Loading...
1999 11-09MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING-NOVEMBER 9, 1999 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup. MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Thomas Barbeiro, Richard Hatcher OTHERS PRESENT: Shari Stiles, Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, Eric Rossman, Will Berg. Borup: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. It is time to call the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. I am Keith Borup, Chairman. We do have in attendance Thomas Barbeiro and Richard Hatcher. First Item A on the Consent Agenda, which is the minutes from the last meeting. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the minutes as submitted. Hatcher: I second it. Borup: Motion and second to approve the minutes. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: A couple of informational items for the Agenda. Item 11 and 12, which is the Touchmark Living Centers. If anyone is here for that, the applicant has asked to have that item deferred. It will be deferred to our next months meeting. It is a noticed public meeting and we will address that when it comes, but there will be no presentation from the applicant. It will be at next months meeting. I think I am just going to procede ahead with the outline. I don’t know if it is going to make any difference on those others. 1. ITEM 1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR PRE SCHOOL PLAY GROUP 3 HOURS PER MORNING-5 CHILDREN BY SANDRA LOVETT—1835 S. SWAN AVENUE: Borup: We do have the Findings here before us. We need a motion. Barbeiro: I move that we approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Accessory Use Permit for pre school play group 3 hours per morning-5 children by Sandra Lovett at 1835 S. Swan Avenue. Hatcher: I second it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 2 Borup: Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Barbeiro. Barbeiro: Aye Borup: Commissioner De Weerd is absent. Commissioner Hatcher. Hatcher: Aye Borup: Commissioner Brown is absent. Do we have the motion on the decision. Just to read it. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the decision the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that upon review of the applicable standards and guidelines set forth in the City Zoning Ordnance, established record and applicable law that the applicant has met Accessory Use Standards giving the forth going the subject application for family day care, home accessory use as set forth herein shall be granted and the use allowed, subject to the conditions imposed herein. The Accessory Use shall be subject to review by the City upon notice to the applicant. Barbeiro: I second the motion. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 2. ITEM 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 3 BUILDING RETAIL COMPLEX OF APPROXIMATELY 50,000 SF ON VACANT 5.5 ACRE SITE IN A C-G ZONE BY NORCO—NORTH OF FAIRVIEW BETWEEN EAGLE ROAD AND LOCUST GROVE ROAD: Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's I had a question on the Findings on page 13 under Item 1.16. The staff comments said that the applicant indicates a single pylon sign 25 x 15 and a single monument sign for the center and only those signs are approved along the Fairview Avenue frontages as a condition of approval. Those were the signs that were submitted as part of the application that you have in your packets, but later on page 16 under Item 1.42, it says that the applicant shall construct a sign not to exceed 72 square feet, which is basically what we’ve been requiring along the frontage. I was wondering which of those statements is what you intended. Borup: Thank you. Good point. Commissioner's I think we need to clarify. Hatcher: My recollection was Item 42 was the requirement. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 3 Borup: Yes, and that is consistent with past signage approval. (Inaudible discussion) Borup: Mr. Rossman, do you have a full set. Do you have page 17. Rossman: Let me look real quick. I have in my file a office copy dated November 2, 1999 and it does have on the last page a approval of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Roll Call, which is what you need. I will pass this down to you and you can work off of that. Borup: We have all the other information. (Inaudible discussion) Borup: Clarification, Shari was it your understand a single sign or two signs. A monument sign plus a smaller sign. Stiles: They proposed a 25 x 15, which apparently the Commission did not want to approve. Borup: Right, plus they had a secondary sign. Stiles: Even that is probably not be adequate for as many tenants as they may have in that development. Hatcher: If I’m not mistaken, there was no conditions put on the monument sign that we went ahead—we are going to approve that as submitted, but the clarification was that the 25 x 15 sign needed to be modified so that it would not be greater than 72 square feet. Borup: So your saying that we approved a pylon sign? Hatcher: No we approved the monument sign and the pylon sign can not exceed 72 square feet. Borup: That’s what I say. We approved a 72 square foot pylon sign. Is that your recollection? Mine either. Why don’t we refer this to the end of the meeting. We are going move Item 2 to the end of the agenda. We can discuss this and not take up other peoples time. We can go back and check the minutes before then and get that clarified. 3. ITEM 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL FIBER ARTS SUPPLY STORE BY JENNIFER OAK—55 E. STATE AVENUE, OLD TOWN: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 4 (Inaudible audience discussion) Borup: We going to defer this? Let’s go to Item 6. 6. ITEM 6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MULTI-FAMILY AND TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL AND LIMITED OFFICE FOR VALERI HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION BY GOLD RIVER COMPANIES, INC.—NE CORNER OF PINE STREET AND TEN MILE ROAD: Borup: This particular property was on our agenda previously. The annexation was denied by City Council. This is essentially is cleaning this up. This public hearing is open. Do we have any one here to testify? Seeing none. Commissioner's. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I move we close the public hearing. Barbeiro: I second the motion. Borup: Do we have a motion on this item? Hatcher: Yes Mr. Chairman, I move to motion that we recommend denial on the preliminary plat and the conditional use permit, both items 6 and 7 to City Council. Barbeiro: I second the motion. Borup: Okay I think we still need to go ahead and handle Item 7 as a separate item, but okay. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 7. ITEM 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 158 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AND 6 TOWNHOUSES WITH 18,000 SQUARE FEET LIMITED OFFICE SPACE BY GOLD RIVER COMPANIES, INC.—NE CORNER OF PINE STREET AND TEN MILE ROAD: Hatcher: I move that we make motion to City Council that---I move that we close the public hearing. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend denial on the conditional use permit, Item number 7 for Gold River Companies, Inc. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 5 Barbeiro: Second the motion. Borup: We have a motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Shari do you have any clarification for us on Item 3? Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's if you may recall at the meeting at the Planning and Zoning hearing on this Item, she did present a sign. I don’t know if you can see from there. I believe it was recommended for approval. Borup: Oh, Item number 1.3, yes. Stiles: On page 7. Borup: That was the question. Commissioner's do you remember that. There was a (inaudible) sign that was discussed and I believe approved. As requested normally by staff, they like to have to signs approved at the time the application is approved and was done it this case. Rossman: Just do it that way. That is perfectly fine. Did we assign an exhibit number to that document or anything—that sign that she proposed? Borup: That is just part of the packet, I believe. Is that correct? Just part of the regular packet. Stiles: I believe she presented it at the meeting. Borup: So it was – Rossman: Just delete no and none. They will clarify it at City Council if that is in fact the sign that they are proposing wanted approved. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the decision and recommendation granting conditional use permit with subject conditions, now therefore based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Planning and Zoning Commission does hereby recommend that the applicant is granted a conditional use permit for operation of a retain fiber arts store subject to the terms and conditions as outlined in the findings of fact with the exception of line items 1.3, that shall be deleted. Hatcher: I second that. Borup: All in favor? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 6 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: You deleted no and none or you deleted the whole line? Barbeiro: I deleted the entire line. Rossman: Amend that motion. Barbeiro: I wish to amend the motion to delete the words no and none in line item 1.387 of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Hatcher: I second the amendment. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Rossman: Need a roll call. Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro Barbeiro: Aye. Borup: Commissioner Hatcher. Hatcher: Aye. Borup: Commissioner's De Weerd and Brown absent. Commissioner Borup, Aye. Thank you. ITEM 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES FROM C-2 AND R-8 TO C-G (WALGREEN’S) BY HAWKINS SMITH MANAGEMENT, INC.—NW CORNER OF FAIRVIEW AND LOCUST GROVE ROAD: Borup: This is a continued public hearing although there was no testimony last time. Staff, do we have a presentation? Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's this is for the property on the southwest corner of or the northwest corner of Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove. There currently exists a building here. There are several tenants in that building. There is also an office building here. I believe, I am not sure if these are two single homes at this time constructed. They are all part of this Carol or Doris Subdivision. Do you want me to address both applications at this time or do you want to take them one at a time? Borup: They would be your pleasure. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 7 Stiles: Do you all have a copy of our comments that were dated October 17, 1999? October 7th . sorry. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner' we have made several recommendations that would require significant changes be made to this site plan. I received, I don’t if it came in today or when it came in—I am assuming that it’s an elevation of the building in this corner here. I am not positive. It appears—do you have this—does this look familiar to any of you? Did the transmittal come with this or just in you box like that. I really don’t know what the significance of this is but I am just assuming that it would be this building. I can’t tell what the use of the building is. They still have not proposed any signage. It all most appears from the west elevation that that window could be someday used as a drive through window and that is not part of that application and is not approved as part of this application. The Ada County Highway District recommendations are for Carol Street or that a drive be put through to Carol Street. They have approved an access here. It will be right in and right out only. This does not meet district policy and it is not a very desirable location for an additional driveway approach. It looks like staff considers that is going to cause significant problems stacking. There will be people going southbound trying to get into the Walgreen’s and could back up preventing people from leaving the Doris Subdivision. This access the Carol Street access lines up with an existing access over on the Fred Meyer site and that was the reason the driveway was put where it was in Fred Meyer’s site, so. But Ada County did make this recommendation here. They also had some other concerns regarding the site as our landscape setbacks we requested are not being met. Ada County Highway District has also in their recommendations they are not requesting any improvements to the roadway at this time. They are not asking for curb, gutter and sidewalk. They said this segment is in there 5 year work program for reconstruction in fiscal year 2001. They would ask them to deposit money into the trust fund and they would construct those at a later date. We are asking that a development agreement be entered into addressing all of our items for the annexation. There is also the issue of these four lots here. There are easements –public utility easements within those lots the interior lot lines, and those would need to be vacated prior to issuance of any building permits. Staff would recommend that this site plan be revised to meet staff and agency conditions prior to sending it on to City Council as it will require significant changes to this plan. Borup: Any questions? Mr. Rossman. Rossman: Mr. Chairman to expedite matters would it be more efficient to open the public hearing, consolidate the public hearing on 4 and 5 both? We won’t have to have a public hearing and then reopen it again on the next item. Borup: Your saying we can have 2 public hearings running simultaneously? Rossman: You can consolidate and have one public hearing. Consolidate the two items. That’s what they do quite often at City Council. Borup: No one has ever told us that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 8 Rossman: You are welcome to do that here or you can do it the way—piecemeal if you want. Borup: I like that idea. Let’s open the public hearing for Item 5. ITEM 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH A DRIVE THRU WINDOW (WALGREEN’S) BY HAWKINS SMITH MANAGEMENT, INC. – NW CORNER OF FAIRVIEW AND LOCUST GROVE ROAD: Boyle: Clint Boyle. The address is 8645 Franklin Road in Boise. Good evening planning commission, Chairman and Commissioner's. This evening I come to you in behalf of Hawkins Smith, commercial developers in Boise, Idaho as well as Walgreen’s. Just a brief history, Hawkins Smith has been developing commercial projects around the Boise area for roughly 20 years now. They typically own the sites they develop and some of those site you can see around town. They have developed some WinCo stores. They are in the process of developing some Walgreen sites around the city and they are committed to the community. They are committed to maintaining those projects because they are owning those with tenants to lease the site. Since this project has been continued from the last meeting we specifically requested that, because we felt in the staff reports that were provided to us from not only from ACHD but also from Meridian City Staff, that we wanted to meet with them a little further to try and work on some of the issues that were presented in those reports. I think that through that process we have been working with ACHD and their staff as well as Meridian City. Unfortunately, most of the staff time that we have devoted to Meridian City has been with Brad Hawkins Clark who is not at the meeting this evening. To start with I just want to say that we believe that what we have proposed this evening is a win win situation for both the community, the neighbor’s as well as Hawkins Smith and Walgreen’s. I am basically, since we have both public hearing’s open, I am going to try and combine my comments rather then separate them into the annexation and zoning and conditional use permit. To begin with, I’d like to talk about some comments related to the annexation and zoning. This is getting into the technical meat of the staff report. First of all what I’d just like to mention is within the staff report, it was mentioned that there are two commercial lots and those commercial lots would be the southern two lots, which the lot lines aren’t outlined on there and if you will allow me, I have a laser pointer and I am not sure if these are allowed, but if anybody is in line with it will close their eyes. Those lot lines, there is basically a lot in the southeast corner and one in the southwest corner. This lot contains an existing chiropractor business. There is also another commercial building that sits behind it that will be removed as part of this. It currently contains a bookstore. That was not mentioned in the staff report, so we just wanted to call that to your attention. Actually, currently three detached commercial buildings. The one on the corner is a two story multi-tenant building, as far as the existing buildings go. As far as the conditional use permit comments, I just wanted to possible clarify a couple of items on that. The elevation you received in your box—we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 9 submitted that last week to Brad with the City of Meridian and basically, what we wanted to do is as part of this application, we wanted to make sure that the area indicated as a future pad site was included as part of this application. Previous to that, they had stated that that particular pad site, as it is labeled here, would have to come back through the process again. We had in mind that we wanted to do a retail multi-tenant building there and so to get that incorporated as far as this application, that was one of the changes that were incorporated into our proposal since it was continued from the last meeting. Therefore, you do have elevation. That elevation pertains to the area labeled as the future pad and our concept right now is that it would be a multi-tenant retail building and a combination of retail users. We’ve also (inaudible) and it is not know at this time whether or not that option will be exercised for the potential for a drive thru window that would be located on this back side to accommodate something similar like a Moxie Java type of a site. That is the proposal that you have there as far as the elevation plan and that is what we had proposed on the pad site. As far as the specific comments in the staff report, in going through the site specific comments, Items 1 through 3, we agree with those. Items 1related to restricting some of the more intensive uses and we don’t have a problem with limiting or restricting our commercial development so that it does not contain any of those uses that are listed under Item 1 in the site specific comments. The next item is that we will dedicate all right of way along Locust Grove and Fairview as well as Carol Street that’s required by ACHD and again we will comply with the requirements from ACHD as far as right of way dedications and some of which you do have shown on this plan along Locust Grove. We are dedicating another 10 feet of additional right of way to ACHD. Along Fairview Avenue, since the public hearing was continued, we met with ACHD and they will not be requiring any additional right of way dedication along Fairview Avenue and part of the reasoning for that is across the street in the Fred Meyer complex, which you don’t see on this plan, but their sidewalk is developed out the full width of what the future roadway will be along Fairview when it is improved. That is the ultimate build out along Fairview and our sidewalk on this proposal lines up directly with that. Basically, their thoughts were the additional was roughly 10 feet of right of way that they originally requesting along Fairview Avenue. That additional 10 feet of right of way basically all they would be able to accomplish from (inaudible) that would be to relocate the sidewalk because as their designs show the design on Fairview Avenue would include a two foot utility strip, a sidewalk, a 5 foot planter buffer and then you would be out into the asphalt. So basically they are allowing us to leave that right of way where it is existing so the line that you see on the plan is the right of way line that ACHD will be requiring from us. Just to reiterate, we will comply with the right of way dedications that ACHD requires as pertaining to the staff comments in Item 2. In Item 3 again there was some mention regarding some utility easements. We are aware of those utility easements. They travel through the middle of the site and there is also some crossing east/west and we will comply with that requirement and have those vacated prior to pulling any building permits on that. We will comply with the provisions to vacate those easements. Related to the conditional use permit itself, Items 1 through 3 and I apologize. Those first comments I was addressing were related to the annexation request—site specific items. The next items which are items through 3 in the site specific comments on the staff report, we will conform to all of the requirements that relate to assessment of fees, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 10 water and sewer connections, utilization of pressurized irrigation for landscaped areas. We will comply with items 1 through 3 in the staff report. Items number 4,5,6, and 7 on the staff report relate to ACHD requirements and again we are willing to comply with any the