The URL can be used to link to this page

1999 06-08MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 1999 The regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order 7:05 P.M. by Malcolm MacCoy. MEMBERS PRESENT: Malcolm MacCoy, Keith Borup, Thomas Barbeiro, Byron Smith. OTHERS PRESENT: Shari Stiles, Bruce Freckleton, Eric Rossman, Will Berg, Brittney Louie. MacCoy: Good evening to you. It is now five after seven and we are a little late getting started here. It is the month of June, the 8th , 1999. Commissioner Tammy De Weerd will not be with us this evening. Her husband had an accident and crushed his wrist and has had surgery as of yesterday. He is not in too good of shape right now so she is home with him. We will miss her this evening. Moving on we have a Consent Agenda to start with. Item A is the minutes of the previous meeting held May 11, 1999. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? Smith: Mr. Chairman MacCoy: Yes Smith: Commissioner Smith here. MacCoy: Thank You. Smith: The minutes are go item 1, 2 and then to 15. Was there a change made. MacCoy: Yes there was. Smith: So those are in the correct order? MacCoy: Yes they are. Smith: Okay. That’s all I had. MacCoy: All right. Commissioner Borup. Borup: I have nothing. I move to approve the minutes from May 11th meeting. Smith: Second. MacCoy: All in favor. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 2 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MacCoy: All ayes have it. Thank you. Moving on the Item B. It’s the only one we have tonight on the Ada County and Development Services. I take that back. There are 2 items on that list. Is there any questions about either one of them? Borup: I have none. Mr. Chairman I move we approve the Consent Agenda with staff to do the appropriate communication. Smith: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MacCoy: All ayes have it. Thank you. Moving on to the first part of our evening, we will cover them as we go to them, but I just want to let the public know that Item 2,3 and 4 have been withdrawn as of today. We will cover as we get to it, but if you’re here for one of those, those 3 will not be discussed this evening. ITEM 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY DAYCARE WITH FIVE OR LESS CHILDREN BY VICCI L. SNYDER—2747 S. VELVET FALLS WAY: (ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FFCL): MacCoy: You got a chance to read the material Commissioner’s? Smith: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Smith here. In the past we have had findings that were written recommending approval or denial to the City of the project, and this one doesn’t, so I would just I guess not only want to move that we approve and adopt these findings and fact and conclusions of law, but recommend the City Council approval of this project. Borup: If I may Mr. Chairman, this is an accessory use permit, so this P&Z Commission has final authority on this application. It won’t go to the City Council. Smith: Oh, that’s why we’re doing the findings here. MacCoy: That’s right. Smith: Then I’d like to amend that motion to state that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings and Fact and Conclusions of Law. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 3 Borup: Second MacCoy: Any discussion? Hearing none, does that require a roll call in this one? Rossman: Yes it does. MacCoy: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Aye MacCoy: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Aye MacCoy: Tom? Barbeiro: Aye MacCoy: Aye, okay. All Ayes have it. Tammy De Weerd Commissioner is absent from this roll call. Borup: Mr. Chairman. MacCoy: Yes Borup: Do you want the decision read. MacCoy: Yes I do. I just wanted to find mine. Borup: I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission determines that upon review of the applicable standards and guidelines set forth in section 11-2- 410D in the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian, establish record and applicable law that applicant met the accessory use standards. Given the foregoing the subject application for family daycare home accessory use is set forth here and shall be granted in the use allowed subject to the conditions imposed herein. The accessory use shall be subject to review by the city upon notice to the applicant. Smith: Second. MacCoy: Thank you. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MacCoy: All ayes have it and no nays. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 4 Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Barbeiro. Please make note that the roll call has the previous Commissioner and have it corrected . MacCoy: She saw that. Barbeiro: Thank you. MacCoy: It happens every so often. You may find it strange this evening. We are using our name along with our comments. We have a new staff member who is in the audience this evening. She is going to be transcribing the material and she’d like to have the name and the voice put together after while here, so we are on a special thing this evening. Moving on to Item 2. ITEM 2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTI-BUILDING COMMERCIAL & OFFICE INCLUDING BANK FACILITY WITH DRIVE-THRU (TREASURE VALLEY BUSINESS CENTER) BY CLARK DEVELOPMENT—SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAGLE RD & FAIRVIEW AVE: (WITHDRAW APPLICATION) MacCoy: I don’t know. It’s a good question. Mr. Attorney. We need to since we have a letter in our file, do we need to have a statement from the table here about withdrawing. Rossman: Well that’s a good question. I mean is it—are they withdrawing their application or do they want it tabled until they… MacCoy: No their withdrawing it. That’s why there is not going to be a future date for this one. At least we were not given one. Rossman: You don’t need a written finding that indicates that it’s been dismissed or anything. We can just do that as an administrative matter. MacCoy: All right. Thank you very much. Rossman: They’ve withdrawn it. ITEM 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE OF 7.265 ACRES FOR CREEKSIDE ARBOUR PHASE II (FROM R-8 TO R-15) BY WILLIAM & LUCILE LEAVELL—END OF 5TH, NORTH OF CREEKSIDE ARBOUR PHASE I & SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW: MacCoy: They have requested in writing a withdrawal for tonight . In requesting it….and they will be back on our agenda at our next meeting in July…what I think is the 13th . Yes, July 13th . So they’ve just been pulled off the agenda for this evening. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 5 Borup: Do you need a motion in that effect? Mr. Chairman I move we continue public hearing for Creekside Arbour rezone to July 13th . MacCoy: That would be a good idea. Smith: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MacCoy: All ayes have it. Thank you. ITEM 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 16 FOUR-PLEXES WITH POOL AND CLUBHOUSE FOR USE BY PHASE I & II (PROPOSED CREEKSIDE ARBOUR PHASE II) BY WILLIAM & LUCILE LEAVELL—END OF 5TH, NORTH OF CREEKSIDE ARBOUR PHASE I & SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW: MacCoy: Same letter applied. They’ve withdrawn and I need a motion for that. Smith: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we continue the public hearing on this item until our July 13th meeting. Borup: Second. MacCoy: Hearing a first and a second, any discussion? Guess not. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MacCoy: Thank you. Moving on very fast tonight so far to Item 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING OF 6.15 ACRES (FOR r-40 ZONING) FOR PROPOSED COBBLESTONE VILLAGE BY IONIC ENTERPRISES, INC.—SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOCUST GROVE & FRANKLIN: MacCoy: Staff. Comments. Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners we do have a revised site plan that has been submitted. They have incorporated the changes that we have requested. Hopefully you have one of those in your packets and have been able to review that. I believe they have additional testimony to present tonight as it’s a continuance of the public hearing. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 6 Smith: Shari. What’s the date on the revised plan? Stiles: There is no date on it. Smith: In the title block the only date I have is 2/10/99 and I have 2 of those and then one that does not have a date. Stiles: It’s the one without a date. Smith: That’s the latest one? So this plan along the west and south boundaries ..these buildings now meet the set-back requirements? Because before they didn’t. We have a 15 and 20 foot set-back requirement depending on which property line your on..which property line. Stiles: The architect was relying on the set-back requirements for an R-40 without giving consideration for the adjacent rural residential use. R-40, if it were granted has an interior site set-back of zero. And I believe that’s the criteria he was using when he designed it . However, they have increased that set-back now to 15 feet . Smith: Which interior are you referring to? Stiles: It would be the southern property line. Smith: Is the property to the south on the southern property line a part of this development? Stiles: No. Smith: Then how would that be an interior set-back? Stiles: Well, that’s where he was mistaken. Smith: Okay. MacCoy: Do you have any other comments? Is the applicant here? Would you please come forward. Peterson: Mr. Chairman and the Commission my name is Brice Peterson. I live at 1104 E. Brightwater in Boise. I’d like to address some of the questions that were left at the end of the meeting last month. The set-back have been corrected or at least spelled out. We have shown the 15 foot on the side property line next to the Robinson’s. We have also shown the stone wall or masonry wall that is on the south boundary and is also on the west boundary. The landscaping has been increased to the indication that we had from you last month..that you wanted increased. And so we have increased that primarily on Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 7 the south side. We have loosened up the project in that we have eliminated one building and replaced that density by making 4 or 5 of the buildings 2 ½ stories. Those units on the west side next to the industrial park are 2 ½ stories. One of the buildings on the south side is 2 ½ stories. Those units on your plat are noted as C D and E. We have been more definitive about the location of the sign, which is on Locust Grove. And the management will be done by the Idaho Housing Finance and Services Association. They are without a doubt the best known management company in this area. The lease agreement that we use, will be provided to the City Council. That lease agreement provides for very strict use of the common areas and the properties within the boundaries. For example, there will not be any cars that are out of commission, and we have provided additional trash receptacles from our previous submission to you. It’s kind of interesting to note that there was a petition circulated, which I am sure that you have a copy, a copy of many, many pages of names. A friend of mine who had the pleasure of having one of the people present the petition to him, explained in some detail about that meeting over the holiday weekend. And it seems that..I have a copy of the letter that accompanied the petition…and I think it is very important to tell the truth. And I think it would be very wise if all of us did the same. In that petition letter it states that this is a subsidized project. I want to tell you without a questionable doubt, and I want you to make sure that you understand what I say…There will not be one person living on this project that has a subsidy, that is any way subsidized. Is that clear and do you have any questions. MacCoy: I guess not. Borup: I think I understood that last week..or last month. Peterson: I am sure you did Mr. Borup. But the audience did not. I want you to note that this petition was widely spread. According to my memory of working on the planning zone commissions in the past, which I have been very active, we took into consideration those people who live within 300 feet. I think it would be interesting for you to ask people where they lived. Those people who signed it. I think you will find it to be at least a joke. At least something to laugh about. I want to point out the legal issues as stated in your Comprehensive Plan. To annex this property, the Stamas Corporation has made a legal application. We want to be annexed and we want to be rezoned. We want to be annexed to the City of Meridian and we want to be rezoned to R-40. This property is within the Meridian urban services planning area. So we have met those criteria. For zoning, the new zoning is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible to the adjoining zones. Cobblestone Village is being developed in a fashion that would be allowed under the new zone. There is adequate reason to rezone this property. Streets are being widened, and this taken right from your Comprehensive Plan. You understand that we are responding in word to your Comprehensive Plan. Streets are widened and improved with impact fees dollars created by joining development and employment centers. Many new Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 8 industries have come to the area and many more are planned. People with moderate incomes will need comfortable housing in this neighborhood and we are planning to provide it. The use of this property complies with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. In that it provides higher density residential housing in the area of the commercial growth that will take place radiating from one of your stated intersections of Eagle Road and I84. The project sets an example for an attractive, heavily landscaped, well signed and innovative project for Meridian. This area is adjacent and serviced ..can be serviced by the police by streets, by water, by sewer and by sewer protection. We are provided that the main entrance will be on Locust Grove and a secondary, right in and right out, will be provided on Franklin Road. In summary, this project meets and exceeds the requirements set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for annexation and zoning and it will benefit Meridian greatly for an attractive and comfortable housing in the growing segment of the city. This is a growing segment as stated in your Comprehensive Plan. I would like to ask Lisa to discuss some of the needs if I may. MacCoy: Okay Gould: I’ll state my name. My name is Lisa Marie Gould. I live at 863 W. Quarter Drive, Eagle, ID 83616. The reason why this is the right location, according to the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, one of the centers of commercial grown will be the intersection of I84 and Eagle Road. Commercial retail and apartment growth will dictate.. will actually dictate…let me back up a second. It’s been a long day. Bear with me. The commercial, retail and apartment growth will at that point from this intersection. The vicinity map and Brice, could you show the vicinity map please. What I have done is blow up the vicinity of mainly Eagle Road, Franklin, Meridian and what we are saying is that I84 and Eagle Road, the main growth for commercial, will be St. Lukes, for example. Jay Build, which is down on Locust Grove. We have Industrial Park which is north of Franklin Road. We also have Industrial Park which is west of Franklin Road. We have 1 mile from the city center..that’s where our Cobblestone location will be…approximately one mile. We will also have approximately one mile till we reach Fairview Avenue, which is high commercial use and mixed use. Brice, can you put that one down now and see the big map. Another point that I would like to make are apartment complexes. We’ve done an extensive study and there is a study that is out and I have the book if you’d like I’ll give it to the commission, but the figures I’m going to read from this are stated right from the commission. Excuse me one second. The survey that I’m looking at right now is called the Ada Real Estate Survey, Ada County Survey Apartment Study, done April of 1999. Meridian complexes at this point are located in 3 vicinities. The first is Aspen Hills, which is located at 250-300 James Court. We have looked at it both ways. There is occupancy and vacancy rate and vacancy rate at that complex is 4.20%. Creekside Arbour, 1301 E. Fifth Street, has a vacancy rate of 2.3. Cherry Lane, which is located at 302-388 (inaudible) has a vacancy rate of 4.5%. The other apartment complex that we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 9 think that could fall into the Meridian growth is West Ridge Apartments, which is at 3003-3097 North Five Mile, which has a vacancy rate of 5%. As you can see there are very few apartments for rent in the Meridian. Typically, a developer feels confident in building additional apartments when vacancy rate is 5% or less. In this case, the average vacancy rate of apartments that compare to Cobblestone Village is 3.6%. The next point that I’d like to make is about schools, because this issue came up at the last meeting. I called the Meridian School District and in route to me is the plan for new schools Fall of 2000 which will actually handle Cobblestone Village. This is one middle school that’s projected to open Fall 2000 and 2 elementary schools of Fall of 2000. I have been specifically told by the district of Meridian School District that the project will very well be taken care of by the new schools. So, we are (inaudible) at least a year and a half out until the project is complete, so currently until everything is completed we wouldn’t even start probably until Fall of 99, so we are looking at Fall of 2001. Our school situation we feel is very well handled. Do you have any questions? Barbeiro: Can you tell me who performed this survey? Gould: Yes. Mountain States Appraisal. Moe Faring and Kathy Rizara. And what’s interesting this survey breaks down vacancies and it breaks down each project throughout Ada County. Barbeiro: The vacancy rates that were called out were those immediate incremental or were they annualized. Gould: Well actually for the period that they ran, so this study was done April 30th of 99. That was as of that date. They do breakdown rent range, bedroom units, square footage, this is on just the summary, and then they have detailed pages that really go extensive in breaking down the number bath, units, rent ranges, deposits…so it’s truly a through study. Barbeiro: In your discussions regarding the school district you’ve said that you had reassurances from the school districts could handle this. I made note that in the recommendation from the school, there was no “we recommend this project”. I have had, from the Meridian School District on other projects, a specific “we recommend this project”. That was not the case on this project. Gould: Okay. I called directly and just asked in general. I explained to them what I was doing…Cobblestone Village… Smith: Who did you talk to? Gould: It’s in route. I have the letter in route. I called on Thursday… Smith: So you don’t have a name of who you talked to? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 10 Gould: Not right now. Smith: Did you call the administration offices? Gould: Uh-hmm Smith: So you don’t have anything to back up what you just told us? Gould: Well I can. I can submit it. Smith: You can, but you don’t at this time, at this hearing of which you are asking us to make a recommendation one way or the other to the City Council on this project. Gould: No. But, when I … Smith: That’s all I want to know. That’s all I want to know. Gould: Thank you. MacCoy: Anything else? Gould: I would just like to add that when I called the Meridian School District and it sounded so general when I talked about the schools and what was proposed, they said it is public information. MacCoy: I sure it is. Any other questions from the Commissioner’s? Barbeiro: I’d like to ask Mr. Peterson a question, if I may. MacCoy: Okay. Are you finished with…okay we’ll change pulpits again here. Smith: You said your going to leave a copy here with us? Gould: Uh-hmm MacCoy: With the City Clerk yes please. Barbeiro: Mr. Peterson. Commissioner Barbeiro. You made note with some passion that this is not going to be a subsidized project and that you had made that clear in our last meeting. If I may quote from the transcript, in my question, “is there any plans to have this as a subsided housing here.” Your answer was, “ it will depend a little bit on the financing is arranged”. I see that as a maybe. I do not see that as a definitive no, this will not be subsidized and I can see how from your answer the residents could find that as a concern. Can you now tell me that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 11 the financing that you arranged for this project will absolutely and definitively make this a non-subsidized project? Peterson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Barbeiro, that is absolutely correct. The …if you like and I offered to do this. Do you remember the tape (inaudible) did you listen to the whole tape. I offered to explain more detail on how it would be financed and you suggested do not go into that. And the Chairman suggested that also. Would you like to go into that in detail now? Barbeiro: I don’t… Rossman: If I may interject..this is Mr. Rossman. Whether or not this is subsidized project or whether or not individuals with subsidy are going to be in this project is completely irrelevant to this proceeding and I direct the Commission not to ask any further questions about subsidy or whether there is people with subsidized incomes in this project and I am going to direct that it not be considered in anyway in any determination by the Commission. Barbeiro: So noted Mr. Rossman. Thank you. With regards to the concerns that the neighbors have brought on and their petition, it appears that the neighbors have taken great pains in seeking out the opinions of the neighbors in many directions with regards to you site. Have you taken any opportunity to meet with the neighbors to ease their concerns as opposed to merely standing with us? Peterson: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barbeiro. We have had I believe we sent out notices and you know the notices that we send out are within 300 feet. You realize that? We sent notices out to people within 300 feet and we have asked for them to attend and they have attended two meetings. We explained everything over and over and that at a point at the end of the second meeting I really felt that there were no more questions and that everybody is satisfied. Barbeiro: Okay. Thank you. Peterson: Obviously, I am a poor reader of people. MacCoy: Any other questions? Borup: No…I …just Smith: I do…go ahead Keith. Borup: Just a comment on the petition. Half of them were from pretty much the entire Green Hills Estates which is a subdivision a mile away. And then I think the others are from the subdivision down at the end of Locust Grove is where the majority of others are from..which would be driving past this project. I don’t know if your familiar with where the addresses were. That was all I had. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 12 MacCoy: Okay. Mr. Smith Smith: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Peterson. Reviewing last months testimony…fortunately I wasn’t here so, you make reference that Mr. Smith who testified had different information then the rest of us have that in reference to Franklin Road, Mr. Smith testified that it will not be widened for 15 years. You stated, I quote, “I would be glad to show you the numbers and again we have different information on that. I would like you all to know that”. Do you have that information with you at this time? Peterson: Mr. Chairman… Smith: In writing. It’s a yes or no question. Peterson: It’s not a yes or no question. Smith: It is a yes or no question. Do you have the information that you testified that you had at the last meeting... Peterson: Mr. Chairman. Would you… Smith: In writing to give to us that showed different data or specific data on when that road will be widened and wide it will be. Peterson: Mr. Chairman. Will you address the Attorney please? Smith: It’s a simple, straight forward question Mr. Peterson. Either you have the information in writing or you don’t. MacCoy: Well…. Smith: It’s black and white. MacCoy: Let me intercede here. He doesn’t have the information because some of us are serving on the commission that we know where the real dates are so they became just a piece that came out of the audience in a discussion in which we discussed at the time that the actual date is not known yet, but it’s not 15 years away. We know that. Smith: Okay..so…we don’t have the information, and the date is not 15 years, and we don’t know what the date is.. All right. That should be a part of the record here. Peterson: Mr. Chairman. May I respond? Mr. Chairman Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 13 MacCoy: You may respond. Yes. Peterson: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have talked with Shari at length of course about this project. I stopped down to the Highway District and asked Larry Sale some information about this project. Mr. Sale is in the audience. I believe that any information that he would give you would…well I shouldn’t say this. I don’t know if he’ll surface. I don’t know if he’ll satisfy Mr. Smith, Commissioner Smith or not. But he is in the audience and I am sure that he would be willing to give you some information. MacCoy: All Right. Thank you. Smith: That would be great. Moving on. What is the zoning on the property immediately South of your project? Peterson: R-1 I believe or the equivalent of it. Smith: R-1? Borup: It’s in the County. Smith: It’s in the County? MacCoy: Yeah, it’s County. Peterson: I’m sorry. I think it’s agriculture. I am not sure. Smith: And immediately West? Peterson: It’s an industrial park. Smith: Immediately North? Peterson: It is agriculture transitional. Smith: And East? Peterson: Agriculture transitional. Smith: All right again, going back to last month’s testimony, you stated, I quote, “I put this project in the middle of an industrial area, right in the middle of it for that very reason.” It’s not in the middle of an industrial area. It is immediately adjacent to existing large, I am not familiar with what exactly the County’s zoning is there, but multi-acre homes and it’s not compatible with zoning at all. Not anyway, conceivably possible compatible with that kind of zoning. R-40 is not. There is no buffer zone between your parcel and those uses. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 14 Peterson: Mr. Chairman. Smith: You stated, “I think that is the most compatible thing I can put on that dirt.” I don’t agree with that whatsoever. MacCoy: Mr. Smith can he respond to your (inaudible). Peterson: I’d be glad to wait till he’s done. MacCoy: All right. Smith: It just… you know…there is pages and pages and pages of testimony about how much you think this project is a value to Meridian. And, quite frankly, let me read a couple of statements out of our Comprehensive Plan under the housing section. Meridian will continue to develop into the ideal community only by maintaining and upgrading the quality of existing and new dwelling units. And under section 1.19, high density, where possible, should be located near open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities. This project does none of those things. And you also testified earlier that this is an attractive development. I have not seen any elevations on this project. I have no idea what it looks like. I supposed to take you word for it that it going to be an attractive, high quality development. Do you have building designs to show us? Or do we have everything that you got? Peterson: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Smith. I..we have turned into the staff the elevations. We’ve turned everything in that we know to turn into. Smith: Why aren’t those a part of our packet? Stiles: They are. Smith: Not in my packet. Peterson: Well Mr. Smith I am sorry they are not in your packet. Smith: Are they in your packet? Borup: Their reduced copies, yes. Smith: These? Peterson: I do believe Mr. Smith, that you do have the information that you requested. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 15 Smith: Does anybody have a copy that I can see now? I guess basically Mr. Peterson, I just don’t buy the argument that this is a good project for the City of Meridian. We have so much low income housing in this city now. That’s all we got. We don’t have a diversified tax base. We’re shooting ourselves in the foot. We are digging ourselves such a deep hole here by approving these low income and high density projects, with not having lower density, higher quality homes coming in here that really do create somewhat of a tax base. MacCoy: Okay Commissioner Smith. I think you’ve made your point. Smith: This is just not good for the City. It’s not good for the neighbors. Rossman: I would interject and concur with the Chairman. I think this is a period of time for questions. It’s not a period of time for rhetoric and for continued discussion about your personal opinions about the project. This person is here to provide an application. You don’t have to approve it. If you have questions for him, ask him questions. Save you comments till the end when we have a period of time for discussion among the Commission. Please. Smith: I apologize Mr. Rossman. Rossman: I accept your apology Mr. Smith. Smith: That’s all I have Mr. Chairman. MacCoy: Mr. Smith I loaned you the one from the City Clerk. She wants it back. Peterson: Mr. Chairman. I do believe I have the right to respond to some of Mr. Smiths so-called rhetoric. He indicated that this was a low income project and that Meridian has plenty of it. That is a stated that he made just now and this is not a low income project. I would like to take this opportunity to ask Joanne Butler to speak to this. It is very difficult for me to stand here and listen to this kind of rhetoric and so because you made me do it, I am going to ask her to speak to this issue that it is not low income. I have already spoke to it, but you did not hear me Mr. Smith. Smith: Mr. Peterson, if I had not heard you I would have told you I did not hear you..Quite frankly I don’t appreciate you condescending tone to this Commission. Peterson: Well, I am going to ask if you may if I may Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask Joanne Butler to respond to Mr. Smiths comments. MacCoy: You can bring her up here fine. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 16 Borup: Mr. Chairman, may I ask just a quick question before Mr. Peterson leaves. I realize this is early and your saying it’s a year and a half before the project. Do you have any type of estimated rental amounts at this point. Peterson: The rental amounts will, we feel based on today, you understand, of course, we can’t project a year or 2 years away, but we believe that they will average $600. That is the basis of the feasibility that was done for this project. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Joanne Butler: Good evening to the Commission. 607 North 8th Street, in Boise, representing the applicant. I’ll just make a few comments and then respond if I can provide the Commission with more information based on these comments. Mr. Peterson has tried to provide the Commission with some of the answers to questions that were raised last week. We are here tonight asking the Commission to recommend the approval of annexation, zoning and conditional use. Looking at the Comprehensive Plan and the Housing Element, including 1.19 that Mr. Smith raised, because it’s true. It says where possible. You should locate near open space and fortunately this project provides a great deal of open space for the residents and is located on a major access point. And, Mr. Peterson before designing this project and looking at this particular property, looked at the various Comprehensive Plan goals. To look at the elements where you talk about trying to locate housing near jobs and commercial centers. So that we do believe that we are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and also each of the criteria required for annexation, zoning and for conditional use have been met. I am not going to address each one of those right now. With regard to just information for the Commission so that they can understand financing and so that the audience can understand the financing although I agree with the City’s attorney that this is an irrelevant question. Your Comprehensive Plan clearly states that you are providing housing across the board for people of all different economic strata and so that is just an irrelevant issue, but it has come up. The Idaho Housing and Financing Association does provide tax credits and bonding availability whereby the state sells bonds and can provide developers with lower interest rate loans. Whereby they can charge lessor rents to pay off those loans. Thus, helping people in the rents and making it easier for people to afford housing. So that is just a little information on how it is funded. With that I’ll leave it…you may have some more questions about the design of the project. The architect is in the audience. Doug Tamera. Miss Gould can also answer questions about heights, site lines and so on. And you also have in the audience your traffic expert, the representative from ACHD. I listened to the tape from the last hearing. I know that traffic was an issue for many people and so Commissioner MacCoy was very good about relaying the information that he’s had because of being on the committee that he sits on, but I would ask the Commission to have Mr. Sale speak also to the traffic issue for your information. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 17 MacCoy: Thank you Joanne. (END OF TAPE) MacCoy: Mr. Peterson, do you have anything you want to add before we move on to this next section? Your not compelled to we are just going through the ropes here looking at the pros and the cons of some of this material and you’ll have a chance to come back up later to add what ever. Peterson: Mr. Chairman. I think in the essence of time it would be better if I waited till later. MacCoy: Very good. Peterson: Because I don’t want to (inaudible) this. I think we’ve hit the main points so far. MacCoy: Yes sir. Peterson: However, if you would allow Mr. Sale… MacCoy: I will because Mr. Sale and I convene every so often and I respect his knowledge very highly and I am glad he is here this evening. I will apologize when he gets up here. I was going to call him and make sure he was here this evening, so I am glad he did come, because one of our concerns that and the public is the fact that is the roadway condition and is the fact that ACHD is behind schedule because the way things are, money wise, and we are faced with a 2 lane Franklin and 2 lane, one end Locust Grove and it makes it a real difficult thing for the Commission to do anything with not having something in front of them which gives us dates and so on. So I am going to call him forward here. Peterson. I think, if I may, I’ll step down. MacCoy: Very good sir. Thank you. All right, I am going to save Larry Sale for a little bit here. I want to continue on with our normal procedure. Is there anyone in the audience here who has something to say in favor of this construction at this corner. Rossman: Mr. Chairman, if I may..just one comment. As I said at the end of the last hearing, this is a continued public hearing from we had last month. Please, if your going to testify today and you did testify last month, make sure that you confine your testimony in the matter…with the issuance of time. Confine your testimony to new issues that were not addressed in your previous testimony. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 18 MacCoy: Thank you. Very good. So is there anyone here after hearing that has something to say in favor that was not put on the record as of last month? All right. Seeing nobody standing or raising their hand is there anyone here who would like to speak on the other half who is against this project that has not…okay you can come in ..go ahead up here, but has hopefully has something new to say to us because we have a lot of things on the tape all ready. Smith: Robert R. Smith, 335 South Locust Grove Road. I’m just South of this proposed complex. Unfortunately, I did not get to address some of the things that were said at that that conquered it, and I would like to at this moment verify some things. Since that last meeting we circulated a petition against this development. We collected over 200 signatures against this proposed development. The traffic was a major concern of the people. This petition, Mr. Borup, was circulated within the residential area of this complex and these people access this intersection at least once a day, and it was asked of them. I was going to address what Mr. Barbeiro said about the minutes of the last meeting. Why the concern was of the subsidized housing. But I won’t. I’d like to address some of the things Mr. Peterson said about me not being correct in my statements about the widening of South Locust Grove Road. I attended a meeting of Ada County Highway Department as of May 27, 1999 at Linder Elementary School. And the traffic engineering supervisor, Joe Rosenland, talked to me, and here is an exact statement written by him that says what Locust Grove Road is going to do for the future. And they also told me personally, and they were going to give me a letter, but it did not get to me on my fax today, that Locust Grove from Franklin to Overland Road would be the very last piece of road widened in this project because of the adverse cost it would be to put that overpass over the interstate. And this is the gentleman that told me that. I resent the fact that my information seemed to be not correct, but he reassured me that it would be within 15 to 20 years before that portion of Locust Grove would be widened. These people that signed this petition were sincere and have lived in the area for considerable amount of time. Fifteen to twenty years was the average. All of them was concerned about it. Even the subsidized housing. Whether it isn’t a concern with you, it is with us. It’s in our neighborhood. Maybe you would like it next to you. Rossman: Sir I was speaking from a legal standpoint. It has nothing to do with my personal opinion. Smith: I will close with that. If there is any questions to keep this as short as possible. MacCoy: Okay. Commissioner’s are there any questions that you have? Seeing none, thank you very much. Smith: You bet. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 19 MacCoy: Is there anyone who would like to comment. Yes sir. Fox: Allen Fox, 1840 Cadillac Drive, Meridian, ID. Mr. (inaudible) I took offense to the statement you made up here about low subsidized. He took my thunder away when he brought it in. You made that statement, which told us that things were going to be possibly a subsidized housing because of the rent your bonds you were going to sell. So you made the statement tonight that you were getting your money from housing or something and your going to be able to charge lower rents. That’s subsidized renting as far as I can see, if your going to charge lower rent. That’s subsidized housing. In any event, if rents $800 a month and I can charge $500 a month, (inaudible) a loan, I subsidizing somebody. My understanding that R-40 is supposed to have kind of a buffer between that and residential. This project to me there is not room to put a buffer in between that or any other type of business or buildings. Also, I talked to Steve Arnold on the 14th of May as he is the man who signed the letter that came to you the first time about this project and the roads, and he told me that there was nothing in the 15 year plans to widen Locust Grove or Franklin, but he said I’ll bet my pay check that something will happen in 5 years. I told him I’ve been waiting 27 for it to go over the freeway. He said there would be no light put in at the intersection until the roads are widened. And without a light, you approve this project and put this number of houses in there, with the 240 roughly want to go up the street just 2/10 of a mile, you going to kill us trying to get in and out of the place. Jabil is all ready going to load us down on it. 150 of these signatures came from our (inaudible) I collected them. I did not write the petition, but I collected them from people up there that are worried about the traffic problem. And 150 of them came out within 4/10 of a mile as you turn off of Locust Grove toward our subdivision South of you. And that’s our only in and out—is Franklin and Locust Grove. And in the mornings at 6 o’clock you can have a 5 minute wait to get on to Franklin sometimes because of the traffic passing you can’t get out. Thank you. MacCoy: Any questions of Mr. Fox? Okay. Anyone else. Come on up. Plant: Morgan Plant, 300 South Locust Grove. I take issue with Mr. Peterson’s claim that he has contacted the neighbors within 300 feet. I do believe my property is within 300 feet of this property and I have not met the man until I saw him here to night. So he has not contacted the neighbors. MacCoy: Did you receive a letter in the mail? Plant: We did not. MacCoy: Okay. Plant: One basic, overriding, outstanding principle for opposing this project, simply does not fit that area. Plain, simple and flat. You have approved Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 20 commercial to the West. You have approved commercial at the end of South Locust Grove and we all know that the long range plan, Franklin Road, will be commercial from the frontage back to the South and to the North, over the next 20 years. And to put a housing development of this caliber in the middle of an industrial area, it’s just plain stupid. Thank you. MacCoy: Any questions for him. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else. Go ahead. Barrith: Yes, my name is John Barrith. I live at the end of Locust Grove, 2205 E. Cadillac. I’ve heard people addressing the commission tonight and I feel that one thing has been left out. I also am a commuter in that area. I work right there, off of Franklin off of Nolan and Lanark, and I drive that road several times a day. One thing I see that is not being said here is safety of our citizens, because that is one of the most hazardous areas that I’ve seen in Meridian. So I think that safety is probably one of the things the Commission should address on this. I have seen more accidents on that road right there. People serving out into the bar pit, so at this time that type of housing project would not be feasible. I’ve heard people say that from the stand point of us getting in and out of Locust Grove, that is a dead end street and I heard a gentleman make a comment of 5 minutes. I have waited longer then that. I want..since I didn’t get to address the Commission last meeting, I want to state that I am opposed to this and basically say that they should consider that safety factor of our citizens. MacCoy: Thank you very much. You raise a very good point that we have all ready noted as a Commission that we’d check this out with the Police Department as well as the Traffic. It is a real concern of ours because it is a high unsafe place in our community. So it is a concern of ours. Anyone else here? Go ahead. McMillon: I am Reese McMillon and live at 870 South Locust Grove. My biggest concern on this is like everyone else, is the traffic. Jabil Mfg. Is putting in a manufacturing plant on the West side of the end of Locust Grove and the freeway. They are also opening up a road onto Locust Grove which they will have up to 400 cars, employees, they’ll have access in and out of that area and they are also putting in two soccer fields down there and if they have soccer matches (inaudible) they will have as high as 1500 cars. They try to come in and out of that little two lane road on Locust Grove and if he wants to put his main access onto Locust Grove off his development there, I think we are just butting our head against the wall trying to cure a headache. That’s what I think. So I mean, this is my main concern is the traffic down there. I think we ought to table this thing until they widen the road. If it’s 15 years, table it for 15 years. MacCoy: Thank you sir. Is there anyone else who would like to comment here right now? Anybody in the back? Yes, come all the way up. You kind of fade out in that light system. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 21 Witherell: Jim Witherell, 215 South Locust Grove. I mainly want to speak for some points of clarification from the last meeting. Commission Borup was asking about the previous high density housing (inaudible) that was manufactured homes. It started out that way. That was withdrawn. It then came back as partially stick manufactured homes behind the residences, the rest being manufactured homes. That was turned down by the City. It then came back as an industrial park. Those were the three phases, but they all sort of blend together. It blurred my mind too, so I had to go back and look them up in our papers. Secondly, everybody is concerned about ACHD and its roads. I worked with ACHD. I do not work for ACHD so I can’t speak on what ACHD plans to do. I do work for the Transportation Department in the economic section. I did check yesterday afternoon. The overpass is still scheduled to be looked at in the year 2023. There are no future plans to beyond that. That’s all I have to clarify. MacCoy: Thank you sir. Is there anyone else. Yes, you want to talk. Robertson: My name is Ernie Robinson and I live at 185 South Locust Grove. Our property is right next to this project that Mr. Peterson wants to build. I have written down what I want to say as so I can keep on track. So bear with me. You know, the neighbors met with Mr. Peterson twice prior to the last Planning and Zoning meeting. At that time he never indicated to us that it was going to be low cost housing. I wasn’t till we came to the Planning and Zoning meeting last month that Mr. Barbeiro asked him if it was going to be subsidized housing and I understood him to say, yes it was because you referred to the minutes. Also a clarification about this that Mr. Borup brought up. He spoke about the 65 manufactured homes. But that was not on this same property that Mr. Peterson is now. It is on the property West of us. So it’s not the same piece of property at all. It’s not a big deal, but I wanted to make clarification that …will I guess I have a concern there. I don’t understand the difference between 65 unit manufactured homes and 96 apartment houses that are low income. I mean what’s the difference. It’s all not very compatible. And you heard Mr. Peterson say that he proposed putting a masonry fence on the West and South boundaries of his property. At our first meeting, my husband asked for the masonry fence and Mr. Peterson reluctantly agreed. He asked that..we asked him not to put the fence on the West side because we have been trying to get Mr. Barnes to fulfill his obligation of taking care of the landscaping behind our residences. Mr. Peterson indicated that Mr. Barnes got angry and walked out when they were discussing the landscaping and that he, Mr. Peterson, would be happy to work with us and support our efforts. But as you heard, from his presentation, last month that this is not happening. The fence was his idea and Mr. Boyd, who represents Barnes was delighted with the idea of the masonry fence. Mr. Peterson’s narrative is incorrect. This all happened before we realized with all things considered, that it is not a good project for the site at South Locust Grove and Franklin Roads. And I date say that a 6 foot masonry fence and any additional landscaping is not going to eliminate the noises from the complex..such as dogs barking and kids screaming and crying, automobiles, garbage trucks, etc. Mr. Peterson said that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 22 he would like these people to walk or bicycle to what ever they want as much as they can…whatever that means. That is a real joke. There are no bicycle paths. There are no sidewalks. We have lived there for 30 years and me and my husband have been walking in years in this area and I can guarantee you that in the last 2 years it is not a safe place to be. I still bicycle, but only early very early Saturday and Sunday mornings because there is less traffic. People driving cars don’t have patients with bikers and they don’t see people walking. They are too busy with their cell phones, combing their hair, drinking their coffee. I’ll bet there would not be 10 people biking or walking, but it makes a great story. Mr. Peterson also stated that he has designed his project in a way to take advantage of the view. So what does he think happens to the view of all the neighbors? I am sure he does not care, so while Mr. Peterson lives in Boise and his daughter lives in California, we will live in the shadows of a low income housing project and our property values will be devaluated immensely. Another issue is that I went to the Meridian School’s Administrative Offices and I talked with Jim Carberry. I discussed this apartment complex with him. Their not overjoyed with the idea that it is low income housing and it is true they have room in the schools at this time. But that is because Meridian Tax Payers have approved Bonds to build new schools to catch up. I don’t think Mr. Peterson or his daughter’s California residence has paid any of these taxes. The school district does have concerns about traffic. The Meridian School District does have concerns about traffic. Their Transportation Department is at the East end of Lanark Road. They have 180 busses that leave the bus barn every morning. They go down Lanark to Nola, which feeds into Franklin. Another nightmare with the traffic for both the busses and the existing traffic. Mr. Peterson seems to be very proud of the quality of his other projects. Why then, is he so willing to lower his standards and construct a subsidized apartment complex (sorry about the work subsidized) on property which is so inappropriate, incompatible and unpopular with over 200 property owners who have signed the petition that you now have. And in defense of my husband and Mr. Smith who went out and got the petitions, they did this very honestly and above board. They did not tell any false stories. They said it like it was, just like we have said to you here tonight. I resent his unkind comments. At the last meeting most of you had some very valid points as to why this project was not appropriate for the corner of Franklin and South Locust Grove Roads. Mr. Barbeiro, I’m sorry if that is an incorrect pronunciation, stated it very clearly and I won’t read you what he said, but it’s in your minutes. But after Mr. Peterson pleaded with you to approve his project and to change you way of thinking, you gave him another chance. Regardless of how Mr. Peterson revises or reconstructs his project, it is not going to change the situation and conditions that have been presented. We have single level, light industrial and commercial us. I would much rather see you continue with that concept. Professional building or businesses such as Art Tech are certainly more suitable than subsidized housing. Many people in the Meridian area have stated that we have low income housing. Isn’t there something better for us? I am not going to stand here and plead with you as Mr. Peterson did last time. I’m not good Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 23 at…I’m not as good as schmoozing and finessing as he is. I respectably deny the Cobblestone project on the merits presented by the opposition. Thank you. MacCoy: Thank you very much. Any questions for her. I guess not. Thank you. Very well done. You’ve done your homework. Thank you. Plant: Morgan Plant. I was previously up here. In all this discussion about the Cobblestone project. No one has brought up the fact that just around the corner in time, down the road about an eighth of a mile, there is a project involving 250 houses on a vacant 80 acres. Which is essentially adjacent to my South property line. Now no one has brought this up, but we know it’s there because we know the City of Meridian has stubbed in the sewer at Five Mile Creek in preparation for Peter O’Neil Development, whatever he calls himself now, to put in there. So you through 96 houses housing units he’s proposing and the 250 houses that in time just around the corner, I think you see the picture. Thank you. MacCoy: We do thank you. Anyone else? All right. Back to the mike, will you please. Smith: Robert R. Smith. 335 South Locust Grove Road. Ada County Highway District, Planning and Development Division has stated here in this statement that this development is estimated to generate 2400 additional vehicle trips per day, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Men. Borup: We’ve got that information. MacCoy: Yeah, we have that in ours probably. It is the same report we have here so it’s on ours. I did not know if you had something different or not. All right, Larry Sale. Hiding behind the podium. Do you think it’s safe that way? Before you start Larry, the man that was mentioned here was Joe Roselund. He was a supervisor of traffic engineering. I was unable to make his meeting, although I had planned to do so, and I wanted to see how he would be phrasing the material that we had just received and talked about less than a week before that. I would be very interested to see what you have to say to that. Sale: Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, just for the record I am Larry Sale, Planning and Development Supervisor for Ada County Highway District. Sometime we’ll have to get together under more pleasant circumstances. You reminded me of something earlier. You said that you thought of calling me. Shari Stiles has my direct line and you can call me at any time. MacCoy: I’ve got your card as well and we’ve met before and we are going to be back at it again. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 24 Sale: You’ll either get me or my voice mail, and I’ll get back to either one of you if you call. Mr. Roselund is supervisor of traffic engineering for the district. I didn’t take notes from what the gentleman said that Mr. Roselund had said. I recall some of it. The..I think he indicated that this stretch of Locust Grove relative probably would be the last one that would be built. I probably would agree with that. Depending on how fast the city grows North of Ustick. The stretch from McMillan to Chinden and this one I would say might be in a dead heat for being last, depending on which way the city grows. Right now, the city is growing to the South. What I…there is no written information to indicate when this section of Locust Road might be constructed. Mr. Roselund indicated that the overpass I84 was probably beyond a 15 year planning horizon. I think that’s accurate. The road between I84 and Franklin will probably be reconstructed prior to that, if grown continues in this area as it has. The city has approved some very beneficial projects for the city in the area South and West of this one, and I would anticipate that they would be putting a demand on Locust Grove Road. The O’Neal property was mentioned in passing and while we’ve received nothing officially, and I don’t know that your staff has either, we have had conversations with representatives of Mr. O’Neal and do anticipate that that would be submitted to you for annexation and development sometime in the near future. With any news, I guess there is good news and bad news. With the Jabil Development comes a connection of a public street to Locust Grove Road and one could say that that would increase the traffic on Locust Grove Road that would also provide a second means of access into the area at the South end of Locust Grove Road, well of which could prove beneficial, both beneficial from a safety standpoint and from a convenient standpoint for the people that live there. Unfortunately, the section of Franklin Road is not in the adopted 5 year work program meaning it is not programmed for construction prior to 2003. We are currently updating that 5 year program to take to the Commissioners for adoption later this year, but this section of Franklin Road is not in that update either. The only thing that I can tell you all that I know for sure is that the section of Franklin probably will not be reconstructed before 2004, in that area. Depending on the rate of development North of Franklin Road between Franklin Road and Pine, Locust Grove may be, the realigned Locust Grove, may be constructed by developers prior to Franklin Road being constructed, but that’s purely a guess. A conjecture on my part and really up to the rate of development in that part of the city. I need to make a correction. As you probably know, we had an erroneous staff report that went to our Commissioner’s had some errors in it and that has been subsequently corrected and sent back to our Commissioner’s the 2nd of June. It’s 96 units apartment complex has estimated to generate 640, 634 additional trips per day. The trip generation rate for the apartment is about 7 trips per day—6-7 trips per day compared to a single family dwelling of about 10 trips per day. So the corrected trip generation should be in the neighborhood should be about 630, 640 trips a day. I’ve done something normally I don’t do and that’s get up her and tell you what I think you want to know without asking you that if you have any questions. I should have done that first. I apologize. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 25 MacCoy: Your doing fine. Go ahead. Sale: I think I’ve about reached the end of my spiel. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. MacCoy: I’d like to put a comment in to the (inaudible) on this—your city has done a lot of work in recent in the last two years with the ACHD people and Larry has been very much involved in a lot of this. We have felt for sometime that because (inaudible) high amount of impact fees, because of all our expansion, that we ought to be able to get more for our money. In other words. And they have agreed with us now and are working with us. It’s not that when he mentions the date for the Franklin Road and the date for the Locust Grove and the overpass---it’s not that those are not considered important. They are important. In fact they rate very high on their list. But the things that hurts every one of us is that we go through these meetings is the dollars are not there. We are really hurt from the standpoint that even though we are putting money into the kitty, the actual end of the section that we get of that does not come out to be enough to do all of the things we’d like to do, we need to do. I was very pleased when we had finally picked up the Franklin Road expansion to 5 lanes and First to Linder and the traffic change which came out of that plus the lights came out of that, which you have been experiencing on Meridian—the digging and so on as off of the controller system which is going to be uniform for the entire city. I wish there was some more public press on some of this stuff because I think as far as I see it from what we’ve seen (audible) from ACHD and your work Larry and your colleagues work, because we are receiving some results. It is never fast enough and we, as a Commission, we get hit all the time with why don’t they do their roads first and then put the housing in and then but the business in and we keep telling the public that that’s not the way it works. It goes the reverse and that’s unfortunate for all of us. Sale: Mr. Chairman, thanks for the good thoughts. You know my wife and I just took a trip down to Southern California last week and I was observing in an area which is growing pretty rapidly. When we drove out, and here’s a 5 lane road that is going out in the sage brush, and there is no development on it. Coming back and discussing that, they have a totally different way of financing things. They form, I think they call them assessment districts MacCoy: They do. Sale: They are kind of like a LID, Local Improvement District. But down there the roads are required to be constructed, planned and constructed before the development occurs. It would be really nice if we could get into that situation, but our current laws don’t allow that to happen. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 26 MacCoy: That’s what I found out. I’ve lived in other parts of the country like that and when I came here I said that one of the meetings I attended and was told and quoted the law in the State of Idaho that we’re not in that type of life style. That is unfortunate, I think I guess because they felt we were not a growth state way back when. I don’t know. We don’t have that right not. We may eventually get to that place. I hope we do. Anything else you want to say to us? Do we have any Commissioner’s that want to add Larry. Borup: Yes Mr. Chairman. MacCoy: Go right ahead. Borup: I had a few questions. One—well probably most of them refer back to the ACHD staff report in which The ACHD Commission approved this project. The question I had was in discussing the traffic count, we talked about there is no over pass over I84. Once an over pass is constructed staff anticipates traffic volume will increase significantly in Locust Grove, (inaudible) then it says staff have considered the increase in traffic volume with this application. So is that Mr. Sale saying that the traffic volume of the over pass was taken into consideration and then beyond that Jabil and any other expansions were that also taken into consideration or would you know specifically know what that was referring to? Sale: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Borup. The statement meant that it has taken into consideration the traffic to be generated by this development and the other known development around. Borup: And including additional traffic from the freeway over pass. Sale: No. If you look down at the bottom of the report… Borup: It says once an over pass is constructed… Sale: Once an over pass over the interstate is constructed, it will draw traffic from South and North of the interstate that is not there now. People will use this as a connector between the residential part South of the interstate and the business part North of the interstate. Borup: Okay. So this statement that consider the increase of traffic was increased from this project was increase of traffic that was considered then? Sale: Where are you reading and from what are you reading? Borup: First paragraph on—under facts and findings. Page 2 under Section A. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 27 Sale: That sentence reads staff is considered the increase in traffic volume with this application, meaning that the traffic from this application has been considered in reviewing.. Borup: Okay. Just this specific site application, not any surrounding projects. Sale: Yes Borup: As been stated, traffic seems—I had another question on the Jabil. You said that’s going to supply second access. Your saying through Jabil’s property to the—access from the West—coming in from the West of their project that will tie into the corporate part there— Sale: Yes. They’ll make a connection to Stratford and Central extended, I think is the street they are going to build. Borup: Okay. So your saying that people at that end of Locust Grove and the freeway may find it easier to go that way? Sale: It will be quicker because they will be able to get on to that street and get out to a signal at East First and then on to Meridian or East First and then out to the interstate. Borup: I don’t know that the Jabil application got into that detail on that. So I was interested in knowing that. (inaudible) the intersection seems to be a lot of concern. Locust Grove and Franklin. You mentioned it would be another 5 years before Franklin will be improved the whole length along there. Nothing was mentioned on any consideration for anything on the intersection itself. Specifically, a traffic light or even just widening the intersection itself. Is that a possibility without looking into the 5 year plan. Would you comment on that? Sale: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Borup. That’s a fair question. One I should have covered. The five year work program covers lengths of roadways. We have other programs that we can grind to bear on problem intersections and either rebuild them, adding left turn lanes and signal, and/or signalizing. We can do either or both. That is a program that the City of Meridian will probably see more of in the future as we are able to get some funds expended over this way to upgrade intersections. They’re the most expensive part of the project, but they also do the most good for the dollar. So frequently we do upgrade intersections some years in advance of constructing the connecting lengths of roadway. So without making any promises, the option of the traffic signal at Franklin and Locust Grove is not out of the question. Borup: Is that something that would be on a specific application for that site and looked at that situation then? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 28 Sale: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Borup. When we have a major application, if you’ll remember the one at Franklin Road and Eagle—no Fairview Avenue and Eagle, we do exact from the developer major improvements at the intersection. It was felt that the traffic generation from this development was not a big enough part of the entire traffic volume at that intersection to warrant an exaction. For example, my 2 year old traffic court shows that there is about 9000 trips a day there and certainly there is more than that now. So if this project generated six hundred and some trips, 600 say out of 10,000 is a relatively insufficient amount, so we would not exact a portion of the signal cost for a project of that nature. Borup: Okay. But that is something that can be moved up on a schedule a lot easier than other road projects. I mean that is something that can be worked in, if the demand and if it warrants it? Sale: That is correct. Borup: Thank you. That’s all I had. Sale: Remember. We have about 1000 intersections. MacCoy: Your doing very well. Any other questions for Mr. Sale. Smith: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sale how wide is Franklin Road being planned to be widened. Is it 5 lanes? Sale: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith. Until we get into a planning program for a roadway we don’t like to talk in terms of numbers of lanes. Locust Grove, North of Fairview is just now in this stage and it will be somewhat of a montage of lane widths. It will start out at 5 lanes at Fairview and end up at Ustick as a 3 lane roadway, just because of the volume of traffic and number of driveways and street intersections that it has. This close to Meridian, I would guess, that it will be 5 lanes that it will be five lanes initially, but that’s purely a guess again on my part. Smith: I guess I’m just concerned because we’ve got the Idaho Center. We just had this 5 lane widening and between First and Linder and coming out West from the mall is 5 lanes and there was some testimony last month on dedication off the center line, whether it was 48 feet for 60 feet. Is 48 feet adequate to service a 5 land road? Sale: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Smith. That’s our standard. 5 lane. Smith: Okay. That’s my question. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 29 Sale: We always buy right-of-way for 5 lanes along the section line roads. Some cases it may be in my lifetime when we get 5 lanes, it may not. We’ll have the dirt to put it there. MacCoy Any other questions? Barbeiro Mr. Sale. Commissioner Barbeiro. My apologies. I am not familiar with your position hierarchy of ACHD. Sale: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barbeiro. I am somewhere between a grunt and a boss. I’m in the third level of management. There is one director. There are four managers and they under each manager there are two or three supervisors and I am one of those. Barbeiro: Then I would like to ask your professional opinion. Is the current construction of this intersection sufficiently adequate to support this project and the added volume of traffic? Sale: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Barbeiro. This intersection is adequate to handle the increased traffic. It will continue to degrade as traffic increases until a time, if we aren’t able to fix it, prior to that time, until there will be unacceptable delays in getting into the intersection. Barbeiro: Could you give me a definition of acceptable and unacceptable delays. Sale: We use the term, level of service. The level of service goes from A to F. And it is just like the grades you got in high school. Barbeiro: Not the grades I got. Sale: I’m sure you must have got an A in there somewhere. Probably all A’s. We can not afford to build a transportation system that will operate at level of service C. A definition of level of service C at an intersection, a signalized intersection of 2 artials is when you measure the delay of every vehicle that uses that intersection during the peak hour and the average delay is more than 25 to 40 seconds. Now before I get shot in the back, that measures the guy who got there just as the …he was the tale end of the cue and the light turned green. It also measures the people that are free-flowing on the system that the computer is helping get through. They are flowing right through. For example, at 6 o’clock on a week day---well I was going to say this---well I think I can say this---6 o’clock on a week day the signals would be programmed to aide East/West flow of traffic, so that someone coming from the North or South would have to sit there longer to get into the intersection that somebody going East to West. The next level is level of service D, which we try to maintain, although some intersections—A guy once said he never asked me the time of day because I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 30 built him a watch every time that he asked, but there are intersections that at level of service F. A couple of them are Beacon and Broadway that has over 50,000 cars a day through it and obviously our favorite Milwaukee and Franklin. Then there is a pretty big range of level of service E, which I think is 45 to 60 seconds average delay. We would consider this intersection—we would work we would not want this intersection to drop below level of service E during the peak hour and level of service D during the rest of the day. Barbeiro: The way you defined the level of service, correct me, are those four stoplight intersections only, or would they apply to a stop sign intersection? Sale: They can be applied to any intersection. They are computed on a 4-way signalized intersection. Barbeiro: So this particular intersection being 3-way would not fall into that ability to categorize? Sale: Obviously, the level of service now on this one East and West is A, because there is no stop and from the South---I drove out there this morning on my way in and of course that was somewhat after the peak. It was about 6 o’clock I guess—6:30, and I had no trouble turning left onto Franklin, but I presume that an hour before that or at 7 o’clock in the morning there is probably a significant delay turning left. A 3-way intersection is more is easier to maintain a higher level of service than a 4 legged intersection. I probably am not answering your question very well. Barbeiro: It was fairly open ended in your opinion based upon what you know of this intersection, with the inclusion of nearly 700 trips and the inclusion of what is initially to be I believe 400 employees at Jabil, would you classify this intersection upon completion of this project as an E or an F. SIDE 3**************************** Sales: …would have to have a traffic engineers forecast of how many trips from Jabil are going to come out Locust Grove, as opposed to going to the west. This project as I look at the site plan shows driveways on both streets, Locust Grove and Franklin. So we would have to have a split of that traffic. That would all have to be plugged in to APA, Ada Planning Association’s computer and see where the demand lies. See which way they would go. Then I could answer the question. Sorry. MacCoy: Just for the record, since we had to change tapes during that point of his question. You had made the statement and I think we just changed tapes about that time that you didn’t have enough information, is that correct? Sales: That’s correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 31 MacCoy: Okay, thank you. For the record. Any other questions? Thanks Larry. Going to change the guard here. Waiting to get you in here. All right, was there anyone else that had something to say? Okay, you have one, okay. GENE PRESSLEY, 255 S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD. Pressley: Just for the record, Mr. Peterson is asking us in my mind to tolerate the traffic as it is going to be for the next 5-15 years before there is any changes, is that correct? MacCoy: (Inaudible) Pressley: That’s a lot of traffic for 5-15 years. MacCoy: Agreed. Pressley: And a lot of danger for us who live on the road and have to walk on the road, thank you. MacCoy: All right, you’re welcome. I’ve got a hand go up right here. Yes, okay. JERI SMITH, 335 S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD. Smith: I think there is some, a couple of things that the 300 feet as we all have determined is kind of a joke as far as people getting where they are going and what they have to do. MacCoy: It’s also in your territory, that’s kind of a strange thing too. Smith: The traffic I’ve seen backed from Eagle Road through to Cloverdale Road coming home at 5:00. I have seen traffic backed from Eagle Road down almost past Locust Grove, you consider school buses stopping to pick up children that goes back to the safety of this. Nothing has been considered about the winter storms and how many of us has said okay, you have got to get off of the interstate because there has been accidents on the interstate or you can not travel it. Where is one of the first places they send them is on Franklin Road and I would like you to consider that please. MacCoy: Thank you for your statement and that is very true. IN fact I’ve seen at 7:00 something in the morning and then in the evening around 4:30 or 5:00, the distance between Eagle and 1st Street is solid with traffic, so I know that we are faced with a difficult problem here. Anyone else? Yes, Mr. Fox. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 32 ALAN FOX, 1840 CADILLAC DRIVE. Fox: I would like to address a couple of Larry’s statements. He said we would have a second access to Jabil (Inaudible) which is true. It’s roughed in right now. It runs over and his Stoddard Road as he said. The Stoddard Road (Inaudible) right back onto Franklin, so we are right back to Franklin again to fight the traffic in the morning or evening. Have you tried to get on East 1st in the morning or evening out of that industrial park? It’s just about as bad trying to get on there. Also, I believe that you said 6 PM the east-west traffic light would stay on longer than north-south. So north-south has longer to have to wait. I know that at Eagle and Franklin that is not true. Eagle does travel longer than Franklin does. Eagle is north-south on that one. That’s all I have. MacCoy: Anyone else? Okay, I’m going to throw it back to staff. Oh come on, I didn’t see your hand go up there. You’ve got to be positive about this thing. LISA MARIE GOULD, 863 W. QUARTER DRIVE, EAGLE, ID. Gould: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Commissioners I would just like to make a couple of points just to clarify and Bryce has taken a lot of heat this evening and it’s my job, I need some of this heat. What I have done clearly and would just like to bring this to point on our plan and this is what has been my job that Bryce initially when we have met, we did put a masonry fence through the request of the Robersons and mainly Mr. Peterson’s reasons and delay and wanting to put that wall is either because sometimes masonry fences echo and maybe they don’t look as pretty. So then we thought about this and putting in a texture or pattern that might make that masonry fence look nicer and continuing the masonry fence around the project was mainly to keep the project enclosed. Another point, fact is the setbacks. It really took a lot to work on that. We did get rid of one building and rearranged and made sure that we put nice setbacks on Roberson’s side and also on Larry Barnes…I mean, excuse me Mr. Barne’s, everyone knows Larry Barnes from cars, but on Barne’s industrial property and at the same point, I worked hard in getting trash receptacles and enough parking and handicap parking, so there are more things that I really worked hard at as to trying to appease what we were asked to do. When it comes to the list of names, I felt like Mr. Peterson was attacked and that was my job and I did get the list faxed from Meridian Planning and Zoning that I would like to at least submit because that was what was given to us and that’s the list that we have to go by, if I could submit that please. (Inaudible) in deliberation and vote on a record and provide—we would like to provide the city attorney with the information that he needs as to why we believe this project does not meet, or meet the criteria of all your ordinances. In connection of annexation and zoning, conditional use. At this point we would like to close. MacCoy: Okay, you finished? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 33 Gould: Yes. MacCoy: Okay, any questions for the commissioners? Smith: Mr. Chairman, I had a couple of questions for Mr. Tamara, if nobody else has—unless somebody has some more questions for her. I would like to ask him to come up when she is finished. MacCoy: All right, would you ask—you may sit down now. DOUG TAMARA, 499 MAIN STREET, BOISE, ID. Tamara: I was the designer of the project. Smith: I apologize to staff, I did find the elevations in my packet, however they seem to reflect two story buildings, but let me just—there is no material call outs, or heights or anything on here, do you have that information? Tamara: The buildings will be approximately 35 feet on a two and a half stories, approximately 24 to 26 feet on the two stories. We’ve been using the high quality grade of vinyl siding. The overall design of the project and part was driven by Mr. Peterson was that I think his reputation precedes himself as far as the quality of the product that he has done between—you know Lake Wood he’s done in Boise. He was a forerunner as far as planned unit developments on his concepts and designs. You know, his Mill Creek project he has done on Overland, Lexington Hills in Eagle. I think everywhere he has gone he has left a real high quality mark in the cities that he has developed in. This project again was another one of Bryce’s ideas that we develop something that took advantage of the view of Boise Front. You know, put our parking between the buildings that we didn’t have large parking lots and so I think most of the design is actually a combination of Bryce’s efforts to make sure that it’s done right. I think the City of Meridian if it does ever approve this project would be proud of what is going to happen. It’s not a standard apartment complex and we’ve worked real hard to come up with a good quality product. Smith: Thanks. Asphalt shingles? Tamara: Yes. Asphalt shingles, vinyl windows, vinyl siding. Smith: When you—you’re depth, let me make sure I understand your—what a two and a half story unit is. It’s a three story unit that has been bermed? Tamara: The way that the uniform building code reads as far as story’s is they allow that if—I believe 60% of the perimeter of the building is bermed to a certain height that allows fire protection that you can get by and call it a two and a half Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 34 story. So it’s considered a daylight basement as far as the uniform building code is… Smith: Right, that’s done all the time around… Tamara: Yeah, it’s mainly to prevent from putting fire sprinklers in. Smith: Okay, I just wanted to clarify that for the record that—so that the public is aware of what is a two and a half story. So that was it. Thank you. Barbeiro: Mr. Tamara? MacCoy: Mr. Tamara you have other questions here. Barbeiro: Mr. Tamara, in a two and a half story structure, would that be similar to, I believe you are familiar with Aspen Hills, the way that is constructed with a berm, where you have three story’s of livable but it qualifies as a two and a half story. Tamara: Yeah, exactly the same. Barbeiro: Okay, thank you. MacCoy: Half story below ground. Anyone else that—all right. Staff, where did Shari go? Freckleton: There is nothing to add. MacCoy: She had nothing to add. I thought after all the questioning she might have had something that she wanted to emphasis or underline for us here. She’s not available, okay. Freckleton: You can’t think of anything Bruce? MacCoy: Okay, all right. Commissioners, what is your desires here. Do you want to keep the public hearing open? Do you want to close it? You want to what? Is that permitable? Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we close this public hearing. Barbeiro: I second the motion. MacCoy: Any discussion? All right, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 35 MacCoy: All right, hearing is officially closed. Now it’s up to the commissioners to make their decisions as to how they want to rule on this. They want to do what has been asked, request for annexation and zoning? That’s all we are discussing at this moment. Smith: Mr. Chairman, fellow commissioners. I would like to follow up on comment made earlier by Mr. Rossman. I will concede that maybe my comments were miss timed, however, my opinions and assessment of this project are drawn on my professional background and experience of over 16 years of practicing architecture. They are not my personal opinions, they are my professional opinions based on my background and training. Second, I do understand what you are saying about subsidized units are totally irrelevant to the consideration of this project, however, I do think it speaks volumes to the type of quality of construction and quality of materials and etc. that will be used on this development. That I think is very relevant in our debate and discussion on this issue. Rossman: Well then ask questions about the quality of the structure and the quality of the materials used in the structure, rather than whether it is subsidized or not. Smith: I did do that and I didn’t ask any questions about whether it was subsidized. I did ask questions on the construction. So that… Rossman: I would agree with you those are certainly relevant issues. Smith: That being said, I think I made my –I just don’t think it’s compatible with the adjacent development and the road can’t handle it. We’re looking at—I know what the uniform building code says, but they are three story units. They are not two story units, they are three story’s. I don’t think it’s good planning. MacCoy: Okay, let’s do a little bit of thought process here if you will. If you go back and you sat on the board with us, Keith has been there at that time. We did have the discussion about the bridge area which turned into a very nice place for light industrial which was what the land was said for. It’s been said that Franklin is heading down because our light industrial type of life along there. We’ve given discussion in past and approval to others across on the north side of Franklin already. The traffic is a problem very definitely and is going to continue to be a problem and increasing. We have a problem that the money is not available to widen Franklin or do our jobs as we would like them to be done. We have a non- signal area which doesn’t appear to at present to be planned for a signal. We have a high safety problem at that area according to our police department, which is a great concern our Police Chief and his crew. I think Jabil coming in is going to be a help to us, because they are going to get another road out of this. Run along parallel to the freeway, but that too is going to be a problem as far as Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 36 a connection going the other way. So it’s not an all curing piece. The neighborhoods around the area are single-family. They are an acre and up type places. It’s an older neighborhood. Think of the public that we will impact by this. Think of the construction, already asked some of the questions. We’ve heard questions and answers to the wall and to landscaping. Just bring all these up forward to see you run them through your mind and make a decision. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I was not involved in any of those light industrial projects around this area so I can’t speak to the decisions that were made when those were approved. MacCoy: Well the ones across the north side you were not, but I thought the one on the south you may have. Smith: The one on the south was already approved. The only thing that I heard on that is one of the development of one of the sites which I felt that was kind of already forced fed on me since it was already approved. MacCoy: Well, that’s probably true. Smith: I guess if you are going to put a development in at this density right adjacent to such a low density residential, you have to be serious about providing some adequate buffering there. That is not—that isn’t, this project doesn’t even come close to that. A six foot masonry fence is not buffering. It’s just not. The buildings are as close as they can be per the zoning ordinance setbacks and some of those buildings are three stories. They are two and a half stories from the berm around the building, but on the adjacent property they are three stories. MacCoy: And that’s not buffering you’re correct and we are—part of our comp plan does speak to buffering. We have discussed it as commissioners. How do you go from one level to another? You are right, there is a void in this area. Smith: I guess that’s my—I mean, you can see all of Franklin developing and changing and the rural lifestyle in that area is changing forever, but these people have lived there for 30 years and if we are going to go in and be approving projects that are different zones and things, then we should be doing what our Comprehensive Plan says and our zoning ordinances say and provide adequate buffering and provide projects that are compatible with the adjacent development. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I’m interested in Commissioner Smith’s expanding on compatible with the adjacent developments. You are saying it’s not compatible with the industrial parks down and around both sides of it? Smith: Nobody lives in the industrial parks so I’m really not… Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 37 Borup: You’re not concerned there. So you are concerned about the… Smith: I’m not that concerned about that. I mean there are some—I mean I wouldn’t want to live next to them. Borup: To the industrial park? Smith: Yeah, I wouldn’t want to. Borup: So you are saying no one would want to build a single family residential subdivision… Smith: I didn’t say nobody would want to. I just said I wouldn’t want to. I mean… Borup: So your concern is the three houses to the south of this? Smith: And south of them too. The whole are south of this project. Especially the parcels adjacent to this project. Borup: In my mind, I would like to (Inaudible) consideration down to two areas. One the project itself and then traffic as a separate issue. You had earlier mentioned construction—do you still have some concerns on the construction? You mentioned that was what you felt was a factor on type of housing. Is it any different than any other apartment complex? Smith: I wouldn’t consider it to be—with what information that we’ve been presented I wouldn’t consider it to be any high—I wouldn’t consider it to be high quality. Borup: What would make it high quality? All brick? I’m not sure what else to change? Smith: You could use masonry brick for example, wood siding, stucco, drivot, do some—you know, mass the buildings differently. They’ve just (Inaudible) two and three story volumes. It’s just pretty simple straight forward cost effective construction. Borup: They probably changed their mind a little bit on the exterior of some of the earlier information talked about hardy flank rather than vinyl. So that may have just been—okay. I don’t have any other questions on that. I don’t know. I’m not so sure on the compatibility issue. The majority of the stuff like we already stated is industrial-commercial property. It’s not compatible with acreage subdivisions, but—I don’t know what we could do about that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 38 Smith: Well, a design could be presented that addresses buffering that would be appropriate between these two types of uses. Increasing the distance between the proposed buildings and the property line. Lowering the height of those buildings that border those property lines. Increasing the amount of landscaping that is visible not only from the development side, but also from the other side of the project or the adjacent properties. Instead of just planting a six foot high masonry wall right adjacent to the property. That’s what the adjacent property owner is going to be looking at is this masonry wall. Borup: I understood from last month that was the request of the property owner to put the masonry wall in. That was why it was—originally it wasn’t but that was added at a request of the… Smith: I guess I would be speaking to the proximity of the buildings to the property line and the height of those adjacent structures. Borup: That was probably a question I should have asked the architect when he was here. The topography of this land lends itself to the two and a half story units wouldn’t necessarily have to be a berm. I don’t know if they are planning on berming them or—that’s the high end of the lot where those units are going, so it can be recessed down and be a two and a half story from the grade depending on what that rear access. Smith: That’s possible, I believe the testimony was that they were going to berm them. Borup: Yeah. Um, this comment that I have got on traffic, that’s a very, very real concern, but we are ignoring or trying to second guess ACHD and this is their area of expertise. It’s not ours. MacCoy: How do you say that you are ignoring them? Borup: Well I don’t know if—we potentially could. ACHD does not have a concern with the traffic. Personally I, I’ve looked at the traffic count. We have papers in here that was passed around talking about traffic count on Locust Grove. I do live there. I travel down that road everyday and it’s higher traffic count than this. My concern here and with no signalization on the intersections there, now that isn’t the plan, but that would be my concern is I don’t think the traffic count here is the problem as much as a signal. Because that is a through street and you know, a signal there I think would solve the problem, but I don’t know how practical that—I know that’s practical, but I don’t know how feasible that is in the real near future. I don’t know if that question can be answered. MacCoy: I don’t think I can presently. I think Mr. Sale has stated to the best of his ability what is known and you and I have attended such meetings like this. We also live in a neighborhood and we can attest to the fact of what the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 39 conditions are today. It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out that by adding more people by whatever means, it’s just going to get to a point where I don’t know if we will ever get the gridlock, but getting close to it sometimes. Borup: Well I’m down those roads, you know, at least six to eight times a week. So I’m—admittedly I’m not there at rush hour time. MacCoy: You are smart. Borup: Purposely so, probably. I’m at other intersections. Smith: I have been and that’s why I don’t drive down Franklin anymore. MacCoy: Is there any other discussion or do you want to come to a conclusion here? We are at a point where we have closed the public hearing. Barbeiro: I would like to make some comments if I could Mr. Chairman. Speaking to the neighbors, first I believe that development is inevitable in your neighborhood and I think you have resigned yourself to that. Although given the choice I’m sure that you would all prefer that Locust Grove not change, not be widened that remain the country road that it is. I believe that almost everything that was discussed here tonight could’ve been averted if the developer had expanded his involvement with the neighbors. I do understand that he did hold several meetings with the neighbors and it was my hope that after last months meeting when we tabled this to the next meeting that the developer would take the opportunity to meet with the neighbors and see if there was an opportunity to resolve this. It is my understanding that he did not take that opportunity. I think that in a neighborhood where the single family homes are on one acre or larger parcels it is a minimal effort to send out notices within 300 feet and nothing more. That action lends itself to believe the developer was avoiding the neighbors knowing that there would be considerable negative impact on that. It is my hope that we do not have to continue public hearings in a governmental setting when I believe when you get a number of people together around a table many of these issues can be discussed and if at that point there is no resolution, we could be— have a greater involvement in this. MacCoy: Mr. Attorney, I’ve got a note just handed to me from Larry Sale, since we’ve closed the public hearing we do not have a forum for him to be able to talk to us and the public. Should we reopen it for his ability here or is that against our code of ethics or what have you. Rossman: Mr. Sale believes, apparently he does that he has further relevant information that may carry some weight in your decision, you certainly can afford yourself the opportunity to move to reopen the hearing to hear his testimony. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 40 Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that we reopen the public hearing to hear testimony of Mr. Sale. MacCoy: Sale only? Right? Borup: Yes. Smith: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MacCoy: Thank you very much, Mr. Sale. LARRY SALE. Sale: You will have to hear me apologize first because I misspoke to you about a connection of a road to Locust Grove Road through the Jabil project. I was recalling that their property extended all the way to Locust Grove Road, it does not. So I don’t know if that fact has any bearing on your consideration. A connection to Locust Grove Road is not possible till the intervening property develops between Jabil and Locust Grove Road. Again, I apologize to you and the people here tonight. I’m sorry that I made that statement. MacCoy: Okay, to in one sense add to Larry’s statement, I have sat in a committee meeting a few weeks ago, maybe a month or so ago now, that he is correct in the fact that there is a property piece missing out of the puzzle. One of the things that was discussed at that time was because the road was needed we would go for—wishing for the road to be connected and go through. We think as far as Meridian is concerned a feasible situation that we got to look into. (Inaudible) thank you very much Larry. We only have… Unidentified: I would just make one statement to him… MacCoy: Well, you could go talk to him, but you can’t be on record because of this. Having heard from Larry Sale, I need a closure here. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion and close this public hearing. Borup: Second. MacCoy: Okay, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 41 MacCoy: Okay, now we are back to the decision to make. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, from the comments made by Mr. Sale, does that mean that Jabil will not have access through Locust Grove? MacCoy: No, they will have Locust Grove, that’s where the problem is, till the other piece of the segment that is a frontage road next to 84 is completed. They will build their segment of it. That’s what I’m saying, we’re talking about doing some work to do the closure of that loop. Borup: So you are saying the property to the west of Jabil needs (Inaudible). MacCoy: That’s the last link in the puzzle. Borup: Which will tie into Home Depot and Waremart and all that? East of Jabil is Locust Grove. Barbeiro: He did say east of Jabil. Borup: I know, I thought he had east and west mixed up. He just confused east and west, it already does connect to Locust Grove. It’s the little section to the west of Jabil because that’s an undeveloped part of the industrial park there. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, that would mean that the initial employee traffic flow into Jabil would be 100% on Locust Grove. MacCoy: Right, they have an access to Locust Grove and they take that to go out and go in. Borup: That was the testimony what we understood from when Jabil was approved. Also realizing that the property to the west is going to be developed. MacCoy: Well, yeah, they have, somebody has either bought it or is bidding on it right now. We are looking at trying to move that forward. We are going to have an additional piece that we haven’t discussed here on Locust Grove and when they build Jabil, we are going to increase that traffic immensely by the construction crews that are going up to them that way for the next year. It has nothing to do with the item tonight. It’s just the fact that we’ve already compounded that for them. Borup: Maybe it’s final in that—I have to agree with—I think this application does meet the legal requirements for the city. If there is some incompatibility questions or problems, I think that could be met with. I’ve already stated what I feel about trying to second guess ACHD. If this project is denied because of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 42 traffic, that would prevent any future approvals of anything along Locust Grove south of Franklin, period. MacCoy: I wouldn’t say anything. Borup: Anything that is going to generate traffic. MacCoy: I think anything that has volume built into it. Borup: Well, 250 lot subdivision is 2500 vehicle count. MacCoy: I didn’t say subdivision, but I said, you know if you had light industrial which is what you have got up there already. If that is continuing on down, in that same available property, you have only traffic for the daylight hours. It isn’t continuous. Borup: In my mind, the solution that needs to be there is traffic on—I don’t know that we can approve that contingent upon a traffic light going in. I don’t think that’s going to do any good, but that’s probably my major concern. I would like to see a traffic light there. I think that would solve… Smith: My major concern is the project as presented doesn’t have anywhere near adequate buffering between the existing residents and the proposed development. In my mind that is enough to deny it. Borup: I wish we would’ve maybe gotten some additional testimony from the Robenson’s on what type of buffering that they would like to see. MacCoy: I think it’s a little deeper than that with Commissioner Smith. Rossman: Mr. Chairman, I believe we are still on the public—application for annexation and zoning. There still will be a continued public hearing for a conditional use permit assuming that there is an approval of the annexation and zoning. MacCoy: That’s true, but I’m trying to get the annexation… Rossman: Unless someone wants to consolidate, but this would not be the time to do that. MacCoy: No, it would not be. I see very closely joined together. So if we do not agree with the R-40, we have really put the thing in a different ball park. Barbeiro: With regards to the traffic as we have discussed here, Commissioner Borup wanted to make note of Meridian School District, from Jim Carberry where Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 43 he said we are concerned with the amount of traffic on Franklin Road. At times our buses have a difficult time turning onto Franklin Road from Nola Street. MacCoy: Are you familiar why? Because that’s what the barn is. Barbeiro: There is the addition of traffic onto Franklin and of course there is Jabil goes up there is going to be 100% of Jabil traffic going up Locust Grove. There is the traffic running right in front of Nola also. There doesn’t appear to be a resolution on this with regards to how ACHD can’t correct as quickly. That is not going to happen… MacCoy: No, that’s not going to happen. Barbeiro: We have established that. MacCoy: It may happen faster than five years and so on, but it’s not going to be quickly. Barbeiro: With regards to shall we say impassioned speeches that we have heard here today, I wanted to speak to Mrs. Roberson, is that right? Very well thought out and very well organized and a very compelling set of—you do speak well, regardless of how you wanted to present yourself, you do speak very well organized. I couldn’t take notes fast enough to ask you questions. The items that she brought up are completely valid. Again I would want to reiterate that many of these questions and concerns could have been averted and if the developer had made a concentrated effort with the neighbors. I do believe that he did make an effort, but there could’ve been much much more involved in this. With regards to Mr. Peterson, his project at Mill Creek and Lexington Hills, I must say that Lexington Hills is probably the finest development that is in this valley. I believe that the neighbors would probably love to have a Lexington Hills development, that style of development in their area. Unfortunately this development does not fall into the scale of Lexington Hills, although the thought process and the planning and your experience in those do deserve acknowledgement here. Again because of Mr. Smith’s comments about the compatibility and a concentrated compounded effort on the neighbors to seek out their neighbors and discuss this with them. The neighbors came together to discuss this, there were opportunities for other inputs within the neighbors that were not taken advantage of. I have no further comments Mr. Chair. MacCoy: Thank you for your comments. Okay, discussion is completed, are winding down here. Are we ready to make a… Smith: I don’t know how we could cover it anymore. MacCoy: I don’t either, but I was just leaving the door open for you Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 44 Borup: Again as council has reminded us, this is for annexation and zoning. MacCoy: You knew that anyway. Borup: Yes, I think we have a tendency to forget that a little bit. MacCoy: Well, we keep bringing it up. Borup: If this is not an appropriate zoning, what is? MacCoy: That’s what your point is. Borup: Industrial? MacCoy: Well, it’s a RT right now, it can be a CG or it could be something of that order. I don’t think it’s an R-4. So if you—particularly… Borup: Well, the application is for R-40. MacCoy: That’s what you have to look at. Borup: That’s what we have to vote on. Smith: Well I guess sooner or later somebody is going to have to make a motion. I think I will go ahead and stick my neck out and—Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we recommend to City Council denial of this application for annexation and zoning. MacCoy: Do I hear a second? Barbeiro: Second. MacCoy: Discussion? If anymore? Borup: Again, this is just annexation and zoning. MacCoy: Understand that, for R-40. Borup: I don’t think it’s out of place for an R-40 zoning. This may not be this specific project for that area, but I think that’s an appropriate zone and has been requested by the property owner. MacCoy: Call for a vote. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 45 Barbeiro: I need clarification. Commissioner Smith said to not recommend. A yes vote would be to not recommend. Rossman: Recommend denial. Smith: Recommend denial. Barbeiro: A yes vote would be to recommend denial. MacCoy: All in favor of the statement? MOTION CARRIED: 2 Ayes, 1 nay. MacCoy: Two votes for yes, one for no. Mr. Attorney complete the paperwork to—per the request by Commissioner Smith. ITEM NO. 6: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MULTI- FAMILY 96 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING FOR PROPOSED COBBLESTONE VILLAGE BY IONIC ENTERPRISES—SW CORNER OF FRANKLIN RD & LOCUST GROVE: MacCoy: Since we have just denied the R-40, Mr. Attorney? Item No. 6, we just denied the… Rossman: I don’t think there would be much use for a public hearing on a request for conditional use permit when annexation and zoning has just been denied. MacCoy: We are going to have to make a statement here though for Item No. 6 so we can close the book on it. Rossman: What kind of statement do we need? I guess the commissions decision is implied or expressed from it’s decision on the annexation and zoning and we will include that in the recommendation to the City Council that because of the decision on the annexation and zoning it was not addressed as to whether or not a conditional use permit was appropriate. If the City Council believes that they want to approve the annexation and zoning despite your recommendation they should send it back down for a public hearing on the conditional use permit. Let’s have that issued addressed first and if necessary we’ll address the conditional use permit later. So I would recommend that you table that particular matter until a determination by City Council on the annexation and zoning. MacCoy: That’s what I want to hear you say. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 46 Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we table item no. 6 pending decision by City Council on Item No. 5 request for annexation and zoning on this Cobblestone Village. Borup: Second. Smith: Well, I can’t table to a date certain until I know when they are going to act on it. Really, unless that’s what I need to do. Rossman: No need for a date certain, but Mr. Berg is correct. The proper language is continuation rather than table. Continue it without a specific designation of time. Smith: Then my motion to say continue in lieu of table. Borup: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MacCoy: The public has vanished on us here. I want to say thank you for the publics turnout because that is the way we make decisions. As you can see it was not an easy one to come up with. We still have thoughts in our mind sitting in this chair up here that we’ll live with for some time to come. All right, it is 9:30, we are going to take a ten minute break here. Promise we will be back at it again. (BREAK) MacCoy: We are under the gun, we have another half agenda to go through tonight. It’s almost 10:00 o’clock. By ordinance of our city, this board meets, can meet twice a month. We already have our second meeting scheduled June 17, it’s full. Our July meeting is full. We are working toward August, that’s how much material we have to go through. We try and do the best we can, I apologize for the length of this part that you’ve just seen… (END OF TAPE) MacCoy: With the threshold of the city and everything that people would like to say and tell us, we are the ones that receive it. The material that we send on to the council is the same material, but we also give them a summary as to where we’ve been. This is where the work horse is. I don’t know if any of you know that, but we are not paid and we do this as a part of—we are appointed and—but we are all professionals and this is a job we do day in and day out anyway during the daytime. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 47 ITEM NO. 7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY DAYCARE CENTER FOR FIVE CHILDREN OR FEWER BY LETICIA D. VANCE—1991 SOUTH COVEY PLACE: MacCoy: We will now open this public hearing, but first staff, Shari, comment please. Stiles: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, you have our comments that are dated June 3, 1999. This as you are probably aware an accessory use permit normally goes into the paper and after 15 days of notice they are granted their accessory use permit if there are no objections. We did receive objections on this application, just like if anybody is here that is in opposition to this to let you know the Planning and Zoning Commission can only act on the merits of the application, they can’t base an approval or disapproval on covenants that exist within a subdivision. Covenants are not enforced by the city. If there is an issue with not complying with covenants, that would be required for the homeowners association to get legal council and to enforce their own covenants. I just wanted to make you aware of that. Rossman: If I may add, I would wholeheartedly agree with Shari on that please don’t step up to the podium and testify about the enforceability of covenants or provisions of covenants. This commission has no ability to act on the enforcement of private covenants. All we are dealing with today is whether or not this person is entitled to an accessory use permit under the Meridian Planning and Zoning Ordinance, rather than the covenants. MacCoy: Thank you Shari, thank you Eric. What they state is very true we have this ability everyday of the week when no matter what we enter into in the city, the covenants take precedent over that and unless it is against a code system that will rule in you case. All right, is the applicant here? She says she is, would you come to the podium please and state your name for the attorney. LETICIA VANCE, 1991 S. COVEY PLACE, MERIDIAN, ID. Vance: I am here today to request an accessory use permit for a family daycare of five or fewer children in my home. I currently have two children of my own, which means I can only have three more children to take care of. I’m an at home mother and I choose to do so simply because I did not want to have my children in daycare. I felt that I could provide better child care to my children myself rather than have somebody else raise my children. I was employed full time, so staying home does take away some of our income, but I choose to stay home and take care of children and that is why I’m here today. I believe that some of the objections for the permit were from some of the neighbors was parking problems. We live in a cul-de-sac and the noise. Parking problem, I don’t know why there would be any problem with that, basically I could only attend three Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 48 children and it can be three in one family or two in one family which means the parking would not present a problem. They would be dropping them off in the morning picking them up in the evening. As far as the noise is concerned, the cul-de-sac where I live there is children all over the place. The children I would be tending, as well as my own would not be in front. That is where the children that live in that area typically play is out front riding bikes, playing baseball, whatnot. If I did tend children we would be out in back. My backyard is fenced backyard. I have all the equipment, toys whatever in the back, so that is where my childcare would be most of the—that’s where we would be. Either inside or out in the back yard. Other than that, I believe those are the only two objections that I’m aware of and I don’t see where the problem lies. MacCoy: Any questions for Mrs. Vance? Borup: She answered one I had and the other is just on staff comments. Have you had a change to review all 15 of… Vance: I did. Borup: Any questions or concerns about any of those or (Inaudible). Vance: No, some of them don’t even apply. As far as No.11, I’m not required to have a state license, however I did go through the process of doing that and I’m still waiting to hear back right now. Borup: Okay, so you are saying you would—all the staff comments are things that you can comply with? Vance: Yes. Barbeiro: Mrs. Vance, do you intend to—could you tell me, do you have some children in mind, some of the neighbors (Inaudible). Vance: Well I, I actually have one of the neighbors who actually has approached me. They are in the process of adopting a child. Her child will be, by the time they get this little girl she will probably be almost a year old. She has actually approached me and asked me to tend her child if I’m able to get a license to do so. I have had other people call me, I’m through a program, it’s called the Childcare Connection. I don’t know if you are familiar with that. I have had people call me to start taking care of their children, however, I have not been able to do so. So, three children will fill up immediately, but I don’t have anybody particular in mind at this point. Barbeiro: Line Item No. 13 of the staff comments about the fence, you said you don’t have any problems. Is the fence currently in place then, proper per the staff comments? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 49 Vance: Yes. It is. Barbeiro: Thank you. MacCoy: One more question on the fence, is that you have a gate to the outside? Is it lockable? Vance: It is. MacCoy: Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this? Seeing none, anybody here who would like to speak on the other side of the fence o this. Unidentified: (Inaudible) yeah, no covenants enter into this. MacCoy: Oh, I see, that’s something that you take care of in your own area there. Rossman: But thank you for recognizing that sir. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing. Smith: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Smith: Mr. Chairman? I would like to make a motion that we recommend to the City Council approval of this item. Rossman: Does not go to City Council. Smith: Oh, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we direct the city attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this item. MacCoy: Do we do that now for this? Smith: Accessory use permit. MacCoy: Okay, that’s right, we do for that. Okay. Smith: Findings for approval. Borup: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 50 MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MacCoy: Okay, now we’ve done it right, thank you. ITEM NO. 8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OFFICE/RETAIL BUILDING BY BRIAN CHAMPION—129 E PINE STREET: Stiles: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, this is for the property that is immediately east of the cities parking lot on Pine Street. They are requesting for a variety use office or retail. I believe that you have Ada County Highway District comments. Staff would concur with those, with the exception that staff would recommend in lieu of requiring them to pay the entire alley clear to second street, that they only be required to pave adjacent to their property. They have also requested that sewer, sidewalk and curb be replaced. I’m not sure of the condition of the curb, the sidewalk is in disrepair and probably does need to be replaced just from a liability standpoint for the owner of the property. The city has replaced the sidewalk that was in front of the portion of their lot. It would be nice if theirs were also replaced. Other than that, we have nothing in addition to the comments that we have submitted dated June 3, 1999. MacCoy: The applicant stands before us I guess. Would you state your name? BRIAN CHAMPION, 415 E. TRAILSIDE DRIVE, EAGLE, ID. Champion: My plan for conditional use permit is pretty self explanatory. There was an existing house of 950 square feet. The exterior was in complete disrepair. I’ve gone in and since purchasing this property I’ve been refurbishing it with all new siding, new windows and putting the roofs on. The project will look basically new, as it once was. I’m adding no new square footage to the property of the project. Myself, I’m a mortgage broker and I would like to run my office out of there and lease another office space out. That’s about it. MacCoy: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions of Mr. Champion? Borup: Have you had a chance to review staff comments? Champion: Yes, I find no problem… Borup: With ACHD also? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 51 Champion: With the revised comment that Shari mentioned I could, I would appreciate if that could be taken into consideration. As the alley is the main access to your new city park, there is going to be an awful lot of traffic created to your park as it is a one way. I don’t think I should be made to pay the half of the alley for that 60 feet by 16, is a pretty good area. Borup: So that was the only concern was the paving of the alley. Do you have 30 feet? Comment No. 4 provide a minimum of 30 feet of backing on the alley. Champion: Yes, that’s existing. Borup: I mean you do have 30 feet of back in area? Champion: Yes. Borup: What is the width of the alley now? Champion: The width of the alley is 16 feet. The backing that they are speaking of, perhaps Shari could speak towards that, but that’s on my property. I have to have 30 feet on my property. Borup: In addition to the parking or does that count the parking stalls. Champion: That’s for the parking. Borup: That counts the parking stall? Champion: Yes. Borup: Okay. And you are going to have plenty of that when the garage comes out and you move into the (Inaudible). Champion: Plus the handicap accessible parking place and… Borup: I have no other questions. MacCoy: I was going to ask you about that, that’s okay, you’ve answered that. Any other questions commissioners? Borup: Oh, maybe, I’m sorry. Just one quick one. I expected Shari to say something about the parking stall sizes, as indicated on the plat. I think was showing 9 X 18? Stiles: That does meet the ordinance requirements for the angled parking. Borup: Oh, because it’s angled. I was thinking 19. Thank you. That’s all. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 52 MacCoy: All right thank you. Barbeiro: Mr. Champion, staff made note of the existing sidewalk out front as far as your concerned replacing of that sidewalk if necessary is acceptable. Champion: That is acceptable. Barbeiro: Okay, thank you. MacCoy: I noticed—I’m glad you talked about the refurbishment of the place. I am going to ask you along with the ACHD questions was about your ramp and hope that it was going to stay in there before the ADA requirements. Prior to purchasing the property I did meet with the building inspector and Planning and Zoning and wanted to make sure that the project could fully meet the requirements and intent for the Planning and Zoning requirements. It does. The building inspector did tell me that he would require a handicap accessible ramps and parking places into the building which have been noted on the plan. Any other questions for Mr. Champion? If not, you could sit down. Anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the project. Seeing none, anybody here who would like to speak on the other side of the fence for this? All right, in the back of the room, you come forward. (Inaudible) BLAKE HATCHET, 124 E. PINE AVENUE, MERIDIAN, ID. Hatchet: I guess mostly my questions is I thought I heard him say that the parking is going to be in the back. So there is going to be no parking of any vehicles to the front on Pine Avenue? MacCoy: Oh, could be…. Hatchet: Right, there is a handicap in the back then access? MacCoy: Yes there is on this map. Hatchet: I don’t know if this really has—it has to do with the parking on Pine Avenue and it also has to do with the parking lot that they were talking about right next… MacCoy: City lot? Hatchet: Yeah, the city lot. Kind of a question about—a lot of people don’t use that lot, because there is no sign saying like you know, parking or anything. Are you guys aware of that at all? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 53 MacCoy: Let me turn it over to Shari over here. What do you want to say about that Shari? Stiles: Well, the parking lot does seem to get a lot of use, particularly when Piasano’s is open there is a lot of parking in there. I guess with the lot next to it, had the big sign up say no parking, no trespassing, private property. You know, I don’t know if people associate that with the parking lot. It might be a good idea to put the public parking up when it gets to a point when the use becomes more intensive and we need it just for people that come down to shop or eat. We may have to actually sign it with a two hour parking so that employees at certain businesses aren’t just using that for their parking all day long. It’s probably a good idea to designate that as a public parking lot. Hatchet: A sign would be great, the only reason I brought that up is because we have a sign in front of our house because on Friday and Saturday nights they have quite a lot of people and there is only like—I don’t know if you have ever seen the front of the building there. The whole office retail building section next to Paisano’s, there is only maybe 10 slots in the whole place. I haven’t gotten into detail, maybe I should’ve on how many exact slots there is, but I’m sure there is not enough for that—the main capacity of the restaurant. So they are overflowing onto Pine Avenue and like I said, half of them don’t use that and we have a sign saying please no parking because technically the law says you can’t tell someone—it’s a public street, I don’t want to tell anybody that they can’t park. You know, we just have a sign of our own, it seems to help, but we still have a problem with parking, that’s the only reason I was up here, kind of concerned about it. Mostly the sign about saying public parking or anything. That would be good. I guess that’s it, thank you. Smith: Just for your information he does have five spaces off the alley… Hatchet: Oh, he does? Smith: Which should be more than adequate. Hatchet: Oh, I would say so. That’s why I was up here trying to find out. Thank you. MacCoy: Is there anyone else who would like to make a statement. I guess not. Okay, commissioners what do you want to do? It’s an open public hearing. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing. Smith: Second MacCoy: All in favor? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 54 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MacCoy: Okay. Give me a decision. Smith: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Smith. I’d like to make a motion that we recommend an approval of this Conditional Use Permit to City Council. Borup: Are we going to mention item number 3? MacCoy: Yeah, I think you---that’s the one--- Borup: In the ACHD report. MacCoy: Yeah, I think you ought to say something about that. Borup: And staff comments. Smith: I amend my motion. MacCoy: Yes. Smith: To include what was item 3—impact—oh that—that the pavement of the alley only be required behind Mr. Champion’s property and that he has stated that he will replace the sidewalk at the front of the property and that he be required to do so. Is that everything? MacCoy: Do I hear a second? Barbeiro: A clarification, if I may. MacCoy: All right. Barbeiro: To Mr. Smith’s proposal—that the paving only be the parking area and the 4 foot set back, is that correct? Smith: I think it was the alley too. MacCoy: It was the alley we were looking at there. Smith: The parking and the alley. The full length of Mr. Champion’s property. Barbeiro: So it would be our recommendation that he pave the entire alley way, 16 feet wide by 60 feet long. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 55 Smith: Right. That’s the portion behind Mr. Champion’s property. Which is 16 X 60. Not the entire length. MacCoy: Okay. Does that clarify it for you? Barbeiro: Thank you. MacCoy: Okay. Do I have a second for Mr. Smith? Borup: Second MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: We will prepare the recommendations on the assumption that you wanted to include staff comments on that. This is an Old Town matter so it won’t –there won’t be another public hearing for City Council. They will decide based on the record before this Commission. MacCoy: Moving on to Item 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE-THRU FOR MOXIE JAVA BY AVII L.L.C.—1800 N. LOCUST GROVE ROAD. Borup: How about number 9? MacCoy: Oh excuse me. I got myself carried away here. Thank you. I’m in a hurry to get out of here. ITEM 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAYCARE OF 6-12 CHILDREN BY VOANNA C. WARD D/B/A/ VO’S DAYCARE—924 E. 4TH STREET. MacCoy: Staff, do you have any comments? Stiles: Mr. Chairman. Commissioners. You have our comments in the memo dated June 3, 1999. I am not sure if you got in your packets the Ada County Highway District draft report. They do have some extensive requirements for this project. The most—the main part of it beside specific requirements they ask for construction of curb gutter and 5 foot sidewalk on 4th Street abutting the parcel and to pave the alley the full required width of 16 feet abutting the parcel and it looks like the remainder of them are pretty much standard requirements. I’ll submit that to the City Clerk for – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 56 MacCoy: Thanks for the input, because we do not have a copy in our packet.. Is that a draft? It’s not even a final.. Stiles: It was a staff level approval. The applicant can indicate whether they are filing appeals on any of that. That all I have. You have the site plan and that’s all. MacCoy: Okay. Thank you. Will the applicant come forward please. Do you want to state you name please. Ward: Voanna Ward, 924 E. 4th , Meridian, 83642. I am applying for a Conditional Use Permit for a day care for 6 to 12 children. I have 3 children of my own, 13, 8 and a 6 year old, so I was applying for the 6 or more because I have 3 friends that really, really want me to take care of their children. So, with my 3 I could only watch 2 more and I’ve got one friend that has 3 and one that has 2 and then a single child. I don’t plan on having 12 children at my house at any given time. As far as number 13, the Ada County Highway District’s requirement , I am currently appealing that decision. My yard has from the edge of my house to my fence, I have approximately 27 feet. I have chain link all the way around and I know when I turned in my plans, my driveway was not completely enclosed and I have a receipt that I purchased a gate to totally enclose my driveway to keep the little critters in so they can’t get out. My main thing with the Ada County Highway District’s requirements is if I was to move, and I know that number 14 says my outdoor play area may be extremely limited. It would be totally eliminated if I had to put in a 5 foot fence, plus a curb and a gutter—a 5 foot sidewalk, fence, gutter. I would have to move my fence, so basically I would maybe have this much room in my front yard. I do not have a backyard. My house was a cottage home and it was built onto and it’s like over 2200 square feet and the man who did the construction did not leave much as far as yard went. My husband and I we fell in love with the house because of it’s construction—the size of the house—the location that it’s at. The inside that I have designated as I have mainly—my kitchen/dining area, I have a playroom that I’m going to set up plus another room type playroom that we can do crafts and things. Plus I have my living room for educational videos or something like that. I am coming up with a plan—I am doing crafts—I’ll have two little girls, hopefully—I am doing crafts with them. The boys can do something else. So, the yard was the main factor and I can rotate. MacCoy: But you said you’ve got an appeal to the ACG. Ward: Yes I do. They want me to – MacCoy: You (inaudible) the appeal to them? Ward: Yes I did. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 57 MacCoy: Just recently. We haven’t even got the material in the first place. You want to say something. Go ahead. Barbeiro: Mrs. Ward is your home one story or two story.] Ward: It’s a two level. Barbeiro: How old is the building? Ward: The cottage home part would be approximately 30 years old. The add on would be 8 to 10. I am not sure. We’ve almost lived there for 5 years. Barbeiro: What is the size of the lot that the house sits on? Ward: I can’t tell you exactly, but when I submitted my paperwork, it has the dimensions on there exactly. Barbeiro: I am having a difficult time visualizing— Ward. Where it says that the deed of trust, there is a paragraph then down below it states like cottage home and it has the – Borup: Cottage home is the name of the subdivision. Ward: It’s what they call my house because it was an original cottage home and it’s been added on to. It’s still called a cottage—with the add on—no I am not in a subdivision. Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro, did you have some other questions. Barbeiro: Not at this time. Please go ahead. Borup: The question I had was on the number of children. You said your children were 13, 8 and what was the other? Ward: Six. Borup: All three of them are in school? Ward: There are out of school right now. Borup: Well I mean normally? Ward: Yeah normally—I’m sorry. I’m nervous. I’ve never done this before. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 58 Borup: So you are anticipating 2 children is what your—two additional to baby- sit? Ward: There would be 3, 4, 5 –6 additional plus my three would make 8. That’s why I had to apply for the 6-12. Borup: That will make 9. Smith: I get 9 also. Ward: Okay. I’m sorry. Borup: So your talking 6 additional. Ward: Well, you know what. I have been Chase cause he is 13 and he is going to do his own thing. Borup: So your talking 6 children addition to your own? Ward: Right. Borup: Okay. I had misunderstood that at the beginning. I thought there might be another way to go, but there isn’t. Ward: I have also applied for a license through the Health Department and on her second site visit, it was the follow up and she brought up the condition of the gate and then the Fire Department, which depending on whether were are approved, then the Fire Department can come out. That is all I am waiting for as far as a license goes. They came me a permit, but I can’t use it so.. MacCoy: Any more questions for her? Smith: I understand correctly that the only play area is the drive way which is 18 ½ by 28 feet. Ward: No there is the front of the house –from the house to the fence –it’s like about 27 feet this way and I can’t remember how long. And then I have a part to the side of the house. Smith: And that’s all fenced in? Ward: It’s from the side of my house from the back around the side— Smith: The whole play area will be fenced? Ward: It’s all fenced. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 59 Smith: And how tall is the chain link? Ward: A little over 3 feet. Smith: Had it got like razor wire at the top— Ward: No. I could put it up there. You know they kind of understand, you know. MacCoy: It’s probably 4 foot. Ward: I can hold it like this, and I’m 5 foot with my hair sticking up…so. Smith: That’s more than 3 foot. Ward: You know my specialty was sandwiches, not heights and widths. I had a real hard time with the plan to scale thing. I just didn’t get it. MacCoy: Well you know it’s not 6 foot. Smith: That’s my only question. MacCoy: Okay. Any other questions for her? Okay you can be seated. Anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this project? All right since there is none is there any one here willing to speak on the negative side, if that’s what you want to look at. Okay. Oh you have a question? Then come on down to the front and use the mice so we can put you on tape. Garcia: I’m Lois Garcia, I live at 339 East Carlton, a block away from this proposed site. There is a lot of kids in our neighborhood. How does she propose to keep them in, cause right now there are riding their bikes and throwing balls and they play in the street because there is no area for them to play. And proposing 6 more children in that small little area. I have 3 boys in a great big yard and I couldn’t keep them in with the fence, so that was my concern. How you going to keep them in a closed area. (inaudible) Garcia: I am not saying I approve or disapprove. My concern is living in the neighborhood cause right now the only play area that I see, I do not know Vonna’s kids. I have not met them. But I do know the kids in the neighborhood. Their private play area is the street on 4th . MacCoy: Any one else have anything they want to add to or comment on? Okay Commissioner’s it’s a public hearing are you ready to close it? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 60 Barbeiro: May I ask a question of staff? MacCoy: You sure may. Barbeiro: Shari, you’ve expressed some concerns in your notes. Could you again highlight these and give me those that you feel are the most pressing of a concern? Stiles: I guess the impact on surrounding properties, although no body seems to be here tonight to really have a major issue with that. At least not adjacent property owners. The site is extremely small. It is a 3000 square foot lot. It’s 50 X 60. Normally we would require a 6 foot fence to enclose any play areas. There is a 20 foot set back. They’re not allowed to increase the height of the fence that is existing there. In it’s existing. They would have to meet a 20 foot set back from the street to build a higher fence. I don’t know what the requirement from Health and Welfare is as far as outdoor play area. My calculations it would be under 1300 square feet and some of that is not even usable. The 3 feet behind the house you would want to keep children out of there. The weeds do need to be taken care of. They are noxious weeds that are higher than the fence. The fact that it does not appear that the fire codes, at least as far as the set backs are met, with the 2 story structure being only 3 feet from the lot line. Those are my main issues. MacCoy To the applicant while discussing this, the Fire Department does not allow children on the second floor of a two story house, so keep that in mind. Smith: Unless it’s fire sprinklered. MacCoy: This is a old house. I doubt that it’s fire sprinklered . You want to make a comment here. We have not closed the public hearing. You have that— Ward. My husband promised me that he is going to get rid of those thistles. You know that they bloom and we had a argument last year. He’s like they are pretty. I said they’re thistles. So I win this time. They will be gone. As far as Suzie from the Health and Welfare—she has come out to my house twice—and she has been around the entire property. She has looked at the play areas and she has looked at the fencing and on my last visit it was just the issue of me putting in a gate. I also---I am the type of person—I would not let my kids outside my yard until they were—well my six year old he can go outside the yard and across the street and around the corner to Skylar’s house, but that’s about it because I am very—when my oldest son was 5, he was kind of—this was when we lived in Utah—we lived in Logan—and he was kind of going up and down the sidewalk with his 9 year old friend and a car pulled over and a person got out and tried to grab my 5 year old. So I –I can honestly say—they are going to have to dig a tunnel to get away from me. They are going to have to tie me to a tree to get Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 61 away from me. The children that I would like to watch—they are children of very good friends of mine. I would not let anything happen to them. MacCoy: What are their ages by the way? Ward: There are 4, 7 and 9 and then there is 6 and 8 and then there is Riley and he is 9 months old. MacCoy: So you have quite a collection in other words . Ward: Yeah. They are all around the same age so we can do things that will – they will like to do together. Borup: So when school starts of those it would be 2 of them. Ward: I would only have two until after school. They would be there about an hour and then—well 2 of them live in Caldwell and their mom just wants to bring them to me during the summer—cause they use to live across the street from us and they lived there for 3 years and they have been in Caldwell for about a year and a half. We don’t get to see each other that much. Our kids practically grew up there for 3 years and she wanted to bring them out to me just for the summer. I would not have them, I would just have the 2 plus mine coming home after school. MacCoy: Anything else? Any questions for her? I guess not. You can sit down. Thank you. Okay the public hearing is still open until you close it. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask a question. Whether it’s addressed to you or Council, this is specific to Planning and Zoning and too much of our discussion seems to be around licensing. I am lost here –there is not notes—am I missing notes from ACHD? And since apparently Central District Health appears that her license will be allowed. MacCoy: Yeah. The fact that they have been notified. Barbeiro: Are there any notes from ACHD that I am missing? MacCoy: Not that I know of. (inaudible) It belongs to City Clerk and she is appealing that any way so that—that’s in her behalf from the stand point that--- we can go ahead and approve it. Barbeiro: So ACHD is a separate issue. MacCoy: That’s right. Barbeiro: Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I move that we close the public hearing. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 62 Smith: Second. MacCoy: Okay. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MacCoy: All ayes have it. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman. I move that we recommend to the City Council approval of her Conditional Use Permit with notes from staff. MacCoy: Any thing else Mr. Attorney: Rossman: I don’t have anything else. I appreciate him including staff comments. I am quite happy with that. MacCoy: Okay. Then your in. I need a second. Smith: Second. MacCoy: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MacCoy: All ayes have it. Moving on. Give you back your draft. Let’s see— Mrs. Ward your home free. Now we are up to Item 10. ITEM 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE-THRU FOR MOXIE JAVA BY AVII L.L.C.—1800 N. LOCUST GROVE ROAD. MacCoy: Shari do you have any comments on Item 10? I would think you would. Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. You have my comments dated June 3, 1999. Although I am not a traffic engineer, I have a problem with this application and I guess the applicant should make his case and let you decide. MacCoy: Thank you very much. Okay is the applicant here? Hagget: My name is Rob Hagget. I am the representative of AVII, the owner entity of portions of Avest Plaza Shopping Center, that are not Fred Meyer. Office address is 590 N. Maple Grove Road, Boise, ID 83704. The Moxie Java has seen over the past 3 years of operation that there is customer base that would be better served by having a more convenient way of getting a cup of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 63 coffee on the way to work in the morning. It’s Moxie Java’s business to provide an excellent product in a short amount of time and they feel they can better serve the customer by allowing them the option of coming in the store or accessing the proposed drive-thru to get a quick cup of coffee. There are a couple of issues I’d like to address real quick. One is the letter from Ada County Highway District, which is from Christy Richardson, dated May 18, 1999. I spoke with Christy this morning. She is somewhat of an engineer and had some comments about this. Ada County from this letter, is not reviewing the application, because it is an internal conditional use. It does not affect ACHD in any way. In there opinion, the stacking distances of certain drive-thru’s in the city, the City of Boise, the City of Meridian, this is very close to other drive-thru’s but they are basically neutral. They will not say we support, we do not support it, because it’s not an impact to ACHD. I just wanted to clarify that. The second issue I would like to get into is to refer to the memorandum dated June 3, 1999 from Meridian P & Z and staff and specifically refer to three reasons why staff felt why the permit should be declined. Question number one. Staff feels that there would be too much impact on adjacent residential with the addition of the second drive-thru on the building. If we look at the site plan, which was in the package, we can see the property to the North, actually it is not on the site plan, but if your familiar with the area, the property to the North is a vacant commercially zoned lot. (Inaudible) I represent AVII is currently looking at developing that out. We’ve got a permit for phase three storage. We are looking at the option of possibly putting in professional business park in that area instead of the storage. We found that storage were kind of maxing out the amount of storage in the area and we’re about at our limit. With that development (END OF TAPE) In my opinion I don’t feel that it is an impact on any residential use being that far away. To the East of the proposed drive-thru is a Fred Meyer building which would be no residential impact. To the West of the location is Locust Grove Road and they the neighbors on the West side are protected by a high berm and landscaping and a block wall that was put in when the development was originally built. There currently is a drive-thru in place for TCBY where cars head to the West along the North side of the building. We have not had any complains from neighbors since the drive-thru has been put in. I am the property manager for the property. Everybody knows how to get in touch with me and believe and that is not an issue that we have any comments from or concerns from neighbors. Because of those three reasons, I don’t feel like this is an impact on neighboring residential. The second part of staff’s report refers to additional signage. And as the memo states, we have not made a request for any additional signage. It will be a single window where the customer drives up, they make their order, they get their cup of coffee in hopefully a minute and a half or less. We will get to that a little bit later as well. Question three is probably the main issue with staff’s concern. Staff feels that there is inadequate stacking for cars awaiting service at the proposed drive-thru. And if you would refer to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 64 site plan, there are approximately 60 feet from the proposed drive-thru window at the end of the planter bed which allows for approximately 3 large vehicles if you figure a car is about 14---largest car like a Suburban would be 14 to 15 feet long. Give each car about 20 feet. There is room for about 3 large vehicles. The hours of operation of the coffee shop are from 5 am to 11 PM. Seventy per cent of the daily business occurs between 5 am and 10 am in the morning at the coffee shop. The TCBY drive-thru does not open until 11 am and from the owner of that business, eighty per cent of his business occurs between the hours of 6 PM and 10 PM. In my opinion, knowing those hours of operation and percentages of business, there’s no conflict between the possibility of cars backing up against one another or the conflict within the businesses themselves. Another issue that was brought up by staff, is considering the peak hours of operation of the coffee shop in Fred Meyer. As we just heard, the peak hours of operation from the coffee shop are 5 am to 10 am. The shopping center—I am out there a lot and the morning hour is probably the least trafficked time at that shopping center. We all know that in the afternoon, it is a very busy place. But in the morning when the majority of Moxie Java’s business is, traffic is very light. The goal of Moxie Java is to serve the customer under one minute. This equates to a faster response to moving vehicles through the proposed area in minimal time. If we were to compare this type of drive-thru to a Macdonald’s or Burger King, it’s a whole different issue. This is a coffee drive-thru, typically people, when they pull up in my opinion, when they pull up to a drive-thru for a coffee shop the little espresso barns that we see in parking lots, they all ready know what they are going to get. It is a quick order and a quick fix by Moxie Java. Get them a cup of coffee and get them on their way. No pun intended. MacCoy: Sales pitch here. Hagget: I have reviewed the Mac Donald’s at the Fred Meyer shopping center quite often and there is approximately 60 to 70 feet between their order window and their parking lot. Even with the McDonalds drive-thru, I don’t see a lot of congestion there, unless it’s a very high peak time in the evening—or lunch—and you do see it then. But I do think you see that at any McDonalds, Burger King, Jack-in-the-Box, Hardee’s drive-thru across town. Now a days with people having to get every where quick, not time for lunch anymore. The last issue I’d like to address real quick is that staff feels there would be a traffic conflict after exiting the drive-thru onto the Loop Road. The speed limit on the Loop Road, which is a private road, is 25 mph based on city ordinance it’s not signed—there are no speed limits signs. From what I understand, 25 mph is the city ordinance for private roads in that respect. Traffic as they exit the drive-thru has the option of exiting to the right and staying in the parking lot or going straight ahead onto the Loop Road. I have driven around and looked at other drive-thru’s, in Meridian specifically. If we can think of the Burger King West of the Fred Meyer shopping center on Fairview, cars pull directly out of that drive-thru onto Fairview where cars are travelling in excess of 45 mph. This is not a dangerous intersection. It is not a bad place for cars to pull out, in my opinion. Another Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 65 drive-thru is the Burger Den down here on First Street. Cars pull directly out on First Street. There is heavy traffic in the afternoon there. A third one to think about is First Security Bank on the corner of First Street and Fairview. There are 2 stalls that come out from the drive-thru there directly onto Fairview Avenue and there is a high speed turn off from First heading East on Fairview. I think those, if you were to compare those drive-thrus to the one we’re proposing, there is a very minimal conflict between traffic. That’s all I’ve got. I’d like bring up Jennifer Dunlan who is the manager of a few Moxie Java’s. This one specifically and also the one on First Street, to say a few comments then I can come back up and answer a few questions. MacCoy: I was to ask a question before you walk away from there. The drawing I’ve got, I’m sure it’s the one you are referring to, you show 2 windows as one and I don’t understand since you’ve got less than a minute to get the product out to them. Why do you need 2 windows. Hagget: It should just be one window. MacCoy: You’ve got a drive-thru window shown here and a drive-thru window shown over here. Hagget: That’s an existing drive-thru window. MacCoy: All right. Oh this is the ice cream shop? Hagget: Yeah. MacCoy: Okay that is the reason I wanted to know. Hagget. There is only one proposed window. MacCoy: That’s this one here. All right then the question comes up as to what your addressing is the traffic conflict in this zone here, so your saying there is no conflict. Hagget: I don’t feel that there is if we look specifically at hours of operation and also the time that the car is going to spend in this proposed drive-thru. MacCoy: Okay. I’ll accept that for the time being. You can go ahead and ask your other person to come forward. Donlan: My name is Jennifer Donlan at 2407 Snyder. I just want to make a couple comments. I understand that there was a stacking problem and like Rob said, 70 per cent of our business is done before TCBY opens. I am the manager of the store and these girls are trained to get the drink out in one minute. Another thing to keep in mind is usually on the way to work at this time, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 66 there is only one person per car, one drink per car. They go pretty fast. Another thing I would like to bring up because I think it would be a great convenience for our customers. Parents with children, loading and unloading them. It would certainly be readily accessible for our customers with disabilities. Right now we have—some customers call on the phone and they make their order and we run out to the car. It works for us but it is hard to answer the phone when your busy. There are only 2 of us back there. Where there is another issue. Snow, Rain drive up. It certainly more enjoyable to get your hot chocolate while your in your car. Other then that, I don’t have anything else. Any questions for me? Smith: I have one. What is your experience with your other franchises. How many get stacked up in the morning? Donlan: It’s a double drive-thru. Smith: The one on First? Donlan: Yes. At the most, 3 on each side. Smith: Three on each side? Donlan: Yes. Smith: Okay. You don’t have a drive-thru on the other one do you? Donlan: No we don’t. After about 10:30, 11 o’clock believe it or not I only do about 3 or 4 customers an hour. Smith: That time of morning, I am pretty familiar with that shopping center and I –you can get 3 cars stacked in there and there is nothing else going on early in the morning. Never mind. That’s all I have. Barbeiro: Please I had another question. Donlan: Sorry. Barbeiro: Commissioner Barbeiro. On your property on Vista and Kootenai. Donlan: That’s not mine. Different owner. Barbeiro: Same product, same company. I have seen a stack of as many as nine cars in there where cars were stacked onto Kootenai, blocking traffic back onto Vista. So the possibility exists that while there is considerably more traffic at the corner of Vista and Kootenai, a stacking could be a concern. While I don’t know that you can answer the specific questions, I’d like to ask Mr. Hagget—I’d like to know how he intends to line out and show direction for people to drive in Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 67 to prevent backing into the parking lot. (inaudible) allowing access into your walk- in traffic. Donlan: Another thing about the White Cloud and the Moxie Java’s, there is 32 proposed going up here next year. They are all over. They are now international and Vista is the second busiest we have right not. We are not quite there yet. Smith: 32 in what area? Donlan: Throughout. Internationally. 32 this year. (Inaudible) Smith: Yeah. There is 3 here all ready. I can’t believe it. MacCoy : Any other questions for her? No, I guess. Thank you. Who has a question for Mr. Hagget? Barbeiro: On the site plan that you have laid out here I do not see that you have painted a line directing people on how to get in here. Of course your going to want to avoid having people come into Loop Road and swing back around. Could you give us a little more detail on how you intended to paint this and direct people in the direction. Hagget: My idea and I am sure as we get further into this, we would speak with Billy Ray Strite and the architect and see what their recommendations are and what they have done on other drive-thrus. But, I would see an arrow on the ground pointing at an angle to the Northwest going into the drive-thru land. Painting an area for a car to come in and then an angled arrow pointing out or straight ahead across to the Loop Road. Barbeiro: With the staff recommendation with no additional signage has been proposed and none is approved, you have intent then of putting a small 2X2 sign or 1X1 wood sign of some sort— Hagget: I think the intent—we have a sign out on Fairview Avenue—a tenant sign, a monument sign on that, we would probably replace or Moxie Java would probably replace the name plate with Moxie Java and then in small letters say drive-thru. I think that with the client base that they have, it is a return customer. Once they see that there is a drive-thru, they will probably start using it. For us the issue is not to put big signs out all over the parking lot saying come over here, we have a drive-thru. We think it’s –it will be visible enough for the customer. Barbeiro: Please make note of what amounts are allowed (inaudible) and how traffic would come in here and make this loop in here, assuming you had a stack Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 68 and you’d end up with four cars would be about right to the center of your driveway not allowing traffic to enter into your parking area. Hagget: There is also an access on the other side if people needed to get in there. If, for any reason, there was a back up of more than 3 or 4 cars where you could not get through there, I think there is adequate and sufficient parking and access into the area. I see a lot of people park over on this parking stalls that are angled to the East of the building between the building and Fred Meyer. Believe it or not, I think those are used more than a parking stalls right in front of the pad because it is easier to get in and out of there. As we know people are always –if your going to run in there to get your Hometown Pizza or your TCBY or make a quick stop at the coffee shop, people are in a hurry—they pull in they get out and they go. It’s an interesting pad. We have had some issues we went through a few months ago on trying to get some signage out on Fairview. When we got that approved because we felt that this pad building was somewhat lost on the corner of the parking lot . That sign has made a very big impact on customers. They come in now and say we never knew there was a coffee shop back here. I hope that answers your question. If there –does it answer your question. Barbeiro: It does indeed. The Loop Road also serves as a delivery road for Fred Meyer and you do have delivery trucks coming in at 5:30, 6 o’clock in the morning, as well as late night trucks pulling out there. Smith: Most of those are coming in from the East though because of the direction of the docks. They have to come in the other way. Barbeiro: But they will still often exit off the Loop Road. Smith: They have to. Barbeiro: Do you foresee concerns with the delivery trucks? Hagget: I think with the speed of traffic along there and a delivery truck pulling out, for him to get up to 5 maybe 10 miles an hour if he is heading to (Inaudible) I don’t see any way they could get out of first gear and faster than 5 mph. Smith: The visibility to the East is better coming out of that drive-thru anyway and that is a direction— Barbeiro: Vehicles and trucks would be coming from. Hagget: One question that you started to ask Commissioner Barbeiro, on the landscaping. It currently landscaped with small one foot bushes, wood chips. We’d actually be making a cut in the patio to input the driveway so the small planter bed there on the southeast corner is currently in place. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 69 Barbeiro: If I may ask staff. There is no additional signage to be proposed that does not preclude his changing an existing sign. Stiles: No. Barbeiro: Thank you. I have no additional questions. MacCoy: Commissioner Borup do you have anything? No. Thank you. Is there anyone here that would like to offer some support? Okay. Basin: I am Todd Basin, the owner of the store. I wanted to make a comment on the stacking problem that you made on –at the Vista location—the 9 cars that you seen there. The guy that owns them stores, he try’s to get his drinks out in approximately 2 minutes. We try for 1 minutes. And their business is literally three times our business is. I just wanted to make that comment also. MacCoy: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone who would like to make a derogatory comment about this. Someone who does not drink coffee or something. He should have brought some samples. Seeing none. Smith: Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a motion that we close this public hearing. Borup: Second. MacCoy: Okay. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MacCoy: Okay what is your decisions. Smith: Well in respect to staff comments, this is Commissioner Smith, I don’t see how a second drive-thru would have any impact on adjacent residential uses. I don’t have any problem with signage. Inadequate stacking depth. I am a little concerned about that, but because of the peak hours—their peak business time—and with inspect with the adjacent businesses, I am not so sure that it is a real issue here. And the vehicles that are entering the Fred Meyer parking lot from Loop Road there going to be going over in the second drive to the East of this drive-thru because of the direction of the parking stalls coming from the South on that first drive and again because of the difference of hours of TCBY and Moxie Java, I don’t see any real problems occurring there with vehicles conflicts. I rather see the stacking come down South straight, but because of most of the hours the cars are going to be stacked up there, versus the peak times of the other businesses, I’m not going to big deal that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 70 Borup: I agree with Commissioner Smith. If it was a different type of business, it was a fast food restaurant or something, I think it would be a different situation. I think they are very compatible. There won’t be any conflict at all with the TCBY. The only stacking problem could be is blocking the one entrance into the parking lot, but at that time of the morning they’ll know there’s a lot of business there to worry about anyway. Smith: You’ve got the Postal Specialties, Hometown Pizza, and TCBY. Borup: Not a lot of people having pizza for breakfast probably. Smith: If they did they probably cooked it the night before. I don’t when he opens up, but it probably isn’t very early. Borup. That would be the only business—yeah the postal business would be the only one effected. MacCoy: So what’s you decision? Smith: If there is no further discussion I’d like to make a motion that we recommend approval of this Condition Use Permit to City Council with noted editorials on staffs comments and staff comments be included. Borup: I think there were only three. Two of which probably aren’t going to be included— Smith: I don’t want to have another dig by you. So I’d like to include staff comments. MacCoy: Do I hear a second? Borup: Second. MacCoy: All in favor: MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Mac Coy: Thank you. Thanks for coming. Moving on to Item 11. ITEM 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DEE JAY SUBDIVISION (14 BUILDING LOTS ON 15.04 ACRES)BY J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC. –EAST OF STRATFORD DR & NORTH & SOUTH OF WATERTOWER LN: MacCoy: Staff. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 71 Stiles: Mr. Chairman. Commissioners. This is for a property immediately South of the cemetery and to the South of this property is the police academy—the law enforcement facility. We have spoken with a member of the Board of Directors, Mr. Burton Roberts of the cemetery board. They have indicated that they have no desire for a stub street to the North. We would recommend this application be approved and it be approved with no stub streets North or South and as long as the turn around meets the requirements of the Fire Department and Ada County Highway District, I believe they have responded to our comments and have taken—I don’t believe they have taken any exception to any of comments. We would recommend approval of the variance for cul-de-sac length and block length. Of course that variance will be heard by City Council. MacCoy: Is that it? Okay. Is the applicant here or a representative from JUB? Lee: My name is Gary Lee with JUB engineers, 250 South Beechwood, Boise representing the applicant, Kevin Howl Construction. The application before you as Shari mentioned is for Preliminary Plat for 15 acre parcel situated in the CG zone within the City of Meridian corporate limits. It will be 14 lots in there of various sizes between .85 acres to about .96 acres in size. And will taking access off of Stratford Drive as an extension of the East Watertower Lane that’s there today. The roadway will (inaudible) the property through the East boundary where it will be stubbed for future extension at a later date. Probably will connect with Locust Grove Road at some time in the future. The density, of course it is commercial, is less than 1 per acre - .93. Surrounding zoning and uses – it is commercial general South and West of the property. It is RT in the County to the East end and the North, and stated by Shari Stiles, the cemetery occupies the parcel North of the property and the Idaho State Police Academy is to the South. There was discussion about installing some stub street North and South connecting with Watertower Lane, but the uses on both sides did not dictate a need for a stubbed street. There is a request for a waiver on the piping requirement of the Hunter Lateral. I am not sure if P&Z entertains those things but, the very Northeast corner of this property touches the Hunter Lateral of the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. If it were to be piped, it would be about a 10 foot length pipe. It just barely touches the corner. We are going to request a waiver on their corner. There will be CC&R’s. There will be an architectural control committee that will review the buildings that will planned for this development. It will be commercial in nature, complying with any of the CG zoning uses that are allowed within the City. We don’t have any specific uses in mind at this point. They are strictly commercial lots for sale and redevelopment. We have agreed to provide a 20 foot wide landscape strip along Stratford Drive, as suggested by staff. In addition, the CC&R’s have included a 20 foot landscaping requirements along East Watertower Lane as well. So it will border all public streets. We will have curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides of the street and we will add curb, gutter and sidewalk along Watertown Lane. The street that we are proposing will be a collector status with a 41 foot street Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 72 section. I don’t have any other comments, but if you have any questions, I’d be glad t answer those at this time. MacCoy: Commissioner’s. Borup: So in summary, you agree with all staff comments and including the verbal change you made on the stub streets. The only plat we’ve got shows both stub streets, but I assume there will be an advised plat turned in. Lee: Yes, There will be one for Council review. That was an item we put in not knowing if the variance would be granted. Borup: I have no other questions. MacCoy: Mr. Smith. Smith: It is getting late. I am a little confused on this. Stub street, the South Baltic Street. Has that been omitted or—I mean there is no reason for it to go North, right? So that’s been omitted? Lee: Correct. It will be. If the variance is granted. Smith: Then that is the variance on the block lane is what that’s..okay. I’m done. Borup: Any information on the property to the East? That your familiar with. Lee: Well, I don’t have any immediate— Borup: Is that a RT---is that outside City limits? Lee: Yes it is. Smith: Rural transitional. Borup: It’s an RT, yeah. Okay thank you. MacCoy: Any other? Thank you very much. Anyone here like to add a comment on a positive side? Seeing none, I will ask for someone who would like to make a comment on the other side. Come forward since we’ve got the other two comments. Abernathy: I am Kevin Abernathy, Chairman of the Meridian Cemetery District. The only concern we would like to bring is a buffer zone between the cemetery and this subdivision and what steps the developer is planning on taking to alleviate the noise they produce from the businesses located in this area. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 73 Borup: Are you afraid that your disturbing your residents there? Abernathy: It not actually with the services, it’s where services are held. Borup: I understood that. MacCoy: I thought the same thing you thought. They may work it the other way. They maybe want to have a buffer zone that your people won’t come over and see them. Abernathy: There is an existing barbed wire fence there. MacCoy: With razor wire? Abernathy: There is a concern though if the barbed wire fence goes away, what goes— Borup: Have you had any discussion with the applicant at all concerning that? Abernathy: Commissioner Roberts has had some discussion. From the audience: Not about the fence. We talked about the stub street. Borup: But nothing on the buffering or fence or anything? Thank you. MacCoy: Will the applicant come back forward and maybe we can answer their question right now. Lee: Thank you. Gary Lee with JUB again. The plan at this point is to install a new fence along the Northeast and South boundaries of the property. It will probably be a 6 foot chain link. MacCoy: You going to put slats in it or anything like that? Lee: There was not a proposal to do that, no not at this time. MacCoy: I know you have not got your places sold or rented what have you. You hear what they are saying when they have services next door, so to speak. Will there be something like a buzz saw or something that will interrupt their services or is there any way to do a sound block that way? Lee: Well I guess that depends on the uses that are planned in those commercial areas. I believe, if I understand the code correctly the CG zone would require the staff to review whatever the site plan is and the use. I guess depending on the use, there may be some requirement for buffering for sound. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 74 MacCoy: Comes down to who the neighbors are. Lee: Right. But the developer will put a fence up. MacCoy: Okay. Thank you. Borup: I be interested to hear any staff comments on that –on the buffering aspect and usage, business usage. Stiles: I really had not thought about it. But the services that would be a problem, particularly as they move further to the South. Borup: I was thinking more specifically, what type review is there on businesses going in. Stiles: If they are permitted in the zone— Borup: That’s what I am saying. There is not conditional use or anything— Stiles: I didn’t know if there was something maybe might be included in the covenants somehow, but we would not have any enforcement ability for that. I don’t know if Gary has any idea what kind of market they are looking toward for this subdivision. You would not want a bunch of loading docks or things like that. I don’t think with the size of the lots there going to have any high intense uses. It could be that somebody could combine more than one lot and have a larger user in there, but other than recommendations there is really not a whole lot in the ordinance that would require the buffering unless there is a landscaping requirement put on it. I believe the CG zone has a zero set back, so the buildings could be clear zero rear set backs so they could have a building clear to the property line, except for many utilities that they have there. Not much help, but— Borup: Okay. I was just thinking about the zero set back. That could be – Stiles: That would be a buffer. Borup: Yeah. And if it is zero set back, there would not be any access out there and there would not be any noise. Smith: They’ve got a pressurized irrigation along that property line. They would either need to relocate that or they couldn’t – Barbeiro: Commissioner Borup I do see a possible concern that you could have something along the lines of a lawnmower shop, you could have a wood shop in there or a mechanic shop of some sort that would allow for—or a music shop there—a little (inaudible) service— Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 75 MacCoy: What if it’s at a zero lot line or if they got something back there. I imagine the building will be a solid back wall. Barbeiro: I would imagine there would be an opportunity for –wouldn’t a code require an exist out the back of some sort. MacCoy: It would be a door though. Barbeiro: Yeah. Smith: Not necessarily. If you require more than 2 exists they just have to be not less than half the diagonal distance (inaudible). It doesn’t specify front, back or side. Borup: Could we have Mr. Lee come back up and answer – Two questions. One, is there any anticipated—I mean I realize this is probably impossible to answer—type of businesses—is there a particular market that applicant is looking at and also any comment on covenants. You mentioned there is landscape being requirement in the covenants. Anything else as far as covenants? Lee: The first part of your question, I did have that conversation today with the developer to see if there was any indication as to the type of uses they are looking for in there, but their comment is, obviously it will be market driven on who’s demanding some property of that size, but their hope is that is will develop in much the same matter as the properties to the West from there over to East First Street. Borup: So businesses will have warehouse use in the back type of thing. Lee: Probably light warehouse, if any. Borup: That’s what I meant. Just storage. Lee: Yes, storage. That sort of thing. In their CC&R’s they do have a paragraph on prohibited uses beyond what the CG may allow. I am not sure. I did not check these against the CG zone, but they’ve restricted auto body shops or auto wrecking yards, that sort of thing. Live stock and poultry operations!!! Kennels, that sort of thing. Borup: So you said auto body and mechanics— Lee: It says auto or equipment wrecking yard—not auto body shop. Borup: Auto body shop. Does it say mechanics shop too? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 76 Lee: No. Borup: Okay. That was probably the only pertinent part of the covenants that would – Lee: When I looked at it, yeah it was. It restricted the uses. The (inaudible) mainly on the CG zone and what the City allows in that zone—obviously currently zoned that so that what’s their going to do. I heard you mention the irrigation along the back. There will have to be an easement for those—there is 2 pipelines that will be in there gravity line to feed the pump station and a pressure line to feed the (inaudible). So it’s probably going to be 10 feet wide. Smith: Well we could ask for some kind of landscape buffer. Borup: Your not going to get an awful lot of landscaping to get any more a sound buffer than with the fence. Well it is not a solid fence, but it would still take an awful lot of landscaping to be a sound buffer. Lee: Would a wood fence be better? They are not going to have any burning operations there like you would have in some rural areas. Chain link would be a lot more permanent. Borup: It would be more compatible with that type of area. MacCoy: You already have spend time with the cemetery people and discussed this with them. Lee: Just by telephone. A brief conversation. It was mainly about the stub street for Baltic Street. MacCoy: You might want to spend a little time and sit down face to face to see what they’ve got on their mind. We don’t plan here to solve your problems for you. I think that is between what your doing and (inaudible) way to do it. Lee: Sure. We can do that. MacCoy: Okay. Any other questions for him? Okay, you can sit down. Back to the cemetery group here. You’ve heard what I said, so do you have any comments that you want to make openly for the record. Abernathy: Kevin Abernathy again. We’d be more than willing to work with the developer to reach a solution for this. So the things we discussed possibility of working with the chain link fence and putting in landscaping, possibly bushes – our usage of that area is probably going to be out 30 years from now, so there is enough time for landscaping to grow. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 77 Borup: So your saying you’d be doing some landscaping along there from the cemetery site. The other question I had Mr. Abernathy. I am not sure the year this was annexed and zoned, but did you, did the cemetery district give any input at that time? Especially concerns about the zoning or— Abernathy: I could not tell you. I’ve only been a commissioner for one and a half terms now. I don’t know the history. Borup: There was no restrictions put on the zoning when it was—I know in the past where there has been, there has been a conditional use requirement added if there was concern about future use. The probably would have been the best time for the cemetery to express concerns at the time of the original zoning. Abernathy: I agree. MacCoy: Thank you very much. Any other comments to be made from the public here? Okay. Smith: Mr. Chairman. I’d like to make a motion we close this public hearing. Borup: Second. MacCoy: Okay. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MacCoy: What is your decision? Borup: I think after the last comments that a chain link fence is going to prevent any pedestrian traffic through there which would be a concern and that would take care of that and if their looking at enough time to get some landscaping going for the cemetery site—I guess there could be a business in there that could cause a problem, but I –in my mind that is rather unlikely. Smith: You’d have to be pretty evil to – disrupt a love one’s burial. The chain link fence and then ask the applicant prior to City Council meeting to meet with the cemetery representatives to address any concerns that may come up at the next level again, so that these things don’t have to be rehashed. Borup: That sounds good to me. Smith: Okay. Then Mr. Chairman, I’d to make a motion that we recommend the City Council approval on this Preliminary Plat and that staff comments be incorporated in the recommendation that the addition of a chain link fence between—along the North property line be provided and that the applicant prior Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 78 to City Council meet with cemetery representatives to work out any concerns they may have as far as the buffering between the cemetery and the proposed Dee Jay Subdivision. Borup: Second. MacCoy: Okay. Any discussion. None. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MacCoy: All the ayes have it. Thank you very much. Moving right along, at almost 11:30, 11:25. ITEM 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE OF .967 ACRES (FROM R-4 TO R-8 WITH CONDITIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) FOR TREMONT PLACE SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY LARRY & KAY HANSEN— BROADWAY & 8TH STREET (951 W. PINE STREET): MacCoy: Staff, what do you have to say. Stile: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. You have our comments. This is for a small piece that was related to the Tremont Place Subdivision No. 1. It is adjacent to it. They are asking for a change of the conditions which stated they had to develop it as a townhouse or multi-family development under the conditional use process. We do have their response dated June 7th . We do need a legal description that meets our requirements. That should be coordinated with Bruce. Their response that they are still requesting a variance from the 1301 square foot requirement, staff does not agree with that because the laws are adequate to meet the minimum square footage requirements. Other then that—the existing house I guess they did determine that is had been hooked up to City water and sewer so— MacCoy: Bruce do you have anything? Freckleton: (inaudible) MacCoy: Boy your looking pretty good tonight. Would the applicant please come forward. Unger: Mr. Chairman and Commission members, my name is Bob Unger. With Pinnacle Engineers. We represent the Hansen’s who are the owners of the property. Our address is 870 North Linder, Suite B, Meridian, ID 83642. As staff is informed you, this particular project is just an additional 5 additional lots right in this area here to the Tremont Place Subdivision, which was approved by this Commission approximately 2 months ago and approved by the City Council last Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 79 month. We have everything is available as far as utilities. The zoning is compatible with the Tremont Place No. 1 Subdivision. We have reviewed the comments from staff and respond to those comments. We were requesting a variance on these two end lots down to 1100 square foot minimum building or structures. After reviewing staffs comments, we have agreed to place a (inaudible) on the plat that requires a minimum of 1301 square foot structures. We have no problem with that and we have no problem with the conditions of approval and we’ll concur. MacCoy: That’s very good. Any questions for the applicant? No questions. Anyone here willing to step forward and say a positive thing on this respect? Seeing none. Anyone here wanting to speak on the negative side? Seeing none— Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we close this public hearing. Borup: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MacCoy: Very good. What’s the decision. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we recommend approval to City Council on this item with incorporation of staff comments. Barbeiro: Second the motion. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MacCoy: Very Good. Moving on to Item 13. ITEM 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TREMONT PLACE SUBDIVISION NO. 2 (ONE EXISTING, FOUR NEW BUILDING LOTS) BY LARRY AND KAY HANSEN—BROADWAY & 8TH STREET (951 W. PINE STREET): MacCoy: I will give it back to the staff here. What do you have? Anything different? Stiles: Nothing different. Thanks. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 80 MacCoy: Your all finished, huh? I’ll tell you that Bruce has got the best job there is in the place. Smith: Yeah, he only has to sit there all evening. MacCoy: He nods his head. Do you notice that? All right, will the applicant come forward please. Unger: Once again, my name is Bob Unger with Pinnacle Engineers. I really have nothing more to add, just reiterate what we testifies in the previous item and ask for your approval. Smith: Do you wish to incorporate your previous testimony in this item. Unger: Yes, please. Smith: Okay. Terrific. I am ready to go. MacCoy: Do you have any questions for him? Smith: I hope Becky’s short and to the point. MacCoy: She always is. She is good at this. Okay. We have not got there yet. Becky is still waiting in the wings here. Anything you want to ask at this point? Then you can sit down. Anyone here who would like to make a comment at this point on a positive side. If not, anyone here on the negative side (sit down Becky) and we’ll turn it back to the Commissioners. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion we close this public hearing. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MacCoy: All right. Give me a decision. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we recommend to City Council approval of this item with incorporation of staff’s comments and the applicants previous testimony on the previous item. Barbeiro: Second the motion. MacCoy: Any discussion? None. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 81 MacCoy: All ayes have it. Thank you very much. Item 14. ITEM 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 27.86 ACRES (FROM RT & R-4 TO R-8) FOR PROPOSED WILKINS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT L.L.C.—SOUTH OF USTICK & WEST OF TEN MILE: MacCoy: Okay. Staff, your comments. Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. You have our comments. We have received response to those comments from the applicant’s representative. Your probably painfully aware of the previous plan for this property. I am not sure if Becky has seen the comments from Chip about a 5 year moratorium. We’d like her to address that on Ustick Road. I don’t know if that is required for the water line extension. This is a part of a larger holding. They haven’t shown the plans for the entire property and are not requesting annexation of the entire property at this time. We don’t have any particular issues with the plat as shown, or major issues other than our comments. If this is proposed to be an R-8 and if it is recommended to be an R-8, we would like some restrictions put on the number of maximum allowable lots so that a subsequent development does not come in trying to get 8 units per acre in here. MacCoy: Good point. Stiles: Other than that, I believe that Becky has her show. MacCoy: Is that it? Okay, your up Becky. Bowcutt: I’ll try to be quick. I know it’s late and your just as tired as I am. As Shari indicated, this is Wilkins Ranch. You will probably remember it. We got the project I believe after the City Council asked them to remand it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for redesign. Met with Shari—we decided to kind of trash what was proposed originally and start over. We were not involved in the original application, so we were starting kinda with a fresh new mind. What’s that Will? Yes. Wash my hands and take no responsibility. You saw part of this as the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 9 which came through here a month or so ago. We submitted this in 3 scepters and the reason being is the original application kinda had mixed uses of townhouses and single family lots. The comments we received from the adjoining Ashford Greens neighborhood comments from the Commission, criticized from the Council. We took all that into account and came up with this plan. This is always zoned R-8 and that’s what we came in with. This at one time was townhouses and we came in with single family under the R-4 (excuse me I said R-8) design. That was our first leg of this project. This particular application comes up like this and then it takes in all of the landscaping along Ustick Road and then comes down the 8 mile lateral. This is what we call Wilkins Ranch No. 1. They we are submitting this Northeast Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 82 corner as Wilkins Ranch Village and that will be submitted, we are going to try to hit the July 1st cut off. The reason we’ve done that is we transitioned from the R- 4 10,11,12,000 square foot, and some even larger than that, and we transitioned into an R-8 density. Some of these lots, these along here, are 8000 square feet. Staff mentioned in the staff report the annexation line cuts those lots, so these lots are partially in the city and partially out of the city. Staff brought up we don’t particularly want to have a split zone. My comment to staff is they meet the requirements of the R-4, so if this R-4 line went here, that would be totally acceptable—and that makes sense cause they need to know what their set backs are. From here on up we are asking for an R-8 designation. These lots in through here range from 8000, 10,000 some are 7,000 square feet and we have some 9’s. The reason we have asked for the R-8 designation is lots are a little narrower. They do not meet the 80 foot frontage requirement under the R-4 zone. They meet the frontage requirement of the R-8. We incorporated pedestrian paths. This is going to be an elementary school in the future. The school district all ready owns that. We’ve got a ped path here. We’ve got a little ped path that comes through the mid section and then one here that will intersect with this second phase of the Wilkins Ranch. The other issue that we looked at was the confusion under the PUD. The original application, they had asked for a PUD but yet they had single family dwellings. The PUD chapter is really meant to handle multi-family dwellings. When you look at the amenities and the open space and the elevations of these townhouses or patio homes, what ever the case may be, not intended for single family dwellings. So instead of cluttering an R-4 up with a PUD, we decided to go with this R-8 designation. Our density is 3.32 so our density is within the confines of the R-4. These lots over here, as we go North in through here, some of them get a little smaller. We have provided a collectors street. That was one of the comments made by the Ashford Green neighborhood. If you recall, on our lake at Cherry Lake No. 9, they said please give a collector going up to Ustick, so they have easy access to Ustick and we don’t end up with so much traffic within our neighborhood. And that’s what we’ve done. Staff has indicated that they want 20 feet of landscaping adjacent to that collector. We have agreed that that is acceptable. We creates some micro paths coming out of this cul-de-sac and coming in to a common open area in through here. And, as you can see, as I told you before, that entrance came in to that common lot and then the golf course is located in here. We have provided the stub streets requested by ACHD. We meet the requirement for 20 foot of buffering along Ustick Road. All these streets are proposed as public. Before the previous application they had private streets and flag lots and things like that that staff and the Council had some concerns about. We tried to make this more standardized. I have gone through the Idaho Planning Act on annexations, I’ve gone through your code on annexations. I don’t see it’s problematic to annex three fourths, which is 26.81 acres and then in turn, annex this which is, I believe 10 ½ acres approximately. I am doing applications in Idaho Falls and they do it different than we typically do it in the valley. They annex by phase, so they do not annex the whole property. We have development agreements just we have at the City, but they will annex as you build each phase. That’s when they annex Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 83 them into the City. I was unable to find anything that said that this was impossible or prohibitive what I’m proposing. I am trying to do this in a fashion that we can plan this out and it has taken me a little bit longer to evaluate the townhouse section. We did get him to solidify the plan and I stuck it on this drawing for reference only this evening up there in this corner because I wanted you to see how everything would interconnect , my streets, my pathways, my landscaping, my open spaces. You can kind of get an over all view. I did not want you to feel uncomfortable with approving this Wilkins Ranch area here as an R-8. We need to provide some type of variety of houses. We’ve been doing a lot of R-4. The 1,400 minimum square footage, 8,000 square foot lots. This area has a lot of it. We need to provide a little variety for different income levels and different wants and needs of the community. That is what we are trying to provide. If everybody is R-4, and everybody is 8,000 square foot and 1,400 square feet, it is really difficult to compete because there is just so much that same product out in one particular area. We are trying to provide, what we think, is a good plan that shows thought, that isn’t deviating dramatically from your ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan. This area is designated under the Comprehensive Plan as single family and that’s what before you today. I believe staff has some question about pressurized irrigation. We will be designing to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District standards turning the system over for their ownership. As far as a second source, We will either be looking at a domestic connection as a second source or a shallow well. Staff had some questions about ground water in this area. This has been farmed so when they did monitor the ground water out there it was during the irrigation season, so we do have some peaks in the ground water. My comment to the staff is that we will continue to monitor these tests holes over the next few months and get some good baselines. If we do have some areas where there are some perched water, say along this 8 mile lateral, then we’ll obviously have to provide cut off drains. The project engineer will deal with that issue. This is not unlike what we encountered out in Sherbrooke Hollows. The cut off drains out there have been very successful. Our water table has dropped dramatically. One since they took it out of agricultural production. Secondly, with the cut off drains working their way to the natural drains. There is a drain that comes across this property. Small drain right here called the Rutledge lateral. This is going to be piped along this perimeter and along here and then exit, so that tail water will continue on. The 8 mile lateral is too large to pipe. I stated that we will be requesting a variance if staff is still processing that way. They talked about they weren’t doing them as variances. I’m not sure. One other comment staff had was the Right to Farm Act. We should put that statute on our preliminary plat and on our final plat because there agricultural uses to the North so that it is know to anyone who purchases a lot that agricultural uses exist in the area and they are protected under state law. Lastly, I concur with staffs inclusions into the development agreement with the exception of item A. Pathway along the 8 mile lateral. We can not agree to the pathway unless I can get Nampa Meridian Irrigation District to grant me the license agreement. They claim that they won’t agree to it until the City of Meridian and themselves on the liability issue. The existing ditch Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 84 riders road is on the North side of the 8 mile lateral. I did got our there and confirm it, so the road is running right along here. If we can get them to allow pathway, I don’t think that would be a problem, but I can not allow it to be a mandated requirement because I have no control over Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. MacCoy: Neither do we. Bowcutt: So I don’t know if I can comply. Staff indicated no cuts on Ustick Road. The sewer and the water is down here. We will be taking that sewer and water up through the development. There is also water over here in Neiman so we could make a looping connection from here and here. Staff policy is that you take your water to and through. I don’t know Bruce. Maybe we’d have to trust fund for it cause it does have a overlay. That road can not be cut for 5 years. The City Staff may have to consider some type of trust fund where they can put the cost of that in a bank and then when that 5 year moratorium goes off of Ustick Road, it can be installed and those monies have accrued interest at not additional cost to the city. I guess that is the only solution I can think of. But as far as looping, you can ask Bruce. I don’t think we should have a problem where we could come in from the loop from the East and the South, between Dakota Ridge and Cherry Lane No. 9. Smith: You are relocating the rutledge drain on your property along Ustick Road? Bowcutt: Yes. It traverses like this. It comes across the South side of the school lot, runs up their West boundary and then it comes in like this. It is kind of one of those slow moving, does not look that deep drain, but those drains vary, depending how much tail water. We are going to have to pick it up here and we show it being piped here and then we’ll pipe down that common lot and then pick it up. Right there it will outlet right where it historically went on to the Northwesterly direction. Our pump station for pressure irrigation will be located at the 8 mile lateral right there where that square is. Smith: Shari, could the pathway-- couldn’t we-- until we get an agreement with Nampa Meridian, could we just ask if we could have the money set aside that would be dedicated to build that, so that if and when we get an agreement we get it put in any way and if we don’t get an agreement we can give the developer back the money after a certain period of time. Stiles: We could sure do that. Smith: Okay. Stiles: Doug will write you out a check today. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 85 Smith: Well somebody’s got –we are not paying for the path we were asking them to put in, so— Bowcutt: You mean the same thing we did with the pedestrian bridges. That’s what we did with the pedestrian bridges at Thousand Springs and ( inaudible). We trust funded for those. Borup: I thought we got a partial agreement with Nampa Meridian all ready. MacCoy: We don’t have a final though. Borup: (Inaudible) finally got settled. I thought the answer on the liability was finally answered. And if it’s been approved on one subdivision, why can’t they approve the exact same agreement on another? Smith: You know it’s funny how in the last 20 years—nobody knows how to swim any more. Borup: The only requirement they wanted was to be released from liability. And they backed off their requirement of the City covering their own employees. My understanding. That was not included in the last agreement. So I don’t know that there is a problem anymore. MacCoy: Well I have not seen a final word on that yet cause the last thing I was in it was still an open case. Borup: Well I had a copy of it and I am trying to find it and I can’t . Bowcutt: Commissioner Borup. I think Mr. Acshenbrenner testified before you guys on the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 9, wasn’t it? Borup: Yes. Two weeks later we had an agreement. Bowcutt: And two weeks later you had an agreement. So, I’m just as confused as you are. My understanding from John Anderson and from what Mr. Acshenbrenner testified, we still have problems. We will do what we can. If they are softening and it can be constructed and they will give us a license agreement, obviously it’s the best option. I need an outlet in the event that they say absolutely not. Borup: Monday night I had a copy of it, but somehow I did not get it here tonight. MacCoy: Anything else? Smith: One question is the parcel on the Northeast portion that is not included in this. What zoning are you be coming in asking for that? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 86 Bowcutt: I believe we are going to ask for R-8. I have taken some different concepts into staff and got feedback. We have talked about R-8. We have talked about R-15. Based on the number of units that I’ve got in there, it could fall under the R-8 designation because I believe we are at 6.61. So it would be an R-8 with a PUD. We would be bringing in all the elevations and so forth. That is my intent and I believe that is what staff said she would prefer—the R-8 over the R-15. Is that not correct Shari. Stiles: Yes. Borup: The PUD because of lot size? Bowcutt: The PUD lot frontage and lot size yes. And we would be required to do a 10 per cent open space as our amenity and that’s what we’ve got designed here. Smith: My only other question would be from staff. Is there any concern at all that you have that that parcel is not included with the rest of this at the same time? Stiles: Just the access probably through on Neiman. I think it needs to be provided. Smith: And it’s showing. It looks like their---obviously they are talking to you. You’ve made that clear to them that it’s important. I would assume. Stiles: Yes. I would hope that their not keeping this from being annexed at this time because a current illegal use of the property. MacCoy: Any other questions? You have a question for her? Okay. (Inaudible from the audience) MacCoy: Mr. Borup, Mr. Smith do you have any other questions from applicant? Anybody like to speak on behalf of what was just present. All right come up and speak this way. Good evening Frank. Johnson. I am Frank Johnson and I live at 4010 West Ustick Road right across from this development. I have an open ditch on the South part of it. Then I have a grate and you can’t image the amount of trash that blows off of those developers there. If you want to go up and look at Mr. Brennagers property on 10 Mile Road, you can see what I am talking about. Then it plugs up my grate. And then I have to turn my water off. The City sends out I don’t know what he’s called. I know what I would call him. But they end of asking me what am I doing having my ditch on somebody else’s place. I don’t know where they think the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 87 water comes from. All you have to do is go in that rutledge lateral and there is at least 3 full sheets of insulation board and I don’t know what else is in there, but there should be something done about (inaudible). This winter it blew one way one day, then the next day it goes the other way . MacCoy: Well we ask that the contractor control that and we have never figured out a real solution. We continue to try to police, from our standpoint of the City, we try to words in this contract and we still have the problems you talk about. Borup: How about a City Ordinance against the wind blowing. MacCoy: You can write it then. Johnson: But I don’t think you fellows oughta sit up there and bad mouth the Irrigation District. You know they have been here 75 years. MacCoy: We realize that, but we have had problems with them. Johnson: Well from what I understand all it takes is for the Mayor to sign a—to release Nampa Meridian from their liability. So put the blame on him. MacCoy: Well they have an attorney doing that. I am not involved in that. Johnson: Thank you. MacCoy: All right. Anyone else want to make a comment? Okay. Shari do you have anything else you want to add at this point? Any cautions or anything? Stiles: Any what? MacCoy: Any cautions? Stiles: Just watch them. MacCoy: All right. Becky, do you have anything you want to add before we close the public hearing? Okay. Commissioner’s. What do you want to do here? Borup: Shall we have some discussion first? MacCoy: You can do that. It is up to your table now. Borup: Shari’s—her comment on---she is talking about putting a requirement on a different plat—a different plat (inaudible) be submitted after the zoning— Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 88 MacCoy: Yeah. We’ve had this occasion before where we’ve had actually put in a piece of something that says that is precludes anyone else from coming in and buying the land and use even though now it’s been zoned R-8. Borup. That’s what I was wondering. How is that handled? MacCoy: Well, we’ve had to make a statement in our material— Borup: Development Agreement: MacCoy: Yes. Borup: Okay that would-- I don’t know if the overall project probably does not come out much different than what we saw how ever many months ago it was. I’ve— Smith: I think I was absent from a meeting where it came through the last time— Borup: I think you did miss that. Well I’ve been a proponent of (inaudible) for a long time. This has not been what I proposed in the past which would take an ordinance change, I think. I’ve advocated if we got 80 foot frontages allow some 70’s and some 90’s, it would still average out the same frontage. It would be a variety of lot sizes rather than having everything the same. This does accomplish that to an extent. Smith: I think I’ve been saying the same thing that I believe that Becky brought up is we’ve got too much R-4 here. My point being we need some larger lots, not just smaller lots. We need both. We’re not getting it. Borup: Well see that’s why changing an R-well I don’t know what the zoning would be. Keep the same density as an R-4 would normally have. You’d have some 80 foots and for every foot that you went under 80 you had to increase the same about of lots by one foot over 80. Anyway, that is something for future workshop. I guess the question here is, any other comments on this particular— (Inaudible) Borup: I definitely would like to have some strong language on the pathway. We already have a pathway agreement with Nampa Meridian on the on one park. They have made the statement that they would like to sit down and discuss more with the City. I don’t know. I am really confused what more they want to discuss. The agreement has been written. It’s been signed. I don’t know why it needs to change from one pathway to another. I’d like to know who do we need to address that question to—who on the City staff? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 89 Stiles: Probably Bill Gigray, the City Attorney. I think that the only agreement that we have entered into so far is the Fothergill. Borup: Yes, but that was only in April—well let’s see. What’s the date? March. That was the 16th of March when it was signed. Stiles: They still don’t like them on their lateral irrigation. Borup: So that’s still the problem. But on drainage’s— Stiles: Drainage’s they don’t seem to have any problem at all as long as we enter into the agreement that there was some discussion that at least the staff, we did not talk to the Board about it, but the staff did not want any along the irrigation laterals. Borup: So 8 mile is an irrigation lateral? Stiles: Yeah. Borup: I wouldn’t mind seeing an over all map for the City again for future designated and all the drainage laterals so we’d be aware— Stiles: We are working on that. Bill Gigray is also a member of something called FATS. Something about—I’m not sure what the it stands for, but the trail system and we are trying to get a map together for him that shows the whole area of impact. We are going to show him where we want the trails to be. We’re not going to limit it to just the drainage’s because we do want it along the (inaudible) we do want it along 8 mile. People are using it for that purpose anyway, whether they want to admit it or not . Borup: So that’s probably where the negotiations need to go with Nampa Meridian. Talk about those specific ones and maybe the other irrigation ones may not be feasible, or we don’t know. Stiles: I have not given up. Your project would have been a perfect—I mean you understand the problems with the – it’s a great solution there what you could have had and what you ended up with. Borup: That was the drainage. Well, the applicant was in agreement with 100 per cent of staff’s comments except the pathway, weren’t they. Smith: (Inaudible) Borup: I’d like to include it again. We’ve got to start somewhere. Smith: Mr. Chairman. I’d like to make a motion that we close the public hearing. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 90 Barbeiro: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MacCoy: There we are. We got that done. Now give us a decision here. (Inaudible discussion) Borup: That needs to be a time frame? Smith: Probably should. What is appropriate for it. Maybe Eric could address that. 5 years, 10 years. Walkway. Rossman: I suppose you could require it. Borup: Shari, a time frame on the trust fund agreement? It can’t go on perpetually, but I guess it could. Rossman: They could set up a trust fund anyway. I mean set it up for a designated period of time. If it doesn’t work or doesn’t occur you can put any conditions you want in there. So if it doesn’t fall through, he can get his money back, obviously. He’s going to want that . Borup: It’s still unplatted to West, so there is a opportunity for it to continue on. It’s not going to accomplish much to do a pathway in chunks and have no option of connecting to anything else. Here is ties into a road and it can go somewhere. It if can go somewhere further West, then it makes a lot of sense to me. Smith: Yeah, but if we don’t put it in place here then we got no shot at it. Borup: That’s what I think this is one that makes sense. I don’t know what type of time frame. Is there anything that we can do to put some fire under somebody? MacCoy: Well they are working it right now. You know that. Borup: No, no. I don’t know if they are. We have been hearing that for 5 years. MacCoy: I know, but I’m saying— Borup: Always working on it. Nampa Meridian seems real open in the letter they sent here. They invited the City to sit down and talk. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 91 MacCoy: Then you can say for the next 10 years that they want to use that. Borup: Okay. You wanted me to make the motion? You handed me this. Smith: I’d love you to. Borup: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend approval of annexation and zoning of this application to R-8 and that a Development Agreement be entered in to addressing the lot sizes. Smith: I’ll second that. MacCoy: Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MacCoy: All right. That does that one. Moving on to Item 15. The last one of the evening. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH SUBDIVISION (89 BUILDING LOTS ON 27.86 ACRES) BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT L.L.C.—SOUTH OF USTICK & WEST OF TEN MILE: MacCoy: Shari do you have anything else you want to add at this point? Stiles: Nothing further. MacCoy: Thank you. Smith: What about Bruce. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I have nothing further to add. Thank you for asking. MacCoy: At least your still awake. Becky you want to come forward and put – Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering. 1800 West Overland, Boise. Please incorporate my past testimony into the public hearing for the preliminary plat. MacCoy: You do that in your sleep at night time? Bowcutt: It’s scary, isn’t it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 92 MacCoy: Anyone here want to make any additional statement on the plus side. Yeah, come on up. Johnson: My name is Gary Johnson. Our family has operated a dairy and farm business across Ustick Road from the Wilkins Ranch Subdivision for approximately 60 years. We are not opposed to this subdivision. We believe that they ought to do what they want with their property. We have some concerns for the future. Since a lot of the new homeowners that come out into the country, they sometimes don’t get what they expect. We’ve always tried to be good neighbors. Tried to run a clean, efficient operation but there are some nuisances that go along with this type and size of business. We are a growing business. Truck traffic. Tractor operation at odd hours. Dust, odor, flies, spray planes at different times of the year. We want to continue to be good neighbors. I’d like to ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to require that as Becky said that this information be recorded on the plat document so that any new owners are notified of the existence of our operation. Therefore, to avoid any potential complains from the new residents of the Wilkins Ranch Subdivision. Also, I’d like to ask that P&Z require the developers for this property to construct a fence to contain construction debris. Snow fence..something. It not only gets on our place. It gets on the neighbors. It’s just a nasty mess. I guess in closing I’d like to say that we look forward to getting along with our new neighbors. Thank you. MacCoy: Thank you. Frank, you want to say anything else? All right. Anybody else. Mr. Campbell? Commissioners? Smith: Mr. Chairman. I’d like to make a motion that we close this public hearing. Barbeiro Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MacCoy: All ayes have it. We need a decision. Borup: The staff says the entire project should be fenced, except for staff has agreed that it is not necessary. Maybe we should ask Shari where that would be. Smith: Shari, where did staff agree specifically that a permanent perimeter fence be installed? Stiles: The permanent perimeter? Around the perimeter. Smith: No where did you specially agree that it not be required. Stiles: We haven’t agreed. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 93 Borup: She said they haven’t built, they can. Smith: Oh you can. We’re just reading your comments. Stiles: We can what? Borup: This says it needs to be everywhere except where staff agrees in writing that it is not necessary. It does not make sense. That’s the only spot I could think that may apply is the landscaping buffer along Ustick Road. Maybe we should have asked-- Stiles: Sometimes we agree to a different height or something cause it doesn’t work. We’ve made mistakes in the past where we required a 6 foot high chain link fence and then it looks like a prison grounds. We have been taking about maybe requiring a lower height along some of those canals or something so it does not give you that feeling. Borup: The question come up because of the debris. Stiles: They would be required even if for some reason if we agreed not to require the permanent fence, they would still have to have the temporary fence to contain their debris. And since their phasing this, I mean they are not bringing in that Northeast corner, they are going to have to contain that with some kind of perimeter fencing, weather it be temporary or permanent. Borup: Still the prevailing wind is still West to East 95 per cent of the time. Okay, that is all covered. Stiles: I think so. Smith: I want to make sure we have that covered. Borup: That is standard in all –you cover that in all subdivisions. Stiles: Yes. Smith: You still have trash blowing all over. Stiles: We have had a problem with the—even though the fence is there, if you remember Mr. Davis with the dairy farm, when it wasn’t a chain link fence, it would hit that solid wood fence and then still end up going up and over. Doug will probably be out there personally picking it up. (Inaudible discussion) Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 94 Borup: Mr. Chairman, I would move we recommend the approval of the preliminary plat of Wilkins Ranch Subdivision with inclusion of all staff comments, including a development agreement pertaining to the designated lot sizes on the plat to include the right to farm statement on the plat and for staff to work out a trust fund agreement on the proposed future pathway with the applicant. Smith: Second. MacCoy: Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MacCoy: It passes. I need another motion. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we adjourn. Barbeiro: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MacCoy: Good night. It is now 12:15. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:15 AM (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: _______________________________________ MALCOLM MACCOY, CHAIRMAN Date: ATTEST: _____________________________________ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 8, 1999 Page 95 WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. CITY CLERK