Loading...
1998 05-12MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 12, 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: Jim Johnson, Mark Nelson, Byron Smith, Malcolm MacCoy, Keith Borup. OTHERS PRESENT: John Prior, Shari Stiles, Bruce Freckleton, Will Berg. Johnson: The first item on our agenda is to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held April 14, 1998. You have a copy of the minutes. Are there any corrections, deletions, changes to the minutes that you would like to make at this time? Nelson: I have one correction. On page 45 of the minutes, the last comments that starts Nelson, Mr. Chairman, I would like to – that was actually by Commissioner Smith. Johnson: Okay, so all we need to do – the comment is okay, just to clarify who made it. Any other corrections? If not, then I’ll entertain a motion for the approval of the minutes with that change. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we approve the minutes as amended by Commissioner Nelson. MacCoy: Second. Johnson: Motion and second to approve the minutes. All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Johnson: I would like to make a couple of announcements for some of you in the audience that might be here for a particular item. Items one and two, continued public hearing, the applicant has withdrawn his application, so we won’t be talking about that tonight. When the application is withdrawn, it’s a dead issue. Anything further we would have to start over. Items 3, 4, and 5 which are all related items, Steiner Development LLC. We have a request from the applicant to defer that until our June 9th meeting of 1998. But that doesn’t mean we won’t take public testimony tonight if you are here, because this is a noticed public hearing, so if you are here and you want to testify on items 3, 4 and 5, individually or collectively, you are welcome to do so. Then dropping down to 7 and 8, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Eagle Partners application off of Eagle Road. We have no Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared for this evening because we didn’t have sufficient information to do that and there’s a letter from our City Attorney which I’ll read later at that time, but if you are here see any action on that, those two items tonight, that won’t happen. Okay, so we’ll go back to what’s left of the agenda, and starting with item number three. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 2 ITEM NO. 3: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 36.71 ACRES TO R-4 FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD. Johnson: Is there anyone here who would like to testify on this public hearing? I’ll reopen the hearing at this time. Is there anyone here that’s interested in items 3, 4 or 5 that would like to testify? Seeing no one and hearing no one, then I’ll close this public hearing. Oh, I’m sorry, we’re continuing that. My fault. So we need a motion really to continue this if that’s what we want to do until our next meeting. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we first table this to June 9th , our next meeting. Items 3, 4 and 5 for the Wilkins Ranch Property. Smith: Second. Johnson: I have a motion and a second to table items 3, 4 and 5 until our regular meeting on June 9, 1998. All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER (CHELSEA SQUARE) BY TOM BEVAN – 2030 W. FAIRVIEW. Johnson: Any changes, additions, deletions to the Findings of Fact as prepared by our City Attorney? Any comments? Smith: I do have a comment, and it regarded my comment that I made on signage and I started thinking about it here over the past month, and basically what I’d asked is that the signage be put on the glass of the buildings, and it was really a stupid comment. I can’t believe I said it. I think my concern on the signage on this project just has to do that we don’t get into some large unattractive signage and I don’t know how my fellow commissioners feel about this, and I don’t want to drag this thing out, but I don’t want to limit them to putting signage on the glass because again I think that was a stupid idea, but if there’s some way that we can have some kind of a review process on this project for signage on the building or establish some kind of criteria as far as height, raised letters, or something along those lines. Probably something that would give the applicant the most flexibility and have an opportunity to be creative would be to not restrict them to a particular type of signage, but to ask them maybe to submit it for review whether it’s for the City Council or Planning and Zoning. I don’t know. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 3 Johnson: You could condition the approval of the Findings of Fact with the comment regarding signage and a general statement about conditions and flexibility if you didn’t want to be so specific in your comment. Smith: I guess I just would like to know how the other commission members feel before – Johnson: Mr. Borup, how do you feel about it? Borup: I don’t have a lot of concern with this applicant. Mr. Bevan has been very accommodating on changes. Johnson: But specifically on the signage, do you have a problem with that? Borup: No, I don’t. I think he’s already stated what his intentions are, and I think he’s going to do a first class project. Johnson: Mr. MacCoy? MacCoy: I had the question to him at the beginning on signage, and asked the question about what kind of signs he was going to have and we got into a discussion on the fact that we would like to see not a great big sign. We would like to see a monument sign, and we had a little discussion at that time what that meant. Just as a side order, we have for your clarification Mr. Smith, we are doing a re-work on the sign ordinance anyway right now. I read your comment, heard your comment, and I felt that was a little restrictive, but I passed at the time. So I don’t have any problems with what you had to say. Johnson: Mr. Nelson, any comment at all? Nelson: I don’t have any comment. Johnson: Any further discussion. If not, I’ll entertain a motion please. MacCoy: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Borup: Second. Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as prepared. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 4 ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup, yea. MacCoy, yea. Smith, yea. Nelson, yea. MOTION CARRIED: All yea. Johnson: Is there a decision of recommendation you wish to pass on to City Council? MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, the decision of recommendation of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council, the City of Meridian that it grant the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application. The application be approved, the applicant shall satisfy the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council, and the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, uniform fire code, parking requirements, and the paving and landscaping requirements and all ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use shall be subject to review upon notice to the applicant by the City. Smith: Second. Johnson: I have a motion and second to pass the decision of recommendation on as read by Commissioner MacCoy. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Prior: Chairman, if I may for just a moment. In regards to items number 7 and 8, I did make a – just in regards to my memo, you mentioned that you would say something about the memo that I submitted. I’d like to remind you. Johnson: Yes, I didn’t want to put you to all the trouble of writing that and then not giving you recognition. Prior: It was rather time consuming. Johnson: I’ll read what this memo says if I can find it. This is with respect to Eagle Partners project, items 7 & 8. This is a request for the Planning and Zoning Commission to defer a recommendation on the Eagle Partners project. This is a letter from John Prior, City Attorney to Planning and Zoning Commissioners. The reason for the deferment request is that the ACHD Commission has not sent a decision to the City of Meridian on the road through the proposed Eagle Partners project. I believe that it would be premature for the commission to make a recommendation to City Council without a commitment from the ACHD commission on the proposed road. It has come to my attention that the ACHD commission will discuss the matter at their May 20th Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 5 meeting. After the Planning and Zoning Commission receives the decision from the ACHD commission, the necessary parties can be notified and a public hearing can be called to allow all interested parties to submit comments and offer testimony. Thank you John. Prior: Just one other brief comment, and I will try to be brief. Johnson: That will be hard for you, but go ahead. Prior: That’s one. You’ll get three, and then you’re out. The other thing is that I’m going to ask and I’ll be submitting a request to the Chairman and the commission that we hold a special meeting on this particular project. This applicant has waited a long time. It is of no fault of theirs that the ACHD Commission did not submit a final determination. Both of their attorneys representing Eagle Partners requested that I ask for a special meeting, and I don’t have any problem with that, unless other staff has a problem regarding this particular project and concerns that need to be addressed. Johnson: The key to that is probably picking the date and really figuring out how much time you are really going to save them. Sometimes special meetings don’t save much time. Prior: But in their own interest, they have some contract issues in regards to this project particularly some of the tenants, that if this project isn’t approved or they don’t make a decision in a relatively short period of time in all likelihood, they are going to lose the ability to have those tenants occupy those spaces. So I think they shouldn’t be penalized for the Ada County Highway District’s failure to provide us with the necessary documentation. And that’s all. Johnson: Good point. It has a familiar ring to it. Prior: That’s two. Johnson: Item number nine. Borup: Mr. Chairman, do we need to do anything on continuing number 7 and 8. Johnson: We had a motion to defer. We did 6, 7 & 8 all at once. Didn’t we? Okay, I’m way ahead of myself. Sorry about that. Yes. Borup: Are we looking at a special meeting time. If that’s the case, we need some discussion on that. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 6 Johnson: That kind of hinges on when you are going to get the report from ACHD. They meet the 20th , but that doesn’t mean that’s when you’ll get their decision or the minutes of their meeting. It still hinges on getting that information. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we defer items 7 and 8 to future date to be determined. June 9th meeting. Smith: Second. Johnson: Then he can’t have a special meeting, that’s what you are saying. Borup: Right. Johnson: You can call a special meeting even though you deferred it to a date certain. Borup: Okay. We had a second. Johnson: But we don’t know what ACHD is going to do is my point. You know they may defer it. You don’t even know if they are going to take action. Smith: We just think they are going to that’s all. Johnson: Okay, can we move on to 9? Borup: Do you want to vote on that motion? Johnson: We have a motion and second. All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Johnson: Now, I want to move on. ITEM NO. 9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOME DAY CARE – WENDELL & KATHLEEN LAWRENCE – 889 N. FILLMORE WAY. Johnson: Discussion, comments, changes, corrections regarding these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared by our City Attorney. Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment. On the cover letter it refers to this as a conditional use permit for home day care (6 to 12 children), but in fact that’s 13 to 24. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 7 Johnson: That’s an important distinction. Prior: It’s just the cover letter Chairman. It has nothing to do with the actual findings. Everything else is correct. Johnson: Okay. Any other comments? Borup: Well I guess the only comment I have is I would not be able to support the findings as written. Johnson: You’ll get an opportunity to vote. Borup: Okay. You asked for comments. Johnson: In other words, you want to give us your vote first. Okay. That’s all right. Any other comments? Smith: I have none. Nelson: I have none. MacCoy: None. Johnson: I’ll entertain a motion then. Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions as written. Smith: Second. Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup, nay. Smith, yea. Nelson, yea. MacCoy, yea. MOTION CARRIED: 3 yea, 1 nay. Johnson: Is there a recommendation you wish to pass on to the City Council? Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 8 Nelson: Mr. Chairman, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they deny the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application. Smith: Second. Johnson: All in favor then? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: 3 yea, 2 nay. ITEM NO. 10: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE (6 TO 12 CHILDREN) BY TONYA WEBSTER – 3642 E. EISENHOWER. Johnson: Any comments, discussion, changes or additions to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as prepared? Smith: Mr. Chairman, my only comments have to do with the information on pages 10 and 11, item 10(b) regarding the fencing gates, locks for the outside play area and then item f which regards the fencing of the pool. I guess the only concern I have is that the way this is written that we’re not – I’m sure the City Attorney has concerned this, but just the liability associated with – I’m real concerned about the pool in the back and that it’s fenced properly, and I don’t know what you can do short of putting up a 12 foot fence with razor wire at the top to keep the kids out, but I don’t know, and then the fence locked gated area, play area on the outside. The concern I have is that in the event there’s a fire or something inside the house and the play area doesn’t allow the kids to get away from the house far away. Normally the fence is on the periphery of the property, but what if they move the fence closer to the house and define that as a play area and that’s where the lock is. I don’t know maybe I’m opening up – or bringing something up that shouldn’t be an issue. Those would be the only concerns I would have on this item. MacCoy: I went to the site and talked to the people involved and actually witnessed the back, the fence that was being put in place at the time, and if you raise the question about the lock on the gate, that is a question that would entail everything we do with the care situation. You say that the lock on the gate should be high enough that a child cannot reach it. And you have the same problem whether it locked or unlocked. And if it’s locked the fire department can enter with no problem at all. And as far as considering the fence is because the fencing is the property line and you’re offering something else that I don’t know what the solution would be. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 9 Smith: Well, it may not be an issue. I just didn’t want to see us writing something in here that would give one of Mr. Prior’s colleagues cause to sue the city. I just had to bring it up. It may be a non-issue, and I was just concerned. Prior: Are we back on the pool? MacCoy: We’re back on the fence. Prior: P & Z Administrator Stiles distracted me here for a minute. MacCoy: Put that on the record. Prior: I do want that on the record so it doesn’t sound like I’m any more of a moron than Chairman Johnson thinks I am. Johnson: Well if you wouldn’t sulk so much you would listen to the conversation and you would know what’s going on. Prior: Who’s the one who can’t keep the agenda going. I’m not even sure what we’ve accomplished tonight. Anyway, the issue with the fence. That’s – Johnson: We’re talking about the fence and the pool. Prior: Commissioner MacCoy makes a good point. Obviously the safety of the children is paramount. As far as the pool is concerned, I also had an opportunity to go out to the site and the pool is really a concern and the reason I’ve included in the Findings just so in the case of liability we’ve addressed it at least to some extent, but the Department of Health and Welfare will require Ms. Webster to tear that pool down if they deem that’s a problem. We can require her to take it down as well, but the practical matter is that when Department of Health and Welfare licensing goes out there to do their inspection in order for her to obtain her license, if they think that pool is a problem, they are going to make her take it down. So it’s a concern. I think I have addressed it appropriately in the Findings, I believe I have. It’s up to Health and Welfare. I think they can make a further determination, and I think they are better suited to do that than this commission. Johnson: Thank you. Prior: Is that enough? Johnson: That’s way too much. Smith: Works for me. Thank you. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 10 Prior: You’re welcome. Johnson: Any comments Mr. Nelson on those two issues? Nelson: I have none. Johnson: Well, with that and no further discussion. What would you like to do? Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law. MacCoy: Second. Johnson: Motion and second to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup, aye. Smith, aye. Nelson, aye. MacCoy, aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Johnson: Recommendation to the City Council. Smith: Mr. Chairman, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application. Borup: Second. Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass that recommendation on to the City Council. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 11: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SECOND BUILDING FOR A FUEL ISLAND BY ALBERTSON’S INC. SOUTHWEST CORNER OF W. CHERRY LANE AND TEN MILE ROAD. Johnson: Any discussion regarding these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 11 Smith: I have a question for Mr. Prior. If the Findings of Fact were turned thumbs down and we went with the latter part of the Findings, does that preclude the comments that were made earlier about the building materials and design to match the existing store, is that still incorporated with the recommendation to the City Council? Prior: I guess I’m not following you. What you’re saying is if we send a recommendation of denial to the City Council, what would probably happen if the City Council adopts it, or it does not go with your findings, they don’t necessarily have to follow your recommendation with the materials and everything else. Johnson: But they would have the availability of those comments. Prior: That is correct. Chairman Johnson for once is correct that they would have the availability of those comments. Smith: It’s nice being in the middle. Prior: He’s leaving folks. Today is his last day, and we are going to leave him with love. Johnson: And now you all know why. Smith: That answers my only question. Johnson: Anybody else? Nelson: I would just like to comment that maybe for the benefit of City Council that I opposed this as presented both based on Commissioner Smith’s comments about the appearance and also it’s location to the homes next door. And I guess that would be my reasons for denial. Johnson: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? I’ll entertain a motion. Nelson: I would like to make a motion that we approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as written. MacCoy: Second. Johnson: Motion and second to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Albertson’s application as prepared by our City Attorney. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup, yea. MacCoy, yea. Smith, yea. Nelson, yea. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 12 MOTION CARRIED: All yea. Johnson: The recommendation that you would like to pass on to the City Council is? Nelson: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that it deny the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application. Smith: Second. Johnson: Motion and second to pass the recommendation on to the City Council to deny this application. All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A CHURCH PARKING LOT FOR MERIDIAN GOSPEL TABERNACLE BY BURTON ROBERTS – MERIDIAN NIDAYS 2ND ADDITION. Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or the applicant’s representative to address the commission at this time. BURTON ROBERTS 1523 N. MERIDIAN ROAD WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Roberts: As it’s been stated, I’m Burton Roberts representing Meridian Gospel Tabernacle in our request for a conditional use permit to construct a new parking lot in the church area. We owns lots 3, 4 5, and 6 of block 4 of the Meridian Nidays 2nd Addition. Lot 4 is vacant currently. Lot 5 has a house on it that has been sold to be moved. It is our hope to do this project in phase one and phase two and that would allow us to cause lots 4 and 5 to be turned into parking lot as soon as possible with the other two lots, 3 and 6, somewhere in the next three to five year plan to be added to that. Of course the obvious reasons for this need of parking is that as Meridian continues to grow, the last thing we need is to be suddenly land locked and not have the room for the expansion that we believe we will need in the years to come. Johnson: Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Roberts. Questions of the applicant. MacCoy: Have you received the city staff’s comments? Roberts: Yes, I have. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 13 MacCoy: And did you also get a copy of the ACHD? Roberts: Yes. MacCoy: Any comments? Roberts: I find basically no problem at all with the findings, ACHD’s report. It’s our hope and intention to comply with all of these suggestions and needs. So far we have found nothing that we can’t see the need for. MacCoy: And the staff requirements? Roberts: Staff requirements, they seem to be very applicable and I have no problem with those. MacCoy: Okay, thank you. Johnson: Anyone else? Borup: I think the only question I had was – I was going to ask the same two things Commissioner MacCoy did. The phasing, and that seems to make good sense in your situation to phase as you need it, but the sidewalks, curb gutter, etc. and landscaping on Meridian Road. Now would you be looking at doing both lots at the same time or are you thinking of just doing one lot at a time. Roberts: Well, initially it was our hope to do just the two lots on Meridian Road to do them separately, but I just had a discussion this week with some of the powers to be and my recommendation has been that on both Meridian Road and on W. 1st that we go ahead and proceed with the sidewalk, curb and gutter and the other maintenance things that are going to be necessary and if at all possible do all four lots as part of phase one. And then that would be what we would be left with then in phase two would be the selling and moving of the two homes that are there and preparing for the asphalt. That’s where we are at right now. Borup: I can see some benefits. Aesthetically, it would look nice to have that whole thing right. And the other problem you’ve got is you’re going to have driveway curb cuts there. Roberts: Right. Well, that is true. We would only on the one, yeah, that’s right. We would have to have the driveway for the one. Borup: For both remaining houses then, wouldn’t you? Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 14 Roberts: Right. Yeah, for the one on Meridian Road as well as the one on W. 1st . Borup: My first preference was to do the whole thing at once, and then realizing you are going to need to come back in and tear those out. (Inaudible) Roberts: You’re right, and we are trying to look at what not only makes sense as far as the city and ACHD is concerned, but also what is of course beneficial to us monetary wise. Borup: That’s all I have. Smith: Regarding your phasing you have parking laid out which indicates a one way drive because of the angled parking which basically if you phase one as you have indicated, you come into a driveway situation here and there’s no way to get out. Have you anticipated that? Roberts: In anticipating the current plan is to not stripe phase one until phase two is in place, and hopefully that gives us a little bit of a open phase parking with no particular difficulty for the people to go in and get out. Of course that’s an assumption on our part that all of our drivers are very good drivers. Smith: That’s a big assumption, not to single anybody out. Well, I guess that leads up to me next comments, which there’s no dimensions on here or anything and it’s kind of vague as far as how much landscaping you are going to have, what exactly you are going to do as far as landscaping other than there’s a call out for some three inch caliper trees. I think the biggest concern I have with doing something like this is that it’s properly screened and buffered from the adjoining properties and the landscaping go a long way in softening the effect of a large field of asphalt, which this is going to be asphalted? Roberts: Yes. Smith: And then are you going to be asphalting the alley in between the lots as well? Roberts: Yes we are considering – I spoken with ACHD since this application process started. We’re considering going ahead and paving the whole alley clear down the Maple for our benefit as well as the City of Meridian and ACHD. Smith: I don’t know how wide your aisles are or your spaces? Are you proposing any compact spaces or handicapped spaces? Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 15 Roberts: We’re going to keep all of our handicapped spaces over next to the building which is across Elm Street. Smith: Right in the existing lot. Roberts: And so that it would be close to the building. So we had not planned on handicapped parking over there unless. Smith: How about compact? Roberts: I had made all my measurements for full size parking. Smith: And what were the dimensions you were using? Roberts: Whatever was recommended. I don’t have my ruler with me either. We’re looking at a 60 foot lot with 19 foot parking by 9, I believe and I think that leaves with 20 some feet in the lane there. Smith: You don’t know what it is, though. Roberts: Not without having my ruler with me. I apologize for not having that detail. Yeah, it’s over 22. Smith: I think that’s some important information that probably should be included in here when it goes forward to City Council, and then again I would like to see some more landscaping along Meridian and W. 1st Street at a minimum. Roberts: We have no problem with doing whatever is recommended there knowing that if we get approval and we bring in the engineer and the architect to begin to draw up the final plans, we are going to be going with whatever recommendations we are given by this group and the city and ACHD. Smith: Just a couple of last things. The space between the stalls, is that asphalt as well? Roberts: Yes. Smith: So the lines – Roberts: The lines are just to show phase one and phase two basically. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 16 Smith: Okay, and then by my calculations, you have 88 spaces proposed here; is that correct? Roberts: I think that was correct. Smith: Thank you. Johnson: Anyone else? Okay thank you Mr. Roberts. This is a public hearing. Anyone else would like to testify in this application. Please come forward, ma’am. You need to be sworn too. WENDY NEWTON HUCKABAY 1513 W. 1ST WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Huckabay: Can I qualify that my perception of the truth? We just had a couple of questions and we have not seen the plans. I noticed that some of you guys had the plans up there. And that’s probably more of our ignorance of how this program works. There is a little bit of concern, the necessity of this project. On any given Sunday, the church parking lot that sits right outside my front window, and it is not full. There have only been one occasion in my life that I can remember actually having cars park on our street to attend the church, and I moved on to W. 1st Street when I was in the fourth grade, and I am 29 years old now. So there’s just a real concern in the neighborhood about do they really need this parking at this point, so I would like for that to be considered. And there is a concern if they do build a parking lot. The parking lot they have now does not have any curbing in it. And I’m not clear on what the city ordinance are to build a new one. Will it have to have all that because the parking lot now is kind of a drag strip through the neighborhood, and that has just created kind of a headache for us especially, I have two young children that do play in our neighborhood and traffic control, if they feel like they are going to be increased that much, we have no speed bumps in our neighborhood or any speed limit signs, and the church as well as the patrons of the school tend to speed down W. 1st Street anyway. It is a residential area. That’s my biggest thing. I’m not really excited to have the four houses moved out – one is already gone and apparently the other one is already sold just to have a parking lot there. It’s not going to be all that aesthetically pleasing there. And if they do move the houses out, the empty lot they do have now is filled with tree cuttings and grass cuttings and stuff like that. Are we going to have that with the other empty lot, or are they going to clear it out and move and move along quickly? And there is a concern that it is going to reduce the housing costs and those of us who live in some of the older neighborhoods in Meridian that is a concern that the value of our property will be decreased by having an 88 car parking lot across the street. It doesn’t give us a lot of comfort there. I think that’s all I have. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 17 Johnson: I do have – you can have these copies of this map if you want those just for future reference. Do you have the one underneath as well? Okay thank you and if you have further comments, there will be of course another public hearing at the City Council level as well. Anyone else would like to come forward? Same procedure, you need to be sworn too. JULIE ANN ELLIOT1505 W. 1ST STREET WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Elliot: I’ve never done this either before, but I have lived on W. 1st for 9 and a half years and my front window faces the parking lot of the church, and I have seen traffic that have come through the parking lot at considerable speeds at night. I know that for the fact that we’ve talked about speed bumps on W. 1st , and I’m not against a church or any religious or anything like that or if people want to go to church or anything like that, but I have a home that is across from that parking lot and that church and I have a child, and the thing is I also have a value on my home and the residential area and the areas of the families that live on that block on W. 1st . And I know when I first bought that house which was 9 and a half years ago, I was able to bring my house price down $6,000 because of the parking lot across my street. As far as I’m concerned I don’t think it would be – I can see and understand maybe the futuristic part of a church and its growth and having a parking lot. But like you say appearance, the safety, the noise, what time is it going to be cut down because I know like at 10:00 at night on summer evenings, we’ve got people passing back and forth, getting in cars and leaving, and we’re also looking at the safety of our children that are crossing those streets. Basically that’s about all I have to say. Johnson: Any questions? Anyone else would like to come forward? MICHAEL RANSLEY 1419 W. 1ST STREET WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Ransley: I live right across the street kiddy corner to the church and right now we’re looking at two nice houses that have been there for a considerable amount of time, and we have a residential area, and the proposal is to tear those down and just make it a nice clear shot right through to Meridian Road. Now I haven’t seen any plans what the plans are, but if they are going to do this we now have kind of a protected little residential community. The noise is down. When we have these houses gone, all we have is a straight through shot right to the road. That’s a concern for me. I don’t want to be looking at a bunch of cars all the time. You know I don’t want to do it. I don’t know what they have planned for landscaping. Those requirements for the City of Meridian, you know, trees and shrubs. The other concern I have is the lighting requirements for that lot. Are there going to be lights out there. Is so are they going to be shining right in my window all the time. There’s a streetlight across the street right now that goes into my window and everybody else’s down the road. Just concerned Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 18 about that as well. I would just like to know when the next plan comes along if you’ve got a pretty (inaudible) plan what they want to do, how they want to do it. You know I’d just like to be able keep residence coming the way it is. I’d just like to know what’s going on better. Thanks. Johnson: Okay, any questions? (End of Tape) Borup: Sir, I had one question here if you could stay by the mike for a minute. You mentioned – you are concerned about the visual impact through to Meridian Road not having anything blocking or are you are concerned about cars driving through to Meridian Road? Ransley: Yes. Borup: Yes to which, that was two questions. Ransley: Well, to both questions as long as you asked. I mean – they are going to connect to a one way road here eventually. I don’t know what’s going to happen with that with ACHD and what their plan is, but I mean the traffic is going to increase dramatically when that happens. And what I’m concerned about too is if we’ve got clear shots through to my road – Borup: That’s what my question was. What did you mean by a clear shot? Ransley: People can see through. Borup: So it’s – screening would be a concern to you? Ransley: Right, that would be a concern to me. Borup: Maybe just for your information the plan does call for curbed gutters, sidewalk along there so cars would not be driving through there. And another question, have you – the previous person testified she hadn’t seen that they had any overflow from the parking lot. Has it been handled inadequately or has there been cars parking on the street? Ransley: No cars on the street. It looks like the parking lot pretty well handles it. Borup: Thank you. Johnson: Anyone else? Any response from the applicant at this time? Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 19 Roberts: I appreciate the comment that we’ve had so far. And of course I find myself looking at it easily from our point of view and try to be at least somewhat considerate of their points of view also. One of our concerns, I’ll address the question concerning the parking that is now in existence. The way we park now, we would like to change. Because the way we park now, for instance, in the parking lot that we enter from Meridian Road we attempt to park three deep. That in itself will change when ACHD ultimately finishes its plans on Meridian Road and would give us two deep if we wanted to continue to do that, which is not any fun for the person that’s in the front row and dinner is at home burning and the person that’s parked in back of them doesn’t care when they leave. And so we would like to eliminate that and come down to where we can just one car deep parking off of Meridian Road. The same in several places in the back where you can park two or three or four deep, we would want to eliminate that in the process, and that’s one of our considerations is to make it easier for people that are using the current parking lot, and we’ve considered even before we considered the additional parking, we’ve considered ways to try to arrange it so that people don’t cut that corner either way, coming off of Meridian Road, it’s pretty easy to cut off the parking lot Elm Street, or if you are going down W. 1st , it makes it easy to cut across the parking lot, and we have considered how can we change that in the process, and one of the suggestions that the ACHD has made that we consider is that we consider doing curb, gutter and sidewalk down the north side of Elm Street, which would eliminate, if not eliminate, it would make it, it would make it a little bumpy if they go zipping across there. And so that’s my response to the fact that our parking lot is currently not full, and that’s partly because of the way that we use it. The other reason that it’s not full of course is because we don’t have that many people yet. But we believe we will. Johnson: Anything else? Roberts: I think that was all I was going to comment on. Johnson: Any questions from the commissioners? MacCoy: Yes, I have one for Mr. Roberts. I’ve got – mine is more of a suggestion than anything else. Listening to hear the citizenry this evening making their statements, and it’s coming up as kind of a maybe in your view point as complaints, but I think it’s more or less concerns they are talking about. I suggest you might want to spend some time going around to the local neighbors and showing your layouts and what you have and getting suggestions from them for screening, which is your landscaping, your trees and what have you. On the standpoint of being a cut through situation, I agree with ACHD about going off on Elm Street with your curb. Another solution to that is also at the entrance inside your own property putting in a low riding berm which deters people who would like to, including the young, who like to speed through some places and cut off corners. They don’t like those things too well because it wrecks their cars. So there Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 20 are some things you can do internally to help your own self out, and then also one other thing. On your lighting which staff has looked at already, and that will be a non-glare situation, so that will also help your neighbors. I think you ought to explain that to them too. Because the directional lights not glare lights like you find for streetlights. Roberts: Right. Johnson: Okay, anybody else? Smith: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Roberts, the 88 spaces on the proposed here, is this based on an increase in your congregation or existing need or is this basically just you tried to fit as many spaces on here as you could? Roberts: I was just basically showing the maximum number of spaces that we could get there with realizing that can change with the recommendations for lighting and for whatever we do with the trees and the screening and all of those things. And I want our neighbors to understand that our office door is open for them to come and make their comments to us as they have here because we do want to make it nice. One of the reasons that we are rushing into this – let me address another situation if I can. Am I finished with answering your question? Smith: That question. Roberts: Go ahead. I’ll remember where I’m at. Smith: Do you have a minimum number of spaces that you are trying to accommodate on these sites here? Is there a magic number? Roberts: No. The goal would be if we look at our seating capacity of our building, our seating capacity of our building if everybody is sitting shoulder to shoulder is 470. We currently have is you use all of our stacking of the cars, we currently have 90 parking places. If we were to be doing this project today, city code would require us to have 94 parking places, and if I understand the code right, they would also require us to have it arranged differently than it currently is, which would lessen the amount that we have. And so when you look at the possibles and realize that if we ever try to rearrange our parking for convenience, we can’t. So the magic number is to totally arrive at least 94 parking places to be not in violation of code application. Smith: Okay, thank you. Roberts: In regard to the way the one vacant lot looks, one of the reasons that it looks that way is that after several flat tires on my tractor because of the infestation of goat Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 21 heads in the area, I stopped mowing it, and started planning on asphalting it, figuring that the asphalt was the only way I could get rid of the infestation of goat heads. As I call them. That horrible puncture vine that has infested the alley for years and now has grown out on to our vacant lot and who knows how much of Meridian it will take before it’s finished. So just as a good citizen, I want to attack the thing and cover it up. Johnson: Okay, thank you anyone else? Nelson: I just have a request perhaps. You have a plan here that shows your proposed parking. Just the lots without your facilities shown. It may be beneficial to city council or even any discussions with the neighborhood if you were to show a combined plan of all the parking and the traffic in between. It would have been helpful to me to see what your big plan was, but that is just a request that I would have. Roberts: Okay. Johnson: Actually that’s the suggestion on the application that any other owned property in the area of the vicinity is also shown, but it’s ignored often. But it does give you a better feel when you are sitting here for the whole picture. That’s a very good suggestion. Okay, anyone else? Anyone else with a final comment before I close the public hearing? You need to come back up and state your name. Elliot: I do want to make a comment, and this might be for the looks of the parking lot, something that we are going to be constantly looking at. There is an LDS church that sits on McMillian and Shamrock in Boise, and they have a berm around their parking lot, and I know they probably had the same problem, because at one time I lived on Shamrock years ago, and I remember this church. Their berms are up. You don’t have to look at a parking lot. You don’t have to look at a bunch of cars. I mean there’s cars, at least you have some type of beautification of the residential area. That’s what my concerns are. This is not commercial. We’re looking at families with homes that are facing this church and the parking lot, and that’s our concern. Can you imagine if you in your homes looked across the street and you had a parking lot in front of your house? What would you think, and that’s what my feelings are. You know think twice about it. Think three times about it, but this is what we get to look at, and so if you beautify it and that, that’s fine. And I’m sure these people – Johnson: Excuse me, you have to talk to us. Elliot: I’m sure some of them live by the church and a lot of them don’t. I recognize a few of them because I’ve seen them at the church, and I know they don’t live there, and that’s their church, but that’s not our church. You know have some thought of what Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 22 we’re going to be looking at too and you know give them some advice and what they need to do for their parking lot. That would be great. Thanks. Borup: I have just a clarification for you. And I think I know the answer, but I maybe just want to get this on the record. It sounds like what you are really saying, you and some of your neighbors is that the screening, the landscaping is probably one of your main concerns? Elliot: I feel so. I’m thinking of also property value. Borup: I think what Commissioner MacCoy said makes a lot of sense for the applicant to put some special emphasis on that, and then the cut through the parking lot, maybe doing some curbing or something along Elm something like that. That would be something that would make you feel a lot better about what the cut through situation there too. Elliot: Yeah, definitely. MacCoy: I will make one comment to you in passing. I have lived in the same position that you have lived in and I can well appreciate what you have to say. Johnson: Any further comments before I close the public hearing? Smith: I don’t know if I should do this before you close the public hearing or not. So I’m going to do it anyway. Johnson: I thought you probably would. Smith: Personally I don’t feel comfortable directing the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact on this at this point in time and forwarding it on to the city council with the application in its present form. I think the site plan is extremely vague as far as what is going to be proposed for landscaping and screening. I think there’s been some valid concerns brought up by the neighbors on this. I share those concerns. And I don’t feel comfortable with forwarding this thing on in its present state. I don’t think there’s enough information there for us to vote on or act on one way or the other. MacCoy: I agree with what you have to say. I was going to come up with the standpoint of tabling it for one month because we are lacking some material here, and I would like to see Mr. Roberts get together with his neighbors and come back here with a better layout for us, so we can have a better understanding before we do pass it to the council. I would feel much better about it. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 23 Johnson: Any other comments? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I agree that a better layout needs to be done, but even if it is I don’t know that we are not the ones that really review that. Isn’t that done by staff? Johnson: Well, it is done by staff, but sometimes it’s in the best interest of interested parties that aren’t affiliated with the city to see a complete plan. There’s some real benefit in that. Borup: I agree with that, and I guess my question was, can we accomplish the same thing by instructing staff what our desires would be on the landscaping and letting them take their judgment, but that would be fine either way. Johnson: Do you have any comments, Mr. Nelson? Nelson: Yes, I’d rather see it tabled and give the neighborhood another chance to comment if they could. Johnson: Well, if you want that to happen, then we need to continue the public hearing is what we need to do. Smith: You need a motion? Johnson: Yes. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we table this item until our June 9th meeting with the continuation of the public hearing. MacCoy: Second. Johnson: All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Johnson: Did you have a comment Mr. Borup? Borup: Question. My question being is that enough time for the applicant to get the documentation together for the June 9th meeting, or would he need more time? Johnson: Well I think it’s a good idea to give him that much time and if he doesn’t I’m guessing you would want to defer it again if the information is not there. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 24 Johnson: Mr. Roberts you will probably want to consult with staff about what they really want to see so you get something specific and so that this doesn’t drag on any longer than it needs to. ITEM NO. 13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR HOME DAY CARE IN AN R-4 ZONE FOR FIVE OR FEWER CHILDREN BY ELAINE ESTACIO – 232 S. OUTFIELD WAY. Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and ask the applicant or the applicant’s representative to address the commission at this time. ELAINE ESTACIO 232 S. OUTFIELD WAY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Estacio: It is my desire to become a licensed in-home day care. Unfortunately I bought my home in an R-4 zoning which does restrict me to five or fewer children. This is what I am here for today to try to comply with that. I did have one complaint, and that’s why I’ve had to come here with the accessory use. Hopefully you’ve received my packets to explain a little bit about that. I’m trying to work with that particular neighbor as best I can. I’ve had my health inspection. I’ve done everything I can up to this point. I don’t know what else to do but be here today to try to see if I can continue to be licensed. I have been temporary licensed through the child care licensing. (Inaudible) to get my finalized license. It is my desire to – I am on the agenda for the City Council meeting June 2nd to try to address these restrictions and problems that we do have with Meridian City on the zonings to five or fewer children. But that is a whole separate issue. But today I would like to at least become licensed for five or fewer. Johnson: Okay, in preparation for that meeting, have you familiarized yourself yet with our ordinances? Estacio: Yes. Johnson: And the three different types of applications we have. Estacio: Yes. Johnson: Okay, that’s a whole other issue. Are you finished with your presentation? Estacio: Yes. Johnson: Any questions of the applicant? Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 25 MacCoy: First off I would like to compliment you on folder you gave all of us, the envelope, that was very nicely done. And I really appreciate it and I’m sure the other commissioners do too because a lot of times we see material that is in pieces as you have already heard this evening. It’s nice to have a complete package. Also I will compliment you, I’m sure you probably had something to do with it. The letters that came in that supported you from your neighbors and also from your clients. They were very well written, and we see a lot of emotional things and I thought these were very much down to the point, which I appreciate. Have you received the and read the Planning and Zoning Commission staff report? Estacio: Yes, I have. I just had one question, actually two, but one that does concern me and that’s item six about no employees. If they are not residents of the home, the forbid it. That’s kind of a problem if I am sick or I have to leave or anything. I do have a niece that does come in on occasions and works short periods of time for me. I do pay her. I pay her taxes, you know, complete payroll. I want to know if that’s – I mean that’s kind of hard. If you consider this business, I do have to have back up and some help on occasions. I understand not a full time employee, but you know, everybody does need a back up on occasions. This does concern me where I have no employees. I have to pay commercial sewer and water because they want to put me commercial, but yet you’re denying me on any help or back up for employees. I would just like have you consider have it part time occasional helper on that. So I do have a back up. That’s my only real concern. I have plenty of parking. I have a three car garage for parking. I have in front of my house is quite lengthy for plenty of cars. No one’s there usually that many at one time for me to have someone, you know, if I’m sick or need help to park. At one point I even had a neighbor that worked for me. She didn’t have to park there. She walked over. But at this point I do have a niece that on occasions when I have to come and go somewhere or you know or doctor or whatever, I do have to have help. Even with five or fewer kids. MacCoy: Bruce, staff, do you want to comment on what she had to say? Stiles: What we’re referring to in our comments is the home occupation standards which family child care home is considered a home occupation, and that is one of the requirements under section 11 2 410(d) number – it goes on, but it’s under the accessory use provision that no persons other than members of the family residing on the premises shall be engaged in such occupation. Estacio: They put us through the ringer to have in home day cares. They really do, and then they restrict us on everything they can. You know. Johnson: That’s the only way it should be with public safety concerns for children. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 26 Estacio: Right. Johnson: It’s the only thing that you can do as the city is be paramount in your concern for the safety of children. And that’s why there are restrictions, and the more children you get the more restrictions there are. Estacio: Right, and I understand that, and I agree with having restrictions, but yet I have to consider this as a business but yet you know they tell me I can’t have anyone coming in and help me. You know, my helpers are licensed through the state to work in a day care. They’ve done everything they can, you know she’s there to follow the rules and regulations to become a helper. I don’t know. I guess if that’s what the ruling is, that’s what I have to do, but it does concern me a little bit. You know, what you are saying is if like even want my mother to come over and help if I had to make an errand and that’s not (inaudible) too. Just a little vague on that. For not paying the person, then is that concerned not an employee? I’m sorry I’m a little vague on that. MacCoy: Is there any help that she can – Estacio: I don’t want to break any rules here. I’m just not sure what some – Johnson: Anybody else have any questions? MacCoy: I’m going to finish questioning her. I want an answer to her question – Johnson: She had several questions there, which one are you talking about? The one with respect to is a mother an employee? No, probably not. But what other question there did you not get an answer to? MacCoy: Well, I think her basic question is that item six on the staff’s list is what her concern is. Johnson: That’s just no employees, right? Item six? MacCoy: Yeah. Johnson: Well, that is again the statute, right? MacCoy: It’s what Shari says. Johnson: It’s the way the statute reads. We follow the ordinances is what we do, and it’s in the ordinance at this time. And the reason for that isn’t because it’s a day care. It’s because it’s an accessory use permit. And accessory use permits given for Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 27 businesses in the home that don’t appear to be businesses. And that can be anything from somebody making lamps in their converted garage and maybe advertising them through catalog sales, but the one thing it precludes is any kind of additional traffic in terms of somebody calling a retail outlet or having employees there that park and come in and out, so you fall into the category of accessory use so it’s not necessarily pinpointed to your child care operation. That’s why that’s in the ordinance. Because once you get employees, then you are getting away from being a home business. You are getting away from accessory use permit. Now there are other permits that are available for people who do have employees. But the one you are applying for is restricted and no employees. MacCoy: All right. Are you planning to have any handicapped children in your – Estacio: Well, I don’t have any at this time. Although it wouldn’t take much to have though. I have a one floor home. It would not take much to do that. I have at one point even helped with a blind child. We had no problems there as far as that goes. As far as parking, everything is one level. I do have a slight step you know as far as getting in my front door, but that could be fixed real easily with a ramp if that is needed. MacCoy: Okay, my only suggestion is that if it should come to pass, let you know there is a set of laws for the State of Idaho and the United States which is considered the ADA, the law, system for handicapped people, not just children, but people. Because we’ve had people here that have gone for the same thing you have and they have somebody who is part of their help also be handicapped, so it still falls in the same category. Estacio: I do not discriminate against that if that was the case. Then we would something to – MacCoy: I’m just letting you know there’s a law or a set of laws on that. You’re back yard is fenced. And it’s got a gate or gates that are lockable. Estacio: Yes. MacCoy: Fence height is six foot. Estacio: Yes. MacCoy: What do you have in the back yard in the way of things for your children? Estacio: As to play with? In my packet, there’s pictures of my back yard there. I have three swing sets. Several hundred of dollars of playground equipment. As far as Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 28 playing with. Tables, chairs out there also for them to sit to have snacks in the afternoon, you know, if the weather is permitted. I have several toys. I have invested quite a bit in things for the kids to play with out there. The grass is grassed, most of it. There is an area where it is bark around the areas where it’s harder to move things to mow so I did that so I wouldn’t have this problem as far as taking of the lawn. MacCoy: Do you have a wading pool or a pool or fish pond? Estacio: No. In the summertime my kids do like to have – we have a collapsible pool that we put a little bit a water in for a short period of time that’s dumped out after use. I have a two and a four year old, I would never leave it out. It is there though if we wanted to put a small amount of water to play in the water. Sprinklers is better as far as I’m concerned anyway for kids, but we have had – we’ve put some water in it and let them play and stuff. But it’s short, and we do dump it. It’s collapsible. It’s put up after use. MacCoy: You don’t have a abandoned well in your area? Estacio: No, sir. I do have a field behind me, but I’m fenced all the way around it, but there’s nothing even back there either. Or any ways for them to get to it. MacCoy: All right. On your material that was presented to us, it says here you have a temporary license so and so here from September 26, 1997 to January 25, 1998. Do you have an extension all ready on that? Estacio: Yes, I have. I understand which one you are talking about. Yes, I have. I have reapplied for that. MacCoy: Okay, and since you have already – in the area you live, is there some type of rules, regulations that your – Estacio: My covenants? It doesn’t state anything in there about anything except for signage, which I don’t have. As you can on my picture, my house looks just a normal as anybody else’s along the road. I don’t have any sign or anything. It doesn’t say anything that I have found in my covenants. I have it here. I didn’t make a copy, but I did bring it tonight. There’s another in home day care just three houses down from me too. That’s been there for several years. She’s not having problems either with the covenants or any problems, so I’m not aware of any. MacCoy: Okay, the letter that we received from the one neighbor. She lives a couple of doors down or across the street? Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 29 Estacio: No, she lives right beside me. MacCoy: Oh, she does. Estacio: Yes. As I stated in my letter, she was at one point bringing her daughter over, we had some problems, and I asked her not to come, and after that time she has became a little irritated towards me. I don’t think it’s necessarily my day care as it is just the fact that I’ve asked her not to come back over with her daughter. I’ve tried to do everything to become a good neighbor with her. I have two other neighbors here tonight to speak for me to show that I am a good neighbor, and have tried to do everything I can to stay that way. She has a chain link fence around her house. I don’t bother her, and she doesn’t talk to me, so it’s unfortunate, but I don’t know what to do about that. MacCoy: I’m just wondering that the fact that she said she slept in the morning, not just the fact that you had children, just street traffic bothered her. Estacio: Well, in her letter she stated that I had traffic from 5:30 A.M. on, and that is not true. No one comes before 7:00 except for on a rare occasion. You know maybe a little bit before 7:00, but I don’t even open until 7:00. The children do not go outside before 9:00, and usually after 10:00 because I have a preschool program that I do with the kids in the mornings. Before she wrote that letter, they hadn’t been out because the weather has not permitted us to be out. Traffic is really very minimal. They are very quiet people. I have neighbors that are across from me that says you can’t even tell I’m even doing day care. It’s a quiet street and I keep that way too. I don’t permit the kids to go out unattended and scream and holler and shout all the time, but, yes in the afternoon if it’s nice, we are out. Some in the morning for an hour, but they are never early in the mornings. If that was a problem I would make sure they weren’t out in the mornings, if that was really a concern. I know her schedule being that I have been a day care for her, and she works at Fred Meyers, and the latest she might be until 11:00. She also has a child. I’m concerned if she is sleeping in the mornings, who is watching her child, but that’s another, you know. I’ve tried not to ever bother her. That’s why I put a second fence out there because she does have three large dogs that I don’t want you know the children out playing, my own children, I put that out before I even had been doing day care. I don’t want to be offensive to her or having her dogs bark because my own children are in the back yard playing, so I put that up extra, spent several hundred dollars to do that to try to be a good neighbor, and I was a great neighbor until I had problems and then of course I wasn’t after that. (Inaudible) It would be my desire to have her my best friend, but it doesn’t work that way, sorry. MacCoy: Thank you very much. Pass. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 30 Johnson: Anyone else have any questions? Smith: Clarify something I’m a little confused about is how long has your day care been open? Estacio: I have been open for a few months. I have been running and stumbling blocks as long as I’ve been going. Finding out that the zoning problem is a problem. I’ve called several people. I’ve talked to several people saying oh, you can get a variance. You can do this and you can do that, and so I submitted. I do things, and then I find out no I can’t. I have been in business now for several months. Smith: When you refer to being licensed, you are talking about being licensed by the state. Estacio: By child care licensing. Smith: At what point in time did you become aware that you needed to come before the city to get an accessory use permit? Estacio: Well, I went to Ms. Stiles about a month or so ago with my conditional use permit after I talked to Mr. Borup and Mr. MacCoy right here after a Planning and Zoning meeting. They suggested I put it in anyway for 6 to 12. I went in the office. I submitted it. And she says, I cannot do that. That’s when I said, okay, I sat down with her – Stiles: You did not submit an application. Estacio: I came in to apply for my conditional use permit and we sat down and talked about it and you said that I would have to talk to somebody else and so you referred me to the city attorney, which I did talk to Wayne Crookston at that time. I’m sorry, maybe you don’t remember, but I was in there because I was going to pay for the conditional use permit plus the fee for a variance. And you told me at that time that I could not apply for a variance. So I then I called – my mother watched my kids while I went down there and did that. I called Mr. Crookston at that time. He called me back that same day and said what I needed to do is get a hold of the Mayor and see I can be put on the City Council agenda to see if we can review these restrictions because we have so much R-4 zoning in Meridian, that it’s becoming extremely hard for us parents to become in home day cares if we have to have five or fewer children and count our own. I have done that on two meetings, and I am now on the agenda for June 2nd to see if we can please review these restrictions, and I understand we need restrictions, but it is impossible and extremely hard for someone to stay open when you have to count your own children and only have five and fewer kids. It’s not – Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 31 Johnson: But the point is you’ve been in business without having the proper permit, right? Estacio: Yes, I have. Johnson: I think that’s the question here. Do you have anything further? Smith: One of the comments from staff was family child care homes are defined as child care facilities which provides care for five or fewer children throughout the day. I think there was some documentation in our packets that stated that you had two children of your own plus three foster children. Estacio: Yes, I’m already making arrangements for – one will be 14 here in a matter of a few weeks and the other two are going to be going to another day care so I don’t have to be counting. So I am trying to make arrangements. Smith: How many children including your own do you care for now? Estacio: I do care for more, and I have already tried to make arrangements to cut that back so I can comply. Smith: How many is more? Estacio: Eight. Smith: Eight. Thank you. Estacio: You’re welcome. Smith: I think that does it for me. Johnson: Okay, anyone else? Just to follow up on Mr. Smith’s comment if you count the number of children that are in these letters, it’s gets up to about 8, and that’s guessing that when someone says kids, they mean just two. Estacio: Well, I have not denied that to anyone, and I would like to be licensed for 6 to 12 like anyone that’s in an R-8, but I’m trying to comply and that’s why I’m here. And to be officially licensed. At least I am trying to do something. You’d be surprised how many people out there not. Johnson: Oh, I don’t think we’d be surprised. I think they’d be surprised. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 32 Estacio: You know, I am trying to do something here. Johnson: Anybody else? Okay this is a public hearing, anyone else would like to come forward on this application? TROY CERELLO 2639 N. ARROWOOD WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Cerello: I would like to make comments first of all as a parent and then second of all as a citizen. Elaine has been – anybody that has taken a child to day care knows that it’s a very difficult decision first of all. Second of all my wife I have a daughter from the previous marriage and when we decided to take out child to day care, my three year old son, she says well how do you know what’s the right day care and I said well, you just kind of feel it in your gut. You walk in the house and you know this is it, my child is going to be okay here. And Elaine has been a god send for us. We’ve had I think three different day cares in Boise and Meridian, and Elaine, I think it just speaks for Elaine’s responsibility and the comment about having another employee in her home. I just think it speaks for her responsibility and to have a back up. In any job I’ve been in I spent time in the military and in any job I’ve been in, I have to have a back up. I have to have something to back me up if I’m not there or if something goes wrong. And Elaine, it just speaks for her responsibility and for her care for her parents and for her children. Also Mr. MacCoy made comment about what kind of toys do you have in the back for the kids and things like that. Elaine basically converted her garage for the kids for the winter so that they could have a place to play rather than be stuck in the house in front of the t.v. which most day care people I’ve seen that is one of the medians that they use to care for children. Elaine set up a preschool facility for my son who is two years old is learning letters and things like this that you just don’t see in other day cares. Elaine has also at her own expense went out and bought computers for these kids to see the information age and to see the things that are going on out there, and she’s bought children’s software, so I guess my point is that Elaine does everything in her power to make the most and comfortable home for these children. We have laws for reasons and we have ordinances for reasons, and I think we all understand that. But I think that we really get caught up in those laws sometimes and we forget to look at where our kids are and where our kids are comfortable. I wouldn’t take my kid any where else unless I am forced to. Elaine has even considered renting property or doing something else so that she can do what she truly loves to do. And that she provides a tremendous service for us. So again my comment is as a parent and then my comments as a citizen. We wouldn’t know what to do without Elaine. We think she is wonderful and I couldn’t be any happier to have my kids anywhere else. Johnson: Thank you. Any questions? Anyone else? Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 33 BILL LONG 226 S. OUTFIELD WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Long: I live next door to Elaine. Elaine is a great neighbor as far as the day care. Last summer when I was going to school, I work nights, I never had any problems sleeping during the day. I never heard the kids. She seems to keep a clean nice home. Her yard is nice. And we’ve never had any problems with the children. I’ve never noticed any problem with traffic. I now leave work around 7:30 in the morning and occasionally there is a car in her driveway. I don’t know Elaine very well, but I do know that she does run something that is good. I admire her in the fact that her husband is away on military assignment. He doesn’t live here and she has to work and a way for her to provide for her family is to have this day care. There’s other things people can do, and one of them is not to work and I admire Elaine. She works hard and she provides for her family and I think this is something that needs to be considered. It’s something that needs to be worked through. Like I said living next to her, I have never had a problem. I have two kids and they of course are going to make noise when they are playing outside and I’m sure hers do too, but there’s been any excessive noises. I have never had any problems with anything except for an occasional ball in my yard. So I mean there’s really no problems with her. Her neighbor who has complained has complained about things I’ve done. Before her home was built, we had problems with them too. I think if you talked to anyone on that block and they have had problems with her. So there’s things to consider there too. Johnson: Okay, thank you. Any questions? Anyone else would like to address the commission? KRISTI EVANS 188 S. CRESTWOOD WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Evans: I live around the corner from Elaine and I worked for her for a few months. I came in and helped her with the preschool. I have previous day care experience. I worked at another day care and managed it for a little while, and I just want to say that I have a lot of respect for Elaine. And I think she goes above and beyond you know talking about the toys and the preschool was definitely unnecessary. Parents would still take their kids there and she paid me to come in and she helped me the same time, and she really wants the kids to learn and I think those kids will have the upper hand when they go to kindergarten, and she loves all the kids, and I think that’s really important. Working in day care before, that’s not always the case, and I’ve seen kind of a down side of day care, and I think that she just needs to be commended for what she’s doing in her effort. And that’s all. Johnson: Thank you. Any questions? Anyone else? Any staff comments? Okay, this is an accessory use, and the way I read the ordinance because we don’t have too many of these, it still requires findings of fact after the public hearing which we had to have Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 34 because there was objections. So we need findings of fact and then the decision at that point at Planning and Zoning. It doesn’t go on to the City Council. MacCoy: I move that we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Smith: Second. Johnson: I should have closed the public hearing which I will do now. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Johnson: Anybody have a question on what happened tonight? Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law will be prepared by our city attorneys and that will be on our agenda for June the 9th at which time we will approve or deny those findings of fact and a decision for the accessory use permit will be made at that time by the Planning and Zoning Commission. So no decision until June 9th at the earliest is what I’m saying. Johnson: Before I get into this, I would like to take a five minute break. (FIVE MINUTE BREAK) Johnson: Okay we will resume the meeting now. We are going to reverse the order between 14 and 15 because they are really out of sync there. There proper order should be that we address the conditional use permit first and then the preliminary plat so we will start with item 15. ITEM NO. 15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IN PROPOSED MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY TEALEY’S LAND SURVEYING – NORTH OF E. PINE AND WEST OF LOCUST GROVE. Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or the applicant’s representative to address the commission. RICHARD PAVELEK WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Pavelek: Maws Subdivision No. 3 is a development planned for a remnant parcel of the larger development of the two previous phases. It has no direct access to the other portions of Maws Subdivision. It has access the private or the public road along this boundary. It sat vacant for a number of years partially because of servicing issues and Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 35 road access and other similar types of servicing issues. It’s now in the developer’s mind appropriate time to look at development of this parcel of land. It’s his desire to have a townhouse style unit basically each unit being self owned, and in a configuration that is shown to be quite popular among certain residents of various communities. The units themselves are 1209 square feet, which for a townhouse unit, is a good size unit and likewise the lot which is a 45 foot width is also for this type of unit a good size lot. This could have been proposed I believe as a duplex but it was felt by the owner that having self owned units would be by far a lot more popular and more successful. In making the decision then we do come across a couple of issues as far as the street frontage, widths of these lots. They are less than ordinance. We recognize that. There is also a smaller area within the dwelling and we also recognize that, but what we ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider is that when you view this as a townhouse style of project, these are generous in the two categories of both site and dwelling. The density is within the allowed density. And so we’re not asking for any consideration other than site related issues that would accommodate these types of units. In my packet I did not get a copy of my response to staff’s, but I presume that you would have my letter. There is a couple of items in there that we would like to discuss and that is under site specific comments, item number 5. We have an option of either – let me back up a moment. We submitted this as a CU with a PUD because it’s really the only method through your ordinances that we have to approach this. One of the requirements that’s available to us is through the PUD. The PUD then requires an open space requirement. And we can meet that requirement by reducing the other two lots and in fact we have seven townhouse units. We would add two more townhouse units and increase the amount of area for open space. Our preference is not to do that. But have a consideration for the application as presented and recognize that we would be deficient in the technical issue of the open space. And item 6 of the site specifics, we will have to do some redesign of the unit to pick up the 5 feet that’s required in the setback and our intention is to do that. Item seven, I guess we will have to do some further checking and that’s related to the sequencing in the events that lead up to this area being excluded from irrigation rights. We do not have any knowledge of that. This was originally – the earlier phases were originally proposed to be irrigated and then there was a decision to withdraw it. I have no record of that, and I’ll talk to the developer further to see what his file would indicate to us. Item eight under site specific, our understanding the definition of townhouse units are single family units, and we would presume that we would meet that standards. That’s somewhat of a brief overview of our application. I’d be happy to address particular issues that you might have. Let’s see whether I can answer any questions. Johnson: I just have a couple of clarifications. If we go by this drawing that you submitted, which I assume is a townhouse. Pavelek: Yes. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 36 Johnson: How does that meet the definition of single family dwelling unit when it talks about – the definition refers to detached? Pavelek: I guess I’m used to when it’s – the definition related to single ownership of each of the units as opposed to a duplex which in fact has a single owner for both units. Your – Johnson: How would that differ from a condominium by that definition? Pavelek: Usually they are in fact ground orientated, have their own garage units. Basically are a complete owner occupied unit. I assume what you are referring to is a condominium as in an apartment building. Johnson: Oh, I think I know what a condominium is, but by your definition, I could have applied that to a condominium and come up with the same thing until you expanded on your definition. In my mind it’s not a single family dwelling, and I think that’s what I wanted to clarify why you thought it was. Pavelek: Where I guess I’m more familiar is how the city of Boise classifies it in all townhouse units are in fact designated as single family, and I had presumed when I looked back through the Meridian, there was a similar definition, and if I’m in error, it’s basically where – the presumption in terms of how they are financed and how they are looked at both in the market and in the financial community, these would be defined as single family dwellings. Johnson: But you have more than one family living within the same confined area. Pavelek: They have basically a common wall, but they are totally separate. One family in each of the units, and that’s why we have basically a division, a property line runs through that building. Johnson: Okay. I had another question, not a question just a comment. On item eight, I think it’s eight where we’re talking about irrigation. Irrigation rights, that might have been seven. Pavelek: That’s number seven. Johnson: Are you not getting any billings from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District at all? Pavelek: That’s my understanding. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 37 Johnson: Totally excluded from that. Pavelek: All of Maws Subdivision which was one and two, were excluded as well as this vacant piece of property. Johnson: That was probably done by application, right? Pavelek: I would presume so. Johnson: That’s all I have. I’m sure the commissioners have some questions. MacCoy: I have several questions. Fortunately you started to address a number of them at the beginning of yours. I would like to go back to number eight of the staff report, which is detached – it has bothered me the whole time I have read your material here. From where I’ve come from other states and other areas, detached was just what it said. It was a single family dwelling, and there was space between the two buildings, and then (inaudible) I know I read that. That’s what I’m saying, I have a hard time with this because I look at the square footage of the building and the square footage of the property, and I have a little difficulty trying to rationalize all of this in a community where we are trying to very much look to quality homes and so on, and I don’t like to see a (inaudible) that thing down and making it a – and I realize you said these will be personal owned, not rented, but I always heard and I’ve seen unfortunately where somebody will say it’s a good buy and will go in and buy some of those and then rent them out. I don’t know what kind of restrictions you are going to put on this so you don’t have rentals and you have owners. I don’t see how you can stop it, but I just think by reducing the square footage of both the property and the construction, we’re asking for ourselves for a low income situation. I know the location where it’s going to be and I’ve had problems with some of that out there too, but I just – unless you can give me something to offset what I have got as a problem, I don’t know how you are going to do, but I’m just throwing that on the table for you. I sit here as a commissioner and look towards quality homes in our area. I’d like to think that we’re putting down regulations for good solid families and quality community type of thing. I don’t want to end of having to be faced with a problem that we didn’t (inaudible). Pavelek: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner MacCoy, I think there’s two issues that you brought out. The first issue is whether or not there’s an opportunity for a person to come along and buy these and rent them out. I think the same is true of any house you can construct, and so there is no differienation between the potential of somebody coming in at a later date and in fact renting out and having rentals and having that cycle go through. So I don’t see that what we’re proposing would inherently create that situation. The other side of it is in my experience in terms of looking at these types of units, the buyer that generally will look at these things, and I can’t say that this and this Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 38 is will occur here, but generally speaking as a single individual or basically a couple that no longer have children or a young professional or basically a person that simply just chooses not to have a sizable yard would prefer to have some sort of common upkeep in the unit. And they – I think you can go through any number of areas and find that they’ve turned out well. They don’t necessarily inherently end of being low income. They provide an alternative to an apartment situation where in fact they do have garages. They do have defined ownership and they do have a front door. All of those are qualities that as a segment of the community I think there is a need and there is a desire and that’s really what we are trying to aim for. I think basically the quality of the thing is something that I would accept critique on. The comment that these would inherently be rentals, I don’t think is fair. The comment that these are inherently low income, I don’t is necessarily fair either. If we haven’t done it well, I can understand that. We would entertain your comments with a great amount of seriousness. The City of Meridian, frankly, does not have a viable means currently of doing small scale infill projects of this type. And so they come to you with special need of consideration and that’s why we are here to try and see whether or not this might be possible. It’s my understanding that you are considering some sort of form of townhouse type of a unit that will come up in your ordinance and we would hope that this would go in the same direction. Going back to my earlier point, having a property line down the middle of the unit to me defines a single family. I failed to note that your definition includes detached along with the other definitions. So I’m in error in not noting that, but regardless of that, I think there still is an opportunity to do these types of units. And meeting basically a need within the community and it does not necessarily have to mean all of the other things that were inferred. MacCoy: Okay let me step on to that point which I though you were heading down which I was hoping you would, but I’ll bring it back up again, and that’s quality. I would like to hear what kind of quality out of an architectural office, I look at renderings and they can make things look real pretty and nice and everything and homey, but what is your building’s in the field of construction made of? What would make me want to say I’m in the market, that is really a nice place. I want to buy it and move into it. Pavelek: I think there was – we went through a couple of versions. I was not directly involved in the design of this, but I asked the owner to specifically look at what he could do with the elevations in terms of creating a viable entrance way to these units, clearly you can see the front door, get to them. Since it’s separation and privacy between the two. The entrance in terms of trying to scale the garage down and get a good appearance to have a landscaped plan that provides a reasonable amount of landscaping on the front, and I guess the other thing is as I said a 1200 square foot townhouse unit is above a lot of people’s expectations. So I think we have the size and we have looked at some of the detail, and we will be looking further at the specific material and color selections here. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 39 MacCoy: Do you know at this point what type of construction is it going to be? Is it going to be aluminum siding? Is it going to be wood or composition or what? Have you gotten that far with it yet? Pavelek: I’m just not familiar. I think that’s something we would be prepared to come back and if this concept is something that we could proceed with, I would encourage the owner to come back and answer all of those questions that it is confirmed to be a high quality building and that the finish and materials are in fact in place for this. MacCoy: I would appreciate that. I’m sure the other commissioners would too as well as the council, because I think that will be a giant step in the right direction for your business. So I’m just giving a suggestion. Pavelek: No, I would appreciate that. To be perfectly frank I was not happy with the first rendition of this unit, and it was redesigned, and I think that there’s probably still some opportunity to do some other things further. MacCoy: Okay, thank you very much. Borup: Back to your opening comments on – this is a remnant portion that was left over from developing the first, was this portion under the ownership of the developer at that time? Pavelek: Yes, it was. Borup: Is there a reason it wasn’t incorporated into the original subdivision? Pavelek: It is my understanding that because it ended up not having any direct access from the internal streets, there was a question of – Borup: Just by extending the streets that are already would give an access to it. That’s my question. Pavelek: I can’t honestly tell you why it was excluded, all I know that it was a portion of the property. It was all under the same ownership. And for whatever reason, it was desired to have these lots fronting on the adjacent public streets there. Borup: That was the decision of the developer at the time? Pavelek: It may have also come from either the municipality or from the highway district, and I cannot tell you where it came from. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 40 Borup: I’d be surprised if that’s where it came from. Question on – you had quite a bit discussion with Commissioner MacCoy on definitions, and I think the referral was to staff memo, item number eight, and I certainly agree with your definition of single family. A townhouse, I definitely agree with that, but I think staff’s comment was that the ordinance states that it needed to be detached. So I think that is the only conflict, and we don’t have a copy of that ordinance other than what was stated here. Pavelek: I apologize, I think when we had a technical review of this development, we covered a lot of other issues. We did not cover that definition. Borup: I assume going with the townhouse as part of the application, the conditional use application and the planned development. You mentioned and I don’t know if I caught it completely, but I don’t have – do we have ACHD report in here, because I didn’t see that. That’s why I couldn’t find it. You mentioned something about the street size. Pavelek: Basically what the highway district has found is that there is capacity to handle the traffic generated by this number of homes. They are looking at a 24 foot wide lane of pavement. We would provide our sidewalks, curb and gutter on our side. There is a ditch that’s on the opposite side of the street that allows for really the 24 feet and nothing beyond that. We talked to our neighbor, and they seem to be kind of excited about finally having a paved street. Borup: You are talking a 24 foot right-of-way or 24 foot of – Pavelek: No, basically it’s 24 feet of pavement, and the right-of-way we would provide our share of the right-of-way and pave the 24 feet. Borup: And what’s your understanding of the right-of-way size then? Pavelek: I believe that in the end it will be a full 50 foot right-of-way. But the balance will come off the adjoining property. Borup: Right and that’s the normal procedure I think. And it’s your understanding that alignment will line up with the existing street to the north, existing curb cut or sidewalk. Pavelek: I believe it does on our side of the street. Borup: It appears that your plat that you would not be extending the improvements to Pine; is that correct? Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 41 Pavelek: That’s correct. On the adjoining property there’s in fact a garage that sits in the right-of-way and behind – Borup: The sidewalk goes right through the middle of it. Pavelek: I’m afraid it does. Borup: I mean if the sidewalk goes straight. Pavelek: So the highway district is going to look into that to make that level of improvement to dedicate I believe there’s some additional dedication we’re doing on our side of the road. Borup: That’s just what I was going to ask if the right-of-way is already a 50 foot right- of-way are you dedicating – Pavelek: I think we’re dedicating the order of like 5 feet on our side. Borup: Even in the existing right-of-way, that building is – Pavelek: That’s correct. So it’s not the best of situations there. Borup: Looking back on your comments – addressing them on item number five on the common area – Pavelek: Basically my comments say that if it’s the desire to meet the PUD standard, then we will do so and the method would be to basically reduce the two single family lots with down to a point where in fact it would be townhouse units, but we would end up with a space – Borup: And I think my concern is more with the spirit of what it’s trying to accomplish rather than the letter of the law, which brings my question, what would the design and use of this common area be, is it, we know it’s for the storm drainage lot, and I’ve seen a lot of different varieties of storm drainage lots. If it’s just going to be a pond with the dirt at the bottom and weeds around, it really has no use as common area. Has there been a design discussed or – Pavelek: I think your point is a good one, and there is no specific design yet, but obviously the area that would be occupied by the detention pond for this will limit the active use for at least portions. The intention would be to try and make it as usable as possible, and see whether a design that would incorporate (inaudible) in this would be Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 42 viable or not. There are methods of doing this and we will look at that, but yes, that is a negative for what we have proposed. Borup: That would be something that I would be looking at is how much usable common area there is and maybe a reduction would not be out of line, but what’s really left. Pavelek: I think again we would have to come back with the specific of that item. Borup: This is maybe more of a comment. Item number six and the setback, unless I figured something wrong other than maybe just scaling on the big plat, the house size, I had to get a magnifying glass to look at the dimensions, but it looked to me like you had a few inches to spare on your 15 foot setback if I read that right. I show a house it looked like 64 3 with 35 foot total setbacks which gives you 99 3 on the 99 9 lot. Pavelek: I think we basically had to go back – I noted that the position of the unit on the lot as shown on the preliminary plat is a ten foot setback, and – Borup: The house plan you submitted does appear to me that – I think this started to be addressed on the irrigation’s – I think maybe for us we need to look at the original application of whether pressurized irrigation was applied for, but beyond that, you’ve answered the question about the irrigation water. Other than the question about whether there is a well development fee ever paid, which would have been in lieu of the irrigation system, I believe, even at that – Pavelek: I think that probably would be the more pertinent question, and again that’s something that I think the burden on us would be to find a confirmation that in fact has been paid. I presume that it has because there’s was multiple phases and I can’t imagine that we could do phase one, not pay the fee, come back and do a second phase. So my assumption is that it has been paid, but we could find record of that. Borup: I don’t think it would be unreasonable to think that that could have got overlooked. Both by the city – Pavelek: Both times? Borup: This is still a small town. We’re working on it. I have no other comments at this time or questions. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I drove through all the neighborhoods surrounding this site, and I couldn’t find one attached. A dwelling unit in any of the neighborhoods that I drove through and I drove Maws Subdivision and excuse me Danbury Fair and so forth. My Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 43 understanding is that this is all single family residential in this whole area. Single family detached dwellings. And this is kind of this last little chunk in here would be filled in and I’ve yet to hear any testimony or comments made as far as why we should deviate from that for these few remaining parcels that are left kind of right in the middle of all this. Pavelek: My client is not here this evening, but he had mentioned to me that in fact there were some attached units generally in this area, within the mile of this property. The other thing that he’s noting in that the area being in the location that it is, where it does not feed back through any of the adjacent subdivisions per say, it’s an area that could and possibly should be considered for this type of development. I don’t see this as necessarily being a negative type of unit to place in single family areas. I can think of many areas in northwest sections of Boise where in fact you get this sort of mixture of units. And there frankly is no conflict between this type of unit and any type of single family unit. Smith: I would agree that these type of uses are compatible in certain situations. I don’t know that I agree that this would be one of them though. I think there’s quite an extensive area that is single family detached homes, and I think all my other questions or comments have basically been addressed or brought up already. Pavelek: Mr. Chairman, I guess the only other thing that I would mention is that we do have a large parcel of land that is going to be developed directly across at some point in time, and it’s unclear as to whether or not this will be – staff might be able to help, but my recollection is that there is some opportunity that this may be a non-residential use. And that was I guess another consideration of terms of this being at the edge of some residential that another type of unit might be in fact be appropriate here. That’s our opinion. Johnson: Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else would like to come forward and address the commission on this application? ROBIN SHAY 1458 E. BUCHMAN CT. WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Shay: I’m at lot 13 block 1, in Maw No. 1. It’s a corner lot, and the way I understand that this is going to be developed, it looks like there would be about four home sites that back up to my backyard. And I know that where we are in our street and the other people on our street, it’s all young families with young kids. Johnson: I don’t think any of them back up to your backyard. In fact, if I’m reading the map right – (Inaudible) Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 44 Shay: And I’m just concerned about the privacy that’s going to happen with all these homes so close together, and also the fact that if you have a townhouse, generally speaking you have someone that doesn’t have children, or that’s older and once again doesn’t have children, and there are kids all over that subdivision. And I know a lot of times when you have people who don’t want to have kids around, they get a little grumpy with the noise and the toys and the balls, and so with that in mind I just wanted you guys to know that there is opposition. I know my neighbors aren’t here tonight, but we’d rather have it be homes that matched everything else that’s around there. That’s all. Johnson: I have one question. We do have a letter signed by a couple of the neighbors, but it’s hard to tell exactly where they are. Are you familiar with the Farmington’s at all? And I think the other name Vibes. Shay: I think they are probably on the other streets, because I heard that they were in opposition. Johnson: Okay, thank you. I was just trying to locate them in relation to where you are. Anybody else have any questions? Anyone else would like to address the commission? Any further comments? Borup: I do have a question because I was curious in what may develop across the street. The applicant said staff may have an idea, is there been any preliminary? Johnson: Well, until it’s developed we don’t know what it’s going to be. Borup: I know that. I just wanted to know whether there’s been any preliminary inquiries and at this point it looks like it’s zoned R-1. So, it’s not even annexed, is it? Stiles: To the west is not annexed into the city yet. Borup: Right, so there’s been no decision of anything planned for that area as far as you know. Stiles: No, and I believe you have a letter from the woman that lives across the street there to the west. Johnson: It’s really to the south, isn’t it? Stiles: Are you talking about the south or the west? Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 45 Borup: I was talking about the property to the west. There is a house there on the corner, but there’s an open field directly to the west of this project right now. Stiles: Yes, that’s where Mrs. Opal Farrington lives. Borup: I guess that answers my question. The answer is nobody knows. Johnson: Anything else? If nothing I will close the public hearing at this time. This is a conditional use permit so this will require findings of fact and conclusions of law. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we direct the city attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this item. MacCoy: Second. Johnson: Motion and second to have the city attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY TEALEY’S LAND SURVEYING – NORTH OF E. PINE AND WEST OF LOCUST GROVE. Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and ask that the applicant be resworn. Any testimony given on the prior item can also be incorporated into this. RICHARD PAVELEK 915 W. JEFFERSON WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Pavelek: I think much of what we’ve discussed under the C.U. pertains also the formation of this plat, and the two really do go hand in hand. I guess the only comment I would make based upon the previous speaker is I have two children that are young and I am grouchy sometimes too. It’s hard to know who your neighbors are and whether young or old is a benefit or not. Johnson: It’s better to be young, I can tell you. Pavelek: I’m sure that’s right, but sometimes it’s best to lie. So I’m not sure whether or not that’s going to make a difference. I would presume that the fence will be between the two properties will take care of many of the nuisance items that occur between properties, and there are also hopes that we will have reasonable neighbors for the existing neighbors, that they will not be the (inaudible) that might be presumed here, but Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 46 I think everything else that we previously looked at in C.U. pertains here. I’m not as familiar with your process – I guess we will wait for the stated time and find out which way the decision is on both of these applications and what your recommendation is to the council. Johnson: Yes, and to be real frank with you we won’t proceed on a preliminary plat tonight. We’ll table that item until we get the findings of fact on the conditional use permit. We would incorporate all of your prior testimony into this preliminary plat testimony as well. Any further questions? Anyone else would like to come forward? At this point then, I’ll close this public hearing. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we table this item—let me back up. I’d like to make a motion that we incorporate all previous testimony on the preceding agenda item into this item and that we table this item for discussion until our June 9th meeting. MacCoy: Second. Johnson: We have a motion and a second to table this item and incorporate prior testimony on the conditional use permit into this application for item 14 which is really 15. All in favor? And opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 16: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 121. 897 ACRES TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED THOUSAND SPRINGS SUBDIVISION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS AND MARTY GOLDSMITH – NORTH OF VICTORY AND WEST OF EAGLE ROAD. Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and ask the applicant or the applicant’s representative address the commission. Everything you bring tonight stays here. Prior: Anything that is damaged is taken out of – (inaudible) BECKY BOWCUTT BRIGGS ENGINEERING 1111 S. ORCHARD WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Bowcutt: We’re coming before you this evening with an application for annexation from R-T, rural transition, under Ada County jurisdiction to R-4, which is a low density residential zone. We’re asking for annexation of 121.227 total acres, and then we also Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 47 have a preliminary plat application. Can I just combine the two, may I do that to expedite? No, okay. Prior: We can incorporate after you’re done. Bowcutt: Excellent. I just don’t want to have to say the same thing twice. Johnson: Well, we just have to let you know that we’re still running the meeting. Bowcutt: Okay, this particular property to let you know where it’s located, this here is Eagle Road right here on our south boundary is Victory Road. On our western boundary is Los Alimitos Subdivision. It goes on out to Locust Grove here. On our west boundary is the proposed Sherbrooke Subdivision which was approved by this body here about six months ago. This parcel between the two is an undeveloped R-T parcel. The Ridenbaugh Canal border this parcel and this legal description runs to the center line of the canal and Ridenbaugh wraps around it’s northern boundary and goes out and intersect with Eagle Road. All the lots proposed in this development are 8000 square foot or greater. They all have 80 feet of frontage or greater. Johnson: Excuse me, Becky. Could you put that so the public can see it and then use that portable mike down there if you need to because that unhooks. Everybody should have a shot at seeing that. Bowcutt: I won’t break it. This probably looks familiar to you, the property, and that’s because oh, about three years ago it came before some of the members that have been here quite a while called Highlands Ranch Subdivision. In that particular subdivision, (End of Tape) Bowcutt: …different from what we’re proposing here. This is an old copy of it. It looked very similar to this. It included the Sherbrooke Subdivision, and then it also included Thousand Springs Subdivision that we’re proposing here. They came in with one single application. They had about 682 dwellings that were originally proposed. On this particular parcel that you’re looking at here, I believe there was about 512 dwellings proposed. At a density of 4 units per acre. What we’re proposing here is 330 single family residential dwellings. And our density is 2.72 dwelling units per acre. To kind of give you an idea of what’s around us, the Los Alimitos Subdivision on our western boundary is 2.9 dwelling units per acre. The Sherbrooke Subdivision there on our western boundary was 2.87. So with this particular density, it is lower that what has been proposed in this area at 2.72. I’d like to point out some of the items. I did read through the minutes from the previous meetings. I talked with city staff. I talked with the highway district, read the testimony submitted by the adjoining neighbors to kind of get an idea of what the problems were when this project originally came through. The Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 48 main issue I think was the mixed use in the original application, the density. And the fact that the neighbors had never had an opportunity to sit down with the developer and his representatives to discuss the project. So we went about this in a fashion to try to remedy the mistakes made the first time around under the other developer, and I would like to note that that particular developer is not this developer. The developer here is Farwest Developers who has done Los Alimitos and Salmon Rapids. We sent out a notification to all neighbors within 300 feet of the project and invited them to a neighborhood meeting. It was sent out as an invitation. It was held at the Sandman Motel. We had a room prepared. We sat down. I think we had six or eight individuals who live in this area, and we talked to them about the project, showed them our drafts. We had not even put it on the computer. So that we could incorporate some of their comments concerning this project. The feedback, we got some positive feedback, some negative feedback, and based upon the negative feedback, we tried to make some adjustments. In my – Johnson: How long ago was that? Bowcutt: That was held, I think back in February. Johnson: The month is fine. Borup: Your letter says March 9th ? Bowcutt: End of February, first of March. Okay, that’s cool. Johnson: I’ve got to remind you you’re under oath. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. I’m trying to answer to the best of my ability. I’ve got a cold. It kind of makes me clouded in the head. Cold medicine does. One of the comments we had, our entrance was centered right at Eagle Road. I received a letter from Sutherland Farms who asked that we align our entrance with Gurdner Lane, which is located on the east side of Eagle Road. They said we intend in the future to develop our property. It would be beneficial if your street would align with our existing private lane so that at some point in time a signal could be placed for the subdivisions. So we did move our main entrance to the south and it is in alignment with Gurdner Lane. Secondly we have the fire station located on our southern, it would southeast corner. Gordon Harris owns the property just south of us, and he indicated to me that he did like the location of a future fire station there. He was afraid it would affect the value of his property and would cause some nuisance to him. So his preference was we move the fire station to the north, and we did, and that’s what you see the large square area on the northeast corner. We talked to the representative from the Mortimer Family Trust. Her main concern was that we incorporate the right to farm clause out of the state code and place Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 49 that on our final plat that we submit to the city, because they have a working farm just south of us on Victory. We indicated to her that we agreed to do that. We did it for the Sherbrooke Subdivision and basically protects her right as far as their agricultural pursuits that any residents cannot complain about the bailing of hay in the wee hours or cattle or etc. Johnson: And that would also be part of the development agreement anyway, right? Bowcutt: Mrs. Glick attended our meeting. She lives right here on an acre parcel. Right here at our entrance. We had proposed a stub street to her property in the event that parcel ever redeveloped. She indicated to me that she did not want that stub street, that she would like substantial landscaping, berming and fencing from our development. So we did eliminate that stub street to her. We increased the width of our landscaped area here to 32 feet, so it could accommodate a berm, substantial landscaping and a fence. Johnson: While you are over there, point out to me Gurdner Lane and tell me how far that is from the corner? Bowcutt: Gurdner Lane is right here. This is one quarter mile, it would be just a little bit over – Johnson: Over a quarter, okay. Bowcutt: The other thing she wanted was she said I don’t want dog-eared fenced. I’d like some type of fence, wood would be okay. But I’d like a cap on it or something that is aesthetically pleasing. I did talk with the developer and he said that he would be willing to install some fencing that would be acceptable, not dog-eared. One of the other questions was what do we propose as far as our fencing along the Ridenbaugh Canal. We intend to put wrought iron fencing just like we have in Los Alimitos. So it will match. It’s a non-combustible permanent type fencing. The Fritzes live, I think they live right here. They attended our meeting. The comments that we received from were to the effect we’re lower, our property is lower than this parcel so you sit up high, and that is correct. Our parcel does sit up maybe 15 maybe 20 feet higher than their parcel. They stated that they would like to see some trees installed along that perimeter where we adjoin their property there on the southwest area. I did talk to the developer and he said that there are some mature trees on the property that he will relocated and he said we could put some of those there and then add some additional trees. One of the other comments was they would like to see only limitation of one story homes only on that bench area there by the Ridenbaugh Canal. I did talk with the developer about that and his indication was he disagreed with the one story homes. What I told them is my experience with development throughout the valley, we have never had a restriction Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 50 whether a home a single family dwelling could be one or two stories. It’s basically a right. If you want to build one or you want to build two, there’s a maximum height in every zone, which is typically around 35 feet in most jurisdictions that limits the height of a two story. The only time we have ever seen limitations on height would be when we are doing apartments, and someone wants to do three story apartment buildings which are very bulky adjoining single family. In those instances we have been limited to two story. Johnson: You can’t argue point about the legality of it, but I know for a fact that concessions have been made by developers in order to get a project approved to include, for example, a row of single family one level single level homes, and I can show you some places in Meridian where that’s been done. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. I believe I’ve had one project in Meridian, the Sherbrooke project where we designated certain lots to be one story; that is correct, but it is always been – it has not been a requirement, but a concession as you said by the developer. The existing city limits in this area are at Los Alimitos and Sherbrooke. They are both zoned R-4, which is consistent with what we’re proposing here, so we do abut the city limits of Meridian. As far as services are concerned, central sewer and water is available in this area. A sewer trunk line will come through Sherbrooke and Sherbrooke is currently under construction in phase one. We have two options. The sewer could be brought through here, or the sewer could be extended out Los Alimitos. We’ve also got water here and water located here. It has been the city engineer’s comment as far as water is concerned that he wanted water to stay within a public right-of-way. So based on his previous comments, water would be extended through here, and then we’ll put a street through here to bring the water like this so we have a connection and then we will put a separate lot here to run water through for future connection to that well. The sewer depth is sixteen feet right here. Ten feet here, and our preliminary sewer profiles, we have profiled it in both directions. All of these streets, and this can gravity flow into the existing trunk line. The property here is an elevation of 72. And back here you’ve got a finish grade of 52. So basically this property when you get to Eagle Road is 20 feet higher. So we do have the ability to gravity flow this into those trunk lines. One of the other issues with this project was a bridge. In the Sherbrooke project, we had a pedestrian bridge right here proposed. That was based on receiving Nampa Meridian Irrigation District approval, because a license agreement must be obtained from their board in order to construct that. The Sherbrooke development is trust funding for $15,000 for half the cost of the pedestrian bridge. The Thousand Springs project will trust fund for the other half of that pedestrian bridge. We are proposing a vehicular bridge connection right here to three bars which was stubbed out with a temporary turn around here in Los Alimitos. We will bridge the Ridenbaugh Canal, and make that vehicular connection. As you can see right here, this is the center section for this particular, I think section 20. In trying to figure out where’s the best place to put a Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 51 vehicular bridge, we looked at the entire section and evaluated what’s around us. This is the future school or city park site that was set aside in Los Alimitos. It’s about 2.4 acres. Just north of it is 4.2 acres set aside by J.L. Vogt Development Co. for a future school and park site. We in turn are setting aside this area here for a future school and park site and that area is 3.85 acres. Johnson: Talk to me about that area, because if my memory serves me right, that’s basically a swamp. Bowcutt: When I went out there and walked through that, it was this winter. It was not swampy this winter. I have not been out there since irrigation came down the Ridenbaugh Canal. It is kind of low in there. The canal sits high. Johnson: If I remember a discussion earlier, one of the other applications, that parcel of land was offered to the city and they didn’t want it for that reason. That’s the way I remember it. Bowcutt: In my meetings with Jim Carberry of Meridian School District, Jim indicated to me that the school district wanted to see this set aside. That this parcel was set aside and this one to the south, then they wanted a chunk out of this one and then when this 80 here develops. Then they would extract an additional three to four acres in that parcel also. Between all those developments, they would have a property large enough for an elementary school. If they so choose. Johnson: They are looking at ten to twelve acres; don’t they? Bowcutt: Ten is too small. Their preference now is about 12 to 14. Also right here in the G.L. Vogt property, is a 54 acre high school site that I assisted them in their negotiations with the school district. My company did a conceptual high school layout based on the Eagle High School concept to provide them with a site plan to make a determination on how that parcel would be shaped and how large of a parcel they would need. So this will be a high school site. The estimate that I’ve got from the school district is they believe they will need that within seven years. However, it will take up a bond issue to build a high school, but the land has been sold to the Meridian School District. So in making this vehicular connection eventually this will be a high school. And we’ll have that connection this street comes up here by the park and would go into the high school site. The high school has a collector street that will come off of Overland Road for its primary access, so this would not be a primary access but more of a secondary access and a connection between all of these developments within the interior of this section. The highway district also asked for a pedestrian, half the cost of a pedestrian bridge here at the Ridenbaugh Canal. This is an undeveloped 80 here also. I think under the comprehensive plan, that’s designated for planned use Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 52 development or something like that. It has frontage on Overland and Eagle Road so you have an intersection there. It will most likely come in with some type of a mixed use. Maybe an office, maybe commercial, residential type mixed use. No one knows at this time. So we’ll make that pedestrian connection