The URL can be used to link to this page

2000 08-08~ ,r ~ :-. 3 `~ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA ~ :~~; ~ ~'~~' Tuesday, August 8, 2000 at 7:00 P.M. ;, ~° -:-' CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ~V Roll-Call: X Sally Norton X Thomas Barbeiro r °~~-`~~~ X Bill Nary X Richard Hatcher ~ Chairman Keith Borup ~>~~~1 r =' Regular Actenda ~~ L ~~r~ 1. Tabled from July 19, .2000 -Recommendation: VAC-00*005 Request 4`_ ::;;, for vacation of public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along ~ ~~ common lot line between Lots 22 and 23 of Block 10, Lakes at Cherry ~,~;~rA Lane No. 6, by Ron Leslie: Approve Recommendation to City Council ~~ .~ `-" 2. Recommendation: VAC-00-011 Request for vacation of public utilities, A ., drainage and irrigation easement along common line line between Lots 35 ~ and 36, Block 17, Haven Cove No. 9 Subdivision by Glenn Blaser - east of Ten Mile Road, North of Pine Avenue on Ebbtide Street: Approve ~ f' Recommendation to City Council ``~=~' 3. Public Hearing: Proposed change to the Notice of Mailing Ordinance { . ~ allowing first-class mail to replace certified mail for notification of public ~ ~ hearings: Approve Recommendation to City Council 4. Public Hearing: CUP- 00-041 Request for Conditional Use Permit to F -~> construct a Fred Meyer Gas Station facility with a canopy, five multi- r'~~ <~, ~ product dispensers, cashiers kiosk and parking lot improvements in a C-G i.. ; 1,. zone by Barghausen Consulting Engineers -Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove: Continue Public Hearing To September 12, 2000 ,,,,~ 5. Public Hearing: CUP-00-044 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a 4,125 S.F. tilt-up concrete building for Eagle Concrete Pumping in the Flood Plain Overlay District by Rod and Sheri Eisele - N. Baltic Place in Meridian Business Park: Approve Recommendation to `;.$~ City Council 6. Public Hearing: AZ-00-017 Request for Annexation And Zoning of .> 52.90 acres from RT to R-4 by Primeland Development Co., LLP for August 8, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission ~. Page 1 Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Meridian City Council ~~ .1_ ~ '. r- _ :,. a{ < ~ ~ 4 . '.: ~ ~ f " ~°.. ~ t {- µi ~~ :- tiv~ h { i t~~ _ { ~ ~ "f_.~1:r a y' * x =f ~.• ~ ~ 3i- i -~ A` r; _- ~`~ { `5 .P ~ S q: ~ .F-: ~,. ~~ ~ ~ proposed Bridgetower Subdivision -North of Ustick and East of Ten Mile: Approve Recommendation to City Council h' 7. Public Hearingo CUP-00-043 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a Planned Unit Development consisting of 106 buildable lots by Primeland Development Co., LLP, for proposed Bridgetower ~~-~. Subdivision - North of Ustick and East of Ten Mile: Approve Recommendation to City Council 8. Public Hearingo PP-00-017 Request for Preliminary Plat for proposed is Bridgetower Subdivision - 106 building lots, 1 H.O.A recreation center, 1 park lot and 19 common lots on 46.2 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by ' Primeland Development Co., LLP -North of Ustick and East of Ten Mile: L _; Approve Recommendation to City Council 9. Public Hearingo CUP-00-042 Request for Conditional Use Permit to .' construct a Carl's Jr. restaurant with adrive-thru window by Greenstar ~' Foods and TFCM -Pad P-3 at the Meridian Crossroads Center: ~~ Approve Recommendation to City Council " '; 10. Public Hearing: PFP-00-002 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat for r ~'' proposed Presidential Subdivision -three building lots on 10.99 acres in ~'~''' an I-L zone by Developers Diversified/Dakota Company -southeast ~, .-., corner of Presidential Dr. and Eagle Road at the Meridian Crossroads 4R :- : Center: Approve Recommendation to City Council ~: ,, .,, .. w }. .~ k: August 8, 2090 Planning and Zoning Commission µ'~~ Page 2 - D Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Meridian City Council ~' 3 F `L t C' 4 4T •• {~#~?-`~l~ ' 7 b '4 .!riJ'~'°L r t., ,~ ~ ry ~ ,C~~j k {• ~ )~w "~ ~r ~ S'~ .~:~~ t~ 1 ..i 1 .s . - f I I ~ .. %: m.: r;, !>r:~ •;r a II , 1 , . , A ' x , f ri ~ ~ < '.I. ~ :~ '13 i~{~ . 1 .Y.. ~~~ 3• <.2 .. t Y / l y .I r I . f ~iII . 4' t ti . { • 4 e f. !'t • l , ! , 1 a• . I ~l v d .. a "M "+~ ~ ~ . . . x ~' ~ ~ . ~. . l • ,. : ~~ y i x.b'. . r.a xi~.~b ~ ~ 1 , ,`~T (~ - ! I 'r 111 J:. . I . I. -i I I ~. I d A 1 I 5 . ~ , ~ ... . 'i : • ~' :5~: =s. :4> tel. 'S• -t .'~ ~~ 1~ •'f ' }2. I1 ..'-1 _ . ,. W ~. `y .. _ T .rp .. '?F .. .3 ] L. ~, .. ~ r ) .ry. a ),A 4... a .. n 4 F.. M •~ K Y s .. Y: ::u ',i :~6' w 4 .. Y .. .~. qX, r 3.: ... S A .. . t r . 1~ ','. . . . ' -, I ~~ ~ I~ I ~ r~ ~ ~ ~"~ I I ~ ~ , < I - , ! I . ~ 1 . % ,~ '~ 1 . ; . . . 1 } i' ' ~ '4 <y. t :? .. : < I I . a.~'.y 3.. ~ ~ I '•l.' 11 r ~ ` i '~'p~~ ` k ~' ~" ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ x~ t'1~ . ; ' .. ~ 4?•' 5!'r:, F,.ySy '~1 ~'F ~.' ~~.' ~ , ~ '` ~F •4 r . : .+ .5 . i .,..r.. s I 2R ,~ : ..i~'°kpy~ Ate:: 'n .. ]~,5 ~. ~ 1:~ ~ } .'~.. ~ I ~ f + I + I i . i.I ' ~ .I i' ~ ~~ ; 1 ~ ` I ~ f 1 ':1~`i I li I ' 5 r%. _ f~). iY. izr . I r . . I "T: F L' ~f i . . I av 2' I x. aC S t. ' P^ _ S. ~'~: .. R r'~. ^' F ~!. .~ I ~ ~ I , ~ , ,. rt~~'•~f•~n. wa' ~.' y, ~ k ~ 3u A if~,`A'".i_(d`+'- t ..'.~~xs~~~ .,,o/, 5 n :'a ' ~, ~~ lk ~ ~ur~ ~ y' ~ ~ ~ tea. Ip„ + ) u) , ., ~ . . ,.r ~ . , : { ~ • . • ~ ~. x rY ~ ' I ~. ~ ~• I ~` F' ~~4 y '~ T% t~~ ~ "I , f 4 ~ 1 .. ~x ..~. ~ ) 'I t J T. ~ I ~ " k i ~ I ~ 111 ~y§,).,xe. d': i~ j r. .S}; `li Y ri) ~ x t' Y1>s~ . Si :. ,.i E :~ ! ~ ~. 1 t ~ i ~F, .. 1 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA Tuesday, August 8, 2000 at 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Roll-Call: X Sally Norton X Thomas Barbeiro X Bill Nary X Richard Hatcher Chairman Keith Borup Re4ular Aoenda 1. Tabled from Juiy 19, 2000 -Recommendation: VAC-00-005 Request for vacation of public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along common lot tine between Lots 22 and 23 of Block 10, Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 6, by Ron Leslie: Approve Recommendation to City Council 2. Recommendation: VAC-00-011 Request for vacation of public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along common line line between Lots 35 and 36, Block 17, Haven Cove No. 9 Subdivision by Glenn Blaser - east of Ten Mile Road, North of Pine Avenue on Ebbtide Street: Approve Recommendation to City Council 3. Public Hearing: Proposed change to the Notice of Mailing Ordinance allowing first-class mail to replace certified mail for notification of public hearings: Approve Recommendation to City Council 4. Public Hearing: CUP- 00-041 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a Fred Meyer Gas Station facility with a canopy, five multi- product dispensers, cashiers kiosk and parking lot improvements in a C-G zone by Barghausen Consulting Engineers -Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove: Continue Public Hearing To September 12, 2000 5. Public Hearing: CUP-00-044 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a 4,125 S.F. lilt-up concrete building for Eagle Concrete Pumping in the Flood Plain Overlay District by Rod and Sheri Eisele - N. Baltic Place in Meridian Business Park: Approve Recommendation to City Council 6. Public Hearing: AZ-00-017 Request for Annexation And Zoning of 52.90 acres from RT to R-4 by Primeland Development Co., LLP for August 8, 2000 Planning and Zoning Comm(sslon Peye 1 Mat®riais presented at pubUc m~tings shall berme property of tha Meridian City Council. proposed Bridgetower Subdivision -North of Ustick and East of Ten Mile: Approve Recommendation to City Council 7. Public Hearing: CUP-00-043 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a Planned Unit Development consisting of 106 buildable lots by Primeland Development Co., LLP, for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision - North of Ustick and East of Ten Mile: Approve Recommendation to City Council 8. Public Hearing: PP-00-017 Request for Preliminary Plat for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision -106 building lots, 1 H.O.A recreation center, 1 park lot and 19 common lots on 46.2 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by Primeland Development Co., LLP -North of Ustick and East of Ten Mile: Approve Recommendation to City Council 9. Public Hearing: CUP-00-042 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a Carl's Jr. restaurant with adrive-thru window by Greensl~r Foods and TFCM -Pad P-3 at the Meridian Crossroads Center: Approve Recommendation to City Council 10. Public Hearing; PFP-00-002 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat for proposed Presidential Subdivision -three building lots on 10.99 acres in an I-L zone by Developers Diversified/Dakota Company -southeast corner of Presidential Dr. and Eagle Road at the Meridian Crossroads Center: Approve Recommendation to City Council August 8, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission Pegs a Materials presented at public meetings sheA became properly of the Meridian City Caa-cil. &:r g~~~~u MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA Tuesday, August 8, 2000 at 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Roll-Call: Sally Norton Thomas Barbeiro gill Nary Richard Hatcher Chairman Keith Borup Regular Agenda 1. Tabled from July 19, 2000 -Recommendation: VAC-00-005 Request for vacation of public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along common lot line between Lots 22 and 23 of Block 10, Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 6, by Ron Leslie: ~~ ~ Cl~ a~~~,~ ~e ~e c 2. Recommendation: VAC-00-011 Request for vacation of public utilities, drainage and imgation easement along common line line between Lots 35 and 36, Block 17, Haven Cove No. 9 Subdivision by Glenn Blaser - east of Ten Mile Road, North of Pine Avenue on Ebbtide Street: 3. Public Hearing: Proposed change to the Notice of Mailing Ordinance allowing first-class mail to replace certified mail for notification of public hearings: ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~;.~-~~-e ~@ 4. Public Hearing: CUP- 00-041 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a Fred Meyer Gas Station facility with a canopy, five multi- productdispensers, cashiers kiosk and parking lot improvements in a C-G zone by Barghausen Consulting Engineers -Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove: 5. Public Hearing: CUP-00-044 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a 4,125 S.F. tilt-up concrete building for Eagle Concrete Pumping in the Flood Plain Overlay District by Rod and Sheri Eisile - N. Baltic Place in Meridian Business Park:,, 6. Public ~eanng: AZ-00-017 Request for Annexation And Zoning o1 52.90 acres from RT to R-4 by Primeland Development Co., LLP for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision -North of Ustick and East of Ten Mile: ~~~r~ ~~ ~~ G ~ ~- ~ ~lc~ August 8, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 Materials presented at putrlic meetings shall become property of the Meridian City Council. ,~, ~v ~; :~< ,. ~i{~' 7. Public Hearing: CUP-00-043 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a Planned Unit Development consisting of 106 buildable lots by Primeland Development Co., LLP, for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision -North of Ustick and East of Ten Mile: ~ ~h~w~r ~e ~ ~ ~~ 8. Public Hearing: PP-00-017 Request for Preliminary Plat for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision -106 building lots, 1 H.O.A recreation center, 1 park lot and 19 common lots on 46.2 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by Primeland Development Co., LLP -North of Ustick and East of Ten Mile: 9. Public Hearing: CUP-00-042 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a Carl's Jr. restaurant with adrive-thru window by Greenstar Foods and TFCIVI -Pad P-3 at the Meridian Crossroads Center: ~iA~?Y~ v'~c !l'~ e~J'Y ~ ~~~r-~ ~ Cl~ 10. Public Hearing: PFP-00-002 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat for proposed Presidential Subdivision -three building lots on 10.99 acres in an I-L zone by Developers Diversified/Dakota Company -southeast corner of Presidential Dr. and Eagle Road at the Meridian Crossroads Center: - ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ August 8, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the Meridian City Council. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING August 8..2000 The meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 8, 2000, by Commissioner Thomas Barbeiro. Members Present: Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Tom Barbeiro, Richard Hatcher Members Absent: Keith Borup Others Present: Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, Will Berg, David Swartley Barbeiro: Good evening everyone. I'm Commissioner Tom Barbeiro, and I will be serving as Chairman tonight in the absence of Chairman Keith Borup. 1'd first like to introduce the members of the Commission and describe what our responsibilities and obligations are. First, we are all your neighbors. We each live here in Meridian and have a great sense of community pride as we work to structure the development of the City that we all share. We are each appointed to the Commission by the Mayor and serve asix-year term. We are volunteers receiving no compensation for our time, studying the proposals and attending the meetings. Each of the Commissioners are professionals in our community with varied backgrounds which enhances the makeup of the Commission. Commissioner Sally Norton is a F~rogram Administrator for Boise State University and she has a Master's Degree in Public Administration. Commissioner Bill Nary is an attorney and holds a Juris Doctorate Degree. Commissioner Richard Hatcher is an architect and has a degree in architecture. I'm a construction manager and I have degrees in both Journalism and Construction Management. Keith Borup, who is absent tonight, is a general contractor and builds custom homes in the Treasure Valley. The decisions we make here tonight at our meeting, are recommendations and only recommendations to the Meridian City Council who will hear these proposals again in about two to three weeks. It is at the City Council Meeting that the final decisions on these proposals will be made. The P & Z make our recommendations to City Council in general, based upon the individual proposals conformity with the existing codes and zoning ordinances, the existing comprehensive plan, and how the proposal mixes with the existing uses in and around the neighborhood. Customarily, after the presentation by the staff of the Meridian Planning Department and the presentation by the applicant, we welcome input from those in attendance of the meeting. Please try to keep your comments focused. We usually allow three minutes for each speaker. If after that time your continued testimony remains relevant and focused, we would entertain continuing the discussion with you. Thank you all for your interest in tonight's proceedings. Let me begin with the roll-call of the Commissioners in attendance and the Citg- Staff Members. t ;; 61 t. ~ ~.'~: ~~ti ~~ ~, _ ~ ~, z -~z: ~~ ~~~~ F ~r C ir, e ~ '~ ~i ;,_ ~f,~: Ms~tdian Planning and Zaningission Meeting August 8, 20~ Page 2 Barbeiro: Here and Commissioner Borup is absent. We are also joined by City Planner Steve Siddoway, Public Works Bruce Freckleton, City Clerk Will Berg, and City Attorney David Swartley. Item No. 1 on our agenda tonight. Berg: Just a point ofi interest, in the Statesman the last few days and this past weekend, they advertised that City Council was meeting tonight at 7:30 p.m. to discuss several public hearings. Those Items were incorrectly noticed by the Statesman, and this was not a public notice, this was just a community update. In case we have people coming in for those Items that were falsely advertised by the Statesman, that meeting is scheduled for next Tuesday at 7:30 p.m. Item No. 1. Tabled from July 19, 2000 -Recommendation: VAC-00-005 Request for vacation of public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along common lot line between Lots 22 and 23 of Block 10, Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 6, by Ron Leslie. Barbeiro: Item No. 1 tabled from the July 19~' meeting, recommendation for request for vacation of public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along common lot line between Lots 22 and 23 ofi Block 10, Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 6 by Ron Leslie. I will go ahead and open the public hearing. First I will get the staff comments. Siddoway: Item No. 1 is the vacation of public utilities easement. You will see a vicinity map on the wall in front of you, in the Lakes at Cherry Lane Na. 6. The proposed lots are circled and what is going on here is the applicant wishes to vacate the utilities easement that is along the lot line that runs through these two properties so they can build, making it one lot, and build ane larger house on the larger lot. Staff has no problem with this application. It is kind of a housekeeping Item to take care of the easements on the plat. This shows a copy of that plat and the lot line they are vacating the easements on is circled in red in the lower left hand corner. Barbeiro: If the applicant would like to come forward now. Leslie: My name is Ron Leslie, 1185 Osprey Ridge, Eagle. I don't think I can add anything to that. It pretty much sums it up. We did take our application in and they have come back, we do have the power and gas easement vacation completed at this time. l have copies #or you if you would like them. Nary: Mr. Leslie, as far as I understand, I don't believe we have the authority to vacate the lot line, we only have the authority to recommend vacating those easements. The City Council is going to have a public hearing to vacate that lot line. Did you understand that? That is the only portion we have the authority to recommend to the Council and the Council will have to directly take up the issue of the lot line. Tf ~ `? <~ ~ ~ >~' Meridian Planning and Zoning L"~nmission M~tir~ August 8, 20~ Pag® 3 Barbeiro: Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to speak on favor of Mr. Leslie's vacation? Anyone who would like to speak in opposition to Mr. Leslie's vacation? Commissioners? Nary: f move that we close the public hearing. Hatcher: I motion that we recommend approval to the City Council as noted by the staff comments. Nary: Second. .~ ~:=ys ~ -:k ~ ~~` fi >~ ~.~~; ~< ;;:~ ,;~: ~.~' s°~ ~~" `' .:~ Barbeiro: We have a motion and second. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Barbeiro: That will be recommended to City Council. Item No. 2 Recommendation: i/AC-00-011 Request for vacation of public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along common line between Lots 35 and 36, Block 17, Haven Cove No. 9 Subdivision by Glenn Biaser -east of Ten Mile Road, North of Pine Avenue on Ebbtide Street. Barbeiro: Item No. 2, recommendation for request for vacation of public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along common lot line between Lots 35 and 36, Block 17, Haven Cove No. 9 Subdivision by Glenn Blaser. Mr. Siddoway? Siddoway: This is quite similar to the one you just saw. I point out to the record that this is not a public hearing. This is a recommendation to City Council. You can see, this is a part of Maven Cove Subdivision No. 9. The subject parcels are hatched on the diagram in front of you and it's the common lot line between the two that they want to vacate the utility easements along, again lower right hand comer you can see the plat of this phase. It would be the easements along that particular lot line between Lots 35 and 36. It would be vacated to allow for one home to be built on the two lots. Barbeiro: Is the applicant in the audience? Steve, did you mention anything to Mr. Blaser's need to be here or not? Siddoway: 1 did not, but the issue is just vacating those easements for the house, that they are proposing to be built, on those two lots. I don't see any problem with making a recommendation tonight without the applicant here. Norton: I would like to recommend to City Council to approve the vacation of easement and as again as Commissioner Nary suggested, we have nothing to do with the lot line, only the easement, to include staff comments. ~, ~: . Y t. S' .. Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmissi~ Mee4ing August 8, Z0~ Page 4 r, rc ":S ,; y' x ~, ~,.~ r;~ `,~ t-4 ~: ~~, x~; >. Nary: Second. Barbeiro: We have a motion and second. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT (tern No. 3 Public Hearing: Proposed change to the Notic® of Mailing Ordinance allowing first-class mail to replace certified mail for notification of public hearings. Barbeiro: Is there anyone here to speak on Item No. 3, the public hearing on the notice of mailing ordinance. We will go ahead and open it. We will now open the public hearing on Item No. 3, proposal to change the Notice of Mailing Ordinance allowing first-class mail to replace certified mail for notification of public hearings. Siddoway: You should have a proposed ordinance change from the legal staff, dated July 5~'. Currently our ordinance required certified mailings to go out. When they go out and someone is not home and unable to sign for that mailing, they take it to the post office and leave a note on the door to go to the post office and pick it up. Changing the first-class mail would allow them to deliver that and also would allow them to, the fees would be less. We see it as a good change. Barbeiro: What is the current state statute regarding this? Swartley: I don't know either. Maybe Mr. Nary can. Nary: I think it only requires first-class mail, not certified. Barbeiro: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this, please come forward now. Almond: My name is Vem Almond, 2101 East Ustick, Meridian. Reference is made to the proposed change to Notice of Mailing Ordinance. I am opposed to the proposed change the way it is handled name, notification by certified mail is successful and very necessary. These hearings are real important to we, the public, who are being impacted by these developments and our important is and should be, all important to the City. Without certified mail, there could be a lot of problems writh people saying they didn't receive notices. If this happens, Mow does the City protect itself? As it is now, they have protection. If this proposal passes, there will be suspicion the City is trying to do something underhanded. The City must do everything it can to prevent this type of image. With the first- class mailing provisions, what proof can you offer the public that the mailings were actually made? I urge you to reject this proposal. Barbeiro: Any questions? .,~ ,^~F ~'~::: .. AA~idian Planning and Zoning mission Alleeting • A4gust 8, 2000 Page 5 Nary: Mr. Almond, do you have any examples of people you know that didn't get a mailing, is there were your concern comes from? Almond: Not where it comes from, but what if they do? 1 would ask staff, how many complaints have they got about having to go to the post office to pick up their notices? I'd like to know. Barbeiro: Mr. Almond was wondering if you are aware of complaints from citizens ot~ having to go to the post office to pick up their certified mailing. Berg: We run into problems when they go to P.O. boxes and they are not checked. There have been some, yes. Otherwise we wouldn't have enacted it. They have complained that the notice was given and they were unable to get to the post office to ge#, and they wish that it could have just been left ofF at their doorstep when the postman was there in the first place. Nary: Does Mr. Berg know if there are a lot of returns? Is that a problem also? Berg: The reason we want to change this to conform with the state statute of first-class, which is required by the state statutes, is to get better response of the mail being delivered. We have many certified mails returned back to us and there are several reasons. One, their fear of what a certified mail is, so they don't go pick it up; two, people out of town, the post office tries three times and can't deliver it, they don't sign it, they return it back to us. We feel first-class would give a better opportunity for the people to get the mail. We have a lot of snowbirds in this City that are gone during the wintertime. They don't forward certified mailings, they will forward first-class. We feel that if the notice gets delivered to the address, it has a better chance of getting opened up. We have designed our envelopes to have Public Hearing Notice on the envelope so that they know that it may be something important that they should open. We are going to have an affidavit type thing signed for the list of first class mailings that we do send out so we have verification that we did mail these listings to the property owners. We are not trying to hide anything by changing this, we are trying to get a better response on our mailings. We get a stack of return certified mailings depending on what type of project it is and the time of year. We feel delivering it first class will get the notice delivered and maybe get a better response to the hearings. That's the reason behind changing it to conform to the state statutes. Almond: What are you going to do when people say they didn't get it? Barbeiro: I would like to have Mr. Siddoway explain if this is passed by City Council, what the process would be for public notification of a public hearing. Siddoway: The notices go out of Mr. Berg's office. ~r -w,; ';~n;= ~~ ors ~,, ;:a ~:y_ .; ~~ ~- t-• .:::.:~> ;, t.: -;; 4 ., <:, >, - K =u .~~~,: x~ ~=~r-~ M~ldian Planning and Zoningission ilAeeting O August 8, 20th Pag® 6 Berg: The procedure does not change, it's just the process of the certified mail versus first class. We still have to mail it within a certain time period before the hearing, iYs still mailed to, depending on the applicant, 200 or 300 feet within the particular property that has the application. The procedures and process do not change, it's just the order in which the mail is delivered. We feel we can get a better response of the mail getting delivered than having it certified. There is more handling by our staff for certified, because you have to stick a different label on to it. We are not concerned so much the cost, it is reimbursed by the application itself. The procedure doesn't change. We still have to be governed by what the statute says that we have to give notice to. We still have to do the notices in the newspapers, the property still has to be posted just like our original ordinance states. This is only changing the type of mailing that we do. Almond: You've got proof of mailing, but it doesn't prove he gets it. With certified mail, it does prove he got it or didn't get it. Nary: What you are talking about is actual notice, that they actually got it in their hand. The problem has been, people don't choose to receive that, so we can't prove they actually got it anyway. The state law doesn't require that they have actual notice, it requires that we mail it to the address and that's all that this ordinance is attempting to do is to conform to what the state law requires. If a person comes and says they did not actually receive that notice, it never came to my house, the mail didn't reach me, there are other ways that they should be aware of the issue that we sent a notice for. The property would be posted or there is notice in the newspaper. It is not the same as having actual proof in our hand of a card they had signed, but I think the problem is a lot of people won't do it. We spent a lot of money and time sending out a process that they never received. Sometimes intentionally and sometimes totally unintentionally on their part. So I think the attempt is to comply with the state law and more likely to get it. Almond: As far as the expense of mailing, the developer pays for that. Does it not? Nary: They pay for the postage but not the time of the staff to process it. They pay a portion of the cost, not all of it. The taxpayers are paying the rest. Barbeiro: Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this issue? Nary: I move that we close the public hearing. Norton: Second. Barbeiro: We have a motion and a second. All in favor. ;~. ~,., ;, .:;,. . ~., -:.fi i - ~_ ~.t~; e Meridian Plannin and Zonin mission Meetin g g g August 8, 2000 Page 7 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT ''' f"~-. ~_ Barbeiro: Commissioners, do we have a motion? ~ Nary: I understand completely where Mr. Almond is coming from and on #hose ~ ~ R , occasions that that would be helpful, it would certainly be helpful to have a _ signed notice. Expeditiously, it makes more sense to comply with state law. I think there is a lot of sense to me to change the ordinance and make it compNant with the state law and actually provide a better opportunity to people to receive the notices that they are being sent. I move that we recommend to the City ~~ ~ Council that we amend the Notice of Mailing Ordinance, allowing first-class mail - , ;- to replace certified mail for notification of public hearings as proposed by the staff . ~~~ K~.~-; and the staff comments. Norton: Second. I do believe it will help to get notice out to more people that actually receive it at home. ~_~ Barbeiro: We have a motion and a second. Ap those in favor? ,~ MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Barbeiro: Recommendation to move to City Council. ,r. "~ Berg: I just want to restate the community section of the Statesman advertised that the City Council was meeting tonight at 7:30 p.m. to hear some public :'~~ hearings on Valeri Heights and Autumn Faire and to make note to anyone that ;, .~ y ~ came in tonight, that was missed by the Statesman that it will be next Tuesday, r: ~ August 15, 2000. It has been advertised in the paper under legal notices, ~~ ~ properly. - Item No. 4 Public Hearing: CUP-00-041 Request for Conditional Use ''~~~:' Permit to construct a Fred M®yer Gas Station facility with a canopy, five multi-product dispensers, cashiers kiosk and parking lot improvements in a C-G zone by Barghausen Consulting Engineers -Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove. ~~ "`~` Barbeiro: Item No. 4, public hearing for conditional use permit to construct a Fred Meyer Gas Station facility with a canopy, five multi-product dispensers, cashiers kiosk and parking lot improvements in a C-G zone by Barghausen Consulting Engineers. I would like to open the public hearing. rat - 1 Siddoway: This is a conditional use permit for a gas station to be located on the r :y existing Fred Meyer site. The Fred Meyer site is the large red area, the proposed ~ ~ ~,:~: gas station would be out near Fairview Avenue near the hatched area. Some photos of the site, standing on Fairview, looking west, the gas station would be - approximately in this location behind the berm. Standing at McDonald's and -: ~~ . -,___Y i'~~ .. ~ ~ '1.' ..: _... .. t ~ (fir Am ~: .. - r ;... - -. '1 '. .. }~h~ - ,- Merttlian Planning and Zoning mission Meeting Augusts, ago Page $ looking due east, looking north, the site along the berm on Fairview. Some other shots, looking northwest from Fairview, looking southeast towards Fairview. This is the proposed site plan, the existing curb cut off of Fairview is right here. There is where you enter into McDonald's, this is the pad site for the proposed gas station. These are the elevations, there is not a convenience store type thing associated with this, I believe it is just the pumps and the associated canopy. You have staff comments dated August 18t, I would just like to point out two of the major issues. The first and biggest one is parking . We've been trying to verify that this would not take the Fred Meyer complex out of compliance with their required parking and the applicant, I believe, is prepared to speak on that tonight. We have had some conversation in trying to pin this number down. They have responded with a faxed written response stating that they have 172,163 S.F., there is still some question as to whether that includes Fred Meyer or if it includes the attached other businesses that it should be based on as well, such as Baskin-Robbins, Scrapper's Bookstore, Frame Shop, et cetera We need to verify that and the number of parking spaces that would be required based on that existing square footage, look at the parking counts that exist on the site, and make sure they are not using parking toward that total calculation that was intended for the other pads, such as Key Bank, McDonald's, Bruegger's Bagel and the other tenants in the pads there that have their own parking requirements as well. The applicant has stated in the fax we received today, if I go back to the site plan, the site plan showed that they were changing six aisles of existing parking that is at 45 degrees to five rows of 90 degree parking. They stated that this is no longer necessary, they simply will be able to put it in and maintain enough parking spaces. I state that we need a revised site plan, so we are sending on to Council a final plan for the proposal with all of the design issues worked out. I would recommend that it be continued so we can receive the site based on the parking calculations that will hopefully go over tonight and so we are forwarding on to City Council a finalized plan with design issues resolved. The second issue is the signage. The applicant is proposing to use reader boards that are flip-a-matic style. Staff does not support those and I would just state that any signage is approved tonight, we need to be specific to what is and what is not approved. Barbeiro: Is the applicant available please? Creager: My name is Bruce Creager, 18215 72"d South, Kent, WA. I'm with Barghausen Consulting Engineers, we are the planners, engineers and permit expeditors for the Fred Meyer gasoline station program. I'd like to speak tonight on the issues raised by staff with respect to our proposed Fred Meyer gasoline station addition to the Fred Meyer store. As explained by Mr. Siddoway, we are proposing to construct a five multi-product dispenser canopy which would result in the removal of 48 parking stalls from the existing Fred Meyer parking lot. With our original application, our first count of parking led us to believe that we would end of a net of 860 parking stalls, that would result from the 48 stalls and the net addition of 24 stalls from the re-striping at 90 degrees as depicted on the site Meridian Planning and Zorring~missi~ Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 9 plan that is before you. Upon discussion with the staff, we performed several recounts of the parking and found that, in fact, our starting point was higher than our previous starting point. Existing parking on the side is 913 parking stalls. I have an exhibit I would like to enter into the record that shows the stalls associated with the Fred Meyer store and the ancillary lessee's, such as Baskin Robbins. Also an exhibit that shows our parking analysis, the total square footage and how we analyzed. The exhibit I'm going to pass out shows no re- striping of fihe parking in the main parking field as depicted on this site plan. Essentially, this is the site plan that shows what we now propose to do, this is the revised site plan that staff is asking for. I want to emphasize the parking count on this plan includes the parking that is associated with Fred Meyer, the lessee, but does not include the parking for the out parcels. On this map, there is a faint line. The parking counts are supplied in this exhibit at the ends of each of the rows of parking, there is a number that has a circle around it. The calculations that we made show that 172,163 S.F., the store would require a minimum of 861 parking spaces. We have also broken down the individual uses inside the Fred Meyer store and the tenant spaces into it's composite warehouse space, office space and retail space. With that methodology, we've shown that the required parking would 685 stalls. In any case, assuming the greater amount of 861 stalls is the minimum parking required, we have demonstrated in fihe revised site plan that we have submitted, that the numbers are on the lower right hand corner of this 11X17 plan, that starting with 913 stalls, removing 48 parking stalls, we end up with a net total of 865 exceeding the minimum by 4 parking stalls. The second issue raised by staff relates to the signs proposed to be used for the prices. As shown on our application, the signs are aflip-a-matic type sign, there will be one price sign posted on the north wall, north fagade of the canopy, that will be facing the store. We will also be posting on the existing Fred Meyer pole sign, a price sign on each of the east and west faces of that sign. I wasn't aware until just a few minufies ago that staff was not in support of a flip-a-matic type sign. I knew that in the staff report that staff was not in support of an electronic reader board type sign. I want to emphasize that the signs that were are proposing are not an LED-type display, they are not the bulbs that form letters, they are numerals that flip displaying the price of the gasoline and only the price of gasoline. I`m not certain the reasons of the staff opposition to this type of sign. Siddoway: Are these flip-a-matic type signs that you are saying, they actually show numerals opposed to those neon dots that form the numbers? That's the type of flip-a-matic signs that I'm familiar with. Creager: My understand is that the numbers actually flip down and are, they are not pin type lights, I don't think it would be a flip type sign. The numbers are actually displayed on a solid surtace. Siddoway: Would they remain static with just the numbers displayed or would they be advertising specials and come in, like a reader board? Meridian Planning and ZoningZbmm~sia~ Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 10 Creager: They will be used to display the prices only. Nary: We are talking about the older alarms clocks, an electronic Rolodex. The only thing that is electronic about it is the ability to turn. The numbers are on a Rolodex and it just turns appropriately to display the appropriate numbers. There is no backlighting, no task lighting? Creager: I believe that there is illumination of that sign and I believe it is a task type lighting. The price on the canopy would be similarly illuminated. Siddoway: I have less objection to something that just numerals that could be changed as opposed to something we were envisioning as a reader board with the neon disks flipping in and out, to be able to put messages on. Creager: I wanted to add one more point and that is that the Fred Meyer Gasoline Program is designed to attract customers who are already at Fred Meyer buying groceries, non-perishables. Thais the purpose of advertising the sign toward the entrance to the store, it captures customer's attention as the price gasoline when they leave. We do believe that the majority of the customers will be accommodation of those both internally captured trips and the pass by trips. Therefore, that is why we need the prices posted out on the street as well, so we can remain at a competitive position with the other retailers in the area. With fihat, that concludes my testimony. Barbeiro: Any questions? Hatcher: My first question is, in your parking analysis, I noticed that you had excluded the pads in your count and granted they are pads, but more often than not, the parking requirements for pads overlap the lot lines. Does the Ciiy staff have confirmation that lot two, the parking stalls on lot two for that particular pad has it's adequate number of stalls and so on and so forth. More often than that, the pad does not allow for that, thus they borrow stalls from the main retailer. As of right now, we have four existing pads, you are talking about a fifth pad borrowing from the main retailer, I would question whether or not you have the required stalls. Creager: From a property use standpoint, the parcels at Fred Meyer spins off the outside parcels are required to be self parked, required to have the requisite number of parking stalls on their own individual lots and so there wouldn't be any joint parking agreements where the individual pads can use parking on Fred Met'er's ownership parcel for co-compliance purposes. Certainly as a functional practice, there may be customers that don't park within the boundaries. Hatcher: I'm talking the legalities. Meridian Planning and Zoning~ission Meeting August 8, 2Qtm Page 11 Creager: I can give you the real estate perspectives on that and maybe stall has a comment they would like to make. Siddoway: I don't know. I would have to go through these square footages and verify tot by lot individually. Mr. Barbeiro did some calculations that make it appear that the individual out parcels are relying on some parking from the Fred Meyer lot to make their parking counts. Hatcher: The one other comment that I wanted to ask about is on the proposed site plan that is on the screen right now. When you were looking at reconfiguring the 45 degree parking, actually it's 60 degree parking, to the perpendicular parking, you were also proposing to do landscape islands and trees and everything. Was that governed by staff or was that part of the original proposal? Creager: That was part of the original proposal submitted to staff. I•latcher: I am a proponent of landscaping. Now that I see it, I wanfi it. Creager: The modified site plan shows a no-net loss of landscaping with the landscape islands being added on at the ends of the rows of parking. There is a no-net loss in that respect. I believe that the number of, we still have landscape islands at the end of all rows of parking and in this exhibit, we have a total of 8 smaller square shaped landscaped islands. I believe we have the same quantify roughly of landscaping. Siddoway: The only planters currently are the short-boxed ones that create the compact stalls every so often. The ends are currently striped, not planters. I don't know if Brad reviewed the site to see if it's fully in compliance with the one threeanch Caliper tree per 1500 SF of asphalt. This would be an opportunity for us to bring it into compliance if it's not. I would just like a chance to take this new proposal to Brad and give him a chance to work out those issues. Norton: Mr. Creager, since you are here form Kent, Washington, before we continue this or make a proposal, I have a couple of questions. A comment on the site plan, the gas prices are 1.23 and 1.33 and 1.43, I sure like those gas prices. My other comment is you have located this in the busiest intersection, in and out of Fred Meyer. That's really a busy intersection off of Fairview, right where McDonald's is. To me, 1 would like to see that over where the garden center is in the Meridian Fred Meyer, where you could turn one way into Chevron and the other way into Fred Meyer gas. It would alleviate the congestion in and out of that entrance to McDonald's and into Fred Meyer. Did you consider that choice of location? Creager: We looked at a number of possible locations for the gas facility on this site. There were two issues, one is to maintain visibility to the street and the other is being able to have a set up that takes up stalls that will minimize the ~~:._ ~;. .Y } ~~ ' Meridian Planning and 2oningission Meeting ' ' ~s ;°T~ August 8, 2000 Page 12 lesser used stalls in the facility and capture cars as fihey enter the site. There is roughly 55 or 60 #eet of throat in that driveway anti! you can turn and position yourself, to drive toward the fueling facility. We have a fueling facility that theoretically can process about 168 cars per hour. We don't anticipate that 1 ~-~ volume of cars, so the amount of cueing that we anticipate is nominal. We have - considered attemate locations, this is the preferred location far those reasons. i ,~': ~ ~ ~~ Nary: Has there been any traffic study or anything done by your firm of how - much increase trip traffic this would make to have this gas station there? Creager: We have trip generation numbers that were generated by our professional traffic consultant engineer, those numbers have been included in the ~`~ = application for this conditional use permit. The numbers forecasted are in the '' daily range of about 1,600 trips during the p.m. peak when you will see the ~ ^ ~~~ heaviest volume of track. On Fairview, we are looking at range of maximum of 54. 7 Norton: In staff comments, it looks like there are several comments, 14 site specific comments, and you have only commented on the parking. You verbally `y ~~, commented on the sign. Staff has asked the Commission to particularly address the proposed 24 hour operation and the safety of it. I noticed that in your safety ' " ' ~ ~ report that there is an alarm system in the main store, however, it will be by card " ` oMy between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when no one is in the store for safety. Do you consider any safety problems on your 24 hour when there is not a person in the kiosk? Creager: I would like to clarify that during the hours of 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., ~s~` there will be personnel in the Fred Meyer store. There will not be a cashier at the ~' "~ kiosk. Personnel at the Fred Meyer store will range from security personnel who , r~; are located in the security office where the closed circuit television monitors that ,~ are operable 24 hours a day will display on those security monitors, the activity out at the kiosk. There will be the alarm system that will be sounded inside the security office as well. We are fatty in compliance with the other requirements of the Uniform Fire Code Article 52 that stipulates specific conditions that have to = be met when we have an unattended gasoline facility. I've enumerated some of "~ those Items in my conditional use permit application, the project narrative and justification. Y.{. Ry ~h, .: of Norton: So there are security people inside in the wee hours of the night? Creager: Yes. Hatcher: Because of the Playland at that McDonald's, that McDonald's is an extremely popular spot between four and six p.m. in the afternoons. Many times ~~ i= this intersection is blocked with people trying to get in and out and I, myself, has ' ~~ '~:~~ had problems getting out of the McDonald's parking lot because to the west, is ~: z.r Meridian Planning and Zoning~missi~ Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 13 the drive-thru that is lined up and often stacked back as many as 19 cars at one time. Getting in and out of here, some cars will get stuck trying to get into the drive-thru. My concern is stacking and people being able to get in and out of McDonald's. This exit here is the exit for the drive-thru and I see an opportunity for problems with traffic in this area. Could you address those for us please? Creager: Although we are marketing our gasoline to the customers who are exiting the Fred Meyer's store, we believe that a majority of the customers that are buying gas and shopping at Fred Meyer will indeed buy gasoline first. Customers buying groceries first wouldn't want to get gas after. We do expect customers will be turning into this driveway and conveniently making an immediate right into the gasoline station, that would avoid any cross traffic conflicts. Looking at the preliminary plat, you see the cars that will be entering into the site, a distance of roughly 55 to 60 feet before they turn and then will enter the fueling facility. In our opinion, that may help disburse the traffic a little bit and pull away some of the traffic that otherwise might congest. It's not going to solve the problem that McDonald's is presenting, but it will help to alleviate to some degree. Hatcher: To address your concern and Commissioner Norton's concern, I would pose suggestion to and staff can take it from here, is instead of having the facility here on this busy intersection which is already a traffic nightmare and this would only make it worse, I suggest the potential to relocate the facility to here. It would still give Fred Meyer adequate street venue, basically it would still meet their demographic requirements, but it will help avoid internal traffic on the site and tha# problem overflowing onto Fairview. Creager: My concern in respect to that location is that is forces motorists who are entering into the Fred Meyer site and desiring to buy gas first, requires them to turn left across outgoing #raffic and so we may potential stacking problems. Whereas the proposal you have before you, the motorists can turn into the facility and make an immediate right and then enter into the fueling facility and then exit out through the north end into one or more of the rovers. Nary: Basically, we can only decide on what your proposal is. Fred Meyer has decided the only place they would prefer to build this station at this time is in that location there, right across from McDonald's. I guess I'm a little curious on your comment earlier that part of your reason for lighted reader boards sign facing Fred Meyer is to attract the customers exiting the store and then you said you are actually thinking most people will enter that intersection and go immediately to the gas station before they go to the store. That seems a little inconsistent to me. Isn't that what you said? Creager: What I said is that we are trying to provide our marketing of our gasoline to both the customers on the street who may be potential pass by ~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning mission Meeting Aught 8, 2000 Page 14 customers or customers who are going to enter the store, we also want to have the prices displayed for those customers who are exiting the store. Hatcher: In the traffic study, you said that the traffic will only increase only about nine cars. Creager: During the p.m. peak. Hatcher: What you would like, you want us to believe that Fred Meyer wishes to build this gas station at this location to attract essentially 9 customers per day during the peak period, more than what they get now. Creager: Nine net new trips would be net new to the roadway. Hatcher: Was there any discussion with Fred Meyer? I think you can understand where we are coming from, all the questions we have concern this particular intersection as difficult as it is now, and what you are waiting, appears to be traffic stacking up here to get into this facility. We have a potential for stacking up people here, we have a potential for stacking up people here trying to cross this roadway, and Fred Meyer's solution to that is nothing. Correct? There is no alternative that Fred Meyer wishes to consider to address those traffic concerns. Creager: We believe that the proposal is sound and that it provides the potential for two cars stacking in front of each fueling position and it also provides enough room for a pass by trips and even if a customer decides that they, after pulling in here that they don't want to wait, they can drive through and go on and park and shop. There is upwards from 55 to 60 feet of space, up to three car lengths, before you turn into and position yourself at the fueling facility. As far as the number of cars during the p.m. peak, I want to make it absolutely clear both in my written information and the information I've testified to tonight, that the p.m. peak traffic that we are expecting, would be on the order of a maximum of 140 or so trips during the p.m. peak and of those total, we would have a range of 9 to 54 that would be new to the roadway. Hatcher: Mr. Creager, have you made note of the ACRD report on the gas station? Creager: Can you tell me the date and the author of that report? I think I've seen that, I think I have it here. Hatcher: July 31st Creager: July 31~ letter signed by Penelope Constant. I do have that report here. Meridian Planning and ZOnin~ommissi~ Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 15 Hatcher: On line Item 7, page 3, staff recommends that Fred Meyer driveway to reloca#ed to the north either to align with Carol Street or to maintain an access of 125 feet south of Carol Street. Could you comment on that for us? Creager: I'm afraid that I can't. I know that the staff, this report was a January 25, 1995, staff report that was in reference to the Fred Meyer retail store development. I read through that and tried to pick out what was relevant. Hatcher: I apologize, I did not make note of that that it was from 1995. I only saw the July 31"x. Barbeiro: Anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the gas station at Fred Meyer? Anyone here in opposition? Corval: My name is Robert Corval, 3653 Presidential Drive, Meridian. I really wasn't here to talk about this, but as long as it's on the table, in addition to what most of you have commented on trying to tum in or mostly turn out onto Fairview from that driveway, at peak traffic times is haaardous and backs up traffic quite a bit already. I would wonder if the comments made by traffic engineers and by the developer, if any of them have actually come here to observe the traffic or if it has all been studies done at already existing Fred Meyer's in other places. Barbeiro: Anyone else? Haggett: My name is Rob Haggett, 590 North Maple Grove Road, Boise. I'm here as a representative of Aves# Limited Partnership, owners of the pad sites at the Fred Meyer development. I'm not here to deny or support the application, just to say that at this point we have not supported it or denied it. We are neutral at this point to the application. Barbeiro: Anyone else? Hatcher: I make a motion to close the public hearing for discussion. Creager: The two previous speakers, we would be willing in light of the issue of the landscaping, we would be willing to landscape the ends of the rows of the parking stalls as shown in our proposal presented to you tonight. I apologize for that error and that is something we would be willing to do in order to be able to retain the existing 60 degree parking configuration. I believe that would result in matching the quality of the landscaping that was depicted on this plan and maybe even a little more landscaping. Hatcher: I was just concerned about if we don't come to resolution on this tonight, I think there are some outstanding issues, a revised site showing the proper configuration, something to tie up these loose ends. That would require a continuation. I think we need to keep the public hearing open. Meridian Planning and Zoning~misRion Meeting ,4ugust s, a~ Page 16 &;~~ Norton: I still feel that is the wrong site for us people who go in and out of Fred Meyer and that is a very congested, very dangerous site no matter how you look at it with people trying to zip into that turn lane from way back, even moving the gas station over to the far left end of that landscaping, closer to the Subway and Bruegger Bagelry would be a better thing. At this point, I'm opposed to it if they insist on keeping it where it is. Nary: I guess I mildly disagree with Commissioner Hatcher only because I don't think the issue, in my mind, is the parking. I think the parking is probably adequate on that side. I agree that it's not very clear because some of this information is new and our staff hasn't had time to really digest it. I really more concerned with the traffic location where that station's going to be. The traffic in that location is terrible, it's very difficult now. I don't see this as any improvement, in fact I think it's worse. The traffic study, I don't have it, it isn't an ACHD study telling us how difficult that intersection is going to be to deal with. I don't know if it's in compliance with what was required in 1995, whether this change and this addition which is new since 1995, would change what ACRD would want for that roadway. If you look at some of the comments in the 1995 staff report from ACRD, they use a tot of terms like this is the minimum amount of space, this is the minimum amount for what is already being proposed then. t don't know that it wouldn't be different now, congesting that particular driveway to this degree that's being proposed. I look at our 1117-3 of our City Ordinance and I see two areas that I have not seen addressed in your testimony tonight. 1117-3e says that for a conditional use to be granted, that the use would be served adequately by a central public facility and services such as highways, streets, and some other things. I don't think that's been provided to us. I look at sub (h) which says we will have vehicular approach to the property so designed so as not to create interference with traffic on surrounding public streets. t think most of the people here have seen how difficult that particular location is to maneuver right now. I don't think it's going to improve by having a gas station at that site and on that location. I think it serves Fred Meyer's interests, I don't think it serves anyone else's. I think there are other sites on that location if you wanted that. What I'm concerned with is if you ever had a sale at that gas station like some of our local retailers have done, that traffic will be backed up to ShopKo at Eagle Road coming out of that driveway. There is no way there will be adequate space to have any cars trying to get in and out of that location. It doesn't serve the needs of what the conditional use standard is here and that it's going to provide some enhancement, the trees would be nice. I don't think the building, et cetera enhances this site at all and I think it makes that location even worse than what it is now. I think a lot of people would be going to the Council in a month saying we don't want traffic stacked out of that driveway more than it is already. I don't think it really has met the needs, I guess I'm really not in favor of a continuance. Unless you tell us you are going to change it, there's nothing that's going to change it by having parking change. .a:.- .. _ Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmissicm Me~ing August 8, 2000 Page 17 Hatcher: I"m not opposed to the project. I'm not opposed to Fred Meyer putting in a 24/7 gas station in, but I have to concur with comments of this board to date. I'm in support of continuing this so that the issues can be resolved and presented at a later date. If we deny it, we have to start everything all over again. What I would recommend, however, is that in Fred Meyer's best interest, that they look at the comments and issues that have been brought forth tonight because I think in Fred Met'er's best interest for this community, move it away ftom that location. This is a much better location than this. You are talking a 100-150 feet, but it will make a world of difference because the entry to the site carries about four times the traffic that this entry does. Landscaping, I would want to make sure that because of this project, the requirements of our current ordinances are met and not tha# we have digressed in 1995 standards. I recommend a continuance to our next meeting. Siddoway: From my perspective, I think you nailed it on the head as far as location. Several stacking issues that could impact Fairview and cars are continually having problems in that area. I have nothing further to add. Barbeiro: Mr. Creager, the public hearing is still open and I would like to see if I can give a synopsis of this. Essentially everyone is for you going ahead and putting in the gas station. They would all prefer that it was set back. At this point, if you have been in the City during p.m. peak, assume 5:20 p.m., you will find that it stacks all the way back to the Subway station. We would find it better if people came into the gas station, tend to exit out of this, not out of this here. We have some options and get some legal advice. We can recommend approval to the City Council with the condition that you move it over here. Nary: When we forward something to City Council, we need to have the site plan basically completed so they are looking at the recommended site plan, not a site plan with a list of recommended changes. Barbeiro: The consensus appears to be that everyone here would prefer to continue it and that you come back with it. Creager: We would like the opportunity to go back to Fred Meyer Corporate and discuss the issues that you've raised tonight, take an in-depth analysis of the issues as far as circulation and location of the gas station and then return to you with a response at your meeting. Norton: You will be discussing with your corporate offices, changing the location? Creager: Yes. We will discuss that with them and explain that it was unanimous. Norton: How long have you been in Boise? ~~y yx ~ ;,~. ,:, ;, , ,. ~_-s~ ~'': _ ~~ ..~~ ~~F: AAeridian Plann'mg and Zoningissian Meeting August 8, 20~ Page 18 Creager: 1 was down here during the p.m. peak last time 1 was here. Barbeiro: Do we have a motion? Nary: I motion that we continue Item No. 4, CUP-00-041, for the Fred Meyer Gas Station to our next scheduled P 8~ Z meeting, September 12"', give the applicant time to work out details with staff. Hatcher: Second: Barbeiro: We have a motion and second. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT item No. 5 Public Hearing: CUP-00-044 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a 4,125 S.F. tilt-up concrete building for Eagle Concr®te Pumping in the Flood Plain Overlay District by Rod and Sheri Eisele - N. Baltic Place in Meridian Business Park. Barbeiro: Item No. 5, public hearing, request for conditional use permit to construct a 4,125 s.f. tilt-up concrete building for Eagle Concrete Pumping in the Flood Plain Overlay District by Rod and Sheri Eisele. We will open the public hearing. Siddoway: This is a conditional use permit submitted by Eagle Concrete Pumping. It is in the Meridian Business Park generally located off Franklin. This blue area here, this is the new fire station and the existing cemetery, Baltic Plane goes north and ends in a cul-de-sac on the west side of that cul-de-sac, is the subject site. The proposed use by Eagle Concrete Pumping is an allowed use in the cone that it is, I-L. The reason it is before you as a conditional use permit is because it is in the flood plain. The site is fully in the 100-year flood plain and our ordinance requires all structures within the flood plain to be approved through the conditional use permit process. I'm not aware of any hot button topic on this one, you have our staff comments dated August 1St. I recommend approval based on those common#s and would give the applicant a chance to speak on any problems he has on those comments. This is the site here, Lot 10, Block 2, this is the subject property. Here are some site photographs. This is the proposed site plan and any issues that we have regarding the site plan are included in the staff comments. Barbeiro: Would the applicant wish to come forward, please? Larson: My name is Cornell Larson, 210 Murray Street, Boise. I'm here this evening representing the applicant on this project. We really don't have any concerns on the staff conditions, we were somewhat aware of them before we €~?j;__ $J Meridian Punning and zoning mission Meeting • August 8, 2400 Page 19 started. We would be happy to answer any questions you have or concems you might have on the project. Barbeiro: Any questions or concerns, Commissioners? Norton: Mr. Larson, I just have a note, are you aware of the sanitation comment regarding the solid waste gates that are too small. Larson: Yes, we will make them bigger. Barbeiro: Anything else? This is a public hearing, anyone here wishing to speak in favor of Mr. Carson's proposal? Seeing none, anyone here wishing to speak in opposition? Seeing none, Commissioners? Nary: I move that we close the public hearing. Hatcher: Second. Barbeiro: Motion made and seconded. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Barbeiro: Public hearing is closed. Discussion? Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve CUP-00-044, request for a conditional use permit to construct a 4,125 s.f. tilt-up concrete building for Eagle Concrete Pumping in the Flood Plain Overlay District by Rod and Sheri Eisele in the North Baltic Place in Meridian Business Park with staff comments. Norton: Second. Barbeiro: A motion and a second; all those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item No. 6 Public Hearing: AZ-00-017 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 52.90 acres from RT to R-4 by Primeland Dev®lopment Co., LLP for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision -North of Ustick and East of Ten Mile. Barbeiro: Item No. 6, request for annexation and zoning of 52.90 acres from RT to R-4 by Primeland Development Co., LLP for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision. I would like to open the public hearing. Is the applicant with us? Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zonirtg~mission Meetir~ August 8, 20~ Pag® 20 Siddoway: I will combine my comments for Items No. 6, 7, and 8, all of which are Bridgetower Subdivision. The first one being annexation and zoning, the second being the conditional use permit on the planning and development, and the third being the preliminary plat Item No. 6 is the annexation and zoning of 52.90 acres, you can see the site in the diagram. This is Ustick Road, iYs north of Ustick, this is Ten Mile and this is Linder, and it's between these iwo major cross streets in this location. The proposal is to change the zoning to R-4, the residential subdivision. These are some site photos, there are two existing houses which you will see in a minute and existing driveway that connects down to Ustick Road. The proposal would be to abandon tha# driveway and having it located in this location over here. Standing from this location where that new bridge over Five Mile Creek, and looking east, Ustick Road in the background, gives you some sense of the character of the Creek in that location. Also looking west from the existing bridge, across the parcel, directly south, there is a parcel that is still in the County, has existing combines and farm machinery on it. This is looking west along Ustick, looking northwest, the corner of the site being in this location here. This is the existing driveway that goes back to the two existing houses. There is an existing residence close to Ustick I believe, that is proposed to be removed as part of this process. Flere we have details of some of the planting plan and the proposed layout of this subdivision. There is a 5 acre park in this location here and I'll speak to that to that in a minute. Item No. 8, this is the proposed !ot layout. We have a response from the applicant, it seems that the main two issues, one is relating to the park in this location here along Ustick. They would like to dedicate it to the City as a City Park. They have been talking to Tom Kuntz today and there is an outstanding issue as whether they would be able to dedicate that in lieu of park impact fees or not. From a staff position, it really needs to be worked out, not from our office, but between the applicant and the Parks Department. I would state that as a planning and development, 10percent common open space is required, a 50 acre annexation, 50 acre subdivision would require 5 acres of open space. Certainly they should not be given credit for impact fees for something that would have been required already, but if there are additional improvements that increase the value of that, then they can work that out with the Parks Department. The second main issue dealt with sewage issues on preliminary plat comment number 12. I will turn that over to Bruce Freckleton. I know that they have been talking about that issue and just as a final comment, note thafi the ACRD report is no# one that has been acted on by the Commission until tomorrow. 1 don't knew if there are any major outstanding issues there that would prevent this body from acting on the application tonight, but I just want you to be aware of that. Freckleton: The response from the applicant regarding the relief line and the easements for that relief line. The City currently has an easement for the construction of relief sewer along the north boundary of Five Mile Creek. We have a permanent easement and an adjacent construction easement that gives us adequate room to be able to get in there and build it. Unfortunately tonight, I don't have timing on that project. Brad Watson in our office has been pp1.1. E ~~~ ,,. ~ ~. . ~ ~~~- v ~' _ rC. :e4. - Meridian Planning and Zoning~missiai Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 21 coordinating that and he is out of town. Certainly our biggest concern is that we have the corridor free to be able to go in there and construct that line and that we don't have houses and other things encroaching into the area that we will need for construction. Barbeiro: Would the applicant wish to come forward? Bowcutt: My name is Becky Bowcutt, 11283 West Hickorydale, Boise. I am representing the applicant in this matter. For the record, could you combine my testimony on all three applications. If 1 could, could I use the easel? Hatcher: Becky, could I make a quick request? In tonight's presentation, could you give us a summary of the overall project and address issues and convict. Bowcutt: This is the Bridgetower Subdivision and this is the first preliminary plat that will come before you later on. This is to be sewered on the Five Mile Creek trunk line, on that sewer line, runs on the northside of Five Mile Creek. There is existing water in Ustick Road and we do adjoin city limits. ACRD staff has reviewed this application, they have formulated a staff report, we were in agreement with all of their conditions of approval. They evaluated Ustick Road, it was determined the level of service at this point in time is above C, between B and C. They did a traffic count in May of this year. Based on full build out, we would not have any negative impact on that rating on that arterial. It would remain between a B and a C according to ACRD. The crease and lateral cuts this property off and that is the border for this sewer service area. Everything north of this would go into the White Drain Trunk. We submitted application for a PUD for this subdivision asking for an R-4 and annexation. The PUD was to deviate from the standard 80-foot frontage that is specified under the ordinance in the R-4 zone. All the lots you see here, meet or exceed 8,000 S.F. The average lot size in here excluding these three lots here and these two oversized lots here, is 10,400 + s.f. We had a collector concept that comes into this project where we have no front on housing, substantial amount of landscaping adjoining that and then we have twice the amount of landscaping on our perimeter as required by your ordinance. These three to#s that you see here, they would be zoned to R-4. However, in the future, when your new comp plan comes through, we will come in and ask for an LO zone here to have some type of office that would be able to co-exist, such as medical office with the residential character of this area. Obviously since this is separated from the project, it does adjoin a minor arterial. We would not want to put the single family up against this. We are coming in with what we call the loop concept. It creates a neighborhood within an overall neighborhood. This is one here and one located here. Our park area, meets or exceeds your ten percent requirement for open space. We do have same existing mature trees that are on the site right here. This collector roadway was designed at this location because there is additional property to the east and that would provide service. We were understand discussions at this time for the possibility for maybe an elementary school located there if the school Meridian Plannlrtg and zoning mission Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 22 district is agreeable to that. If so, that use would generate approximately 2,000 trips a day and therefore the need for this collector roadway. Also, with a nice open park, we have a good view corridor into the project and we have also proposed a homeowner's rec center in our project. This gives you a little better view of what it would look like. The rec center would be located right here, adjoining this entrance. The character would be kind of Mediterranean. We would have a swimming pool, restrooms, and this would function as a sales office in the beginning and then after the project moves northward and another center is constructed, we would then utilize that just for the homeowner's association. There would also be a tower that's attached to the recreation building. This kind of gives you a conceptual view of what it will Zook like. The height is 35 feet and it would be within the height limitation for that R-4 zone. We feel that we have a unique project and we are going to continue to carry this type of loop and collector theme throughout the project with amenities and recreation centers that would be available to these residents. Moving on to the conditions, I'll highlight those issues that we differed on. For clarification on annexation and site specific requirement number 3, staff has indicated that they would like a 20 foot buffer located on this west side because this is zoned R-4. My comment to them, was we would do a 20 foot setback of the buildings or any parking, therefore have that 20 foot buffer and provide that. We understand that you are not approving this office, we just want it to be on the record that that is our intent so in the future when we come back to rezone that, there is no discrepancies. Staff had a question on the single point of ingress and egress, ACRD policy manual allows us to have one point of ingress and egress for up to 100 homes. They work with us, tike we have approximately 106 buildable Tots, they work with us well. My understanding is your Fire Department on another development with similar type design allowed them to have up to 130 homes on one single access. This collector roadway that we are working on our design to the north will continue on to Ten Mile and then swing out to Linder Road. We will have a very complex network of collector roadways. Staff indicated that they thought it might be a good idea to stripe these collectors for bike paths. In our discussion concerning that, we thought that if we were going to have high volumes on our collectors, we wouldn't want to mix our bicycles with the vehicles. The way this was structured, we have an existing bridge here that could take bicycle traffic and walking traffic. Then we've got networks that come through with pedestrian pathways that link all the way through the project, so you can go from one pod to the next ,et cetera I don't necessarily know if that's such a good idea. It was not recommended by ACRD. That is Item 10 under preliminary plat requirements. Item 12 was the issue of the relief line. That existing sewer truck that is right here, the City intends to construct a relief line parallel to that, offset 15 feet. Based on the information that Bruce and I were reviewing this afternoon, it appears that that permanent easement would be right here at the back of these lots. That line starts veering away from us in this area. There is about 5 lots where that 25-foot permanent easement would be right on that lot line. There is a temporary construction easement that does overlap. 1 guess what I'd like to do is fi'Y to work with the staff since I'd hate to not be able to install of some of these ~~~_ s~~ t u+:.: `: Meridian Planning and Zoniny~mmission Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 23 improvements when we go through and say put our pressurized irrigation in, I'd hate to stop it and leave out this whole length here. Obviously by the time you come on line, we are looking at next year. Hopefully that relief line will be in. We feel that there is plenty of room to work with. Obviously we will cooperate with your staff and I'd like to find some middle ground there instead of stating that these lots can not be built on a no improvements. Conditional Use requirement number 3 on pathways, I think staff asked me to address that in the public hearing. I did meet with Mr. Kuntz today at the Parks Department. I asked the question about Five Mile Creek, since on your comprehensive plan that is designated as a pathway. This is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation. It is a 140 foot swath, that is owned in fee simple. So it's not an easement, so any pathway would have to go on Bureau of Rec's property. The maintenance is Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, so a license agreement would have to be signed by some type of entity for that pathway. I asked Mr. Kuntz about the pathway as far as what the plan is. He indicated that the City would be installing the pathway. Obviously he didn't have any requests of us. We have a linkage here that would link into that and that was one reason why we chose this location for our park was because it is along that pathway and when the pathway is improved in the future, you have bicyclists, you have people walking and jogging. This is a nice destination area off the pathway and it would be a great linkage. The School District, one of their hopes is that they can do a joint site as a park/ school site. They are usually bigger than the standard 12-acre elementary site, they will use around 14 to15 acres, but they work very well. Hopefully we can make some progress. I don't think that is a critical use this evening, because obviously this is going to be improved open space since we are coming in under a PUD. Whether it is private or public, whether impact fees are issued or not, that's an issue that would be worked out with the Parks Department. This is a two-phase project. Under your Section 1267(e4), it does allow for the common area to be dedicated to a public body under your PUD chapter. The ordinance does address it, but it doesn't give a lot of guidance, but allows for that. Barbeiro: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor of this proposal? Watson: My name is Warren Watson, 1680 W. Ustick Road, Meridian. She made a couple of comments that I disagree with. She said that the Bureau of Reclamation owns Five Mile Creek. They have an easement only to run water across my land, I own the land and I pay taxes on the land. You better check again before you start putting a jogging path through there. When you do, if you will let me know, then maybe I will get this corrected. The next concern that I had was right behind the house, there is a cemetery, 5 acres. I don't know what means you are taking to address it, but I do have a solution for you if you would like to talk with me later. As far as the irrigation company, I've been fighting with them for 30 years. They call that an old drain ditch. That is not Five Mile Creek. We can pollute an old drain ditch, but we can't pollute Five Mile Creek. If you check your records again, you also own all the underneath. The homeowners do ~;,,, . ;.ri Meridian Planning and Zonin~mmission Meeting August 8, 2000 <<;;;_ `~ Page 24 own to the middle of Ustick Road, they have an easement. The Bureau of ~;-~~ Reclamation has an easement across my land for two reasons. One is to dig and two is to run water and three, to maintain, they have a right to come down and maintain. Barbeiro: Anyone else like to speak in favor of the proposal? Seeing none, anyone like to speak in opposition to this proposal? Seeing none. I did have a ,yF,?'< question for Becky. Becky, what is the anticipated total build out on this '. development? ~' Bowcutt: As far as the development in it's entirety, 10 to 15 years. The number of lots, the first phase would consist of approximately 50 lots and the second phase would be the remainder. ={a Barbeiro: You said there would be additions to this particular development to go up Ten Mile and to continue over to Linder. ~. . ~` '`~ ~' ~~ Bowcutt: The loop on the west side will start here. Nary: What is the big picture? How many phases, how many total lots? You talked about a collector road going up Ten Mile and heading back to Linder. I'm .F looking at the parcels with major large sized parcels and I'm looking at which ~~ ~ ones they will be potentially be. What are we talking about, 500 lots, a thousand? Bowcutt: For the record, I can't tell you the exact number of lots because we are still formulating our concept. We are on the fourth version of the concept and the number of lots vary. The size of the lots, the smallest lots I believe we have are typically in excess of 8,000 S.F., they go all the way up to 15-20,000 s.f. We are ~` bringing this particular plat through at this time because it is isolated by the ' '°~ ~ crease and lateral. It is also serviced by another trunk line unrelated to the White ,; Trunk. One of the things that we had discussed is, once we open the Ustick ~~ ~r.~ entrance then also thereafter, we would be opening the Ten Mile entrance. The - _ next preliminary plat that you will see, will consist of the remainder of the parcels. There are multiple parcels, multiple owners that have been combined to make up :°>t '~ this particular project. It's not a piece meal project in any shape or form. We =~ have done excessive planning to make sure that we are planning the collector's ~< , the pathways, the amenities, that will be needed to support the project. .~ Nary: I guess I want to address Mr. Watson's concerns regarding the ownership >F ~` ,p:~ of the other parcel. That really doesn't have an impact on your application or does it? r ''' Bowcutt: We are not infringing within that 140 feet that's designated. For the ~t record, the Ada County Assessor's map, it states that is it the United States ~~ Government. My conversations with John Kaywood at Bureau of Rec, he ~I'v~~ .r ,~ .- . z~~:>- .. , -. ~, ~... r. ~_~~ ,E Meridian Planning and Zonin~mmission Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 25 indicated to me that they do own it in fee simple. Nampa Meridian Irrigation District confirmed that. I guess I would have to review Mr. Watson's information. The information that I received from the governing agencies claimed that it was theirs. Obviously, like I said, we don't impact it, so in fact, it is moot. To answer your questions, obviously the magnitude of the next plat will be different from what the Planning & Zoning Commission has seen in the past as far as the size and the complexity. However, you need to remember that everything won't come on line simultaneously, aproject of that size happens over 15 year time period. If the proper improvements and public facilities, such as sewer, water, collectors, are made, then obviously the system can handle it. Ten Mile, once that interchange goes through in the future, which according to some members of your communities, is going to be soon, we will see Ten Mile Road become another Eagle Road. Norton: Are you envisioning another Banbury where they started small and just kept growing? Is that similar to what your project is going to encompass approximately? Bowcutt: Are you comparing to the size of the lots or how it just eventually spread westward? Norton: How it spread. Bowcutt: Yes. This project, you'd obviously open up multiple access points into it. We would be providing three different levels of homes. This particular level here would be your $150,000 to 190,000 range and it will go up from there. We are deviating on our frontages, the lots are a little narrower, but we compensated with our depth. Most of our lots are in that 120 range, I've got some that are even 148 feet deep. Norton: I have another question regarding the cemetery that Mr. Watson referred to. Are you aware of where that cemetery is? Bowcutt: Yes. We have located it. Norton: What are your plans regarding this? Bowcutt: If you see these two houses here, these are two existing homes. These are the Young's homes. Their driveway currently comes out here. If you follow that due north, that cemetery is right up here, approximately 600 to 800 feet north of those homes. We have located it, we have been gathering information on the historical value of it, we have spent many hours trying to figure out what is the best way to handle it and to incorporate it into the development, but not make it a focal point. I'd be glad to talk to Mr. Watson and get any information he has. v,, ~~:; ~~,~, .: ,1,, w~ ~ :=~ ~~ -, ~~_. "_T,: ~. ~.: ~; :~ ui~;~~; ~~ . ~ ~> `r:-~, ;~s, ~ir1 ?` Meridian Planning and Zonin~mmission Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 26 Hatcher: You addressed staff comments on bike paths and ACHD's review of that as well. Clarify for me what you had stated. The recommendation was that the bike paths be painted on the asphalt of the collector roads, are you providing adjacent bike/pedestrian paths to those collectors and also is that what's being snaked around as part of the Greenbelt. Bowcutt: We will have offset sidewalks here and a meandering offset sidewalk here. This will be a bridge over Five Mile Creek, it will be decorative with probably some rock fascia. Then the sidewalks are detached and meandering along both sides of the collector. Hatcher: So there is a detached meandering sidewalk adjacent to the collector. Bowcutt: Yes, we are planning in our concept for the future preliminary plat, we are working on creating pathways along the White Drain, running in the east- west direction, we are also working on trying to create a pathway along this crease and lateral so when it's piped in the future, it wouldn't just be a gravel corridor. We know we will have to honor that Nampa Meridian easement and we'd like to do something that will have some usefulness, still attractive and meets the needs of Nampa Meridian. That would be another bicycle-pedestrian linkage here. We have this ped path here, it drops you right down to here, there is an existing bridge here that is concrete, about 20 feet wide used for vehicular purposes at this time. My recommendation was it would be left there and be an excellent use for pedestrians and bicycles to come across and then get on that sidewalk there. Hatcher: Do you feel it is adequate to carry the loads of children from an elementary school throughout the subdivision while also accommodating the 1,000 trip traffic on the adjacent road? t ~ t'',` ::~<, Bowcutt: Yes sir I do. I wouldn't want the kids riding in the roadway of the collectors. The collectors can have up to 8,000 trips a day. I'd like to keep the bikes detached away from those roadways. Nary: When I look at this Preliminary Plat Requirement 10, if ACHD does not require the bike lane, this condition is not requiring bike lanes. It says work with ACHD to coordinate bike lanes. Hatcher: The City Ordinance 12-4-12, states that the bicycle and pedestrian pathway should be encouraged. The staff recommends that the applicant coordinate with ACHD to provide the bike lanes within the right-of--way. Nary: It doesn't sound to me that that's a requirement that they have to have bike lanes on the pathway. Hatcher: This would not require them to put them in if ACHD didn't want them. g:~ - ;'i J,y , . S ~ ..~ .. $~ 1 r'. . 's: ~f ' :S z x:.z:`; =~: ~- ~~ z,:c gip; s `- ~uR ~ ~ _~~~. =~r: h ~}'C`~. ~~?~_ ~~ W { ~; ,} ,. ~. ,` ;x ~:-; ~~:~. ~~~_ y, -~r~~ ~:: ".4 }ih5'--, Meridian Planning and Zoning~ommission Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 27 Nary: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways are encouraged within the new development. So it appears from Ms. Bowcutt stated, they are having something like that, it's just not going to be on the roadway. On the conditional use requirements number 1, I thought was simple a normal boiler plate about other conditions being imposed. It appears from Ms. Bowcutt's response, she simply asked they all be included in the document. Hatcher: You have the opportunity to provide additional conditions above and beyond what staff requirements are in the ordinances. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners) Siddoway: Just to speak from staff perspective on Conditional Use Permit Requirement No. 3, regarding the pathway along this Bureau of Reclamation site on Five Mile Creek. In my conversations with Brad Hawkins-Clark this afternoon, I was under the impression that the applicant had agreed to construct those pathways. I was just point out that this information that was presented about Tom Kuntz at the Park Department that the City was going to build those, is new to me and strikes me as odd. The condition simply states the applicant is to coordinate pathway improvements with the Meridian Park's Director, so I think that statement can continue as is. Bowcutt: Mr. Hawkins-Clark and I did have a discussion, I think he kind of got off track. The discussion we had was pitting two agencies against each other, that if the City wanted the pathway constructed, we would obviously have to get approval from Nampa Meridian. The continue to harp on this issue of liability and that they will agree to it if the City will indemnify them and so my discussion was I could not commit to anything that I have no power to make happen. We never indicated that we would construct that pathway because we weren't quite sure what the City's position would be. Obviously Mr. Kuntz was quite clear that the City would do it. He didn't want any participation or input from us. Barbeiro: Any further questions? Nary: I move to close the public hearing. Hatcher: Second. Barbeiro: A motion and second to close the public hearing. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Hatcher: I would like to ask for a staff summary over the discussion we have had over the last hour. I would like the staff to address specifically is Becky's answers. You had concems, she gave us responses to those concerns. Are you ~~{ _ e _L Meridian Planning and Zoning~ommission Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 28 satisfied with her responses as in writing or do you need further information to her responses? Siddoway: In my mind, the biggest ongoing issues deal with the parks and the impact fees been waived or not. That is something that won't necessarily hold it up at this stage of the game. It is something that needs to be worked out. The issue of the sewer easements that we don't have the information from Brad Watson yet on the timing. We don't have that information for the applicant yet. Hatcher: Is that something that can be worked out? Siddoway: That will have to be referred to Public Works on that. I guess as far as the temporary construction easement situation goes, obviously we have a construction easement there to give us adequate room that we need to construct the line. We felt that that area was needed or we wouldn't have asked for the easement. As far as timing on that line goes, we can nail that down prior to the Council. Brad Watson is the engineer coordinating that job. I would like for that comment to stand as written from our perspective. Becky's comments about the north boundary of the permanent easement not encroaching on the lots, from what her and I looked at today, I concur with that. I don't think the permanent easement would get into those lots. I think it's the construction easement that is the stickler here and unfortunately I can't give you the information that is really needed tonight. Hatcher: Clarification of parliamentary procedure, we've opened up public hearing for Items No. 6, 7, and 8. This motion is for the annexation and zoning. I motion that we recommend approval to the City Council for Item No. 6, AZ-00- 017 annexation and zoning of 52.90 acres from RT to R-4 by Primeland Development Co., LLP for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision, north of Ustick and east of Ten Mile as proposed to include staff comments and applicant's rebuttal comments. Nary: Second. Barbeiro: The motion is second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item No. 7 Public Hearing: CUP-00-043 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a Planned Unit Development consisting of 106 buildable lots by Primeland Development Co., LLP, for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision -North of Ustick and East of Ten Mile. Barbeiro: We will open public hearing Item No. 7, request for conditional use permit to construct a Planned Unit Development consisting of 106 buildable lots ~~~, ~~~; ~ r,,..'. ~: 4: ^: j. ~~ , ~~~ ~~ :~.~ t ~. ~~~ _' =t~ - :~ :~~ ~~=i cwt. ; Meridian Planning and Zoning~ommission Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 29 by Primeland Development Co., LLP, for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision. Mr. Siddoway, do you wish to incorporate any comments? Siddoway: Yes. My comments as previously ceded. Please incorporate them. Barbeiro: Ms. Bowcutt, you wanted to continue to incorporate your comments? Thank you. Hatcher: I motion that we close the public hearing. Norton: Second. Barbeiro: We have a motion and second to close the public hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Hatcher: I motion that we recommend approval for Item No. 7, CUP-00-043 request for conditional use permit to construct a Planned Unit Development consisting of 106 buildable lots by Primeland Development Co., LLP, for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision, north of Ustick and east of Ten Mile to include staff comments and applicant's rebuttal comments. Nary: Second. Barbeiro: We have a motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item No. 8 Public Hearing: PP-00-017 Request for Preliminary Plat for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision - 106 building lots, 1 H.O.A. recreation center, 1 park lot and 19 common lots on 46.2 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by Primeland Development Co., LLP -North of Ustick and East of Ten Mile. Barbeiro: We will open the public hearing for request for preliminary plat for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision, 106 building lots, 1 H.O.A. recreation center, 1 park lot and 19 common lots on 46.2 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by Primeland Development Co., LLP. Mr. Siddoway, do you wish to incorporate your comments? Siddoway: Yes, please. Barbeiro: Ms. Bowcutt, did you wish to incorporate your comments? Yes. Mr. Watson, did you wish to incorporate your comments? Yes. 4~ ~_' ~' Meridian Planning and Zoning~ommission Meeting August S, 2000 Page 30 Teebar: My name is Ted Teebar, 2554 West Pebblestone Court. My question for you is proposed office site area is in the interest of Fieldstone Meadows subdivision, where I live. I'm just curious and concerned who decides what kinds of businesses are there. Nary: This Board primarily does but it is governed by zoning ordinance, limited office (LO zone). Which pretty much dictates these are the types of businesses that can be put in an LO zone which is your dentist office, optometrist, card shop, flower shop. They are low, there are different requirements. They will be a relatively low traffic volume, more office than retail. ACHD requirement is that main entrances line up with one another. Hatcher: Over on McMillan by Lowell Scott School and Pioneer Elementary, they had the same kinds of concerns in buildings there. There are some light offices there. Depending on where you live, you will likely get afirst-class mailing notice or you are going to see something in the newspaper of somebody proposing to build something there. Ms. Bowcutt said that this is one of their long-term plan and it may be one year to five years from now. Teebar: We will receive notice? Nary: Anyone within 300 feet. Barbeiro: Anyone else from the audience wish to comment on this? Seeing none. Siddoway: Staff comments regarding the easement for sewer along the north side of Five Mile Creek. As written, staff comments are pretty absolute the way we have written those, no encroachments until such time as the relief line is constructed. In your discussion you talked about accepting Becky's comments as written. The concern I have is the way her comments are written. The third line says that if the lots do not encroach within the permanent easement and adequate area is available for installation of the relief line, then this condition should be removed. It's a suggestion and kind of subjective. Hatcher: You and I are on the same line. This one has modifications on 10 and 12. We are okay. I make a motion to close the public hearing. Nary: Second. Barbeiro: Motion is second to close the public hearing? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Hatcher: I motion that we recommend approval to City Council for Item No. 8, PP-00-017, request for preliminary plat for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision for ~;t:~g ,'; ~R ,~: ~ ~ ~: "4"s ~` ~'~ ;- ;° r _; ~ , --.~~: ,_ _. ,14 ~t: ~, }r a- ~, , ' ~. ~,~~~ ~: ~. ~~ ~J ;* ~;~> r~J,. Meridian Planning and ZoningZ'ommission Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 31 106 building lots, 1 H.O.A. recreation center, 1 park lot and 19 common lots on 46.2 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by Primeland Development Co., LLP, north of Ustick and east of Ten Mile, to include staff comments and applicant's response comments with the following modifications. For preliminary plat requirement No. 10, I would like to modify that requirement that the painted bike paths on the roadway not be required that the applicant's path system is adequate and Item 10 not to be required. The other modification is that Item No. 12 stand as written by staff. Nary: Second. Barbeiro: We have a motion and second. Any discussion? Norton: I just have discussion, is the acreage correct, 46.2, compared to the 52.9 figure that we previously annexed? Siddoway: The annexation includes the two houses from the old farm which I don't think is part of the plat at this time. Hatcher: It is part of the plat, the difference is that the annexation goes to the center lines of the road and the right-of--ways and the plat does not include those. The acreage on the annexation is greater than the acreage on the plat. Barbeiro: Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Barbeiro: Commissioners, would you wish to take a short break here. We will take a five minute break here. (Meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m.) Barbeiro: We are ready to reconvene our Planning & Zoning meeting. Item No. 9 Public Hearing: CUP-00-042 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a Carl's Jr. restaurant with adrive-thru window by Greenstar Foods and TFCM -Pad P-3 at the Meridian Crossroads Center. Barbeiro: Item No. 9, request for conditional use permit to construct a Carl's Jr. restaurant with adrive-thru window by Greenstar Foods and TFCM, pad P-3 at the Meridian Crossroads Center. Mr. Siddoway, do you have a presentation for us? Siddoway: The Item before you is Carl's Jr. at the existing Family Center Development near the intersection of Fairview and Eagle. This application is r° h '~~ °~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning~ommission Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 32 very similar to the application as before you last month with the Arby's. It is ~~ ~~ required to come through as a separate conditional use permit due to the drive- ' ~~' ~` thru that is proposed with the Carl's Jr. I have some site photos. The first photo i t is standing inside the Family Center looking towards Eagle Road, due west, the tM x~~ ~~ area is in grass is the proposed pad site. A little to the north and looking southwest, you can see the buildings for Blue Cross on the other side of Eagle in <> = the background there. This is the pad site here in the foreground. You can see ,~::: ~ the Family Center Development in the rear, Sheppler's in this location, the entrance off Eagle Road right where I'm standing in this picture, looking across .~v1 - the proposed site. This is the proposed site plan, the entrance called Florence . Street that comes off Eagle Road on the side. The application that you looked at last month was in this location right here with adrive-thru. This is directly north ' ~` '` ~' ` of it on the other side of Florence Street. Again, the stacking coming around through here and wrapping around this way. No particular points of contention or hot buttons that I know of on this one. It appears to have similar stacking depth - as the application as before you last month and we feel it is adequate. There - was an issue of provision of five-foot sidewalks in the area behind the dumpster location at this point because it did narrow down. Make sure that all the proposed parking dimensions are as per City ordinance. You will notice the first r~~ t staff comment deals with the ACHD letter and that it states that it reiterates that ` ` ` ' " same issue a ain that was resented last time that the buildin g p g permits will not be issues until ACHD's requirements have been met and they state it is okay to release those building permits. As per the requirements of the conditional use permit and they have now reach critical square footage for the development that will require them to put in improvements on Fairview and Eagle Roads. That ~~ ~ requirement needs to be fulfilled before issuance of the building permits. These '`'" are the elevations of the proposed Carl's Jr. with the on building signage that you ~,~~``,~ can see. They also have a single monument sign that has been approved for the pad as per the conditional use permit. That is all I have and will defer to the ~~ ~~ applicant to see if there is any problem with staff comments. Barbeiro: The applicant, please. ~'f. ~ '~~` :, Bauwens: My name is Tom Bauwens, Dakota Company, 380 East Park Center Boulevard, Boise. I'm here on behalf of Developers Diversified and Greenstar ~fi ~'~ ~ - Foods presenting this application. I'd like to put up a master site plan to kind of give you a reference of where we are at on this project and where everything is. Just a little point of reference, ShopKo is completed, Sheppler's, Bed Bath and ' Beyond, and Old Navy is here and Office Depot is under construction here, WalMart is over in this corner and Arby's was here on pad P-2 and Carl's Jr. is r here on pad P-3. Applebee's is currently under construction on pad P-5 and ~4~~; International House of Pancakes, IHOP on P-8. The development continues ~~`,;~: quite rapidly. As far as the conditional use application and the staff comments, " ~ r;"~ would like to expand a little bit about the ACHD comment and the building permit status. That is correct that there is a 450,000 s.f. threshold in our ACHD comments. With the WalMart under construction, we are over the 450,000 s.f. ~ s~ti ::. k~'; Via,;, R~~ ~~~ ~ ~ +';, wb ;;,;, , :z;.;:-0 . ,,.2 .., ~,- ~ '~ r , ~~ ~~r ;,;:: Meridian Planning and Zoning~ommission Meeting O August 8, 2000 Page 33 ACRD has allowed us to proceed since WalMart is going to take several months to complete. We are in and have been in quite sometime now, in design efforts with ACHD on the required street improvements for Pine Street, the signal at Pine Street and Eagle Road and also for the Fairview Eagle intersection upgrade. That design work has been ongoing for several months, we submitted our first set of plans to ACRD in December, we are in August and still working with them on plans. It has taken a considerable amount of time, we are also in agreement with ACHD on the sharing ration on those two projects. So I hope the signed development agreements with ACHD on both Eagle Road and Fairview intersection upgrade and also the Pine Street traffic signal installation and the extension of Pine Street on our frontage. They are continuing to process our plans. We will be submitting our 75 percent plans this week to ACHD, if we can keep this thing moving and they can keep from beating us up with their comments and changes and add-ons, et cetera. I hope to be out for bids on that project within October time frame and start on it yet this year. We are moving and have been working on it diligently with the cooperation of ACHD as the best we can get it. There will be a letter forthcoming because of the time frame it has taken to complete this work, they will cooperate with us on this 450,000 s.f. threshold because it has been an ongoing back and forth between us and them and they are part of the reason it has taken so long to get where we are trying to get. That is a little update on that, as far as the other comments by staff, we can meet and will meet all the other ones. We have no problems with any of the other conditions of approval. Nary: I noted that there is a public comment by a Robert L. Stucker, 3898 East Florence. What he is asking is that a traffic light be installed at East Presidential Drive and Eagle Road. At looking at the site plan, that appears to be south of where this entrance is. Bauwens: Yes. The signal will be installed at Pine Street. This is per ITD this makes the spacing between Fairview intersection, Pine Street and Franklin Road. All three of these signals will be interconnected to create gaps in there. We have already installed the conduit as part of this widening. Nary: It appears to me that the traffic light is not in our purview to do and it is at East Presidential Drive. It really isn't relevant to this particular application. Bauwens: In all of the discussions over the last two years that we have been working on this project, the signal has always been at Pine Street. That is part of the school, extension of Pine Street to the new school, all the way to Cloverdale, that is a 90-foot right-of--way for a collector street continuation. Hatcher: When they refer to the 450,000 s.f. threshold that ACRD has put on the project, you referred to the fact that WalMart project put you over that threshold. Is that not separate development? You are involved with both of them, but is it not a separate development? ~': .K , , ~{~ ~: { Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 34 Bauwens: Yes and no. It was a separate project, it's on it's own subdivision plat, it's separated by Records Drive. If you went all the way back to our original project, half of the WalMart site was under the Crossroads Shopping Center project. Only half of the WalMart was added and so it was incorporated into the project as part of the whole complex. ACHD's conditions of approval applied also to the WalMart when we went through that process. nth WalMart, we are at approximately 485,000 s.f. in that vicinity. Nary: You have no particular objections to site specific requirement number 1. Bauwens: We are working on that with ACHD. As I mentioned, there is a letter forthcoming from Mr. Sale. I would point to the sentence in here, unless otherwise approved by ACRD. We are in constant communication with ACHD. Barbeiro: This is the direction of the drive-thru and the window sits about here? Bauwens: Yes. There is quite a bit of stacking line. Barbeiro: This is an open public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to testify in favor of this project? Seeing none, is there anyone who wishes to testify in opposition of this project? Seeing none. Hatcher: I motion that we close the public hearing. Norton: Second. Barbeiro: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Barbeiro: Discussion? Norton: I'll move under No. 9, public hearing CUP-00-042, request for conditional use permit to construct a Carl's Jr. restaurant with adrive-thru window by Greenstar Foods and TFCM, pad P-3 at the Meridian Crossroads Center, that we recommend approval to the City Council with all staff comments. Nary: Second. Barbeiro: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item No. 10 Public Hearing: PFP-00-002 Request for Preliminary/ Final Plat for proposed Presidential Subdivision -three building lots on ~, ,L :..C:. _l'fii, ...T ;:}. ::;, a Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 35 10.99 acres in I-L zone by Developers Diversified/ Dakota Company -southeast corner of Presidential Dr. and Eagle Road at the Meridian Crossroads Center. Barbeiro: Item No. 10, public hearing request for preliminary and final plat for proposed Presidential Subdivision, three building lots on 10.99 acres in I-L zone by Developers Diversified and Dakota Company, southeast corner of Presidential Drive and Eagle Road at the Meridian Crossroads Center. Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: This is extending the project that we were just talking about to the south of Presidential Drive. Currently in developing this area, wrapping around the Crossroads Subdivision here, this subdivision before you right now is this hatched area between Presidential Drive and what will be the extension of Pine Street. Some site photos taken standing where Pine Street will extend looking towards the Family Center, in the background. Eagle Road being on my left here, and panning and looking over towards the existing Crossroads Subdivision in this site photo here. This is the dirt road on the south side of the project that will be Pine Street when the improvements are completed. This is the proposed plat. It is a 3 lot plat, one main lot following this configuration here and then two lots in either comer along Eagle Road. We've issued staff comments and the applicant has responded to those. I would point out the points of contention. The first one is comment No. 2 regarding the common lots. We had asked for landscaped buffers be required along Eagle Road, Pine Avenue and up against Crossroads Subdivision at a minimum of 20 feet in each location and that they be provided on a separate common lot. This is a standard request that we make so that if, for example, one of these lots is sold to someone else, that the upkeep of those common lots will be maintained by business owners association and any enforcement issues, we could deal with one entity and not three. They have not been required to do a common lot in the Records East Subdivision, which is the one WalMart is part of. I do not see this as a do or die issue, but one that we request just for enforcement simplicity. The second issue, number 6, they would like to change, staff comments say a 6 to 8 foot wall, they say it should be a state of 6 foot wall. The existing walls that were put in 6, they have been increased to 8, so I think the 6 to 8 feet is fine. I would add that it should be measured from the parking lot elevation. The 6- to 8-foot wall requirement from the parking lot elevation and on that same issue, we have said that that wall should be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. They have requested that that be changed to certificate of occupancy, the first certificate of occupancy. We ask that that not be changed, that it is primarily there for the noise during the construction, the transfer of debris, and things and we would like to see that wall in place prior to construction taking place on the site. The final one is No. 8, we have requested that the sidewalks along Eagle Road, detach from Eagle Road and move into that landscape buffer to provide some separation for the pedestrians on the sidewalk along Eagle Road. It is true that the area to the north has attached sidewalks. We requested that they be detached and the applicant has responded saying that it shouldn't have to be detached. We would ~~~:'. ,;.. ,.^ ~ i y ''a_p. ~;~i 'F,. ~i ~t ~,:,~w ~ ;;~; :{ :~~s ~~ - -r -~~;~- ., ~C~`' :,~-~ ;~t ;E~- F:, w' ~N~=~r -.: ;- %~: i ~+ ~r.~, =-. ~rJ~' ,;r,> r.:; .:f `' f'° z .i `. ~, ei ~ '` ;~~; . Meridian Planning and Zoning~mmission Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 36 still like to see them detached and we would like to see that detached scenario continue south for when the developments come in. Those are the outstanding issues and I will stand for any questions. There was a requirement with the original CUP, there was some landscaping along Presidential Drive on the south side that was tore out when the improvements where put in and it was supposed to be put in "equivalent or better". That has not been done yet and that landscaping also needs to be provided for in addition to the landscape buffer that we already talked about along Eagle Pine and up against Crossroads Subdivision. I would add the landscaping along Presidential Drive to that. Norton: Steve, I have a question. Did staff specifically make no recommendation on this? I see no place where staff recommends approval or not approval. Was that just left off or intentional? Siddoway: The intention was to recommend approval with staff comments. Norton: I don't see that sentence in here. Barbeiro: Would the applicant like to come forward please? Bauwens: I'd like to refresh everyone's knowledge of the project. What we had original envisioned down in that area, which has been basically Phase III of the project. This is a site plan that was submitted with the original conditional use permit application quite some time ago. The area between Pine and the existing Presidential Drive along the Eagle Road frontage of approximately 11 acres. This is a site plan that was submitted along time ago to show the concept of what was envisioned in that area. We showed several major tenants along the back and three pads along Eagle Road frontage. What we are proposing tonight is to subdivide that to create two pad lots, one in each corner and then a major lot for some type of use. We are not here to get into the uses and everything, we have no plans for what is going to be here at this time. We are just creating lots to help market the pad locations in this immediate area. The square footage in that particular area totaled approximately 126,000 S.F. of retail space. nth this application, we are creating three lots, obviously Pine Street and Presidential Drive stay as they were envisioned and no entrances on Eagle Road are anticipated. I'd just like to go briefly through the conditions of approval as Steve mentioned. Preliminary plat condition number 2, the staff has asked for a common lot to dedicate the landscape setback areas along Pine Street, Eagle Road, Presidential Drive and adjacent to Crossroads Subdivision. There again, to refresh everybody's memory, this acreage was part of the original conditional use permit application, those landscape setback areas are defined in that conditional use permit application as 20 feet along the residential areas, 20 feet along Eagle Road, 20 feet along Pine Street, and there was no width along Presidential outlined in the conditional use permit. We don't see a need for a common lot. We would prefer that the setback areas be designated as a note on the final plat that these are 20-foot setback areas per the conditional use permit. ~; ~~ ->: V ~` :*:: :~~~, $z: ~.,;:, r , .:.~, ,~; ,, aa,;; Meridian Planning and Zonin~mmission Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 37 This is the methodology used on the Records East Subdivision plat for the WalMart project as a note on the final plat. There is no common lot on that subdivision. This requirement did not come up over there. The entire project is under a common area maintenance agreement and a cross easement use agreement from all the tenants, it's recorded against the property. A project of this size, will have afull-time maintenance manager on site all the time. That's a policy of Developers Diversified when it reaches a certain threshold, there is a full-time property manager that is assigned to the project. We see no need for a common lot, it wasn't a requirement for the last plat that we went through and I think the need can be accomplished with a note on the final plat and with the requirements of the conditional use permit which is also noted on the final plat. I believe the protection is there for the setback areas. As far as the comment number 5, detailed landscape plan for all common lots. If we strike the common lot requirement, that phraseology can be revised to we will submit landscape plans for all setback areas as part of the plat review process. As far as that, Steve's comment on the landscape area for the south side of Presidential, work began on that project yesterday. They started hauling top soil in and we will continue to complete that project in the next two to three weeks. I've have submitted landscape plans to the City staff several weeks ago and I have also given a copy of the plans to the Crossroads Homeowner's Association so they are aware of what we are doing. I have had an awful time getting Sterling Landscaping out there this time of year to do anything, they are just booked up. They did start hauling top soil and will continue to get that project completed in the next few weeks per the drawings we have submitted to the City. As far as Item No. 6, condition for the 6- to 8-foot wall. I don't like conditions that give a range. We need to be specific. I would prefer that it be written to 6 feet above the parking lot as we have mandated now on the Phase I portion of this. When you leave ranges, I guess I can build 7, it is uncertain. I would prefer that it be rewritten to 6 foot above the finished parking lot grade on the Shopping Center side. There again, I would request that it wilt be installed as part of the normal construction sequencing, whoever goes first in that subdivision, the wall would have to be completed before they open for business. If the pad, for example, in the southwest comer would be down on Pine Street and Eagle Road, if he was to go first, that is quite a ways from the residential area. I think the mid construction impact would be minimal at that time. I think it could be tied to the first certificate of occupancy, whichever of the three that may be. As far as condition number 8, sidewalks on Eagle Road. I would just reemphasize that the sidewalks have been completed on the Phase I all the way from Presidential to Records Drive at this time. It is a five foot attached sidewalk with curb, gutter and drainage. The sidewalks are being installed as part of the WalMart project, ACHD has asked that we increase the width of those sidewalks to seven feet but they will be attached to the curb, gutter system. So they will be seven foot attached sidewalks. ACHD's policy now is if it's attached, it's seven feet wide, if it's detached it's 2-foot landscaped area and five-foot sidewalk. I would prefer to stay with the ACRD requirement seven foot attached. We anticipate doing curb, gutter and drainage along Eagle Road as part of the Eagle Road improvements. ~~; Meridian Planning and Zonin~mmission Meeting e August 8, 2000 Page 38 I would propose a seven foot attached sidewalk along Eagle Road. We would file the sidewalks around onto Pine Street and the sidewalks already exist on Presidential. I gave you a brief synopsis of where we are at on Pine Street, Presidential Road has already been upgraded last summer to the conditions of ACRD in the Shopping Centers conditions of approval. Barbeiro: Any questions? Steve, your request was to put a meandering sidewalk as opposed to the sidewalk along the road. We have swilled along the sidewalk, how would we incorporate the sidewalks and the swills to allow for drainage? Siddoway: They haven't proposed the size of those swills until the development plans come through. I don't know that we would have to have swills in this section. Bauwens: The swills that you are speaking of are up along Eagle Road towards Fairview. Those drainage swills are in the proposed right-of--way for the Urban Interchange at Eagle and Fairview Avenue. Those swills are in what would be right-of--way sold to ACHD. They have elected not to purchase that right-of--way from us at this time until it is needed. They asked us to set that aside, which we did. That's why you see that large area. During that design process, we put the drainage in that to utilize that area. In the time the elected to build the Urban Interchange, but those will all have to be reworked and it will all be different. As far as the meandering sidewalks, in the original conditional use permit, it just required five-foot sidewalks, there was no mention of meandering in the conditional use permit that is on the project at this time. I don't have any problem going to the seven foot attached sidewalk as we are doing on the WalMart project. Nary: You don't foresee any concerns if a meandering sidewalk was replaced there and interfering with a drainage swill. Bauwens: We haven't designed the drainage for that frontage of Eagle Road yet. I would imagine that we would do curb and gutter and put it into some type of seepage bed as we did on the other part. Although there is a large ditch along Pine Street now that may be able to take some drainage. We haven't got into that. I'm not sure what the plans is for that large drainage structure where Pine Street is. The meandering sidewalks can present problems if we try to keep them in the right-of--way if there is enough right-of--way to get meandering sidewalks in there. We have always envisioned just the normal curb, gutter and sidewalk. ITD has no interest in buying our right-of--way. The Urban Interchange is a hot topic between ITD and ACHD on who is going to buy the right-of--way. Nary: Another comment had to do with the common lot and what were your reassurances that there wouldn't be any concems. What I understand staff comments to be, is that if those other lots are sold to secondary buyers and it ~~x'i Get, '4,~•' ,% Meridian Planning and Zonin~mmission Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 39 becomes a separate ownership apart from your own, can we be assured that your own property management will maintain all setbacks properly. Bauwens: Your assurance would come under the fact that there is a common area maintenance agreement recorded against the property, that all tenants participate in monetarily. Nary: We want to be certain that we would have to go to three or five different land owners to enforce the landscaping. Bauwens: I'm not sure what protection you would have under common lots. Somebody has to maintain a common lot and be responsible for that to, so you would come back to the same common lot manager. Hatcher: I don't see a requirement or a need for a common lot. We don't have it on the Crossroads, or on the WalMart. I don't see a need for this one. It is a continuous development of the same developer, under the same design perimeters. I use that same logic for the meandering sidewalks. I support meandering sidewalks, but in this condition, I don't see that as valid. I think for the City's best interest that we maintain design consistency so that the entire project stays as a whole. I think it would be wise to require the seven-foot sidewalks, but maintain them as attached and if staff so desires south of Pine to start the meandering sidewalks, then do so at that time. Let's not break up the consistency of the design perimeters that have already been established. It would make our City look better if we keep it consistent. Barbeiro: Any other questions? Norton: Just for my information, does this Crossroad Shopping Center cross Pine? Bauwens: Most of that is being developed as industrial at this time. We have no plans to go south of Pine. Barbeiro: If there are no further questions? Do we have anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the project? Corvall: My name is Robert Corvall, 3653 East Presidential Drive in the Crossroads Subdivision. This is really not totally for or totally against, just some comments that I have. I was the ice President of the Homeowner's Association, we had a change of office last month. Currently I am the advisor to the new Board of Directors. Regarding the wall, the wall, as was noted, had to be raised because it turned out to be only three feet above the parking lot level, and the residents along the periphery of our subdivision who wanted the wall, wanted it there to mitigate the noise attended to construction. That was part of the reasoning for building the wall before construction began in earnest. Typically if iii. ~~ri~. ~~:;:>_ i Y. ~': ^. i .. F:: {~z'V ~: ;:~:' ~'> =,- -; <<,. >~-. ~~.A'~ x x ,: {~,, -:~ ,;r~. _.j ~.~' ~., ~:,,~. .;y ,._ ~, .L, x. F ~~: ~~~;;> 3 ~-4 Meridian Planning and Zonin~ommission Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 40 they follow the same pattern that most developments follow, they would put in the paving and put in the parking lot, roadways, ahead of time so you will have some noise from construction in that area. I would think they would come in and do the paving and what not ahead of time. That is why the wall is there and I noticed that the wall has not been built by WalMart and I'm not sure why. Concerning the sidewalk, I do walk along Eagle in the morning. It is a little unnerving when someone decides to take that right hand turn lane and they are going 50 if they happen to be going the speed limit. I would like to see a meandering sidewalk, but I don't believe that was a condition early on. On the landscaping, as Tom noted, he has been forthcoming and gave us a copy of the blue print which we shared at our homeowners meeting. We were told it would be done, but as Tom pointed out, we do have some piles of dirt out there now. Bauwens: The status on the WalMart wall, the wall will be built as part of the WalMart project. It will be a concrete wall and run the entire length all the way down the Crossroads neighborhood and all the way over to Venture Street and up Venture Street to Fairview. The reason the wall has not started, primarily because the irrigation ditch that runs along the Crossroads Subdivision. By the time WalMart started, it was after the irrigation season had begun and there was water in the ditch and we had no way of turning the water off to get back there to build the wall. We have to now wait until the water is off in October so they can get there and clean it up, the the ditch and complete the wall in that frontage. Barbeiro: Any discussion? Nary: I move that we close the public hearing. Hatcher: Second. Barbeiro: We have a motion and second to close the public hearing. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Hatcher: I motion that we recommend approval to the City Council for PFP-00- 002, request for preliminary and final plat for proposed Presidential Subdivision, three building lots on 10.99 acres in an I-L zone by Developers Diversified and Dakota Company, southeast corner of Presidential Drive and Eagle Road at the Meridian Crossroads Center; to include all staff comments with the following modifications: the first one is in regards to comment PP No. 2, common lot not be required; second one PP No. 6, that it be rewritten that it states that a 6-foot wall from the asphalt surface of the shopping side be installed; and PP No. 8, that we maintain ACHD requirements and not require a meandering sidewalk. Nary: Second. Barbeiro: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? ,3 ~ Y. ;~ ~ ~-~'' „Yr N~•..~"r~- . Meridian Planning and Zonin~mmission Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 41 Norton: Regarding the sidewalks, the ACHD would be the seven-foot sidewalks? Hatcher: Correct. ~~ a ,,,f:= ~; ~ 4"i i Norton: Staff comment No. 5 regarding the detailed landscape plan, would you agree to delete the words "common lots" from No. 5? Hatcher: Yes. Modify PP No. 5 to read that detailed landscape plans should be submitted for review. Norton: Add setback areas to be noted on the final plat instead of the common lot. .r,; ~~- ~~, ~s'' :''":: ,, t ,~>~ti: ;~, ~:ti ,: ,4 +~-x ~ ~ ~~~'~ -~~ ,. _` x,,. _:, ;.5: ~~. ~~ .~~ ~~ ~~ ,x h: r, f ~- , ~: f~: s~::: Barbeiro: We have a motion and second to the amendment to Commissioner Hatcher's. Nary: I just wanted to put on the record for the Council is that the reason I seconded the motion is because I do agree with Commissioner Hatcher that a common lot is probably necessary. I agree with the applicant that the plat note is probably adequate to serve without being inconsistent with the other development. I think the 6-foot high wall is adequate and the applicant requested that it be specific is reasonable. The last thing is the detached sidewalk, I seconded the motion because I do believe that the consistency is probably the most appropriate, although I wouldn't if this was in a different spot. I don't believe where this particular subdivision is, that that particular sidewalk would have a tremendous amount of foot traffic on it. The look and appearance will be more prevalent and it probably, this particular areas does not appear to me to be one where there will be a lot of traffic. The risk and concerns of safety are probably less so than what has already been approved. Barbeiro: We have a motion and a second to the amendment to Commission Hatcher's motion? All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Hatcher: I motion that we adjourn this meeting. Norton: Second. Barbeiro: Motion made and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Barbeiro: Adjourned at 10:28 p.m. _.. '~'.' .r... p Meridian Planning and Zonin~ommission Meeting August 8, 2000 Page 42 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:28 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVE: ~~. F47i'- ATTEST: P" o- o'h„ ~i~ :: W W Z ~ Q ? . , D Z _~ ~- W ~ ~~ ~ Z 0 ~ Q W V v J m a. ~ o ~~;,_ ^;,, ~~~. 9a O ^` ^ W H I~~ Z~ ~ ~ ' ~ ` w W ~ ~~ ~ Z O ~ ~ W V V ~~ .J m ~~ ,~ Z F.. W CW C a Ll, l ~ a 0 > y 1 O ~ I~ ~ ~~ ,^ _ I I 6 \.~ 2 O a 3 ~. ~ '~ y ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. T ~ 0 ~ `~ ~ I t ~ ~- ~ ~ w N ~ `'~ I Z ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N (~ 4. ~ J ~~ ~ ~ a , ~ ~t W cri Q ~ , I.r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~