south of West Ustick Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 5. Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2001: AZ 01-015 Request for annexation and zoning of 34.60 acres from RUT to I -L zones for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC — 3365 North Ten Mile Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 6, 2001 6. Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2001: PP 01-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 34.60 acres in a proposed I -L zone for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC — 3365 North Ten Mile Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 6, 2001 7. Public Hearing: AZ 01-013 Request for annexation and zoning of .66 acres from R-1 to R-8 zones for Ted Cunningham by Ted Cunningham — 125 Blue Herron Lane: Recommend approval to City Council 8. Public Hearing: PP 01-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and 5 other lots on 5.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda — October 18, 2001 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 77 F 3 XS .. s qrf axa � 4q§a§ ti Opp�,y�',sry++ x tPP+p' `F'.k t }m }^'s isl ;, �", c4 Y 4`. "trls'�• 45i'`� ' $ `fxPX,,.. I'm f'.t' # & P ?eE N S3 £ T d ..,, i j € . . d - k, P,a'�.n0. 14 4 a $ ..'" NkA a -4,y'4 xr>tia .fix` i' f ' Y F k. r ar• yJ;s ?fit'" x" kfc h"a `'al*-`$00"mTje yWWy'k..ryrG ,y., 4- 9$Sk 2 A 'A'''FT `fib I S5. S J k K Y•C i"k, 'S �4 qR P E�cp ' d 4 '''" Iw {{Y€t s�. E'"+ .c.3rc }4 ., .g,R. ; st v... .x:,, ,... .. r �t r <R E V;Y 3 } �$p, 4 �' aa`,s 4 }x'.:.3,1 < r 5 kr`'ix h It #� 43iYrm , ,.,...xx .w , ,u'a 1. s c =•`w, �``�+.a^s8 .., s. ��.-a ",>; .`5 k...iik r .', +a' $7?`, 9 0 proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC — 2435 South Meridian Road: Recommend approval to City Council 9. Public Hearing: CUP 01-029 Request for a Planned Unit Development for a private RV storage and reduced lot sizes in an R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC — 2435 South Meridian Road: Recommend approval to City Council 10. Public Hearing: AZ 00-019 Request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development — northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: Recommend approval to City Council 11. Public Hearing: PP 00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development — northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: Recommend approval to City Council 12. Discussion of Proposed Elevations for Washington Mutual Bank at the southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Cherry Lane: Recommend Scheme B to Staff Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda — October 18, 2001 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. k y Y * rq 'a �:3 �* �� ' 't +xt¢�4 Y `fd`53'A XW Y •�_3 ?` '�'s w �i1^#..?�. ig£ � # ww d. v W- u r• tsT' z 3S�xs F 1. FF.. i� 000 k'�2 S'.:yf A� } t i }if �h�✓"",,."� 'Lf 7 # �i {'S s p h,:.J` r'� } A Y .}3x .,t! ; _ S`t i ; ' vq +�a CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, October 18, 2001, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: _Sally Norton Jerry Centers Bill Nary Keven Shreeve ,_Chairman Keith Borup 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of September 20, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: ApprCvc 4. Continued Public Hearing from September 20, 2001: PP 00-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 by Gemstar Properties, LLC — east of North Black Cat Road and south of West Ustick Road: 9P CG I menti appf-us(� 4b q Q_, 5. Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2001: AZ 01-015 Request for annexation and zoning of 34.60 acres from RUT to I -L zones for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC — 3365 North Ten Mile Road: � ��., ? %c. C S. Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2001: PP 01-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 34.60 acres in a proposed I -L zone for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC — 3365 North Ten Mile oad 001,,-h h 11C PVVIA 2 - 7. Public Hearing: AZ 01-013 Request for annexation and zoning of .66 acres from R-1 to R-8 zones for Ted Cunningham by Ted Cunningham — 125 Blue Herron Lane: ApprgM 1?-eCo'MM 0.pp+-0100,-) % 8. Public Hearing: PP 01-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and 5 other lots on 5.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda October 18, 2801 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. k I 3 Nin` M+§r 455,E 4 4I 1 i" 3 }, r yC A 4 s y r_ 1 4 3 proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC — 2435 South Meridian Road: r,e G �= 9. Public Hearing: CUP 01-029 Request for a Planned Unit Development for a private RV storage and reduced lot sizes in an R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC — 2435 South Meridian Road: 10. Public Hearing: AZ 00-019 Request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development — northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: ✓ �f� 11. Public Hearing: PP 00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development — northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: 12. Discussion of Proposed Elevations for Washington Mutual Bank at the southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Cherry Lane: lVe Y t� car -pre rye lie vc 1. OR- n /Xze. .ZT AL.e 2)e suc- i -V /leVI. L r1 , IP 6 =p®PAP— Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda — October 18, 2001 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the Cay Clerk's office at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. z� f t Y�r f S! a �kF :- P "e F , <a r �x2 � h �A xr. i A X{ proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC — 2435 South Meridian Road: r,e G �= 9. Public Hearing: CUP 01-029 Request for a Planned Unit Development for a private RV storage and reduced lot sizes in an R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC — 2435 South Meridian Road: 10. Public Hearing: AZ 00-019 Request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development — northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: ✓ �f� 11. Public Hearing: PP 00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development — northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: 12. Discussion of Proposed Elevations for Washington Mutual Bank at the southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Cherry Lane: lVe Y t� car -pre rye lie vc 1. OR- n /Xze. .ZT AL.e 2)e suc- i -V /leVI. L r1 , IP 6 =p®PAP— Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda — October 18, 2001 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the Cay Clerk's office at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. z� f Y�r f S! a �kF :- P "e F , <a r proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC — 2435 South Meridian Road: r,e G �= 9. Public Hearing: CUP 01-029 Request for a Planned Unit Development for a private RV storage and reduced lot sizes in an R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC — 2435 South Meridian Road: 10. Public Hearing: AZ 00-019 Request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development — northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: ✓ �f� 11. Public Hearing: PP 00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development — northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: 12. Discussion of Proposed Elevations for Washington Mutual Bank at the southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Cherry Lane: lVe Y t� car -pre rye lie vc 1. OR- n /Xze. .ZT AL.e 2)e suc- i -V /leVI. L r1 , IP 6 =p®PAP— Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda — October 18, 2001 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the Cay Clerk's office at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. z� f Y�r f S! a �kF :- P "e F , Ar �x2 � h Sq xr. i A X{ i?r+ proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC — 2435 South Meridian Road: r,e G �= 9. Public Hearing: CUP 01-029 Request for a Planned Unit Development for a private RV storage and reduced lot sizes in an R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC — 2435 South Meridian Road: 10. Public Hearing: AZ 00-019 Request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development — northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: ✓ �f� 11. Public Hearing: PP 00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development — northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: 12. Discussion of Proposed Elevations for Washington Mutual Bank at the southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Cherry Lane: lVe Y t� car -pre rye lie vc 1. OR- n /Xze. .ZT AL.e 2)e suc- i -V /leVI. L r1 , IP 6 =p®PAP— Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda — October 18, 2001 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the Cay Clerk's office at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Y�r f S! a �kF F , �x2 11yegi-e laepj-'*�G� A(411"C- /Vs�"C-P- NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION — 77-Lat,�kr LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a Special Meeting at City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, on Thursday, October 18, 2001 at 6:00 P.M. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission will discuss the recommendation to the proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian. The public is welcome to attend. DATED this 15th day of October, 2001. WILLIAM G. BERG, JW CI CLERK :SEAL S '4 HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY MAYOR Robert D. Corrie A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Tammy deWeerd (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 Cherie McCandless City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION — 77-Lat,�kr LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a Special Meeting at City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, on Thursday, October 18, 2001 at 6:00 P.M. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission will discuss the recommendation to the proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian. The public is welcome to attend. DATED this 15th day of October, 2001. WILLIAM G. BERG, JW CI CLERK :SEAL S '4 ** TX COWOTION REPORT AS OF OCT 19 '01 01:01 PAGE. 01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO -FROM MODE 08 10-19 01:00 MIN -SEC PGS CMD# STATUS ----0 EC --S 01'05" 002 245 OK --------------------------------- CITY OF MERIDIAN' MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, October 18, 2001, at 7:00 P.M. • City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: _ _Sally Norton Jay Centers Bill Nary Keven Shreeve -X—Chairman Keith Borup 2- Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A- Approve minutes of September 20, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: A Op YC VI✓ 4- Continued Public Hearing from September 20, 2001: PP 00.023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16,4 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 by Gemstar Properties, LLC - east of North Black Cat Road and south of West Ustick Road: RFCam mead apprRu foj 46 GC.' 5. Continued Public Hearing from October 4y 2001: AZ 01-015 Request for annexation and zoning of 34.60 acres from RUT to I -L zones for Proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC - 3365 North Ten Mile Road: Cue 6. Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2001: PP 01-01T Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 34.60 acres in a proposed I -L zone for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC - 3365 North Ten Mile oad: C.n.7`) >t'-0- a,-' L 7- Public Hearing: AZ 01-013 Request for annexation and zoning of .66 acres from R-1 to R-8 zones for Ted Cunningham by Ted Cunningham - 125 Blue Herron Lane: f2C C O M M 0.prrcN0�,1 40 C�1G 8- Public Hearing: PP 01-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and 5 other lots on 5.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Meridian Plarming and zoning pC�ommission Agenda — Oatobor 18, 2001 AD materials presented at public me • 89a 1012 p� d dings ehe8 become properly of the City of Meridian. Please contact erre C � on for des related to dom merds andlor h8adngs 8l%3. - at least 48 hours prior to the pubre meeting. 17 �^ Y L z t F ':w -� ' x ,<r IAN 'C'' tM c� e 4 % x lAt6llL /f/o/74 -r- HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY MAYOR Robert D. Come A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 CITY OF MERIDIAN WORKS CITY COUNCEL HERS Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO PUBLIC BUILDING DEPARTMENT Keith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 887-2211 - Fax 887-1297 Tammy deWeerd (208) 8884433 - Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING Cherie McCandless City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT (208) 8845533 Fax 888-6854 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN the City of Meridian Will and Zoning Commission of City of Meridian. DATED this 12th day of October, 2001. ,41 16CA cs WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. tITY CLERK ti �• S Uzi% L. _ i �i1 V�:�t• � r Cu V •Li .- � � 1 I t ' TX 4ORRMATION REPORT xWwc AS OF OCT 15 ' ?: 17 PAGE. 01 CITY OF MERIDIAN Ce - MAYOR DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 18 10/15 1700 PUBLIC WORKS OF --S 00'13" 001 192 OK 19 10/15 17:01 2082882501 EC --S 00'22" 001 192 OK 20 10/15 17:02 8841159 EC --S 00124" 001 192 OK 21 10/15 1703 2088840744 EC --S 00122" 001 192 OK 22 10/15 1704 2088845077 EC --S 00122" 001 192 OK 23 10/15 1704 208 8% 5501 EC --S 00'21" 001 192 OK 24 10/15 17:05 LIBRARY EC --S 00'25" 001 192 OK 25 10/15 17:07 8886854 EC—S 00'23" 001 192 OK 26 10/15 17:08 2083757154 EC --S 00'23" 001 192 OK 27 10/15 1709 8950390 EC --S 00'22" 001 192 OK 28 10/15 17:10 Laurel EC --S 00'22" 001 192 OK 29 10/15 17:11 CHERRY LANE EC—S 00'26" 001 192 OK 31 10/15 17:15 2083776449 EC --S 01'18" 001 192 OK Ce - MAYOR HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Roben D. Conir Good Place to Live �'L DE'ARTmEN ' �jJ (A j�� T CI f20B) 2 9 •Fax 2BB_7s01 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS 1 1 OF M— 1�EDLA lr Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO PUBLIC PUBwc woRRS BUILDING DEPARTMENT Mdi Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 697.2211 • Fax 887-1297 Tammy deWeerd (208) 888-4433 • Fax (209) 887.4813 PLANNING AND ZONING Cherie McCandless City Clerk Once Fax (208) 988.4218 DEPARTMENT (209) 984-5533 • Pax 899.6854 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a Special Meeting at City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, on Thursday, October 18, 2001 at 7.00 P.M. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission will discuss the recommendation to the proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian. The public is welcome to attend. DATED this 12th day of October, 2001. WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. (CITY CLERK SUL MAYOR Robert D. Come CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Ron Anderson Keith Bird Tammy deWeerd Cherie McCandless HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING na- MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 8845533 • Fax 888-6854 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a Special Meeting at City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, on Thursday, October 18, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission will discuss the recommendation to the proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian. The public is welcome to attend. DATED this 12th day of October, 2001. w�**-- Aja~ �o Y WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. tITY CLERK TM �: "i1 r y� NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING Mr MERIDIAN PLANNING 8t ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a Special Meeting at City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, on Thursday, October 18, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission will discuss the recommendation to the proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian. The public is welcome to attend. DATED this 12th day of October, 2001. WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. tITY CLERK 1 HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY MAYOR A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT Robert D. Come (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS Ron Anderson 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 Keith Bird MERIDIAN IDAHO 83642 Tammy deWeerd (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING Cherie McCandless City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING Mr MERIDIAN PLANNING 8t ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a Special Meeting at City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, on Thursday, October 18, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission will discuss the recommendation to the proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian. The public is welcome to attend. DATED this 12th day of October, 2001. WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. tITY CLERK 1 *'k TX *MATION REPORT ** AS OF OCT 15 105:28 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN Ccr C --'u kl I C Trot -ice -1001 Xs CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, October 18, 2001, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: Sally Norton Jerry Centers Bill Nary Keven Shreeve Chairman Keith Borup 2- Adoption of the Agenda: 3- Consent Agenda: A- Approve minutes of September 20, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: 4- Continued Public Hearing from September 20, 2001: PP 00-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 by Gemstar Properties, LLC — east of North Blade Cat Road and south of West Ustick Road: 5- Continued Public Hearing from October 4,2001: AZ 01-015 Request for annexation and zoning of 34.60 acres from RUT to I -L zones for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC — 3365 North Ten Mile Road: S. Continued Public Hearing from October 4,2001: PP 01-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 34.60 acres in a proposed I -L zone for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC — 3365 North Ten Mile Road: 7. Public Hearing: AZ 01.013 Request for annexation and zoning of .66 acres from R-1 to R-8 zones for Ted Cunningham by Ted Cunningham — 125 Blue Herron Lane: a. Public Hearing: PP 01-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and 5 other lots on 5,4 acres in a proposed R-0 zone for Meridian Plat OV and Zoning Coeanisd- Aprtft — odoba 18, 2001 AD Page 1 d2 An""deftV ww"O wft fOr dID3ftes muted tO deCU wts tib or ImAng8 ONes �alted Ore Coy CWS Gftkro 8188"" tt least 48 hom pdarto tiro public mwft. T. .� r 4z.+" . t" u c�"7� 'H§ A v c"' DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 03 10/15 15:12 2082882501 EC --S 00138" 082 184 OK 04 10/15 15:13 8841159 EC --S 00,38" 002 184 OK 05 10/15 15:14 2088840744 EC --S 00,37" 002 184 OK 06 10/15 15:15 2088845077 EC—S 00'37" 002 184 OK 07 10/15 15:16 208 8% 5501 EC --S 00,37" 002 184 OK 08 10/15 15:17 LIBRARY EC --S 00,46" 002 184 OK 09 10/15 15:19 92083776449 EC—S 00'37" 002 184 OK 10 10/15 15:20 208 388 6924 EC --S 00'46" 002 184 OK 11 10/15 15:21 BB86854 EC --S 00'37" 002 184 OK 12 10/15 15:22 8950390 EC --S 00,37" 002 184 OK 13 10/15 15:23 Laurel EC --S 00138" 002 184 OK 14--10/15-15 27 PUBLIC WORKS — -- UF --S 00'27" 002 184 OK Ccr C --'u kl I C Trot -ice -1001 Xs CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, October 18, 2001, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: Sally Norton Jerry Centers Bill Nary Keven Shreeve Chairman Keith Borup 2- Adoption of the Agenda: 3- Consent Agenda: A- Approve minutes of September 20, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: 4- Continued Public Hearing from September 20, 2001: PP 00-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 by Gemstar Properties, LLC — east of North Blade Cat Road and south of West Ustick Road: 5- Continued Public Hearing from October 4,2001: AZ 01-015 Request for annexation and zoning of 34.60 acres from RUT to I -L zones for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC — 3365 North Ten Mile Road: S. Continued Public Hearing from October 4,2001: PP 01-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 34.60 acres in a proposed I -L zone for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC — 3365 North Ten Mile Road: 7. Public Hearing: AZ 01.013 Request for annexation and zoning of .66 acres from R-1 to R-8 zones for Ted Cunningham by Ted Cunningham — 125 Blue Herron Lane: a. Public Hearing: PP 01-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and 5 other lots on 5,4 acres in a proposed R-0 zone for Meridian Plat OV and Zoning Coeanisd- Aprtft — odoba 18, 2001 AD Page 1 d2 An""deftV ww"O wft fOr dID3ftes muted tO deCU wts tib or ImAng8 ONes �alted Ore Coy CWS Gftkro 8188"" tt least 48 hom pdarto tiro public mwft. T. .� r 4z.+" . t" u c�"7� 'H§ A v c"' r k� k � 2 ?,4 ¢t1 r i } e rs: A.pg7 } 4 4 1 t k a S � 4 r i } e rs: A.pg7 } 4 0 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meetina October 18, 2001 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 18, 2001, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Jerry Centers and Keven Shreeve. Others Present: Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, Larry Moore, Dean Willis, Tara Green and Will Berg. Borup: Okay. We'd like to call to order our regular Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting for Thursday, October 18th, and move things along. I might mention we have all five Commissioners here in attendance. Item 1. Roll -Call Attendance X Sally Norton X Jerry Centers X Bill Nary X Keven Shreeve X Chairman Keith Borup Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of September 20, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Borup: The first item is approval of minutes from the September 20th meeting. Any comments from any of the Commissioners? If not, do we have a motion? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I would move the approval of the minutes from the regular meeting of September 20th. Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion and second to approve the minutes. All in favor? Opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7. Public Hearing: AZ 01-013 Request for annexation and zoning of .66 acres from R-1 to R-8 zones for Ted Cunningham by Ted Cunningham — 125 Blue Herron Lane: Meridian Planning and Zoning Cor341Tfission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 2 Borup: I would like to propose one change on the agenda and that would be to move Item 7 on up before Item 4, which would put it first on the agenda. This was a continued hearing just on a short annexation and zoning. If the Commissioners would be all right with that, I think that would be more accommodating to the applicant, rather than waiting for -- okay. So let's do that, let's start with -- again, we did open the Public Hearing and continued it, but this is Public Hearing AZ 01-013, request for annexation and zoning of .66 acres from R-1 to R-8 zones for Ted Cunningham on 125 Blue Herron Lane. Do we have a staff report on this item? Did that foul you up by moving that, Steve? Siddoway: I'll find it shortly here. Borup: Okay. On Item 7 -- Siddoway: Well, I'm going to do it with -- there we go. Borup: There we go. Siddoway: Okay. The short version of this is that Mr. Cunningham lives on Blue Herron Lane. The Herron Brook Town homes are being constructed currently in this location. This would be Meridian Road. North is up. I think he had a failing septic. He applied for an emergency hookup to city sewer. That was granted, but a condition of the hookup was that he immediately applies for annexation, which he has done. This would be the subject lot surrounded in the dark outline. And I think that's it. Staff recommends approval. We have a -- should have a staff report. Borup: That's dated August 1St? Siddoway: Yes and the conditions in the August 1St staff report by Bruce Freckleton and David can stand. With those conditions recommend approval. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Commission? Do we have anything the applicant would like to say? The staff has recommended approval. The only question is if you have read all the staff reports and agree to all the conditions? Okay. The applicant indicated that he had. Any other questions from the -- any Commissioners? Do we have anyone else here that is here to testify on this application? Okay. Seeing none -- Nary: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing. Norton: I second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES t < � y"tir 4k Meridian Planning and Zoning Comission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 3 Borup: Okay. Do we have a motion -- Shreeve: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: I move that we approve AZ 01-013, request for annexation and zoning of .66 acres from R-1 to R-8 zones for Ted Cunningham by Ted Cunningham, 125 Blue Herron Lane, with all the conditions and comments in the staff letter. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from September 20, 2001: PP 00-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 by Gemstar Properties, LLC — east of North Black Cat Road and south of West Ustick Road: Borup: Thank you. Okay. The next item is a Continued Public Hearing PP 00-023, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 building lots and two other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 by Gemstar Properties and we've had -- I think most of this was discussed at the last meeting. Is there some additional information, Mr. Siddoway? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Just a quick refresher. It's located near Ustick and Black Cat into the existing Autumn Faire Subdivision. This is the new plat that was brought to the hearing at the last meeting. The original staff report that was -- or the staff reports -- I guess there was a December and January staff report, they dealt with the previous plat, which showed -- the basic difference between the two was that there were no lots along the east -- west, sorry -- west boundary right here and wrapping around, they were all located in this area. This street connected through. The plat has been modified to make the lots larger, wrapping the lots completely around, but it has the same number of lots as the original proposal. You should have a revised staff report from Brad Hawkins -Clark and Bruce Freckleton, dated October 16th. Per that memo all the site specific requirements from the previous staff report should be now null and void and replaced with the conditions in this staff report. There are some issues that the applicant should address tonight. One would be a new calculation for the net density. Items No. 3 and 4 in the new staff report request an Encroachment Agreement prior to City Council. The applicant has responded that the Irrigation District will not give Encroachment Agreements until there is a Final Plat in process, so we should have the applicant discuss what would happen if the Encroachment Agreement was not allowed and would that alter the plat or would we still have buildable lots. You N { M d i 4 Meridian Planning and Zoning CoiP1TV5ission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 4 should take that into consideration in making a motion, probably have to alter the wording as it's currently stated. Item No. 5 talks about the stub street and, actually, I think the staff recommendation was to eliminate this, but as pointed out in the applicant's response, they can't without having a block length that is too long and would end up requiring a variance. They do not wish to have a variance. We may want to have some discussion on the Commission about the best location for that stub street, does it belong where it's shown, should it be in alignment with the street over here, that's another possible location, but eliminating it really would not be a good option, because it would then require a variance. We requested that the applicant take this new plat to the Ada County Highway District so they can have a chance to modify their staff report as necessary. They did that. ACHD submitted a revised staff report, but no significant modifications were required. Item 10 talks about the stub street going west and the odd angle at which it intersects the property line. It suggests that we may want to intersect it more like a 90 -degree angle. I will let the applicant address that. It may be fine to leave it as is. The point I think they will try to make tonight is that the development, as it continues, will likely parallel this drain -- it is the Skypilot Drain, is that right, Bruce? Yes. Skypilot Drain. And so they will likely want a street in alignment with that. That alignment should be considered by the Commission. And the final thing I would have would be in item 12, talking about fees that it suggests that the fees are to be paid prior to signature on the Final Plat. The Development Agreement already has that taken care of and says that these fees are to be paid at the Building Permit stage, so that modification should also take place. Bruce is suggesting that you insert the wording from line 5.9 of the Development Agreement in place of the last sentence of No. 12 in the staff report. That's all I have. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from any Commissioners? Is the applicant here this evening? Might come forward. Stanfield: Scott Stanfield with Earl and Associates, engineering firm in Caldwell, Idaho. 214 Badiola. I'll try and make this quick. Borup: I think Steve has hit on several things that you might want to comment on. Stanfield: Correct and I just circled those items and those will be the only items I will address. Number 1, the density we take out -- first of all, the density or the area we show in the note, 16 point something acres that actually exclude the 6.89 park site. So the numbers I'm going to rattle off, that will be important to you. We pull out the roads, we pull out the park, we pull out the common areas in the back along the Skypilot Drain, we'll use just the buildable lots and we are at 2.6 units per acre, taking everything else out. So that addresses Item Number 1. Item Number 3 and 4 are pretty much the same in regards to Encroachments Agreements for Skypilot and for the Safford Lateral. The Safford Lateral on the south boundary and Skypilot's on the northerly boundary. We presented this plat to Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and we have a letter from them that basically says they don't have any issues with the Preliminary Plat. They have got an Encroachment Agreement and a License Agreement and we will have to Meridian Planning and Zoning Cor7l fission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 5 incur Final Plat and plans stages and that they will require construction plans at that stage. Borup: Steve, the concern was when you mentioned on the lot sizes, the lots on the south boundary, was that the one where the -- concern that were not able to get the Encroachment Agreement because of size problems? Siddoway: Yes it seems clear that the ones on the north along Skypilot, if the Encroachment wasn't allowed they'd still have plenty of size. These -- I just had a question if they still would. Stanfield: If we were to fail on that and have to provide I think it's a 30 foot strip for Nampa Meridian, if they changed their mind, those lots, in my opinion, are pretty wide, even with the setbacks, we are still left with about a 50 foot pad measured north to south on the southerly lots here. So it's my opinion that you could still get a building on those. Borup: Fifty foot building pads? Stanfield: Fifty foot in the narrowest position north to south. Widthwise east and west would be quite a bit wider than 50 feet. And that's one benefit if the stub is there, those lots could actually front, there is two there, a zone there, the westerly one could front to the west and the easterly one could front to the east and still have a nice building pad. The two on the east side of the stub street would still have a 50 foot minimum pad north to south and if we had to we could push lot lines to the east and slowly wrap them around a cul-de-sac, because the three around the cul-de-sac are really quite large and move the lot lines a couple feet here or there and pick up some square footage. I don't think -- see any major impact to the plat -- Borup: Okay. Stanfield: -- with that. Hopefully that addresses Items 3 and 4. Number 5, the stub street, again, we didn't want to seek a variance process on it. A lot of people haven't been very successful in that, so we just wanted to go with the status quo and follow Meridian City Code, but that's why there are a lot of empty sub streets there. One dilemma we have is pulling it to the east. If you can see where Turnberry Crossing is -- yes, right where Steve has that line. You really can't get too close to that, because if you do you're going to hamper the ability of Janiceks to development their property and put a tier of rock along there. So coming too far to the east we really can't do. I mean we could come maybe one lot, but lining it up with the street right there would really hinder the parcel to the south. But, again, we can move it slightly to the east, like from discussion. The lots big enough that we have got enough room. Number 10, the Skypilot Drain paralleling -- I brought an Assessor's Map, it's from last year, but not much has changed out there. Here is the Skypilot Drain continuing, which, as we were required to do, to tile Skypilot, the highway likes it tile and not left open. It's real likely that the lot layout of the street will parallel that with one tier lot following that. So that's z� U � w� fi t Meridian Planning and Zoning Cor7l fission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 5 incur Final Plat and plans stages and that they will require construction plans at that stage. Borup: Steve, the concern was when you mentioned on the lot sizes, the lots on the south boundary, was that the one where the -- concern that were not able to get the Encroachment Agreement because of size problems? Siddoway: Yes it seems clear that the ones on the north along Skypilot, if the Encroachment wasn't allowed they'd still have plenty of size. These -- I just had a question if they still would. Stanfield: If we were to fail on that and have to provide I think it's a 30 foot strip for Nampa Meridian, if they changed their mind, those lots, in my opinion, are pretty wide, even with the setbacks, we are still left with about a 50 foot pad measured north to south on the southerly lots here. So it's my opinion that you could still get a building on those. Borup: Fifty foot building pads? Stanfield: Fifty foot in the narrowest position north to south. Widthwise east and west would be quite a bit wider than 50 feet. And that's one benefit if the stub is there, those lots could actually front, there is two there, a zone there, the westerly one could front to the west and the easterly one could front to the east and still have a nice building pad. The two on the east side of the stub street would still have a 50 foot minimum pad north to south and if we had to we could push lot lines to the east and slowly wrap them around a cul-de-sac, because the three around the cul-de-sac are really quite large and move the lot lines a couple feet here or there and pick up some square footage. I don't think -- see any major impact to the plat -- Borup: Okay. Stanfield: -- with that. Hopefully that addresses Items 3 and 4. Number 5, the stub street, again, we didn't want to seek a variance process on it. A lot of people haven't been very successful in that, so we just wanted to go with the status quo and follow Meridian City Code, but that's why there are a lot of empty sub streets there. One dilemma we have is pulling it to the east. If you can see where Turnberry Crossing is -- yes, right where Steve has that line. You really can't get too close to that, because if you do you're going to hamper the ability of Janiceks to development their property and put a tier of rock along there. So coming too far to the east we really can't do. I mean we could come maybe one lot, but lining it up with the street right there would really hinder the parcel to the south. But, again, we can move it slightly to the east, like from discussion. The lots big enough that we have got enough room. Number 10, the Skypilot Drain paralleling -- I brought an Assessor's Map, it's from last year, but not much has changed out there. Here is the Skypilot Drain continuing, which, as we were required to do, to tile Skypilot, the highway likes it tile and not left open. It's real likely that the lot layout of the street will parallel that with one tier lot following that. So that's Meridian Planning and Zoning Comssion Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 7 Stanfield: It has to be more than -- Borup: Okay. So you need enough of the lateral, plus a lot depth? Stanfield: Correct. Yes. Borup: Do you know what that distance is now from the stub street to the Turnberry? Stanfield: The stub street to the Turnberry stub street is approximately 950 feet. Borup: No from that middle stub street. Stanfield: Oh. Borup: The lots are 100 feet, so it looks like it's probably 200 and — Stanfield: 250. Borup: At least. Stanfield: Yes. Borup: And do you know what the -- what the easement on that lateral is? Stanfield: They have a 30 foot on the -- looking downstream, 30 foot they claim on the right, and I think either a seven and a half or a 15. 1 know the streets are not that wide, but one of the 2 to the left facing downstream. So it's split real bizarre, but I believe all of it would be encumbered on the east of it. Borup: So it would be 30 feet? Stanfield: 30 plus a minimum of 7 and a half on the Janicek property. Borup: Okay. Well, then -- yes. So it could move over one lot, but -- Stanfield: Sure. Borup: But -- I don't know if the Commissioners have any comment or preference on that or -- Shreeve. I do, Mr. Chairman. If you move up to the east, the potential tendency would be that it's almost a straightaway where cars would take that as a straightaway. You need to have some kind of a horizontal break between intersections. Borup: That was my concern if it lined up with the other street. y�x Meridian Planning and Zoning Coossion Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 8 Shreeve: Well, or even scooting it over 1 block. I mean there is a recommended industry -- you know, where you keep some kind of a horizontal distance and I don't know what that is, per se, but that's probably sufficient. I think to move it to the east you're going to have almost a straightaway that either -- make it a straightaway or make it so people don't blaze right through there. Stanfield. Sure. And that distance is 125 feet I'm glad you mentioned that. Shreeve: So my recommendation would be to leave it where -- Borup: Over 125 -- you say not have it under 125 -- well, then, it would be under -- ? Stanfield: Correct. Borup: Okay. Good recommendation. Any other comment from any other — Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Just to refresh my memory -- and this is going back to December 12, 2000. 1 have in my notes that -- Mr. Stanfield, that this development -- developer will deed over to the City of Meridian 6.89 acres for a City Park. Does that mean the City of Meridian did not have to purchase that? Stanfield: Correct. It was an exchange for the park impact fees in Autumn Faire, but they did not actually -- Norton: I'd like to see more of this. It used to happen in the olden days, but I think that's wonderful. Stanfield: Thank you. Norton: Thank you. Borup: And I notice all those streets are single -loaded, too, on the park. Stanfield: We worked really hard with the layout with Mr. Tom Kuntz on -- to come up with that, so I guess it — Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anything else from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Any final comment, Mr. -- well, do we have anyone here to testify on this application? Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Meridian Planning and Zoning Cor�ission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 9 Centers: I guess I look back to my notes in December. What was the major hold up? Was it the City of Meridian or -- the first application was December 12th. Stanfield: No. It was -- actually, I think it was a little bit before then that we actually submitted it. It was not the City of Meridian, it was -- we had all the 30 --its literally turned to the east, typical 8,000 square foot minimum lots, because we ran out of gravity sewer just east of the questionable stub street, if you will. So that's where it stopped and nobody really seemed to like that and we were pouring through our notes through the Autumn Faire Annexation Preliminary Plat process on both at this level, the Parks Department staff level, and the Council level, were concerned about, quote, weed patches on the other side of the park. So then after we submitted we kind of backed up and said, well, wait a minute, there has got to be a way. We approached the engineering staff, Mr. Watson, regarding a lift station, so we could get the two around there. They did some internal studies, it wasn't looking very good, it just so happened that Mr. Durkin came forward and worked with the city on the regional sewer study. Mr. Watson called me and said, hey, this will encompass your area, we will get the data and tweak it a little bit and then we got to where we are at today, so it was a constant delay, if you will. Borup: And the sewer was the problem? Okay. Thank you. Stanfield: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Commissioners? This seems short, but we've only been at it for a year, so maybe it's not so short. Norton: I move to close the Public Hearing. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED. ALL AYES Borup: I mean the applicant answered all the questions that staff had. I think the 2 stub streets were really the only questions and the fence, but that's going to be up to the city on the fence. Norton: And Number 12 taken off that list? Borup: Right. Yes. And he had said that they were in agreement on that. Norton: Anybody have any questions? 4 H y 0 J Meridian Planning and Zoning Cori141Tission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 10 Centers: No. I'd just like to move forward and as long as we have addressed everything the staff was talking about and what the applicant has agreed to. Norton: I'd like to not ever see this again. Nary: Or one like it. Borup: I thought you liked the park? Norton: No. I mean, I'm sorry, but we have to keep continuing this for months and months and months and months. Borup: Okay. Would anybody like to make a motion then? Norton: I will be glad to make a motion. I move to recommend approval for PP 00-023, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 13 building lots and two other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision to include all staff comments on the revised staff comments October 16th, with one change, Number 12, to remove the last two sentences; last two sentences or one sentence? Freckleton: The last 2. Norton: Last 2 sentences. Freckleton: If you could insert a reference to 5.9 of the Development Agreement in its place. Norton: To refer to 5.9 in the Development Agreement in its place. Centers: And to clarify, you did say 13 and it is 30, Commissioner Norton. 30 lots. Norton: Oh. Thank you. Does that mean you're going to second it? Centers: Yes, please. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in -- Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Yes. Siddoway: There is still language in there about requiring removal of the stub street. There is still language in there about requiring -- Borup: On the staff comments you mean? Meridian Planning and Zoning Coil mission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 11 Siddoway: Yes. Borup: So it would need to be modified as well. Staff comments also talk about requiring the Encroachment Agreement prior to going to City Council with this. That needs to be changed to the Final Plat. And if you want to get some direction in the fencing, I inadvertently skipped over that. My recommendation would be to have it comply with the fencing requirements of the Micro Path Ordinance, which is either four - foot if its solid or open vision for safety along the pathway. Borup: Okay. Norton: Commissioner Nary is going to make some timely amendments. Nary: What it sounds like is on condition 4, that it would say Final Plat, instead of encroachment; is that correct? Siddoway: Yes. Nary: Encroach Agreement? Siddoway: 3 and 4. Nary: 3and 4 would both be Final Plats, rather than prior to City Council correct? Borup: Yes. Nary: Okay. Borup: Item 5. Norton: I think we all agree we like the stub streets where they were, so we can take off the final sentence on Number 5. Nary: Isn't that what you just said, Steve? And then is 10 the other one you were talking about, Steve? Siddoway: Yes. Nary: And I thought we thought that was fine, so we delete the language regarding they will respond to this concern, which is the last sentence. We said to leave it that way? Siddoway: Yes as long as it's clear that they can leave it as is. Nary: Yes. Siddoway: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Coir . ission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 12 Nary: And deleting the last sentence of that condition as well. I think that's it. Borup: The last thing was on the fence. They recommended that they comply with the micro path requirements for fencing. Nary: So we are adding to Condition 18, comply with Micro Path Ordinance for fencing. That's probably good enough. Siddoway: Yes. Borup: Okay. Do we need to restate that motion or where are you at, Mr. Moore? Moore: I'm on Number 18, if you will just tell me where the stub street actually runs, why I'll eliminate that. Norton: Number 5. Nary: Number 5, the last sentence would be deleted and Number 10 the last sentence would be deleted. Moore: Okay. Got it. Borup: So the motion as stated stands, with the corrections to the staff comments? Was that the motion? Centers: Read back Number 18 or -- Nary: To comply with the -- Borup: Okay. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2001: AZ 01-015 Request for annexation and zoning of 34.60 acres from RUT to I -L zones for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC — 3365 North Ten Mile Road: Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2001: PP 01-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 34.60 acres in a proposed I -L zone for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC — 3365 North Ten Mile Road: Borup: Okay. The next item is a Continued Public Hearing. This is another we just -- I believe we just opened and really didn't get into it and that is AZ 01-015, request for ' S 9 f { p 6 S1 d �b+ � 5 §f E f v, i y k .�rsS}moi-f VajsMr�R.: W i,4 d 4 Fa( 1 2jX� _T s' r t r `e'rOOis N V7fYf � �^y F r dl� .t . ' S 9 f { �b+ §f f Meridian Planning and Zoning Comission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 13 annexation and zoning of 34.60 acres from RUT to I-L zone for proposed Utility Subdivision and the accompanying application is a request for Preliminary Plat approval for seven building lots and one other lot on the same project by Falcon Creek, LLC, at 3365 North Ten Mile Road. I'd like to start with the staff report at this time. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. This is a proposed industrial subdivision near the intersection of Ustick and Ten Mile. You can see the air photo on the screen. The subject property is roughly circled. It kind of follows these lines. It is adjacent to the Sewer Treatment Plant, which you see north of it in this location. You actually see things a little better spelled out on this, maybe. The subject property is hatched and you can see the Sewer Treatment Plant to the north and the surrounding residential subdivisions. These are some existing site photos. This would be just north of the property along Ten Mile looking -- looking southwest. In the foreground, this area, is part of an Idaho Power project, is actually excluded, but the remainder of the property surrounding it is part of the project. Southeast to existing subdivisions, so I'm going to kind of go through these kind of quickly. You can see kind of the general rural character in some of those, although there are existing subdivisions adjacent as well. Englewood is to the south of it. Hartford is being built just east. This kind of gives a rough layout. You can see the proposed subdivision here. They are proposing -- is it seven lots? Yes seven industrial building lots and one common lot so two very large ones and five that are along Ten Mile Road. You can see Dakota Ridge Subdivision, Wood Creek Estate and Candlelight. This says unplatted but it's Hartford and north of that also says unplatted, but it's the unbuilt, but approved, Bridgetower Crossing. These are some photos that were submitted today by citizens, I think he's here tonight, Charles Crane, went ahead and worked them into the presentation. Show you some of the surrounding properties, Candlelight Subdivision, Englewood Creek and Dakota Ridge. This is looking into the subject property. Mr. Charles Crane, his own yard, which is directly adjacent to this project, and these would be -- I think they were submitted as what you might expect. These are existing photos of Western Recycling today. Pacific Recycling today in Boise. Sanitary Services Corporation trucks. The school bus office and where they park all their school buses today. And that's the extent of the photos. I'm going to put it back on the site plan for a minute and go through some comments. You should have a staff report dated October 12, 2001, by Dave McKinnon and Bruce Freckleton. He makes it a point to show that the proposed uses, specifically Meridian Joint School District bus repair, service, parking and storage, Sanitary Services Company for their trucks, Western Recycling, recycling facility, and a waste transfer station. So we can presume that for -- those uses will take up four of the lots, three remain unknown. At the same time, though, this is not a development application and even if this were approved we wouldn't be guaranteed, necessarily, that those are the uses that would go there. There is not a Conditional Use Permit for a waste transfer station, et cetera, before you tonight. This is the annexation and it's the plat. The first issue under the annexation is the zoning. The applicant has requested an I-L or light industrial zone. That zone is technically not in compliance with the currently adopted future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan, which shows this area as agricultural slash rural residential, but we also feel that this alone doesn't necessarily kill the project, I mean that it's out of harmony with the Comprehensive I I Meridian Planning and Zoning CoillTlfission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 14 Plan, because there is evidence in the text that is on both sides of this issue, both for and against it. I don't believe you have had a chance to read through that. Dave has summarized that on pages two and three of the staff report. A couple of things I would like to point out is under Finding E, which is actually on Page four, we would find that additional roadway improvements will be required to handle additional traffic generated from all these -- all the buses and Sanitary Services vehicles, if the uses, in fact, do go forward. The Ada County Highway District -- I just received just before coming to this meeting a copy of their final -- the final ACHD requirements. I'm not sure if that was given to the clerk in time to get a copy to you or not, but one of the issues that were contested or was kind of a hot topic was the idea of an extraordinary impact fee. They did -- the Highway District did require that the applicant enter into a Development Agreement and that any development that occurred on this site after the extraordinary impact fee, which is currently in process of being determined, once it is determined they will be subject to that. That said they did approve this project at the Highway District with conditions. One of the major issues you're going to deal with tonight I'm sure in testimony deals with whether this use will be hazardous and disturbing to existing neighboring uses and we have determined that it will and -- but another question is whether the Sewer Treatment Plant being in this location has set enough of a precedent to allow other such impactful industrial uses to coexist in the same area. The use will bring more noise, traffic, fumes, etc. into the area and have an impact on surrounding properties, but it is adjacent to the sewer treatment plant. So you're going to have to weigh both sides of that issue. Specifically under annexation and zoning comments there is an issue with the legal description that needs to be addressed by the applicant. There is -- if I understand the problem correctly, there is some property ownership that's in dispute along Nine Mile Creek. The right of way was deeded from the Bureau of Reclamation to Nampa Meridian and the deeds I guess have not been signed yet, so we need to determine who actual ownership is in that area, because it's part of this annexation. The only other thing to point out specifically in the annexation is that we would request that a Development Agreement be entered into, if approved, in that all uses within this subdivision would require a Conditional Use Permit, so that they would have to come back and that anything going into this subdivision would receive additional Public Hearings related to the design, because there is no design -related issues that we can specifically consider tonight. Under site-specific comments for the plat on Page 6, just a couple of things to point out. Item 2, the sidewalks shall be detached and not attached as they are currently proposing. And perhaps the larger issue, a multi -use pathway in Number 3 along both Five Mile and Nine Mile Creeks. I believe you should have some testimony -- or something submitted from the Parks Department, Mr. Tom Kuntz, this issue. So I will just let his memo stand with that. I'd point out in Item Number 4 that their proposed Landscape Plan is not approved and that any modifications that are required need to be addressed and that ten copies of the revised plan need to be submitted prior to the City Council per Item Number 4. Moving to the end of the recommendation, there are policies that will support and do not support this. The Commission needs to weigh both sides in the hearing tonight. Specifically the following issues are unresolved -- the pathway improvements. I think the roadway improvements are -- we may be able to consider those resolved now that we have ACHD's letter, but we may have the applicant address that. And then the Meridian Planning and Zoning Corti aission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 15 compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as already noted. That's all I have at this time and stand for questions. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Steve, you mentioned a requirement for a CUP. So then your comments in your staff report wouldn't necessarily be true. I mean if we are going to approve the use, we don't know what the use is going to be. I mean we are talking about an annexation and plat map period. Siddoway: That correct. Centers: Right. So -- Siddoway: A condition of the annexation that any use be required to go through a CUP. Centers: Right. So your comment in the staff report regarding inharmonious and noise and odor and fumes and smoke is not necessarily true. Siddoway: Not necessarily. They have -- they do have proposed uses and they have based their traffic impact studies on those uses and everything is kind of centered around those uses, so we can't ignore the fact that that's what they intend to do. Centers: Do we know their proposed uses? Siddoway: Yes. Centers: Okay. The other question I had, this area on a map that I have shows an R-4 zone and these areas, prior to annexation, what was the Comprehensive Plan for that area? Siddoway: Single-family residential. Centers: Okay. And the Comp Plan for the proposed site was single-family? Siddoway: The proposed site is agricultural rural residential. Centers: Okay. And this was straight single family residential, R-8, R-4? Siddoway: The Candlelight Subdivision was shown as existing urban in the '93 Comp Plan and the area west of the Ten Mile Road was single-family residential. Centers: And this was single-family residential? pt 4 �& t# ;- P_ 2 b4�iMvj Meridian Planning and Zoning CoRission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 16 Siddoway: Single-family residential. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Meridian Planning and Zoning Cor391Tfission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 17 mentioned that we have to comply with. I don't think that's the case, is it? I mean you can deviate from the plan -- Norton: Oh, yes. It's just a point of -- I'm sorry. Borup: Yes. I think we are -- Centers: The new plan coming up was part of my -- Borup: Well, but I don't know that we can base it on the new plan coming up. I guess, obviously, that's only -- that's going to be an influence. Centers: That's right. Borup: Because it's public knowledge. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Steve, wouldn't we have to do a Comp Plan Amendment? That's the Land Use Map that's on the -- the plan that's in place clearly says this is not an industrial zone. Wouldn't we need to do a Comprehensive Plan Amendment as well? Siddoway: Well, as staff report points out, the -- it is in conflict with the Land Use Map. Nary: Right. Siddoway: We felt that there were text policies on both sides of the issue, so we didn't think the Land Use Map by itself necessarily killed it on its own. If you disagree and think it does, I mean you can certainly give that direction, but we felt it was possible for it to move forward, but there were -- there were policies on both sides of this issue in the Comp Plan. Nary: I guess, Mr. Chairman, I mean my concern would be that the intent of the map and the plan is so that if a person looked at that, they have an understanding of what at least is proposed to be there. It's not written in stone and it's not concrete, it certainly can be changed. But that's what the process is for change, is that there is a Public Hearing beyond just an annexation, but that there is a Public Hearing to amend this plan and that all can be done at certain periods of time and things like that. For this level of change I guess it's my thought that this level of change should have a Comprehensive Plan Amendment before we have -- I mean we can do them together, we have done that before where you do one and then you do the annexation and then you do the plat or something like that. So it can be done together, but I guess I'm going to have a hard time thinking why we shouldn't be doing it. I understand why the staff comment was it's hard for us to tell for you. So I'm not faulting you, I understand Meridian Planning and Zoning Coolssion Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 18 exactly what you're saying. I guess for our responsibility is interpreting the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and whether or not amending it is the appropriate way to handle that would be really our decision, so Siddoway: If we did process a Comp Plan Amendment at this point, it could delay the adoption of our new Comp Plan, because we'd have to wait for another six months for that to happen. So that's something else to think about. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I have a question for Bruce. Bruce, where exactly could you do you have a little pointer -- where the sewer plant is? Centers: It right there. Siddoway: It's pointed right there. Norton: Oh. Okay. Thanks. And I think Commissioner Borup and I were the only ones on the Commission that went out and had the opportunity to tour the sewer plant. Did you guys go -- okay. It's a great field trip. Nary: Beautiful facility. Borup: Apparently the sewer plant didn't need any Steve, the Sewer Plant was in existence in '93 when -- and this was shown as a rural agricultural at that time, is that Siddoway: Yes. It was done, in my understanding, anyway, is it was kind of a buffer zone to keep higher density residential development out from the sewer -- right around the Sewer Treatment Plant, within that square mile. Borup: Okay. That's why I was wondering why the sewer plant why that was zoned for the Sewer Plant. Siddoway: It was done with the 10 -acre minimum residential lot sizes. Borup: Okay. Siddoway: To avoid impacting lots of people with odors. Borup: Yes rather than looking at some other type of buffer. All right. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission? Okay. If the applicant, representative would like to come forward. J-� *00 f m �F u} y ti �d:krw, Meridian Planning and Zoning Cooission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 19 Forrey: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Wayne Forrey and my address 701 Allen Street in Meridian, 83642. And with me tonight are several of our team members that will be talking about -- Wendell Bingham is here from the Meridian School District. He's one of the people involved in this project. Also Steve Sedlacek with Sanitary Services, the waste contract company that picks up our trash day in and day out here in Meridian. Steve is here tonight. I think Bill Gregory -- okay. Bill is not here, his partner. Rick Gilliham with Western Recycling, he may join us, but I don't think Rick's here right now. Also Larry Peterson is here. Larry owns a portion of this site. His home is on this property. Leon Blaser and Ed McNelis of Falcon Creek, they are here. And Lynn Brown, the architect, I think is here. I guess he might be walking in a little late. He had another commitment a little earlier tonight. Anyway, as we go through the presentation if there are specific questions that may pertain to the school district or Sanitary Services, they are available, if I can't answer the question, make sure -- and they may or may not participate. First let me say, though, thank you for continuing our Public Hearing from two weeks ago, the 4t' of October, to tonight, because we were able to have a technical review session with ACHD. Their work was kind of balled up because of the North Meridian Planning Area effort and then yesterday at noon we did meet with the full Commission at ACHD and they did approve this project. So we are very happy about that. So thank you for giving us that opportunity. I know you have got a full agenda tonight and this particular hearing right now is on the annexation and zoning, so I'll stick to that, but I would like to refer to the plat a few times, only in the geographical sense, to show you locations of uses. Borup: And we are -- we have been combining both -- testimony on both hearings at the same time. Forrey: Okay. We will do that, then. I prepared a booklet to keep our presentation concise. May I hand that out and just leaf through the booklet and keep it moving that way? Okay. Well, if you look at the cover you will see that sign there, the future substation, and that's in existence right now. Of course, that wasn't there in 1993. Let me -- because staff did bring that up and -- let me go back a bit to '93. I'm an Urban Planning Consultant and in 1993 1 was retained by the city to help draft the Comprehensive Plan update. And the thinking at that time -- and I know it very well, because Larry Peterson and I met at his home to talk about this very site and the buffer to the Waste Treatment Plant. That round circle that you see on the'93 Comprehensive Plan says regional park and at that time the City of Meridian did not have a regional park. We had Storey Park and you had the Recreation District and the city really wanted to have a major park in the community and the thinking was that the city would acquire that corner of property out there and that would become a regional park and that's why that symbol is there. We thought it would be a good buffer for the treatment plant, it was out, the city hadn't grown nearly that far yet, and we thought that was workable. Now I have since learned, though, from talking to Parks Department people, that the city contemplated acquiring that land for a regional park and passed it over, because of the fear of the odors from the waste Treatment Plant and, instead, identified a site two miles east, acquired that site, and now we know the rest of the story, that was to be a regional park for the City of Meridian. So there was a shift in internal policy of Meridian Planning and Zoning Com'fiiission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 20 the city in terms of locating a regional park and now we have a whole set of new circumstances there in terms of buffering. Now there are industrial uses with the approved Idaho Power site and Meridian Storage next to the treatment plant, which is right across from the Five Mile Creek from this site. And, of course, the proposed Comprehensive Plan. That's just a little bit of a background. Okay. We are going to talk tonight about essential community public utility services, sanitation, school bus, energy, recycling, vehicle services and business. Now you might say, well, you know, vehicle services and business, that may not be essential public services, but sanitation, school buses, recycling, and energy, those are essential. Okay. Go to the next page. Here are the uses that we envision. This is -- as a buffer to the Treatment Plant and as compatible with that electrical substation that will be constructed on Ten Mile. Community sanitation services, this would be sanitary services. Public school bus facility for the Meridian School District, recycling services provided by Western Recycling, a large vehicle wash which may be contract services between each of those government agencies or quasi -public with a private contractor to wash the school buses and the trucks and possibly neighborhood services, commercial services. That is undefined. On the next page -- let's start with Sanitary Services. The photo -- have you got that photo, Steve, of the Sanitary Services? That photo was good, because it shows all the trucks jammed together. If you drive up and down Franklin you know how jammed they are and what an inadequate site. They are severely restricted. They are probably 3 deep and maybe 3 or 4 trucks across. Just imagine getting a truck out of the middle or trying to maintain or service a truck in the middle of that. So they need to expand. They want to apply a transfer station for the community. The community residents have been asking for a transfer station. If you work in your yard on Saturday and get half of a pickup load full of yard waste and you would be able to take that to the transfer station and all the citizens can do that and when they have a big enough load then Sanitary Services bundles that up and takes it to landfill. So it's a very good community service here. They are going to build a new state-of-the-art facility and it makes an ideal buffer for the waste treatment plant. The next page you see the recycling trucks that they use. They have to provide recycling, that's a contract mandated service that's essential. They are going to build a new shop facility. It will look good, it will be good for the community and it will really help Sanitary Services. Next you will see the existing Meridian bus facility and if you have been at the end of Lanark Street you will see those buses are crammed in there as well. They can't even park an additional bus. Now the school district tells me they -- because of growth and demand they have ordered 20 new buses, they arrive about Christmas time, and they don't have a place to park them. I overheard one of the shop superintendents 3 days ago tell me that the first shipment was coming soon and it was a shipment of 6and they may have to park them in Caldwell. So, you know, we have all had experience in growth in the community and, you know, the school district is growing, too, and the buses -- we need a place to park those buses. The next page you see the maintenance shop. Inside it's extremely tight, but there are only five buses that can go in for maintenance into that at current. It's well managed, it's clean, it's not noisy, it's a great shop, but they need to expand. On the next page you will see the outside of the existing Meridian bus shop. It will hold only 5 buses. It's not efficient. It's site restricted. they really need to grow that facility. The next page Western Recycling. That's another Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 22 of where -- when we first started this project and we had some interest in an employment center and we contacted the city and asked how do you feel about an employment base in this area, in terms of neighborhood employment and a large business here, and the city came back and said there is too many fumes out there, we don't feel that's appropriate for a major employment center. So that got us rethinking. So now we come through with a parking lot, basically. It's a large parking lot. I mean we have to have a place for these essential public services school buses, the sanitation trucks and recycling facilities. So we tried incorporating that into this site. If you look on the next page Lynn Brown, an architect, is working with the school district to conceptually organize how that lot would lay out for the school district. In the lower section of that layout you see the office and the shop facility that's to the west side of the school parcel. On the east you see that parking lot that would be the employee parking. That would 245 parking spaces for employees, the bus drivers and workers in the shop, that would be parking and it's more in the center and to the north of the school site, parking for 230 buses. And each of those stalls would have block heaters that are on timers that come on at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning and warm up the engines, so you don't have a lot of -- on a cold winter morning to start those engines and let them idle, they are warm, then they -- you know, the timer it shuts off at 6:00 in the morning. So the driver comes in at 6:00, it's pretty easy to start the bus. So we have tried to incorporate, again, in terms of sensitivity to the neighborhood, but make this a workable site for these public services. Also on that layout you see where Idaho Power is, Sanitary Services is on the north, Western Recycling up there on parcel number three. Okay. Turn the page again. This is a conceptual layout of Sanitary Services. The new shop facility, scale, transfer station, covered parking, good landscaping, and, again, a good workable site for them. And then on the next page it shows some anticipated elevations of their office administration and shop. And I think it will blend very well with the Treatment Plant in terms of the architectural style and the colors and it would be a nice looking industrial type building. Okay. Now back to some discussion. The next page, titled Utility Business Park. This is a quote from the staff report, that light industrial, it's compatible with city desires. That's information we have operated on in terms of scoping this project, thinking about this project, working with the city, and understanding what's good for the community and providing these services. We have full ACHD permission approval yesterday at noontime. We have a good staff report. We have city staff support, as noted, and as discussed by staff tonight. We have support from various neighbors. Mr. Husky, a neighbor to the east, I believe there is a letter in your packet from Mr. Husky. Hubble Homes recently acquired Hartford Estates. Hubble Homes of Boise supports this project. And, in fact, this project was planned and organized before Hubble Homes acquired Hartford Estates and our engineer on this project is Hubble Engineering. We went into Hubble Homes and Hartford Estates with their eyes wide open knowing what the neighbor was going to be. It's totally compatible and it's not going to affect our marketing. And we have talked to Mr. Ed Hughes of Meridian Storage, which is zoned industrial, across the drain, Five Mile Drain or Creek. And, of course, he supports this project. And we want to have continuing coordination with the Crane family. We have met several times, we have been discussing alternatives and rearranging and screening and buffering and we will continue to do that. I think it's going in a positive direction. This is a good buffer to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Corviission Meeting e Octdber 18, 2001 Page 23 Treatment Plant. You know, arterials do define neighborhood boundaries and we are at the corner of two arterials, Ustick and Ten Mile. And then we have got a Treatment Plant right behind it. We hope we are on the right track here. We think we are doing the right thing for this community by putting these types of uses at that location. And you have got some good people that will develop this with, you know, public funds to do this the way you need it done. Let's talk about pathways a little bit. That's the next page. In the Parks Department my understanding is that Mr. Kuntz was under the impression that Falcon Creek and all of the team members owned a portion of the Eight Mile Drain -- you know, the city calls it Nine Mile Drain and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District calls it Eight Mile Drain on their legal description. I think Mr. Kuntz was under the impression that there was ownership along that drain and ownership along Five Mile Creek. There has been a land transfer and it has been recorded and I can provide a copy for the city of -- they switched between Bureau of Reclamation to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and so this map is outdated now, but you see that dog leg there? Yes. Okay. That now is all in ownership by Falcon Creek and all of the land along the drain right now is in ownership of Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District with a public easement to the City of Meridian, because there is a trunk sewer line up through that area. Now that swath of land that's owned by Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District is at least 50 feet wide, in some cases wider, from the center line of the drain over to the edge of their property and on Five Mile Creek, the same situation, it's at least 80 feet wide from the center line of Five Mile Creek to the south before you get on private property. So we have got two excellent locations here for pathways on good public corridor on the Eight Mile Drain and on Five Mile Creek. And you have got a License Agreement that Nampa Meridian and the city have negotiated and here is maybe one of the best places to use that and I think we should also be discussing trust funds. The city talked about a possible bridge crossing here and pathway development and so we have got the land here to do it, we have got a license agreement that provides the mechanics to make that happen and we have got a develop group here that is talking about trust funding as this area develops having funding to get that to happen. Okay the last page. We talked about the regional park thinking about nine years ago. At one point the owner of this ground contemplated R-4 development and hired an engineer, Collins Engineering, they came to the city and they were discouraged from R-4 development in this area, again, because of the Waste Treatment Plant. We initially thought about an employment center and the city discouraged us again because of the Waste Treatment Plant. So that led us into thinking and seeking out ways to accommodate public services. These are essential services, they are totally compatible and authorized and allowed and committed in a light industrial zone. The city has right now in your ordinances sufficient development review authority to review any of these projects as they come forward in the Building Permit process. We don't believe that the Conditional Use Permit process is necessary. If you agree to zone this land light industrial, all of the things we have talked about here are permitted uses and you have development review authority through the Zoning Certificate process and development review, plan review, to look at things like fencing and landscaping and height and colors and orienting bay doors and that type of thing. So we hope you won't look at this as a way to have Conditional Use Permits. These are the types of public services that are in our neighborhoods, in front of our homes every day. Every day there is a school bus, there is a sanitation truck, or a �M r R ,x ?N3 Meridian Planning and Zoning Cor r� lission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 24 recycling truck in our neighborhood and the people think, well, I don't want that in my neighborhood -- they are there and we would be very upset if they weren't there. You know, two weeks without services and -- it disrupts things. So -- and public agencies have to plan for the future knowing that they can move a budget forward without uncertain things like Conditional Use or speculative type things. It's different in the business sector, but in the public sector we expect to set a budget and stick to it. Our Preliminary Plat complies with all of your policies, but let's go to the bottom, the bottom check -off note that I have on that last sheet. We are asking that you would modify several things in the staff report. Modify Annexation condition Number 4. Let me turn to that. It's on Page 5, Item Number 4, and we would ask you to remove the second sentence. We agree that a Development Agreement is appropriate and that would give you the assurance that the Meridian School District is, in fact, going to develop at this site. The assurance that Sanitary Services is going to development on that parcel next to the Treatment Plant. And we are very open to that. But then the second sentence says everything has to be done through conditional use. And because these are essential public services and community services, we just don't feel that's appropriate. We have enough authority to control that development as it comes forward in the Building Permit process alone. Okay. The other thing we could ask you to modify is specific Condition Number 3 and that's at the bottom of Page 6. And we would ask you to remove the last sentence. We do want to work with the Parks Department, but because we don't own the land that Mr. Kuntz assumed we did and because it's already in public ownership, let's not say that we have to come back with ten copies of our revised site plan showing everything. I think he was assuming that this was easement land and it's actually fee simple for the public. So if you could remove the last sentence on specific Condition Number 3. And then the last clarification would be Condition Number 4. In the middle of that condition it says that we have to provide a solid site - obscuring fence and we'd like that clarified, because it may be appropriate for sight - obscuring fences in certain locations and we would want it, as well as Mr. Crane. In fact, we talked about that extensively and we agreed in concept to that. The materials and the height, let's work that out. But there are other places, like in the back of Sanitary Services right next to the Waste Treatment Plant maybe chain link is okay. So that would give some flexibility to say where we are going to put that. Now out along Ten Mile and Ustick there is extensive landscaping. In fact, your ordinance requires a 25 -foot landscape strip along these arterials. If you notice, we have provided 35 feet. I don't know if you have noticed that or not -- because we want this to look good. We want this to feel good. This is community public utility. We want people to say, boy, that's a nice utility park. That's where I take my pickup truck full of yard waste. That's where my kids get the school bus. That's where I recycle. That's the Idaho Power substation. And be proud as part of the community. Be happy to answer any questions and perhaps the other folks that are here tonight, if you have got some further questions, could help as well. Borup: Commissioners? Nary: Mr. Chairman. I guess I have a concern and I think it's more of a question to the staff, but since you're probably going to also, you can stay here. But I'm looking at the Meridian Planning and Zoning Comission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 25 1993 map and it appears to me -- and I hate this term, but it appears to me that the Urban Service Planning Area as is shown on the '93 map does not encompass this entire property is that correct? It's outside -- part of this project is outside the Urban Service Planning Area. Because it looks like it comes right around the park and this area is where the park would be, is it not? Or am I looking at the wrong corner? Siddoway: I think you're looking at a pathway line. The Urban Service Planning Area line is contiguous with the impact area in the north area. Nary: So it -- so it isn't -- it isn't the -- this is the line that just details right around the park, sort of an L shape, which is the same line that's on the current proposed map that shows the Urban Service Planning Area in the same location? So the '93 map and the current proposed map are different? It's just really small. I can't see it very good. Siddoway: It is different. Nary: Okay. Siddoway: The Urban Service Planning Area is the impact area in the -- Nary: In the '93? Siddoway: -- in the '93 plan. There is kind of an X'ed -- a line that's made up of X's in that area and it's a pathway line that follows the creeks. Forrey: Actually, it's a sewer boundary. Siddoway: Oh. There is also a sewer mainline. Maybe that's what you're looking at. Nary: Yes. Like I said, it's so small and then the symbols are very similar, it looks like - - like I said, I looked at the current proposal and it's on the same line, so -- Siddoway: It may be the sewer trunk that you're looking at. Nary: Well, the reason I ask is because the Meridian City Code says if it's outside the Urban Service Planning Area they have to have a Comp Plan Amendment. So what you're saying is it is within inside the Urban Service Planning Area of the'93 map. Siddoway: It is. Nary: Okay. So what was the section you were saying that there was some language both ways on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, besides this one here on 11-16-3? Siddoway: The policy that would support it would be -- include 3.5. Industrial development should be encouraged to locate adjacent to existing industrial uses. 3.6, industrial area should be located within proximity to major utility, transportation, and �Y 4 s Em E Meridian Planning and Zoning Com'Pfiission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 26 service facilities. 3.10, industrial uses should be located where adequate water supply and water pressure are available. Fire protection needs those. The main one that's -- that it has a conflict with would be 3.4, which says industrial uses adjacent to residential areas should not create noise, odor, air pollution and visual pollution greater than levels normally associated with surrounding residential structures. Nary: So it wasn't an ordinance you were referring to, it was just the Comp Plan policy that are listed, you weren't talking about an ordinance that required a Comp Plan Amendment? Siddoway: That's correct. Nary: Okay. I have no other questions. Borup: Any other Commissioners at this time? Okay. Forrey: Are there any other of the team members that want to supplement? Okay. Borup: If some of them want to come up now or they can wait until the end. Okay. Thank you very much. Forrey: And if I didn't say it, why I think -- I'm really hoping that you will help these community services and approve this project and provide annexation and zoning and a plat and help us keep working together. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward to testify in this application? If so, come forward. Crane: My name is Charles Crane, I'm the landowner -- this is my house here, 3610 West Ustick Road, Meridian. I am aware of the dilemma that we have with the property, because we have the R-4 zoning with subdivisions and then we have the Sewer Treatment Plant and we have that land in between that some -- we don't want to restrict them from being able to use the land, but I'm opposed to the industrial zoning, because I think that's too drastic. I feel bringing the industrial Sewer Plant right up to the residential and there is no buffer at all when they do that. In these pictures this is my house and my living room window -- in this picture this window and this window are my living room windows and they face directly out where the school buses would be. They are big four -by -five foot picture windows, so when I sit there and I'm sitting on my couch this is what I will be looking at would be an industrial zone. So there would be a pretty large impact in my life and I think the neighborhood -- like this is my backyard looking out towards the land where the school buses would be. So that would be the shop and the school bus parking would be out there. Borup: So that bottom part was facing east? Crane: Yes. k t l 8 let q� a�J�a4 S' 3 a �^ e�'i Meridian Planning and Zoning Cor314Tiission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 27 Borup: That's the view out your living room window? Crane: Right. And this -- the property that is proposed to be annexed right here. And I went through the rezoning process myself before this board a couple years ago. I have a two -acre piece there and I got it rezoned so I could split it -- do a one-time split into two one -acre pieces. And at that time the Commission's feeling and also the City Council is they wanted to limit the development in that area, because it was land -- I had originally applied for an R-4 zoning and they said that I could have an R-2 zoning, because they wanted to do a gradual buffer between the Sewer Plant and the subdivision. So my feeling is that they could find a better use for the land. I don't want to restrict them from developing it, but maybe more of a gradual change in zoning, maybe start out as R-2 near the road and do some gradual zoning changes up to the sewer plant with mixed uses. Another thing is that for the last 8 years the entire neighborhood has been following the Comp Plan with the subdivisions, it's all been developed as residential. Most people have tried to comply with the directions from the Comprehensive Plan at that time. Many of the neighbors I have spoken to expected some kind of park -like area to be developed over in there. And there is a new grade school also in this subdivision. So my feeling is our neighborhood is a residential neighborhood with grade school kids and families and it just doesn't seem to fit to have an industrial park put in the middle of it. And also one other concern was the plans that were submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department seem to have minimal landscaping and buffer areas. On the original Landscaping Plan there was no buffer at all on my border. They were just going to put the parking spaces right up to my buffer, or to my border. And we have had some discussions about moving the borders back, but nothing's been committed, no amendments to the plan, so at this point it's all just been conversation about what might be done. So I'm a little leery that this would start with the minimal borders of the residential area, that if it does get approved that kind of changes could be done, especially if they don't have to go through any kind Public Hearing like a Conditional Use Permit, if they don't have to go through that procedure, what voice would the neighborhood have on what is developed. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mr. Crane, could you put out which one is your home with your pointer? Crane: My property is this little triangle right here and the existing house is right about there and I was preparing to build a new house on this lot right next to the Nine Mile Drain, so I was going to have a new house one of these days. It was going to be my dream house. Norton: Thank you. Borup: And that was the property that you had split was in the triangle piece? � r S #�•.. � i, Meridian Planning and Zoning Cor�'Riission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 28 Crane: Correct. Borup: Okay. The applicant stated that Five Main Drain he thought was about 50 feet, in that area, I think? Is that your understanding also? Crane: From my understanding the original 110 foot easement here, it was -- Nine Mile Drain was put out of the easement when they built it, they didn't put the actual physical ditch in the easement, they just decided, well, we'll just go straight. So they went through here. So they put the ditch where there was no easement and they have been trying to straighten it out for a few years with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation and the Federal Government and get the borders around. So what they have done -- the physical ditch is right next to my property about 10 feet to the center of the ditch, but there is no easement on my side, but they have -- they have made arrangements to swap this 110 foot easement for a 50 foot easement from the center of the ditch toward their property. So the total is about 60 feet here. So they were originally proposing to put parking spaces and the shop right up to the border of this 60 -foot to my property. So if this was approved, then, I hope you guys would make them give me some more distance. The thought of us having to 230 diesel engines start up at 2:30 in the morning every day worries me a little bit. Borup: 2:30? Crane: He said the automatic start-up machines -- Borup: No. He said the block heaters would come on. Crane: The block heaters? Borup: Yes. So they just turn them on when they come and not have to warm them up. Crane: At about 4:30 or 5:00 then. Anyway, those were some of my concerns and have talked to a few of the neighbors and a number of them weren't really aware of what was being proposed over here and I think I noticed a few of them in the audience, they might have a couple of comments as well. Borup: Have you seen -- Mr. Crane, have you seen the new -- have you seen the proposed layout? Crane: I have seen one -- Borup: Where it shows the buildings and the landscaping and -- Crane: Yes and the school buses and the shop. MA n 100 4 �1 s� A9. t.m x �' k _ ✓M1 x 4, a r SY 1 'xTi �eiah .'st. fkL'i�f^. x .4 t � h oo a 0i Ni Y f,+ IAR t . 'j r` � t fi*M� ,M1 Shx Sk ...$Lj,4`ra` L Meridian Planning and Zoning CoflT fission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 29 Borup: And that was the one that you were referring to that you had some concern on the parking along -- Crane: Correct. Borup: --that area? Crane: I don't think we have a diagram of it, but -- Borup: No. I don't think we -- we had it in our packet. But you were saying you'd like to see something different along -- could you elaborate on that? Crane: Well, the basis of the industrial zoning in this area -- Borup: No. I meant -- you said a different buffering along the property line. Crane: Right to my property. Borup: Yes. Crane: In addition to the 60 feet of the ditch right of way, I would like to see probably 45 or 50 feet farther -- there was a public pathway. This request was based on the fact that the new Comprehensive Plan indicated an industrial zone in this area, but also it indicates a public pathway in that area and so I feel that if we make an exception to not use the current Comprehensive Plan and use the possible future one, we should also include the pathways in that future plan and shouldn't let them pick and choose which parts are beneficial for them. Borup: Any other comments other than just increasing the distance? I mean would you rather see the building perhaps along there? Crane: Mr. Forrey and I discussed about rotating the building so that the shop wouldn't be next to my house. Borup: Oh, so it would not be. Crane: So the office would be, but the shop would be away from my house, so that the air tools and the industrial noises wouldn't be -- Borup: Right now this is -- the one we have shows the office to the south. Crane: Okay. And then it would show the shop to the north. Borup: Okay. So you would not like the building running parallel to the ditch after the buffer then, you would rather -- r s M $. N , 4, Meridian Planning and Zoning Corl'Rfission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 30 Crane: I would like to have the office between me and the shop. Borup: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Crane? Okay. Thank you, sir. Maybe a -- Commissioners, I just have a couple of comments on the pathway. I don't think I have got it straight in my mind, but I would like to hear from Mr. Kuntz, on a little bit of -- Tom, could you come forward and maybe elaborate what the parks department visualized as far as pathways. Kuntz: President Borup, Commissioners. Our new parks -- Borup: Yes I'm sorry. We need to get your -- I'm sorry -- full name and -- Kuntz: Parks and Recreation Director. My office address or home address? Borup: Either one. Office. Kuntz: 11 West South in Meridian. Borup: Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Kuntz: Our Parks Comprehensive Plan, which we are hoping to be adopted as part of the city's overall Comprehensive Plan, new plan, calls for a major pathway along Five Mile Creek, as well as a major pathway along Nine Mile Creek. We would prefer that it be on the southern boundary of Five Mile Creek, that's on the opposite side of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and on the eastern boundary of the Nine Mile Drain, so that the two paths would actually intersect in the northwest corner of that property. We have also recommended that there be a 10 foot pedestrian pathway, then, that would cross Nine Mile Drain so that the path could continue up the south side of the Five Mile Creek. We were not aware that this was not owned by the developers, but now that it's been brought to light, that it is owned by Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District, it would be very similar to a path that was built this summer at Blackstone Subdivision, which is at the corner of Cherry Lane and Black Cat. And that is on Nampa Meridian Irrigation District property. It was built by the developer of Blackstone. It's a 10 -foot wide hard surface and then we have a buffer zone of about 10 feet on either side. So we would still like to include that in our comments or recommendation. Borup: So is there adequate easement area or area to do that and what's your understanding is being proposed at this time? Kuntz: Well, if I understand --. If we are going to talk to the Five Mile Drain first or the Nine Mile? I'm sorry. What I understand is that it is 50 feet from the mid point to the back of the property line for the developer. I would want to make sure that we had at least 30 feet from the top of bank to the back of property line and I have not actually gone out and physically looked at the site. Borup: Is that what you have got on the Five Mile Pathway? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 31 Kuntz: The Five Mile Pathway varies anywhere from 80 to 60 feet on that area. Borup: On that one did you have the 30 feet from the -- Kuntz: Yes. From -- well, in some points it's higher. I mean you let it go with the lay of the land a little bit. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Kuntz: Then Five Mile Creek, it sounds like if there is an 80 -foot easement or ownership by Nampa Meridian to the middle of the creek that should be sufficient. We just want to make sure that our measurements are being taken from top of bank. As far as the 30 feet buffer, we'd like to see the 10 -foot path and then the 20 foot buffer area. The statement about us having a License Agreement with Nampa Meridian, we do have a Master Pathway Agreement with Nampa Meridian, but we would need to enter into a new License Agreement on each development that would affect that master plan and that this would be one of them. And we certainly would be willing to do that on behalf of the developers. Borup: Okay. And I wonder if there had been some discussion with the developer on this project on -- Kuntz: No. Borup: Not at this point? Kuntz: No, sir. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Kuntz? Centers: I have a question. Mr. Kuntz, what is the main purpose of that dedicated pathway? Is it for open space or is it for walking? Kuntz: It's for walking. Centers: Who is going to be utilizing that Five Mile Path? Kuntz: We are hoping that the community will. Centers: You know I haven't been out there. Maybe Commissioner Norton could tell me. Would it be -- Norton: It's really pretty. I mean there was no odor when we, odor when we toured it and you can't believe how -- I mean that Sewer Plant was great. Hroma: Hello. My name is Paul Hroma. My address 3136 North Burley Way. That's Meridian, 83642. Actually, on this plan I'm the one right underneath the road there, which is just -- basically backs right up to that proposed changing area there. You know, my concern is basically like everybody else stated early on is just the drastic leap. We were the second house in, you know, our particular area that was built and when we built our house we were under the understanding that there was going to be some sort of park going to be going in there eventually and at this time there, you know, a nice farmhouse over there with some horses and, actually, my son's -- my son's room backs up to Ustick there and the reason we made that his room was because he could look out at the horses and it was just, you know, a nice thing and, you know, now he's got this -- Borup: Could you clarify this -- did someone tell you that a park was going in? Hroma: Well, we had heard when we asked, you know, about the area and everything like that, they says, well, they are talking -- you know, our builder had mentioned that, you know, there was thoughts of some sort of park going in the area and -- Borup: I guess I missed hearing about that. I've been familiar with it for a lot of years and I was just curious. x Meridian Planning and Zoning Com fission Meeting -% October 18, 2001 Page 33 Kuntz: It does. It means that their trackhoes when they actually clean that, which is not E+X often, that means their trackhoes are on the asphalt path, which can create some problems. * Shreeve: Because now if we needed 40 feet, now would be the time, certainly, to get that. Kuntz: I understand. I was trying not to be greedy. Borup: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Kuntz? Thank you, Tom Kuntz: Thank you. X Borup: Okay. I just wanted to clarify some questions Mr. Crane brought up and then let's proceed along with the other -- come up, sir. Come on up. Hroma: Hello. My name is Paul Hroma. My address 3136 North Burley Way. That's Meridian, 83642. Actually, on this plan I'm the one right underneath the road there, which is just -- basically backs right up to that proposed changing area there. You know, my concern is basically like everybody else stated early on is just the drastic leap. We were the second house in, you know, our particular area that was built and when we built our house we were under the understanding that there was going to be some sort of park going to be going in there eventually and at this time there, you know, a nice farmhouse over there with some horses and, actually, my son's -- my son's room backs up to Ustick there and the reason we made that his room was because he could look out at the horses and it was just, you know, a nice thing and, you know, now he's got this -- Borup: Could you clarify this -- did someone tell you that a park was going in? Hroma: Well, we had heard when we asked, you know, about the area and everything like that, they says, well, they are talking -- you know, our builder had mentioned that, you know, there was thoughts of some sort of park going in the area and -- Borup: I guess I missed hearing about that. I've been familiar with it for a lot of years and I was just curious. Meridian Planning and Zoning Com"'�fiission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 34 here, that, you know, it's a nice area and the odor is not that bad, there really is no odor, you know, when you're out there and I mean I live there and I will give you that, yes, sometimes at night, especially late at night, you know, sometime you do get that odor, it comes through about, you know, about 9:00 -- 9:00, 8:00 at night and we'll get that odor floating through, you know, for about an hour or so, but, other than that, we never notice it. I mean it's not something that's there constantly on a constant basis that would interrupt if they were to put a business park of offices there or something like that, you know, if that were the case. You know, something like that, I don't see why that would be a problem, because during the day I have never had a problem with any kind of odor over there. So the -- you know, things -- the lack of -- you know, there really is a lack of odor there, it just kind of makes our case that -- you know, that -- that does take away the argument of we can't do anything else with that property, because there are other things we can do with that property. You know, and then -- you know, the comments that are made about -- about that in the respect of, boy, you know, we are kind of in a dilemma, because the -- because the Waste Management Plant is there, there is not much we can do, that it's almost like, you know, we are taking the attitude of, okay, well, that Waste Management Plant is there, so since these people already have that nuisance there, why not just bring it a little bit closer, you know. I mean that's what I'm getting out of it. And that is frustrating to me, because it's like, you know, we don't want it any closer and we don't want trucks and we don't want -- you know, Mr. Crane brought up a very valid point about, you know -- he may have been off on his time, but, you know, buses starting up early in the morning, you know, a bunch of diesel engines starting up early in the morning, that's frustrating to anybody and, you know, I get up early as it is and if they are getting up earlier than I am and they are starting those buses earlier than I am, I'm going to be a little frustrated. And, you know, the other gentleman that initially brought up the nice proposal with the booklet and all that stuff -- I don't have a booklet, but, you know, the fact of, you know, looking -- these things are in our neighborhoods already and people are glad to have these things in the neighborhood, well, the particular locations that I'm aware of that do this already, those recycling places, the school bus, they are not necessarily in residential areas where they are backing up to homes and houses, they are in industrial areas and commercial areas. The ones that I'm aware of, anyway. I could be totally wrong there in some respects. And, you know, the walkways -- you know, the walkways, great, it's like, okay, but I mean, yes, you're saying that's a really nice area out there. Well, is it going to be a really nice area to walk -- you know, walk by a recycling plant, walk by a -- you know, buses and garbage trucks and, you know, that's -- you know, a walkway doesn't really serve its purpose at that point. It's just walking by an industrial area. You can do that downtown Boise or downtown Meridian, which, you know -- so that is basically the point I wanted to make is that I -- you know, I just -- I'm pretty much just strongly against it. I - - you know, in my mind right now there is just nothing that would be accomplished that would -- that would make it worthwhile to me but you know, that's my opinion. I just wanted to make sure that I did come here and at least state that. And, you know, in the letter we did get of the notice of hearing originally the one what we got in the mail -- you know, and Mr. Crane was nice enough to take the time to come through the neighborhood and let us know what was going on, because I did get the letter, but when I saw it, you know, it was just like -- you know, because we had a couple of these other a �P y^�a��i: fine f a.�,€ f s z:err t, WA x 's 3 Ri a k^ 9p'ss 734, 71, N � d �v Meridian Planning and Zoning Com�Hission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 35 letters that Idaho -- the Idaho Power thing and storage units that went in there and it's like, you know, you just -- you try to get through these things and then you brought this up and when I read this it said Ten Mile Ustick Business Park vicinity -- vicinity map. So my initial reaction was business park, so it wasn't like a shock like, oh, my gosh, what's going in there. You know, it was just like, okay, they may be putting offices in there or something like that and that would be -- you know, that's not something that would just - - that's not something that would cause me great alarm, you know, like, okay, offices are going in there and that's just -- you know, that's something I could live with at this point, you know. But then when he came over and showed me the pictures and told me what they were planning, you know, I was just blown away, I'm like, well, gosh, that's not at all the impression that I got from the letter. And, yes, this is, you know, a really nice booklet. Shreeve: I have a question to ask you. Hroma: Yes. Shreeve: Hypothetically speaking, you know, we have got those seven lots on the side of the property, those five lots, I guess. If they shifted those and put that, obviously, along Ustick Road with some nice office buildings and then, of course, redid whatever they needed to do for the other services there, would that be a possibility? Hroma: The only thing I have with that, I mean like if it's just offices, that's one thing, but if it's offices accompanied by fumes, noise -- I mean more so than the waste management plant which we have now, which, you know, at night you get whiff of some stale air, you know, for an hour or so night, and that's it, you know, that's a big difference to having diesel engines in there constantly coming through there and then they are talking about a truck wash or -- a big truck wash, you know, is that going to be something that, you know, the people are going to be running 18 wheelers in there to wash their trucks or, you know, you're saying it could be an independent deal doing that, I mean there is a question for you. Centers: I have a question. I think you have definitely made your point. I guess I would agree with you that other uses could go in there. We would be in agreement on that. Would you agree with me that it wouldn't be residential use, though? Hroma: I would agree with you that -- yes, I mean that -- yes. Centers: That's just -- Hroma: Yes. Centers: Because who's going to develop that for residential? You're not going to want to move across the street into a house over there if it were developed, if you wanted to. Meridian Planning and Zoning Com'Tfiission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 36 Hroma: Well, you know, I don't necessarily agree with that either. I mean I think that it could be residential. I mean I think -- you know, like I said, I mean we live right, so, you know, it's a huge -- Centers: Yes. Maybe this portion could be right here. Hroma: The front half there or -- you know, I don't think that that would be -- probably they wouldn't have any more of a stench than we get from the Waste Management and, like I said, with it not being an ongoing thing, you know, an everyday, you know, occurrence, there are some days where we don't smell it at all, you know, ever. So I don't agree that it could not be used for residential, I think it could be used for residential. But, you know, like I said, that's why it didn't shock me too bad with the notice that it might be offices or something like that, because I'm like, you know, I can live with that, because it's quiet if it's offices and it looks nice and, you know, like I said, it was -- with this book -- I'm not trying to, you know, make any, you know, judgments or anything, but the booklet -- like, yes, everything looks nice and great, but as we know as time goes by, you know, things that look great when they are brand new don't look great 3 years, 4 years down the road and, you know. Bus stations are overcrowded now and buses are really crammed together. The dump trucks are really crammed together, because looking at it 5 years from now and that's not big enough for the buses. That's going to be crammed together and it's a never-ending cycle. But I think there are probably better locations, other than in this residential cluttered area here for this to happen. I just don't like the attitude if they have already got one nuisance there, let's bring it a little bit closer and make it a little bit bigger. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Hroma, before this evening did you know that that corner in the new proposed Comprehensive Plan was going to -- is designated as light industrial? Hroma: I did not know that. Well, I knew that when Mr. Crane brought it to my attention. Nary: But before this whole project came about -- Hroma: No. Nary: Because what's being looked at is 6 months from now, if nothing changes in the proposed plan 6 months or eight months or whatever it takes to get it done, that's exactly the use that's going to be done on this type of property. Hroma: Okay. i v k eyN 0- aha' r ` k V l � I Meridian Planning and Zoning Com'Tfiission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 36 Hroma: Well, you know, I don't necessarily agree with that either. I mean I think that it could be residential. I mean I think -- you know, like I said, I mean we live right, so, you know, it's a huge -- Centers: Yes. Maybe this portion could be right here. Hroma: The front half there or -- you know, I don't think that that would be -- probably they wouldn't have any more of a stench than we get from the Waste Management and, like I said, with it not being an ongoing thing, you know, an everyday, you know, occurrence, there are some days where we don't smell it at all, you know, ever. So I don't agree that it could not be used for residential, I think it could be used for residential. But, you know, like I said, that's why it didn't shock me too bad with the notice that it might be offices or something like that, because I'm like, you know, I can live with that, because it's quiet if it's offices and it looks nice and, you know, like I said, it was -- with this book -- I'm not trying to, you know, make any, you know, judgments or anything, but the booklet -- like, yes, everything looks nice and great, but as we know as time goes by, you know, things that look great when they are brand new don't look great 3 years, 4 years down the road and, you know. Bus stations are overcrowded now and buses are really crammed together. The dump trucks are really crammed together, because looking at it 5 years from now and that's not big enough for the buses. That's going to be crammed together and it's a never-ending cycle. But I think there are probably better locations, other than in this residential cluttered area here for this to happen. I just don't like the attitude if they have already got one nuisance there, let's bring it a little bit closer and make it a little bit bigger. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Hroma, before this evening did you know that that corner in the new proposed Comprehensive Plan was going to -- is designated as light industrial? Hroma: I did not know that. Well, I knew that when Mr. Crane brought it to my attention. Nary: But before this whole project came about -- Hroma: No. Nary: Because what's being looked at is 6 months from now, if nothing changes in the proposed plan 6 months or eight months or whatever it takes to get it done, that's exactly the use that's going to be done on this type of property. Hroma: Okay. i v k eyN 0- Meridian Planning and Zoning Corassion Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 37 Nary: And through all the hearings we have had not one person from any of those subdivisions came here to testify that that was not an appropriate use for that corner. Not a person. So I just wanted you to understand that that's -- I have some concerns about what the current plan says, but getting passed that, what the proposed plan says is this is exactly the kind of use that we were looking to put there. Hroma: Okay. Nary: And not a person has come in before this to say that that was not compatible. So that being said, I understand what you're saying with the corner, but you have --. I guess my concern would be is trying to fit more residences and a 2 lane road at Ustick, at least the current 2 lane road at Ten Mile, doesn't seem to be any better, because it would just create more traffic and more congestion and just adds more to the problem. Light industrial sort of takes away from some of the problems and changes it to some degree. Whether you agree, it seems like if you put the corner with more homes it's just going to end up being more crowded than it is now. Hroma: I don't you know, with the limited, you know, knowledge of all that's going on right now that I have right now, I'm just now getting into the thing, I'm kind of -- you know, when -- since Mr. Crane came over and talked to me, I -- you know, it just kind of re -sparked something and then, yes, you know, it may not be conducive to, you know, the residential area can go in there, but I'm not saying it's impossible for residential to go in there. And, you know, I like said, if a push came to shove and we had to do something with that that wasn't a residential or agricultural project, what this proposed or what I got from this thing being proposed being an office center or something like that or a business center, that, to me, you know, would be something that would be a little more presentable in a residential neighborhood, rather than the proposed just a whole lot of trucks, noise, and pollution. Borup: Just a matter of clarification. The letter that was sent out stated that it was proposed for light industrial. Meridian Planning and Zoning co ission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 38 Borup: Okay. Hroma: But this one, you know, when I just look at it and I look at that and I'm just thinking, you know, when it says Ten Mile - Ustick Business Park vicinity map -- Borup: Right. That's saying it will be a business -- a light industrial type business there. Unidentified Speaker: The letter doesn't say light industrial. Borup: It says I -L. We do need to move on and give some other people a chance to testify. Nary: One other question I had for you. One of the testimony -- part of the testimony from the applicant here is that from approximately where your house is to the nearest -- I think the front section there was the bus area is that correct? The 700 feet or 500? Hroma: 500 was the, and I don't know that that's accurate or inaccurate. I haven't measured. Nary: I mean that's about a football field and a half. That's a long -- that seems like a pretty long way to me, 500 feet away. I mean did you measure that distance -- Hroma: I have not measured it. Nary: -- how close that would be to you? Hroma: I haven't, but I know that you can hear cars -- you know just normal cars driving around and I'm just thinking of the number of buses and trucks that are going to be in there starting engines and all that stuff, that's my concern, is not necessarily the -- you know, just exactly how many feet it is form my house, but what's going to be there. It's going to be loud. It's going to be noisy. It's going to be -- Nary: Well, I mean I can hear the speedway from my house and I don't live very far from where it is, but -- I can hear the speedway occasionally, but that doesn't mean that 500 feet is not incompatible I guess is what I'm -- you know, it's still a long way away from where you're at and I just didn't know if you had measured that out or -- Hroma: No. That was the first time I had heard that number was tonight, so -- Nary: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Thank you, sir. Who would like to come up next? Come on up. You need to state your name and address for the record. Madsen: Mark Madsen, I live on 3168 North Valam, which is in Englewood Creek Estates. I also face the property in question. If I walk over here I can show you. I'm �, d Meridian Planning and Zoning Com"Rfission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 39 right here on this corner. The only clarification I wanted to -- I'm getting there. The clarification I would like is where the buses would be entering in the proposed plan and then where is that in relationship to these homes is the only question I'd like to submit. Borup: The buses would be entering right up here on this street. Madsen: That wasn't my understanding Borup: Okay. Well — Centers: I see on here the -- Borup: Right. Okay. Yes. I'm sorry. There is one shown right there and here. Madsen: Yes. That was not mentioned in the initial presentation. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I believe there are two driveways along Ustick and there is the cul-de-sac road that comes in and there are also -- how many driveways off of Ten Mile? 3? 4? 3. Yes. There is a public road and two other driveways on Ten Mile Road. So there are two on Ustick. I believe they are right in, right out? Forrey: One is right in, right out. Siddoway: One is right in, right out, and one is full turn. Borup: Okay. The one was in this location the other would be access to this lot. Centers: Oh, yes yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Com�4fission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 40 Wilder: And where is the transfer station? Borup: For the Sanitary Services? Wilder: Yes. Borup: Here on this lot. They are showing their -- their office building would be along here, the transfer station is down over in this area. Wilder: I know they are saying that there will be less traffic with this, but I'm thinking with people coming out there for the recycling and their transfer and the school bus drivers and everything there is going to be quite an impact with traffic. We live so close to the corner there that we never notice the traffic. So -- Borup: I don't think anybody said there would be less traffic, but -- Wilder: I thought they said that's what the Highway Department said, it would be less of a traffic impact than a subdivision would. Borup: Oh. Okay. Which is still traffic impact. Wilder: And I don't know how you compare those, but I'm thinking there is -- Borup: They are compared on the number of trips per day and a residential use has a lot of back and forth, whereas I'm assuming they are saying here the employees come and park and then leave, not maybe as much back and forth, but that would be highway's -- the ACHD study. Wilder: Yes. We do get an odor from the Sewage Department. It kind of depends on what way the road -- or the wind is blowing and it is noisy at night. So I'm kind of like the rest of the neighbors there, I hate to compound a problem that's already there. So I guess -- I guess that's all I can say about it, but I'm not really in favor of more industrial there. I guess my vote can count, so thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Sedlacek: My name is Steve Sedlacek, I work at 722 W. Franklin. I'm the Business Manager for the Sanitary Service Company. I just wanted to make a few brief comments. I know it's getting late. First of all, I wanted to say that we want to be next to the Waste Treatment Plant. It's a great -- we feel it's a great use and compatible with what we want to do in a facility. 2 comments I wanted to make. One is about the transfer station. In your plot plan you show a transfer and then a future transfer station on our property. There will be no future or second transportation. That's completely unnecessary. We are working with Lynn Brown on that. The size of the building that we have put on there, if we put it on there, is adequate to handle the needs for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Cori'ffTYission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 41 community for many, many, many years. The transfer facility and the construction of that facility hinges on whether or not the county continues to operate the Ada County Landfill. If they close that landfill in 5 years or so, we will be shipping waste out of this town to the tune of currently about 40 million pounds a year somewhere and we have to have a transfer facility to do that. In an I -L it's an allowed use. And which I guess gets to my second point. Sanitary Services is a captive contractor of the city. 99 percent of our revenue comes from the City of Meridian. If the City Council or the Mayor suggests something to us, it gets done. You know, we are different than, I guess, any other business. You know, we have a long-term 16 -year contract with that city and we are not in any way going to jeopardize that contract. That's our livelihood. So you have tremendous control over us. We work very closely with the city. We have a Solid Waste Advisory Committee. Mr. Borup's been on that Committee in the past. So I guess I would suggest to you that requiring a Conditional Use Permit on something that you essentially control seems a bit overdone to me. But that's your decision. And I guess in closing we hope that this goes through. We very much -- we very much need something that we own. Currently we rent land on Franklin, a number of parcels. We are at risk of losing those properties as the area is developed. Right now we are just across the street from an apartment complex and just a few hundred more feet to the west is a subdivision. We don't get any comments on the noise or anything like that, but we would just as soon be hundreds of feet away from everybody on the back part of this parcel next to the Wastewater Treatment Plant behind the substation as where we are now. Where we are now just isn't working at all. So thank you for the time and we hope this goes through. Thank you. Borup: Any questions? Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mr. Sedlacek, do your garbage trucks have an odor? Sedlacek: At times. Norton: I mean like do you park them overnight with trash in them? Sedlacek: There is -- our policy is to take anything -- if we have a quarter load on, a partial load, a very small load, we can come to the yard and park it. Norton: Okay. Sedlacek: Now if it has more than that, we are supposed to -- we drive it to the landfill. Now you have to understand that getting to the landfill and back is an hour and 20 minutes. There is a tremendous cost for us to drive it out. Norton: I know where the landfill is. Meridian Planning and Zoning Conii3iission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 42 Sedlacek: Yes. Norton: And then you said there is going to be a fee. Do you know what the fee is going to be and is it going to the city or to you. If people want to take out their truck -- their pickup trucks and dump them? Sedlacek: Oh. Norton: It says there is a fee. Sedlacek: Certainly. When you go in and you weigh in. Norton: To your place. Sedlacek: Right. Norton: All right. Will it go to you or will it go to the city? Sedlacek: That's up for future discussion. There is no fee schedule set, there is no indication as to -- you know, certainly if we own the facility and we have a capital investment, we are going to be taking the majority of the money to pay for that capital investment. Norton: Okay. Sedlacek: Now would there be part of the fee go to the city? That's certainly possible. Norton: Okay. Sedlacek: I don't know. Norton: I have another question and that is if -- I guess it -- well, yes, it does. For the recycling program we have to pay for that now. Sedlacek: Part of the mandatory service from -- Norton: Right. We have to pay for that. Sedlacek: Right. Right. Norton: And then if another recycling center goes in where we can actually get paid to us for recycling, what do you think that's going to do to the city recycling program? Do you have any idea? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 43 Sedlacek: It shouldn't do anything to it. Our program is extremely convenient. You simply set your recycling out -- Norton: I know. I do it. You don't have to explain all that we are just trying to get through this real fast. Sedlacek: Okay. Norton: Okay. Sedlacek: I don't think it will. I'm just trying to point out the fact that our program is very convenient and for some people to actually drive their recyclable to a recycling center, some people won't want to do it, some people will. Would it reduce somewhat our recycling load? Yes. Somewhat. Norton: Okay. Sedlacek: Now that doesn't change the fee structure with the city, though. Everyone would pay for it. Norton: I understand. Sedlacek: Yes. Norton: What time do your sanitation trucks tune up in the morning to get going? Sedlacek: They start picking up waste at 7:00, so they started about 6:30. Norton: How many trucks start at 6:30? Sedlacek: 9. Norton: 9? Sedlacek: Yes. 9. Now we have 2commercial trucks that start earlier and I think they start at about 5:30, so they start picking up around 6:00. Norton: And they are diesel? Sedlacek: Everything we have is diesel. Norton: Okay. Thank you. Sedlacek: So that would be 2 earlier a little bit. Norton: Thank you. a C$s WXQ a* No m�. ns Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 44 Borup: Any other questions? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I just want -- Mr. Sedlacek, you understand that part of the Conditional Use Permit, the rationale to have it isn't for our benefit like you stated, but for these people's benefit that sit behind you. Sedlacek: Absolutely. Norton: They have the opportunity to come and tell us what they feel about it. Sedlacek: Absolutely. Nary: Okay. I wanted to make sure we were clear on that. Thank you. Sedlacek: Okay. Borup: Thank you. I thought I saw another hand. Bingham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Wendell Bingham, representing Joint School District Number 2. To provide just a little bit of insight, to go back to some earlier discussions that Commissioner Nary had, ironically while you were advocating for no conditional use in approved zones to expedite development within the community, the same scenario applies to us. If it is zoned and an approved use within that zone, I question the need for a Conditional Use, because it, too, hampers our process. We are not looking at this to circumvent appropriate input from the neighborhood, but in many instances we do look at it to lessen the extraction capability the neighborhood that have upon us. So I appreciate your interesting dilemma and I do appreciate the value of conditional use, but I bring it up, because the same advantage for approved uses applied to school district and all the public sector entities. The second item quickly. I'm not totally familiar with the whole North Meridian Planning Area as you currently have it designed. I do attend all of those meetings. I'm not familiar with any discussions regarding light industrial zoning within the North Meridian Planning Area, in that 8 to 12 square mile area. So if this wouldn't be an appropriate location, I guess I would ask the simple question where might 5 disjoint activities like this occur in the North Meridian Planning Area? Because the buses are needed there and so is the Sanitary Services. So whether we deal with it in this one instance, we may deal with it on seven specific instances, and they will all be near residential properties and affect the plan of the whole North Meridian Planning Area. Again, I feel your pain, I guess, in that respect. Our choice -- the school district's choice for this area was not to locate near the sewer plant. Our choice was bus routes and efficiency trying to reduce the 3.2 million miles a year we drive delivering kids. As the growth in the area progresses from east to west Meridian Planning and Zoning Cossion Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 45 the schools will get denser and if you'd like a number, the 8 square mile in the North Meridian Planning Area is 9 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, and 2 high schools within that 8 square miles. What that means is many of those students will walk. Based upon that our routes are moving west, they are moving south of the town, Ten Mile overpass gets us across the freeway and on and off the freeway. The Ten Mile connection is probably going to cross the river at Star -- or, excuse me, the Star -Eagle area. Ten Mile Road -- I can't remember what their current 2015 land use is, whether it's 5 to 7 lanes at the intersection of Ustick and Ten Mile, so traffic is coming whether this development occurs specially in this area. But we choose it because of route efficiency and the simple logic that we should probably try to associate with our own kind. Yes, our own kind is garbage trucks, recycling trucks, the need for commercial fueling and the need for commercial wash facilities. So we felt this would probably be the highest and best use for this land in this area. Lastly, the drawing that you have in the packet presented by Falcon Creek tonight for the school district site, we had a discussion as to whether or not we really needed to provide that to you tonight and show are intent for that layout on that site. That layout was developed simply so we could determine how many acres we need to carve out to accommodate our need. Having said that, those -- the 3 salient features of that layout probably will be adhered to by whatever design we come up with. First, the majority of the bus parking is north on the common property line with Sanitary Services. 2, the parking lot is on the south and the east side of site to accommodate access to any commercial activity that may occur on the property, such as a Maverick store or -- taking a guess at something. Lastly, our shop facility is on the southwest corner of our lot. Approximately 250 buses will be stored out there. We are currently buying buses a year. We have 186 buses. It's not hard to figure out we will fill this lot up in the very near future. We cannot handle any more than 250 buses at one site. They leave the site approximately 6:00 A.M. to 6:15. They leave in probably about a 20 -minute cycle. There is probably about two- thirds of the buses will go north and out onto Ten Mile and traverse Ten Mile either north, south, or east of the intersection of Ustick and McMillan and head east towards Boise. The other percentage of the buses will come out to the south onto Ustick Road and some may go east again, some -- the majority of them will go to the west with the size of the district on into Canyon county. They are diesel buses, they will make some noise, but they are usually out of the lot 5 minutes after they are fired up. Prior to 6:00 a.m. they are going to have 250 cars coming up. Again, we need to remember what that intersection is going to look like in 5 or 10 years, whether we are there or not. The 250 cars at that intersection is probably a moot point, but while I appreciate that's hard to view now, that is what's probably coming. So I'd like you to know that we didn't choose this because we felt it would be easier, we chose this because it would be the most appropriate site for our routing, our transportation needs, and to meet the highest and best use of our dollars. With that, stand for any questions. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. e vai yt£ a_ v 10 Meridian Planning and Zoning Corn �rission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 46 Nary: I just had 2 things, Mr. Bingham. One of the things I heard the developer or the applicant say is not only did they not want to have conditional uses placed on this property initially as a requirement, but they didn't want a develop agreement either. And I guess my concern is -- Borup: Let me just correct that. They did not have a problem with the Development Agreement they didn't want the Development Agreement to state -- Nary: Require the Conditional Use Permit. Borup: Right. But they were okay with the development pretty much. Nary: And limitation of uses? Borup: He didn't clarify that. But maybe we could get some clarification. Nary: I guess it was my impression that they said they didn't want limitation of the use on there and that would be my concern is that being as close to residential as it is, the concern for this Commission and City Council is we want to make sure that the people there have some idea of what's going to be there, whether it's because they get a notice and come in every time someone wants to do something or we set it up at the outset saying here is the definition. But that was my understanding. Now am I incorrect? Bingham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner McNary, I believe your understanding is probably correct. My comment is, again, I go back to if the use is approved why a conditional use. I can stand here tonight without exception and say we can come forth with a school site no matter where, what nature of school site, and it's an approved use and we will be required to a conditional use. In most instances it would be much easier, in my mind, for the Planning and Zoning Commission to simply say every use is a conditional use. If it is a concern about either the appropriateness of public comment -- and I understand that appropriateness versus the ability of staff to render a staff level recommendation and decision and the community at large, the development community and the staff to know that there is a chance of that moving forward, we are going to have to find a way to reconcile conditional use versus approved use, because right now I can look at everything and say it's an approved use, but in the back of my mind I know it's a conditional use and I won't get that determination until such and such and it presents a real planning -- Nary: And, again, my concern is simply, like I said, it's one or the other. When you're that close to a residential community like this is, that you're either going to have to agree up front that certain uses are going to be eliminated that are going to be there, because this is just an annexation and zoning and a plat, which although we can all talk about a conflict of what it's probably going to be, realistically 6 months from now it may not be. And that's what I think the neighbors have a concern with and a legitimate concern to know what that is. So I guess that would be my only concern. My second Meridian Planning and Zoning Comr�i fission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 47 thing, which you referred to me as McNary and it's just Nary and for the next 2 and a half weeks that really matters to me. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I just had a question regarding -- do you put snow tires on all those buses? Bingham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Norton, I don't know. I don't believe so. I don't recall seeing a warehouse with 2,000 tires. No, I don't believe so. Norton: Okay. And then you're making a repair barn. How many buses do you think you want to put in there? Bingham: 12. Norton: And how many mechanics does the school district -- Bingham: 4 to 6. Norton: Can they handle 12 buses in a bus barn? Maintenance. Bingham: Yes. The procedure is the drivers a lot of times are responsible for cleaning the buses. Many of the buses are in there and are simply stored there while the axles are pulled out and the brakes are replaced, so any given mechanic would be working on 2 or 3 pieces of equipment. Having said all of that, whether I think -- you know, whether there is 6 or 12 mechanics in there, the salient fact of the matter is there is 250 buses and 250 cars and I think that's really the germane thing. I mean we want to be very forthright with that statement that that's it. We do not rebuild our own engines. Is it, by and large, an oil change facility and a vacuum shop. Norton: And tire maintenance? Bingham: Yes. Norton: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else? Simunich: I'm Joe Simunich and I live at 955 W. Ustick Road, which is about a mile and a half east of this proposed site, which looks to me like it takes about 40 acres. This site is proposing for school buses, garbage trucks, and a recycler. These are all heavy trucks. There will be semis coming in there hauling waste out from a recycling plant and 250 buses in and out twice a day, that's 500, the employees that drive them that's another 500, some of the buses will come back in the middle of the day, we'll 01 10 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 48 have several garbage trucks, so you're putting a lot of traffic on Ustick and Ten Mile Road. Most of that traffic will all go probably south on Ten Mile and east on Ustick. There is nothing confirmed to develop Ustick Road yet. I was talking to the highway department. It's a 2 lane road, it's very narrow, at the Uptmor Subdivision there isn't even room for 4 lanes, because the subdivision is too close to Five Mile Creek for about a half a mile. And the berm and the sidewalk are right up adjacent to the road. So I have lived there for 30 years and I don't think we need this kind of a facility out in a nice residential area. You have got the Bridgetower Subdivision, you have got one on Wilder's place and you have got several across the street. Just because the Sewer Plant is there, I don't think you need to move all this other stuff in there just because the Sewer Plant's there. It can be a nice residential neighborhood and I don't believe we need a 1,000 trips or 1,500 trips with heavy vehicles down Ten Mile and Ustick. These school buses and this other stuff should be in a heavy industrial area maybe down near the railroad track, not out in a residential area. If people want to build this residential area one of the nicest in the area, that north section and all of a sudden we're coming up with garbage trucks, school buses, and recycling plants, and if you go near any one of these facilities you will see what they -- how they operate and you might want to change your mind, if you're in favor of it. Garbage trucks have an odor. Cranking up this many trucks in the morning you will have a rumbling noise you will hear for a mile. So I think the Commission should take a good look at that. Thank you. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Simunich? It sounds like you're saying you -- you would not be -- you do not think that any industrial development north of Ustick would be appropriate then? Simunich: At least not of this kind with these heavy diesel trucks and maybe 1,500 trips or more from this one 40 acre site. Ustick is only a 2 -lane road. Borup: Well, I mean that whole 8 square mile area. Simunich: Well, I think there could be some type of light industrial there, but I don't know that it needs to be this condensed in one area. Borup: You got to spread it out? Simunich: Well -- and I don't know that anybody would want to live next to garbage trucks or 250 school buses running in the morning. I'm surprised this room isn't full from all those people in those nice subdivisions south of this place. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else? Do you have something new, ma'am? Okay. Please state your name again. Wilder: Janet Wilder. 3340 North Ten Mile Road. And there was a couple of -- or one thing I wanted to say that I forgot about. They said that they had some of the neighbors that were approving this. They listed Leonard Husky, but he hasn't lived there for several years. He doesn't live on that property. And Larry Peterson has moved from Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 49 his property that is on the property they are wanting to develop. So I don't know if it makes any difference or not, but they are saying there are people for it, they don't live there. Norton: Mrs. Wilder? Wilder: Yes. Norton: We have a letter that's a very nicely typewritten letter with Leonard Husky's name. Did they go -- is he in a nursing home or where is he? Wilder: Well, he's here tonight. Norton: Oh, he is? Wilder: But he does not live on that property. His house burned down several years go and he -- Norton: Where did that come -- 3639 Ten Mile Road. Wilder: He doesn't live there. Norton: Okay. Thanks. Wilder: He lives with his sister. I don't know his address, but it's in Boise. Norton: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Did the applicant have some final remarks to make? Forrey: Yes. Thank you for the chance to provide some rebuttal comments. And I'll go through each of the folks that testified. To Mr. Crane, when you take the school site plan, which is a beginning with the architects and school district, from his home it's 300 feet away to where the buses would start parking and then it goes farther away, because it's going north towards Sanitary Services and the Waste Treatment Plant. And I do think we can orient that shop to move it. We sat down in his living room and, he's right, he's got two nice windows right there that look that direction to the east and we talked about moving that and explained that with the school district and they are open to that. They recognize -- and when we first submitted the application Mr. Brown was still working on the site plan and things are coming together now and I think we can work very well with fencing and a screen and orienting that site to work with Mr. Crane and his family. We do — Borup: You're talking about what? Moving the building you're saying? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 50 Forrey: Well, the shop. I think it could be reoriented there so maybe those bay doors -- so that he wouldn't be looking -- he would be looking at the office, rather than the shop. There is some architectural ways to deal with that. Borup: Well, the other related factor on his is if you have enough buffering you don't even have to look at the shop. Forrey: Right. I remember in his testimony or his comments he said he wanted the office between himself and the shop and I think that can be accommodated. Borup: Well, I think -- well, maybe I shouldn't put words in his mouth. I guess I was assuming he was thinking that the site view is going to stay as it is now without a lot of screening. Forrey: Well, we intend to provide that screening. Borup: Pardon? Forrey: Have additional screening. Certainly we will do that. Okay. And then the school district did talk about when the buses start, about 5:30, 6:00. Mr. Kuntz. Yes, do believe there is 30 feet from the top of bank, because that is really steep, on the cut bank on that Eight -- Nine Mile Drain. So I do think there is 30 feet there. Borup: Can you clarify on that? In your presentation you made some comments on the pathway. Forrey: Yes but there is at least 50 feet. Borup: Well, but you had some talk about trust funding and things like that. But I don't know if my mind is made clear if this development was going to participate in that pathway on the development of it or anything at all or -- could you elaborate on that? Forrey: Yes the condition that I referred to -- let me turn to that. Centers: Well, you specifically asked that it be removed. Number 3. Forrey: Well, what I asked to be removed was the last sentence. Centers: Right. Forrey: But the first sentence says work with the Parks Department to determine location, landscaping, other improvements associated with multiple pathways along both Five Mile and Nine Mile Creek. And also in the staff report -- Centers: Wait. Wait. That didn't say anything. If you're agreeing to that, what does that say? Work with the parks department? Meridian Planning and Zoning Cor�Tl'�`ission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 51 Borup: That's what I was asking for clarification on, because what he's saying is the pathway is out -- is off site, it's outside their property. Forrey: There are already adequate public lands to accommodate that path. Borup: Right. Forrey: But also in the staff report it asks for a pedestrian crossing. That's also a recommendation. And that could be a trust fund item. And there could also be perhaps in trust fund financing for this future development of that path. Right now we may not have a need, but 5 years from now we may have a need to develop that pathway and this project may have contributed some amount of financing that's held in trust specifically for that development of pathway. That's very common. Borup: So that's what you are proposing to do? Forrey: Yes. Borup: Is a trust fund for development of the pathway? Forrey: Yes. And that's where we could work that out with the Park's Department. Mr. Kuntz. Centers: Or do you want to do it prior to the development? Forrey: Well, I don't know if it's needed right now. I'll speculate, Commissioner Centers, in terms of the usage, if it would sit there unused. In other words, through Englewood Creek Estates there is no connection. In fact, that is all fenced off. There has to be a comprehensive approach area to open that corridor up and then use those funds, you know, to get that path in there that maximum -- in other words, it needs to go to somewhere to make those connections. But the way to do that I think is through trust funding. Developers do that day in and day out with ACHD. To Mr. Hroma's comments, we did identify uses to the city in our cover letter. We were very up front with that, because I have been in their Commission Meetings several times when developers have come forward with a plat and you ask them what's intended and they say, well, we are working on this and that and I sense frustration that you want to see what the users are and the school district is correct, there is a risk when you submit a site plan and have everyone pick it apart. You know, we are still working on that. But, yet, we knew that you wanted to see something. So we came forward with users and business people that are here tonight to make the commitment to locate, on lot 3 Western Recycling, the school district is on lot 2 , Sanitary Services on lot 1. Truck wash probably on lot 4 or 5. That is undefined, but that's a potential use, depending upon if we get the school and trucks and the recycling, then we have got something we need to wash, so then we will need a truck wash. Also to Mr. Hroma's comments, you know, we have to look at the community in terms of community development and we 0 4. «. 1 J Meridian Planning and Zoning Cor�Tl'�`ission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 51 Borup: That's what I was asking for clarification on, because what he's saying is the pathway is out -- is off site, it's outside their property. Forrey: There are already adequate public lands to accommodate that path. Borup: Right. Forrey: But also in the staff report it asks for a pedestrian crossing. That's also a recommendation. And that could be a trust fund item. And there could also be perhaps in trust fund financing for this future development of that path. Right now we may not have a need, but 5 years from now we may have a need to develop that pathway and this project may have contributed some amount of financing that's held in trust specifically for that development of pathway. That's very common. Borup: So that's what you are proposing to do? Forrey: Yes. Borup: Is a trust fund for development of the pathway? Forrey: Yes. And that's where we could work that out with the Park's Department. Mr. Kuntz. Centers: Or do you want to do it prior to the development? Forrey: Well, I don't know if it's needed right now. I'll speculate, Commissioner Centers, in terms of the usage, if it would sit there unused. In other words, through Englewood Creek Estates there is no connection. In fact, that is all fenced off. There has to be a comprehensive approach area to open that corridor up and then use those funds, you know, to get that path in there that maximum -- in other words, it needs to go to somewhere to make those connections. But the way to do that I think is through trust funding. Developers do that day in and day out with ACHD. To Mr. Hroma's comments, we did identify uses to the city in our cover letter. We were very up front with that, because I have been in their Commission Meetings several times when developers have come forward with a plat and you ask them what's intended and they say, well, we are working on this and that and I sense frustration that you want to see what the users are and the school district is correct, there is a risk when you submit a site plan and have everyone pick it apart. You know, we are still working on that. But, yet, we knew that you wanted to see something. So we came forward with users and business people that are here tonight to make the commitment to locate, on lot 3 Western Recycling, the school district is on lot 2 , Sanitary Services on lot 1. Truck wash probably on lot 4 or 5. That is undefined, but that's a potential use, depending upon if we get the school and trucks and the recycling, then we have got something we need to wash, so then we will need a truck wash. Also to Mr. Hroma's comments, you know, we have to look at the community in terms of community development and we 0 f E3. ;.0 � 2r Meridian Planning and Zoning ConiRfission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 52 need a mix, we can't have sterile sections of ground where just one type of housing can go with just one type of use. Neighborhoods are a mixed use, so while everyone would want to have exactly their kind of house next door, in a real community and setting it doesn't work that way. We do live next to public services. We have to accommodate essential public services. To Mr. Madsen's comments, I think Mr. Bingham from the school district did discuss the routing of the bus traffic. Our traffic study was extensive, it was approved by ACHD, and we are not adding that much to the existing traffic system. The traffic is really coming from Bridgetower and another project called Keltic Heights that is really contributing quite a bit of traffic in the residential development. To Mrs. Wilder's comment. The access near her home would be right across the street and it would be on the north side of Mr. Larry Peterson's current driveway. Possibly. That's undefined. We don't know if it would be on that lot or not, but the access would be on the north side of this front driveway. Borup: And you said that there would also be access from the school bus lot to the truck wash? Forrey: Absolutely. Borup: So all the school trucks would come in from -- Forrey: From the back. Yes. And with ACHD we negotiated an internal cross -access easement. So we wouldn't have buses coming out onto the arterials to get into the truck wash. That would be kind of an internal business -to -business movement. Borup: Okay. Forrey: To address Mr. Simunich's comments about traffic. Again, I'd just restate that we went through an exhaustive traffic study. ACHD likes the way this was laid out and approved the project unanimously. This north area of Meridian is going to grow, that's where the sewer is, that's where the investment is being made by the city, that's where the planning is taking place, that's where people will live and that's where we need to have those services. Then the last thing Mrs. Wilder I just noted -- I guess she stated Mr. Husky is here. The question was asked where is he. Nary: The question was where does he live. Forrey: Oh. Okay. Nary: Does he live there. That's his address. He said I live across the street from this project. Forrey: He said he owned it. Nary: Well, he said I'm a neighbor. I guess it sounds to me like he's saying I live across from this, therefore, it seems okay to me. Meridian Planning and Zoning Cori'RT4ission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 53 Forrey: Okay. I'm not familiar with that. Nary: Okay. You don't know if he lives there. Forrey: Well, I understand he lives with his sister in Boise. But I know he did live there for many years. It was a family farm. Several generations. And then, Mr. Chairman, we have got Commissioner Nary's comment. Yes, a Development Agreement. Most certainly and my comments, we didn't negate that, we don't want to negate that, and that's where we could make that commitment about what occurs on lot 1, lot 2, lot 3, et cetera. If you have got some reservations on 4, 5, 6, 7, then that's where we look at some alternatives perhaps. That's why we are not coming forward with specific reasons. I can't tell you if the truck wash will be on lot 5 or 6 or 7. If we get 1, 2, and 3, then we are going to need a truck wash. That came out of this team effort that we have been talking about here. So, you know, that's I think what we should be talking about in the Development Agreement. I hope we get to that point. Be happy to answer any other questions. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Just so I'm clear, you don't have a problem in the Development Agreement limiting the uses and having at least on some of those that you haven't identified, those might be a Conditional Use Permit. I mean limiting them in the Development Agreement -- if we look for a table of uses for an industrial zone, there is uses that probably are very concerning to people that probably aren't going to happen, but that probably would be a problem limiting the Development Agreement, truck stops are allowed and -- Forrey: Right. Nary: -- a variety of things, light manufacturing, firearm manufacturing, there is a lot of things you can do in an industrial zone, but you probably wouldn't necessarily be limited, though. Forrey: I think that's fair. Nary: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? Mr. Forrey, a couple questions I had was, again, on -- well, not again, but on the buffering. As you stated, you have a -- a very generous landscaping easement along both arterials. Forrey: Yes. kms; k $ VF tip $� 9 t 4i 5 F 9C `j is 3e3�§�r 7l. rt A 910�w t� t i. wx�r �k Meridian Planning and Zoning Co! Nission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 54 Borup: Have you heard any discussion on a substantial berm or fencing along that area also? Forrey: Internally among our team members we have talked about making this a very attractive feel to the business park. Borup: Your proposed landscaping shows fairly extensive, but a lot of the testimony has been concerned on the things on the site and -- sight and noise. Forrey: Right. Borup: That's why I wonder if there has been discussion at all on a fairly substantial berm that could lessen -- Forrey: But we did not ask yet Hubble Engineering to make any design or cost estimates on that. We discussed it internally as we would probably want to do that. Borup: Is that something that would be feasible for you to look at and to what extent -- I guess I'm thinking something major. I don't know. You know, something along the line like Bristol Heights Subdivision there on Eagle Road has -- Forrey: Of course, you know, that type of berm is there to aid in marketing of a residential unit and we want to screen esthetics and -- Borup: Well, I was thinking more of the height. Forrey: Right. Borup: And the size and type of -- Forrey: Function? Borup: Yes. Forrey: Certainly. Borup: Okay. The other -- the other thing I don't know -- and it looks like on your layout that you do not have a lot of room -- at least for the present layout to buffer Mr. Crane's property. Forrey: Well -- Borup: There has been other developers come forward and done some off-site buffering, you know, from some landscape trees and such on the property -- on the neighbor's property to help the site buffer and I don't know if that's something you discussed with him or not. Meridian Planning and Zoning Com�ffission Meeting e October 18, 2001 Page 55 Forrey: We didn't discuss that specifically, but he and I did discuss taking out the service vehicle parking and moving that north away from his property and then making a landscape buffer through there. We talked about that. Subsequent have the school district, they thought that was a good idea. We asked the architect to revise that parking lot to do that. Then I want to take that drawing back to Mr. Crane and make sure he's comfortable with it. Borup: The only reason I mention it, just -- several others that have mentioned that to accommodate their site better, to do buffering off site for the neighbor and accomplish the same thing for both parties, but -- Forrey: Okay. Borup: Maybe something --. Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Shreeve: Just one more question. You mentioned somebody on the east side of Ten Mile that was going to develop that business. Who was that again? Forrey: Hubble Homes. Shreeve: Hubble Homes. Yes. Forrey: Hartford Estates. Shreeve: And it's a residential R-4? Forrey: Yes. Borup: There are homes under construction there now. Shreeve: Is there? Okay. Borup: Okay. Any final comments? Forrey: Hope you can move this forward. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Shreeve: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Commissioners. Which direction would we like to go? Nary: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess I can start it if that's all right. Borup: Please do. Meridian Planning and Zoning Cori'i�7iission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 56 Nary: I'm looking at our Comprehensive Plan and I'm looking back on Page 75 and it says the policies of the Comprehensive Plan establish a frame work for the Zoning and Development Ordinances and the zoning map. It goes on to talk about existing land uses and about creating a pattern of development and creating compatible arrangement of land uses and all this. This has nothing to do with quality of the project. I really don't have any real bad feeling about the quality of the project that's being proposed. When I read down further on the second full paragraph it says it's the Planning and Zoning Commission's duty to review all new development proposals to make sure compatibility with the Zoning and Development Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. It doesn't take a very smart attorney to figure out if I don't like this project, the best way to go is to appeal to the District Court and delay this project further. That doesn't benefit anybody. It doesn't benefit the applicant, it doesn't benefit some people for a delay -- this is going to probably be a light industrial zone in the new Comprehensive Plan, unless something changes significantly. But it's not a light industrial zone in this Comprehensive Plan and that's what we are required to review. This tells me that we are supposed to look at what you're proposing in relation to the plan that's in existence today and see if it's compatible. Compatibility in my mind is if it was an R-4 zone and we are proposing an R-8 zone, we can decide of that's compatible enough to not have to amend the plan completely. Well, it's rural residential to industrial, those are not compatible zones in anybody's book. When I read further in here it says after we make that decision as to whether or not it's compatible, we make a recommendation to the City Council and they make a decision. Idaho State Law goes on to say -- requires that if it isn't, we have to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Our own ordinance in 11-15 says the same thing. You have to amend the Comprehensive Plan if it's not a compatible uses that you're looking at. That concerns me, because if we ignore it, the District Court will make us do it over, because we are required to do it in these types of circumstances, in my opinion. If you look at our ordinance and you look at the plan, it says if they are not compatible you have to change it. It could have been done before today. We could have asked -- you could have asked for that. And I understand the staffs concerns about that this is not clear direction to the staff on how deal with that, but there is clear direction to us. It is our duty to review it and make that decision on whether or not it's compatible or not and whether or not the plan has to be amended before we can do it. And if I read our ordinances properly, it says you can, under 11-15-7, you can appeal our decision to the City Council and let them make the decision, because when they get sued, they get sued, not me. They can deal with that. But I can't read our ordinance any other way, except that this -- this is -- there is no way that anybody would believe that this is a compatible use in the existing plan. Therefore, the plan has to be amended before we can approve this. If we don't do it right, we'll just do it over and we will be doing it next year instead and that will make it even longer before you can do something. If we look at the rest of our ordinances, it's not complicated, it's just a process. It's a note -- it's just a process. We have heard a lot of the reasons about the project, but it is a process that has to be followed before you can get to the zoning change and the annexation. You can't do it without the other. So we can talk about the project if we want to, but just so everybody knows, it's my view of reading this -- and this is pretty easy reading to me am I r Meridian Planning and Zoning Comr'�iission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 57 4 10 Meridian Planning and Zoning Comb lssion Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 58 Moore: While I agree with Commissioner Nary that it would be necessary to change the Comprehensive Plan, both the State Law and the court decisions made based on that law say that a Comprehensive Plan is just that, it's a plan, it's not written in stone, it can be changed. Our own statutes say that if this body determines that they want to change the use of the land it could be done at the same time as when you approved the annexation and you approve the change in what that land is to be used for. I don't see it as, I guess, as great a problem as what Commissioner Nary sees it as. I see it simply as a decision made by this body to do so if they feel it's appropriate. Borup: And maybe for Commissioner Nary's clarification, I took from what you were saying -- and maybe you didn't state it that way, but that would be more successful perhaps to a lawsuit being successful, rather than be automatic, that someone may have a little more grounds for a lawsuit, rather than the -- I mean the -- the court's not going to come in and do anything without somebody initiating it. Nary: No. Procedurally what would happen is that if someone petitions to review this to the District Court from the Council's actions, because we are making a recommendation to the Council and say, for example, they agree to annex this property and rezone it and approve the plat and all of that. If a person wants to, what they do is they ask the District Court to review that and see if we followed our process and the District Court makes that decision. I agree with Mr. Moore. Maybe I -- . I didn't want to sound overly dramatic. It's a serious problem in a sense that if you don't do it properly, you don't know that until a district judge tells you that, which might be 6 months from now. What they will tell you to do is do it over and that pushes it out a year from now. I think process wise -- and, again, Mr. Siddoway can probably answer this better than I can -- I don't know how long it would take to simply put this in the right process order like it's supposed to be. I don't think it would take a very long time. I don't think it might take more than a month. But I don't know that. But my concern is when I read the guideline in the Comprehensive Plan that tells us we are supposed to make that determination and then I read in our Zoning Amendment and Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11- 15-4-B, it says if the adoption of the Zoning Amendment Application requires an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, we must follow our procedure and provide the adequate notice to do that. We are supposed to do it right. I saw the folks here from Cedar Springs for the same reason we have to follow our process. Borup: Well, I think what Mr. Moore is saying does it require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan? Is that what -- ? Moore: It does require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Borup: Okay. Moore: And if this body determines tonight they want to do that, it can be part of this proceeding is what I'm saying. Meridian Planning and Zoning Cori . fission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 59 1 4) Meridian Planning and Zoning Comassion Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 61 Forrey: That's the process we have been following. Borup: All the Commissioners haven't spoken, but I have a question for you. Anticipating the way this is going, probably 2 choices, perhaps going to City Council with a negative recommendation, but the other option may be to continue it to a future date. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: I don't know if you have a preference there. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Yes. I was looking at the calendar, because I would like the applicant to get together with the Parks Department on the pathways anyway. You know, this is a situation where the parks department and yourself talked about it in advance correct? Forrey: Yes. Centers: Which I appreciate at the Parks Department. But you need to work something out there. They have their requirements and their wants and their needs, so that was my feeling on the application anyway. Let's advertise for a possible Comprehensive Plan Amendment and look at it December 6th. You can't go to November 15th. That's not 30 days. Borup: Well, I don't think we are going to be doing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment while we are this close on our current one. It's going to have to be in conjunction with -- Centers: Well, I'm with Commissioner Nary. I don't think the current one is going to be in place for in'-- Borup: Well, the City Council -- well, no, I guess I don't either. The City Council hasn't been moving any faster than we have been moving. Nary: Mr. Chairman, I mean is it realistic to think that in 6 months we are going to have the new Comprehensive Plan — 6 months from now. We are not even done with it. We are not going to be done with it for at least a month. Then December -- nothing happens in December, so if they think that the City Council is going to pass the new Comprehensive Plan after Public Hearings, public comments, and they are gnashing around about it, before April? I doubt it. I mean I just -- I have a hard time seeing it, as slow -- this is the government, things always take a little bit longer, that's just the way it's supposed to work. Borup: I'd probably agree with that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 62 Nary: So it does say here that this Commission -- as Mr. Moore stated -- can recommend an ordinance change to amend the Comprehensive Plan. There is no -- there is no moratorium. Somebody sold you a bill of goods, because there is no legal moratorium that I'm aware of that says they can't amend it. We can recommend amending it. We can put it back on our agenda to do that and we can direct them to do it and take notice and do it. We can do it. If you don't want us to do it -- and I don't know what everybody else thinks. If we want to do it, that's fine. But Mr. Crane doesn't have to spend a lot of money to get an attorney to say slow that project down a little bit, I don't want that there yet. Forrey: I understand. Nary: I guess we agreed at the outset that this -- it doesn't take a brain surgeon to read this and say that's what it seems like to me and you have to do that. It's just a process. I just want to make sure we follow the process. It sounds like you did, too. I'm sorry that someone told you that, because it doesn't match up with what's written here in the book. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mr. Forrey, if you wrote the last plan and — Borup: Well, 8 years ago, though. Norton: Since it looks like it's going to go to light industrial in the new plan and, you know, it sounds like a real good project, but there is one business that I really have some concerns about, which we haven't discussed yet tonight. I'd feel a lot more comfortable voting for this if there was a CUP so we knew, as the neighbors knew what was going there. Everything else sounds great. Putting up a huge berm, and put in big trees, it cuts down noise, cut's down site. It's by the water treatment plant and you have a nice little pathway. I'd like to see it in a CUP and I'd look for it. Forrey: On everything? Norton: Yes. But I want to know what's going in there. I'm not going to vote for a certain business going in there. Centers: Yes. On the 4 lots that we don't know? Norton: Yes. Right. Borup: Designate a CUP on those lots you mean? " Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 63 Centers: Exactly what I'm saying. Borup: Commissioner Norton, are you talking about a CUP on the lots that -- Norton: Well, I want to know which lots -- well, wait a minute. What businesses are we talking about right now, besides the school buses, the sanitation trucks -- Forrey: The recycle. Borup: That's it. Those 3 businesses are all we know about. Norton: I have a real concern about the recycling plant. I'm real concerned about that. Borup: On whether they are going to do more than just inside the -- Norton: Yes. What type of employees they hire, whether -- what type of criminal background those employees have right next the school bus barn. I have a real concern about that recycling. The other one is fine, no big problem. But, you know, unless somebody can sit there and convince me on something that I have first-hand experience, you know, going to the recycling place and fear for your life of getting out of your car, you know, I -- so I'd like to see a CUP or at least somebody come up and tell you the recycling is going to be totally different than what I have seen. And a CUP on the other ones that we -- Borup: Yes. I think that's -- they had on the ones we haven't discussed. Okay. Forrey: We agree in principle in that. We do. Borup: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Forrey? Forrey: Whatever you decide to do, I hope we can find a way to move this forward. The school district has buses. They are paid for and on order and no place to park them. And Sanitary Services is jammed to the gills. They have got a contract that says they have to serve every time you annex. The city keeps continuing to grow and they have no place to park the sanitation trucks. On the city mandated that there be recycling and us citizens are paying for that and so there is another essential service. If we can keep this moving forward somehow and refinance it, that's I think in the best interest of our -- Borup: Okay. I think I give 2 scenarios, both of them would be moving it forward with -- Forrey: Refresh my memory. Borup: One would be going with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that Commissioner Nary has suggested and the other would be making a recommendation to the City Council. We haven't heard from everyone, but -- «rl: i 10 Meridian Planning and Zoning Corr�mission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 64 Forrey: What the recommendation would be? Borup: Yes. So far it's probably not real positive. Forrey: When would the -- Borup: And then you can argue your case with the City Council. Forrey: Right. The hearing in Option A be scheduled, most likely? Centers: The Comprehensive Plan Amendment, I'm proposing it be December 6th We normally hear continued hearings at our second meeting a month. That's the first meeting. I -- you know, I'd like to see it on the first meeting December 6t" from October 18th, so, you know, a month and a half, a little over. We can't do it in November if Commission Nary -- would it make him uncomfortable? Nary: Well, because of the 15 days -- it requires a 15 day notice, but I'm really concerned, because when the staff has to submit that when all that happens, so putting itin -- Norton: And just kind of -- in all honesty, City Council usually reverses everything that we do anyway, so -- Nary: Commissioner Norton said that, just in case the record was unclear. Forrey: There is probably 10, 15 million dollars among 4 or 5 gentlemen here resting on that and I need a couple nods from the -- see you on December 6th. Borup: If that's your preference. Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 65 Borup: I meant to ask staff on that. Siddoway: We have been discouraging and telling people basically not to apply for Comp Plan Amendments. I do not know myself if that was directed by Council, but I give as my strong opinion that they would not look favorably on a Comp Plan Amendment. Now I don't speak for Council myself, but that is my impression and maybe --. They can still take their chance and go through the process, but I really believe that and I don't know that it's going to get them anywhere. If they do, I just want to make it clear there is an application and a $1,100 fee. I assume they are not just saying they are going to notice it, but you have to pay a fee and go through the application process. Just questions in my mind surrounding this Comp Plan Amendment idea. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I know we don't have the power to do that, but -- . I'm not blaming you, Steve, but somebody told these people the wrong information and they waited and they could have done something and we could have been done with it. I mean we could have been done with it a long time ago. It wouldn't have affected the outcome of the Comprehensive Plan. That's not your fault and I don't mean to make it sound like it is. We don't have the power as this Commission to waive the fee, but they should waive the fee. These people should have -- they shouldn't have been told that to delay their project when this was -- you cannot read this Comprehensive Plan any other way. You just can't. So -- but we can by this Commission make this recommendation and go forward. You're absolutely right, when the Council gets this after the December 6t' meeting, if that's what we choose to do, they can choose not to do that. That's the risk these folks take and I understand -- and they understand that, I guess, that that's the risk, that the Council can disagree with this. But if the Council disagrees, they can annex it, zone it, and approve the plat and forget the other one They can say they don't think they need it. They don't have to deal with it. I think that's wrong. But they could do that. But if Mr. Forrey's direction and request was followed at the outset we wouldn't even have this discussion; it wouldn't have impacted the Comprehensive Plan at all. So we don't have the power to waive that fee. They should. But we don't have any way to do that. Forrey: I understand. Nary: But we can go through this, but I understand what Mr. Siddoway says. You take your chance with Council, but I believe the Council could simply say we are not going to hear that Comp Plan Amendment and they could still do your annexation, I guess, if they want to ignore it. Forrey: We attempted to submit a Comprehensive Plan Amended and the city refused to accept it, so -- -E; F i a*k #F. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 65 Borup: I meant to ask staff on that. Siddoway: We have been discouraging and telling people basically not to apply for Comp Plan Amendments. I do not know myself if that was directed by Council, but I give as my strong opinion that they would not look favorably on a Comp Plan Amendment. Now I don't speak for Council myself, but that is my impression and maybe --. They can still take their chance and go through the process, but I really believe that and I don't know that it's going to get them anywhere. If they do, I just want to make it clear there is an application and a $1,100 fee. I assume they are not just saying they are going to notice it, but you have to pay a fee and go through the application process. Just questions in my mind surrounding this Comp Plan Amendment idea. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I know we don't have the power to do that, but -- . I'm not blaming you, Steve, but somebody told these people the wrong information and they waited and they could have done something and we could have been done with it. I mean we could have been done with it a long time ago. It wouldn't have affected the outcome of the Comprehensive Plan. That's not your fault and I don't mean to make it sound like it is. We don't have the power as this Commission to waive the fee, but they should waive the fee. These people should have -- they shouldn't have been told that to delay their project when this was -- you cannot read this Comprehensive Plan any other way. You just can't. So -- but we can by this Commission make this recommendation and go forward. You're absolutely right, when the Council gets this after the December 6t' meeting, if that's what we choose to do, they can choose not to do that. That's the risk these folks take and I understand -- and they understand that, I guess, that that's the risk, that the Council can disagree with this. But if the Council disagrees, they can annex it, zone it, and approve the plat and forget the other one They can say they don't think they need it. They don't have to deal with it. I think that's wrong. But they could do that. But if Mr. Forrey's direction and request was followed at the outset we wouldn't even have this discussion; it wouldn't have impacted the Comprehensive Plan at all. So we don't have the power to waive that fee. They should. But we don't have any way to do that. Forrey: I understand. Nary: But we can go through this, but I understand what Mr. Siddoway says. You take your chance with Council, but I believe the Council could simply say we are not going to hear that Comp Plan Amendment and they could still do your annexation, I guess, if they want to ignore it. Forrey: We attempted to submit a Comprehensive Plan Amended and the city refused to accept it, so -- if Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 66 Nary: Well, they have to accept it by this ordinance, under 11-15-2-A-1. Borup: You had it written out -- Forrey: Yes. Borup: -- on paper ready to hand in? Forrey: Yes. We got a check from Leon Blaser and Ed McNelis. So the city said we have been instructed not to accept confidential plan amendments. I just want to know will staff accept this? Nary: Well, under this ordinance they are required to accept it, because if we adopt it as our recommendation, then they have to do it, because that's no different than if the Council directs us or if you ask for it. Forrey: I understand. Shreeve: So you don't know if it was under the Council directive or who? Where? When? Siddoway: I don't know. I don't know the actual directive. I have heard us say time and again, no, we are not accepting Comp Plan Amendments. We went -- we went through a phase where we were saying, no, none, and then there were several people that were in a group that wanted to. In November I think it was of '99 we went through a large Comp Plan Amendment process with about 8 individual Comp Plan Amendments that came through all at once, most of which were approved, some were changed, et cetera. Since that time we haven't been accepting them. Shreeve: So the moratorium has been 2 some odd years? Nary: Well, Mr. Chairman, I could put on the record I brought up the idea. There is a state statute on a moratorium and it does have a basis in the Comprehensive Planto allow for that. There is a process to do that and I brought that up at the Council meeting in May. They acted as if they had never heard of such a thing, including the City Attorney. They had no idea that anything exists, or at least that was the impression I was left with. So there is no legal moratorium that's ever been enacted that I'm aware of. That's a policy choice they made and they can choose to do whatever they want to, but this ordinance says we have the power to require that it be done this way. Then he says they can refuse to -- they can refuse to -- I guess. I don't know where that says that in here. They can review it, I guess, but I don't think they can refuse our direction to do it. Not the way I read it. Borup: That's been my impression, saying unofficial policy and anticipation that the new Comp Plan would be forthcoming. s Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 67 Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I just had a question and a nod from the audience would be fine. Can you park school buses in the wintertime on bare land? Bingham: Yes, if we can get electric to heat it. Norton: You would need electricity over there? Well, you know, I'm feeling like embarrassed for the city. These people have done everything they should have done, the guy wrote the Comp Plan. They did everything he was supposed to. The city says we can't take it, to get everything that -- . The city says we can't take it. Centers: I agree. Forrey: Thank you. Norton: How are we going to do this? Centers: Well, I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing. Norton: I will second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Nary: Well, Mr. Chairman, what I'm going to do is I'm going to move that we recommend through the Planning and Zoning Department, under 11-15-2-A-1, a portion of the Meridian City Code, that an application be accepted for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for this project, for AZ 01-015, request for annexation and zoning and that the project also include PP 01-017, request for Preliminary Plat, but they also accept the application under the City Code requirement to do so, that they, pursuant to the State Code, 5 or 6 or 7, Chapter 65. They follow the appropriate notice requirements that noticed up an amendment to the Meridian City Comprehensive Plan. That we set the matter over for our December 6ti' meeting to take up the matter of the two applications for the annexation and zoning and both are Preliminary Plats and for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, so that we can do this properly. If the city did the right thing, they'd waive the fee for these people, because this is ridiculous. This has wasted their time and everybody else's time, because a policy was decided to impose on these people that had no legal basis to do that when our code tells us what we are supposed to do. Borup: In that motion you referred to it, Commissioner Nary, that notice be given and make sure that this notice gets out timely, so that we do comply with the 15 day notice or rule or whatever it is. �# R of y x a� k x � 1 � Cyt Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 68 Nary: The proper notice under the City Code. Borup: That's got to be — Centers: This can be heard on December 6t'. Nary: Under 11-15-4-B it clearly says you have to follow the state code requirements for providing notice, so they need to do this right. We only should do it once. It's not that complicated to do. We should have done this already. So that's my motion, that we put this on our December 6ti' calendar, so that we can do it properly before we try to move forward. Centers: I second. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? Shreeve: Certainly on a much minor degree, but since they are having to come back, to talk with the Parks Department. Talk with Mr. Crane. You may as well resolve some of those issues as well, see if some of those things can be resolved in the meantime. Centers: That's just a recommendation. Forrey: We will do it. Borup: And we'd need to open the Public Hearing to get more information, so probably Nary: Be glad to be noticed as a public -- well, it's required to be noticed as a Public Hearing for a Comprehensive Plan. Borup: So it would be a separate hearing on the Comp Plan about more information on the application. Nary: I certainly would include in the motion that we reopen the Public Hearing just to accept information we are asking the applicant to go get in regards to the Parks Department, as well as any other public -- Borup: Do we want to reopen the Public Hearing tonight and then continue it, rather than reopen it later on? Nary: That would be fine. Borup: Okay. Is that part of the motion? Nary: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 69 Borup: That's a long motion. Moore: So we are reopening? Borup: Do you want to do a separate motion for that? How about a separate motion to reopen the Public Hearing, but continue it? Centers: Let's finish the first motion. Borup: Yes. Okay. Okay. Do we have -- you second it? Okay. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Okay. Now the second motion? Nary: Mr. Chairman, I'd move that we reopen the Public Hearing on AZ 01-015 and PP 01-017, that we continue that matter to our December 6th meeting for further discussion. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Need a short break? We will try to make this one as short as we can and we will take a break at this time. (Recess.) (Commissioner Norton left at 10:45 P.M.) Item 8. Public Hearing: PP 01-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and 5 other lots on 5.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC — 2435 South Meridian Road: Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 01-029 Request for a Planned Unit Development for a private RV storage and reduced lot sizes in an R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC — 2435 South Meridian Road: Borup: Okay. Let's go ahead and meet. Are we going to reopen -- if we can move along the next item? Commissioner Norton did have to leave. We still have Item 8 -- oops. I'm sorry. Items Number 8 and 9 like to continue with. Item 8, Public Hearing PP 01-016, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and five other lots on Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 70 5.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision. Accompanying that is a CUP request for a Planned Unit Development for a private RV storage and reduced lot sizes in an R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision by Kodiak Development, LLC at 2435 South Meridian Road. We had -- this project was on agenda last month and I believe it was because of posting it was -- it seems -- this one was -- it didn't have the proper posting, so it was moved to this month's agenda. So I'd like to open both those Public Hearings and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Chairman Borup and Members of the Commission. This is proposed Kodiak Subdivision. It is a planned development with reduced lot sides, residential, and an RV storage area in the rear, has a larger pad in front towards Meridian Road, which I believe is intended for use as a day-care. The map on the wall shows the general outline, it's a long rectangle. This may be more helpful. You can see that it's surrounded on two sides by Bear Creek Subdivision, which is currently under construction in phases. South of it is a site owned by the Nazarene Church and some existing site photos of what exists adjacent to the site. There are some improvements on the site itself. This is looking along the south boundary west into the site. Then looking south along Meridian Road. This is the proposed Preliminary Plat, which I will go through the issues related to it in a little more detail. Flip through this and the proposed Landscape Plan. From staffs perspective this project has many issues. In fact, come before you with a recommendation for denial from staff. This property was annexed last year and as part of the annexation the applicant had submitted 3 conceptual development plans. The proposed plat is similar to the favored conceptual plan that was shown at that time. However, it's been made clear that no approval of the concept plan were specifically given. The difference between this and the concept plan is that this one has 2 extra building lots and the open space has been decreased. One of the main issues with this site is that it's only partially sewerable. The reason why the lots basically end here is that beyond that point no longer flows in this direction, it flows to the east into the sewer. So the back portion of this lot is unsewerable and that's where the proposed RV storage is. The planned development requests a bonus density. A condition of the annexation was that the density of this project would be limited to that of an R-4 zone, which would be no more than 4 dwellings per acre and then a separate condition of the Development Agreement it states that he could request allowable increases through the planned development process. It should be pointed out that this staff report is based on the old Planned Development Ordinance, which allowed up to a 25 percent bonus density if certain criteria were met, most notably open space and such improvements. The application requests several reduced lot standards. The minimum street frontage for an R-8 zone, which is what it is actually zoned, is 65 feet. The applicant's requesting 45 -foot frontages, which would be a 31 percent reduction from the standard. The most common lot size in here is just over 3,000 square feet, which would be a 52 percent reduction from the required lot size of 6,500 square feet. And then I would add to this staff report that if you go -- based on the requirement that it be built to an R-4 density and you actually look at bonus density based on an 8,000 square foot lot size, then it's a 61 percent reduction from that lot size. We feel that these are smaller than should be permitted through Planned Development Ordinance. One issue is the number of lots in Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 71 Bear Creek -- or let me rephrase that. The number of lots in the proposed subdivision that would abut each lot in Bear Creek. We do have instances in a couple of situations -- I think Mr. Jewett will point these out to you -- where we have sometimes 3 and 4 lots abutting a single lot. The worse case scenario here there is one place where there is 6 and a half lots abutting one lot in Bear Creek, so one person is Bear Creek is going to have 6 plus neighbors in their backyard. That is, granted, an odd -shaped piece, it's a large triangle, and that's what creates that situation, but it is there. Another issue with the RV storage is that it is proposed to only be screened with the wrought -iron fence being built by Bear Creek and we would say that it certainly should have a solid fence and an appropriate landscape buffer between land uses. I'll let most of the -- oh, there were requested reduced setbacks in the rear from 15 feet to 12 feet. We also don't support that. I don't want to go through this point -by -point and belabor it. I hope you have had a chance to read it. Centers: Is that September 4th, Steve, that you're looking at? Siddoway: September 4th. Yes. Centers: Okay. Siddoway: This is September 4th. I will just skip to the recommendation itself. The requested lots are less than half the required size of lots within an R-8 zone. And even smaller than the R-4 zone. Staff would support a 25 percent reduction in lot size per the Planned Development Ordinance, but not a 52 percent of a 61 percent reduction. The issue of the small lots adjacent to Bear Creek is noted. And the density where it was required to be limited to the development similar to an R-4 zone with applicable bonuses, it still does not appear to meet the spirit of that condition with a net density of 14 units per acre and I tried to make a rough calculation myself the gross density. I put it roughly at 5 and a half per acre. We don't feel it meets the criteria for planned developments under either ordinance, the old one or the new one, and staff recommends denial. Stand for any questions. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I was only going to ask in looking at the map or the site plan is all the access to this storage area on this Polar Avenue from Bear Creek? Are they supposed to walk down this path or -- I mean they want people to park their RV storage back there, but their only access -- the only people that can use it is the people in this subdivision, but they can't -- Siddoway: But they have to access it through Bear Creek Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 72 Nary: Okay. Then I just thought I was crazy. Just looked like it didn't make sense to me. Thank you. Borup: Steve, clarify on the -- the conceptual plans that were turned in you said there was only 2 building lots more than what the conceptual plan had? Siddoway: That's correct. That's my understanding. Borup: But this thing isn't even close to an R-8 -- complying with an R-8 zone, so the conceptual plans weren't any closer or weren't complying either? Siddoway: Apparently not. I haven't reviewed those concept plans and I didn't review them for this report, but maybe that can be covered by Mr. Jewett, but if it's 2 less than this and the density is still the same, probably if you take the entire lot as a whole and you include the area for the RV storage in particular -- and I don't know if they are trying to include the day-care, but if you take that entire site and look at the density, I think it's in the 5.5 units per acre. Borup: Well, I was -- and it's just been a while ago and I remember the concept plan, but I mean I don't remember all the details and we don't have them in our packet now, but was the day-care center part of that, too? Siddoway: I don't know Nary: I think the day-care center was -- it seemed like the open space -- I don't remember that an RV storage, I remember something like a basketball court or a tennis court or something like that that was more a recreational use. Borup: I understand, but it was still open space. Nary: Open space and then a court. I mean something else, not just -- you have your grass, that too, but I don't remember the RV storage, I just remember — Borup: I just wonder why it was ever -- why they chose -- zoned R-8 if it didn't comply with the concept. I guess -- Nary: Well, my recollection why it was zoned R-8 was because we liked the concept plan, because it had some open space, it was a small piece of property, we liked the alternative house sizing and things like that. Borup: I think at that time they said it would comply with the setbacks and the -- Nary: That was my recollection. Ys� _ Meridian Planning and Zoning CoNission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 73 Siddoway: Mr. Jewett has those with him, so maybe we can just kill that bird when he makes his presentation. Borup: Any other questions? Mr. Jewett, would you like to come forward. Jewett: My name is Jim Jewett, 3990 East Gentry, Suite 150, Meridian. This is the original plan that was brought to you in January that this body voted on. This is the plan before you tonight. Can everybody see it? First of all, I'll address why the 2 additional lots. After getting this through City Council and we went through 3 hearings with City Council basically because of the sewer. We had some problems out on Meridian Road with the sewer, eventually bought an easement to free that sewer up for the church just south of us. So we had 3 hearings there to get that worked out. Got that worked out and then we went forward. We missed a cut-off date at the city, so we decided to come meet with the city just to make sure we were all okay. As we were talking with Brian Hawkins -Clark he said, you know, you have 2 extra units in your density bonus that you're not utilizing, so we went back and added the 2 units that we didn't even know we were missing or that we had -- or were allowed 2 more until we sat down with him and we actually did the calculations. All our calculations are right here on our density bonuses and the density was 4.5 units to the acre, not taking into consideration the day-care site on Meridian Road. So that was the reason we added the 2 lots after we met with staff. Again, we brought this through as an annexation and -- I'm sorry -- as an annexation and zoning and a conceptual drawing, because it's a difficult piece and Bear Creek was coming through. The church was coming through. We wanted to the city to be aware that we needed to do something. We needed to bring this out, that's why we did try and rush a plat together. We brought the annexation and zoning and conceptual drawing and put it out for discussion. This was the concept that staff liked. This was the concept I believe this body liked. It was the one that City Council liked. I did the plat according to what I thought the PD requirements were. I do -- I would have to beg to differ with the staff. The PD ordinance only has a calculation for density bonuses it does not have a calculation for reduced setbacks. That's open for this body and City Council to make that for this body to make a recommendation and for City Council to approve it. The only place that there is mention of a calculation is in the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan as a guide says they'd like to see no more than a 25 percent reduction in lot sizes and setbacks. The second thing is on the reduced lot sizes we have always calculated these lots based on a 42-50 minimum in the R-8 zone. The minimum lot size in an R-8 zone is 42-50 for attached housing. Our plan here on the original plan was for zero lot line homes. Not attached, but zero lot lines, which we consider would be put in the same realm. Patio homes, town homes, to me all fall in that realm and the minimum lot size is 42-50. So our reduction is only a 25 percent reduction off of 42- 50. The site -- we are not asking for site setbacks, we are asking for a front setback of 15 feet to the residential part of the home, 20 feet to the garage. I believe that's pretty standard. We are asking for a 12 -foot reduction in the rear and the reason we are asking for a 12 foot -- that came in at the end, our original plan had a 42 -foot right of way. ACHD came back and hit us with a 50 -foot right of way and they would not bend. Said, no, we want a 50 -foot right of way. That's the 4 feet. That's why we went from 15 to 12. But by the same token on the new plan we put a land -- I believe a 5 foot Meridian Planning and Zoning Com�fiission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 75 Borup: You're okay on your block length? Jewett: Yes. The block length does exceed -- we are required a variance, the same issues that came up at annexation and zoning, the same issues now, that you have a variance block line. Borup: Okay. Jewett: Also -- Borup: This is -- the ground on Bear Creek, does that go into -- are they proposing a street from their project or is that -- Jewett: There is a stub street right here. It stops right here. Borup: That's in a plat that they have -- Jewett: They approved. It's already built. Borup: All right. Jewett: I questioned it at City Council. I questioned it at ACHD and basically they just let them build it. Borup: Okay. Right there? Jewett: Yes. It's right there. We have sewer stubs right there, but it follows our Development Agreement and it follows our conditions of approval of annexation that says we cannot use that sewer and that predicates the development the way we have. We are -- this whole area was designed to service this lift station and this station this area only, so we cannot derive any sewer from that. After getting my recommendation of denial from staff I met with them several times and I did meet with staff and public works and asked them to reconsider letting me sewer through here and we would redevelop straight R-8. Straight R-8 development to mesh in with Bear Creek and just develop. To date I haven't heard a response. I believe that was about a month ago I met with public works. So, again, I'm going on conditions of what my Development Agreement says. I cannot use sewer. My Development Agreement says RV storage. The Development Agreement states that I have a day-care site up on the front and then the residential uses. Staffs recommendation to this body and the City Council on the annexation on this conceptual drawing that we did conform to the existing uses and the proposed uses of Bear Creek. In fact, they went on to say that we were a good buffer between the proposed church and these residential lots. Borup: If you went straight R-8 how many lots would that be? Meridian Planning and Zoning CoriliTrission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 77 play area, a small play area with some playground equipment in this area. Just -- and I think that we tried to really dress -up landscaping along here. We tried to save the natural trees in this island right here. Right here, these 3 trees, these are natural. This is an existing tree. This is an existing tree. We are trying to save all the large trees located in an island and get involved with cooperation with the church. The church is -- this ground here is the church. So all this accesses the joint population of the church. If there are any other ideas out there I would certainly love to hear them. We have been a long time trying to get this done since we started, I feel a half a year. I would like to move forward. I do believe we do meet all the PD ordinance. I do believe there are some things in the Comp Plan that suggest that we don't have a greater than 25 percent reduction, but I do believe if we go along with what I believe that the 42-50 is the minimum square footage in an R-8, that we are within the 25 percent reduction guidelines. The reason this is R-8 is for this very reason. We asked for R-8 to have the variety of the housing types and the PD reduced lot sizes. That's why we are at R-8 with an R-4 density, which is exactly why we did it with staff support when we came through in the annexation and zoning with this very conceptual drawing. Without -- with the addition of 2 lots, there is no difference, except what recommendations came out of this body and City Council to this plat, with the exception of 2 additional lots, which was suggested by staff when I sat down before this application came in and we went through all the density calculations. Under the density bonus guidelines I'm allowed this many units. All the density calculations are all right here. You all have a copy of this. The density calculations are all right there. I would stand by them. We went through them time and time again and revised them for staff. So, I know that Steve said in his rough calculation it was 5.5 units per acre. I will stand by what's on our plat, because we went through it several times with staff before arriving at that number. With that I want to go home, so I will stand for questions. Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? Centers: Yes. You mentioned zero lot lines. Jewett: Yes. Centers: And yet -- and you're not going to have common walls? Jewett: No. This plan is drawn wrong. Centers: So what's the side setback? Jewett: It would be zero on one side, 10 on the other. Centers: Okay. Jewett: So you would still have 10 foot between the buildings. The reason we do that - - I'll give you an example. Harris Ranch. They have their 5 foot setbacks and then they have an easement where this property owner can use that person's 5 feet of yard, Meridian Planning and Zoning Coession Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 80 Nary: Okay. Jewett: So that would still be a walking path slash emergency vehicle, so that the emergency vehicles and pedestrians can get through. Nary: So there would be no connection between that little turnaround road and Bear Creek? Jewett: This one? Nary: What you were wanting. You were saying if you don't have to provide access to Bear Creek -- Jewett: We're simply -- we just don't need the turnaround. There is no need varying from the turnaround. Nary: Okay. Jewett: If it's blocked, then it will be an easy turnaround. Nary: I'm just trying to figure out how folks can use -- folks can walk from your area to that park if they wanted to ride a bike or something -- Jewett: They would come down this path, come right out of the stub street, go right in there. I mean it's a direct shot. Nary: Okay. What about the other concern? One of the concerns raised by the staff is that you have got 2 story patio homes 12 feet from the property line overlooking people's backyards. We seem to get a lot of people concerned about that and not only do they have one of these looking over their backyard, it looks like they have 5 or 6. Jewett: That's a definite concern. That's one thing that we have different than ours and Wesley. Wesley is a single level unit, so it doesn't have -- they have a 6 -foot fence there, so they don't have that problem. Woodbridge has 2 story units against those. believe they kept their 15 -foot setback, which is what I would argue. Is there a big difference than this? Are we really going to effect anybody? 3 feet? It's simply going to make these lots feasible, because I have lost it with the ACHD. Basically what I have to do is if you're denying me that -- the rear setback, I just will have to go to ACHD to get my 42 foot, because that's what we will lose. We lose the landscaping in the front. So there is a give and take. I personally, after having got stuck with the 50 foot like the trees out in front, I think it gives it more of a better feel, because you have an obvious row of trees. They will be planted by the developer. They will be maintained by the homeowners association, so there will be a continuity to them. They will be allowed to grow and be trimmed up accordingly by the homeowners association. nllu.�o' ... Meridian Planning and Zoning Coession Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 81 Nary: I like the landscape in the front. I'm concerned about the 2 stories in the back. The houses on that north side are not currently built yet? Jewett: That plat is not under construction yet. Nary: Okay. Jewett: That was one of the reasons we wanted it done, because we don't want them to come in and say, well, what are you doing. We want them in before they build, so they know what they are coming into. I think that's only fair. We are looking at trying to design a plan that brings the residential on the second floor forward, having only a one story on the back. I'm diligently trying to come up with something like that, eliminating 2 stories on the back. We are working with that right now. We are working with the architect trying to come up with a plan -- an alternative plan so there might be every other -- every third one may be 2 stories and it may be 2 of them will be -- Borup: On the north side you're saying? Jewett: Yes. Only on the north side, because we don't have that issue on the south side. Nary: I would make note for the record we do have a letter from Craig Johnson from Bear Creek Development opposing this project. Jewett: Yes. That was -- Nary: Well, he doesn't say specifically why. Density, product size, and proximity are some of the reasons, but they seem to be opposed to it. Jewett: I have been in discussion with them from the very beginning. I didn't have opposition until that letter. They have an offer to try to buy this site from me, so maybe that's the inspiration for them to try to deny it now. Nary: All right. Jewett: Or object to it now. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: One concern I have got. With the zero lot line side yard, there has not been any mention of a variance on the side yard setback. Ordinance requires 5 foot per story. These are 2 story structures, which would give you a total of 20 feet between structures. Meridian Planning and Zoning Cor411Ti'ission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 82 Jewett: In my discussions with Dave, he was aware they were 2 stories. These are the plans that we have. Now all the calculations for our minimum square footage has been based on 2 stories. I was under the assumption an R-8 you were allowed the 5 -foot on 2 stories and I thought it was R-4 that was 5 foot per story. I had made my request to Dave that it was --. He did bring up Woodbridge. I did drive out to Woodbridge. Woodbridge does have 2 story homes with 5 -foot setbacks in this same product line, reduced lots. Borup: Yes. I was thinking there was -- Siddoway: It's per story. Borup: Per story and any zone? Siddoway: Well, specifically R-4 and R-8. Jewett: Well, my request to the city was that if necessary that we do need that variance and I left that up to them. My request was for reduced lot sizes all there. Siddoway: The reason I just want to be made clear, Mr. Chairman, is that that is a request reduction along with the rear setbacks and the frontages and the lot sizes, the side setbacks also. They are not mentioned in the staff report, but, Bruce is right, that they -- it would require a reduction to the side setback requirements as well from 20 to 10. Borup: Bruce, this is -- Mr. Freckleton -- probably an unrelated question -- I mean a question that may not apply at this point, but I had a question on the sewer. Freckleton: Yes. Borup: It sounds like the applicant was told that he could not sewer into the sewer stub that is coming out of Bear Creek. Freckleton: That's correct. That was Council directed. Borup: Okay. Was that based on any realistic calculations? I mean I just don't know if I'm convinced that that lift station couldn't handle 19 more -- 19 more lots. Freckleton: I don't think that was the point, Chairman. I think at the time Bear Creek was approved I think Council's concern was spin-off development. I think that they said this lift station is for this subdivision only and they are not looking outside the boundaries of it. Lift stations can be upgraded. Borup: Until the Comp Plan came in? Meridian Planning and Zoning Corlssion Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 83 Freckleton: Exactly. Borup: Then this would have been okay? Freckleton: Exactly. I mean lift stations can be upgraded. You can put more pumps in and you can do this and that. I mean physically you could probably -- I mean you can make just about anything work -- but Council's directive in the approval of Bear Creek was -- Borup: I remember that and I believe with it. I had understood the intent was spin-off more than an in -fill project. I think that's probably what they did mean. They didn't want things going to the west and et cetera. Okay. Well, that's probably is a moot point. Jewett: If I may add, that stub would only be able to serve me. There is no way else it could go, okay, because there is a sewer line coming down here. So if I did stub it, it would only come this far. It couldn't go any farther. I do believe that you're correct. That they were more concerned about the westerly movement than the easterly. ACHD has put a strong indication to me that they want me to develop from the west, not from here, even though they have given me both options. They strongly suggest that I --. I think as long as you stress to the City Council, because I'm under a Development Agreement that says I don't. I'm under a staff report saying that I don't. I'm limited to whatever I can gravity back to the east and that's --. Everything that we have done from the very beginning has been under that protocol, that nothing goes to Bear Creek. Borup: So you didn't even look into petitioning the City Council for -- Jewett: I think Bruce said it quite well. They just said no and it's been all over every agreement I have had, a whole paragraph for them saying no sewer will go to Bear Creek. Now I'm not one to want to buck City Hall that often. Borup: Okay. Jewett: But, again, I brought -- I came when Bear Creek was coming through, I came when the church was coming through and I told them what they were leaving here and that -- what they needed to plan for, so I -- they weren't too surprised when I came in, because-- Borup: But it sounds like at this point you're definite intention is to not have the access the Bear Creek? I mean I would think that Bear Creek would prefer that, not having everyone driving their RV clear around through their subdivision. Jewett: Well, no, under the -- Borup: To get, you know, 100 feet away from where they are trying to -- Jewett: Under what staff wants me to do I take away this and I have to -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Cor�49'f'fission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 84 Borup: Right. Jewett: That's what staff wants me to do. Borup: Okay. Jewett: I support that. I talked to -- I talked to Greg about it and Greg says that he doesn't really want us to access through Bear Creek either, you know, public streets and I'll abide by that. I'll provide -- I'll probably improve this to a paved access -- twenty foot paved for emergency access and pedestrian and residential access for the RVs. Borup: Staff had a couple comments on lots 20 and 31 on whether you can meet the -- and I have the same question -- by the time you do the setbacks, I assume that was reduced to a 15 foot setback also. Jewett: On lot number 20 -- excuse me. On lot number 20 it was our intention to ask for a reduced setback along this side. Borup: Reduced to how much? Jewett: To 5 feet. Actually increased to 10 feet. Borup: And then the other lot line would be the zero lot line? Jewett: Yes. See, these would all zero this way and these would all zero the opposite way. Borup: What does that do for you down at the other end? Jewett: Right here we are zero -- Borup: No. I mean on lot 30 -- Jewett: That would provide us -- this is a larger lot, because it fans out this way. Borup: On Lot 31. Jewett: Oh. Well, 31 we put our common wall here. We just have to --. In this area build our garage back here, which would have a greater setback. This one lot would take a little bit more work. It would be a smaller plan. Borup: Okay. Jewett: I could adjust and move this turnaround a little bit more and shift all those. I believe I still have plenty of room from this center point to here. I think I'm only required Meridian Planning and Zoning ComTission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 85 50 feet and I believe that we can keep that now. I could move that a little bit to get some additional width on those lots. I would be more than happy with a requirement that I provide plans showing how those would fit in advance. I would go to work on those --. I have had several people indicate the same, what do you build on those 2 lots. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Jewett: Again, I would reiterate the reason I came through for annexation and zoning, conceptual drawing, was because of the difficulty of this site. I don't know what else I could have done. I went through the process and I met with staff. I came to this body for annexation and zoning. I got your recommendation. I went to City Council and I got their approval. I came back with a Preliminary Plat under the PUD, bang, boom, I got a recommendation of denial. If somebody could have told me what I could have done different -- if I would take 2 lots out, it would increase the open space by 6,000 square feet, it really wouldn't change anything. I've already by calculation shown that I have provided as much, if not a little more open space. I believe I provided more usable, if not open space, greenery and landscaping through my landscape strip along the street. I put the island to try to protect natural trees that are growing. I don't know what more I could do. I believe I have done everything. I believe I meet the PUD ordinance. I do admitted that the PD Ordinance as it existed then was pretty loosely written, as it exists now it is very tightly written. This fell under the old PD, because of when it was submitted. Under the new PD Ordinance I would not meet it. I don't agree with everything in the new PD Ordinance, but I guess that's what I get for not questioning it when I came through. But we are here under the old PD, I believe I meet that PD ordinance, and I would ask for your recommendation to City Council that you move this on. Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Okay. We may have some questions. Let's see where we want to go from here. Anybody have any thoughts? Centers: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of empathy for him. I guess my inclination, if we could satisfy staff, maybe those 2 lots that we just spoke of, get that satisfied, and then move it on to the Council and let Mr. Jewett do his job with them. That's what I'm inclined to think at this point. Borup: Mr. Jewett, one of the staff comments was at time of annexation that it was annexed as an R-8, but the density was limited to an R-4? Jewett: That was per my request. Borup: Okay. Jewett: The reason -- all our calculations at that annexation -- F3 i i 5 Y {i # i lr4n 4 'tk 1 Meridian Planning and Zoning CorrlTS"iission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 86 Borup: Well, okay. You're saying R-4 and that is -- okay. That is what you -- that is what your calculations show on your plat, an R-4 -- Jewett: We are using an R-4 density. We asked for the R-8 zoning just to allow this type of zoning. Borup: Okay. Jewett: Essentially, if we could develop this through Bear Creek we would be exactly the density of Bear Creek, but because of the -- Borup: Well, you would be before your 25 percent reduction. Jewett: We wouldn't ask for a 25 percent reduction. Borup: Yes. Jewett: We wouldn't ask for a bonus -- a density bonus under a straight R-4 plat or a straight R-8 plat. We wouldn't ask for any bonus. We would simply go with the 4 units to the acre. Borup: Well, the density would have been there, but the other requirements wouldn't have been. Jewett: Right. Borup: So you couldn't have developed it as a straight R-4. Jewett: No. We never would have asked. That's the reason we asked for the R-8 was to allow a variety of housing and lot sizes. A variety -- yes, a variety of house sizes, too, because we wanted to go to zero lot on patio homes. That's what the purpose of the R- 8 was from the very beginning was to allow that. That's why -- I submitted it, it was my request on annexation to limit it to R-4. But simply for density only. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any thoughts? Commissioner Shreeve, what have you got to say? Shreeve: I don't know. I think it just about has all been said, excuse me, before. There is not much you can do with this land. My biggest concern is the lot depth, more than anything else, because of that rear setback so much. Nary: What's this off? This little piece of ground that is virtually unusable for most anything. I mean what -- how did this happen? Jewett: I'll make an assumption. The church is 34 acres. This is 6 acres. I'm assuming that this party and the party that owned the church site split it off, because the minimum Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 87 zoning was 5 acres. So they put a line there and said, okay. That's 6 acres, that's 34, and they split it and went their way. It was a one-time division back in the county that's what happened. My issue at both ACHD and at City Council earlier this year was we need to look at these when we approve things like Bear Creek and we approve things like the church. We need to look at this and say look at what we are leaving. I brought that up before the approval of Bear Creek and the church and said you understand what you're leaving? They understood it and accepted it. I mean it's not like I came in and cried foul afterwards. I brought it up before any of those plats were approved and the Conditional Use for the -- or not the Conditional Use, but the zoning for the church and their Development Agreement was approved. Understand what you're leaving here? You're leaving a bowling alley. I'll just -- you know, I have had several people with City Council say come back to the core and start the development. This is what you got and I get criticized for doing it. So I will go back outside. They are not the prettiest things in town and, Chairman Borup, I don't like the lot depth either, but there is nothing I can do about them. Borup: No. I know. I realize that. Jewett: The other conceptual drawing that we presented had this street going straight through and it was absolutely thrown out by the City Council, ACHD said no way would they allow that to happen. That's a raceway Borup: Well, it is if it's next to Bear Creek. If it doesn't connect to Bear Creek, then it's Jewett: It's a short raceway. A stub street coming here out of Bear Creek would have been more sensible and that's what I asked for and they left it right here. I even asked when we were coming through if we would, please, allow this stub street to come through? They were using a different one and I was shot down. It was done. Bear Creek was done. It wasn't going to be changed. Borup: Well, personally, for an in fill project, I'd rather see no stub street to Bear Creek, but have a sewer through Bear Creek so you could do -- make a more workable project, but -- Jewett: But, again, you understand that political battle. Borup: Yes. I mean -- and that's done and over with, so -- and now what do we do to proceed at this point? Shreeve: I think the City Council almost put them in this pickle, let them figure it out. I mean it looks I think about as good as he can make it. Centers: How long have you owned this, Jim? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 88 Jewett: We bought it last year. That was it. We -- the people that owned it had asked several times if I would do something on it. I looked at it and looked at it and the issue was sewer and this was even before Bear Creek was there. The sewer was blocked coming out of Elk Run and nobody had bothered to do anything about it, because it was blocked. I finally went out and did a little research and figured out how to get it out of there. That was to simply run it through an easement. They tried to get it out in a right of way and it wouldn't work, so I just got enough easements down here and we ran it down through the easements and took care of it. Gary Smith finally accepted that, but, yes, we will want a right of -- we want it in a right of way, but under the circumstances we will accept it going down an easement and let's go forward. That's what finally kind of unlocked --. The church was sitting out here without sewer either. So this was kind of --. They approached me, too, saying how can we get sewer. They are pushing me, because they want the sewer and they'd like to start, I think they'd like to start this fall on something. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commission Nary. Nary: I guess I would agree with what's been said, too, is I think that City Council sort of created this little island. There is not a lot else you can do with it. Borup: Well, they didn't create it, but they didn't help a solution for it. Nary: Well, and, yes, they didn't provide a lot of solution. This whole Bear Creek thing keeps coming up all the time. I wasn't here when that all happened, so that's fine. But I think Mr. Jewett needs to be commended for trying. I mean this is -- we did look at that project, I know we didn't commit to it. We didn't promise anything, but, you know, it felt pretty comfortable that at least that was a decent use and -- but I am now more in favor that we probably don't need to have stub street coming through Bear Creek. They should just -- they should just have the road come through there and just this little island of homes and we will see what happens. Centers: Yes. To add onto that, you know, I think he's done a great job with the RVs and, you know, the landscape and really the side setbacks, the rear setbacks, you have got kind of little islands there, his own little community with his own little RV storage. Jewett: We will come back with a Conditional Use on day-care. Shreeve: I recommend we close the Public Hearing -- Public Hearing on PP 01-016 and CUP 01-029. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor. Okay. 5 Meridian Planning and Zoning Coession Meeting 10 October 18, 2001 Page 89 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Shreeve: I'm ready to make a motion. I move that we approve Public Hearing 1-0 -- PP 01-016, request for Preliminary Plat approval for 28 building lots and five other lots on 5.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision and also CUP 01- 029, request for a Planned Unit Development for a private RV storage and reduced lot sizes in an R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision. Borup: Maybe you ought to do those one motion at a time. Weren't you combining the 2? Shreeve: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Borup: Okay. Shreeve: Okay. Let's just go back to the PP 01-016 and all that was said as part of that. Centers: Including all staff comments? Shreeve: Well, let's see. Where are the staff comments? Borup: I think he said they agreed with all the staff comments, except for the final recommendation of denial. I don't think staff made a --. I didn't see where staff made it real clear on --. They said that the RV should be used for Kodiak, but I didn't see where they recommended no access to Bear Creek. Was that -- Nary: That wasn't in the Preliminary Plat, though. I think that's in the other -- Siddoway: It was in the other -- Borup: Well, yes, it was in the other, but I don't think -- okay. Let's go ahead with the plat. Well, the road is part of the plat. Nary: You're right. Borup: Well, I don't think that was made clear. They just said they didn't recommend use by Bear Creek, but I don't --. I guess what I'm saying, do you want to add that to your motion, that there be no access to Bear Creek? Shreeve: Yes. Borup: That was the intention. No vehicle access, except emergency. Shreeve: Yes. ,{ W v . x <, u., ..: vs n? °�`b.Ui'�»., i �.}'�`��iw�.9«;"•i-". �*S ,» ,> .;t ?�t�� x ) ' �. xT, t. Y'YR Meridian Planning and Zoning Comoission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 90 Borup: Emergency access only may be a better way to put it Shreeve: There you go. Nary: It would appear, Commissioner Shreeve, if you look at condition number 13 in the site specific requirements, the Preliminary Plat, because there is a staff comment about the setbacks. Maybe we need to make clear as to what setback we are recommending. Shreeve: Will allow the setbacks to stay the 12 -foot as illustrated in his drawing, so long as he keeps the 50 -foot road with all the trees. Borup: Maybe to add on the site setback reduction also, even though that wasn't in writing. Mr. Freckleton pointed that out. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, there was -- in terminating that stub street coming out of Bear Creek I believe there is a requirement -- and I'm trying to find it -- that it has to terminate with a turnaround. It can't just --you can't just throw up a barricade. Jewett: My understanding is if it's not exceeding one lot in depth it can terminate just with a barricade. Borup: That's what I understand. Freckleton: I thought I read it somewhere that it had to have a turnaround. Jewett: Only if it extends into the plat does it need a turnaround. Shreeve: If it stops short if it doesn't exceed one lot -- one lot length. Borup: That's been consistent with other if there is just one. But then that would be emergency access, not a street, so that wouldn't apply anyway in that case, would it? Nary: So what would be on that end right now that shows it ending at Bear Creek? Would it be -- Shreeve: Bollards. Borup: -- the bollards there, too? Okay. That would be the only location of bollards and my suggestion -- Nary: At the other end there is a walkway -- Borup: A nice pedestrian walkway. Nary: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Cor'RPlfission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 91 Meridian Planningand Zoning Commission Meeting 9 9 October 18, 2001 Page 93 Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 00-019 Request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development — northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development — northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: Okay. Commissioners, this next item -- the one we had -- I believe we heard all the testimony last time, everything is back before us because of the noticing issue. So think are we ready that we can move ahead on this and get it done. Centers: I was here originally way back when, but I was -- Borup: Well, Mr. Centers let me -- let's proceed here properly. Item No. 10 and 11, we'll open the Public Hearing on AZ 00-019, request for annexation and zoning of 100 acres for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development and request for a Preliminary Plat on the same project, 264 lots. Mr. Centers, it came back before us, remanded back from City Council. Centers: I got you. Borup: They requested a single loaded street on the park. Then they did away with the multi -family designation, so they would -- so now we have got a lot of single loaded streets, about twice what we recommended when they were here. They should have taken our recommendation. I don't know. Mr. Siddoway, have you got some stuff you'd like to add? Siddoway: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. The site plan. Just briefly, up on the -- you got a site photo on the screen. It's right at the intersections of Meridian Road and Ustick. It surrounds the city's 58 acre park site. This is the proposed plat. A reminder for Commissioner Centers, this was remanded for 5 specific items. I don't think I need to read them to you, but just keep in mind that there were 5 specific issues that City Council wanted the Planning and Zoning Commission to address. At the last hearing, which was not noticed as a Public Hearing, it was determined that it should be noticed as a Public Hearing. It's my understanding that it was. So that is, has been done. The other big issue that was outstanding was a final ACHD report and, as you recall, ACHD had requested -- had suggested a redesign of the road alignment along the north side of the park. The Commission did meet on October 3rd. What they did was directed their staff to meet with our staff and the developer and work it out. That happened last Friday. I wasn't at that meeting. Gary Lee was, so I'll leave many of the details to him. x If Tom Kuntz is in the room still -- he was in that meeting and may have some comments as to how this effects the park. There was a land swap discussed, which 1 ------------ IN7 ; 1 IN7 ; Meridian Planning and Zoning Comb Ssion Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 96 Lee: It would certainly help. As long as there is a stripe there and people are going to take note that they are not supposed to be crossing that stripe to park. You'd have to paint the bike lane like you normally see around town. Borup: Well, if the speed is truly the concern, I mean -- I like the idea of the bump outs, too, I think that and if it needed a stop sign mid way -- I mean I don't know how you know that in advance, but -- Nary: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. The only thing I would be concerned about is that stop sign in mid block. It's going to be very unexpected to most of the drivers and I have a tendency to --. The pedestrians are going to recommend the stop sign there, the drivers aren't, and that just may cause another problem. I mean I guess that's something that could be done in the future. I guess I would be more inclined to want to pick like the bump outs or the concrete -- bricks on the roadway so that helps slow the traffic, you know, that way. Without the parking there is no visibility, so the pedestrians can see. I would be really --. I would be deathly afraid to walk on that street. You can be taking your life into your hands to do that. But I mean that's another option, but I think the other things are probably the best we could do for what's being proposed. Borup: Okay. The only bike lane that I have seen that I think would be safe is like there on Cloverdale where they have concrete separation between the road and the bike lane. I don't know if that's practical for here, but that would definitely -- but you also have to have a bike lane to go somewhere. You know, a short stretch of bike lane doesn't accomplish much. Nary: Right. Borup: So are you looking for a recommendation on which one of those options or what do we -- Lee: Well, I don't -- I don't think so. I think it's something that's probably still pertinent for discussion. Maybe we ought to ask City Council to put that on there as well and get the parks department. But I think the narrow street is probably the way to go myself. You can make it a recommendation or make it as an alternative. Borup: Okay. Lee: Something like that. Borup: Did the parks department have any other comment on that aspect? Yes or no? I should have -- what a silly question to ask if you ever had comment. Kuntz: Tom Kuntz, parks director, 11 W. Bowers Street, Meridian. We certainly support this plat as far as the street alignment and everybody for attending the meeting last Friday to show that support. We also share Gary Lee's views that we are not really sure the way the plat is really a safety issue. But given the fact that the Ada County "A n h «� Y h Meridian Planning and Zoning Comb Ssion Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 96 Lee: It would certainly help. As long as there is a stripe there and people are going to take note that they are not supposed to be crossing that stripe to park. You'd have to paint the bike lane like you normally see around town. Borup: Well, if the speed is truly the concern, I mean -- I like the idea of the bump outs, too, I think that and if it needed a stop sign mid way -- I mean I don't know how you know that in advance, but -- Nary: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. The only thing I would be concerned about is that stop sign in mid block. It's going to be very unexpected to most of the drivers and I have a tendency to --. The pedestrians are going to recommend the stop sign there, the drivers aren't, and that just may cause another problem. I mean I guess that's something that could be done in the future. I guess I would be more inclined to want to pick like the bump outs or the concrete -- bricks on the roadway so that helps slow the traffic, you know, that way. Without the parking there is no visibility, so the pedestrians can see. I would be really --. I would be deathly afraid to walk on that street. You can be taking your life into your hands to do that. But I mean that's another option, but I think the other things are probably the best we could do for what's being proposed. Borup: Okay. The only bike lane that I have seen that I think would be safe is like there on Cloverdale where they have concrete separation between the road and the bike lane. I don't know if that's practical for here, but that would definitely -- but you also have to have a bike lane to go somewhere. You know, a short stretch of bike lane doesn't accomplish much. Nary: Right. Borup: So are you looking for a recommendation on which one of those options or what do we -- Lee: Well, I don't -- I don't think so. I think it's something that's probably still pertinent for discussion. Maybe we ought to ask City Council to put that on there as well and get the parks department. But I think the narrow street is probably the way to go myself. You can make it a recommendation or make it as an alternative. Borup: Okay. Lee: Something like that. Borup: Did the parks department have any other comment on that aspect? Yes or no? I should have -- what a silly question to ask if you ever had comment. Kuntz: Tom Kuntz, parks director, 11 W. Bowers Street, Meridian. We certainly support this plat as far as the street alignment and everybody for attending the meeting last Friday to show that support. We also share Gary Lee's views that we are not really sure the way the plat is really a safety issue. But given the fact that the Ada County "A Meridian Planning and Zoning ConiTTfission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 97 Commissioners and the Council --. They met, what was it, the 3rd, suggested that the staffs, our staff and the Ada County Highway District staff and the developer meet and try to come up with some possible solutions. We certainly support some of the ideas that Gary has laid out. I think my only concern -- and I think we would want to include the school district in this discussion, is what that narrow road would do to school bus traffic. The other thing that we are planning on doing is — Borup: Is there going to be school bus traffic on that road? Lee: My guess, yes, but I don't know that. I think we would just want to make sure we find that out. Borup: Because it won't be within the subdivision, will it? Lee: No. But if the buses are going north they are going to come up and go across to Meridian Road and go north. Borup: Okay. Lee: So I think they we will want to be included in the discussion or should be. Borup: I assumed they would be going the other way, but -- Lee: The other thing, you will notice the dark triangles where the road moves away from the park. What we will need to do there in those areas is connect the attached sidewalk to our detached pathway or sidewalk in those corners. I don't know if that makes sense to you or not. Borup: Yes. You're saying you have a detached sidewalk along the park? Lee: It is attached and then it will be just attached to our meandering walk, as well as here, and should negate the need for a bike path along here. I would agree with Chairman Borup's comment to have a short bike path like that. The only purpose would be to connect to the pedestrian path that would connect to a school, would be the only reason for it. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, could I ask some questions? Borup: Go ahead. Freckleton: So are you planning any kind of a parking lot off of this? Lee: No, sir. There will be a parking lot that accesses off of Meridian Road and one that will access off of Ustick road near the back property line of the development. Borup: So you support -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Com'7fiission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 98 Freckleton: My thought is -- I mean a regional park, there is going to be a lot of activities going on, you got a great access to your park there. If I was headed to an event and the event happened to be on the north side of the park, I would be looking for a place to park. I'm just wondering if you can't park along the road, people are going to be turning and parking in the residential neighborhood and then walking to the park. Centers: That was a concern 9 months ago. I remember that vividly. Borup: But the developer specifically did not want parking along that road; isn't that correct? Does the parks department support that, too? Or is it carried away? Lee: We do as a point of compromise. Borup: Okay. So it's not a real issue with you, it could go either way? Lee: I understand Mr. Freckleton's point, but we are providing adequate parking. The other 2 large lots and as a point of compromise with the developer and with the homeowners in that subdivision, we would be willing to support no parking along that road. But I think the point is also well taken that if they can't park there, they are going to park up the side streets. I mean we are all aware -- Borup: I also think the only way to keep the parking there is a narrowing street, because of the width is there, whether there is a sign or not, it's -- Lee: And we will discuss that, but, again, I think we want to discuss the bus traffic there. Borup: So maybe the bump outs are a good option. Lee: I think if you're asking for my recommendation tonight it would be to leave the street the width it is, which doesn't benefit us, because we are paying for four feet of that street and to add 2 bump outs. We discussed the exact location and I think we are thinking stop signs at those bump outs, instead of the mid point, but I'm not a traffic engineer and I certainly would like to discuss it with someone who has more experience in this than I do. Borup: Does it make -- is there any -- does it make sense to maybe look at -- look at the use and whether the stop signs are necessary or not down the road? Lee: Sure. Borup: If the traffic does. I don't know. Lee: I mean these are all just options that Gary threw out that we all support, a combination of them or -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Colossion Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 99 Borup: Okay. Lee: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify in this -- Mr. Simunich, have you signed up? Simunich: Is this open for the public? Borup: Yes. Simunich: My name is Joe Simunich and I reside across the street from this development at 955 West Ustick Road. Do I understand this correctly now you -- that the LOD has been eliminated from this project? Borup: The limited office and the multi -family? Simunich: Yes. Borup: Yes. It's all single family residential now. Lee: All right. Thank you. One more question. On this little plat that I have got there, there is irregular property lines on the west side. I asked last time if the new Venable Lane is going to connect with the existing Venable Lane and I did not get that answer. Borup: Well, I think you did, but let me try again. My understanding -- are you saying the existing Venable Lane lines up with the center line of yours? Simunich: No. Borup: It does not line up now. No. The existing one, is it centered -- the center line of the existing is the center line of the one on -- the center line on north and south of Ustick do line up at this point. Simunich: I don't know, because the map does not show it. Borup: Okay. Then I guess -- Simunich: Venable Lane on the south side is a deeded 40 foot roadway. Borup: Okay. Simunich: There is irregular property lines at the -- Borup: But this is going to become a 50 foot right of way. wke" Meridian Planning and Zoning Coolssion Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 100 Simunich: Well, that's fine. Borup: This applicant is giving up, is dedicating 10 feet of their property to make it 50 feet is my understanding from before. Is that correct, Mr. Lee? Okay. Simunich: Will the center lines line up approximately? Then this plat shows irregular property lines for a full half mile on the west side. Are these irregular proper lines going to be included in this project? Borup: So your 2 questions were, one, will they line up, and the other was --. What was your second question? Simunich: Well, I notice irregular property lines here on this map. They don't show them here. It looks like it's incomplete on the west side. Nary: You'll have to answer that in the microphone. Mr. Lee will have to come and answer that in the microphone, sir. Did you have other questions? Did you have any other question? Simunich: No. I think that's all. Borup: Gary? Lee: Gary Lee, JUB Engineers. To answer Mr. Simunich's question, the center of Venable Lane on our Preliminary Plat is the west boundary of our project and it lines up with Venable Lane directly south of Ustick across the road. So those 2 roads will line up. As far as the irregular boundaries, I assume he's talking about the right of way we are showing here on our preliminary along the west side. That's just shown in there for a reference to what the future right of way is going to look like. Actually, there is a right of way there now, there is 29 feet on both sides of that section line, 29 on our half and 29 on the other half. So we will be developing the roadway on the center of the section line. I'll try to answer those questions. Borup: Did the 29 feet -- you said the 29 feet on either side of the center line of Venable Lane? Lee: Yes. Borup: So there is a 58 foot right of way there now? Lee: Right. Borup: Where does this 40 feet come up? -Vill IMP ; L A' tS.w } �' .A W #, a ¢' 4 yy;p Yq�°'��F "" �` n 3x�t E � y"��i F`3 t•q {S zv Meridian Planning and Zoning Cor3R4iission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 101 Lee: Well, I don't know. I don't know what the deal is on the south side, but 59 or 58 feet to center is a collector width right of way and there is no -- that 1908 deed dedicated 29 feet along the west side of the center of Venable Lane and we will dedicate 29 feet on either side, a total of 58 feet. Borup: Okay. And so that is line established? Lee: Yes. Borup: So you're going to be doing one half plus 12 feet? Lee Correct. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify or question on this. Commissioner? Nary: I'd move to close the Public Hearing. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? . MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: I think the main thing -- question is still the roadway and that was because of ACHD's recommendation, basically, I think. Nary: Yes. I mean I don't know what the --. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the best way to handle the roadway issue --. I guess we could certainly make some recommendations to Council. I think Mr. Lee was correct that also the Council is going to decide. They are probably going to say work it out with the staff and come up with some proposal that we can all agree on. But it's in the developer's best interest to try to get that done before you go to the Council, so you can work on it and agree with it. But all the adoptions seem reasonable. Borup: Yes. I don't think we want to or need to make anything specific. If we want to make some of them our preferences, that's fine. Nary: I mean I think we have made it pretty clear, even though our record doesn't reflect it, but about the only thing I don't think is very practical is the stop sign in the middle of the street. I don't think that's -- it's just more dangerous than it's really going to work. Borup: Yes. .l j y?F 5+ 8 Meridian Planning and Zoning Cor3R4iission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 101 Lee: Well, I don't know. I don't know what the deal is on the south side, but 59 or 58 feet to center is a collector width right of way and there is no -- that 1908 deed dedicated 29 feet along the west side of the center of Venable Lane and we will dedicate 29 feet on either side, a total of 58 feet. Borup: Okay. And so that is line established? Lee: Yes. Borup: So you're going to be doing one half plus 12 feet? Lee Correct. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify or question on this. Commissioner? Nary: I'd move to close the Public Hearing. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? . MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: I think the main thing -- question is still the roadway and that was because of ACHD's recommendation, basically, I think. Nary: Yes. I mean I don't know what the --. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the best way to handle the roadway issue --. I guess we could certainly make some recommendations to Council. I think Mr. Lee was correct that also the Council is going to decide. They are probably going to say work it out with the staff and come up with some proposal that we can all agree on. But it's in the developer's best interest to try to get that done before you go to the Council, so you can work on it and agree with it. But all the adoptions seem reasonable. Borup: Yes. I don't think we want to or need to make anything specific. If we want to make some of them our preferences, that's fine. Nary: I mean I think we have made it pretty clear, even though our record doesn't reflect it, but about the only thing I don't think is very practical is the stop sign in the middle of the street. I don't think that's -- it's just more dangerous than it's really going to work. Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Cotission Meeting o October 18, 2001 Page 102 Norton: But the other things that are suggested are, all make sense and all or some of those are probably the best way to go. There is narrowing the street, no parking, brick pavers, bump outs, all of those things make sense. All will solve in some measure that they want to work out with staff probably makes sense to me. Borup: Okay. Anything else we need to --? Nary: I don't think there was any other comments that we need to amend. Centers: I don't either. I think they were all --. Just work out the decision prior to Council. Nary: I guess I would go ahead and move, Mr. Chairman, that we recommend approval of AZ -- I don't even remember the number now -- AZ 00-019, request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development, northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments contained in the memo of September 19, 2001, and with respect to Brad Hawkins -Clark. I think that's it. Centers: I would second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Nary: I would also move, Mr. Chairman, to recommend approval of PP 00-018, request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development, northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road, to, again, include all staff comments of the September 19, 2001, memo by Bruce Freckleton and Brad Hawkins -Clark and that's it. Borup: We have a motion. Centers: The safety issue needs to be addressed. Nary: Yes. I guess we could -- we will include in the motion that the staff and the applicant will attempt to at least work out all the safety issues regarding the roadway that runs adjacent to the south side of their property, the north side of the regional park for the city. Centers: Second. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, was there anything in the previous hearing that we needed to have in the motion at this time? AW dp 4},;�` t y Y rf s �'r { TSja Meridian Planning and Zoning Cotission Meeting o October 18, 2001 Page 102 Norton: But the other things that are suggested are, all make sense and all or some of those are probably the best way to go. There is narrowing the street, no parking, brick pavers, bump outs, all of those things make sense. All will solve in some measure that they want to work out with staff probably makes sense to me. Borup: Okay. Anything else we need to --? Nary: I don't think there was any other comments that we need to amend. Centers: I don't either. I think they were all --. Just work out the decision prior to Council. Nary: I guess I would go ahead and move, Mr. Chairman, that we recommend approval of AZ -- I don't even remember the number now -- AZ 00-019, request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development, northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments contained in the memo of September 19, 2001, and with respect to Brad Hawkins -Clark. I think that's it. Centers: I would second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Nary: I would also move, Mr. Chairman, to recommend approval of PP 00-018, request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development, northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road, to, again, include all staff comments of the September 19, 2001, memo by Bruce Freckleton and Brad Hawkins -Clark and that's it. Borup: We have a motion. Centers: The safety issue needs to be addressed. Nary: Yes. I guess we could -- we will include in the motion that the staff and the applicant will attempt to at least work out all the safety issues regarding the roadway that runs adjacent to the south side of their property, the north side of the regional park for the city. Centers: Second. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, was there anything in the previous hearing that we needed to have in the motion at this time? AW Xr s �'r { TSja Meridian Planning and Zoning Cotission Meeting o October 18, 2001 Page 102 Norton: But the other things that are suggested are, all make sense and all or some of those are probably the best way to go. There is narrowing the street, no parking, brick pavers, bump outs, all of those things make sense. All will solve in some measure that they want to work out with staff probably makes sense to me. Borup: Okay. Anything else we need to --? Nary: I don't think there was any other comments that we need to amend. Centers: I don't either. I think they were all --. Just work out the decision prior to Council. Nary: I guess I would go ahead and move, Mr. Chairman, that we recommend approval of AZ -- I don't even remember the number now -- AZ 00-019, request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development, northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments contained in the memo of September 19, 2001, and with respect to Brad Hawkins -Clark. I think that's it. Centers: I would second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Nary: I would also move, Mr. Chairman, to recommend approval of PP 00-018, request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development, northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road, to, again, include all staff comments of the September 19, 2001, memo by Bruce Freckleton and Brad Hawkins -Clark and that's it. Borup: We have a motion. Centers: The safety issue needs to be addressed. Nary: Yes. I guess we could -- we will include in the motion that the staff and the applicant will attempt to at least work out all the safety issues regarding the roadway that runs adjacent to the south side of their property, the north side of the regional park for the city. Centers: Second. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, was there anything in the previous hearing that we needed to have in the motion at this time? Meridian Planning and Zoning Corpission Meeting r October 18, 2001 Page 103 Centers: The February --. That's a good point. The February staff comments, February 15th, could you note that they remain --. The report remains as far as the annexation and zoning. Is that what you're referring to? Freckleton: Well, I guess specifically what I was thinking is just the fact that the White Drain Trunk is still not -- we are not there. Borup: Oh, just to develop at his own risk? Freckleton: Exactly. Exactly. Centers: So we do want to include -- Borup: And that was discussed last month, I believe, even though we -- Freckleton: I just didn't know if those things would automatically be brought forward as part of this motion. Nary: Well, I guess just to make sure --. I mean I think we want to make sure that we make note that in the course of both of these hearings we have been trying to address all of the concerns that Council has and that the developer recognizes in this motion for this Preliminary Plat that there currently is not services to this particular property and he may have to --. Didn't we have to sign an agreement or a waiver I guess before? Borup: We recommended that. Freckleton: On the Sundance project I think you had them do a — Nary: A hold harmless agreement. Freckleton: A hold harmless agreement. Nary: Hold harmless agreement so that the developer recognizes that this approval is at his, at their risk on waiting for the sewer and if they are comfortable with that. So just to make sure that they recognize that, I'd like to include that as part of the motion. Borup: Thank you. Centers: Second. Borup: Any question on the motion? Moore: No. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Cort'4Ri fission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 104 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT. Item 12. Discussion of Proposed Elevations for Washington Mutual Bank at the southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Cherry Lane: Borup: Looks like we do have one quick, or one final Item No. 12. We have some elevations in our packet. I'm not sure why that --. Mr. Siddoway, can you expound on -- Siddoway: Yes, I will. Borup: What we are supposed to be doing here? Siddoway: This was added to the agenda at the request of Shari Stiles. The issue is as part of the St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center Conditional Use Permit -- Borup: Oh. Siddoway: -- the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law state that the construction materials for the proposed bank must include metal roofing and either brick or brick vaneer. The colors were up for discussion. Apparently -- I wasn't at the Commission hearings for this one, but apparently it was a fairly big deal for the Commission wanting to know what this facility will look like, because there were no submitted elevations with the Conditional Use Permit. Centers: You mean way back when? Siddoway: Way back when. When St. Alphonsus came through. Centers: Could I quote one of the City Councilmen? I'm not going to sit here and tell the businesses what color to paint them or what kind of roof or what kind of windows. Quote. Unquote. When they were talking about a design review committee. I'm -- Siddoway: Shari was uncomfortable approving these on her own -- Centers: I agree with that Councilman. Siddoway: -- and wanted to get the Commission's input. Centers: I don't --. I think we have a right to have some input on some things. We have got some real ugly buildings in this town and -- Siddoway: Well, and there has been -- Nary: Mr. Chairman like you said, but I appreciate that Ms. Stiles did bring it back to us, because that was what was requested earlier. It was something that was a burning Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 105 desire of Commissioner Hatcher when he was here. That's why we talked about it. Because it was his concern on that. But I do think that at some point the city needs to probably evaluate a design review aspect and maybe this is a little baby step to do that and that's okay. I think it looks fine. Nothing else to say. I think that's fine. Borup: I'd rather this Commission do it than a whole separate design and review committee myself. Centers: Yes. I know what you're saying. Nary: Because I think it was a problem, but I do think that's why it's here, because I think Commissioner Hatcher has this terrible express need to know about those things. Centers: And that's out here at St. Luke's -- Siddoway: St. Alphonsus. Borup: Cherry Lane and Ten Mile. Siddoway: We have an A and we have a B. So don't just give me it looks good. Tell me which one is good. Centers: You mean they have given us 2 choices? Siddoway: Yes. Centers: Go back to A. Siddoway: This is basically the same thing without the roof. Centers: And it's got more brick, too. Nary: A. Shreeve: A. Centers: What does the applicant want? Do we know? Nary: They obviously don't care. Borup: Do you want A or B? Centers: Let the applicant choose, because they are both nice. Nary: Mr. Chairman, the problem I guess from the applicant's standpoint is this is what we told them they had to do. So it appears that what they did is they gave us 2 options, �Y Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 105 desire of Commissioner Hatcher when he was here. That's why we talked about it. Because it was his concern on that. But I do think that at some point the city needs to probably evaluate a design review aspect and maybe this is a little baby step to do that and that's okay. I think it looks fine. Nothing else to say. I think that's fine. Borup: I'd rather this Commission do it than a whole separate design and review committee myself. Centers: Yes. I know what you're saying. Nary: Because I think it was a problem, but I do think that's why it's here, because I think Commissioner Hatcher has this terrible express need to know about those things. Centers: And that's out here at St. Luke's -- Siddoway: St. Alphonsus. Borup: Cherry Lane and Ten Mile. Siddoway: We have an A and we have a B. So don't just give me it looks good. Tell me which one is good. Centers: You mean they have given us 2 choices? Siddoway: Yes. Centers: Go back to A. Siddoway: This is basically the same thing without the roof. Centers: And it's got more brick, too. Nary: A. Shreeve: A. Centers: What does the applicant want? Do we know? Nary: They obviously don't care. Borup: Do you want A or B? Centers: Let the applicant choose, because they are both nice. Nary: Mr. Chairman, the problem I guess from the applicant's standpoint is this is what we told them they had to do. So it appears that what they did is they gave us 2 options, 40 Meridian Planning and Zoning Com�'nission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 106 because they don't care. It doesn't matter to them which one we choose. Does that seem correct? Siddoway: Yes. Or, if you don't like either one, I need some direction as to what they need to change. Borup: Or if we are okay with either one, would that also be acceptable to say either one is fine? Centers: I would say either one is fine. I would vote for that motion. Nary: Well, let me stop for one second. Chairman Borup, you said you would like to review these things. So if we send them back with a message saying we don't care which one, then, they won't think you even wanted to review it. Borup: Well, because we could end up with a square box, you know, with all the, with flat walls and nothing to break up the texture. Nary: That's an overlay district -- Borup: My personal preference is probably B, I guess, but I don't know. Nary: Yes. B. Centers: It would appear to me that's -- Nary: I think that's a mansard door, is my recollection from -- Borup: Oh, it's a hip roof. Nary: Oh. It's a hip roof. I can't remember. I'd make a motion that we recommend to the City Council Scheme B. Shreeve: I second that. Siddoway: I don't think it's a recommendation to the City Council. I think it's a recommendation to staff. Nary: Then I would recommend to staff Scheme B. Borup: And they are both good-looking buildings, as far as I'm concerned. I mean they have got a lot of surface -- they don't have a lot of straight surfaces, they are broken up nice, they have got different textures. I think that's -- Shreeve: I make a motion to adjourn. a �s x Ik <i 3, Z� �u 40 Meridian Planning and Zoning Com�'nission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 106 because they don't care. It doesn't matter to them which one we choose. Does that seem correct? Siddoway: Yes. Or, if you don't like either one, I need some direction as to what they need to change. Borup: Or if we are okay with either one, would that also be acceptable to say either one is fine? Centers: I would say either one is fine. I would vote for that motion. Nary: Well, let me stop for one second. Chairman Borup, you said you would like to review these things. So if we send them back with a message saying we don't care which one, then, they won't think you even wanted to review it. Borup: Well, because we could end up with a square box, you know, with all the, with flat walls and nothing to break up the texture. Nary: That's an overlay district -- Borup: My personal preference is probably B, I guess, but I don't know. Nary: Yes. B. Centers: It would appear to me that's -- Nary: I think that's a mansard door, is my recollection from -- Borup: Oh, it's a hip roof. Nary: Oh. It's a hip roof. I can't remember. I'd make a motion that we recommend to the City Council Scheme B. Shreeve: I second that. Siddoway: I don't think it's a recommendation to the City Council. I think it's a recommendation to staff. Nary: Then I would recommend to staff Scheme B. Borup: And they are both good-looking buildings, as far as I'm concerned. I mean they have got a lot of surface -- they don't have a lot of straight surfaces, they are broken up nice, they have got different textures. I think that's -- Shreeve: I make a motion to adjourn. Meridian Planning and Zoning Colm fission Meeting October 18, 2001 Page 107 Borup: Please do. Centers: Second. Nary: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you, Commissioners, for staying later. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:30 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: z KEI BORUP, CHAIRM 0 � 4�i0l DATE r 1N k��i `ATT ESTED ATTESTED WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CftY CLERK i d V Y '*Re+'Xi%xJh A,- 0^ r k � � t y N 2 1 t �( t 4 � T "P �a i 3 0 � 4�i0l DATE r 1N k��i `ATT ESTED ATTESTED WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CftY CLERK mm mm mm mm October 15, 2001 PP 00-023 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 18, 2001 APPLICANT Gemstar Properties, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from September 20, 2001 — Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision — east of North Black Cat Road and south of West Ustick Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See previous Item Packets OTHER: See attached Revised Plat Contacted: Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. t. d I October 15, 2001 PP 00-023 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 18, 2001 APPLICANT Gemstar Properties, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from September 20, 2001 — Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision — east of North Black Cat Road and south of West Ustick Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See previous Item Packets OTHER: See attached Revised Plat Contacted: Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 o October 15, 2001 AZ 01-015 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 18, 2001 APPLICANT Falcon Creek, LLC ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2001 — Request for annexation and zoning of 34.60 acres from RUT to I -L zones for proposed Utility Subdivision — 3365 North Ten Mile Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: r. CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments v. t CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: �( z SANITARY SERVICE: k MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: t t ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ix V � IDAHO POWER: hhw64 O US WEST: r INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See letter from Leonard Huskey, Evaluation Sheet and memo from Tom Kuntz Contacted: 0 o October 15, 2001 AZ 01-015 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 18, 2001 APPLICANT Falcon Creek, LLC ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2001 — Request for annexation and zoning of 34.60 acres from RUT to I -L zones for proposed Utility Subdivision — 3365 North Ten Mile Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: 3 CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments v. CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: r. SANITARY SERVICE: }t MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: t t ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ix V IDAHO POWER: 0 o October 15, 2001 AZ 01-015 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 18, 2001 APPLICANT Falcon Creek, LLC ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2001 — Request for annexation and zoning of 34.60 acres from RUT to I -L zones for proposed Utility Subdivision — 3365 North Ten Mile Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See previous Item Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: � Y ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ix NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: r INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See letter from Leonard Huskey, Evaluation Sheet and memo from Tom Kuntz Contacted: Date: Phone: 1r fi A X* 0 o October 15, 2001 AZ 01-015 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 18, 2001 APPLICANT Falcon Creek, LLC ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2001 — Request for annexation and zoning of 34.60 acres from RUT to I -L zones for proposed Utility Subdivision — 3365 North Ten Mile Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See previous Item Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See letter from Leonard Huskey, Evaluation Sheet and memo from Tom Kuntz Contacted: Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian prxw qua, f ,�+ 0 0 October 15, 2001 PP 01-017 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 18, 2001 APPLICANT Falcon Creek, LLC ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from October 4, 2001—Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 34.60 acres in a proposed I -L zone for proposed Utility Subdivision — 3365 North Ten Mile Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: COMMENTS See previous Item Packet See attached Staff Comments See attached Comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See letfer from Leonard Huskey, Evaluation Sheet and memo from Tom Kuntz Contacted: Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. October 15, 2001 AZ 01-014 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 18, 2001 APPLICANT Ted Cunningham ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Public Hearing — Request for annexation and zoning of .66 acres from R-1 to R-8 zones for Ted Cunningham — 125 Blue Heron Lane AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See previous Item Packet OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the Clty of Meridian. NQ R� ? "T", 'e. C J l�z r=ry x 4` Ik . ,fit . . . . . . . . . . . "A k #�v 'x,. Y N S x r `s s October 15, 2001 AZ 01-014 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 18, 2001 APPLICANT Ted Cunningham ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Public Hearing — Request for annexation and zoning of .66 acres from R-1 to R-8 zones for Ted Cunningham — 125 Blue Heron Lane AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See previous Item Packet OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the Clty of Meridian. NQ R� J f x Ik . k #�v 'x,. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall became properly of the City of Meridian. yb'�r v 3 sn3 i, October 15, 2001 PP 01-015 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 18, 2001 APPLICANT Kodiak Development, LLC ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Public Hearing — Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and 5 other lots on 5.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision — 2435 South Meridian Road AGENCY COMMENTS S CITY CLERK: See previous Item Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: n' CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: g CITY SEWER DEPT: t'F SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall became properly of the City of Meridian. yb'�r v ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall became properly of the City of Meridian. ry " 0 October 15, 2001 CUP 01-029 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 18, 2001 APPLICANT Kodiak Development, LLC ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Public Hearing — Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for a private RV Storage and reduced lot sizes in an R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision — 2435 South Meridian Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: COMMENTS See previous Item Packet Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Y' s "k, b h „�� x `� 3 knvy 4+j24'x"a�`' $ p 1 "n<v "'; Y ` ry,l p -k+�p, iN i`60:4"'.fM XrY V d �� 3 X`�) �§1` A NEI 0 October 15, 2001 CUP 01-029 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 18, 2001 APPLICANT Kodiak Development, LLC ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Public Hearing — Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for a private RV Storage and reduced lot sizes in an R-8 zone for proposed Kodiak Subdivision — 2435 South Meridian Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: COMMENTS See previous Item Packet Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Y' b h „�� x `� 3 knvy 4+j24'x"a�`' $ p 1 "n<v "'; Y ` ry,l p -k+�p, iN i`60:4"'.fM XrY V d �� 3 X`�) �§1` A � F o nl gd 3 nk�vx x't ST�SI^F Y ->^N { r i�'.a4 ; a^+;•}'h¢� � t MA { ! k 4 "s X°h ;� '{ •{, . J,*"; • October 15, 2001 0 AZ 00-019 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 18, 2001 APPLICANT Kevin Howell Development ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Public Hearing — Annexation and Zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Revised Cedar Springs — northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See previous Item Packet See attached comments IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached Revised Plats and letter from J - U - B Engineers Contacted: Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the City of Meridian. f" i � f gffpi F 1 t s • October 15, 2001 0 AZ 00-019 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 18, 2001 APPLICANT Kevin Howell Development ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Public Hearing — Annexation and Zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Revised Cedar Springs — northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See previous Item Packet See attached comments IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached Revised Plats and letter from J - U - B Engineers Contacted: Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the City of Meridian. f" C� October 15, 2001 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 18, 2001 0 APPLICANT ITEM NO. jr--), REQUEST Discussion of Proposed Elevations for Washington Mutual Bank at the southeast comer of North Ten Mile Road and West Cherry Lane AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: SANITARY SERVICE: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.