there, but it will be one half the cost of that ped path, and it will not be constructed by us. But will be constructed when the highway district gets the other half. I’d also like to note that that would be subject to Nampa Meridian Irrigation District approval. I have spoken with them multiple times on these issues of pedestrian bridges, and they waffle back and forth. You talk to them one day, they say they don’t want them, they will not approve them, and you talk to them the next day, and they said well, maybe we will accept it if it’s fully caged, so that we don’t have any type of a hazard with kids playing on the bridge, jumping off, using ropes to put a little boogey board or something along that line. One of the other things that we did is we set aside the well lot here for a future city well lot. The well lot is .32 acres. The future fire station lot is 1.41 acres. Johnson: Show me both of those again. I was looking down. Bowcutt: This is the well lot. This is the fire station lot. This is 1.41 acres and this .32. We determined the size of this based on our past experience with a fire department and a future fire station site and that was with Whitney Fire out south off Maple Grove. And so we were cognizant of the fact those trucks need to pull in and be able to loop back out and so forth. And so we tried to make it large and as deep as possible. The city requires landscaping along the perimeter of Eagle Road because it is a corridor. We have allocated, I believe the city requires 30 feet, we’ve allocated 40 so we can do some berming and some nice landscaping. Along Victory Road, we have 30 feet. We have approximately 5.2 acres common area throughout the project. That would the area that you see in green with trees excluding this. This is not calculated into that. We have a collector road that comes in to this intersection here. That collector road no homes would front on that. It’d have landscaping along it perimeter. We have a collector street that comes into this intersection. The same holds true here. We’d have landscaping along that perimeter. The highway district has also asked us to put a stub street through this one common area here to a parcel that sits right in here. It would be north of Mrs. Glick’s parcel, so that stub street would not go into Mrs. Glicks. They asked for a stub street at this location and this location. So we have provided for interconnection within this section and other undeveloped parcels and then the bridge. The bridge alone, the vehicular bridge is going to be $300,000, and that is determined by Ada County Highway District, so it is a very expensive endeavor. It will have to be engineered. It will have to have license agreement from Nampa Meridian. But we feel it is important to make that vehicular connection within the interior of this section. This is the opportunity to do so. We’ve created a little park area right at the entrance. One thing I dislike is in subdivisions when you come at an entrance and you have a buildable lot right there at that intersection because you do see a lot of traffic come Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 53 through here and someone trying to back in and then you’ve got cars ingressing here. So that is not a buildable lot, that would be like a park lot. We could put a little square in there. We’ve talked about various ideas, waterfalls, landscaping, etc. Multiple things to make it attractive so that our entrance has some character. We did submit a variance application for review by the city council. That variance deals with exempting the Ridenbaugh from being piped because it exceeds a 48” and secondly we do have some blocks lengths that exceed 1,000 feet. And the block lengths primarily are around the Ridenbaugh Canal, and when we deal with an irrigation canal of that size and that length, our block lengths get too long. We cannot break them up because you just can’t put a street that goes no where or a micropath that goes no where, but we did try to break them up with micropath connections, and provide some interconnection. The green areas that you see at the end of some of those blocks, those are for storm drainage. Johnson: What is the length of your longest cul-de-sac? Bowcutt: I don’t have any cul-de-sacs that exceed 450 feet. Johnson: That one there. Bowcutt: Which one? Johnson: Coming straight down to the property edge, how long is that one approximately? Bowcutt: This one right here? This one I believe is right smack at 450 from center to center. Johnson: Yeah, it looks like it’s right at our limit. Bowcutt: It is right at your limit, I believe without measuring it. And that will be a permanent cul-de-sac, but will go on because we’ve had problems with temporary turn arounds in the past, and how do you deal with them? How do you keep the lot owner from tearing out the asphalt. The city has had many concerns. So we decided we’ll just put in a permanent turn around with a little notch for extension to the south and the lot is big that we don’t have to worry about encroachment of the temporary turn around into it. One of the other items I would like to bring up is the fact that we are promoting detached sidewalks internally within the project. We’d have five foot sidewalks on our perimeter, Eagle Road and Victory. Those would be within the right-of-way. I believe one foot off of new right-of-way. And we would be installing left hand turn base, that was a requirement of Ada County Highway District on Eagle Road and on Victory. But internally we will have detached sidewalks that will be four feet from the back of curb. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 54 What that allows us to do is you have a landscaped area, and you create a boulevard affect. If you guys have ever been out to Bay Hill Springs, that project has it. Edgeview Estates, the Legend Subdivision, we’ve done it in all three of those. In staff’s comments, they indicated their preference would be to expand the right-of-way to incorporate the detached sidewalk. However, our preference is we leave our right-of- ways at 50 feet and we have the sidewalk on an easement. The overhand of the sidewalk is two feet on each side of the street. That’s based on a 36 section from back of curb. The old section is 37, but the highway district will be changing that as of July, so they have given us the option of doing a 36 section or a 37 foot section. So on the cross section you see on the corner, it shows a two and a half foot overlap, but that will be a two foot overlap. We’ve done it in the past. It works very well. Your setbacks are the same. The home owner is responsible for mowing that grassed area and planting the trees. You govern it through the covenants, and that dictates consistency and landscaping. Typically those trees in that four foot area are trees like flowering plums, flowering crab apples, those types of trees. They are a more decorative tree. They don’t get large so that you don’t have the roots in twenty years tearing up the sidewalks. And it creates a very nice tree canopy as you drive down the streets. I went to a class a couple of years ago on transportation and better transportation planning, and that was one of their recommendations to detach your sidewalks. It makes the pedestrian feel more comfortable walking down the sidewalk because the sidewalk is detached from the back of curb. They feel safer. Also when you get the trees to that point of maturity where you’ve got a tree canopy, it has the illusion of making the roadway that is the asphalt surface appear narrower than it is in reality. Therefore, people have a tendency, it’s been proven and tested, people have a tendency to go slower through the neighborhood. It’s a good concept. It really works, and we think it make a lot of sense. When you go through subdivisions that have detached sidewalks and then you turn and you drive in one that does not, it looks like a sea of asphalt and a sea of concrete, back to back. But just detaching four foot makes a world of difference. I think that’s all the comments that I’ll make concerning the annexation. I’ll go – I’d like to go through my answers to staff’s comments concerning the preliminary plat on the next item if you don’t mind. Johnson: Okay, thank you very much. I want to congratulate you. We’ve come a long ways. I remember three years ago every other words was basically. Do you remember that? Bowcutt: You lectured me on that. I don’t think I’ve said that tonight, did I? Johnson: Not once. That was great. I love it. Bowcutt: Your opinion matters. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 55 Johnson: I having a little of influence. Take off for me the amenities to the city because normally on a project this size that’s what we look for. So we’ve got the fire station. Bowcutt: The fire station parcel. Johnson: And we’ve got the well site. Bowcutt: The well site, the matching parcel to match up with those for a future school or park. I don’t know which way it’s going to go. And I don’t think anybody is quite sure. Johnson: And the ownership is different on those other parcels, right? Bowcutt: The G.L. Vogt parcel was deeded to the city of Meridian about a year and a half ago. The parcel within Los Alimitos, the school district has a five year option that they may exercise. If they not to exercise the parcel is deeded to the City of Meridian, and that’s on that final plat. So it’s between the city and the school district basically on what transpires. Jim Carberry told me – we asked him if he wanted a school site in this parcel. His comment to me is why should the school district pay for a site in this parcel or in the Sherbrooke parcel -- we also offered to him in this one – when I can get one free here. So if we need one in this section, we will build it here. Johnson: Well, that makes sense. I understand with the cost of land and everything. But that’s the total amenities, right? Bowcutt: Those are the amenities that we are proposing, yes, sir, and then obviously the landscaping for the aesthetics. Johnson: Okay, I don’t have any questions. Questions of Beck? Borup: I’m very interested in your park and school site. Could you clarify you said the Vogt land has been deeded to the City of Meridian? Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Borup: And then the City of Meridian would need to sell it to the school for it to become a school site? Bowcutt: I’m not sure how that would work. I don’t think anybody ever talked about the city selling it to the school district. I think— Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 56 Borup: How does it become a school site then? Bowcutt: The discussion was if the school district needed it for an elementary site, then the city would grant it to the school district. I never heard any discussion that the school would purchase it. Borup: Do you know how long ago that happened, the deed? Bowcutt: It was done when the high school site was sold to the school district which was I would say probably a year and a half to two years ago. Borup: I don’t think the parks commission is aware of that. That’s interesting. Your understanding ten or twelve acres is what they need for a school site, and that includes playground area etc. I assume. Bowcutt: In twelve to fourteen acres, yes. Borup: Right now the three parcels total up to 10.25. Bowcutt: These three? That’s probably correct. So they would need probably at least two acres at a minimum, maybe three out of this 80 here, and then you’d have the four pieces of the puzzle. Borup: How much of that would – if it was done as a dual site, how much of that would be school site and how much would be usable as a park site? Or is it too early to tell that? Bowcutt: To give you – Borup: I’m interested in the park. Bowcutt: Okay, to give you an example I did a joint use school and park site in Edgeview Estates on Cloverdale Road. It lies next to I-84 on the north side. We did a joint elementary school and Boise City park site. The school district had seven and I believe Boise City had seven. It was just I believe a little over 14 acres, and it’s utilized currently as joint use site. Borup: Okay, thank you. Well this is more of a curiosity question, you was talking about the bridge being built and a bridge trust set aside between the two subdivisions. That is set aside for who to build at a future point or ACHD? Is that what’s that set aside for or why the developers go ahead and just build the bridge? Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 57 Bowcutt: Typically when we trust fund the highway district, if it’s a two party trust fund when the second party comes in the second party builds it. Borup: So you are waiting for the development to reach that point? Bowcutt: Yes. Borup: Question on the detached walks, and I agree with what you were talking, the question I had with the right-of-way staying the same. Is there any increase in your – in the covenants talking about any increase in the setback on the house? What does that do to the driveway lengths? It looks to me like you are losing two feet out of the distance from the property to your garage. Assuming the garage is out front. Bowcutt: Technically you wouldn’t – Borup: -- 20 foot setbacks to the house from the property line? Bowcutt: Yes. Shari and I kind of had a discussion on that. I think Shari’s comment to me was you know, special setbacks, she can correct me if I’m wrong are difficult to administer if each subdivision has different setbacks. As far as your driveway length, if you can envision it, if the back of the curb, you would have where your driveway intersects, you would have 4 feet of concrete then you would have 5 feet of sidewalk and then your driveway would have to go 18 feet to get to the garage if the home was set 20 feet from edge of right-of-way. Borup: But theoretically could have 18 feet from the sidewalk to the garage then, is that what you are saying? Bowcutt: Correct. From the edge of the sidewalk, the driveway technically could be 18 feet if the home was exactly at 20 setback. Borup: So John couldn’t park his big Lincoln Continental there in the driveway very well. Bowcutt: Is it bigger than 18 feet? Prior: Is that what I drive? Bowcutt: You mean as far as would it hang out in the back of the sidewalk? Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 58 Borup: I maybe wrong, I’ve always assumed that one of the reasons for a 20 foot setback is you got a car comfortably in the driveway. I don’t know if this is going to be a concern here. Some big vehicles – Bowcutt: Are they 20 feet? Because of a lot of garages are – Borup: I don’t know anymore. There used to be. Bowcutt: A lot of garages are 20 by 20. Borup: Yeah, and there’s some cars that won’t fit. Bowcutt: Yeah, some you’ve got to pull right up against the wall. I think a full size, the old full size station wagons, I think you’ve got to pull them right up against the wall to get them to fit in a standard 20 foot deep garage. Borup: That’s all I have at this point. MacCoy: Becky, on the well site, was that picked by you people or do you work that out with the city? Bowcutt: I did talk with staff over the phone as far as what would be the best location. The comments I received one, they would like access to it. Good access, vehicular access. Two, they said that the closest city well is over at Locust Grove and so the location even though I believe it was on your comp plan as being here at the intersection, that the best location for our site would be up against Eagle Road which would separate those wells by one mile and they felt that if we could get it within that Eagle Road corridor, that would be acceptable. MacCoy: Are you talking to Gary Smith? Bowcutt: No, I talked to Bruce. MacCoy: On the fire house, and I remember it was down in the corner, and so you mentioned about sizing the land on that. Did that come out of Kenny Bower or did it come from just your past experience or what? Bowcutt: The size of it came from our past experience with Whitney Fire Department on a satellite fire station for them. I did not send a copy to Mr. Bowers for his review. I know Shari sent one and he did send a comment sheet back, but there was no discussion concerning is this acceptable in depth and length? Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 59 MacCoy: You’re not planning to design the fire house are you? Bowcutt: No, sir. MacCoy: I just wanted to find out. Bowcutt: I just want to make sure it’s big enough that somebody else can do that. MacCoy: That’s what I am worried about because I’ve got a responsibility on the fire houses that I came up with a plan, and I want to be sure we’ve got the right property and the right sizing. Bowcutt: Yes, if it required some additional depth, I do have some leeway within that block that it adjoins to pull those lots over. Those lots are deep. I think they are 120 I think at the narrowest point, and then as you can see these lots are very large so if one had to say shift that over in order to give it a little more width, it would be possible without any detriment to the plan. I would like to have some specific comments from the fire department on that site. MacCoy: I see that since we are at this point in the game now, you will receive some now because we are getting down to the point. One of the things of course in our case is money, but we’ve got some plans put together now for the four satellite houses. The one for Cherry has already been laid out so we have some real plans for these things now. Bowcutt: We could even blow that up to scale on at a larger scale if you know what scale your fire house plan is. Then we could blow that up on a transparency for you to overlay on to your site plan to make sure. MacCoy: Okay, we’ll get back to you with that. And remember that other property we had the last time we went through this whole process, one of the problems we had was the entrance to the land off of Victory, I think it was off of Victory, and we asked for a second egress off of the same property some place else. Do you recall that? Bowcutt: No, sir, I don’t. MacCoy: It was a hang up for a while. Johnson: I thought it was the property to the west of that where Sherbrooke is now where they asked for that other access. That’s the way I remember it. MacCoy: Okay. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 60 Johnson: We’re talking years ago. Bowcutt: As far as the approach, the highway district has – they will allow an approach here at the joint property line with the well lot. And then they will allow the fire department another approach within that area there, so there will be two approaches to that future fire station. MacCoy: Okay, I want to pass. Smith: Can you tell a little bit about the school site? How much did we pay for it? Bowcutt: How much did the city pay for which one? Smith: How much for the school district or the city – are you proposing a price for this – basically it’s a worthless piece of land. Bowcutt: No, sir. Smith: Well, I don’t see how you are going utilize that area with the way your tie is proposed right now to Three Bars Drive. Bowcutt: To answer your – Smith: -- little chunk of land there. Bowcutt: To answer your question, this right here, are we charging a price for that? No, sir. It is a gift. Smith: Great. Bowcutt: For the record, the property for the fire station, the property for the well lot, the property for the future school and park site is a gift to the city. Smith: Well great. That takes care of that right now. Johnson: If it’s free you don’t care how bad the land is. Smith: I’m really impressed with that because it’s seems to be a totally foreign concept around Idaho that developers come in and actually donate land for schools, parks, etc. and I’m impressed. I haven’t seen it since I’ve been on the commission, so let’s not dwell on that. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 61 Bowcutt: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Smith, one thing that facilitated that was the city coming up with a concept for each one of the developments around that middle section corner to provide a little bit. It’s really difficult for a developer just to hand over 14 acres to the school district free of charge or hand over ten acres to the city free of charge for a park. When each of us gives – when everybody gives 2.4 to 4.2 acres, it works great if they can afford it. Johnson: It’s all relative to the size of the development, and Byron’s right, we haven’t had any applications of this magnitude I don’t think since you’ve been on here. Smith: No. Johnson: But the amenity thing is what I was referring to earlier is gifted, and we should continue to insist on those or request those whenever possible. It doesn’t make sense when somebody is developing nine acres. Smith: All right. Then the concept along the design of the homes, I’m assuming that this is going to be your typical single family home development where when you drive down the street, you pretty much looking at garages. Bowcutt: As far as the style of the homes, I don’t bring with me elevations of the homes that are going to go in there, because I don’t know what those homes will look like. I understand what you are saying. The City of Boise has been echoing the same concerns. You drive through, you see a very large three-car garage and then sometimes you see maybe 25, 30 feet of house tucked back behind the garage. One of the things that the City of Boise is doing is reducing setbacks, front yard setbacks if one is to have a side entry garage to promote that. The other issue is promoting alleys so that you alley load the lots so the garages are in the rear. Those are two concepts. The latter is the least accepted in this valley. People here have not been really willing to do that. The developers, the builders, some of the cities have frowned on it. I’ve got a test case right now in the City of Kuna called Sutters Mill Subdivision. It’s off Ten Mile just south of the tracks, if you are ever out in that area. It has alley loading lots. Up to this point, it’s been very successful, but the developer had to go back east and get plans for his builders to build these because they don’t have anything like that and builders are reluctant to go out and have an architect draw all new plans and trash everything that they have developed over the past few years. Johnson: We had an application like that a couple of months ago. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 62 Bowcutt: So as far as what these houses look will look like, they’ll be probably consistent with what you see in Salmon Rapids and Los Alimitos. Some may be very stacked and look like all garage. Some homes are very attractive. It all depends. Smith: It seems like it would be difficult with some of the dimensions on some of these lots to get into a side loaded garage kind of situation anyway. Bowcutt: Yes. Smith: The way this is designed right now. I have personally been involved in some alley loaded home designs in the Boise area myself, and they’ll be getting geared up to sell those this summer, so we’ll see how that goes out at Hidden Springs. I guess that basically answers the questions that I had on that. Johnson: Okay, thanks. Anything Mark? Nelson: No, thank you. Johnson: Thanks Becky. Anyone else would like to come before the commission on this? I assume that’s why you people are here. Yes, sir. MARVIN HANSON 2460 E. VICTORY ROAD WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Hanson: I’m not sure on here where my boundaries are. Can I come over there? Johnson: Yeah, take that mike please. Hanson: My property is right along here. I have the pie shaped piece and I’m not sure where it ends up here. On the plat that we did like three years ago, it was all marked out. But I counted maybe ten homes that are going to be in my back yard. Last time we went through all this and we reduced those homes way down and they agreed to single level houses. And I would like to see that done again. I have planted over 50 trees here just in the last two months as a border. They are just small trees. It is going to take them several years. Like the neighbors, our land is down. It’s the canal, then the other land slopes way up. There is more than 15 feet. There is probably at least 30 feet before you get up on the flats up here that looks down over my house. I would really like to see those as single story houses. I know that when I built my house, I could be up on the roof putting the shingles on and I couldn’t see up on the flats up here. It’s that much higher. I can’t – like I say I live here. Bogus Basin is up here. I can’t even see the peaks of that over this raise in the land right there, so it is considerably high, so I would like to see single story houses, and I would like to see trees planted along here on the other side of the canal, the other side from me. I have Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 63 put my trees in. It’s just going to take them several years. Bushes, berms, fences, they are not going to do any good because of the slope of this property here. If they build houses here, by the time the yards come here to the canal, there’s probably going to be maybe 15 – 20 feet in elevation difference. So I would like to have some larger trees planted in there, and they have put one tree in there right behind my house. Why one I don’t know. They have planted several other up in there, but they would be further up in here. I don’t know what their reasoning is unless they are just transplanting them there now for a place to have them for later. I don’t know that. Thank you. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Hanson? Borup: I have a couple. Do you know how far your house is off Overland? Apparently your house is back tucked against the canal; is that correct? (End of Tape) Hanson: …a hundred and fifty feet off of Victory Road. Johnson: Thank you. Borup: And you’re back in up in there. Hanson: It’s a pie shape. Borup: -- on the west side of your property. Hanson: Actually my house is pretty much in the center of my property. Well, it would be off more to the west a little bit because I do have the triangle pie. Borup: How far away are you from the canal is what I’m wondering? Hanson: My house, I’m not sure. I do have a shop that sits back behind my house. And when I built the shop, I had to stay off of the right-of-way of the canal, and I believe I’m probably I think the canal right-of-way was 20 feet and I’m ten feet more than that. So I’m about 30 feet off the canal. Well, not the canal, there’s Nile Mile drainage down there, so I am off of that also. Borup: The drainage is south of the canal? Hanson: Yes, it is. Borup: So you’re from the drainage and then you’ve got some more and then the canal and then – do you know the – Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 64 Hanson: There’s my shop about 30 feet, nine mile drainage and then above that is the canal right next to it. Borup: Do you know what the canal easement is by chance? Hanson: I thought it was 20 feet, but this has been about four years, I built my shop, so I don’t remember for sure. Borup: 50 feet on this application and they’re usually to the middle of the canal I believe. So I am assuming that (inaudible) They’ve got a 50 foot right-of-way to the centerline of the canal. Hanson: Mine could have been 50 also. Borup: Well, I would put about a hundred feet – I’m trying to get a feel from how far away your house is from the subdivision. Hanson: I would say my house is probably to the center of the canal, is probably – are you talking about my house or my shop? Borup: Your house. Hanson: Okay, probably 75 to a hundred feet. Borup: Well, the easement is more than that. Hanson: No, you just said it was – Borup: You said there was another drainage between your house and the canal. Hanson: The drainage is right next to the canal. You’ve got the canal and the road for the canal, and it’s just right at the base of the road. Borup: You mentioned you had a concern for two story houses along that property, I’m not sure why. So you can see Bogus Basin. Hanson: No, I just don’t want a bunch of people looking down. Single story house, they are going to be bad enough especially if they put in all these that they are talking about. I moved out there to be away from all this, and I didn’t realize it was coming in so quick and that it would be so dense. Borup: Okay, that’s all I have. Thank you. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 65 Johnson: Anyone else? GORDON HARRIS 2825 S. EAGLE ROAD WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Harris: First of all I’d like to thank Becky Bowcutt for moving that fire station from my driveway down to the canal. That was really a major concern of my wife and I. Another thing our property sets right near here. And we have a street coming into the back of our property and we’re zoned for five acre lots, and so I don’t see the need for having a street coming into the back of our property there at this time. What I would like to ask for is the sewer connection come here at the end of the cul-de-sac and if I had to pay for the difference – they got I think on their plat, they’ve got a man hole sitting about right there. I would pay for the extension on to my property, because all of my property will drain west and north, so I guess that was my only concern. Johnson: Does that street have a name on it there? Harris: This is E. Sheep Creek and this is Molly’s Way. Johnson: Okay, any questions of Mr. Harris? Thank you. RUTH FRITTS 2384 E. VICTORY ROAD WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Fritts: We border the property on the back of the Ridenbaugh Canal. In this area right here. We did ask Sherbrooke Hollows Subdivision to limit this tracking of houses that borders our pasture to be single level houses, and they agreed to do that. Our house sits – Johnson: Excuse me, have they built any homes on there yet? Fritts: No, sir, they have not. They are still in phase one. This is phase three. Our house sits about 175 to 200 feet off of Victory Road. So it sits towards the back of the property. You would probably see about 200 feet into the 24 and 17. Right now basically if they were to build two story houses, they would cut off our view to Bogus which in turn cuts out T.V. reception, everything else. We are going to have to go to satellite dish in order to be able to get some kind of T.V. in this area. Johnson: Excuse me, does your property but up to Mr. Hanson’s or is there – Fritts: Yes, sir. We are neighbors. My other concerns was the right to farm. We do have cattle out in that pasture area. We have had problems due to the housing in the Los Alimitos area with pedestrian traffic and animals, uncontrolled animals on the Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 66 Ridenbaugh Canal. We have had dogs come through our pasture and attack our dog in our own back yard. The traffic on the Ridenbaugh has increased tremendously including up to midnight and 1:00 A.M. in the morning. You see cars up and down that Ridenbaugh because of the increased housing around the area. I feel with the increased housing that they are going to put in this area, that that traffic is going to increase even more especially with children. I’m concerned about park areas. As you notice the park areas are only basically at your street stubbing out on to the main streets. If I was a parent I wouldn’t want my children playing in a park area that borders one of the main streets out there, so my concern is where are they going to go play? The other concern is the increased traffic on Victory and Eagle Road. The stop sign are not going to be adequate for us to be able to get out and get to work. Basically you are talking 330 homes, possibly 1.5 to 2 cars per day going out of there trying to get access to the freeway. So basically they are going to come out either, have to come Victory, go back towards Meridian, access Meridian Road or they are going to be on Eagle Road. And if you will notice in the plat too, which Becky says that most of the lots are 80 foot frontages, if you’ll look in there, there’s a lot of frontages that are 40 feet to 70 feet. Those are really small frontage lots. And then you’ll notice too approximately 5 to 6 acres of easement of the Ridenbaugh Canal is included I think you’ll find in that 2.72 dwelling units per acre which will put your dwellings per acre a lot higher than that if you take into consideration for those easements. Most of those easements along that border our property are at least 50 foot. And the last thing I had is I had a question, there was a plan at one time to make acre and five acre lots in between subdivisions and farming. For some reason we have deviated out of this. I would kind of like to know where the planning is going for if this subdivision comes in, how far do I have to move out. I chose to live in the country, not in a subdivision is the reason why I’m living where I’m living. How far do I need to move out? Johnson: Any questions? MacCoy: I have one question. You say the traffic on the canal road, is that a dirt road? Fritts: That is a dirt road. MacCoy: It’s a service road, isn’t it? Fritts: It’s a service road and there are people up there. MacCoy: On foot or car? Fritts: Car, with a car. Our house sits where the bedrooms are facing Victory so our main portion of the house, the living room, kitchen, dining room, all sit to the back of the house. So we never close our blinds on that because basically we don’t back up to Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 67 anybody but the canal, and you see these people driving all night long. I have called and complained and basically unless they can catch them there is nothing they say that they can do. MacCoy: I think it’s interesting the fact that in some of the canal roads I’ve seen, they’ve got them gated so that only the canal people have a key to the lock. Fritts: So they are gated? I know down by the Hanson’s, there is a gate there, but they use the Hanson’s property to go up and around the gate. MacCoy: Where there’s a will, there’s a way, I guess. Okay, thank you. Johnson: Anyone else? GARY ALLEN 277 N. 6TH STREET WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Allen: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I’ve been retained recently by Mr. Jim Griffin who owns the property, the large undeveloped property just to the north of the Ridenbaugh Canal. He’s asked us to observe the proceedings tonight. I’m not here to either support or oppose this subdivision, but what we’d like to ask is for just a little more time to look at it. We would simply ask that the record be kept open for written testimony until Friday so that we could look at this a little further and offer some more comments. Johnson: Yeah, that probably won’t happen. But there are other opportunities for you because this would go on to the city council. It just depends on what the commission decides to do tonight. You would have an opportunity for additional testimony is my point. Allen: Okay, thank you Mr. Chairman. Johnson: Any questions to Mr. Allen. Would you point out to me where the properties are on the map, please? Allen: Yes, I will. This is the property right up here. This undeveloped property. Johnson: Okay, thank you. Borup: Question for Mr. Allen. Does this property go clear to – is this the property referred to as fronting on Overland also? Allen: I believe it does front on Overland. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 68 Borup: So you’ve got fronting on both Overland and Eagle. Allen: Yes. Borup: At this point, did you client have any plans, any tentative plans? Allen: Not that I know of. I have just been brought in this afternoon actually to look at this. I don’t think there are any short term development plans. Borup: And specific concerns? Allen: No, not at this point, but like I say, we would like a little more time to take a look at this. I hadn’t seen the plat before tonight, so we’ll take whatever opportunities we’re given to take another look at it. Smith: Mr. Allen, What’s your profession? Allen: I’m an attorney with the Givens, Pursley law firm. Smith: Thank you. Johnson: Anybody else would like to come forward and discuss this. BOB FRITTS 2384 E. VICTORY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Fritts: My question is, my wife didn’t bring it up is the safety part on the Victory access and that is at a down point on our road. There is a lot of traffic. There’s a lot of high speed traffic and it’s a very unsafe area as what the Eagle Road is. All the wrecks on Eagle Road happen right as you rise up over by the dairy and both places are very unstragic places for access. They are absolutely horrible. I just think that something needs to be done about that. And then the other thing of course is two story house problem. I talked to Becky, and I said I would like to have the developer come sit in my front room in my chair and look at my view. Because we are going to lose it and I think it’s real important to me. So the safety aspect and the proximity of where we want to live is real important. I think that’s a real safety problem. You guys better look at that safety problem. Just high speed traffic on that road, it’s not patrolled and it’s a problem especially motorcycles at night. They are just smoking through there. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I did notice the slope on Victory Road too when I visited the site and it was a concern of mine too, but I didn’t see anything in ACHD comments about it. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 69 I can a potential hazard there, but I’m surprised they didn’t address it. They are the ones that have jurisdiction over there. MacCoy: Well, in past work we’ve done with ACHD, they have noted that one in that area of Victory as well as the one on Eagle, that hump in it. It’s really a nasty place. Smith: Well, did I missed something on ACHD comments because I didn’t see anything. MacCoy: No, I didn’t see it either, but I just know the past history we’ve had them make comment and actually make a statement about the one on Eagle. Smith: I think they did talk about a deceleration lane and so forth. Johnson: Anyone else? NANCY HANSON 2460 E. VICTORY ROAD WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. N. Hanson: I have a letter that I’ve written for you and so I’ll bring you a copy and I’ll just read it to you. As we have stated in several prior letters and at several prior hearings as this and other nearby property has been developed, we believe that Meridian should stay with its long range plan which states it will have a buffer between dense population and rural property. We live on four acres, and most of our neighbors have acreages or farms. We do not believe that R-4 zoning adjoining acreages is in keeping with your long range plan. Going from 121 ½ acres of farmland, which I think currently has 2 houses on it to 121.5 acre subdivision with 330 houses on it is a major impact to the community. Core services in the Meridian area will be stressed by this subdivision and traffic as the engineer from Briggs Engineering pointed out to us, each house generates an average 10 car trips per day. Simple math tells you this means 3,300 cars driving in and out of the subdivision every day. This causes for wear and tear on the roads and highways in the area. A higher threat of accidents, and more frustration and stress of current residents. In schools, assuming a low average of two children per household, this means 660 additional children in our schools. Of course this is not the only new subdivision in the Meridian. Do you consider the number of potential students when approving the numerous new subdivisions? Is the school board given a vote and allowed to be part of the planning and zoning process, and although the developers give acreage to the school district, there remains the major problem of paying to build a school, to furnish it and then to continue to pay the personnel and operating expenses to run and maintain the school. The land is the cheapest part of the deal. In core services, finally 330 houses with an average of 4 residents per house will mean 1,320 people added to this community, more stress on police, fire stations, water, sewage, etc. Although this subdivision will be using city water, this additional water has to come from Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 70 somewhere, and can you guarantee this will not stress and drain current wells? In case you approve this subdivision, we think it will probably happen eventually, we specifically would like the following conditions imposed for the area bordering our property. First of all are larger lots as a better buffer between density and acreages. Second would the single level houses. Third is a visual screen of trees and fourth, would be the guarantee of compensation if our wells dry. We know that Meridian wishes to grow in order to keep a prospering economy. However, does it really have to grow at this rate? Do you want your long term goal, your very final outcome to be a town supporting an agricultural community, or a town surrounded by a sea of houses only a few feet apart? Thank you for considering our request. And I did have a couple of comments also. One of them is on the size of the lots on the chart. And I wanted to thank you for having the chart put up where we could see it during the meeting. It really helped. But anyway, they look much bigger than they are because of the easement not really showing on the canal. It goes to the centerline of the canal. And like we live on four acres, that’s what we consider it. But if we considered the easements of the drainage, the nine mile creek and the easement of the canal, we really have six acres. They call it two – 1.79 acres of waste acres. So you they are really not there. I think that’s all. Smith: Ma’am, where about do you live? N. Hanson: Same address. Borup: One question, Mrs. Hanson, you mentioned on the farm ground, do you know what crops are currently being harvested on this farm? N. Hanson: There has been corn that they’ve grown in years past. Sometimes it’s alfalfa. It rotates. They use different crops. They are using it as farmland. It’s just sitting fallow. It’s not just weeds. Johnson: I’ll just make one comment. You asked several questions which are rhetorical – N. Hanson: I know. Some of it’s emotional, but – Johnson: I have an answer to one of your questions. You made a comment does the school district get involved in the long range planning and the comprehensive plan, and they are a very active ingredient in that. The current comprehensive plan is outdated. It was done in 1993, that year on the wall up there, and it will be revised soon, but there’s a section in that comprehensive plan that is almost totally the work of the school district and it has to do with school naturally. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 71 N. Hanson: Well, I asked it because several times we’ve come to meetings and the administrator of the schools or the superintendents of the schools had commented he didn’t support the subdivision for different ones. And also there are times in the paper when the school districts are saying they won’t allow more students to enter the schools. The schools are too crowded and so you know I asked that because sometimes the subdivisions are approved when there’s no schools to have the kids. Johnson: Absolutely true, and that’s because there’s a working relationship between the city and the schools, but we don’t have any jurisdiction over the schools, and vice versa and Meridian School District is much more than the city of Meridian as you know. But we do work a lot closer with them than we used to, and we do have a letter from the school district on this application tonight, and it’s kind of a standard, but it does talk about just what you said stressing the system and adding additional, etc. etc. We’re trying to develop better relationships, and I think we are well on our way of doing that. In the past, they were almost at odds with another. I’ve been around long enough to remember those days. We’re working closely with the schools and doing the best we can. Short of a moratorium, there isn’t a whole lot you can do with growth. N. Hanson: Well, we were hoping that you would only allow larger lots at least so that is a little bit slower growth. We were hoping for one to five acres, and I know (inaudible) Johnson: -- I just looked at some of the square footage on those lots, and I know this isn’t going to sound good to you, but those are almost double some of the lots that we’ve worked with on a daily basis, because they are 15—14000 square feet. And you know our R-4 zoning is 8,000 square feet a lot. In other words what I am saying is they could be a lot smaller lots. I know that doesn’t make you feel good. N. Hanson: No, we were hoping for one to five acres like I said, but you know. Johnson: Anybody else? M. Hanson: I had contacted Nampa Meridian Irrigation District about the traffic on the canal, and they more or less just told me we don’t care, but like the neighbors said, it is a problem. You get these kids up there in Honda cars, the pickups, and they are doing 30 to 40 miles an hour on that canal bank. And one question I do have that maybe Becky can answer to me, when this is all done and you have the vehicle bridge, is there going to be a way for those vehicles to get on the canal right-of-way road off of that bridge? Okay, that’s what I was wanting to know. Johnson: And for the record, Becky shook her head no. Anybody else have a final comment? Final I’m hoping for. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 72 (Inaudible – off the microphone) Johnson: Yeah, what happen here is that’s our main function is we gather information. That’s all typed up. That’s why we have the tape, and then that goes into our Findings of Fact if we decide that’s what we are going to do tonight, and then all that testimony goes to the city council and those are the people with authority that actually have the ability and the authority to approve or disapprove subdivisions. Our main function here to get all the testimony we can so that we know every issue. And I had a question for you people since you brought it up. Did the Hansons attend this meeting at the Sandman? Were you invited? You called here okay. I just wondered if you had participated in that. Did you people who participate in it? (Inaudible – off the microphone) Prior: I am going to be stickler here, I think if some of these folks want to talk just to save Angel, our person who has to transcribe this, I would appreciate it if you folks come up to the mike and identify yourself. B. Fritts: I just had a question – Prior: Sir, would you just identify yourself for me too. B. Fritts: It was just the – the thing that you said there was the 14 or 15000 square foot that these were bigger lots along that area, well that isn’t the fact if you take the 50 feet by the 80, that’s 4,000 taken out. That’s not even close. So you take off 4,000 square feet, and you just have regular 10,000 square foot lot. It isn’t a monstrous lot at all. There’s six acres taken out just by that canal alone. Their density is over three. Johnson: Yeah, I think you are right. B. Fritts: Yeah, so there’s nothing big about those lots at all. Do they get to shoot ducks or something, is that why it’s out there in the middle of the canal or what’s the deal? Johnson: Okay, anyway, good point. Anybody else got any good points? At this point I will close the public hearing. You have some comments? I’m sorry. Bowcutt: One to answer Mr. Harris’ question. If that stub street, you know, I indicated it’s a permanent turn around so it is not necessary that that street continue to the south into his parcels, but the highway district, if you’ve got a five acre parcel adjoining you, they always assume that eventually it will redevelop. As far as sewer and water service, we are required by the city to take it to our perimeter, so that it may continue on Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 73 through any other parcels, so at no charge to Mr. Harris, sewer and water will be extended to the stub streets. Secondly as far as your comprehensive plan is concerned, the majority of this property I think is mixed residential on your map. So that could be apartments or townhouses or something along that line more in line with what the first plan was. What we have here is far more compatible and far superior to what was proposed originally. We do have the reality that we do have larger residential parcels in the areas. They are not farms, but they are more like hobby residential farm type parcels where they have cattle. They have horses. Maybe they do raise a little hay on a few acres, and so do have to be cognizant of that. And like the single family residential development I do feel that we can be compatible. That is 100 feet easement on that Ridenbaugh Canal, 50 feet on each side from the centerline. The access road for the Ridenbaugh Canal is on the west side of the canal, so the 50 feet on our side is just additional easement for canal maintenance purposes. In the past the irrigation district has been concerned about their access road primarily and has allow some encroachment on to the easement with a license agreement, and that’s what we intend to do here. We did it in Los Alimitos where they had a 40 foot easement total for I believe the Hunter Lateral. We did a 30 foot separate lot for the Hunter Lateral and then we did 5 foot easements on each side and allowed the fence to encroach five feet on each side. That is what we are proposing to do here. We had wanted originally to take it just to the centerline, but staff said they would like the integral part of the easement to be within a separate lot, and I’d like to reserve my further comments on that when I run these conditions. I’ve been out to this property, I’ve snapped pictures. I believe the Hanson’s house. This is a picture of the Hanson’s house here. They have a one level home. And a shop right to the side of their home. I have an arial photo that is to scale. And in measuring from the northeast corner of the Hanson’s house to the centerline of the Ridenbaugh Canal is approximately 200 to 210 feet. The Hansons as you can see by this map – this is the Hanson’s house here. This is the Hanson’s house right here, this is their shop or garage. I measured off the corner of the house to the canal as you can see the black line is the canal. It’s approximately 200 feet from the edge, would be the northeast quarter of his home to the canal. This property here is the Frittses, I believe. Aren’t you just on the west side of the Hanson’s? Okay, this is theirs. And do you have a barn or shop to your north and your house is toward Victory? Mr. Fritts has indicated that he is on the west boundary of the Hansons. And this is Mr. Fritts’ house right here, and that house is – he’s about 250 from his house, not from the shop and that is to the canal and then obviously our homes will be further beyond that because we will have our setback. No home can encroach within the easement. The irrigation district will allow fencing and landscaping, but they do not allow the dwellings. So I estimate that the closest house will be approximately 220 feet from our boundary, and we are willing to plant some type of conifer, evergreens, along this perimeter of this canal here where the Hansons, Fritts live. Mr. Goldsmith said I’ll be willing to do that, and we won’t put in something that’s this high, we’ll go with something that’s more mature so that they grow quickly and try to create some type of a buffer. We want to be Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 74 a good neighbor. We understand this area is changing. You have to understand this is near the Eagle interchange and this is a hustle bustle area that when sewer and water was brought out there a few years ago with the St. Luke’s project, and then what’s happening south of the interstate, this area has become prime for development. As you well know one and five acre lots are not practical when central services are available, and your own comprehensive plan discourages that, and basically categorizes that as urban sprawl that should not be allowed when services are not available and when services are available we need to follow this comprehensive plan. Lastly, I think Mrs. Hanson said something about the frontages. Just to clarify that for her, on 90 degree turns in cul-de-sacs we are allowed to reduce our frontages. They can go as small 40 feet. That’s why you see the deviation, so I just needed to explain myself. On the straight aways we must maintain an 80 foot frontage. They’ve been a great bunch of people to work with, and they’ve been very nice. I have not ran across neighbors this pleasant for a long time. Most of the people in Meridian are pretty pleasant. Boise, that’s another story. That’s it. Johnson: Anybody have one last comment? B. Fritts: I don’t care if I’m 250 or 300 feet. We want our privacy. We don’t want two story houses, and that’s it. I don’t care what it is. Someone has got to come to my house and see what I got. It’s just not right. So, that’s where I’m at. That’s what we’re asking for. That’s all we want. Johnson: Okay, are we finished? I will close the public hearing. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we direct the city attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this item. MacCoy: Second. Johnson: I have a motion and a second to have the city attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 17: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THOUSAND SPRINGS SUB. BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS AND MARTY GOLDSMITH – NORTH OF VICTORY AND WEST OF EAGLE ROAD. Johnson: I will now open the public hearing. You may incorporate all prior testimony if that’s your desire. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 75 BECKY BOWCUTT BRIGGS ENGINEERING WAS SWORN THE CITY ATTORNEY. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Yes, I’d like to incorporate my comments made in the previous on the annexation. I want to hit the points in staff’s comments which I think need explanation or discussion. One there was a question whether the developer intends to turn the system over, the pressurized irrigation system over to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. Yes, the developer does intend to design the system to Nampa Meridian standards and turn the system over to them. That is the intent if the district will accept the system. The property currently has water rights with New York Irrigation District, and we must transfer those rights to Nampa Meridian. I have done this before on two other projects, and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District facilitated transfer of the water rights. We have already sent a letter in reference to the District and we did receive a letter in reply. So, that is our intent as far as the pressurized irrigation. Staff indicates that we must have a second source, either a well or tapping into domestic water. We have not determined what our second sourcing will be. We will run the numbers and look at those alternatives. One of the things that hampers us is if we tie into domestic water as a second source, we must pay a hook up fee for every I believe 5,400 and some odd square feet. That’s the equivalent to one residential hook up fee. So for every 5,400 square feet of common area, I got to pay $704.00, which I would like to go on the record, that doesn’t make developers want to set aside common areas for their residents because they see that as a penalty. So we will be looking at alternatives such as a very shallow well or something like that or we may have to go domestic. I don’t want to make a commitment at this time. As far as the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District easement, staff has indicated they want that to be a separate lot. We’re not opposed to it being in a separate lot. But we would prefer with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District’s approval of course to put the necessary required easement area as a separate lot, and then put the easement on our lots that are on that perimeter, or the remainder, excuse me, the remainder of that easement. I don’t think this will cause a problem. We’ve done it other projects. This worked quite well. Why should the home owner pay taxes on that additional easement, land in the easement, when it can be utilized by the home owner. If it’s not absolutely necessary for proper maintenance of the irrigation facility, and that’s pretty much our opinion, and it has worked well in the past. Secondly the legal description for the annexation, there is a discrepancy between Sherbrooke’s and Thousand Springs, and I’d like to assure the staff that we have somebody working on that and it’s a glitch in the centerline of the canal. We had two records of surveys we were dealing with from two other engineering firms, and there was a little bust in where that centerline is located on the Ridenbaugh and we are fixing that. The vehicular bridge, we already discussed that. It will be constructed when we get over to that phase right there, that particular area. It will be platted when those lots that adjoin it are platted, and at that time it will be constructed. In staff’s report, staff indicated that we must bond, at least it implied that I bond, for the ped bridges with the city. I’d like to go on the record that we are already trust funding doing cash bonds with Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 76 the highway district, and that money hasn’t come back to us. I mean it’s like a trust fund. So there is a dual – there’s kind of the city saying give us a bond, the highway district says write us out a check. We need to figure who is going to hold the monies. The highway district thinks they are. And that’s what they put in their report. Also staff’s report indicated where that ped bridge, the second ped bridge on the north, would be located. I believe they said lot 40 and 41 or something, highway district’s current staff reports says between lot 33 and lot 34, block one. And each ped bridge will be trust funded for at the time we reach that particular area for platting. Secondly, I’ve already made my arguments on the five foot offset sidewalks. And why we believe that what we are proposing will work and will be beneficial to these home owners and be a benefit to the city. One issue I do want to bring up is the issue of calculation of frontage on corner lots. Your ordinance requires that the lot frontage be 80 feet, however, when we have an instance where we are on a corner lot, this one, prime example, here’s a corner lot. It’s 10,292 square feet, 115 deep, 88 feet wide. What transpired here about a year ago is the staff began saying that we could only calculate the frontage by minusing half of the radius. No where in the zoning ordinance does it say that is how you calculate frontage, and I questioned the staff on and they said well, how else would you do it. And I said no other jurisdiction calculates it that. And they said how do they do it. I said well, one, if the intent is the lot be a specific width, and the intent of frontage to maintain certain widths on the lot so you don’t have somebody come in with a 50 foot wide lot and it’s 150 feet deep, that’s the intent, and we are meeting that intent. So what these other cities do is they come in to the lot 20 feet. That’s the setback. Then they measure the lot. That’s the width of the lot. But that’s how the city of Meridian does it. So this particular lot which is 88 feet. The city will say okay, you have to put an arrow saying it can’t face the long side. It must face the short side, so if I face the house here on Zim Way versus Kirkham Street, then these people end up with an extremely shallow rear yard. And they end up with this large side yard, which is not typically a functional yard. I’ve discussed it until I’m blue in the face, and I am still puzzled why nobody has resolved this issue, and it doesn’t make a lot of sense to us. We’ve had an instance where a home buyer refused to buy lot. They said, no, I’m not going to face my house that way. I want to face it on the long side so I have a good backyard. But this lot, I’ve either got to make it wider or tell these people you’ve got to face your house this way, and I just don’t feel that the code and ordinance states that so I question justification. It puzzles me. If the city wants to do it that way, then I recommend they adopt an ordinance that says that is how it’s calculated. If that’s inappropriate then they need to come up with another system, but using discretion (End of Tape) Bowcutt: …as they see fit is difficult for us to work with. These gray areas need to be clarified. Staff also wants an extension of E. Three Bars Drive into the project; no problem with that to facilitate the water connection. Staff asked about additional easement line that we had running through here. That was just a computer glitch. It Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 77 duplicated the easement line, and it kind of ran through those lots diagonally in a strange fashion; oversight on my part. Any questions? Johnson: Anybody have any questions? Borup: I don’t know if I have a question, I would just like to speak in support of Becky’s comments on the corner lots. I see no logic to it either. I understand keeping lot sizes, and I think the interpretation in the past has definitely done that. It looks to me like the city’s getting a dictating private enterprise in how a person sites a house on the site. I do have a question for staff if they had any comments on the – and I like the specs of the offset sidewalk and especially with the landscaping. I think it definitely does make a nice street scape. I wonder if staff had any concerns on driveway lengths or possible driveway lengths. Freckleton: Commissioner Borup, I made the comment about the right-of-way width. They proposed a 50 foot wide right-of-way with the encroachment of the sidewalk into the private lots. It’s always been our opinion that public street improvement should be contained within the public street, and in Mr. Goldsmith’s previous subdivisions he had wider right-of-ways with the public street improvements contained within the right-of- way. And the square footages that are shown on the lots, those of course, are including two feet of sidewalk. So we don’t feel that – Borup: But it’s not counting the four feet of sod out front between the sidewalk and the street though. Freckleton: True. Borup: So, did you answer my question? Apparently driveway lengths was not a concern, I mean if the driveways out there, people just walk around the car and I guess there’s not going to be that many. I do have a question for Becky again then. Did you finish, Bruce? Freckleton: Yes. Borup: If the right-of-way was increased, I mean it would be a matter of moving the property pins over two feet each way. It’s not going to change the road paved area. It’s not going to change the locations of the sidewalks. Is there any additional expense to the developer by doing that? Bowcutt: Well, what staff indicated was increase your right-of-way widths from 50 to 57. So that would be 3 ½ additional feet of right-of-way on each side for a total of 7 additional feet. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 78 Borup: Which would put the property pin essentially a foot and a half from the sidewalk. Did I calculated that right? Which is what it normally is now. Bowcutt: What I dislike about it is that just decreases the depth of the lot. I like to give people as large a lot as you can as far as your depth. Too many lots in this valley are 100 feet deep and people just don’t have a good back yard for their kids to play in and stuff, and I try to give them a bigger back yard. When you are talking an easement versus a right-of-way. I guess what is the cost of the public of that two foot overlap. Nothing. It’s under jurisdiction of the highway district. They have agreed to it in their staff report. They find it acceptable. They gave us the option, go either way. We have received compliments on the subdivisions we’ve done with this easement concept, this two overlap from the highway district that it looks nice. Borup: You have done the same thing in other subdivisions? Bowcutt: Yes. The Legend Subdivision, Edgeview Estates. Borup: And they all have 20 foot setbacks? Bowcutt: And Bayhill Springs. Yes, 20 foot front setback, 4 foot offset sidewalk, but those sidewalks are Boise sidewalks so they are 4 feet not 5. But we have overlap. Borup: So we need a 52 foot right-of-way to equal what you did there. Bowcutt: 54 yeah. (Inaudible) Borup: If we’re talking 4 foot compared to 5 foot sidewalk. But wait a minute you are proposing 4 foot. Bowcutt: These are five foot sidewalks. Borup: Four foot was the landscaping. Bowcutt: Yes, the city sidewalks are five feet. Borup: So a 52 foot easement would accomplish the same that you are doing in Boise. Because we’ve got an extra foot of sidewalk on each side of the street. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 79 Bowcutt: The point is when you require the developer to increase his right-of-way width and it affects the depth of the lots, he is more reluctant to just say oh forget, we’ll just put the sidewalk up at the back of the curb because he loses depth. You know it all adds up. Borup: I agree with that. I know problem of people like the big lots. Bowcutt: As you start going through it starts escalating. Borup: I still got some concern if people park in their driveway and they are sticking out on the sidewalk, and you see that in the older section of Boise. I’m talking the real old. Bowcutt: Where they sat like 15 feet or something, the home sat back. Borup: And you can’t get a car in the driveway without encroaching on the sidewalk. And again you are talking about the public wanting the larger lots, and I think they do, but I don’t think they are going to want to be crammed on the front either. Johnson: Enough philosophy. Anything else? We’ll never get out of here. Can I close the public hearing now? B. Fritts: I just want to make sure that everything we talked about on 16 will be related to 17. Is that correct? Johnson: We will do that, yes. We’ll include all the testimony. NORMA DALE 2785 E. OVERLAND ROAD WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Dale: I just have one question regarding the pedestrian bridge if you want to put that back up. Right here. My property is right here, the farm and this is (inaudible) farm. This pedestrian bridge would go across the Ridenbaugh Canal. Did I understand that correctly? Was there a pedestrian bridge that went across the Ridenbaugh Canal there? Bowcutt: When the Griffin property is developed at that time that pedestrian bridge would be constructed. At this time we have to provide a pathway to the canal that would just stop and then we have to give the highway district half of the cost of the pedestrian bridge for future construction. Dale: All right. That’s answers my question. I thought it might be a nuisance to the farming if that was a pedestrian bridge. Thank you. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 80 Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? Any other comments? I will close the public hearing at this time. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we table this item until our June 9th meeting. Nelson: Second. Johnson: Motion to table item number 17 until our next scheduled meeting. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Borup: I think we deferred an item last month meeting. I would be in favor of deferring it again. It’s not on the agenda, but I believe the meetings from last month reflected that. Johnson: Yeah, it was Shari’s proposal for – Borup: We had a couple of ordinances that still needed to (inaudible) Johnson: Make a motion please. Borup: I’d move that we defer the proposed amendments to the zoning and subdivision that remain be deferred again to June 9th or a special session. MacCoy: I second that. Johnson: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Borup: Were you wanting to finish that tonight Shari? Stiles: No, we said on three of the items. We do need to get that – I mean one thing we really need to do is change the application deadline because we’re having a real hard time getting comments back from ACHD with the time frame that we have right now, and Ada County has requested that – Johnson: We’re just not getting them. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 81 Stiles: Well, we are not getting them in time and Ada County has requested that we submit our applications a minimum of thirty days prior to the hearing, and we don’t even get the applications 30 days prior to the hearing. Borup: Why did we not pass on that last time? Because everybody wanted a month to think about it, wasn’t it? I would move we pass item four and approve as Shari has outlined. Johnson: We already voted on the table, but we can probably reverse that – Stiles: It’s not that big a deal if you want to wait another month. If you want to wait another month, that’s fine. Borup: My question is what are we going to accomplish by waiting another month on that item? The other item I definitely agree we need some time on that. Stiles: We’re probably not going schedule another public hearing just for that one item because we have to also have another public hearing at city council and it’s already been scheduled for the three items, so I guess we don’t want to do a separate public hearing just for one item. Borup: For item four, you mean? Berg: Yes, my understanding we passed on 1, 2, and 5. Stiles: 1, 2 and 5. Berg: And we have 3 and 4 to deal with – the P & Z wanted to look at that, and I couldn’t tell you what they were, but that’s the motion. Stiles: The other one was the really offensive uses that are listed as permitted in the industrial zone that we wanted to at least make conditional, but we haven’t had any proposal for salvage yards yet. Junk yards, recycling plants. Berg: That may take some thought too to analyze those if you haven’t before. Johnson: Does anybody want to make a motion to adjourn? Nelson: I would like to make a motion we adjourn. Smith: Second. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 82 Johnson: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:32 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ________________________________ JIM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: _______________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK