Loading...
1998 03-10MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 10, 1998: The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Nelson, Byron Smith, Keith Borup, Jim Johnson, Malcolm Maccoy. OTHERS PRESENT: John Prior, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Will Berg. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 10, 1998: Johnson: Any corrections, additions or deletions to the minutes? Everybody approve of the way they are written? No one has any comments, then I will entertain a motion for approval of the minutes as prepared. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion we approve the minutes as written. Nelson: Second. Johnson: We have a motion in two and a half seconds there to approve the minutes as prepared. All in favor, say aye. And opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All aye. ITEM NO. 1: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.13 ACRES TO C-G BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: Johnson: In conjunction with that is item two which is also a continued hearing for a conditional use permit request for the same item. McDonald’s window drive up and Idaho Power Company Credit Union with drive up banking by Eagle Partners, LLC. In our file today we received two letters. One from BRS Architects representing the applicant. A letter which states we are requesting a thirty day deferral for MCU-43-97 which is the application we are talking about. As you are aware ACHD and Meridian City Council have come to the unfortunate conclusion, I guess that’s a matter of opinion, that a new roadway will be required thus necessitating a total site redesign. The attached revised site plan demonstrates that the remaining site is of sufficient size to meet all city requirements. And they are asking for a referral based on that. We also have in our possession a letter from a homeowners association on attorney letterhead which always scares me, addressed to myself, written by Howard Foley. Please accept this letter on behalf of Greenhill Estates regarding the public hearing scheduled for this evening. It is Greenhill Estates’ request that the hearing be deferred until such time as ACHD and or ITD, which is Idaho Transportation Department, resolve issues of roadway placement at this project. So this is also a request for a deferral. We pay attention to the applicant’s request for deferral and less attention to someone who’s not an applicant. However, in this case, it’s up to you commission as to what you want to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 2 do. We’ve been doing – playing this game for some time. It would be my suggestion in light of not having additional information from the powers to be which in this case happens to be ACHD that we continue this public hearing to our next regular scheduled meeting, which is April 14th . Any comments, discussion? Borup: Sounds appropriate, so I move that we continue this public hearing until our next scheduled meeting of April 14th . Maccoy: Second it. Johnson: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion to defer this until our next meeting in April? No further discussion then, all in favor of the motion. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All aye. ITEM NO. 2: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C- STORE, MCDONALD’S WITH DRIVE UP WINDOW AND IDAHO POWER COMPANY CREDIT UNION WITH DRIVE UP BANKING BY EAGLE PARTNERS: Johnson: Same thing for item two. Do we agree on that? Smith: I agree. Johnson: Another motion please for the record. Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we continue this public hearing until our next regularly schedules meeting on April 14th . Smith: Second. Johnson: Motion and second to also continue item two, the conditional use permit request until April the 14th . All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All aye. Johnson: Is there any questions from anybody in the audience? ITEM NO. 3: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER – 2030 W. FAIRVIEW AVENUE BY TOM BEVAN: Johnson: At this time I will continue the public hearing and ask Mr. Bevan or his representative address the commission. Are we going through the swearing process? Prior: I believe we are. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 3 Johnson: We are. Mr. Prior you have the floor. TOM BEVAN 4202 N. MARCLIFFE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Johnson: Mr. Bevan, would you adjust the microphone so that we can pick that up on tape. Thank you. Bevan: Is that better? Johnson: Are you just going to stand there, or do you want us to ask you questions? Bevan: Well, I think you have all the documents now that we needed to comply with the rezone. Johnson: Is the easel available so the public can see that as well. I mean is there something – just stick it in front of the overhead there if you can some place where we can all look at it. Bevan: What we’ve done is redesigned it to fit better on the lot and to give us more open exposure from Fairview. So that the site line goes into the lot. The parcel on the left is the proposed Schucks and Econo Lube Subdivisions. And we have a cross – use agreement with them. We are in the process of doing it. We have a copy of the agreement here. They haven’t signed it yet, but they indicated that they would. That would allow for cross use – Johnson: Okay, you are away from the mike, so what you are pointing to the – give me a direction on that. Bevan: It would be west. Pointed to the west. And their development is just right to the west of us. Wilson Lane comes from the south there, and that’s right here. I’ll show you. (Inaudible – off the microphone) Johnson: So Mr. Bevan is pointing to the southerly portion of the application saying this is where Wilson Lane is, right? Bevan: Yes, exactly. Johnson: Our poor transcriber goes nuts if she hears mumbling on the tape, so we got to stick with the microphone. Bevan: Okay, I’ll try, and so our original design was four buildings. We’ve come down to two buildings, with one up front and then one in the back of the lot like that, as depicted there. The landscape is as shown there and the parking. I believe we – at least the architect told me that we have complied with all the things that were Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 4 mentioned in the list, so we are hoping that you find that also. We also have some colors. This is for the siding and for the fascia of the roof. The blue one – Johnson: Those are just colors, right? They are not material? Bevan: No, just colors. Borup: Those are the colors for what? Bevan: These are the colors for – do you have the elevations there? Okay, this is the siding. This is the color of the siding. And this is for the roofing. Johnson: It looks to me like a blue. Bevan: This is silver. Of course, it will be textured, so it looks a little different than that. Any questions? Johnson: Yeah, I’m sure we have some questions. Questions from the Commissioners? Maccoy: I like to start off here. On your drawing that we have here, parking you had four compact and I think your c’s on here must mean your compact, and you have six of those on your drawing here, so there should be a little correction involved here, if that’s what your meaning is. Bevan: Excuse me. Oh, I see what you mean, the compact, yes. Maccoy: Is that right? The “c” stands for compact. Bevan: Yes. Maccoy: Okay, there’s six c’s on your drawing, so change that. I got a question to you about on the building one, since you gave us elevations on the north side, it appears because of the handicapped parking down on the south side, is there entrance to your building? Is that your – Bevan: Yes, that’s the entrance, yes. Maccoy: On Fairview you are showing the back of your building to the Fairview side then. Bevan: Yes, that’s correct. There’s a berm there. Maccoy: Okay, I just wanted to clarify that in my mind. Okay, I’ll pass. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 5 Borup: I don’t really have any specific question. The blue was on trim you said. That was not the roofing material; is that correct, Tom? Bevan: Yes, the trim and the roofing. Borup: Fascia and around the window frames and that kind of stuff. Bevan: Yes. Borup: It looks like you got a good open plan worked out now, and it looks like you’ve also planned for future access to property on the east; is that – Bevan: That’s correct. Borup: At least the parking lot is laid out that way. Bevan: That’s correct. If there’s – Borup: It looks good to be able to tie in to future. I think the redesign also gave you more square footage in your buildings too. Bevan: It did in fact. Borup: I have no other questions. Smith: Just getting back to this compact space thing. It looks like a couple of these you could encroach a little bit into the landscape areas you have, the problems in the width of the spaces. I don’t know. I can’t tell because there’s no dimensions on any of this stuff, so I don’t know what the dimensional restraints that you have to work with are there. The four that are in the center, I don’t know what you can really do with those, because I don’t know how wide your driveways are all the way around there. But maybe – the compact spaces just don’t work, and there’s a growing movement to not even recognize those as parking spaces any more, but an alternative that may work for you is take that center block of parking and turn it ninety degrees, omit that isle way that goes north and south on the site to the east right in front of the building two. You can still probably get the same number of spaces in there, but make those four compact spaces regular spaces. Bevan: Okay. Put the block where? Smith: Just turn it ninety degrees. Move it so the first two spaces are adjacent to the sidewalk that runs north and south in front of building two. Bevan: Oh, okay, that’s a good idea, yea. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 6 Smith: Then the one that’s adjacent to building one. I think you just encroach in the landscape area there, and probably with just a little adjustment, you can do the same with the one at the back of the site. We didn’t get any elevations for the east elevation and south elevation of building two. Are those going to be similar in appearance? In other words, you’ll have a glass on those sides as well similar to what the other elevations are indicating? Bevan: Yes, they’d be similar elevations. I don’t know if there’d be quite as much glass, but there will be – the elevation will be similar. Are you speaking of the east side of building one? Smith: Well, we didn’t get that one, but also the east elevation of building two and the south elevation of building two. Bevan: Well, most of the glass will be in the front. There will be some in the back, but it won’t be as prevalent as in the front. Smith: Just typically you see this kind of building built where you just got a service access from the back side and it’s in deed the back side of the building. You have the alleyway so to speak which is kind of what you’ve got created there, and it concerns me that that east side of the property is kind of where everything is more or less been backed up to. I don’t know that I can really address that here, but – Bevan: Well, the south side is going to be retail space, so that’s going to be similar to the north side of the building. This side here will be less windowed, and more of a back – Smith: What’s the reason why you have the paving connecting that side? The two parking areas on that side? Bevan: On this side? Smith: On the east side. Yeah, right there, the parking – the asphalt that goes along the east side of building two, north and south. Bevan: Yes. What’s the reason for this? Well, we have access there. They are telling me that we needed that access. Smith: Who is they? Johnson: I was going to hold you in reserve. Do you have to comment right now? Stiles: I just wanted to say that the fire department required that 20 foot driveway there. Bevan: Yeah. That’s what they told our – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 7 Smith: That’s a requirement so they can drive their trucks. And they can’t reach that side of the building with their hoses from the north or south side? How long is that building? Bevan: One hundred and fifty four feet. Smith: Oh, I’m sorry. It is on there. It seems to me that the fire department could access all sides of this building without that alleyway having to be paved. Bevan: I don’t know, that’s what they said was required, so that’s what we did. Smith: That seems like a – I don’t see why that should be required, personally. And where is your trash enclosure going to go? Bevan: The – I don’t know if they made it. Smith: I didn’t see it on here. It should be identified on there for the city council. Bevan: Okay, we’ll do that. Smith: And then the landscaping seemed to be pretty vague as far as what you are going to do landscaping. I think you should indicate on the site, especially along Fairview what you are going to do in terms of landscaping, trees and – Bevan: Well, those have the three trees here and two trees here. Smith: That’s not on my plan, though. Bevan: Oh, I’m sorry. Smith: I think that’s just colored on yours. Bevan: Yeah, I didn’t realize he didn’t do it on all of them. Smith: I’m assuming these eight spaces that are on the – actually there’s eleven spaces that border the west property line, those are all going to be access from the Econo Lube site? Bevan: Yes, these here. There’s a driveway here and a driveway here. Smith: But your spaces that you have indicated that border the access – Bevan: Yes, because their parking lot will back up to ours here. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 8 Smith: Okay. You scared me with the silver paint color you submitted. I don’t think I really want to see a silver building there, and – Bevan: Well, it’s a drivit, more of a natural color. Smith: No, I’m familiar with drivit. But I’m not really familiar with silver drivit. Bevan: Well, it’s – you know if you look by the mall, the Gap has a silver drivit. You know where the Gap is across the street from the mall? That’s the color. Smith: That’s what you intend is really silver. Okay, I didn’t know if that was a mistake or – Bevan: No. We probably should have had it on drivit. I grant you that, because personally I think that’s not that great of color myself. But when it’s in drivit, and it’s the Gap building color. That’s the color silver. Yeah, it’s silver. Smith: Okay. More gray? Bevan: Well, it’s – I guess you color it silver or gray. That’s what that’s suppose to be. Smith: The only other question or comment that I had was regarding what you were going to do with signage on the building, and what you are going to do with signage for the development itself. I didn’t see anything indicated on the site plan. Bevan: Yeah, it would be a monument sign would be out here. I know it’s not listed here. I don’t know why I didn’t put it there. Smith: And what’s your intention? Are you just going to call it Chelsea Square on the sign with a street number or are you going to list each tenant on the sign. Bevan: Well, we hadn’t planned to list each tenant. We were just going to use it as one sign for the development. Smith: And would you be open to some type of pylon – when you say monument sign, you mean not a pole mounted sign. Bevan: No, it’s on the ground. Smith: Okay, sorry. It’s been a long day. And were you planning on any signage on the buildings to identify the tenants? Bevan: Yes, a smaller sign above the door of the tenants. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 9 Smith: I think it would be beneficial for the City Council to see an example of what you are intending for your signage on the building. Bevan: Okay, we can sure do that. Smith: So we can look at that and offer our input on that. Bevan: Okay. Smith: Other than that, I’d like to just compliment you again on – I think this is a much better submittal than what you originally came in with, and I think you took some of the suggestions and comments we had seriously and I think it makes for a much better presentation, and eliminates a lot of questions that we have to ask you. Thank you for that. Bevan: Well, thank you, I appreciate that. Smith: That’s all I had. Nelson: I have nothing. Maccoy: Let me go back one moment here. I am a little behind the eight ball at this day and point. This is my first – Johnson: I have interject your name so – our new typist doesn’t know your voice yet, so this is Mr. Maccoy. Maccoy: The drawings that we have here do not show any lighting of the property or for parking or even if you got a lighting wash on your building or how you plan to illuminate this place. Bevan: Well, they – I thought they would have the lighting here too. We’ll add that to the other suggestions, and we will show the lighting. Maccoy: We’ll need to know that. Bevan: Yeah, we’ll certainly do that. Johnson: Are we through? Shari Stiles, you had some comments or questions and I appreciate your input. Stiles: Chairman Johnson, commissioners, I received this last week, and I just had the opportunity to review it today. I would like to see some additional things on the site plan. The trash enclosures as was mentioned, the Wilson Lane improvements that are required as part of this annexation and conditional use permit. The ADA access aisle Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 10 that’s required is eight feet for a van accessible space. I would like to see the trees shown on the plan. There’s 32 trees required with the paved area. And I’m not sure how that is going to be accomplished. I would like to see details on the signage, and unless Ada County Highway District has a typo on their technical report, they were requiring 54 feet from the section line. This is showing 50 feet from the center line, and that would make a significant difference in this because the requirement is for an additional 25 feet beyond the required right-of-way line. They need to show sidewalk on Fairview. That needs to be constructed. There is no cross access to the adjacent lot at Econo Lube, their plat. Their final plat has been approved. Their building permit has been submitted, and there is a continuous seven foot landscape strip along the entire perimeter of this, so there is no cross access to this development. So these – I think they would be willing to entertain maybe a point of access, but the double stacking with contiguous access there would not be approved. I would also like to see the lighting as was suggest, and the existing and proposed utilities as part of this plan. I appreciate the new profiles. I think it’s come a long way from the first elevations we received. But I still think there is a lot work to comply with the ordinance and to present a submittal that is complete. Johnson: Thank you Shari. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Ms. Stiles are you saying that there’s 50 feet shown from the center line of Fairview Avenue right now back to where the landscaping seems to be indicated there? Stiles: Yes. Smith: That’s 50 feet? Stiles: From center line. Smith: And the section line is how far south of the center line? Stiles: It’s about ten feet. Smith: And then we require – ACHD is asking for 54 feet south of that as far as right-of way? Stiles: That could be a typo. I know that they’ve had some problems with the section line and center line along Fairview, but I would like verification from them that they mean, they actually do mean from the section line and not the center line. Smith: Okay, and that includes their area for sidewalk and – Stiles: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 11 Smith: But our setback requirement is from the property line. Stiles: From the new property line. Smith: As defined by the 54 feet south of the section line? Stiles: Yes. Smith: So that could effect this whole site layout. Stiles: Yes. Smith: Okay. Borup: Mr. Chairman, question for Ms. Stiles. This is the third project on Fairview we’ve reviewed. What does ACHD require on the other two properties? Has it been from center line or section line? Stiles: I can’t recall. I just found that in the report today for this project, and I didn’t look what they did on Econo Lube. Borup: I’ve got to assume that they are going to be consistent. Stiles: I hope so. Borup: They are not going to have a ten foot jog in front of this property, so that may answer that question. We maybe need to see what - - is that a question that come up. Bevan: Well, frankly I’m not sure myself. The engineer and architect – Borup: -- wondering if they had noticed that. Bevan: I’d have to ask them. These are points I will have to bring up with them, because they are suppose to take all of these things into consideration. Borup: So Shari you are saying that the centerline and the section line are not the same line. There is a ten foot difference. I can see how that could get mixed up on what they are doing. Bevan: Yeah, I will definitely get some clarification on that. I’ll talk to them tomorrow. Borup: I did have another question for Mr. Bevan relating to Shari’s comments on the cross access agreement. You said you do have one prepared ready for them to sign. Bevan: Yeah they – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 12 Borup: The question then was are they removing the landscape barrier that they had on the original plan? Is that your understanding? Bevan: That’s my understanding. They are the ones who sent this to us. We talked to them a couple of times over the last couple of months, and it was send from them to us that they agreed to it, and sent us this – Borup: Did they send a revised site plan accompanying that? Bevan: No, they just sent the agreement itself, or this is what they said they would accept in an agreement. So we’ve looked it over, and there is a few minor changes that we would suggest to them. But – Borup: But that’s all wording. Does that refer back to any of the drawings or documents? Either yours or theirs? Bevan: I don’t recall it specifically mentioned in the drawings. And we didn’t discuss the drawing. I just assume that we were involved with them and the easement, but I will have to check with them and see what they had intended for that. Borup: Am I correct Shari, your main concern was with those double parking places. They are going to need access from Econo Lube site? Stiles: Yes. Borup: The cross access agreement for a car to drive through, and that’s something the City definitely wants to be able to make use of those parking places, and that’s going to need to be somewhere in their site design. Now if they go in and put curbing along there, and then and then you come along. Bevan: I agree. Borup: That you may want to clarify. Bevan: Yeah, we will. Borup: Looks like it’s going to be more than may. It looks like you are going to need to clarify that. Bevan: Yeah, we will need to clarify that. Well, we will get that taken care of. We’ll – I’ll have a meeting with them the first of this next week, and we’ll have that put together. One way or the other, but I was surprised to hear that. I haven’t seen their site agreement frankly. I mean their site plan, but they said they agreed to this. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 13 Borup: And agreed to parking access from their side? Is that mentioned in there? Bevan: Yes. Borup: Or just agreed to a drive – Bevan: Well, it’s a cross development agreement we’re – we share in fact the parking lots. That’s what it says, so I’d assume that would be acceptable under that type of an agreement. That’s why they laid it out with that in mind, that we’d share the parking lots. But – Borup: They should have redesigned their – Bevan: Yeah, they should have redesigned that. I don’t know. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, Tom. Is there anyone from the public that has any comments regarding this application. Any further discussion between staff or commissioners? We’ve got quite a laundry list here of conditions and things that are either lacking or that we would prefer to see as a body. And this is a conditional use permit, so whatever action we take, we should conclude those conditions certainly would be my suggestion. What is your pleasure, gentlemen? Smith: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me there’s a number of unresolved issues here that come to light that would – could dictate a significant redesign of the site, and I don’t feel comfortable forwarding on to City Council until we have something that more accurately defines what’s actually going to be proposed and constructed. And although I hate to do it, I would be in favor of continuing this public hearing until those issues are resolved and in fact we do know that – resolution of the cross access agreement, the setback off Fairview and some of these other things that have come up. Johnson: Anyone else have any comments? Borup: I guess I’m concerned about delaying this an extra month. But I agree these things need to be specified and laid out. Don’t we still need Findings prepared on this? Johnson: Yes. Borup: So it will be back before us next month. Johnson: But we do have a lot of unresolved issues you know that have to be addressed, in my opinion, either with a delay or a long involved motion that those conditions be met, which you know isn’t going to produce in my mind a satisfactory Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law if we had a lot of this misinformation. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 14 Borup: Why is that confusing? In my mind, though I mean the signage and landscaping, those are all pretty standard things that are going to be reviewed again. The cross access agreement is that everyone’s main concern? Smith: The cross access agreement, the setback off Fairview, I mean those things – I mean my experience with dealing with this kind of stuff is this could throw a monkey wrench in the whole layout, and I mean it could be as significant as requiring a complete redesign. Certainly if you lose those eleven spaces that are accessed from the west property line, the Econo Lube site, you’ve got to reduce your square footage. Or find another place to put them, and I don’t see any place else to put them. Borup: I agree with that. It would have to be contingent upon the agreement signed by Econo Lube and a redesign of their property. But probably the Fairview I guess would be the bigger problem. Well, that ten feet would – Maccoy: Create a problem. Borup: I mean it would necessitate a redesign. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we continue this public hearing until our April 14th meeting to give the applicant to resolve these unresolved issues that have come up tonight. Maccoy: Second it. Johnson: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Borup: Just one. Shari ran through a number of items, and I don’t remember them all. I doubt the applicant does either. Is going to be given to them in writing? Johnson: Well, there will be a copy of the minutes certainly that he will have available plus we can make up a laundry list, I’m sure. Stiles: And if anybody – whoever is working on the site plan, if they would talk to me – Maccoy: Well, I think everything you said was all standard things. That Fairview problem is the only thing that – Johnson: I would hate to personally see us proceed down the road, and then have to have it all come back from City Council because of a redesign. I’d rather resolve it at this level. Borup: That makes sense. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 15 Johnson: Anyway we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion? And opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 4: FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT BY TRIPLE T ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a SMOKY MOUNTAIN PIZZA AND PASTA: Johnson: You have the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as prepared by the City Attorney. Are there any changes that need - - questions, any discussion regarding the Findings of Fact that you have before you? Borup: I have none. Maccoy: I don’t have any. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I guess my only concern is that since we didn’t have a tenant certain for this application, there is a statement on page three, paragraph nine which Mr. Michener states, “I can give you my word on that. We’ll come back if there’s a substantial change in anything, we can clarify that with anybody.” I guess “substantial change” I don’t know if that’s something clearly defined, but I would feel more comfortable that if – and again I have a problem with the semantics, but if there’s – it’s not Smoky Mountain Pizza going in there, and it’s not a very similar use, then I would like to – and I hate to see these tenant improvements come through here for us to approve or not, but I think there are some issues that apply to parking and trash and hours of operation that probably make it appropriate. So I don’t know if we can expand on that substantial change, or put something in here for similar use, and how we can define that a little more clearly. I’m sure there isn’t a definition in the City Ordinance for similar use, so – Prior: Just by interlineation, just put in whatever you want. It’s your discretion as what you want to define as a substantial change or similar use. If you want to say that it’s limited to pizza, subs and similar as regards to food, you can do that. That’s fine. If you want to exclude any type of drive in or if you want to exclude anything of a higher volume than that type pizza establishment, that’s fine too. That’s purely your discretion to do so. Smith: That would be my only comment, Chairman. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Prior and Mr. Smith. Any further comments? I will entertain a motion then gentlemen. What’s your pleasure? Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we approve these Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as written with the addition that in the event that Smoky Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 16 Mountain Pizza or a use very similar to that i.e. pizza, subs, food service on similar scale and service venue require the applicant to come back through for another request for a conditional use permit. Nelson: Second. Johnson: We have a motion and second. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup, aye. Maccoy, aye. Smith, aye. Nelson, aye. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. Johnson: Is there a recommendation you wish to pass on to City Council? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian to approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the applicant for the property site described in the application with the amended verbiage that was added by Commissioner Smith. Should the application be approved the applicant shall satisfy the conditions set forth in the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, uniform fire code, parking requirements, paving, landscaping requirements and all ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the applicant by the City. Smith: Second. Johnson: We have a motion and second to make the recommendation to the City Council as stated. All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All aye. ITEM NO. 5: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A ONE STATION HAIR SALON BY STEPHEN AND KAYE PADORIS – NW ¼ SE ¼ SECTION 12 T.3N., R1W.: Johnson: Wow, I prefer a street address. And I will open a public hearing and invite the applicant or the applicant’s representative to come forward and be sworn by our City Attorney. STEPHEN PADORIS 503 W. PINE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 17 Padoris: I stand before you. We’d like to open up a little one station hair salon in our home on W. Pine, and I’m trying to go through the appropriate channels to make sure we do it per your requirements, and the law. I’m not sure where to go from here. Johnson: Well, that’s fine. We have your application and some comments. I’m sure the commissioners have some questions. Commissioners at this time, questions? Maccoy: Looking at your site plan here that you gave us in our package, I don’t see any parking. I know it’s a single chair salon you have planned for here, but do you plan for any handicapped usage of the area? Speaking of parking or ramp to the house or – Padoris: As far as the handicap, we weren’t really planning that. My wife, she would like to retire in a couple of years. She’s developing the carpal tunnel in her wrists and arms, and generally the purpose of the shop is she enjoys it as a hobby to where she would like to you know cut friends and family’s hair, and she has no intention of having this be a high volume business by any means, so we really didn’t allow or have any plans to cater to the handicapped. If we needed to put in a ramp, I guess we could do that, but – Maccoy: Probably be something you ought to think about because American Disability Act which is a national act is required that you should when you open to the public, make it available to everybody. And handicapped, that includes those people too. Now you’ve got parking you say off street as well as a three spaces. Now this is a single drive. What do you do, stack your cars one after the other in here, or how do you get in and out? Padoris: Basically our driveway through there is – we have enough space in there for three cars, side by side. And in talking to ACHD, right around in front of our main entrance to the house, we’d like me to provide some type of a turn around access which is going to allow for not only maybe one more additional parking space plus the turn around. So – Maccoy: What’s your answer to that because I was going to ask you – the next part of the question was had you read the Highway Department’s material? Padoris: Yes, I did. And yes, yeah, we are planning to put a turn around there. It’s not shown on the site plan, since I just spoke to them last week, and I submitted a site plan a couple of weeks ago. I believe. Maccoy: Okay. I take exception to your proposed 4 x 4 sign on a five foot post. You are in a residential area. I don’t think if I were a neighbor of yours, I would appreciate a sign that big sitting in my front yard or next door neighbor’s yard. I would suggest you might want to reconsider your sign, because you are going to have to go before the sign ordinance anyway in this city, which will be doing the same thing I’m doing right now to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 18 you, saying you got worry about getting this thing down into a more acceptable sign size. Since you are living in a residential area. Padoris: Right. The only reason I stuck that in is I was told or under the impression Meridian preferred some type monument sign, so I just stuck it in here, and hoping to get your suggestions on what might be appropriate. Maccoy: Well, I think something a little lower height, and anyway, I’m not going to sit here and second guess the sign committee, but I just think you ought to spend some time with and come up with an acceptable piece, because what you’ve got here shown is not the – in my estimation anyway. Borup: I think really the only question I had was items that Commissioner Maccoy already touched on, and I realize the problem trying to do a small home business, so I tend things can get rather overwhelming, but ACHD comments. Do you have the written copy of their comments? Padoris: Not with me, no. Borup: But you have read it? I guess the one item that I was questioning was their request to have a 24 to 30 foot wide new driveway curb cut, etc. put in. You said you was talking about doing the turn around. Was that something that you were planning also? Padoris: At first they told me I would probably be required to have an arterial type of approach at the 15 foot radius. Say a 20 foot wide driveway, and then another radius on the other side. They came back later I believe and talked to me over the phone, and said that they’ve decided that they would not require the 15 foot radius approach, that if I could provide a turn around on site so that the people are pulling out they can drive straight out without backing out. (End of Tape) Borup: ….much for reasonable, and that was my question. I felt a 24 foot new curb cut was excessive for the use you are looking, but I think the turn around part is probably a safety question on people backing out on Pine Street, so the turn around would definitely handle I think the safety aspect, and for the amount of usage. So at this point, ACHD has backed off on the new curb cut and wider entrance to your understanding? Padoris: Yes, sir. Borup: I would agree with that too that a whole new entrance would be excessive, but the turn around would be a safety. That’s all I have. Johnson: Okay, I had a couple of questions regarding the neighborhood setting. What are your planned hours of operation? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 19 Padoris: Basically say 9:00 to 6:00. Johnson: And are there any convenants in your neighborhood there that restrict at all business? Padoris: That’s a good question. I’m not sure. Johnson: Have you run this by your neighbors at all to see what their reaction might be, particularly your adjacent neighbors? Padoris: Yes, I run it across. Yes, I have, and there seems to be no objections. One of my neighbors that owns the apartment right next door to me indicated that they were going to send a letter to the City of Meridian stating their acceptance and approval of it. Johnson: Okay, thank you. Smith: The ACHD requirements do concern me because of the neighborhood setting, and I think that this turn around area, this driveway needs to be handled sensitively and to not over – not be overstated and be a detriment to the neighborhood. The first proposal, the 24 foot access was pretty excessive for this size of site, and I can’t advise you from a – and I’m not proposing to advise you on the ADA that Commissioner Maccoy brought, but I think there is language in the civil rights legislation that states verbiage to the effect of reasonable accommodation. And I think there are things that you can address in that aspect that would perhaps preclude you from requiring to construct a ramp, but again, I’m not trying to in any way present myself as suggesting that that’s the appropriate course of action. But that is something that you might want to keep in mind before you just go out and construct a ramp. And then I do want to reiterate Commissioner Maccoy’s comments on the sign. I think that’s way too big a sign for the scale of business that you are proposing and the setting and the context of the neighborhood, and definitely wouldn’t want to see to a post mounted sign. Now, I know what a monument sign is again. It’s just a sign that comes right out of the ground. The sign right in kind of a structure that comes out of the ground. It’s low to the ground. And 4 x 4 is probably larger than what you would need there. So I would like to see some more information submitted on the signage when you get to the next hearing that you will be presenting at. That’s all I had. Nelson: I had one comment. My wife does use such a hair salon, and I noticed that the – I think our covenants are pretty specific on what to do as far as signage and having an in-house business. And what I’ve seen in the past, the only signage that was allowed was attached to the building. For this low volume of a setting is enough signage that somebody looking for it knows they are at the right spot. You know hopefully the neighborhood – you are not getting any advertisement out of the signage, but that’s my only comment. The signage I’ve seen in the past for similar businesses has just been a small sign attached to the home, just enough they know that is what they are looking for. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 20 Maccoy: Since you are going to be parking in your driveway and coming into the house so the shop at the rear entrance there, I would assume you would have some type of lighting on that outside section so people see where they are. When it comes winter time, you know you said you would be open until 6:00 in the evening. When it gets dark around 4:00 sometime in there. I’m just thinking from the stand point of liability. You want some type of lighting out there. Padoris: We do have some normal lights on the side of the house, you know, we can flip on. Maccoy: And along the same thing lighting, I didn’t bring it up, because I didn’t think it was going to be a case, but I wouldn’t think that you would want to light your sign out front. I don’t think that would be necessary. And what Commissioner Smith also brought the fact that you can go for a smaller sign, and people will know who you are, and that’s all you’d need. That’s all I have. Johnson: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else that would like to address the commission at this time on this application. Okay, thank you. Any further discussion? Any comments from staff? What is your pleasure? This conditional use permit request requires Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Maccoy: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have our Counsel prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for this project. Smith: Second. Johnson: We have a motion and second to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All aye. Johnson: Do you understand what that means? Do you know what the next step is? Do you know where we are in the process? Padoris: I believe I’ve got to make these corrections, take care of the sign. Johnson: Mr. Prior is going to tell you exactly where we are in the process so you won’t think we were misleading you here. Prior: The next step sir is simply I prepare Findings of Facts and make sure that everything conforms to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the Meridian City Ordinances. Okay? I prepare Findings. Based on those Findings, I make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission. You’ll come back next month, and they will let you know whether they approve your project after they read my Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 21 findings, much like what they just did previously. Approximately two weeks to a month after that, it will go in front of the City Council and they will get an opportunity to read my Findings as well, and they will make a recommendation, and if passes, then you are well on your way and everything is all set to go. Padoris: Great, thank you. Prior: Any questions or anything I can answer for you? Padoris: No. First time stumbling through so – Prior: We’ll see you next time then. Padoris: Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, John. ITEM NO. 6: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THUNDER CREEK SUBDIVISION BY MERIDIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: Johnson: I will now open a public hearing and ask the applicant or the applicant’s representative to address the commission, please. CHARLES EDDY 4345 S. TIMRIDGE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Eddy: Thunder Creek Subdivision located somewhere as opposed to nowhere is more generally located on the east side of Ten Mile Road approximately a quarter mile south of Cherry Lane in section 11, township 3 north, range 1 west. This project is one that has been revitalized. It was approved approximately a couple of years ago in the same general manner that you see here. That approval expired and Meridian Land Development picked up the project and is asking for a new approval with the modifications that we’ve made. The property is currently zoned R-4 bounded on the north and south by unplotted ground that’s in the county. It’s bounded on the east by the proposed Haven Cove Subdivision which is currently in its first phase. Some revisions that we’ve made to this project from the first one was the connection between Haven Cove and Thunder Creek to allow a through street. On your reduced drawing, the lighter lines to the east of the property are the proposed Haven Cove Subdivision to allow Thunder Creek to work with it. We’ve also made some extensions to the south and to the property for future development to the south. Really nothing special about the project. It is single family housing, 8,000 square foot lots. Common area lot is on the frontage of Ten Mile Road with the lot adjacent to the access road from Ten Mile being a storm drainage and common area lot to be landscaped and grassed appropriately. Along the Eight Mile Lateral, our discussions with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and Boise Project Board of Control have indicated they request an additional three and half feet on either side of the right-of-way from – which would allow Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 22 an additional – a 60 foot right-of way instead of a 53 foot, which they currently have. So we are granting them a three and half foot easement on the outside of what their currently existing right-of-way has. We’ve read through the staff conditions and have no problems with any of the conditions that have been brought forward and have submitted a response letter to Mr. Berg on the 9th . It’s a pretty straight forward project. If you have any questions, I’d happy to answer them. Johnson: Questions from the Commissioners at this time? Borup: Mine are all related to staff items six and seven and then a clarification, you said that ACHD wants another three and half feet? Eddy: No, Nampa Meridian Irrigation. Borup: Oh, Nampa Meridian wants – Eddy: On Eight Mile Lateral. Borup: So is that going to – so what was the effect of that on your property now. Is that going to just increase the easement line which also effects the fence line back there? Eddy: Yeah, the homeowners will be required to fence to that three and a half foot line. And their property -- Borup: Now, on the plat that you’ve submitted though, is the easement line the property line also? Eddy: No, it’s not. Borup: Well, there we go. Note six, I can see it now. Note number six where it says another three and half feet. So that was already on the plat. Eddy: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. The temporary turn around end of Gray Cloud. Is that – are you planning on a temporary turn around? Eddy: Yes, sir, we are. That will be revised and submitted to City Council within the next week. Borup: The property to the south is not, that’s separate ownership? Eddy: Yes, it is. Borup: So it’s not possible to do a turn around there? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 23 Eddy: The ground is currently agricultural, and we haven’t approached the owner. It was our feeling that it probably wouldn’t be very minimal to provide a turn around there because it would take that part of land out of production. Borup: The lots are still going to be accommodated to turn around without affecting the – Eddy: It will become a non-buildable lot until at such time as the road is extended. Borup: I think that was one of the staff questions. They weren’t sure what that would be. And then the question I had was on the additional five on your utility easement. Was that because of pressurized irrigation, is that item number seven on staff comments. Eddy: Item number seven of site specific? Borup: Yes, well, no it’s under general comments. Well, we didn’t see anything from ACHD. This is from the Engineer’s office from Bruce Freckleton comments. Eddy: And that’s item seven of the site specific comments? Borup: Well, they are all under general. Wait a minute, I’m sorry. I’m missing a page. I’m sorry. There we go. My papers were out of order. Yes, it is under site specific comments. Eddy: And the additional five feet you’re talking about at which point? Borup: Well, they are saying they are requesting an additional five feet on the easement on – down the center of the one block and on the western boundary of the other. It wasn’t something that you looked at yet, I guess. Eddy: No, it wasn’t sir. Are you speaking to block two? Lots two through four? And lots two through six, block 1? Borup: Yeah, block one where it crosses and the rest of that midline section down block three. Eddy: Yes, my initial – I don’t know for sure because I haven’t spoken with Mr. Jacobs on that particular item, but I believe that would be to accommodate the irrigation system there in the back. Borup: That was what I was wondering why it was necessary for another five feet. Johnson: Mr. Maccoy? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 24 Maccoy: I don’t have anything. Johnson: Mr. Smith? Smith: Yeah, I’ve got a couple of things. Who is going to pay for the improvement over Eight Mile Lateral? Is that going to be something joint with Haven Cove? Eddy: It will be jointly with Mr. Blazer with Meridian Land Development as well as I believe ACHD. I could be incorrect about this. ACHD will put up for half of that. Mr. Blazer the other half. Smith: Is there plans for the developer to erect a periphery fence on the property, or is that going to be up to homeowners? Eddy: It will be up to Mr. Blazer of Meridian Land Development. Smith: And what type of fences? Eddy: It will be a non-combustible six foot fence. Smith: Chain link. Eddy: Non-combustible, chain link is typically what the developer uses. Smith: It’s a fancy way of saying chain link. Maccoy: It could be concrete blocks. Smith: I have yet to see a concrete block fence since I left Vegas. Maccoy: We even had a wrought iron fence once. Come on. Smith: I hate concrete block fences. Your – I don’t mean to be nit picky, but I don’t want to disappoint - - (Inaudible) Your roadway sections shows five feet of sidewalk, but you don’t have on your site plan. Even though you don’t have a note calling it out. Eddy: My – Smith: Your roadway section, shows five feet of sidewalk. Eddy: Yes, sir. Smith: Your site plan doesn’t show sidewalks. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 25 Eddy: Typically we don’t show sidewalks on the site plan. We don’t show sidewalks, curb and gutter. Smith: You don’t show sidewalks on the site plan? Eddy: Not on the preliminary plat. We do on the development plans. Smith: Okay. That leads me to my next question. The – all the lines that we are looking at on the – that’s not edge of pavement or – Eddy: That is the right-of-way. Smith: Okay. So in relationship to the landscaped lots along Ten Mile, where would the edge of pavement be? Eddy: Along Ten Mile, I can’t really say to that because that’s ACHD’s design that takes care of that, but typically they do a street section for a 96 foot wide street. And the edge of pavement, I really can’t say to that. I can get you a street section for a 96 foot street, and supply that with you. Smith: I was just curious on how close that came to that, and who is going to be responsible for the maintenance of the landscape? Eddy: It would be the homeowners association which is to be part of Haven Cove. Smith: Would this be turfed? Eddy: Yes. Smith: And when I drove by the site, I was a little unsure exactly where it was, but I believe the property directly north of your parcel, there’s an existing home there? Eddy: That’s correct. Smith: Okay, that was all my questions. Nelson: I have no questions. Johnson: Anyone else? Okay, staff? G. Smith: Mr. Chairman, commission members, just to respond to Byron’s question about the street width. Typically on that section line road, they are using a 65 foot back to back curb section. So it would be 32 ½ feet from centerline to top back of curb. And another five feet of sidewalk for 37 ½ feet. So on a 45 foot width, you would have 7 ½ feet between the sidewalk and the property line which is what’s showing here. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 26 Smith: Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, Gary. Thank you Mr. Eddy. Anyone from the public would like to address the commission on this application. DAVID FULLER 890 N. TEN MILE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Fuller: I’ve been before this body before. Johnson: With or without the hat on? Fuller: I can take the hat off. I got a little bit of hair left. On the Haven Cove subject, which was developed close to this piece of property, this body told the developer, and the developers – they strongly recommended that they contact me and work with me on these projects. This one has gone to the north of me has gone stagnant for a while after it was annexed in. I’d just like this body to know that I have not been contacted by either the developer or the owner or anybody in this matter to be worked with on any of the problems adjoining this property. And my concerns to the developer are that there are a couple of ditches there, and they know that they do have to pipe it and everything, but their property line is very close between the two ditches. And there’s a concrete ditch there now that is on my property line and I use, and it’s just inches away from where they are trying to lay pipe or put a fence in. And I just want assurances from the developer that if they disturb this or break this that they are liable you know for the repairs or that they will replace the concrete ditch with gated pipe or something usable so that I can move it further away from the property line, because this property was developed by a farmer years ago, and it all used to be one piece, and now it’s two separate pieces. The property line is just like I say, inches away from the ditch. I believe the developer there mentioned that he was going to put a chain link fence in. And that is what we agreed upon with the previous developer, that they’d put a chain link fence in, because there is stock in there, and we do burn ditches and that kind of thing to protect the fence from being damaged with fire or stock, you know, chewing up wood. I am pleased that they put in – the previous plat was one stub to the south, and I am pleased to see that they put in two stubs which makes a little more sense. My property to the south is split into two different parcels, and I believe that was better service if one of them develops before the other. But I am a little disheartened about them not contacting me to go over any of this stuff and having to come down here and go at it cold turkey again. Further development of my property, I’d like to see a ten inch sewer line that from what my understanding is run to my property line. Now, we’ve talked a little bit in the past about some of my property not being quite low enough to gravity flow. I do have a copy of the map that we came down and got. And we didn’t get to talk to Gary, but we did talk to Bruce, and this map shows that from my existing farm house, just about ninety percent of my property will gravity flow with that ten inch line’s put in properly. So I would like to make sure that the City sees that that’s done. The City’s expanding too far west in my opinion. I’m a local guy here in Meridian and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 27 grew up and I would like to see development and expansion, but it just breaks my heart to see them expanding and putting in a big pump system out there on Black Cat. You know, several miles to the west of us when we can’t even provide services to the people close in here, and my main deal is Franklin and Pine Roads. All this land in between here is not being service accessed by the services, which is water and sewer, and I believe that some things should be taken, whether it’s the highway, Ada County Highway or the City or the Planning and Zoning. There’s some ways to solve some of this, and I believe we need to extend Pine Street to Black Cat to use that new big pump system, and instead of - - I don’t know how far it is, but we are getting awful close over there to the county line I would think too close to Nampa with the city property line when I’m within like a half a mile of downtown here, and I’m still in the county. I want – I guess I could read a little more. The services include making Ten Mile and Franklin Pine safer intersections. You guys know it. We’ve got some problems out there. Last year I stood up here and we put two hundred more homes on Haven Cove. Now we are going to put another twenty, and when my place develops, we are going to put another fifty. Well, we’re not fixing these intersections, and we contacted the Ada County Highway and they don’t have any plans for fixing that intersections for five years. That’s too late. You’re funneling that traffic from Cherry Lane and all that area over there down Ten Mile to the freeway. And we got to do some planning here, and that’s why I’m here tonight. I pretty well covered everything. I didn’t touch on everything, but I’d like to hear the responses to the ditch and I’d like to hear back from the ten inch sewer line. I want to make sure that the fence is put in proper. The ditch is put in proper, and the ten inch sewer line is put in proper, and let’s see if we cant’ do something about the traffic and do the roads at the same time here. Thank you, gentlemen. Any questions? Johnson: Yeah, we may have some questions here. Commissioners comments? Smith: I can appreciate your concern about the development of the roads, and it’s a real pet peeve of mine with the development of the roads, the schools, libraries, parks, all of that when these developments go in, but how can we as a commission while allowing this piece meal development of twenty homes here, fifty homes there, twenty five over here go in and still get the money together to make these improvements? I mean nobody is supporting impact fees in this state. How are we going to do it? Fuller: My answer to that is I got a friend that works at the sewer plant. He said they put enough money into that sewer plant, they could have built another one, and you know I can’t justify whether that was the right or wrong decision, but from my standpoint, you know the Planning and Zoning, I don’t know how much control you have over the sewer system, but it looks like that was the wrong decision, because we are bypassing areas that we need to have the new sewer system put in for, or at least have some lines put in. If we can’t afford it, then we need to redirect our money or our planning. If it takes a moratorium to quit going further out to get these areas developed close in, then I say it takes another moratorium. That’s a suggestion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 28 Johnson: Thanks. Maccoy: I’d like to make a comment here. I agree with you about your Black Cat Road, area out there, and I am concerned also and had been for a couple of years. So I have moved myself over and volunteered to work on the transportation committee. And even though it doesn’t show on print like we’d like to show it, we are working towards the end that you and I are both talking about here. Because one thing that concerns us is the safety quality of the road system, and how many - - I don’t know how many weeks go by before we have an accident of Black Cat out there and somebody gets killed. And I think that’s an appalling situation. It’s something that we are trying to work out with the highway department, and say look, how many more deaths are you going to need out here before we can convince you that there’s a reason to go out and do that. Now we realize money is the baseline. But we’re working with them on a constant basis to say don’t forget us. You know, keep this in mind. Keep pushing it up. We get it kicked down again, we push it back up again. So, it’s not being put under the rug so to speak. We are working towards that end. So I just put that to you to the fact that it’s not – you have not talked to deaf ears. You’re talking to people that agree with you. Fuller: Well, you know I hope so. I can appreciate that and understand that. I guess another comment I’d have is there’s several pumps systems close by in my neighborhood on the sewer part of it. And if it takes a temporary pump system to develop some of this closer in land, maybe that’s the route we should take. My personal feelings is we should have built a new sewer system to handle that other area down along the freeway because it’s just going to be so over taxed in the future you know all the way over to the Stampede. That’s was my feelings, but if we got to put - - you know they don’t want them pump systems and nobody wants to pay for them, but I believe the city here has a responsibility to it’s area, and we have to look at these areas. If we got some low lying areas that don’t drain, then we got to put pump systems in until we can fund the money to put the gravity flow system in. Johnson: Anyone else? Gary Smith, do you have a comment? G. Smith: Yes, sir. Mr. Fuller, if you would like to come in sometime, I’ll give you a run through of what we do to plan for sewer systems. It’s not a "Willie nilly" deal. We spend a lot of time, a lot of effort, and a lot of money to develop a facility plan for the City of Meridian. It includes an expansion of the existing facility to its maximum capacity. And to build a new plant is not doable until we built out what we’ve got. Fuller: Are we close to that point? That’s what I understand – G. Smith: No. We’re not. We’ve got eight million gallons today to build out there. We are about four right now. Fuller: How about addressing the other part? The low lying areas that can’t gravity flow to it, and how do you address that? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 29 G. Smith: That’s up to City Council. If they want to do pump stations. Johnson: I think your invitation to meet with you and get a clearer maybe a fuller picture of what we’re doing in the way of sewer planning is proper, but I don’t think this is a proper forum for that with the limits of time, and you don’t have your material available so I would invite you two people to get together at your earliest convenience to do that. Fuller: I don’t know if the developer has anything. Johnson: He might have, and I’ll ask him. Thank you, Mr. Fuller. Is there anyone else that would like to address the commission? Yes, sir. GLEN BLAZER 3450 STONE CREEK ROAD, BOISE, WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Blazer: I agree with Mr. Fuller that everything he’s mentioned are great concerns. I thought I came over and visited you once. Didn’t we talk together quite a while? Johnson: You got to talk to us Mr. Blazer. Blazer: I am concerned about his problems, and that we don’t infringe upon him and that we do the maximum things that will benefit him the most. If we extend the sewer up Ten Mile as we are proposing to do with this, we have to extend it to the south line of our property, and when we do that, I believe that a good portion of his property then will be able to be sewered. And generally speaking last year, we always thought that sewer by Albertson there was shallower, but when we measured it, we found that it’s ten or then and a half feet deep, and if you run it up there, I think a good portion of his land then will be able to be sewered, and I want to assure him that we will do everything we can to be good neighbors. I’m as anxious as he is to see that the fences are built properly and the – Shari over there made sure that we do, and I just want to assure you that we want to do whatever is best for the community. Now, I also want to point out that one of the reasons that we are going through this additional subdivision is that it’s going to relieve traffic on Cherry Lane and on Pine Street because now Forecast Street will go right over to Ten Mile, and the children going to school won’t have to go out to Pine Street or go over to Cherry Lane, but will be able to go right down Forecast Street and come right out in front of the school, and also traffic. And I think that will cut many local roads, you know, trips a day out by having a road there in the middle of the mile, it will carry the extra traffic and the highway district seems to be real pleased with that idea, and I thought it was a great to advantage other subdivision and also this that we are proposing tonight. And that’s all I have to say. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Blazer? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 30 Smith: Mr. Blazer, which school are you referring to that you would be able to access off of Forecast? Blazer: Isn’t there a new grade school just across Ten Mile, just west of Ten Mile and this new street, Forecast, will go right through the middle of Haven Cove Subdivisions and take the traffic that way, give them another access instead of forcing them to go out and use the other two roads, and I think that’s one of the great advantages of our doing this. Johnson: Okay, thank you. I think Mr. Fuller does point out the importance and necessity of communication with your neighbors. Anyone else would like to address the commission at this time? Mr. Eddy, do you have any responses to the questions, specifically the bridge and some other things? Eddy: To address Mr. Fuller and the communication, I would just like to say as the engineering firm, we did not purposely exclude him from our conversations. We did take into account trying to accommodate his property by changing the layout of the roads so we got rid of a cul-de-sac, add through streets. The sewers are also approximately ten feet deep from those stub streets as well as at the ten inch line coming down Ten Mile Road is approximately 11 ½ feet deep, so he can utilize that when he decides to do something with his property. Having lived on the – just down the road for twenty one years, I understand the importance of irrigation and how we go to great lengths to not disturb the distribution of water to all the surrounding farmers, so we will definitely be conscious of that and not interrupt his distribution of water as well as taking great care in constructing the fences and everything that borders his property to not effect him in an adverse way. That’s all I have. Johnson: Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Eddy? Borup: Just a short one, Mr. Chairman. You’ve answered it really, but maybe to more fully answer Mr. Fuller’s question on the sewer line. The design especially that ten inch sewer line is – isn’t that dictated by the City Engineer, and you are looking at minimum grade and whatever is going in as what it’s going to be. Eddy: That’s correct. Ten inch line has a minimum 28/100 of a percent slope, and that’s what we’re utilizing. Borup: So that’s down as deep as it can be engineered. Eddy: That’s correct. Johnson: Okay, thank you. Are there any further comments from anyone? Fuller: I’d just like to say thanks guys for meeting with me on that because last time I came it looked like my property would not flow at all, and now it sounds like a big Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 31 portion of it will. And I appreciate your comments coming back working with me. I’m available anytime. Just give me a call. Johnson: Okay, and we appreciate your testimony and everyone else that testified this evening on this application. At this time, I’ll close the public hearing. This is a preliminary plat. It does not require Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, but it does require a recommendation. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I’d move that we would recommend approval of this preliminary plat. Maccoy: Second. Johnson: We have a motion and second to approve the preliminary plat for Thunder Creek Subdivision by Meridian Land Development Company. All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Johnson: I’d like to take about a five minute recess. FIVE MINUTES RECESS. ITEM NO. 7: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 13,250 SQUARE FOOT HIGH TECH MACHINE SHOP BY NICK BRACKUS: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or the applicant’s representative to address the commission and be sworn. RAY ROBNETT 1011 SOUTH STAR ROAD, STAR WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Robnett: Our proposal tonight is to as you can see there construct a warehouse in a newly developed subdivision. And I think one of the main items of order tonight is to kind of clarify or help you understand what kind of a machine shop we are going to put in. I’ve taken some pictures of the inside of that. With your permission, I’d like to hand those up. Johnson: Certainly. If you would start up here. Robnett: Also, I have just a few pieces I’d like to set out here, and if you would like to see any of them, we can – that are the type of things that they do machine. They mean nothing to people like you and I. They are just part of laser machines and parts of x-ray machines. They are strictly a prototype machine shop. We would like to make it real clear that they do know automotive, anything like that. Everything as you can see in the photographs there, it’s all computerized. Most of their machines are all run by Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 32 computers from a central computer station. I know some of the issues are with traffic in the area and noise. I know night deliveries, a quasi residential commercial area are not acceptable. There is none of this. There is no truck terminals. There’s no loading docks. We’re not showing any trash enclosure there. If you would like us to, I guess we could build one. All of the stuff that they use in there, and their machining and their plastic and their metal which is primarily aluminum or brass is all recyclable and so they keep it inside. They have no big trucks for delivery. They a little truck for taking stuff to United Parcel, and then they use the United Parcel to pick up there. I’ve known Nick and Betty Brackus for about ten years. I’ve noted their operation for that long. I find them to be – all we build is small commercial buildings. And I find them to be probably one of the more compatible machine shops or small business for an area like this. Johnson: Okay, thank you very much. Any questions from the commissioners? Maccoy: I’ve got a couple. I’m familiar with some of your machinery in there, so I was kind of interested. The pictures are a help. I would assume from looking at what you have up there for items, do you have - - I shouldn’t even ask the question about – you probably don’t use oil for your lubricant. You may have a soapy solution for your lubricants or something. What do you do with your waste fluids? Robnett: I’ve heard them talk about the lubricants that are in the machines. There is no oil cans. Most of these machines as you can see, the doors close, once the mechanism starts and they do have an oiling solution, but I don’t know. Maccoy: Is it recyclable? Is it self contained? Robnett: Oh yeah. There’s no laze where oil gets on the floor or kind of – there’s no floor drains or anything. Maccoy: Okay, no floor drains. All right. Robnett: In fact we are going to epoxy these floors. There’ll be a light gray epoxy, and this place is kept – will be kept like a hospital inside. It’s more like a Hewlett Packard or a Micron operation. Maccoy: What about your building construction. What are you using there? Robnett: We are going to use block construction. 8816 block. And I apologize for not having a more descript front elevations, side elevations. We will provide those for you. But we are going to use a split face block on the main, the part that will be the two story. That will have the office in it. And then using a fluted block to create a nice looking design. Real comfortable. We’re going to use some hips on the roof to soften that effect. But I do have some pictures that I brought of building that we have built that will be – you can take certain components from them, and they will be similar, but I would like to just present to you at the next hearing a good elevation. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 33 Maccoy: You are leaving your exterior in natural color like gray block. Are you going to paint it? Robnett: Yes, we are going to leave it in gray block. If we paint it, it will be as close to the color of the block as we can get except for accent colors and some striping on the building. Maccoy: And your roofing will be what, metal, wood or what? Robnett: We are going to use an architectural shingle on the roof. It will be a pitched roof. Maccoy: And color? Robnett: I’m sure it will be along the gray tones, and I’d be happy to provide a full color board for you on that. Maccoy: We would like to see that. What about fire protection, internally? Are you going to have sprinklers throughout or are you required or – Robnett: We haven’t discussed in depth with the fire department yet. I think in size and setback, we’re probably not required. But we will – Maccoy: Well, I was worried about the flammable material inside your place. Robnett: Yeah, there just isn’t any. The oils are not flammable. They are water soluble. They have – I’ve looked in there. They have a small locker cabinet that’s probably a 4 x 8 that they do keep any kind of solvent or something for cleaning up. But they just don’t have any. Maccoy: So you really don’t have any explosive issues at all. Robnett: None. Maccoy: By looking at your material here that we had received, I didn’t know if you had any magnesium and some of the things – Robnett: No, I mean their main materials are the plastic, aluminum, and brass that they make these, and then they do the anodizing is sent out. You know and the noisiest piece of equipment they have in there is their air compressors. And we plan on building a special room, and they are not a abnormal air compressor. They are just a regular air compressor, but this is just a quiet environment that they work in. Maccoy: I was going to ask you about that too. So you bring up a good point there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 34 Robnett: You will not be able to hear this operation standing outside the building in the parking lot. Maccoy: I was just looking at that being a block building, if you are working inside of a place like you show these pictures here, you’d have to have it pretty well quiet because people could not live inside of a reverberating building with a lot of noise. So I would think that you – if you had compressors, which I’m sure you do, you would probably have to have enclosures which are built just for that. What about handicapped parking? Robnett: Well, we will provide adequate, and we will meet all the ADA standards, and we are well aware of that. Maccoy: You’ve read the material that was turned out by – (End of Tape) Robnett: … we thought we would wait and get the application, but thinking of something made out of the block, same as the building for the base maybe being a two courses high and then a sign, maybe total sign being three foot high, and it’s a monument type of sign. It’s advanced precision machine. They would be happy with that if commissioners did not feel that was good. Although it is an industrial park – business park. They would be happy to mount it to the building. Their people and their orders are not drive by orders, finding the place for United Parcel, identifying the place for the fire department, just monument sign doesn’t take much. Maccoy: Well, you will be submitting your sign anyway to the sign committee so I’m sure we will have no problem there. What about lighting of your outside part of your building? Robnett: We’ve talked a little bit about that. We are going to light the front of the building up and the parking area to some degree. We have residential right to the east of us so there’s a real concern that we don’t over power that with lighting. There is really not much need. They keep no vehicles outside. Their dumpster are in, everything is inside the building. So we will need lighting just for the parking lot area for people working there. Maccoy: So you are well aware of – you are sensitive to the fact that non glare lighting and – Robnett: Oh, absolutely. This lighting will probably be mounted to the building with a direct shining down is the way we’ve usually worked with that. It’s more effective for the parking areas and just lighting up the building and not the general area. Maccoy: Okay, I’m going to pass for the time being. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 35 Borup: Just a couple Mr. Chairman. I assume by your other statement on the lubricant stuff, there are no chemicals used. Robnett: No, sir. Borup: … in the manufacturing. Robnett: Chemicals being chemicals out of the ordinary. Borup: Yeah, I’m not talking about cleaning solutions and stuff like that. Robnett: Okay, yes. That’s pretty general. Borup: Yeah, but it’s not a – Robnett: No hazardous waste. Borup: Right. Are you looking – for hours of operation, are looking at one shift or they looking at night shift? Robnett: They run like a swing shift. I can’t tell you the exact hours on it. I know the swing shift, I think it comes on at 3:00, so you can do the math on that and guess. And I don’t know if that’s just in peak production times or all the time. Borup: So normally don’t run 24 hours. Robnett: Oh, no. You wouldn’t know it if they were though outside of their going and leaving. Borup: That’s all I have. Johnson: Mr. Smith. Smith: I guess I was kind of disappointed with the content of the elevations. Robnett: And I apologize for that when I first got up. Smith: Do you have any idea what the over all height of the building is going to be? Robnett: At the eve height, we are sixteen feet. Smith: Is that in the center portion of the building? Robnett: No, the center section of it is seventeen, four to the eve height. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 36 Smith: That’s the eve. So then we got the ridge beyond that. Robnett: That’s correct. Smith: I would like to see you use something beside composition shingle roof. I just from an appearance standpoint and longevitity, it just maybe something, I mean, I can’t make you, but I’d like to see you use something besides composition shingles. I think it provides a better appearance on the building. And something that would minimize your maintenance, and that’s another reason why I always ask if the block is going to be painted or left natural, because again, you paint it and then you got to keep going and painting it and painting and so forth. But I would like to see more information on what the building is going to look like. Heights and materials and it looks like there’s some accent bands of block going around and just get a little more information on materials. Robnett: And I’d be glad to. Smith: Do like what you stated just up here tonight about your sign. I think that’s very appropriate proposal for that. Are you going to have any on-site materials storage outside the building? Robnett: No. Smith: Okay. And then there was some staff comments that if I was the applicant would bother me. And I think some of this is maybe just a clarification and a lack of understanding on the City’s part as far as what your proposing to do there. The first comment was from the sewer department which said pretreatment will be required and addressed on building permit application red lines. Sounds like to me from what you’ve presented to us tonight, there should be no reason for any kind of interceptors or pretreatment of any sewage, and so I think it would behoove you to clarify that with the City. And then the fire marshal stating that the building is going to need to be fire sprinklered. I am kind of surprised that the fire marshal is dictating what buildings need to be fire sprinkled and not, and this is a building code issue, and it’s based on what type of building construction you have as I’m sure you are aware. And what your use and occupancy is. And I don’t know what the code requires for this type of occupancy, but that’s again is something I think it would behoove you to clarify with and make more clear to the City. Robnett: We have no problem. In fact it’s not a given one way or the other whether we had preferred to outside of their recommendations chosen to sprinkle the building. In talking to Mr. Brackus, there is one machine in there that costs twice what the building cost. And he’s real concerned about alarm systems and safety as far as the equipment goes. We’re talking $25,000 to sprinkle the building, and something like that. I’m sure that’s not going to be an issue. If they are requiring it, that just hastens our decision a little bit. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 37 Smith: Like I said, that’s a building code issue based on your occupancy type and type of construction. But again there is insurance considerations and cost of equipment and so forth you also have to weigh. That’s all I had. Robnett: Now these folks have waited a long time to build this building. It’s a husband and wife. They’ve worked very hard, and they waited long enough that they can put their best foot forward and build the kind of building that they need to facilitate what they do. Nelson: I just have one comment. As far as the fire sprinkling issue goes, from what I see there, I see some aluminums, natural polys, plastic materials. It’s probably a toxic consideration. Even a small fire would produce toxics with those materials. That’s probably more of where it’s coming from than buildings and occupancies would be my guess. I made that up. Just kidding. Johnson: Anyone else? Any further comments? Okay, thank you. We will give you an opportunity to come back if you wish. It’s a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the commission at this time? JIM WITHERELL 215 S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Witherell: I’m sorry your transcriptionist has quit and you got a new one. After four years, she’s pretty well used to my voice and can understand what I say. I have the world’s worst public speaking voice. Johnson: Oh, but you write so well. Witherell: I do. Johnson: And we do have your letter dated March 1, but it looks like it was received at the City March 9th , and so we just did get a copy of that. I assume you wrote this letter. Witherell: Yes, we brought it yesterday. I’m here to represent the quasi neighborhood that was just spoken about. If you’ll check your map which is page four of that letter. This is how close we are to housing. So we’re not a residential area off the distant woods. We’re talking 50 feet between that building and our bedroom windows with basically nothing in between. The developer has put in – or the development has put in a partial landscape barrier. But they are only six foot trees. In fifteen or sixteen years, they may give us some protection from light. And this is just barely planted within the last month or so. What we are going to ask for automatically is to have this turned down, because it is manufacturing next to residential. We did not have all the information, of course, and a lot of the questions we’re asking are the same questions you are asking. What about fire, what about combustibles especially with it so close to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 38 us. What about the weekend when there is nobody there if it blows up. I don’t know. Do these kind of things blow up. We’ve never heard of a quiet machine shop. I used to work for Yanke Machine Shop and it wasn’t quiet, but we didn’t quite produce the same things. Some of the questions have been answered, but I would prefer that they’d be answered in writing. What we would like is a continuation of public hearing with notification. To go through the issues that we’ve raised in this letter. And also we’d like a continuation because we did file suit against the city last July on this property, on this annexation. The City of Meridian replied to us February 27th , so we are now going to judicial review. But I don’t care to pre-suppose what the court is going to decide about this particular property at this time. So it doesn’t do us a whole lot of good for us to argue points, which may not be allowed or which may be allowed. For the record, -- for the attorney’s record, it is Case No. CV-OC-9704203D. Crookston is representing the City and (Inaudible) representing the Plaintiff. And that’s basically our request for the continuation until we find out more about what’s actually being proposed here. There is one major issue we take exception with for starters, and that’s the parking lot is next to the houses. In reality the building under generally accepted standards would be turned to block the parking lot from the houses. Also the drainage shown on the parking lot is directly into the adjoining property. It’s not out toward the street. Other than that, the conditions are what’s it going to be made of? Well, we know it’s cinder block. Again we’d like that in writing as part of our court case. He says there’s no outside equipment. That’s fine. He says there’s no parking by the staff over night. That’s fine. He says the hours of operation are up to 10:30 like they work at Hewlett Packard for the swing shift. We don’t think that’s so fun. But if the parking lots are on the front, we can’t hear it. So we’re asking if this goes forward to look at that redesign on the location of the building. Would anyone have any questions? Johnson: Oh, probably we have some questions. Just generally have you had any communication recently other than written with the developer at all or the owner of this subdivision? Witherell: No, we haven’t spoken to him since October of ’96. Johnson: Okay, I thought there was a problem there as I recalled before that you people didn’t necessarily hit it off. How did it come to be that you built so close to the property line or did the property line get established later or what’s the history there? Witherell: The property line is on the side of the hill. Our houses are at the top of hill. Also we had an incredibly high water table, so we were required to move the houses up out of the water table to prevent flooding. Johnson: And how many residences are we talking about in number here? Witherell: There’s six houses along the one side, two on the other. Six on the east. Two of those houses are in favor of the development because they sold the land, so they have to be in favor of it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 39 Johnson: So the signatures on this letter which are what, three? Witherell: Three households. Johnson: And those represent three of the four households? Witherell: Yes. Johnson: Okay thank you. Any other questions? Prior: I’d like to know the nature of the lawsuit. I’m not familiar. Mr. Crookston didn’t informed me about any pending lawsuit obviously. So I’m at a bit of a loss. What type of remedy are you trying to – Witherell: We’re asking for the public hearing. Prior: In regards – Witherell: Judicial review, I’m sorry. Prior: Of what? What are you seeking? Witherell: Of the development agreement. I don’t know. I hate to say this. The attorney said don’t even talk about the case. So I’m not sure what all is involved. Prior: And the attorney represents you, sir? Witherell: As a group suit. He represents about three households – Prior: He represents the three households that signed this agreement, so that’s who? And you don’t know the nature of what you are trying to seek with this lawsuit? Witherell: We’re asking for the protections that were – this is going to sound funny – asking for the protections that were given to us by Planning and Zoning last year, which was – Prior: What you are trying to do is you are trying to enforce a development agreement; is that what you are saying? Witherell: We’re trying to get modifications to the development agreement, yes. Prior: Oh, are you trying to get modifications or are you trying to enforce the present development agreement? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 40 Witherell: No, we’re trying to get the modifications to it. When the plan went through here last year - - when the plan of the plat went through, we agreed with the Commission who argued well that you can put some light in the street, that’s what it says in the Findings next to residences. They will blend under the Comprehensive Plan. But you said in your Findings of Facts that there could be no intrusion on the residences whatsoever, and that was fine. So we went to City Council and said we like these Findings. We agree with them. By the time it was done, they had thrown the Comprehensive Plan out, and so there are no longer any rules. And then they put the burden on the development agreement, which then puts the burden on to the C.U.P. process. And we did have the one right to exercise left, which was the judicial review. Prior: Could you give me the case number again. Witherell: Sure. The only reason I brought that was to validate it because I’m finding out a lot of people hadn’t heard of it. CV OC 9704203D. Prior: Thank you. Johnson: Anyone else have any questions? Borup: Mr. Witherell, I’m sure from previously that you realize some type of business was going to go in here. Witherell: Yes, we talked about warehouses and offices. Borup: Well, I guess my recollection is a few minutes ago you stated industrial. Witherell: It was said some light industrial would go in there. Borup: Okay. After hearing what type of business is going in here, you still feeling that you would rather see another type of light industrial with a lot more exterior usage and storage, etc.? One of the – some of your testimony from previously seems to contradict what you are saying now, and before you wanted high wall. Now you’re talking about putting a building there with no windows screening your property, and now you don’t like the high wall. Witherell: I don’t like the high wall? Borup: Well, they are talking about – well we don’t have that south elevation. I’m assuming it’s probably going to be pretty much – just the wall of the building there. Really I think my question was you know something is going to go in there, and Witherell: Yes, that’s what we are sort of asking the court to decide. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 41 Borup: But you still feel there is other industrial light manufacturing business that would be better than this one apparently. Witherell: As long as the case is (inaudible) see I can’t have an opinion. Borup: Pardon? Witherell: As long as the case is sub-judus, I can’t have an opinion. See, that’s like a guessing the court. Borup: Okay, thank you. Smith: No, but I wish I had more time to really kind of delve into the what the content of this letter was, and we just haven’t had adequate opportunity to do it. Johnson: Right that was not in our boxes. We did not get that letter until – Witherell: And we apologize. We delivered it yesterday morning. Nelson: I don’t have any questions. Johnson: Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else would like to address the commission at this time? ANN WITHERELL WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. A. Witherell: Gentlemen, this sounds like a very nice machine shop. But it is in a single story neighborhood. There’s only one two story house there. It’s going to be almost thirty feet high, and it’s only going to be a few feet from our bedroom window. It’s too high, and this is only the first thing that has been proposed. We did ask for the protections that the Comprehensive Plan would have granted us had the City Council not thrown it out and told the developer that he could in effect do whatever he wanted. This is just the first application. There are going to be more. This does set the standard. If this is the height that it’s going to – that the other buildings are going to be and the development agreement restricts them to 40 feet, which is the maximum allowed under the ordinance. In fact, it’s not restriction at all. So that’s why we would ask that you wait until this judicial review is over to proceed further. We really do need to know what the court is going to say about this, and we won’t know for a while. So we do ask that you delay action on this application. Now if he could just make it smaller, and not 30 feet high in a single story neighborhood, please. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you. Any questions? Borup: Just one. Is there any type of timeframe on this judicial review? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 42 Witherell: Ask the attorney. Borup: Well, the attorney isn’t here. Witherell: I’m not an attorney. I’ve never sued anybody before, ever, ever, ever. It would have been nice – Borup: In other words, you have no idea. Witherell: I have no idea. The City responded to it on the 27th of February. We filed suit in July, and I don’t know, suing the City of Meridian these days, you almost have to take a number and wait, so I really don’t know. Johnson: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward? Yes, sir. JIM BOYD 9272 CHELAN AVENUE, BOISE, WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Boyd: My name is Jim Boyd, and I represent the developer, John Barnes, and I just wanted to clarify one small item, because I had spoke with Mr. Barnes and wanted to – I contacted last week Mr. Witherell to – for myself and Mr. Robnett to meet with the Witherells and those that are affected in the neighbor to have a neighborhood meeting to let them know what we communicated to you folks tonight, and what Mr. Robentt’s communicated to you and to answer any specific questions they may have as to the use and the building and those aspects of it, and Mr. Witherell turned me down due to the fact, in his words, that they were suing the City of Meridian. So, therefore, we did not have a meeting so he was right when he answered the question that had he talked with the developer, the answer no was correct. But we did offer. That’s all I have. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Boyd? Thank you very much. Anyone else? Anybody that hasn’t testified because I’ll give you an opportunity. Mr. Witherell. Witherell: I just wanted to rebut that he did call. It was on Thursday night. We have been instructed by – we have been specifically instructed by the attorney not to negotiate outside of the judicial process because this could prejudice our case. That’s why he was turned down. I wish we didn’t have (inaudible) type thing. Other than that as I told him, he left this part out, had it not been for that we would have loved to talk to him. But I’ve got to make that point perfectly clear. It’s not “drop dead fellow.” Johnson: Okay, you made your point. Anyone else? Any comments from staff? Any further discussion? Borup: I had an additional question for Mr. Robnett. Johnson: Mr. Robnett, could you come up to the podium again, please? Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 43 Borup: Question on building design. You stated that, you know, two story structures in the center of the building – Robnett: That’s right. Borup: Seventeen feet there and then the single story, sixteen foot on each end. Robnett: I said sixteen, it’s fourteen. Correction please. Borup: Oh, okay. Just getting shorter. Before I thought the building was getting taller. The question I had was on you said was going to a hip design rather than gable. Is that on both ends? Is that a redesign from what we have? Robnett: Yes, at the meeting with Jim Boyd and some of the recommendations to make it more astheically pleasing being the first building going in to this project, he wanted me to assure him that it was going to look good, and he suggested the hip roofs. We had planned on doing the hips on the front of the building and not on the rear. However, if it would soften the look, which it would, we could do the possibly redesign and do that. Borup: That was my question, you know, was it like a 412 pitch or do you know? Robnett: Well I kind of did the same math you did. If it was a 312 and your sixty foot wide there, we would be what 90 inches to the peak? Something like that. Borup: Yeah, I didn’t finish my math. I was thinking – Robnett: So we would be somewhere around there, but you know the tall part, the thirty foot high, it would be seventeen or twenty five feet high on the tall part of the building which is in the middle of the building. And the building is not right up to the rear property line which adjoins these folks. Borup: Well that’s what I was trying to get clarification on. Right now the building is sixty one feet from the property line. Robnett: That’s correct. Borup: So you are looking at a fourteen foot wall that’s sixty plus feet from the property with – Robnett: Plus the roof. Borup: Plus the roof, with a hip roof, that’s all the flat wall would be showing. Or with the gable you are talking – Robnett: Even with the gable, you’re – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 44 Borup: another eight – seven and a half. Robnett: Yeah, but that peak height wouldn’t change. It’s just that instead of being back a little further, it would be right there at the end. But yeah, I don’t think it’s, I mean it’s portrayed as being a big offensive tall building, but I don’t think that’s and could partly be my fault for not having an adequate elevation in here, which I would be more than happy to have, and I really ask you to consider not postponing this thing any more. By the time we submit for our conditional use and then our building permit if we start in January we can have them in before we hit bad weather the next year. So there’s the building process – Borup: I just wanted some clarification in my mind on that building height. Robnett: Okay. Smith: Just a quick comment. This just reiterates why good documentation is necessary to present at these things because then you have something that everybody can look at. The information’s all there, the heights, the materials, you know distances from property lines. All of that business is right there. There’s no confusion on the neighbors’ part, the applicant’s part or the commission’s part as far as what we’re looking at. And I strongly encourage you that when this thing goes to City Council, you have those materials there, because there’s going to be the same individuals that – you know, going through the same issues all over again. So, just a recommendation, I guess. Johnson: I’d like to ask one question. Was there any consideration given to any of the lots in your development for this particular applicant? Robnett: As far as location? Johnson: Yeah, I don’t have a – Robnett: When I was talking to Mr. Boyd regarding just a lot for Nick and Betty Brackus, and it came up in the conversation that I said, look I’ve some people, gave the nature of the business. He says I’ve got a lot that requires a conditional use, but it’s got to be extremely low profile. This is all I’ve done, especially for the ten years is this kind of business, and I told him I have one of the best I’ve ever had, and if there’s ever a business that would be compatible, and I hate getting in the middle. I mean I’m applying for a conditional use for a building and it sounds like there’s a battle going on here with the City because you guys approved a subdivision, and I hope that – it’s already approved, platted, recorded and it’s done. My application is just to have the building there, and I think the applicant in what limited thing we have presented tonight shows that it would be compatible and that we could meet any requirements. We’re not going to turn the building sideways so they see the back of the building. That’s not the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 45 highest and best use of the land. We’ve changed it around some already, and in designing, we have taken into consideration, you know, that we are in a residential. There’s a lot of footage in the back there as you can see in space, and so we’ve you know I think we’ve got something that would be very compatible for that area. The other thing with the fire issue and stuff with the sprinklers and what if it blows up. I mean what if Fred Meyers blows up. There’s nothing in there that I haven’t pack in here in my – to some degree or another, and they will take precautions that – you know, there are no explosions, but they have no hazardous waste. They have no nuclear components. They simply are machine plastic and aluminum, and they don’t use flammables. They are not in any way a nuisance. If you had a fire in there, it wouldn’t be anything that the fire department would have to call special squad in because of barrels of this or barrels of things that were you know what you would term hazardous wastes. So anyway we can work all that through with the fire department. So I would ask that you don’t table it. Smith: I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but now I’m confused. First, on one hand you said “no hazardous waste” and then you just referenced if there was a fire, the fire department would bring in a special team because there might be – Robnett: Would not have to bring in a special team. Smith: Oh, okay. Sorry. It’s passed my bedtime. Robnett: This is just a normal high tech machine shop, so we would welcome your weapons inspectors when it’s done. Johnson: Yeah, we need the pictures back. Will can make those part of the record. Prior: I have a question for Council. Considering the pending – considering the pending – well, that doesn’t make any difference. Everybody in this room can sue us if they’d like to. It makes no difference to us. No, it doesn’t make any difference. He has an absolute right to go to judicial review to determine if something like that has been done. We have an absolute right to proceed with this if we decide we want to proceed with this. If he doesn’t like that answer, those folks back there have a right to try to get some type of injunction against to stop this from going further. But I would assume that – well, I’m not going there. You folks, the commission has every right to do whatever they want to tonight. If they decide they want to table this, they can absolutely table this, and we can continue this public hearing until I can get a clarification on the status of this case and find out where it is. If that’s not their preference, they can request that the City Attorney prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and those will be submitted to you the next month. Obviously this shouldn’t have any bearing on your decision. Whatever you folks fee comfortable. Once again you folks are in the driver’s seat. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 46 Johnson: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Prior, verbose as they may be. Anyone else? Okay, I close the public hearing at this time. What would you like to do commissioners? Nelson: I’d like to make a motion that we have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Facts. Borup: Second. Johnson: I have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on a conditional use permit for a high tech machine shop by Nick Brackus. All in favor say aye. And opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 8: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW CHILD CARE FACILITY BY SUSAN EHTESHAMI: Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and ask the applicant’s representative or applicant address the commission please and be sworn. And then school me on how to pronounce your last name. Prior: I’ll try not to be too verbose. JOHN COOK WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Cook: I represent Susan Ehteshami, and we’re looking at developing this parcel in conjunction with Gray Wolfe who is the owner of the parcel. The applicant will be developing a plan and the building which they will be leasing from the owner of the property. We are proposing to develop a facility here for child care, 80 x 80. In your original document, you had a building that was 60 x 80, and we submitted an amended building floor plan, elevations, and a site plan. On the site plan, included several revisions after we got into a little more finite design with ACHD. It was important that we realign the street that’s been proposed by ACHD, and their curb cut along Franklin. We’re looking at a child care facility that would have children to account up to 150, which they are going to go for a licensure. They are looking at a staff level of 10. The hours of operation are 7:00 in the morning until 6:00 in the evening. We’re looking at a structure which would be wood frame, roof crests, stucco finishes. Basically a dreamland character, which we’ve given some study elevations we’d like to propose. We’re looking at building height would be at 14’6” at height, and there’d be conical corner features in the design format have basically a roof material probably shake to go along with pastel colors in the facility. We’re looking at designing the site to accommodate the adjacent location placement next to the subdivision to the west. We are now proposing to put a screening of a very tall juniper type of shrubbery throughout the site. We would like to also add the trees that we’ve got shown, some shrubbery in Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 47 around our parking planted areas. We’ve got parking as I recall, we changed the plan. I’ve got to get numbers in front of me. We’ve got 26 adjusted parking. We extended our parking layout because of the expanded building site, which was – went from 60 feet depth to an 80 foot depth which required additional two three parking stalls. We’re looking at a drive through use on the site. And that was basically strictly as a functional item as far as the drop off of the children. Addressing the parking itself, we’ve accommodated two parking stalls for van parking. As far as site lighting, we’re proposing on the building lighting which would be basically an area lighting for parking to go beyond the parking limits. We’re looking at sidewalks for access, perimeter of the site. We’re also proposing on the back of the building a covered enclosed children’s equipment area. Sort of what you would have over here at McDonald’s or the Burger King with their enclosed play areas. We would like to do that as far as having a controlled area. You look at the site design, and there’s been a lot of notoriety as far children playgrounds adjacent to streets. We chose to design the site so that we would a playground area as far away from the main roadway, Franklin Road, as possible. We pulled all of our parking as a buffer as far as playground. We pulled them back deeper in to the site. We propose a five to six foot high fence around the enclosed playground area. The front areas will probably get into compliance on the covenants which would be in regards to Mr. Wolf’s requirements as far as signage, as far as the types of fencing that is going to be allowed in the development. We’re looking at developing our own landscape package within the property perimeter. But the landscaping along Franklin Road, it is our understanding that there’s been a special requirement for the developer to put in berm landscape and that sort of thing, and that would be by developer. ACHD has recommended that we put in a right in only in this application as you have read it, however we are working with Karen Gallager down at ACHD and there seems to be discussion as far as functionality which we are proposing to come there with a right out only rather than a right in with one way traffic. So we’d like to have you entertain that in our application. Square footage of the building 6400, we are proposing this evening. Johnson: Okay, thank you very much. Questions from the commissioners? Smith: The right out only – get back to the drive through concept for the drop off of children. If you got a right out only as this is configured, that means you’re dropping the kids off on the far side of the car. They are going to have to walk around the car into the building because of the direction you are going to be driving through here. I’ve been by the site and I have analyzed what you are doing with the site design. I don’t understand the right out only concept at all. What are they trying to get at with not allowing you to make a right turn into this site there and drive through and drop the kids off on the right hand side of the vehicle closest to the building? Cook: Possibly my client could answer that question a little better. I’m going to make a stab at that. This is my third large child care facility design. And some of the perimeters that I have designed of the facilities are one to drop off the children in an area that you’ve got controlled access and speed of traffic and that sort of thing. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 48 Secondly, over 50% of parents and children literally park in a parking stall and if it’s an infant or a young child, that parent goes in and checks in the child. The only time you really have a drop off are kindergarten, five and six, and I understand your concern on that. Because it is a parking area, and you do have a controlled flow access in there. It allows very controlled parking drop off situation. Each child care facility has a different attitude about drop off. More often than not, that parent will park the car and walk the child in. Smith: That would be my perception of it, but if there is any consideration given to drop off, this just seems to be the opposite way that you would want to do it, because as you well know with a straight in parking here, and a 25 foot driveway, you get two way traffic there. If you are going in and entering from the east and driving across, the kids are going to be crossing that traffic coming the other way. I don’t want to belabor that any more. I don’t agree with the right out only concept on the site. I think there should be a two way access there. Cook: The original application had two way. Smith: And that’s just my opinion. What is a wood/vinyl fence? Cook: Well what we’re looking at is the covenants to the development will most likely call for a decorative fence. And would probably be a vinyl clad metal – a decorative type of fencing along the main boulevard of the new street, and then the balance of the play yard would either be a wood fence or a chain link. Smith: And then it looks like, of course we don’t have the rest of the development laid out here, but it looks like on the east side of the property here we have what’s going to be a main access into the development not only for the child care, but for the other – Cook: That access point has been determined by ACHD. I thought I had some prerogative there – Smith: I’m not debating the location, all I’m saying you know you talked about putting the playground at the back of the site away from Franklin, and it would probably be nice to – that landscape area if you plant that as heavily as possible and screen that, because this is going to be a main ingress and egress to this whole development and the more screening that can be done between the playground and that drive would be beneficial even if there’s room to berm that, and I did note those trees on there. And then you made reference to the building height, but there was some pretty tall spires and things that I didn’t have any heights on. Cook: I put the heights on there in case you had a question. Smith: Pardon me? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 49 Cook: There’s a height on there. Smith: Maybe it didn’t get printed, oh there it is. I’m sorry. Cook: Thirty one feet. Smith: You say this is going to be a Drivit? Cook: I would probably go all wood frame, sheath and a Drivit stucco finish. Smith: Colors? Cook: We’re looking at soft sandstone colors. Soft pastel, real light colors, probably an accent band or two. Smith: Roof colors? Cook: Roof colors? Probably in the areas of either browns, probably dark so we have a sense of roof rather than something light. We are going to need the contrast as far as architectural feature. Smith: Are these just decorative elements up on the roof, or are they going to be accessible? Cook: Those are strictly for character, specialized character of the building. There a non-accessible. Smith: Then my next question, where are you going to put the mechanical equipment? Cook: That would be roof top. (End of Tape) Cook: … The center court has a clear story and it’s been our experience to set mechanical equipment toward the center of the building. Smith: I would just like to make sure that it’s screened from adjacent properties. Cook: I hadn’t any problem (inaudible) that high in the past. But – Smith: Well, it depends on obviously as you know the size of your equipment that’s going up there. And where it is actually located on the – Cook: The building is zoned. It will have five pieces of equipment on top. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 50 Smith: Okay, and this really isn’t a zoning issue, but I’m just curious, since you did submit the plan. I’ll make it quick. This hallway going out of the back of the building. It seems awful narrow. Is there a – is that 42 inches? Cook: At lease four feet. It’s going to be at least four feet, and we’re looking at that. That’s going to be a main corridor to go back to the covered playground equipment area. There’s a possibility we may add to that because of the length of the hall. Smith: Add to the width? Cook: Add to the width of the hall. Smith: Like I said, that’s not really a zoning issue, but I was just curious. I’ll pass. Borup: I think the question I had was on the drive through, and that part got answered. I was looking when you were discussing drive through, I was wondering if that was intended for a drop off area. And it looks like there’s no drop off area where a car could pull in out of the way necessarily, but you are anticipating most of them will be parking and bringing them in. Cook: They usually do. Borup: Okay. And maybe could I ask the city applicant, but just a quick question on the ratio. And I maybe mistaken on that, but you were saying that – well the numbers you gave had a one to fifteen ratio. Cook: In that range, and again it has to do with my applicant. On our initial application we came in with 110 115. And with the increase in the building size, our capacity. Borup: Okay, is that what the ratio is? One to fifteen, or is it one to twelve? Cook: I’ve got to defer that to – Borup: That’s what (inaudible). That’s all I have. MacCoy: I’ve got a couple of things. I think we all hit the same point on the drive through so I’m not going to belabor that. But it was a concern also. Your monument sign is going to be located where? Cook: We’ve placed that out there near the front. I guess you could say street right-of- way. MacCoy: Mine doesn’t show it. And the height of that sign is? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 51 Cook: We were looking at seven feet, but we would probably entertain if the commission wanted to decrease that. That seven feet would include the base. What happens is, this is a fairly good sized scale facility and a little postage stamp sign out there. It has to do with balance. Borup: I think people see the building without the sign. MacCoy: Yeah, I think they will too. That’s why I mentioned that. That’s going to be your sign, is your building. Cook: We were given reason to believe that the sign ordinance allowed that, and when you propose a project, you always go for what’s allowed, and will make a compromise on that. MacCoy: Is that going to be lighted, by the way? Cook: It’s my intention that wouldn’t necessarily have to be. The facility will be well lit as far as building itself. MacCoy: Okay. I wouldn’t think that you would put sparkling lights or something on the thing. Cook: If anything probably a ground mounted light shining on it. MacCoy: Okay. One of these reflection up type of thing? Your site lighting, you did say you are going to highlight the building? Cook: We would highlight the building and in the parking areas, they have special halogen lights that shine out and they create a light perimeter, and it’s the parking lot. It doesn’t get out into the neighbors. I put that on several commercial buildings in the last year. MacCoy: They are good lights. Your fenced in back area, I noticed you got two gates out of the area, besides going back in the building. Just a question about, I’m sure there are going to be lockable gates. They should be child proof. Cook: Probably will have cipher locks and as my discussion with the fire marshal, he’s going to require a special gate that’s got basically a cable in which the fire department cuts the cable. That’s the only in and out. And they require an access gate, so that will be added to the project. I just found out about that today. MacCoy: I hadn’t heard that one yet. Talk to Kenny. But you already have discussed the enclosed covered area, and by giving an example, that cleared it up for me right there. And okay, Commissioner Smith already hit upon that main road coming down Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 52 going north south, and your landscaping area, and you’ve already addressed that. Okay. Nelson: I just might make a few comments. Maybe for the benefit of the council members. As far as the drive through on the parking, with the current security in most day cares, you generally have to physically sign in your child. There is no dropping them off and then go in. Only exception being probably school drop off from a bus. So for me dropping off kids, it’d probably be nice to have it one way, because when I pick up the kids at 5:00, it’s chaos. I’d kind of like to see an organized pattern. Organize the chaos. Usually the only one that parks in the front door is the Porsche. And then as far as the floor plan, I was going to comment to the owner that this lobby area is what - - looks like you got a check in and gates on either side with a reception area. That’s exactly what we prefer to see at the day care, but the only thing that I didn’t like about this whole plan was this very long narrow hallway and fifteen screaming three year olds in that hallway would kill me. Cook: What I want to do is create a tunnel well lit and it will feel like a dark cave. Nelson: Anyway, most of my comments were more directed towards the commission. I like the layout. And I also liked it’s location. Meridian doesn’t really have any large scale day care facilities on that side of town. Johnson: Okay thank you. Smith: Is there a reason why the trash enclosure is up close to Franklin Road as opposed to being more back on the side of this parking on the west side of the building? Cook: The architect would prefer to have it all the way to the back corner, but the access for pick up, we always have a problem with browning grass. And they have to have access. They don’t get out and move those dumpsters. They just get out and man handle them, and you’ve got to have them so their rig can go in the perpendicular. It’s just a strictly mechanical arrangement for pick up and delivery. We can make that another nice facility for you as far as character. Smith: Well I think the trash enclosure needs to be a concrete block structure just from the durability standpoint with their trucks and banging the dumpsters around and just actually screening unless you’ve got a symbol indicated on the plan, it’s the same symbol as your wood/vinyl fencing. So is the trash enclosure width that such that a truck could pull and just pick the dumpster up right straight on without having to pull it out? Cook: Yeah, what we’d probably do and which I have done it like this, we create a three sided block structure with a chain link front on it, slants. And they just open that up, and we can create some of the same architectural feature on the surrounding three walls and that’s worked out very well. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 53 Smith: That’s all I had. I’d like to see it in the back, but I guess the trash guy’s got more clout than we do. Johnson: Okay, thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to come before the commission on this application? ELAINE ESTACIO 232 S. OUTFIELD WAY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Estacio: I’m not here to say that we do not need day care in Meridian. We definitely do. My only concern is I do live behind this proposed business, and although I do know it is an R-15, we probably will have some businesses going in there. My back bedroom is going to be where I can see this, and I’d like to know a little more about this lighting and what kind of hours this light will be on. If it will be on the evenings too, weekends, and things like that. It will be only under operation. I understand it does go down, but still a building of that size does concern me a little bit about how bright it’s going to be at nighttime for my children and myself to fail to get any sleep. I guess my other only concern is this is an extremely large facility. 150 Children, that is an awful lot. Noise concerns me. I know you are in a commercial area, but you are right beside R-14 residential areas. I’d like to know a little more how we’re going to control some noise of 150 children. That’s a pretty good size school, and I just wanted to voice my concerns about that. Johnson: Okay, thank you. Any questions? Borup: Have you looked at the overall plat map to see where you are located in relation to this? Estacio: Yes, I am, although as big as this is, I see it just fine. Borup: The map we’ve got does not have Outfield. Estacio: You sold me the house. Borup: Pardon? Estacio: You sold me the house. You built it. It’s right there. Borup: That’s what I’m saying, Outfield is way down there. Estacio: It is but it’s – this is taking up one fourth of this field. I mean I can see cars going right down Franklin Road. It really is not that large of an area. I have – if somebody turns around on Franklin at night, the lights shine right in my bedroom. If a policeman stops anyone of the road, it wakes me up. It’s really not that far. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 54 Borup: So you might like to have some type of screening? Estacio: Some kind of – at least some assurance that lighting would be – Borup: A big building or something that would be – Estacio: lighting would be at an adequate timing and some kind of a – yeah, something in noise. Johnson: Is there anyone else that would like to talk to us this evening? LARRY EMBURY 948 CREST WOOD DRIVE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Embury: We live directly to the west of where this facility is proposed, and at first we thought would be very nice because it would be better than an all night sports bar or an auto body place, somebody working on cars. I deal with sound, and I believe that if you contained sound, you have more sound. It’s only contained, and so if you put up any barriers, then you just make the sound even louder, and it’s going to be pretty loud with 150 children or that many. Franklin Road is proposed to be widened, but right now Franklin Road cannot take any more traffic, and if you have somebody making a left turn to get into the facility to pick up a child, that’s going to stop traffic. Your only about 60 feet if that to 7th Avenue, and so the left turn as you go west is going to be a real problem. If they could just go across the street where there’s lots of property, and an auto body shop so they can make all the noise they want, that’s fine. But their fence backs right up to our houses. And the other part of - - the pick up for trash, it would be very offensive, and we deal with the hot summer days and we have a trash pick up once a week. I speak for the Taylors who are on this – they live there at eleven. Our plat is ten and nine right next to us is Mr. Mowrey who is sitting with me. We have not seen any diagrams or anything. The only thing we received is – which isn’t even completed. It doesn’t show Crestford going through and it’s been gone through now for four years, so this is an old plat map. Plus we don’t know - - this is an easement in here which very very tiny but that’s where the telephone company has an easement going in and that’s our property. And so - - but we have not seen anything, we would ask that this be postponed until we can see some drawings, some architectural drawings. Thirty feet is too high. And it would cut out light into our property for growing in the garden and it’s just not nice. Johnson: Okay, any of the material that we have, we can certainly share with you, if you want to get it from our City Clerk tomorrow or whenever you want. Probably better drawings than what you’ve got. Were there any questions from that gentleman? Is there anyone else that would like to talk to us? GENE MOWREY 958 CREST WOOD WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 55 Mowrey: I’m the neighbor right to the west across the fence at the north end of the fence line. One thing we wanted to be sure of, is that as Larry talked about this easement, this utility easement. It extends about ten feet beyond our fence. So they can’t come in against our fence. There has to be that easement left in there, and that’s an awful lot of kids to have in a playground in an area like ours. I live alone right now and I’m not bothered too much. I do have a little Dauchound, she’s just been going crazy with that construction out there the last couple of weeks. I may have to do something about that. That’s all I have. Johnson: Okay thank you. Anyone else? Any further comments, Mr. Cook? Cook: Mr. Chairman, if I might address a few of the questions that have been brought forward to kind of repeat what I initiated as far as comments about the scope of the operation. The operation hours are 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. There is no evening shift. Staff gets there a half hour, forty five minutes before opening. So 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Lights would be turned off the facility. It’s not going to one of those kind of things like drive in and out where they leave them on for advertisement. Children when they go into a playground, and we are familiar with Elementary Schools, they are staged. If recess for a certain groups, of course they are very small children that go out in small groups so instructors, teachers can work with them, and be able to manage them. So you wouldn’t at any one time have all 150 children out there. You may have 50 out of the 150, and that would be a large function that had a multi age group for instance entertainment brought outside. It’s not very likely that you are going to have any more than 30 to 50 at one time. And the children, when they are playing it’s one of the areas where management control behavior. We’re going to be coming in there with a landscape package. We do have our own fencing which is required around playgrounds a ten foot off set off the existing property lines, and then that interim area between our fence and the existing fence we would put tree landscaping in. So that is our intention there, design wise. Along our parking lot, we have a seven foot planter. And we’re looking at putting a conical juniper shrub which will grow to at least 15 18 foot height over a seven eight year period and we can bring in juniper of a moderate scale. We can make that a part of our condition what size of planting we come in there with originally. Sound buffer, landscaping will do a lot. (inaudible) It is the total answer. I think a lot of it has to do with the facility management. Trash enclosures, we appreciate the comment on that. I never really thought about what it would be like to have a dumpster in my immediate backyard. We’ll take that into consideration, and see if we can get that relocated. Utility easements, along the fence line. I was aware that there was a utility easement and I was told that I couldn’t construct in it, so I held my planting buffer in that easement. We might want to take a look and see what we have to do there as far as our plantings. And like I say, the main easement across the frontage of Franklin is where all the main utilities, water, sewer, telephone, everything out there. The main easement’s there, so what we’re talking about is an easement usually in development when we start running water, sewer, varied power in the development, we got that two or three feet just behind the sidewalk, one side of the street or the other Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 56 which will be a main utility, and the other one may very well be vacated if it’s not in use, so we’ll take a look at developer on that. Smith: What kind of meals are you going to be serving out of the kitchen here? Is it going to be full blown hot cooked meals? Are you going to be serving sack lunches? Cook: May I defer that to the client? Smith: Yeah, sure but while I’m on here, the trash dumpster location, well, there’s a couple of site planning issues here. When you were going through this site design process here, did you ever look at these fifteen stalls that are on the west side of the property. Did you ever look at them being accessed off of this drive here and locate them over here? Cook: Basically you are aware of the issue that they do have? We didn’t really want to set that building right against the back of – Smith: And I looked at that, and I don’t know that you’d really need to shift the building all that much. I’m just – because of the hours of operation, I don’t know I guess I’m just looking for a ways to create some more screening along this property line given the fact that these are single family homes over here. Cook: That’s staff parking and they are going to take up most of that along there. Smith: Right, but I’m just thinking if we get some nice landscaping over here and such that it’s not quite the same impact from a number of issues on these property owners. If it’s over here and accessed off of this drive. Cook: I’m trying to get a parking arrangement to work and having the stalls and the back up, I was always three or four feet short in my layouts. Smith: And this dumpster, even if it moved down here, it’d still be along this property line, this west property line. So why not move it over here. If it’s got to be in front of the site, put it over in the middle of Mr. Wolfe’s development instead of right against his neighbors, and that’s why I was asking about the meals that are being served, you know I wouldn’t want to have that in my backyard either, and if it could move over here, maybe that’s a better spot for it. Cook: I’ll take that under consideration. Smith: That’s all I had. Johnson: I need to have that repeated so we can pick that up on the record. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 57 Cook: Okay, the ration is one to twelve for under kindergarten, and kindergarten and school age would be one to eighteen. And the children would bring in their own home carried lunches. There would be a possibility I think of catered food items for those who don’t. (inaudible – off the microphone) If I heard you correctly that there would be prepared meals for those who make special arrangements. Smith: Okay. Thank you. Johnson: Okay, thank you, Mr. Cook. Any further comments from anyone or questions? I’ll close the public hearing at this time. This is a conditional use permit. This would take Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law being prepared. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have our Counsel prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for this project. Nelson: Second. Johnson: I have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Johnson: Any further motions this evening? Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we adjourn. MacCoy: Second. Johnson: We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:05 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ________________________________ ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR ATTEST: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 10, 1998 Page 58 ___________________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK