Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2000 05-24
e e MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2000 AT 6:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: X SALLY NORTON X THOMAS BARBEIRO X RICHARD HATCHER X KENT BROWN X CHAIRMAN KEITH BORUP 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 40.33 ACRES TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION BY VICTORY 41, LLC -NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - HOLD WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT 2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION - 91 BUILDABLE LOTS ON 40.33 ACRES BY VICTORY 41, LLC -NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO JUNE 13, 2000 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER FOR 24 MONTHS TO BE PLACED ON PROPERTY ZONED I -L BY JAMES L. AIMONETTO-2204 LANARK STREET: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT SECOND BUILDING ON LOT IN I -L ZONE BY TERRACE PLAZA, LLC -199 NORTH LINDER ROAD: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CHILD CARE CENTER (12+ CHILDREN) IN AN R-8 ZONE BY TARA L. GORTON - 420 E. BROADWAY: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR DENIAL 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MARKETING EDUCATION CLASSROOM TO ACCOMMODATE 2 NON - CONCURRENT CLASSES OF 25-30 STUDENTS IN A C -G ZONE BY JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2-357 WATERTOWER LANE: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL �m wb r 4 "F� , MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2000 AT 6:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: SALLY NORTON THOMAS BARBEIRO RICHARD HATCHER _KENT BROWN _CHAIRMAN KEITH BORUP 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 40.33 ACRES TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION BY VICTORY 41, LLC—NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: A pX7� Irk v e ccs, U"/ -o c/�-- h C �il'ti 2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION - 91 BUILDABLE LOTS ON 40.33 ACRES BY VICTORY 41, LLC—NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: e'er-,-),r�,p1A -10 7&i -,e 194- 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER FOR 24 MONTHS TO BE PLACED ON PROPERTY ZONED I -L BY JAMES L. AIMONETTO-2204 LANARK STREET: .Kp©roVf- re l,'_/ -v c/ e- 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT SECOND BUILDING ON LOT IN I -L ZONE BY TERRACE PLAZA, LLC -199 NORTH LINDER ROAD: �s� r -vi eee �c 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CHILD CARE CENTER (12+ CHILDREN) IN AN R-8 ZONE BY TARA L. GORTON - 420 E. BROADWAY: 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MARKETING EDUCATION CLASSROOM TO ACCOMMODATE 2 NON - CONCURRENT CLASSES OF 25-30 STUDENTS IN A C -G ZONE BY JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2-357 WATERTO � R LANE: 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 3.4 ACRES TO R-15 FOR PROPOSED 40 -UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX (TO BE CALLED PENN STATION) BY PANGAEA LAND PLANNING—SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW AND EAST OF STONEHENGE WAY: ar,"_w vac. A, c./c 0 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED 40 -UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX TO BE CALLED PENN STATION APARTMENTS ON 3.4 ACRES BY PANGAEA LAND PLANNING - SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW AND EAST OF STONEHENGE WAY: ey?)gyvvQ rt 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PROPOSED WANDA'S MEADOW SUBDIVISION - 26 LOTS ON 7.99 ACRES IN AN R4 ZONE BY ROBERT GLENN -1440 NORTH USTICK ROAD WEST OF LOCUST GROVE: eh /J/h 1 13'?' 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN: CU7"26 p //,_. 1�,2 Jam- /,? 1A 11. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR VACATION REQUEST OF A 30' NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY SERVICES BY JEFFREY L. MANSHIP—BLACK CAT AND TEN MILE: 0 e MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MAY 24, 2000 The special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup. MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Thomas Barbeiro, Richard Hatcher, Kent Brown. OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, David Swartley, Will Berg. Borup: We'd like to begin on meeting this evening. This is the May 249' special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. Maybe a little bit of information on procedure. Our procedure on the majority of the public hearings would be we'd start with a staff report. Then the applicant will come forward and give a brief summary of their project. Commissioner's may have questions during that time. Then it will be open for public testimony. Then the applicant will have a final opportunity to make any closing comments. When the public hearing is closed, the commission will discuss the project and hopefully make a recommendation. One of our purposes is to gather information. We like to spend a lot of time to do that and get as much as we can. To help us do that we also need to have some restrictions. If its going to be a major project with a lot of people testifying, we have a 3 minute limit to hear as many people as we can. Also, keep in mind the type of testimony and the information has got to be pertinent to the project. Saying that, we'd like to begin with item 1. 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 40.33 ACRES TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION BY VICTORY 41, LLC—NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: 2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION – 91 BUILDABLE LOTS ON 40.33 ACRES BY VICTORY 41, LLC—NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: Borup: Staff, do we have a report? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, would you like me to address just the annexation or both. Borup: I think we would like to address both. On some of these we would have opportunity to open both public hearings at the same time, take testimony which we have been doing but have had to tum around and open the other public hearing. If the commission would be in favor on some of these, we could go ahead and open both at the same time. �w. �y 0 e MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MAY 24, 2000 The special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup. MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Thomas Barbeiro, Richard Hatcher, Kent Brown. OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, David Swartley, Will Berg. Borup: We'd like to begin on meeting this evening. This is the May 249' special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. Maybe a little bit of information on procedure. Our procedure on the majority of the public hearings would be we'd start with a staff report. Then the applicant will come forward and give a brief summary of their project. Commissioner's may have questions during that time. Then it will be open for public testimony. Then the applicant will have a final opportunity to make any closing comments. When the public hearing is closed, the commission will discuss the project and hopefully make a recommendation. One of our purposes is to gather information. We like to spend a lot of time to do that and get as much as we can. To help us do that we also need to have some restrictions. If its going to be a major project with a lot of people testifying, we have a 3 minute limit to hear as many people as we can. Also, keep in mind the type of testimony and the information has got to be pertinent to the project. Saying that, we'd like to begin with item 1. 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 40.33 ACRES TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION BY VICTORY 41, LLC—NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: 2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION – 91 BUILDABLE LOTS ON 40.33 ACRES BY VICTORY 41, LLC—NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: Borup: Staff, do we have a report? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, would you like me to address just the annexation or both. Borup: I think we would like to address both. On some of these we would have opportunity to open both public hearings at the same time, take testimony which we have been doing but have had to tum around and open the other public hearing. If the commission would be in favor on some of these, we could go ahead and open both at the same time. Meridian Planning and Z'Rng Commission May 24, 2000 Page 2 Siddoway: Okay Commissioner's the proposed Timber View Subdivision has a name change. Observation Point. I just saw the revised plat for the first time at 4 o'clock today. This is Victory Road and Meridian Road. Meridian Greens Subdivision is directly north of it. To the west is Victory Greens Nursery and there is a gravel here. To the west is a rural residential county sub. To the south is irrigated farm land. The boundary is there. The stub street that comes in from Meridian Greens to the property is in this location here. Not all of that area along the south property line of Meridian Greens or the north property line of Observation Point is fenced. There is a fence from approximately half way point down to the east. The Kennedy lateral this course through the southwest corner of the property. We have recommended in our comments that this be left untitled as a amenity and the green space adjacent to it with the storm water facility be developed as a useable recreation space with a pathway a long it. This was the original plat. I don't have a copy of the new one that was just submitted. I can tell you just based on the quick review I did this afternoon, they have eliminated these 3 lots. They are talking about leaving that as a single residential lot on septic. They decreased these (inaudible) 7 foot landscape buffers to 40 feet. The plat that has been submitted still does not conform with the staff comments for the pedestrian connections or the buffers between the land uses of the gravel pit and the Subdivision. Also noticed in the file several comments related to the connection of this stub street. As planning staff we would recommend that stub street go through. We see it as critical for the interconnectivity within the city. The stub street that we have requested would be an extension of this street where the grades do match is also not shown in the revised plat. Borup: Any comment on the ACHD recommendations? Mainly the entry. Siddoway: They recommended that the entry way shift from the point that it is shown on here to the west because it was too close to the bridge that the Kennedy lateral goes through. On the new plat they have shifted it to the east. We don't see that as a problem. Borup: Is the applicant here. Becky are you doing this again. Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt. I am back one more time. 11283 W. Hickory Dale, Boise. Borup: I might just add we do have your written comments dated May 9t' or your response to staff comments. The first question I have is there anything changed from what you submitted earlier. Bowcutt: Yes. The issue with the three lots adjoining Victory Road. I'll go through that. This property when you look at it with the lots and the streets it looks like any ordinary Subdivision you may see, but when you look at the topographic map this property is very unique to the City of Meridian. It is hilly. It has a good grade. A nice knoll through the mid section. My client, Mr. Cavin, when he came to us to plan this Meridian Planningand Z� ng Commission May 24, 2000 Page 3 project, he main concern was I would like to create a view corridor for this lots and maximize the views of the Boise front, the Owyhees as much as possible. The way this is designed the lots are slanted in a north easterly direction. He did not want lots backing up to Victory Road. We have a single loaded street all through this area. He felt that gave him a better Subdivision. The density he intended was a low density. This will be a high end Subdivision. We've got 2.21 dwelling units per acre. The lots are ranging from 11,000 and we have one that is as big as 33,400 square feet. The homes he intends to build are similar to the homes that have been constructed in Brookdale Meadows which is located north of McMillan between Cloverdale and Eagle Road. The smallest home that he intents to be constructed within this development is approximately 2100 square feet. I know some of the resident were alarmed because the preliminary plat in (inaudible) square footage said 1400. It states that because that's the minimum for that R-4 zone. As Steve indicated the Kennedy lateral (inaudible) this property here on the southwest corner. This particular triangular area currently has one single family dwelling which appears to be the old homestead house. There is one other existing home that sits up here on the hill side. That is the home of the previous property owner. We are platting that lot as part of this development. The original plan we showed 3 lots down in this area and we had kind of a little knuckle here to provide access to them. Ada County Highway District came back and said because Victory Road will eventually be a arterial, we don't want those homes taking access in that fashion. Their recommendation was that those homes take access internally which means coming across, bridging the Kennedy and bringing a short culdesac just to access basically 3 lots. In the staff report they indicated that the Kennedy lateral is also the demarcation line for the sewer drainage area, even through physically this particular area can drain into the extension of the Ten Mile off shoot of the trunk out of the south end of Meridian Greens. They indicated that these lots here should not take sewer service. After multiple discussions with Mr. Cavin, we determined we will go ahead and buy in to that and we removed those three lots and then this area here is 1.66 acres and we will leave this existing home on its existing septic and well. That existing house does encroach into the required 20 foot landscape area. There is about a 7 foot encroachment. There is a stub street up here in Meridian Greens and sewer and water will be extended through our development from that point. At this time they have a temporary culdesac there and we would make an interconnection here and it was mandated by Ada County Highway District. We had not choice. It is a platted public right of way and was always intended to be extended. We have stubbed through the east here. There is a long parcel here. ACHD did not want our entrance too close to the Kennedy lateral bridge. One, visibility and two we need to provide a center turn lane into our project and if it is too close to the bridge it would require complete rebuild of the bridge. Their recommendation was we off set between 300 to 350 feet or go align with this street. Our intent was to create a landscaped area with lots of flowers as your entry way view when you come into the development. We'd have heavy landscaping here and Mr. Cavin intends to build a wall all along Victory Road that would consist of a rock fascia. We'll have a pathway. Since these two roadways, Observation Drive and Victory are only 40 feet apart, what we would propose to do is install our sidewalk meandering. Our wall would be here. It would be north of the 20 foot landscape area. Pull our sidewalk in and interconnect here and pull it in again and interconnect and Meridian Planningand Z� ng Commission May 24, 2000 Page 4 come across here. We want to construct pathways doing the same here. Then install a pathway along the Kennedy lateral and we've got landscaping proposed there. In my comments to the staff, I indicated that we still would have to Nampa Meridian Irrigation approval for any improvements within the easement for the Kennedy lateral. That easement is 55 feet and runs right here. Going to the comments that I made, one of the concerns was the request for pedestrian pathways. We did submit a variance application. Staff has asked since we do exceed the maximum block length of 1000 feet, that we put a pedestrian pathway connecting these two blocks. A pedestrian pathway has to meet ADA standards, so there are some concerns. Since this property is unique I am asking staff and commission to consider some factors. We have kept our lot depths as deep as possible next to Meridian Greens. They range between 124-125 in depth. We kept our widths which range between 90-94 feet. That would be about 11,400 square feet. We have some lots in our development that have more depth where we have the hill side to deal with because we will have to provide a pad area for the home to be built and be able to accommodate the drainage due to the slopes and so forth. In those instances where we have the greater slopes we went a greater depth. Some of those are 165 feet and others 140 on the average. We intend to fence our boundary. Along the Kennedy lateral we would have to discuss with the district and the city some type of safety fence. We'd be required to fence this western boundary here. Along Meridian Greens there are intermittent fences through there. Staff indicated they want us to fence whatever has not been fenced and match the fencing that is currently in place. The most objectionable thing in the staff report was the issue of the buffer here. We have the Victory View Nursery here. This is an older gravel pit. It think it is 15 acres. It appears to be played out. They do have some activity going there. One of the concerns that we have was the Comprehensive Plan states that in some point of time would be single family. I believe medium density single family on the new Comprehensive Plan. Staff stated we want a stub street there to provide inter- connectivity to the parcel. However, in the next comment it stated you have a incompatible use adjoining you. Therefore, you need a 20 foot buffer. My opinion it can't be both ways. If it is intended to be residential then that is what it is going to be in the future so therefore it would be compatible. I think it should be viewed in that manner as far as the buffer is concerned. Anytime you put a buffer along a perimeter that has no use—no pedestrian use or really any practical use, the chance of that being maintained over time is going to be severely diminished when you compare it to usable visible space. This is behind lots. It benefits only the lots that are there. We have developed Subdivisions next to more intensive uses or what some may deem incompatible. What we have done there, fencing was one but we also went with heavy landscaping. East individual lot owner is going to make that determination on what type of landscaping they want. I don't think it is practical. We did not show the stub street along the western boundary for one reason and that is because of our concern. If there is still activity going on there, we don't want any of those trucks coming through this project. That public stub street is built and dedicated then aren't they entitled to utilize it as a public street. ACHD first required it but then got to thinking about it and the grade separation because there is about 12 to 13 foot grade separation through here. This property sits up high and that is another issue as far as they are low. We are high for buffering. Ada County Highway District had a stub street right here hanging up in the Meridian Planningand Zonin Commission 9 May 24, 2000 Page 5 air. When we discussed it further they said you are right. We don't want trucks coming through your development. We do have a grade separation, therefore maybe your right and it is not a good idea. That condition was removed. The city staff discussed it and they called the highway district it is important because we believe that property is going to redevelop at some point of time as residential. Do you have any questions. Norton: I don't see anywhere in our notes that there will be a homeowners association but you mentioned one. Will there be CC&R's. Bowcutt: Yes. They will be consistent with the other higher end Subdivision that Mr. Cavin has done. The very same things you have seen in Meridian Greens. Borup: Becky, are you familiar with the parcels to the west. Is that separate parcels or ownership. Bowcutt: Yes sir. Parcels are separated by the Kennedy lateral is the parcel boundary. Borup: So, that triangle piece is a separate parcel. Bowcutt: Under separate ownership and takes access through an easement. I think it takes access south of Victory Road. I may be wrong. I stand corrected. To the west. It is just a easement. Borup: You said if that developed it would have access to Meridian Road. Bowcutt: When that parcel adjoins it develops, then obviously you get another opportunity for interconnection to Meridian Road and Victory Road. Barbeiro: Did you read the petition that came from the neighbors asking for larger lot sizes and the big one was they wanted to have similar roofing. Bowcutt: No I have not received that. I did chat with the neighbors a couple weeks ago out in the lobby. Barbeiro: So we would request that the adjoining (inaudible) have the same roofing materials those being either cedar shake or tile roofs. In your CC&R's are those addressed? Bowcutt: Yes, the roofing would be addressed in the CC&R's and I believe Mr. Cavin indicated that in this Subdivision they have those architectural shingles. They are different then the old asphalt shingles. They are attractive. Borup: Somewhere we will have to discuss the conflicting comments with staff. Commissioner's will have a chance to do that. We would like to open this to public testimony at this time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 6 Martinez: My name is Boris Martinez. I live at 521 E. Whitehall Street. I come before you today to voice my opposition to Observation Point Subdivision in its present embodiment. In the statement of compliance for the Timber View Subdivision now Observation Point, dated March 30, 2000 submitted by Briggs Engineering, Item 10 states, the applicant would like to provide larger lots to accommodate homes similar to the ones in Meridian Greens. Yet, I have a hard time finding any of these lots up against the Meridian Greens Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan states protect and maintain residential neighborhood values. Improve each neighborhoods physical condition and enhance its quality of life for residents. I do not understand how placing the majority of the smallest lots up against Meridian Greens property line is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. I took the liberty of reproducing the Timber View Subdivision plat. I highlighted in yellow all lots that are less than 11,500 square feet. If you will notice they don't appear anywhere in the front. They all are against the Meridian Greens property line or in close proximity to it. It was mentioned that examples of the types of homes that would be build in this Subdivision were like the ones in Brookdale Meadows. I went and looked at some of the houses being built there and I saw some very nice homes there, but I also saw some homes like this one. This is a 2100 square foot home, 2 car garage for $204,900. Given what they proposal for, this would be a perfectly acceptable home to abut our property lines. This house is probably about $100,000 less than all the houses on the property line. I would like to see covenants that prevent homes like this from occurring. They mentioned shingles. Out of that whole Subdivision there was only one house with wood shingles. Every other house had something else. So in my minds the covenants are not indicative of what we would expect to see. I think there needs to be strict covenants about the type of roofing that has to be on those homes. I would like to ask that the homes that are built against our property lines are of comparable size and price as what is in Meridian Greens. We should have either ceramic or wood shakes and we should have 10 foot setbacks. The Subdivisions need to blend together. I please ask you to keep that in consideration when reviewing this proposal. Thank you. Borup: Do you agree that the same continuity needs to take place within Meridian Greens Subdivision itself. Martinez: Well from seeing it as we get toward the back of the Subdivision I think the houses are pretty comparable. If you go toward the front, it seems as you move toward the back, the houses get more and more expensive. If they want smaller or lower priced homes, why not integrate those toward the front of the Subdivision. Or put them to the east side. Basically what is going to happen if this goes through, probably 2 or 3 years ago when they started to develop the areas to the east, there will be a whole bunch of people here before you again arguing about how their lots are big and the things that go next to them are going to get small. If you create that environment now where you blend in with us and then as you move east and west, if you start to put smaller homes in there, then you have transition homes. Seegmiller: My name is Lee Seegmiller. I live at 512 E. Whitehall. I share the same concerns as Mr. Martinez. My biggest concern is a matter of safety. This as mentioned Meridian Planning and Ang Commission • May 24, 2000 Page 7 is a choice building site but it is hilly. It is not appreciated by looking at the map. There is approximately 1000 feet of down hill straight road headed north bound and it dumps into a culdesac. This map is incorrect. That was a culdesac at the end of Andros Way. It is 9200 feet in diameter. It was built and paved and curved as a culdesac. Now at this date, change it to a through way at the end of a long straight street coming downhill is a concern to me. The curbing in Meridian Greens is a very low contour and does not offer protection to keep the cars off the sidewalk. There are small children in the area and there has been numerous instances where cars have driven up on to the sidewalk. My mail box has been knocked over by a car who failed to negotiate the turn. I have concern about cars coming down that hill in excessive speed and entering that culdesac and failing to negotiate the corners. I would like to see that street made into a curve of some kind so that the speed could be controlled. I was informed by the builder when I purchased the lot that that was to be access for emergency fire department use only. There were never any signs there informing the buyers that was to be temporary culdesac. I feel at this date to change that to a through street is a breech of faith on the part of the commission. My second concern regards the lot sizes and the roofing material. I will refer to Mr. Martinez's comments. My third comment is referring to water pressure. If the new Subdivision is tapped into our supply it will aggravate an all ready unsatisfactory condition. On many occasions I have measured the water pressure at my home of 25 pounds per square inch. That is inadequate to water the lawn or even fight a small fire. I would like to ask the question what is to be done about water supply to this new Subdivision. Are they going to have a pressurized irrigation system or will they be watering from the city's supply. Borup: Pressurized system. Seegmiller: That is good. In Meridian Greens we depend upon the city water supply for all of our irrigation needs. I would like to also request that the board require a more protective type of curbing. In the winter when that down hill road is covered with ice I can anticipate there will be out of control cars coming into that area. Oward: David Oward. I live at 1019 E. Dominica. I'd like to add a few comments to what Mr. Martinez said. The principal concerns we have are obviously with the lot sizes. I have personally no complains with the land being developed. I am concerned that it be developed in a manner that it does not hurt our property values. Obviously that property has had its value enhanced virtue to the fact that it is sitting adjacent to some very expensive home. I would like to see that increase in property value not come at our expense. Concerning home sizes, I spent time down at the county court house determining what the size of houses on Whitehall are and I pulled up the square footages and the average comes out a little higher then on the letter. It is around 3100 feet. The covenants in that neighborhood on our street are 2400, 2500 square feet. I would like to encourage the commission to insist that the lots as well as the housing square footage be at least similar so there is not a drastic discontinuity. Another concern is that in Meridian Greens there is not a lot of green open area and that is because the lots are large and the big 10 foot setbacks in there. Based on the number of lots in a small Subdivision I don't presume they will put a park in there. I would like to Meridian Planning and Ang Commission May 24, 2000 Page 8 propose that the 10 foot setbacks be maintained to keep some what of a green space field in the neighborhood. The back half of Meridian Green has no pressurized irrigation. We do have a serious water pressure from time to time. Looking at the plat I noticed it appears there will be a pressurized irrigation system running down the back fence of Whitehall. If that system is being ran by Nampa Meridian Irrigation would it be possible for the lots sifting on that line to be able to have some service. I would be willing and interested and would pay some burden of the cost to do that. Thanks. St. Clair: Randy St. Clair. 1775 E. Dunwoody. I own the gravel pit that is just to the west of the project. As you know, the property operates now under a conditional use permit and the easement to it is temporary. I would like to assure myself of is that the property does not become land locked at some point of time. If we don't access through this property that only leaves one property left to access it through. END OF SIDE ONE Borup: Mr. St. Clair your accessing to the east right now through this property. St. Clair: To the west off Meridian Road right now. Temporary easement. It goes through the corner of Victory Greens right now. The access is probably the north boundary of Victory Greens property. Also I would like to mention, if they do provide utilities through there that they are compatible. It is zoned residential now that the utilities are compatible with the gravel pit—the elevations of the gravel pit. It is my understand that if my property is to be developed, that the sewer will go through that property of the new Subdivision. Borup: Your saying they are going to bring the sewer line presently through your property. In the future if you develop yours. Okay. I thought that was through the Black Cat Trunk line. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, northeast of the Kennedy lateral goes back to the Ten Mile. I guess the question I would pose to Mr. St. Clair is how deep you going to dig your pit. St. Clair: The pit right now is being reclaimed. There is some mining activity going on now but for the most part it is being reclaimed. Freckleton: The gravel pit would go to the Ten Mile. Hatcher: I believe that the sewer issue for the future development of the gravel pit is a design issue that would be resolved at the time of development of the pit. Whether or not your pit is (inaudible) reclaimed and level with the property at hand, nobody in this room have control of what you do with that land. At the time that you develop it then it's a design issue as to how you do. • Meridian Planning and Ang Commission May 24, 2000 Page 9 St. Clair: It operates under a conditional use permit now but if the conditional use permit ever lapses it reverts back to residential. I ask you guys what is the intent for sewer and water for that parcel. Hatcher: Basically it would be appropriate to develop based upon the Comprehensive Plan. It would be in your right to develop it residential and if you do and the city annexes it, then the city will provide utilities to your development. How it is to be provided is a design issue which will be dealt with at that time. St. Clair: Long range planning thought couldn't we make the sewer— Hatcher: We don't know what elevation to put the sewer at because it depends on whether you reclaim the pit, leave it or keep digging. Freckleton: Commissioner Hatcher. The City of Meridian did commission a study that is a facility plan for the entire city. The purpose of the plan was to try and define boundaries. Define where sewer lines need to run in order to service the properties. That property is included in that facility plan. You are correct in what you said about the design issue, but as far as the service ability of your property Randy, it has been accounted for in that facility plan. Widdison: Sue Widdison. I live at 2594 S. Abaco Way. My concern I also the road that is going through our Subdivision into the new one. This is a map that one neighbor received. It has always been shown as a culdesac there. I can understand for emergency purposes they might need to have that open. We gave you petitions to try to close the road off completely but I understand that it might need to be there. Now I am hoping we can have an emergency break down fence. We have 17 children under the age of 12 on that street. By opening that up to new construction and with only one opening on Victory Road into the new Subdivision so that only gives them they can enter on Victory or into our Subdivision giving us a lot of traffic and trucks where we have little kids. Porter: John Porter. I live at 2650 S. Andros Way. I submitted a letter with concerns I have. Some have been address by the developer. The road that they are trying to add on to Andros Way is a down hill access. They could redo the road. They could put a design that the road is not a straight shot. There is alternatives to that road coming into Meridian Greens. I was under the impression it was going to remain a culdesac. The traffic flow will increase. I see no need to have that second road come through there. Why couldn't they get 2 egresses in there —one at each end of the lots. That would push the traffic or make it more favorable to go out on Victory Road. The size of lots is a very high issue with us. The average lot size on the back adjoining property is 11,000 square feet and find that unacceptable. I have talked to the developer. If he just consumed one or two of those lots make them larger it would probably appease a lot of us. I am not opposed to the development but I am opposed the way the plat is, the design of it. Meridian Planning and Zoing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 10 Markel: Karen Markel. 661 E. Whitehall and I would like to add my concerns to the other residents. The small lots sizes also are my concerns. All they would need to do would be consume one of those lots across the back. Make them larger. I believe Becky Bowcutt painted a pretty picture of what architectural shingles look like. All they are is a composite shingle that looks a little bit different in shape. On the other side of Meridian Greens toward the front, there is a Subdivision that abuts against the east side and similar changes have been made to that Subdivision. They were required to put in wood shakes along where the lots a join Meridian Greens and also required to substantially increase their square footages. For some of us our homes are our only investment. We went into this home expecting a profit in the future. McKinley: Dennis McKinley. 2665 S. Andros. Right where that road bends that is where they'll be in my front yard. I offer opposition here as well that I bought that —told it was a culdesac, there was not sign that it was anything other than a culdesac. The curb went all the way around and I would like to maintain my properties and keep the people out of my front yard. All the requests here this evening I agree with. Borup: You said that showed that was a culdesac. Are you referring to the recorded plat shows that or —1 am talking about the recorded plat. Did you see a sales drawing that showed that. McKinley: I received a copy with my CC&R's and that showed it. In fact it was mentioned to me at one time it was going to be a golf course out there. It does affect all of our values. Diehl: My name if Paul Diehl. 2569 S. Aboco Way. I am surprised about this whole development because—We never received a notification that this thing was going in. A lot of people did not receive anything either so the neighbors informed us. We bought into a quiet neighborhood and quiet street. We were told at that time this was a culdesac period. I am not opposing the development but I am opposed to that road opening up. Nicholas: I am Luana Nicholas. I live at 545 Whitehall. I am here with all of my many neighbors. I will mention that my home is one of the ones right on the edge there. The white fence that you saw in the first picture that he put up tonight—the beginning of the white fence is my backyard. Those 2100 square foot homes will be built right across the fence line from me. That size of home is 2/3 size of my home. It would significantly depreciate the property value of my home. Debenham: Brett Debenham. I live at 737 E. Whitehall. I have a few questions and maybe some observations. Is the minimum square footage 2100 square feet or the minimum 1400. Borup: We will get an answer for you on that. Meridian Planning and Ang Commission 0 May 24, 2000 Page 11 Debenham: The fence line will be going along Whitehall. 3/ of the housing along there has very expensive fencing. The attitude I got from the developer was they would be willing to split the cost on that other quarter fencing. That kind of shows to me the spirit of how the developer is taking this. Barbeiro: I don't know if you can speak for the group but can you tell me what the minimum building size in Meridian Greens is. I believe it is 2400. Siddoway: The minimum house size in Meridian Greens as per the plat is 1300 square feet. Borup: He's got the plat. This is what was recorded and submitted by the developer. Debenham: When we moved into the Subdivision the minimum house price was $250,000. Barbeiro: I am asking the square footage of the property of the home. Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro I think I can answer that for you. I do have a set of covenants Meridian Green number 1. The recorded covenants for that says that a house size shall not be less than 1700 square feet. Barbeiro: What my point is for you and the neighbors is I don't think there are very many homes in your neighborhood at or close to the minimum. I think you might find that in this new Subdivision is will be equal. That you will find few is any homes that will come close to the minimum. Debenham: Let's say things go wrong here. He is not selling the lots as quickly as he'd like to. He is going to put 1400 or very small houses back up against there. What is going to stop that from happening Barbeiro: NO, no. Borup: Same thing that stopped it from happening in Meridian Greens. Debenham: What was that. When we bought into it, there was a minimum price that the house had to appraise for and that was $250,000. Hatcher: Requirements that numerous people that have mentioned here tonight are all driven by CC&R's not by Planning and Zoning Ordinances. We state that certain residential tones shall be made. The size of lot and house is different than the zoning ordinance because it is being governed by the CC&R's by the developer. The best interest to everybody involved is to work in a cooperative effort with the developer that is looking at developing this land. We don't have any way of governing what size of house he builds so long it meets the minimum requirements per the ordinance. R Meridian Planning and zing Commission 0 May 24, 2000 Page 12 Debenham: We are asking that they blend and we don't get 1400 square foot houses. I don't think that is unreasonable to ask. Diehl: Paul Diehl again. I was on the Meridian Greens homeowners association for 3 years and on the architectural committee. That 1700 feet is correct for the first phase. The other phases next to the new development is 2500 square feet minimum. With respect to the question about the houses, we would make reviews of the houses periodically through Meridian Greens checking on fences, etc. In essence, there are no homes in Meridian Greens that have down graded the value of other homes being built up in higher prices. Brown: Bob Brown. 695 Whitehall. I share the same views as everybody else. I know at Sportsman Point, I purchased a couple lots over there that back up to Meridian Greens the canal and all those lots back there were the biggest lots in the Subdivision and that is where the higher end houses went in at Sportsman Point. They did make them do the shake roofs so it is not unreasonable to comply with these things. Mussle: Tim Mussle and I am the owner of the nursery. What I want to ask if there is a way that —1 don't have a problem with this at all. I just want to make sure that down the road if I do anything with my property that I don't get a room full of folks. If there is a way to make sure that in this approvals or something that those folks or the developer or somebody along that whole fence line makes sure it is a consistent berm or buffer so when those guys move in to these wonderful homes and look across to my nursery and they don't have a problem with it then anything I do all of a sudden becomes a big problem. If that is something that can be addressed. Barbeiro: Mr. Mussel, as I look at the Comprehensive Plan it looks like you have some prime commercial property there for you to let the residents know that on that comer the possibility of a commercial development does exist. When everybody knows when you come to us in 2 or 3 years with a commercial development, we didn't know that was commercial. The new Subdivision people should be aware of that too. Borup: Anyone else. Becky any final or wrap up you'd like to do. Bowcutt: When we designed this Subdivision we were sensitive to the lot sizes. The question has been asked how come some of the lots next to Meridian Greens are some of the smaller ones that are in this development. The main answer is topography. With the hilliness of this property we had its design in a fashion that we need some of that depth to be able to handle the grading necessary for the streets and the homes. Just because a particular lot is 6 feet less in depth than its adjoined lot does not mean it is not compatible. This is intended to be a very high end exclusive Subdivision with views out of these homes which also enhances the value of the homes and the lots. It is not intended to be a 1400 or 1600 square foot Subdivision. Mr. Cavin is willing to go on the record that the minimum square footage will be 2100 square feet for the dwelling. That will be put in the covenants. As far as the issue of roofing, I never in 10 years of doing this ever had any governing body dictate a particular type of roofing. I have a shake Meridian Planning and Aing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 13 roof on my house and my house is a 2 story, 3250 square foot. Very comparable and it is not going to last. My neighbors that built their house a couple year before me, my house is 7 years old, are all ready replacing their roofing. I had a roofing company come out and the gentleman said we do not have the appropriate climate for shake shingles. Too many extremes in our weather. The expansion and contractions limits their life span. The shingles have come a long way. Those homes have architectural shingles and look very, very nice. Like I said compatibility does not mean exactly the same. Mr. Cavin is going to have strict covenants just like Meridian Greens does. Brookdale Meadows are very good looking homes and that is what he intends for this development. The culdesac---we don't have choices when it comes to inter connection with the stub street to the north. Ada County Highway District dictates that and I understand and we face this time and time again. Some of the things we can do if the highway district will agree to it is put a choker up there at that intersection or East Lake Creek Street. What that does is funnel the traffic into all most one lane and it requires a driver to slow down and functions well. The other thing are speed humps which are not popular with emergency services. Second was construction traffic. Mr. Cavin can tell the subcontractors that construction traffic will take access off of Victory Road. He intends it to be a two phase project. He may build it all as one phase. He has not determined that but we will start at Victory and do the first loop for sure and then go on. Obviously the closest point of ingress and egress is Victory Road. For them to drive 3/ of a mile through Meridian Greens winding through the residential streets is not practical. The contractors will take the shortest route. I have seen signage put up and it is Ashford Greens I believe have a sign that directed construction traffic to a particular street. We have done it before. This development will have pressure irrigation. Mr. Cavin has not determined whether is will be under the association or under Nampa Meridian Irrigation Districts owner and maintenance. He will decide prior to the submittal of the final plat. As far as blending the home, just as Meridian Greens when it first started up at Overland Road as you went southward and the Subdivision started developing, the value the homes increased. That is a standard thing with a development with this low of density just like theirs. The price and value of the home increase as you develop each phase. We feel this is a good project. A good quality project. We have made great effort to come before you with a low density project. Our 2.21 dwelling units per acre is right there with Meridian Greens on their density. We calculated their phase 3 and it is like 2.2. With the rock wall on the exterior, being able to utilize that Kennedy lateral and make some esthetic improvements out there, I think it will be a asset to the city. Any questions. Excuse me. There was a comment about the 10 setbacks. Their zoning designation in Meridian Greens is R-4. That is the same zone we are requesting. Any two story house under the zoning ordinance requires 10 foot setback, 5 feet per story according to the ordinance. Barbeiro: I am going to try to solve your problem. You talk about a choker and we do know that while the plat shows this as being a stub street, it is a culdesac. With the use of a choker would the developer consider taking about 5 to 10 feet to halfway through each of these lots, widen that road. Work with the 2 neighbors at this lot and this lot to widen their road a little so you could take the choker about half way into their Meridian Planning and Ming Commission May 24, 2000 Page 14 Subdivision. That would be enough to slow the traffic down, give them some assemblance of a culdesac. It essentially will be an island. Bowcutt: Your thinking a island and then choke it up with two lanes one on each side. Barbeiro: Yeah and passing through into your subdivision if your developer would consider the added expense in moving into their Subdivision if ACHD would allow— Bowcutt: Ada County Highway District will not allow us to put that median in their existing right of way. We can do it in a new Subdivision because the common lot or median is a separate and not a part of the public right of way. They have never allowed us to put those in a right of way. My concern is we may have to go in and either vacate part of the right of way or go to the commission with some sort of license agreement. I don't know if they would favor that. They will work with us but that one, I don't think it is possible. Hatcher: On the same line, the recorded plat of Meridian Greens is showing a public stub street to be (inaudible) to the southern property. When it was developed, the developer put in a temporary culdesac. Since that culdesac is not recorded I am at a loss as to one of two things are going to have to occur. Either the adjacent property owners in Meridian Greens actually own a chunk of that culdesac and when the street goes all the way through, then it will have to be reclaimed and those people be given their property back. Or, the culdesac was built out of violation to the recorded plat. Freckleton: I can clear that up for you. The recorded Subdivision plat for Meridian Greens Unit 3, there is a 50 foot right of way platted to the southern boundary. There is also a temporary emergency vehicle turn around ingress egress easement that goes into lot 50, block 8 and also lot 37, block 12 which is both sides of the right away. It says that this easement is to revert back to adjacent lot owners upon the extension of the public street. That is right on the face of the plat. Hatcher: So the culdesac would be — into a straight street. The adjacent property owners would reclaim how much land? Freckleton: Well, it's a 50 foot straight through right of way as platted. The culdesac is encroaching into the lot by an easement right now. Hatcher: By an easement—so there was a legal means in which that encroachment occurs. Freckleton: That is correct and I believe if we went back in the record, I think the City of Meridian was instrumental in requiring that because our requirements typically or any time you have a street that goes in more than one lot depth, you have to provide a tum around. Meridian Planning and Ring Commission May 24, 2000 Page 15 Hatcher: Okay. In reverting the culdesac to a through street, is it the Meridian Greens Association that does this work or the adjacent developer going in and making the adjustments within Meridian Greens? Freckleton: Typically it is the developer of the Subdivision that is effected by the culdesac. It would have been Meridian Greens. When this street goes through, if they choose to leave the culdesac where it was, that is there choice. If they want to reclaim it as their plat provides— Hatcher: So it would be the land owner or the association would have to go back to the original developer and say we want our land back. Freckleton: That is correct. Norton: I have a question regarding the homeowners concern about pressurized irrigation. They indicated they have difficulty with the water pressure and would be willing to help with expensive if they could tap into the pressurized irrigation that your Subdivision seems to be able to have. When the issue is resolved of who is going to be owning that, the Subdivision, homeowners association or the irrigation district, would your developer be willing to work with the neighbors to tap into that. Bowcutt: I have faced this before when developing next to adjoining properties that had no access to irrigation water. Nampa Meridian in two other instances took that to their board and came back and said unless we can provide water for the entire development of the adjoining Subdivision, they would not allow the lots that adjoin my development to connect to our system. It had to do with their water rights. Some Subdivisions have forfeited their water rights, some retain them and pay for the water rights, but don't get any water. I have dealt with this before and developers say yes they will do that but they would not allow it. I don't think that will happen. We could ask. Borup: Is Nampa Meridian going to be operating this system. Bowcutt: Either they will operate it or the association. Borup: So, it has not been decided yet. You stated that the 2100 square feet would be part of the covenants. Any reason that couldn't be put on the plat also. Bowcutt: If Mr. Cavin agrees. END OF SIDE TWO Borup: The warranty on a cedar shake shingle roof is non-existent. There is no warranty. What there any discussion on the type of architectural. Bowcutt: Presidential or better Mr. Cavin has just indicated for the record. 40 year. Meridian Planning and Ang Commission • May 24, 2000 Page 16 Borup: That will be in the covenants also. Bowcutt: Yes. Borup: And that is a very good quality shingle. Top of the line. That will look better in the future than a shake roof. I would like some more discussion on the stub street to the west. You mentioned concern about the grade. You also said that the steep grade in the one area but tapers off as it gets to each end. (Inaudible) stub street have to be where the embankment is rather then where it tapers off a little bit. Bowcutt: Where the highway district originally asked for it was between lot 10 and 11. That was the steepest point or – Borup: I don't think they realized about the grade. Bowcutt: My first meeting they agreed it was not necessary. They have left it the same but they have concerns about truck traffic coming through us. That was one of their concerns. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I contacted the (inaudible) Ada County Highway District on this issue and they originally recommended the stub street going this location which is the ideal location to prevent high speed traffic from going through on a long straight away. That location has the highest grade change so you can go there without some type of bridge structure or something. The grades meet from about this point north and the grades do meet at the location where East Lake Creek Drive would be extended. My last conversation with Dave Splitz suggested that that is the logical location for that because they are also grade elevation differences that still exist down here until you get on the other side of the lateral. We also voiced a concern about the possibility of gravel trucks now being able to use this to get out, but he was saying it could be barricaded with the sign saying this street will be extended in the future when that property is later developed as a residential Subdivision. We feel the connection is needed for the inner - connectivity. The grades do match at that location and I believe that it can be barricaded while the use is a gravel pit to keep trucks from using it. Borup: Did ACHD express what their—did they say what they really wanted? Siddoway: They agreed they wanted to get a stub street and when I pointed that location out they said that was where it should go. But I have not seen anything in writing. They do want a stub street. Borup: Your comment on the buffering, if it is going to be an incompatible use, the buffering needs to stay there. Your saying you don't want the stub street because its going to be residential and then its going to be a like use and the buffering would not need to be there. Along the same line, if it is going to be residential the stub street needs to be there. Meridian Planning and Aing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 17 Bowcutt: Yes sir. Borup: Had there been any design consideration to a less direct route on Andros, turning at Lake Creek rather than extending through. Bowcutt: You mean try to ninety it and then bring it in perpendicular. That may be a possibility where you take it — what I was contemplating is softening the curve as we come around a little bit and then take Andros and intersect it 90 degrees like this instead of taking it straight. If the district would agree. We've done that before. Borup: Has there been any discussion about one less lot on the north boundary and distributing that between them. Bowcutt: The differences in the depth, they are approximately 130 we've got 124, 125 so it is 6 or 7 feet. In the width we've got 94 to 90 in our widths. They appear to be about 961 think. On those that are squared. With the 92 that we have, there is about a 6 or 8 foot difference. Borup: So is that a way of saying no, there has not been discussion. Bowcutt: We felt we were pretty darn close and that we are compatible. I would hate to loose a lot in there. A little bit of shifting could possibly be done to enhance. Borup: The lot you lose there could you add it back in somewhere else. Bowcutt: No, I don't think so not to meet the frontages that we need for the zone and the due to the slopes. Our first thought we'd try to move the lot lines, shift them a little to enhance the width. To the east probably, around the corner. I don't think there is enough room to bring every single lot there up to 100. That one on the end, lot 14, is 105. Borup: Whether you can gain that lot somewhere else in the Subdivision that is a design thing. You do have the larger lots on the north or on the south and the smaller lots on the north. It does seem you leave the smaller lots near an entrance. We've got the plat. Any other questions Commissioner's. Hatcher: I move we close the public hearings, both of them. Norton: I second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: We can do the discussion on both. We will need to make motions on each separate. Meridian Planning and Ang Commission • May 24, 2000 Page 18 Hatcher: There was a comment earlier from one of the Meridian Greens residents about a violation of commitment from this commission. (Inaudible) we were to allow that road to go through. I wanted to address that. It is not a violation of the city or this board. It is a ACHD and Meridian City requirement that adjoining properties be harmoniously tied together so there is a free flow of traffic through out the city. Borup: The violation would have been to not have the road go through because that was what was on the plat and committed to. Hatcher: I am getting to that and what I would really say is that if there is any violation of commitment it is from the realtor and builders that you have dealt with because that road on the recorded plat has always been a stub street, always intended to be a stub street and if your swayed or deceived by the people you dealt with, I empathize with you. As far as the traffic because of the stub street, I think you will probably fine I look at the Meridian Greens Subdivision as it is currently platted and I would find that the back third of that Subdivision is going to take advantage of going through this Subdivision. You guys are going to benefit by this Subdivision and the traffic flow of the Subdivision. Every single house in that Subdivision will most likely go to Victory because it is a block away rather than driving 3/ of a mile through meandering roads in your Subdivision. The likelihood of them going through your Subdivision is pretty minimal. Another comment about curbs and having a turn down curb or rolled curb, a 6 inch curb. It doesn't matter what type you build it is not going to stop a car. The other issue is the culdesac and design standard. All of the culdesac that are in Meridian Greens by what I can see here were designed in a oval or oblong fashion which provide for guest parking in the middle of the culdesac and that looks like a Subdivision design standard. That should have been a red flag to anyone that through that other culdesac was permanent because it doesn't have that feature. I am discouraged about Meridian irrigation districts policy of not servicing adjacent lots. I encourage the Subdivision and the developer to come to means with that. If the Subdivision decides to maintain it them selves and make it as a homeowners association, then I think the Meridian Greens property could benefit from that with a joint venture with the developer. The three items I would be in favor of adjusting if I were to put a motion together on this would be the northern lots adjacent to Meridian Greens that they be adjusted so that they are no smaller than the smallest lot in the adjacent Meridian Greens. The second is to ask the developer to coordinate and work with Meridian Greens homeowners association to develop CC&R's that reflect similar conditions. The other issue would be that a western stub street in alignment with Lake Creek per staff recommendation be added in and that the buffering requirements be dropped as a requirement. Under the assumption that the gravel pit would be developed as residential. That is my discussion. Norton: I would concur with that but would also like to do or have something regarding this Andros Way meander so its not a straight shot downhill into Meridian Greens. Hatcher: I would not be opposed to that. I calculated the slopes of that and it would be a 3 percent slope, which is well within the standard means of a road. Meridian Planning and Roing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 19 Norton: ®o we want to do anything about helping the neighbors with the fence line along that back group of houses. Hatcher: Most of its there. Barbeiro: Steve could you go back to the photograph showing that fence line. Hatcher: I think we should maintain our current requirements and if that means the developer has to add what is not there then he adds what is not there. Barbeiro: I was pleased with Becky's answer to doing that curved Y road there. That would work well to slow down the traffic. I would like to see access to the St. Clair property and I like the access there between lot 11 and 12 as opposed East Lake because we have a Y there. Between lot 7 and 8 on the (inaudible) plat. Hatcher: The problem we have moving it down more toward the middle of the gravel pit is adjacent grades. Barbeiro: Agreed but I think when Mr. St. Clair develops his land he will figure out a way to match up with that road. Borup: 7 and 8 was probably the only spot on there that doesn't work very well. We will let Becky worry about the design. Barbeiro: The difference between a lot that is .27 acres and a lot that is .31 acres which the argument is between Meridian Greens group is not sufficient enough to have me request that the developer- make those northern lots that much larger. I am satisfied that the homes minimum of 2100 square feet will be exceeded and the vast majority of these homes will be far greater. Since the homes in the middle of this are much larger lots, I would expect to see those home far of in excess of 3000 and 4000 square feet. By putting in that extension road we then loose the buffer. Norton: Mr. Barbeiro would you be in agreement to change these lot lines toward the back if commission Hatcher made a motion. Barbeiro: Yes. Borup: The only two comments I had—well one you said you'd like the CC&R's to be similar. What does that mean. Hatcher: I'd be asking the developer to work with Meridian Greens so that— Borup: hatBorup: What aspects do you have a concern with. Hatcher: No specific aspects. i'- : • Meridian Planning and Z�ng Commission May 24, 2000 Page 20 Borup: Most covenants are very similar. Some of them get a little bit but I think at one time a number of years ago one attorney prepared them and everybody else copied. Hatcher: I am not going to sit here and tell them they need to have so many trees and bushes, etc. All I am saying is I am —not in the motion. Go to the developer and work with Meridian Greens and have comparable CC&R's that are all ready establish. Borup: Your statement that no lot would be smaller than the adjoining lots. It may be appropriate along there to have the lots at a larger—I don't see—if it was so incompatible then the Meridian Greens Subdivision as a whole would be having a problem. The first phase a large one which was 1700 square feet. Looking at the plat there is a fair number of 90 foot lots in there. Granted as the phase went on it went from 1700 to 2400 and higher. But those 1700 and 90 foot lots are across the street from the others that are larger. I don't see an incompatibility there. If there were doing within the same Subdivision definitely should not be a problem. Hatcher: You bring up the same point that Commissioner Barbeiro had mentioned about not being opposed to the site— Borup: One lot along there and distributing that through there would add that would not get up to the 100 foot but— Hatcher: utHatcher: I did not say dimensions. I said size, so if they are wider and not as deep, so be it. Your suggestion of taking one lot and dividing it equally amongst the remaining 11 lots would satisfy my concern. Siddoway: First of all both plats are out of compliance with the current zoning ordinance on exceeding block length. We put in the requirement to put in those pedestrian walkways in saying that if they were able to do that it would bring them into compliance. I am not convinced if this street slopes are at 3 per cent that they would not be able to put those in and still meet ADA, but if they are not able to put those in and have a valid argument and they can't, it's still will require a variance from that ordinance submitted to the City Council. If they can demonstrate that hardship that they can't provide those pedestrian walkways due to the slopes and ADA standards, then it would be a variance that we could support. If the facts don't show that that is the case, then we would say those pedestrian walkways should be put in and not support the variance. But if they are not going to do the pedestrian walkways the block length exceeds the required maximum in the ordinance of 1000 feet and would require a variance from the city council. Second issue on the buffer between the land uses, this is also just straight out of the ordinance and would also require a variance from City Council. I don't think we can simply just drop it from the requirements. The existing land uses are incompatible as commercial industrial adjacent to proposed residential and would require those buffers. I believe we could support based on the fact that it is planned to go residential in the future based on the Comprehensive Plan, maybe to support a variance to have those be an easement on the lot as Becky suggested with minimum number of trees Meridian Planning and Ring Commission • May 24, 2000 Page 21 and have them belong to the individual lot owners rather than our standard situation of a common lot owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The requirement for that buffer is straight out of the ordinance and I don't think we can waive it away without a variance. The bigger issue to me is the house they are leaving on septic and well in the southwest corner. We'd be annexing a property with the house sitting inside of the required landscape buffer. We would stand by our comment number 11 that would ask that that lot be turned into a common area for the Subdivision. That the house be removed out of the required landscape buffer and — Borup: Steve could that parcel be excluded from the annexation. Is that their other option. Siddoway: That's their other option. I don't know if we could annex it without being along a lot line. That would be the option is not annexing that portion and leave it in the county. Borup: What is that going to look like. What problems the city going to have down the road. Siddoway: Exactly. It would go against city policy to annex a house that is not able to hook up to city water and sewer. I was not at the last meeting but Bruce told me that discussion was even through that is where the line is, it can gravity flow and is possible for it to be hooked to water and sewer. ACHD does not want that lot taking access off of Victory road and was requiring a costly stub street for a relatively few number of lots. Borup: Looks to me like if your saying the house has to be moved your probably forcing the applicant to exclude that from the project. That would be one of their options. Siddoway: It doesn't sound like a great option, but yes. That area is not a separate lot at this point in time. It is proposed to be a separate lot as this is subdivided but they would probably have to go through some sort of a lot split so that they could annex a full lot that excludes that portion, if they decide to go that route. That is not what I am recommending, but— We already discussed the stub street at length. On all of these design issues I would just state as far as minimum lot size and house size, roofing types and things like that, I do not believe that we as a city can require more than this stated minimums unless this was a planned development which with a conditional use permit we could impose whatever we wanted. They are exceeding the minimum lot sizes. The 1400 square feet is the minimum house size by ordinance. If the developer is willing to put 2100 square feet on the plat, that is fine. He can volunteeringly make that more restrictive, but this isn't a conditional use permit, it is not a planned development. Therefore, we have to make our recommendations based on the ordinance. I don't know if Mr. Swartley has more to say on that but that would be how I interpret the code. Swartley: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Siddoway is correct. We can't control the CC&R's. We have no jurisdiction over that. 1 0 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 22 Borup: I think he is going beyond that saying we can't be doing anything more restrictive than what our city ordinance says either. Swartley: That is correct as well. Borup: I had a question on the pathway. I am not sure what the ADA standards are. Looking at the one lot in the middle of the block, it looks to me like just the length of the lot, 137 feet or so, it falls about 10 feet. It tapers off to another 5 or 6 feet on the other lot is not quite as steep. Street to street that is about 16 feet, 15 feet. Siddoway: Eight percent, one in twelve with landings and it would be the burden of proof on the developer to show they can't do that. You need a level area. Get the pathway in or request a variance on the street thing. That would need to go to the council. I am wondering if Becky may want to talk to you right now on this lot with the existing house. if she could talk to Steve, we could go on with our business. Any other discussion. Will you kind of put some points together for a motion. At this point we are talking about annexation. Hatcher: None of my modifications to staff comments apply to annexation and zoning. Borup: The only thing that would apply to annexation is this one parcel that on a new revised plat is showing as a single lot with no sewer. Hatcher: Even though it doesn't go per normal standards, the option we have is that the developer withhold that parcel from annexation which is he legal right and he could proceed in that fashion. But, is it truly to the City's benefit to allow him to do that as where they are currently proposing to put that landscape buffer in right of way improvements along Victory the full length with a variance for the existing building. We can make it a condition that prior to that lot being developed in any fashion, that these deficiencies be corrected prior to development. Borup: That may be one more variance they need to look at. Hatcher: Yes. I think it would be to the City's interest to allow what was submitted rather than have them pull it out. The water sewer issue, correct me if I'm wrong legal, to be able to annex a piece of property we need to have the ability to provide sewer and water. You don't mandate that they hook up. We can leave it as it is because otherwise we are running those utilities across the lateral. Borup: That is the only access at this point is they'd have to come across the lateral even though it is— Hatcher: It is going to be 25 years before the Black Cat trunk gets to--- Borup: Right. That would be a good criteria for a variance. Steve, we're about ready to make a motion on the annexation and zoning. You got any final comments. 0 • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 23 Siddoway: The solution is unclear. The option for making any common lot park area is not looked on favorably. The problem with leaving just that portion out of the annexation is that our Comprehensive Plan says that no lot should be created in the county less than 5 acres in size. This one is three. They would have to split off more of it based on that policy or ADA County would have to make a determination that this is just annexing the part north of the lateral would be okay. Or, we annex the whole thing which is currently against City Council policy of annexing a property that will not be in a sewer district not sewerable that will remain on Septic and Well, I don't have a good answer for you right now. Hatcher: Steve, while you were distracted we discussed the possibility of being submitted as a variance—the sewer zoning issue on that lot. Siddoway: That would be the other option. Just add all these things to a variance application. Ask for a variance to the block length, to annexing a property that is going to be served by well and septic, a variance on the landscape buffer issue and make it an easement. All of those things could be rolled into a variance to City Council. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I motion that we recommend approval to City Council request for annexation and zoning of 40.33 acres to R-4 for proposed Timber View/Observation Point Subdivision by Victory 41, LLC incorporating staff comments. Norton: I second that. Borup: Any discussion. One observation, the applicant was in agreement with all the staff comments on the annexation and zoning. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Item number 2, request for a preliminary plat. Hatcher: I am ready to make a motion. I would motion that we recommend approval to the City Council on the preliminary plat for the proposed Timber View/Observation Point Subdivision which comprises of END OF SIDE THREE Hatcher: 90 lots on 40.33 acres by Victory 41, LLC to include staff comments and the following modifications. First one would be that the adjacent lots on the north property line adjacent to Meridian Greens be modified from 12 lots to 11 lots distributing the difference amongst the 11. Next I would encourage the developer to coordinate the writing of the CC&R's to reflect similar CC&R's of Meridian Greens. I would encourage Greens homeowners association to work with the developer on the irrigation issue once that is finalized. Second issue on the motion would be that the western stub street be provided per staffs recommendation and I'll leave that to the design professionals for locations. Third is we need to as suggested by Becky Bowcutt that we modify the R 0 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 24 intersection at Lake Creek Street and South Andros Way to have it as a offset Y intersection rather than straight through traffic. Those would be the modifications. As far as the buffering, we will let that be submitted as a variance. Barbeiro: I had some confusion on the requirements for the fence. Borup: I do too. The Subdivision should put the fence in would have been Meridian Greens. They were developed first. Steve is the city required fences put between residential Subdivisions. Siddoway: Standard perimeter fencing is a standard requirement. Borup: Perimeter against non use land, isn't it. Why are we requiring fences between different phases of the same Subdivision. What's the difference. Then why aren't we requiring fences between different phases of the same Subdivision. I did not think we were. I can't think of one where we required fencing against abutting adjoining residential Subdivision. Hatcher: What I am getting at is if Meridian Greens did not have the requirement to provide fencing at an adjacent agriculture land, then so be it. If they did then the Meridian Greens developer needs to put some fence in. If our current applicant is not required to put in fencing then so be it. I don't think this board needs— Borup: I think we do depending on how you want to incorporate the staff comments. The comment on the north side fencing should be stricken on the staff comments. Hatcher: That the word north be stricken from Item number 9. Borup: The other two things in staff comments that the applicant would like to do a meandering pathway along Victory. That was strictly in disagreement but maybe just a—okay. The other was the buffer to the west. Staff recommended easement. Applicant would like to have landscaping by each individual lot owner. Hatcher: I thought that was being dealt with as a variance. Borup: The buffer, okay. Norton: I second that motion. Swartley: Mr. Chairman. Just a point of clarification, is a meandering sidewalk becoming part of the motion? You brought it up as discussion. I want to hear if it is going to be part of the motion. Hatcher: I don't see a conflict. ARnin'g Meridian Planning and Commission May 24, 2000 Page 25 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. I would recommend from staff position that the applicant bring a revised plat back to you with these modifications rather then sending it on to City Council and requiring them to see that all these modification were made property so that they are made to your satisfaction that is come back to you with those modification and in the mean time require that the variance application for those variances that they are going apply for, be applied for to City Council. That way they can be heard at the same time. Borup: It would go a lot smoother at City Council. Norton: Do we need an amendment to that motion? Hatcher: I think we do. Point of clarification wouldn't a final plat come before us for final review..no never mind. I amend my motion to make that a requirement. Borup: Would we also want to table the annexation then. Swartley: That was my next question. Make a motion to hold it. Borup: We'll do that as another motion after this. Any other discussion. All in favor? Swartley: Mr. Chairman, yes the motion needs to be withdrawn if your going to follow Steve's advice and that is to have the applicant go back, make changes to the plat, bring them in front of the commission again and then you can vote on it. To ensure that those changes are being made which I believe that one of Becky's associates was writing down all those changes, correct. Yeah. Yes, table it so the applicant will have the opportunity to make those changes. Hatcher: After all that work of making the motion. Swartley: You made the motion. Its on the record. We can make it again at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Borup: Okay, we straight on that. Do we want to withdraw this motion. Hatcher: I withdraw this motion. Norton: I concur. Borup: Do we have an alternative motion? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, in order for them to bring it back before you, you may need to open the public hearing and leave it open. Otherwise they can't present. Barbeiro: I move we re -open the public hearing. 'T MA X�� �$'YE 5k�t �f✓<1 '`6 p ��.. yk��;��p C"."Y °$�! z'1i7 32Sfv5}�'{SS"ie'{`�� 5.- ni fi (_ C i X > ,N'+'✓.+$:C , .. E, zt„""�,. Ma I + x'^� Rxg3�•`'y .pj,, G jh say J.,.y� $ # 3 ,`n i a�0� Y _- � ,.. a S .>• Y � .y `a$ k� H. y �4' d �'7i a� { � M i". .,e F � YJ WU vl5 .gyp fz ii .ik F 4 R : rt .,.� t!ti'?'�'R'`�'i k cn �x i)' � M k r. t � ,•ey Y f 4r , sf a 4 '�M1g 'a 'fpp�;.i A. qp' '` ��3X9�4 00, ` }3., f 3 0"11, p I I � a 4 3 i�+t 3 xr n z s Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 24, 2000 Page 26 Hatcher: I second the motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I move that we continue the public hearing to our next regularly scheduled meeting June 13th pending a variance application and presentation of a new plat. Hatcher: Second Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Do we have another motion on item number 1. Hatcher: I motion that we hold item number 1 and not move it on to City Council pending outcome of our next meeting on June 13th. Norton: I second that motion. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER FOR 24 MONTHS TO BE PLACED ON PROPERTY ZONED I -L BY JAMES L. AIMONETTO-2204 LANARK STREET: Borup: Steve. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's this is a property that is on East Lanark Street. This would be Nola Road. Locust Grove here. This is Franklin, this is Lanark Street. Back here is where all the buses are and adjacent to that there is an existing lot asphalt right now or maybe gravel. These are site photos. The applicant is requesting a temporary office trailer to be placed on the site. He has requested 24 months. At the last City Council meeting, City Council entertained a variance on this property for landscaping, granted that variance for one year, not two. Therefore we would recommend that the temporary office trailer be approved for a maximum of one year and at that time the temporary uses should be out and the site should be in full compliance with permanent structure and the landscape requirements as required by the City Council. We have asked the temporary trailed be located 35 feet back from the Meridian Planning and Aing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 27 right of way. We would recommend approval with that modification of one year instead of two. Borup: Is the applicant here this evening. Glenco: My name is Mathew Glenco. I live at 1011 N. Maple Creek Avenue. I have been in the employ of Mr. Aimonetto for over 4-1/2 years. I operate a branch of his company here in the Treasure Valley. Borup: Have you had a chance to review staff comments. Glenco: Yes I have. There are a couple of issues I did want to bring up. The first and biggest is item number 6, requiring a bond of (inaudible) percent or cash for the tiling of the drain. Aside from the obvious issues of the financial burden on a small company, the point I'd like to bring up is I've noticed there is similar drain exists to the west of the Jabil facility. That has been fenced rather than tiled. In the interest of consistency, propose the same sort of requirement be made in this area. The other issue also is that the status of most of the property owners along that stretch of the drain is probably fairly stable and don't expect to have either new development and some of those issues taken place in the near term. At least to my knowledge it is any body's guess how soon the tiling of that could be done, if ever. Borup: Do you know the size that would require. Glenco: Off hand I do not. I do know that drain is quite large. It is probably nearly as big as the one that is there adjacent to the Jabil property. I would be asking for a waiver for that requirement there on number 6. Borup: You understand we are not the ones that can grant that. The reason is that is part of the City ordinance. That would be another variance for City Council. Correct. Siddoway: Correct. Unless the pipe that would be required—if they are not going to tile it, it would require a variance with City Council. Also just to make it clear, he does not have to bond for it with cash. He can bond with a letter of credit as well. Glenco: Regarding the matter of the time frame. When we initially proposed, we sat down with staff before making the purchase on the property. The number of 24 months came up because the realization we are at the very front end of development of the project. The site is such and selected because we can utilize it as it exists now with these very minor modifications. 24 months is simply with recognition of the time we would like to take to plan out the building, get the variances and then construct. So 24 months to plan it and construct it. Twelve is a little unrealistic. If I may, I have some photographs of the property to show what I am proposing is actually not a lot different than what is going on in that neighborhood. We will be more tidy. It is a very large lot. I'll have my office which is the mobile trailer we're talking about. I currently run 4 medium duty rigs which are single axle straight trucks, plus 2 or 3 refrigerated trailer Meridian Planning and Aing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 28 types and then a tractor. Most of our operation will be confined in one small portion of the lot. The other matter is also related to number 16 regarding the corridor for the pathway. In the landscaping of this with the drain there, I don't really have access to where I understand where that pathway would be. Borup: I think they were talking about landscaping on your property. Is that right Steve. Siddoway: The landscaping would be on their own property line adjacent to the railroad right of way as it is deemed a future pathway corridor multiple use. Glenco: I don't have a fence on our side there, but the neighbors do because there is a bit of an easement on the south side of the drain. That is what I have. Borup: Any questions from the commission. Norton: Your business is transferring milk products. Will you be storing milk products on the property. So your permanent building is going to require some refrigeration. Does that take more time to build then just a normal warehouse, for instance. Glenco: Again, I am very early in the stages. I can not see how it would not. A normal warehouse could be a very simple structure. Special provisions need to be made in determining refrigeration. There is a time frame to get a hold of the equipment and then to have it installed. Norton: You have single axle trucks coming to bays to pick up milk products, is that correct. Glenco: Yes. Norton: Only single axle. Glenco: Yes. The trucks that I use to distribute our product are single axle. They come in on larger or dual axle trailer rig. We break out those loads and load them into smaller straight trucks. Brown: Steve, on item 15 you are recommending there not be an extension. I am curious about that. Would the ordinance allow an extension of temporary permit. Siddoway: (Inaudible) 12 months and it would be considered a modification of a conditional use permit which under the current system basically a new conditional use permit they would have to submit. Brown: You don't have any extension provisions in the conditional use permit. Siddoway: No, unless you write them into conditions. For example you could make one of the conditions to the permit that a potential 12 month extension can be granted by 4 is Meridian Planning and Zoting Commission May 24, 2000 Page 29 City Council and then apply for that in 12 months. Unless it is specifically stated in this conditional use permit that an extension would not require a new conditional use permit and 12 months from now they wanted to extend, it would require one. Brown: Do you have a substantial completion that you take in that to activate it. Siddoway: I don't think so. In 12 months the temporary trailer goes away. Substantial completion would certainly help their argument for extension to council. Brown: Matt, what is going to be your process. Are you going to build a warehouse. Are you going to pave. What are you looking at. Glenco. The first priority in construction would be the office -1000, 1500 square feet. Issues as far as the warehouse itself, yet to be determined. We have taken a fairly rapid approach to doing this because of circumstances we are faced with as a business. What I am proposing to do on this lot, we've been doing for 3 years but on the property of our main supplier. The conditions there have—we have been reading the writing on the wall for months and feel the need to get off the property. Also to open up new opportunities but I am not too surprised at some point if I get a letter or phone call, we need you off by X. Our first priority was finding a property and securing it then going with the process. So, unfortunately I don't have as many answers as I'd like to. That is why 24 months is more realistic than the 12. Brown: But how long do you anticipate the temporary trailer being there. Glenco: I think 24 would be the outside. Brown: Your going to have the temporary trailer even through the office is going to be built first. Glenco. That would be the first priority. Obviously the trailer would need to be used. Brown: Once the office is done then would the trailer be gone even thought the warehouse might not. Glenco: Oh yes. Barbeiro: The plan is to build a separate office from the warehouse or to build an office in the warehouse? Glenco: I would expect it to be separate buildings because the needs of a warehouse in a construction need to be dock high and things of that. An office would be self contained. There might be a doorway into the warehouse. Barbeiro: It is not unreasonable that you could build an office, later build your warehouse connected to the office and you could have a 1000 square foot (inaudible) Meridian Planning and Zorn ping Commission May 24, 2000 Page 30 up within three months from the time you break ground. I think it is reasonable that 12 months because you could have an office up in 90 days. The permitting process would be 2 months and a month to get your architectural up so, 6 months—if you started tomorrow, in 6 months you could have a building up. That gives you an extra 6 months beyond that to get an office up. Glenco: I could take a modular unit such as what I am proposing to use, knock the wheels out from under it and be in compliance as I understand things. I am not sure through since we have talked to architects and gone that route, that is necessarily how we want the final thing to look. We pride ourselves on a high level of quality and our presentation, the way we do business and that is going to carry through. I am saying, I don't know. Barbeiro: I never suggested a modular unit. You could do a complete slab (inaudible) building or a — Glenco: Perhaps some of this is based on my ignorance at this point. I am learning as I go. I have never done this before. I would like it to be done in 12 months and the concern is that there be a buffer there so that we get the whole thing plus I would expect if we are building one it would make sense to be doing the other at the same time. Brown: We are trying to help you here. You might not think that. The recommendation is for 12 months and we are trying to get the 24 months but what we are looking at is— lets say in 12 months the trailer is gone and you've got an office. If that is the case then we could recommend to City Council that they do an extension to get your warehouse, which would give you the other 12 months. That is the way I am viewing it. To keep going back to the 24 months keeps telling me well we will just stick with what staff is saying because you don't know what your doing and we don't know what your doing. We have to have some time frame. With the condition and the way I understand what Steve is telling me is that at the end of the 12 months you have to file a whole new application and start over. I think that is crazy in my opinion so I am trying to help so that 12 months down the road you just ask for an extension. Borup: Kent I was interested in you statement on if construction had started on the project. Brown: Mr. Chairman, in some of the other jurisdictions that I have dealt with it is a determination that the planning director can make water sewer and maybe some street improvement if those are required, landscaping, they view those as substantial that they are going to do this project so that it doesn't end up like a Smiths grocery store on Fairview. That is what the city realistically is looking at. We just have to have a time frame. Borup: Where do we go from here. Do you see any problem with having the building under construction in 12 months. Meridian Planning and Aing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 31 Glenco: I do not see a problem with that. Borup: How you planning on handling the landscaping. That was discussed at City Council last week. You had 12 months on that and your saying even if the building isn't done that you'll have the landscaping done. Glenco: That should not be a problem. Landscaping for the full lot will come into play as we're looking at construction. The initial phase of the landscaping could be done separate from the building. As I understood I need to have the black top and the landscaping completed before I occupy the site and that I see as being doable and then we dig in with the construction. Hatcher: I think under a very conservative approach what your looking for the scope, size of your outfit, would be a phased project and to satisfy everyone's requirements here is that the office space of the project be under construction within a 12 month period. I would encourage you to have it done in 12 months but if it is not done you can come back for an extension of the conditional use permit. That way a simple review. Under a conservative approach being able to —you mentioned attacking the warehouse and the office at the same time. Seeing your not even sure what you want yet. Lots of details to be done and if you try to roll it into one big project I would be skeptical that it would be under construction in 12 months. I would recommend (inaudible) as a phase and I would recommend to you that you immediately get going on a office space so the trailer can be removed. Swartley: Mr. Chairman, may I say a couple things. I hate to say this but I get this strange feeling that we are setting ourselves up for another Cherry Lane problem. I want to go back to Steve on number 15. Didn't you say that City Council just approved a variance for a 12 month period? Siddoway: On landscaping. Swartley: Before we go for another 2-1/2 hours like the last item, these require variances, both number 6 and 15. The CUP is allowed for a 12 month period and then he will have to reapply. Your setting yourself up for the same sort of Cherry Lane problems, I foresee, that had with the golf course. If you saying something along the lines of starting construction, or part of the project being finished, that is too ambiguous of a term. I just wanted to bring that to your attention and I believe staffs recommendations are what should be followed. Brown: Do you have a problem with putting landscaping along your northern boundary. Hatcher: With legal councils comment do you feel that being able to have the office space constructed within 12 months. I see it as a potential but the biggest factor is obviously finances, not so much construction and design and all that. Meridian Planning and Ang Commission May 24, 2000 Page 32 Glenco: To my knowledge and I am hedging now because it is not my name on the bottom line, I believe that to be feasible and doable. I am not however, in a position to say that. That is just being perfectly honest. Borup: Do we have anyone from the public to testify on this. Thank you. Brown: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing. Barbeiro: I second it. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Brown: Mr. Chairman, I move approval of item 3, conditional use permit for the temporary office trailer for 12 month to be placed on the property I -L by James Aimonetto, 2204 Lanark Street subject to staff recommendations. I would recommend to the applicant minus the motion that he submit for a variance for that time to be allowed an extension and I think it applicable that you look at phasing because if you are totally sure that you have the size of your building, you can be like Food Services and they are continuing to grow on their building and I know that is why the other jurisdictions that I have dealt with look at a substantial completion. You show the overall size of you building and then work toward that in phases. That is how I would approach to City Council in approving you variance. Barbeiro: Are you open to an addition to that. I would like to include that the temporary office trailer be removed on a certificate of occupancy for an operable office, so if they were to get it done in 9 months, the trailer be removed. Brown: I'd ask the question of staff. Is that a requirement of code to do that? Siddoway: By requiring the trailer to be removed upon occupancy of the office? I think if you had a conditional use permit they'd allow it to stay for 12 months, even if the office was complete. Barbeiro: Okay then pull that. Hatcher: I just had one for staff. I am reading you recommendation on enforcement. If I understand this right, at the end of the 12 month period your means of enforcement would be that utilities be disconnected. You'd cut them off basically at 12 months. Borup: That's if they weren't given an extension. Hatcher: Right. Obviously the extension would have to be approved before that 365th day. Meridian Planning and ZS�iing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 33 Siddoway: The temporary office would be disconnected from sewer and water if it continued beyond the time frame of the conditional use permit. Hatcher: I second it. Swartley: Is it just with staff comments. Thank you. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT SECOND BUILDING ON LOT IN I -L ZONE BY TERRACE PLAZA, LLC -199 NORTH LINDER ROAD: Siddoway: Mr. Chairman & Commissioner's this is a property zoned IL along Linder between Franklin road and the railroad on the west side of Linder road there is a existing building all ready on the front portion of the property adjacent to Linder Road. This is a application to do a second primary structure at the rear of the property. Basically, staff recommends the approval of the project with the comments submitted. We have had some discussion before the meeting with the applicant. In general no big issues in this one. Borup: Is the applicant or representative here. Wildwood: Susan Wildwood. I am a attorney to practice law with offices in Boise and I am here on behalf of Terrace Plaza, LLC. The only comment we have with regard to the staff comments has to do with paragraph 5 and 6. Staff had questioned the purpose of the 9 foot graveled area west of the proposed building and had recommended that shrubs and trees or sod be placed in that area to provide a cooler effect on the west side and then made additional reference in paragraph 6 with regard to the additional trees that need to be planted in order to meet the minimums for the ordinance. I indicated Tuesday that we would be happy to place those additional trees as recommended in paragraph 5. We would be removing that graveled area and would put the additional landscaping there. That is the only thing we would add to the staff comments. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's. Anyone who would like to testify on this application. Seeing none, Commissioner's. Brown: I move we close the public hearing. Hatcher: Second the motion. Borup: All in favor? Meridian Planning and Zoo ing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 34 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Barbeiro: I motion that we recommend approval to City Council request for conditional use permit for a planned unit development to construct second building on lot in IL zone by Terrace Plaza, LLC with staff comments. Norton: I second it. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor. END OF SIDE FOUR MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CHILD CARE CENTER (12+ CHILDREN) IN AN R-8 ZONE BY TARA L. GORTON - 420 E. BROADWAY: Siddoway: This is a conditional use permit request for a child care center located at 420 East Broadway Avenue by Tara Gorton. It is an existing house that is currently vacant. The main issue to bring up here is off street parking. There is a gravel driveway somewhat overgrown. There are parking requirements for child care centers. They are one for every 10 children plus one for staff. I need to verify that. There has not been a maximum number of children placed on this permit. It is over 12 which requires it to be a child care center. The number of parking spaces that they need—it is really not know without knowing the maximum number of children they'll be approved for. The applicant should address that and talk about some site plan issues as to how that parking is going to be provided. That is all I have. Borup: Any questions? Steve do you know whether there is a maximum number of children (inaudible) square footage of the building. Siddoway: There is a fire code issue. There is not in the zoning and development ordinance. Borup: And not in the child care— Siddoway: Over 12 requires a conditional use permit is the extent of our ordinance. No maximum number based on square footage. Borup: Would the applicant come forward. Gorton: My name is Tara Gorton and I reside at 1155 S. Linder Road. I actually have not purchased the property. It is pending until the conditional use permit. There is a 20 x 30 foot area in the back for parking. I can get at least 3 spaces in there. I was going Meridian Planning and Zo'Fii ing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 35 to reserve that strictly for staff parking. Concerning the amount of children, approximately —its 35 square feet per child, so I am going to be able to have at lease 22 children in there. That is what I am going to be allowed. That does not necessarily mean that is how many I am going to have. That requires at lease 2 spaces of additional parking and at least 3 staff members. The front of the building with the parking there is quite a bit of room for widening that driveway right there to accommodate a handicap parking area. There is some grass in front that can also be taken up in parking. I have a question on the pavement. It was brought to my knowledge I would have to have that paved. Is that concrete or cement or any specific type of material I need to have for that. Eorup: Concrete or asphalt. Gorton: Okay. Norton: Do you have your day care license yet. Gorton: No, that is all pending. Norton: Are you a member of the Treasure Valley Association for the Education of Young Children. Gorton: No I'm not. Norton: Are you familiar with child care connections? Gorton: Yes I am. Norton: Are you caring for children at this point. Gorton: I have a small day care center in my home right now. I would like to get it out of my home and someone else. I have been working in child care facilities for the last 9 years. Norton: Do you have degree in early childhood development. Gorton: No, I'm just a mommy. Norton: My next question is repair to the fence and open drainage ditch in the back. Gorton: The open drainage ditch was allowed for some (inaudible) of the irrigation and it is my understanding that that's not even connected at that time so there is a possibility of me being able to remove that completely. The fencing in the back, like I said I have not made any repairs to the building because I have not purchased the building. I am just currently renting it until this is approved. That would be a completely closed off fence. Central District Health required no more than a 4 in gap in any fencing. Meridian Planning and Ang Commission May 24, 2000 Page 36 Norton: Are you familiar with the complaints we have, letters from neighbors that are not too happy with having 20 or 35 children in there neighborhood. Gorton: It is actually 22 and no I am not. I spoke directly to the gentleman who lives next door. He had no objections to it. Norton: Do you think it is fair to the neighborhood to bring in 22 children in a 1000 square foot house. Gorton: If you look at the property there is a huge lumber yard across the street with trucks and loud speakers. I think that would be a lot less desirable than having a few kids in the neighborhood. I am not planning on packing the center out to have a bunch of children. When you take a center and have 22 children, a majority of those children because I am doing all ages will be infants and then a couple preschoolers and after school care as well. Its not going to be like 30 kids in there at one time. It will be split up throughout the day. I am willing to be a very good neighbor as far as what they would want me to do. If they have a particular time of day they don't want the children out, I'd be happy to comply with that. If they want me to limit the amount of time the children are out or a number of children on the playground at one time, I'd be happy to do that as well. Norton: What are your hours of operation. Gorton: The hours of operation are simply going to be a 12 hour day. I have not decided if I will start at 6 or 7. Basically by 6 p.m. everyone will be gone and the center will be quiet. No evening or weekend care at all. Norton: Do these children include your own children or additional children. Gorton: I have 2 school age children and have a pregnancy and a small as well. At least for the majority of the day 2 of those children will be mine. Norton: Included in your 22. a Gorton: Yes. Also I have one potential staff member who has a child as well. Borup: Any questions from the other Commissioner's. Barbeiro: Steve, could you go back to the floor plan please. A single bathroom for 22 kids and 2 or 3 staff. Gorton: I do have a plumbing bid. We are going to expand the bathroom to two toilets and a sink and then 2 additional sinks on the facility. That does not include the kitchen sink. I will have 2 toilets handicapped approved and a separate hand washing sink and a mop as well. Meridian Planning and Ang Commission May 24, 2000 Page 37 Barbeiro: Will they be two separate bathrooms. Gorton: The toilets right now are going to be in one bathroom. Eventually what I'd like to do is expand to use the back garage area. That is actually a shop and I would like to put a bathroom back there and have that additional classroom as well. Borup: Anyone else. Okay. Anyone here that would like to testify. Munson: My name is Corrie Munson. I live at 406 E. Broadway. I got the letter in the mail and it said a small daycare of 12 and up. I have seen small daycare's in. residences and have never seen 12 but the idea of 22, that I just found out, worried me a little bit more. Residential is on the north side of East Broadway. The whole south side is commercial. As she stated, I am on the corner of East and Broadway, two houses away, and all of south Broadway is commercial. Lumberman's is across there at the end of Broadway. It does not go all the way through. We have so much truck traffic going on day and night. These businesses impact our lives. The idea of having another business such as any kind of business—enough is enough. It is a narrow lot and the additional parking the alley is narrow and with that shed in the back there is not—it is hard to get our cars out of the garage. We also if you show the picutre of the front of the house, the neighbor next door and my self both have open irrigation ditches that we use to flow irrigate once a week and there is water in there 6 months out of the year. I am a young mother and am constantly on top of where my children are at because it is such a danager. I am worried that it increases my risk of having so many children in the neighborhood and risk of injury and drowning. I would have to get an awful lot of liability on my home and I would hope that you would not grant this permit because it is so commercial as it is right now and we are just trying to live as normally as possible. We love the neighborhood and have good neighbors. A lot are elderly. I have spoken to a neighbor next door and because of certain reasons he has a invalid wife and he is directly next door to the property. Thank you for your time. Borup: Any one else. Commissioner's any additional questions? Barbeiro: I move we close the public hearing. Norton: I second it. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Norton: I have a question for staff. Did staff have recommendations on this. Siddoway: I think there needs to be a scaled site plan submitted showing that the parking can be accommodated. It does not appear to us that those 5 or 6 parking spaces that would be required, could be accommodated. It may require some sort of Meridian Planning and Ang Commission to May 24, 2000 Page 38 variance and parking lot width. I think this width is dimensioned here as 15 feet. We have a 9 foot wide parking stall ordinance. It is not enough width for 3 cars. Borup: Any problem with stacking on the staff parking. It looks like it is 30 feet, so they could add a couple more feet to that and have-- Siddoway: I think it is 25 from here to here and minimum length is 19. You need a minimum of 36. Or submit a variance to City Council, but it does not seem like the required parking can be supplied. That is the main issue I see. Norton: I move that we recommend to City Council deny this request for conditional use permit for child care center (12 plus children) in a R-8 zone by Tara L. Gorton at 420 E. Broadway. Barbeiro: Motion and second, discussion. Brown: In the Comprehensive Plan for the downtown Meridian area under goal statements and policies it says to support these kinds of uses but it says to support them when they are compatible with the neighbors and the existing. That is where I see the problem. Maybe if the daycare was smaller it would be different. I will go along with the motion. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MARKETING EDUCATION CLASSROOM TO ACCOMMODATE 2 NON - CONCURRENT CLASSES OF 25-30 STUDENTS IN A C -G ZONE BY JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2-357 WATERTOWER LANE: Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's you have recently seen this lot come before you for approval of two buildings on one lot. This is to propose a classroom on the existing building on the front portion of the lot. The schedule of use control doesn't specifically list classrooms under any zoning district, therefore they have been required to go through a conditional use permit. Here is a site photo of that existing building on Watertower Lane in Central Valley Corporate Park. You have staff comments dated May 18t'. We recommend approval of the application. Borup: Is the applicant here? Baxter: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's my name is Jim Baxter, 1720 W. Pine Street. I am a vocational education coordinator for the Meridian School District. We agree to the conditions from staff for approval. Meridian Planning and Zoo ing Commission e May 24, 2000 Page 39 Borup: Any questions from the commission? Do we have anyone from the audience who would like to testify. Seeing none. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I move we close the public hearing. Norton: I second it. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Barbeiro: I move that we recommend approval to City Council request for conditional use permit for a marketing education classroom to accommodate 2 non -concurrent classes of 25-30 students in a C -G zone by Joint School District Number 2 at 357 Watertower Lane with staff comments. Norton: I'll second that. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Brown: Mr. Chairman, before the hour gets too late I would seeing the people that are here —I would imagine most of them are here for the next item and the item after that. I don't see us getting to 9, 10 or 11 personally. Since this is my last night, I am going to get up and leave when it gets too late for a change instead of staying till two o'clock in the morning and being sick all week. Just putting you on notice, but I would recommend we tell some of these people to go home, personally. Borup: Comments from other Commissioner's. It feels early. Should we get into it and see what we will be looking at first. Either way we are going to proceed ahead now. Are you recommending we continue some of these others or wait and see how people are going to go. Brown: I'll make the motion Mr. Chairman that we continue 9,10 and 11. Borup: How many people here for Item 9. How many here for 7 and 8. How many here for number 10. No testimony on number 11. Brown: I'd remove 11. Borup: How long do you think these next two are gong to take? Brown: How ever long it takes, I am ready to go home after they are done. I am willing to stay here until the majority of these people are heard, but what has happened in the Meridian Planning and Zooming Commission May 24, 2000 Page 40 past is we stay here and it is twelve o'clock and then we tell the people its too late. don't want to do that tonight Mr. Chairman. Borup: I don't want to stay all night either. We have all ready continued one thing to the next meeting. If we do some more, then we won't get through the next meeting either. Let's quite talking about it and get into it. Brown: I guess I don't have a second. Norton: IT second that, I'm sorry but these are way to late. When I get home at 2 a.m. and have to be at work at 7:30 in the morning, it is hard all week to try to get caught up. These are way to long agendas. Borup: Motion and second, all in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Swartley: Mr. Chairman, why don't you make sure that the people who are here— Borup: Your saying we are only going to hear one more application. Brown: I think what we need to do is tell the people who are here for the landscape ordinance and the preliminary plat that we are not going to get to them tonight.' Borup: Which is item number 9 and 10 will be proponed to June 13''. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 3.4 ACRES TO R-15 FOR PROPOSED 40 -UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX (TO BE CALLED PENN STATION) BY PANGAEA LAND PLANNING—SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW AND EAST OF STONEHENGE WAY: Siddoway: This is Penn Station Apartments for a proposed 40 unit apartment complex. The requested zone is R-15. There is 3.4 acres total. There is two canals on site. The Settlers Canal is the northern most. It is proposed to remain untied. This is the Flem Canal which sets just south of this one. This is proposed to be tiled with a this is the location of the pedestrian pathway that they are proposing on their site plan. South is Danbury Faire Subdivision. Some lots have fence and some do not. There is a junk yard to the east. This property does not go all the way to that. Directly north there is a vacant parcel that is zone C -G. The proposed apartments would sit between the existing Subdivision and these commercial properties. Parking half covered, half uncovered and they have 10 buildings with 4 units per building for a total of 40 apartments. This is the landscape plan. You have our staff comments that are dated May 18th. We do have a written response from the applicant. One of the issues they brought up was that they were not submitting for planned development, but I would point out that this is in the mixed planned use zone in the Comprehensive Plan and as such is required to come through as a planned development and meet those standards. Meridian Planning and 2 ing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 41 Freckleton: Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, I just wanted to point out that Steve's comments he talked about the fact that the applicant was wanting to leave the Settlers canal untiled. It is city ordinance that it be tiled so I believe that the applicant would need to file an application for a variance. In our staff comments we do state in there that staff would support the design with leaving the Settlers untiled with pathway along the north side of the property. The proposed 5 foot gravel walk path must be concrete or asphalt to match the rest of the pathway system. Also, we did not that due to the high density of the proposed use, safety may be a concern with the Settlers Irrigation District and also the City of Meridian if there is no fencing along that canal. I wanted to raise those points. Borup: I did neglect to open both hearings. I'd like to do that right now. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED 40 -UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX TO BE CALLED PENN STATION APARTMENTS ON 3.4 ACRES BY PANGAEA LAND PLANNING — SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW AND EAST OF STONEHENGE WAY: Borup: Mr. Siddoway I assumed you'd like to incorporate your previous comments with item number 8 also. Siddoway: Please incorporate my comments. Borup: And Bruce Freckleton's. Any questions from the Commissioner's. Do we have the applicant or their representative here this evening. Fluke: Mr. Chairman and members of the commission my name is Daren Fluke. I represent the applicant in this matter. 408 W. Idaho in Boise. As staff stated, we are asking for 40 units on this 3.4 acre site. The site is well located for this particular land use. It is a very difficult shape. It makes it impractical for the site to develop with single family dwellings. When the applicant looked at buying this site, the first consideration is what does the Comprehensive Plan say. It is designated at a mixed use site. That is because we've got single family dwellings on side of us. We've got commercial on one side of us and we've got good access to a large number of services which is what you want for a higher density development. People in this development will not have to get in their car to go to the store. The proximity to commercial makes it very attractive for this type of land use. This isn't that high density of a project. The R-15 would allow up to 15 dwelling units per acre. We come in at something just over 10 to the acre. That makes sense given the land uses that are around us. It will act as a nice buffer in- between the commercial land uses, Fairview Avenue and the lower density single family dwellings to our east. When we came in to look at designs on this parcel, the configuration is extremely difficult to work with because we come to a point in this area. There is a lot of wasted land. Our primary consideration was, how do we buffer these folks, these single family dwellings, from what we want to do on this property. With that in mind, we design it with a 10 foot buffer strip which we will be building a six foot Meridian Planning and Zoing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 42 screen fence and extensive landscaping in there. We've got a 25 foot internal drive. We've got 20 feet of parking before you ever get to the building. So your looking at 60 feet before you ever get to one of those buildings. I would point out these folks have a 20 foot set back between their dwelling and their rear property line. These buildings are something like 85 feet away from these folks houses. They are two story units. They have balconies off the back, so our objective here was to create an internal courtyard where we could focus the patios internally rather then having these buildings that lord over the single family dwellings. You gain (Inaudible) scale with the two story building. You have the same footprint. You have the same utility requirements as far as hooking as you would with a single story, but you get double the number of units. If you think about what may be going in to the west of us, it has frontage on Locust Grove. Currently it is designated mixed use in the current Comprehensive Plan. Under the new one we are not sure. It is likely that this would develop with something even at a higher density than what we are proposing. In summary we think we have developed a quality product here. We've made very efficient use of this site. Again, we are only at 10 units to the acre and it is a good high quality project. It works very well for this particular site and for what the city is looking for in this area. I need to address some of the issues that came up in the staff report. I hope you have my written responses. Borup: We did not get a copy of response. Fluke: On page 2 bottom of the page, small a and small b, driveway width at 20 feet instead of 25. 1 think that was a miss -reading of the plan. We show a 25 foot drive. On, the provision of the maintenance building, several of these issues all point out deals with specifically with whether we are a conditional use or planned development. From my reading of the ordinance as well as the Comprehensive Plan, I did not believe that a planned development was required and was not aware that that was the policy of this ' body. It is not a problem for us. We meet most of the standards but would have to ask for consideration on a couple of items. One would be the provision of a maintenance building. For a 3.5 acre site, it is simply not necessary. The land owner contracts with a company that maintains all of his facilities. He operates several of these type of facilities. We simply don't need a maintenance building on the site. The RV and boat storage, Again it is not practical on our site. These units are not typically the sort of units where we have a lot of recreational vehicles, boats. We do have a storage facility just across Fairview from us and we'd ask for some consideration on that. On the tiling of the Settlers Canal, again we feel like this acts as (inaudible) to the project. Our site plan does show that we have a path along that providing a connection to the east. We anticipate that that will develop to something at a higher density and that pedestrian ; connection will add to both projects. We don't have a problem installing street lights per condition number 13. It is written awkwardly and we are not exactly sure what staff is =„ asking for there. We would point out that we did indicated to our neighbors that we would keep the lighting to the minimum on the site and that we would fit all of our site lighting with cut off shields. This developer will own and maintain this project so number 15 is not applicable. He will also own and maintain the irrigation system. We would prefer to provide all of our irrigation from the water right that we have on the property from surface irrigation water, water (inaudible) hooking to the municipal system to Meridian Planning and Aing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 43 provide irrigation. Number 20 is a key item for us. It is talking about an additional parking above and beyond the two required per dwelling unit. Again we are working with a constrained site here. 1 originally laid this site out with one and a half parking spaces per unit and it worked well. But, of course, we need two so we did that and that ate up a bit more land. If we were required to add an additional parking spaces, it would really eat into the amount of land that we are able to devote to open space. I did submit calculations in my written response showing that we are per your definition of what can be used for open space, we are at something like 30% has been left open either in landscape or in usable common open space. That is all I have. Borup: Any questions from the commission. I didn't see where you really had any question on any of the staff comments other than the parking. Fluke: The parking. The provision of a maintenance building and out door storage. Otherwise, we are fine. Borup: Do we happen to have anyone who would like to come forward on this? Fastabend: Greg Fastabend. I live at 1101 N. Shreveport which is in the Danbury Faire Subdivision and I am here speaking on behalf of the homeowners association to discuss our concerns not only from us as board members, but also from the rt homeowners that they have raised about these two motions. First of all, the change in zoning from multi -use to R-15 and the proposed Penn Station Apartment project. First of all in our concerns about the zoning issued, we understand the Comprehensive Plan of Meridian. We oppose the change in zoning and that approving an apartment complex immediately adjacent to our low density residential housing would not in any way be compatible with our existing homes and development. Mr. Fluke has raised a lot of issues about the constrains that he is under due to the small property size that he is working with. We do not feel that is planning and zonings problem. You should not have to make concessions to this proposed development in an extreme nature to allow it to go forward. We are concerned that a change in zoning of this property would set a precedent for the neighboring undeveloped parcels. We know that Dennis Baker who originally developed our entire Subdivision owns the property that is behind Intermountain Sports and that other owners own the other two horizontal properties. We are concerned that if this small 3.5 acre parcel is zoned to R15 there would be very little opposition to the rest of.;; END OF SIDE FIVE Fastabend: being placed within this close proximity of our subdivision. We have also been informed that Dennis Baker had some sort of an easement agreement with Settlers Construction which is the developer under the Pangaea Group, that he would be granted some sort of a road easement into his larger property which would allow him 2 points of egress. Ada County has declined a traffic study for the impact of this development although they have given us an estimate that 264 car trips per day would come out of this apartment complex. Another issue with traffic is that the entrance or Meridian Planning and Zoo ing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 44 turn lane into the Idaho Athletic Club is exactly opposite of the tum lane going west on Fairview to come into Stonehenge. All of this will increase the traffic coming into this Subdivision. Regardless of what development goes on here, the traffic will increase in our Subdivision. We are concerned about high density development. In the initial proposal it was suggested that the apartment complex would benefit the area and increase property values and we do not believe that is true. We are thankful that this development has been proposed with our concerns in mind and that they have gone to great lengths to buffer us rather then place the apartment buildings right on the rear property line. We still do not feel the two story buildings will be compatible with our Subdivision. They will be visible from Penrith through the houses and there will be a large visual landmark as you gone in on Stonehenge. For those reasons we would greatly appreciate a that this zoning is not approved and the landowner find some other way to utilize this property and regain his investment in it. In addition to that, Mr. Fluke did mention that the berm that is going in will include a screen fence, his original design called for a 6 foot cedar fence, which is compatible with the covenants for our Subdivision. We would be greatly opposed to a screen fence. Other concerns are the types of trees, the nature of the berm and— Brown: Are you telling us you don't want a berm. Fastabend: No. Our concern would be what types, how fast growing. Some of the concerns our homeowners have raised to us and ask that we present to you. Another concern is we have been told the leases on these properties would be month to month rather than long term. Long term tenants take better care of their property than short term. We are concerned about our property values because of the way this project is nested in along our entry to the Subdivision. It may be permanently associated with our Subdivision. In closing I would like to reiterate that we do not agree with the possibility this could be rezoned to high density. We would hope that the commission would vote + along the lines of the master plan. Inclosing I would like to present a petition that we gathered signatures of members of our Subdivision who are opposed to this development. 99 percent of the people we contacted were will to sign the petition against the rezoning and possibility of the Penn Station project. Brown: You said that you think there should be single family homes behind Intermountain Arms. Is that what your recommending to us. Fastabend: We would recommend that any development going in would be compatible with our development that is currently there. Intermountain Arms is a commercial that would have to be contended with. Next to it is a junk yard Brown: From previous comments that this commission received from staff, at a minimum for the mixed use areas that would be a R-8 zone, which is definitely higher then what would be considered a single family. Fastabend: Our largest concerns would be the increased density of having two story apartments on the property. I do not think the majority of residents would be opposed to Meridian Planning and Ming Commission May 24, 2000 Page 45 duplexes of a single story that would allow the developer to place a higher density of tenants or owners on the property but would not create a two story building which would look down into the back yards. Brown: You would be closer when you abut two neighbors together and one is two story and one is not. You only have forty feet between the buildings and they are looking down in. They are similar uses. Somewhere you have to have a transition from the commercial to the residential. Typically apartments and higher density are recommended as you transition to the commercial area. That is historic where ever you are and that is why in my opinion the Comprehensive Plan is put this as a mixed use. Fastabend: Is it possible that duplexes or patio lot properties would provide the same transition. Are apartments the only answer? Brown: Well, lets say that they were townhouses. Most townhouses that I have been in contact with are still two story. What you still have is something that is taken a greater distance away from you. When you have a townhouse like every other single family owner, you don't want your own backyard so then you have the units closer. This is what I do for a living. I would put them closer to you if I put townhouses in. I would butt them up to you. You'd have a two story townhouse that would be closer to you then two story four plexes. At a bare minimum from what staff is telling me, we could go with a R-8 and they are asking 10 to a acre. I telling you this is an appropriate land use from a annexation standpoint. The highway district required you to line up and the reason Idaho Athletic Club entrance is where it is at is because someone (inaudible) first and they had to line up with you. That way they can control the traffic. Fastabend: If a proposal is not made at this time for a road to be made or access off of this proposed—as far as I have seen so far that has not been proposed to the commission (inaudible). Is there anyway that would change and they could be allowed to add in a access which would connect to— Brown: That would be modifying the conditional use permit and they'd be back before us again. Fastabend: On your comments about higher density homes, it may be true that townhomes would be closer to the existing homes and some of the residents on Penrith,x may feel it would be a better solution to have if we are destine to have high density two story buildings. They may feel it might be better to have apartments that are farther back from their properties. I personally would feel that although a townhouse solution would be closer to the residents at Penrith that it would provide a better mix with our Subdivision in the long run because the townhouse owners would personally own their own proprties and they would be more inclined to maintain them and be more of a permanent residnet to their property then a apartment renter. Meridian Planning and Aling Commission May 24, 2000 Page 46 Brown: Now their owned units instead of rented, then does the homeowners association not have as much a problem. Lets leave them right where they are at and they are condos. You buy the space inside that building. Now you have buyers. Fastabend: That would greatly appease the homeowners association in that that would change the nature of the tenants and the way that they would interact with the existing homes. McNiff: My name is Steve McNitt. I live at 1472 N. Penrith. As far as the project that is being proposed right now, the traffic issues are a major concern. I live right on the corner of the proposed project. Whether or not Planning and Zoning Commission can do anything about what Ada County allows through there is another story. Stonehenge Way goes all the way through Pine. It is used regularly. A couple of issues I have is some of the wording under the Comprehensive Plan and the way that Daren perceived it. First off he said it would be a good project for people to be able to access the commercial areas around. The only business that this group would be able to access safely would be Intermountain. Currently there is no sidewalks on the south side of Fairview or any of the commercial going to Locust Grove. There is no sidewalk on Locust Grove that would accommodate without crossing either Fairview or Locust Grove to walk to these commercial areas. I have lived there for 6 years and I am not walking on Fairview. One problem I have with the two story complex the way they are, even with the 6 foot fence, I am still going to have people looking into my backyard. It was first understood that that would most likely be zoned R-8 with single family dwellings. I would be much happier with a R-8 single level house behind me 20 feet from my property line than I would be 60 feet away with a 25 foot building looking down into my backyard. Brown: That could still be a 2 story because of the site constraints to get the 8 units per acre— McNitt: Only if that person was willing to lose month the minute you built it. So, R-8 is not just single family dwelling. Danbury is a R-8 zoning is that correct. Okay. In their multi area space they say 2 acres of the site is to be given to open space. Problem with that is the end down there they must build a swale by the ordinance to allow for their 100 year plane. One point of interest that effect just my house and that's as you make the turn into that complex there my house sits right there on the comer where the proposal is set to go in. When those cars come in and make an immediate left hand turn into that property, I will be visiting with headlights all night long into my bedroom window. Something has to be addressed there. Brown: Are you bothered by them coming down Stonehenge now. McNitt: No I am not. Borup: Not on the plat we've got. Once they turn left they are going away from your house. Meridian Planning and Ming Commission is May 24, 2000 Page 47 j McNiff: (Off microphone). Glenco: My name is Matthew Glenco. I live at 1011 N. Maple Creek Avenue. My comments are brief and not raised by anyone else. One of the greatest concerns is the nature of the residents in this kind of construction particularly being a month to month. The problem I see my having entrance as part of Stonehenge which is effectively part of our Subdivision they by default become part of the Subdivision enjoying some of the benefits in the Subdivision which we as homeowners association pay our dues to maintain landscaping between Fairview and along Stonehenge until you get into the houses. We have a couple parks that are close to that area that will also be utilized by people living in that structure. I do very much prefer the concept of condos. Part of that community that is in the Subdivision I do like the idea better if people who are vested in d the area and that would possibly able to be incorporated within the Subdivision as part of our program participating with the homeowners association and also especially since I don't see any other way that they can have egress or ingress so they may as well be , part of what we are doing there and participate with landscape. Powers: My name is Rob Powers. I live at 1348 N. Penrith right where the pie comes to a point. My concern is that empty space and the adjoining property that is going to have a access. Looking at that site plan there where it is empty, some day there could be a road right through there to go to the acreage behind it. I am just wondering. There is no other access back that way. Borup: That is not part of this application. There is no road or road easement. Using your analogy they could build a 30 story office building back there and that is not going to happen. They would have to come back before us. One of your previous neighbors said it wasn't even a usable area because it is a swale. This is the drainage swale in this area. Powers: What I was told is they were granted access to Dennis Baker who owns that land behind there. Borup: We will ask the applicant about that. Powers: One of the other concerns was lighting. I purposely built my house with the livingroom facing the back so I would not have headlights. If the road does go in there it defeats my whole purpose and my property value is shot. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else. Billings: My name is Janelle Billings. I live at 1265 N. Sanlan which is right in the very center of the neighborhood. I have a large concern about traffic that comes through there. We have a large amount of traffic that comes from Pine through to Fairview and vice versa. We have had several problems with the speed of people who are not residents of our neighborhood. Meridian Planning and JoPing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 48 Jewett: Jim Jewett. 4002 W. Teter. Just for a point of clarification, I was the previous owner of this piece of property. I did enter into an agreement with Dennis Baker for an easement and as of yesterday we signed an agreement vacating and doing away with it. There is no more easement across this property. Centers: Lee Centers. 325 Meridian Street. We designed this not to impact the neighbors. The four plexes the only windows facing that way are the bedrooms. The rest are all out the back. I don't know how it got started but we always do a six month lease. Never a month to month. We are going to screen with a lot of arbavitas and a six foot fence. There will not be any light penetrations. The gentleman who is on the corner, we'd be glad to screen him with anything that would deflect light there. Brown: Mr. Centers is the same unit on the north side of your property. Do their windows and so forth face the back of the building and is that where if everything is to the north and it looks like the same units up there, are those different or all of their windows in their living space facing toward Intermountain Arms. Centers: All the living spaces are the opposite side of the parking. The only thing in front are two bedroom toward the parking. Norton: What type of construction materials are these apartments going to have. Centers: These will be a 25 year composition roof. They have metal fascia and soffet and they will be the new vinyl siding. Vinyl windows. Iron Railing. Concrete treads. Low maintenance. Norton: Do you have a maintenance or management company. Centers: We do our own. Barbeiro: Mr. Centers will these be similar to the properties you have behind your office. Centers: Just like them. Fluke: I'd just like to touch on some of the concerns that were brought up. We heard quite a bit about compatibility. I stress that these are similar land uses, residential land uses. Compatibility means what can this land owner do with his property and so it in such a way that we don't have adverse impacts on other people. We think we have addressed those concerns by this layout. We anticipated that this would be the big issue and that is why we laid it out the way we did. We are proud of the layout. Regarding the comment for setting precedent for higher density's I just say that your Comprehensive Plan envisioned higher densities in this area and this zoning designation is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan that this body has adopted. As far as traffic, 264 trips a day sounds like a lot. In actuality that is quite a low number. Siddoway: A couple final comments. I have had a chance to review in more detail Mr. Flute's responses to our comments. His response to number 7, 1 have no problem with the modifications. Number 13, 1 have no problem with the modifications. Number 14, we have no problem with the service irrigation water being the primary source of water, but we do require year around water and we would need to make sure that that is clear. No problem with number 15 and 19. No real problems with number 20, but I would bring it up that there are no visitor or parking spaces on this site. Strickly the two parking spaces per unit and the ordinance provides that the commission can recommend to council to require up to 13. 1 don't know where they will put it. It is very maxed out but I just point out that they are meeting the minimum standards of two spaces per unit with no additional visitor parking and that needs to be addressed by the commission. Number 21 and 25 no problems with those. Brown: Your telling me that the ordinance only requires 2. Siddoway: Two per unit. There is four units we have 80 parking spaces. Brown: The ordinance does not require the three that your asking for. Siddoway: What the ordinance does is allows in planned developments that are residential, one additional parking space beyond that which is required by the zoning title may be required for every three dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking. It is the commission's call. It say's maybe, not must be. One per 3 dwelling units, that would be up to 13 additional parking spaces. Meridian Planning and Zofiing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 49 The highway district anticipates each unit in a development of this nature generates 6- 1/2 trips per day per unit. If we were to come in and do an R-8 on this with attached single family, townhomes or detached single family, we would be looking at probably 4500 square foot lots with 50 foot frontages. To do that we would be building skinny two story structures. If we were able to fit 25 of those units on this parcel, we would be looking at 10 days a day from each one of those units, which is 250 trips. Right there we are all most at the number the highway district anticipates. As far as reduction in property values, there has been no evidence submitted to you that would collaborate that. The weed patch that is sitting back there now is more likely to reduce your values. This developer lives in the community and maintains and operates them himself. It doesn't do him any good to have junky looking facilities with nasty people living in them, ' so they are well kept facilities. Clarification on the fence. When I said a screening fence I confused somebody. We have committed to a six foot cedar fence that will screen views at least for that six feet. We were not intending on putting a berm on that property line, however, we only have 10 feet there to work with and we would rather put our resources into putting dense landscaping along that road. Cut through traffic— you've got connections, your ordinance supports connectivity yes there will be some traffic that goes through that neighborhood, but again we are a pretty low number of trips. Those 264 trips are spread out during a 24 hour period as well. Peak hours will see more traffic but not the majority of traffic. That is all I had. T Siddoway: A couple final comments. I have had a chance to review in more detail Mr. Flute's responses to our comments. His response to number 7, 1 have no problem with the modifications. Number 13, 1 have no problem with the modifications. Number 14, we have no problem with the service irrigation water being the primary source of water, but we do require year around water and we would need to make sure that that is clear. No problem with number 15 and 19. No real problems with number 20, but I would bring it up that there are no visitor or parking spaces on this site. Strickly the two parking spaces per unit and the ordinance provides that the commission can recommend to council to require up to 13. 1 don't know where they will put it. It is very maxed out but I just point out that they are meeting the minimum standards of two spaces per unit with no additional visitor parking and that needs to be addressed by the commission. Number 21 and 25 no problems with those. Brown: Your telling me that the ordinance only requires 2. Siddoway: Two per unit. There is four units we have 80 parking spaces. Brown: The ordinance does not require the three that your asking for. Siddoway: What the ordinance does is allows in planned developments that are residential, one additional parking space beyond that which is required by the zoning title may be required for every three dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking. It is the commission's call. It say's maybe, not must be. One per 3 dwelling units, that would be up to 13 additional parking spaces. Meridian Planning and Ading Commission May 24, 2000 Page 50 Borup: Any other questions. Steve, what would be the normal secondary source of water then. You mean tie into city water to be continuous year around. Freckleton: Members of the commission, the requirement by the City of Meridian for the year around source is mainly to provide water pre irrigation and post irrigation season. We don't want people watering their yards in December. We do request that they look at other alternatives and if they do have surface water that is there from a drain that may run preseason and post season that they would use that as a secondary. If there is an existing well on site that they could utilize. Typically they look at the city for secondary source. You may have seen in other comments as a single point connection. Borup: Thank you. Siddoway: My final comment would be in the Comprehensive Plan specific to this area page 28 for the mixed use area at Locust Grove road and Fairview Avenue. 5.171.1 — A variety of coordinated planned and compatible land uses are desirable for this area, including low to high density residential, office, light industrial and commercial land uses. 5.18U — That existing residential properties will be protected from incompatible land use development in this area and that screening and buffers will be incorporated into all development requests in this area. As staff we feel that both these are met by this plan with the conditions that we requested and placed on it. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I move that we close the public hearing—both of them. Brown: I'll second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: The motions will be on one at a time. Item number 7 is request for annexation and zoning. Any discussion. Barbeiro: I would like to address my discussion to both item 7 and 8. 1 know Mr. Center's properties to be very well maintained. His management is a excellent property manager. The site really does not have a real good access. It will the neighbors arguments that this will become the Danbury Faire Apartment complex is compelling and I have to follow along with that. The single access into this Subdivision road does worry me and knowing that it is on that turn and I do know that turn is not a well planned w tum. It will be a blind corner at times. I am a little concerned that they move the buildings far away from the neighbors but that now the neighbors have the traffic going back and forth in their backyard as opposed to having a building in the backyard. There is a poor access to a left hand turn on Fairview and this property is going to have a negative effect on that. I would prefer that there were visitor parking in there. While the new proposed Comprehensive Plan is not in effect and can not be implemented on this, that land is called for a public use not for a mixed residential. Meridian Planning and Aing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 51 Borup: Anyone like to add to that? Anyone want to make a motion. Norton: I'd like to ask staff, is there anything that can be done regarding that road? The other question is can the apartment building contribute to the homeowners association or to maintain that long extension out to Fairview. Siddoway: It is a land locked parcel. It is the only frontage that it has. No, not unless the property to the east developed and provided a stub street to them. Currently, the only frontage this parcel has is at that point. The maintaining would have to be voluntarily done by the owners of the apartment complex. Borup: Anyone else have thoughts other than sit here and make it till midnight. Barbeiro: With all due respect to Mr. Centers and his plan, I would submit to City Council that we do not approve the zoning request for annexation and zoning of 3.4 acres to R-15 for proposed 40 unit apartment complex. Brown: I would ask a question to Commissioner Barbeiro what is END OF SIDE SIX Brown: high density office and commercial. What would be the finding for that recommendation. Barbeiro: I am finding along with a large number of neighbors who are here the poor 4 access to the entrance. I would like to have seen a combination of single family homes x that went along the existing neighbors at Danbury Faire and then perhaps combine that with apartments that would go right up against where the Intermountain Arms is at and giving the neighbors the single family home buffer and putting the apartments up against there will give yourself a buffer against the commercial zone. That was my preference. Borup: And, how does that help their main concern of traffic. Barbeiro: I don't have a answer for you. I was just giving a proposal of what I thought would be preferable design in keeping with a poor piece of land and the neighbors desire to have single family housing abutting their own homes. Borup: So you saying put some more single family housing in abutting the apartments. Barbeiro: Yeah, very similar to what we say at our last meeting there Fairview as we move in to just west of Locust Grove. We have commercial, single family housing and apartments along that existing mobile home park. Borup: We do not have a second so do we have any other motions. Meridian Planning and Ang Commission May 24, 2000 Page 52 Norton: I'll second that on the reasoning that the traffic situation is a very serious concern and if we have to wait a little longer until another site is developed until these people have access in and out another way, might make more sense to just hold off on annexing that property at this time. The traffic situation on Stonehenge would my reasoning to deny this. Borup: Motion and second. Discussion. Would anyone like to reiterate ACHD's concern on the traffic. Steve. No I don't think they had any. That is why I asked. Siddoway: ACHD hasn't mentioned traffic concerns as one of the residents testified they declined to do a traffic study. Most of the site specific requirements have to do with curb gutter and sidewalk. Utilities, street cuts, location of driveway, paving requirements, access points. They do state the estimate trip generation of 264 additional trips per day with zero existing but don't elaborate any farther then that. Borup: Does that usually mean they don't have any added concern on the added traffic to the road system. If there was they mention it. Any other discussion. We have a motion and second. If not more discussion, all in favor. TWO AYES, TWO NAYS Borup: This was a motion for denial. In light of our constrains on the ordinance and Comprehensive Plan I am going to have to go nay. You open for another motion. What is something that is going to be logically be able to put on the back side of a commercial building and near a junk yard. It is hard to make an argument for single family residential in a location like that. Brown: Along Fairview the other uses that have been used in similar situations are storage units, like the ones behind Fred Meyer. The other ones we have recently approved have been apartments and other commercial uses. Hatcher: Although I feel this project has some problems I think with staffs comments, most of the issues will be resolved. I find myself torn to make a motion to approve it just on the status of my architectural background and not having any information in the conditional use permit as to the appearance and design of the building themselves. Because of that lack of information, I can't approve or deny this project. Architectural design information I believe is typical application information for a CUP. Siddoway: The architectural design information was submitted, it is required with the application. It should be in the City Clerk's they probably just submitted them on large sheets that did not get reduced down to the packet size. I believe we could retrieve those. I know they exist. They show the elevations and the construction materials that was required to be included with the application. Meridian Planning and APing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 53 Borup: The only additional comment on that I guess that it was testified that it was the same design as the existing apartments they have on Meridian Road across from the Bowling Alley. Hatcher: That does not help me on this project. Borup: Will has looked through the file and there is nothing in there. Hatcher: Seeing that that iinformation has not been submitted, I personally would recommend that that this be tabled until that information is properly submitted and had adequate time to review it. Borup: That is one option. Are we comfortable with the parking spaces. That was the one thing from staff comments that was not addressed. Brown: I think they do need some additional visitor parking. Like staff and the other Commissioner's I don't know where they are going to put it. Borup: I see a real problem trying to get 13 additional spaces. A couple maybe. Have you had a chance to review the plans commissioner Hatcher. Norton: Staff are these one bedroom apartments or two bedroom. Siddoway: I believe they are two bedroom apartments. Hatcher: In light of the additional information I will motion to City Council that we recommend approval of the project as submitted including all staff comments that would be approval of the annexation and zoning of 3.4 acres to R-15 for proposed 40 -unit apartment complex to be called Penn Station Apartments. Brown: I'll second. Borup: Any discussion. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES 2 NAYS 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED 40 -UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX TO BE CALLED PENN STATION APARTMENTS ON 3.4 ACRES BY PANGAEA LAND PLANNING —SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW AND EAST OF STONEHENGE WAY: Hatcher: I motion that we recommend approval to City Council for the conditional use permit of the proposed 40 unit apartment complex to be called Penn Station Apartment on 3.4 acres by Pangaea Land Planning as submitted to include staff comments and modifications. 10 Meridian Planning and Zd ing Commission May 24, 2000 Page 54 Borup: That includes the 13 parking spaces. Siddoway: Comments say up to 13. If you just want us to work with them with an open ended ticket trying to maximize parking we can do that if you can give us a number. There is also the staff comments related to the maintenance building, the RV and Boat Storage and I just went through the response and most of those we did not have a problem with. They are recommended modifications to staff comments. Hatcher: When you were commenting on his response you weren't stating —you were stating you were okay with their stated response. Siddoway: Yes with their modifications to staff comments in those situations. One exception of the irrigation —14 and 20 were the two. Hatcher: What I would do is I would modify my motion to include their response comments, modifying them. To address Item 14 in the underground year around pressurized irrigation that they work with the city to provide year around secondary means of irrigation and to address the item number 20 that they work with staff to provide additional parking spaces and I would have to state that they at least accommodate an additional ten spaces. I think it is fair to say 10 visitor spaces for 40 units. Swartley: Steve, do you have the applicants responses to those. I will go over them with you later. Oh, I have them too. Thank you. Brown: Would you be willing to modify that to 7. 1 would rather see grass then the parking I guess. Hatcher: Yes. Brown: I'll second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES 2 NAYS Swartley: Mr. Chairman, did you want to open up the public hearing on number 9 and 10. It is up to you. You've done it in the past. I'm just checking with you. I wanted to stay here a little longer. Go ahead and do that and make a motion to continue them to the next meeting. Borup: I'd like to open the public hearing on Item number 9 and Item number 10. I'd entertain a motion on those two items. Hatcher: We all ready motioned to move them to the next meeting, did we not. I motion we continue the public hearings to June 13th. JoIng Meridian Planning and Commission May 24, 2000 Page 55 " Brown: Second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 11. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR VACATION REQUEST OF A 30' NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY SERVICES BY JEFFREY L. MANSHIP—BLACK CAT AND TEN MILE: Borup: Do we have any kind of a staff report. r Freckleton: Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. I believe this is just a k house cleaning issue. There was an existing easement there that Mr. Manship needs to get cleaned up in order to proceed forward with his Subdivision. You can see it there on the west side of his property. It was a access easement back to the Brown property that has sold. It was a ingress egress easement. Per ordinance, we need to go through this 3 = rZ� process. G 3 T Y' Borup: Didn't you have his proposed Subdivision layout. Siddoway: Nope. ! Borup: Is there egress to the property to the south. Freckleton: i believe that access was provided to the parcel to the south through English Gardens Subdivision. Brown: I move approval. . Hatcher: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Brown: Mr. Chairman, I've got a couple items since this is the fast time I get to do this. Going through the land use planning act that we received in our packets, there was a couple house cleaning items that I was wondering if staff is working to change the ti ordinance. As I read this ordinance it looks like the only way that staff can be kind of directed is by this commission to do so. I had the question 67-6508 the planning duties, they changes with regards to manufactured homes. First of all, they made made some one change to the Comprehensive Plan that it can be changed at any time as long as it .r_ W 3� 7 'ir# { t int tw.Y" ,. filly+ 'grCAFPL.'±•Sl y..+ r .. t q� �'s"��y, ,SH 5 a �` c .� F - t Y ip { 1 y5 2 py OW 0W.0 A v alar Y sR'y a } g� �rA i T l 51 F��4iv n ZZvv } 3ei ¢fi.., e 1Jo- l } � k " R 5 <' Y'ti.a,A, 4.,S.da»'.3�. 14 $P �,yf eK , W .._ <�.. _ _ c£'.d3 #s`...x--, h} t'i'' x _, m ^§:, xe i§-. 1 . ,r- i?- • Meridian Planning and Zong Commission May 24, 2000 Page 56 is a text change. The map can only be changed every six months. Does our Comprehensive Plan do we have anything written in there that reflects this. Siddoway: No, it is simply regulated by the state code. Brown: 67-6509 with regards to manufactured homes. It says that they can be placed on any residential lot. Does our ordinance restrict that. Siddoway: No. We currently allow manufactured homes on any residential lot as long 2p p as they conform to the requirements in section 11-10-8 of the Meridian City Ordinance. One confusing part of the to me is that a. With development standards the manufactured home shall be considered single family dwellings within the R-8, R-15 and R-40 and Old Town zoning districts, providing they meet the standards set herein. <„ R-2, R-3 and R-4 although in conversations with Shari just this week on a request from a property owner by policy we would allow them—I guess this house cleaning should be added to the ordinance. Brown: That is what this is telling us. All governing bodies shall make amendments to F Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations and for all zoning of single family residential uses. Siddoway: I was told by Shari that we do allow those uses. We do allow manufacturer housing in all residential zones providing they meet those design criteria. The other restrictions state that it has to have more than one section. Shall be at least be 20 feet ti wide and (inaudible) area of 500 square feet per section, which would be a total of a 1000. Borup: The main restriction is the Subdivision covenants. Brown: Right and this state law allows CC&R's to restrict mobile homes from coming in there, but what state law did not allow is that your zoning ordinance because you perception has been in many cities that they do not allow mobile homes as a compatible neighbor. Looks like (inaudible) federal guidelines. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman Mr. Brown it is clear to our department that we are to allow manufactured homes in all residential zones per state code. Brown: 67-6517 talks about the agencies, city's county's can put a future acquisition map together. Since I am not going to have this opportunity again, that would be my recommendation that this commission make a recommendation to the parks board or director that they put a acquisition map together. Siddoway: I know that the parks department is actually working on one. Right now it is park of their park master plan. They are doing it with dogs so it isn't seen as a taking but they are restricting that to a certain tolerance zone that it can move within. They Meridian Planning and AdIng Commission May 24, 2000 Page 57 are designating those locations. We are trying to include that in our Comprehensive Plan. Brown: That's great. I appreciate that information. That's all that I have. Borup: Reminder, we have workshop the 30th with City Council out at the sewer plant. Six o'clock. One final thing, Kent has mentioned this is his last meeting here. I would like to thank Kent for his contribution on this commission. It has been appreciated and I think he has done a good job of several times of bringing us back in focus on some of the testimony. We have appreciated your expertise and what you contributed. Sorry to see you go. Barbeiro: I'd like to add to that. Kent and I disagreed a number of times but I always wanted to make note that he does have a great depth of knowledge and he was always respectful in every time he disagreed with me. I really appreciated that. Siddoway: And I want to say he is going to miss a great landscape ordinance presentation. Brown: I will be here. Meridian Planning and Ang Commission O May 24, 2000 Page 58 Norton: Mr. Chairman, I wish to adjourn this meeting. Hatcher: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:15 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ATTEST SEAL = WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. CftYvCLERK a;" tea Meridian Planning and Ang Commission O May 24, 2000 Page 58 Norton: Mr. Chairman, I wish to adjourn this meeting. Hatcher: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:15 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ATTEST SEAL = WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. CftYvCLERK a;" MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2000 AT 6:30 P.M. 4 t ; ROLL CALL: X SALLY NORTON X THOMAS BARBEIRO X RICHARD HATCHER X KENT BROWN .n X CHAIRMAN KEITH BORUP" 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 40.33 ACRES TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION BY VICTORY 41, LLC—NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL— HOLD WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT 2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PROPOSED TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION — 91 BUILDABLE LOTS ON 40.33 ACRES BY VICTORY 41, LLC—NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO JUNE 13, 2000 q, 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER FOR 24 MONTHS TO BE PLACED ON PROPERTY ZONED I—L BY JAMES L. AIMONETTO-2204 LANARK STREET: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT SECOND BUILDING ON LOT IN I—L ZONE BY TERRACE PLAZA, LLC -199 NORTH LINDER ROAD: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CHILD CARE CENTER (12+ CHILDREN) IN AN R-8 ZONE BY TARA L. GORTON - 420 E. BROADWAY: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR DENIAL 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MARKETING EDUCATION CLASSROOM TO ACCOMMODATE 2 NON— CONCURRENT CLASSES OF 25-30 STUDENTS IN A C—G ZONE BY JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2-357 WATERTOWER LANE: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL �J 0 0 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 3.4 ACRES TO R-15 FOR PROPOSED 40 -UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX (TO BE CALLED PENN STATION) BY PANGAEA LAND PLANNING -SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW AND EAST OF STONEHENGE WAY: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED 40 -UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX TO BE CALLED PENN STATION APARTMENTS ON 3.4 ACRES BY PANGAEA LAND PLANNING - SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW AND EAST OF STONEHENGE WAY: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PROPOSED WANDA'S MEADOW SUBDIVISION - 26 LOTS ON 7.99 ACRES IN AN R-4 ZONE BY ROBERT GLENN -1440 NORTH USTICK ROAD WEST OF LOCUST GROVE: CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO JUNE 13, 2000 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN: CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO JUNE 13, 2000 11. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR VACATION REQUEST OF A 30' NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY SERVICES BY JEFFREY L. MANSHIP-BLACK CAT AND TEN MILE: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL Z a w 2 LLMO W W z z z a w x U J ®. W a 0 z W LU 2 0 LU LL uj LU CL q um a� Nu w 1G�O7 f S4 J) o N .. n i C3 r Q) ,moi 1OIN V rte. �._"3 4 4 0 z W LU 2 LU a� NIIO W Q Z 4z El z �2 W m 20 LL Z ®� Lu U0 J LN m CL a® N ~ QV 0 z W LU 2 LU a� NIIO uj a® ~ QV d W 4 VA Sz 00 DQ coo 30 Wcc p' o �[ uj 21. -� LO LU �' v51 ID ai J � 4 of 0 Z s W 2 W N o ® W Itz; Zca Q z El Z 2_ UJ CO) 20 u. ®� uj Q W - V d� a .j Lt G 0 Z s W 2 o ® Itz; �, uj a �, G QA— W 14 V 4 6 C= C�- Z Lu u,J 2 W `� oy � ZOE®27 uj e CE yy�� rt Z J +4 Q In W cc 2 ! P aj cn cl:CL op y a