requirements and restrictions that ACHD will require of us as part of this. We have been meeting with ACHD and this was since the public hearing was continued. At this time I would like to enter a revised site plan into the record and I have copies for the Commissioner's if that would be appropriate at this time. I apologize is some of the neighbors or other members of the public can not see this. I actually have an overhead that I prepared. I don’t know if it is possible to get it up there or if we should just circulate a site plan, but I do have that available. Mainly what I’d like the Commissioner's to look at is this proposal and the revisions that are shown on it relate to the access points specifically. Basically everything else is the same as what you see on the screen, other then the access points. What I would like to point out first of all is (inaudible) ACHD and with their requirements through their staff, they would like to see the access point indicated by the laser pointer, is the northern most access point that we have proposal on Locust Grove. They would like to see that shifted toward the center of the project and it would be restricted to a right in right out only. There is (inaudible) a median barrier down Locust Grove as part of their build out in 2001 so that would further restrict that to right in right out. First of all, our proposal would be to move this access toward the middle of the site as indicated on that site plan. That would be restricted to right in right out. Furthermore, in complying with ACHD’s requirement on the site, we are proposing as part of this proposal to take access from Carol Street as another access into the site. That access would be roughly where the laser pointer is t and where it is indicated on that site plat. Now we had an ACHD commission meeting a couple of weeks ago, since that time we haven’t had a chance to meet with the neighborhood regarding the desire on Carol Street. We have spoke with ACHD and (inaudible) in favor of the design we have proposed, and it is the design with accordance with what their commission recommended at we look at as far as access into the site. At this point, the commission has (audible) with ACHD as well until December 1st and that is because they wanted to see the access onto Carol Street, which at that time we did not have shown on the site plan. As part of this access onto Carol Street, and understanding we do have a residential neighborhood—the Doris subdivision here, we are proposing to minimize the conflicts with traffic as much as possible. What we have proposed on the site plan is what ACHD refers to as a choker, which means we would extend this landscaping out in kind of a bulb shape where our access point is located. What that does, and in addition we would wider an additional lane along our project frontage on Carol Street. What that accomplishes is, it provides a wide street as you are coming in our project, then as you pass our project point, that street narrows down to a 24 foot wide pavement section which is what ACHD recommended and that is the minimum width that they will allow, utilizing those chokers. From that point on, it widens back out to the existing street section that is on Carol Street today. In addition to that we will erect or place some signage out in that landscaped bulb that reflects that it is the Doris Subdivision that you will be entering once you pass that point. Basically what we are trying to do is minimize any commercial traffic that may travel through the Doris Subdivision. By widening and installing an additional lane on Carol Street, what we do is accommodate a right turn Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 11 only lane and then a thru lane and a left combined lane as well as the lane coming into the Doris Subdivision. So, basically what we are doing is as far as (inaudible) along Carol Street, it will have double the capacity that it has now because we will be installing a right turn lane which is currently doesn’t have. What that will do, that will actually provide a free right out for the residents on Carol Street, at least until the point in the future that ACHD widens the section that is north of our project. As part of our proposal that was mentioned that Locust Grove would not be improved as part of ACHD’s requirements. We have met with ACHD. We want to make this an attractive looking for the City of Meridian and we are trying to coordinate with ACHD. They are working on their final design for Locust Grove. We would like to improve Locust Grove curb gutter sidewalk asphalt, that is (inaudible) I guess the only hang up we might have with that is we don’t want it to slow the project down if ACHD doesn’t have final design for that. Assuming that ACHD has a final design on this road by the time we are pulling building permits on this, we would actually like to improve this to their future build out at the time that we construct the project. We are willing to construct those improvements along Locust Grove as part of our project, assuming that we can get a final design on Locust Grove from ACHD so in 2 years they don’t come back and tear up all the improvements we just made. Moving on to Item number 8 in the staff report, relating to the landscape stripes, along Fairview Avenue right now we have 24 feet of landscaping proposed so from the right of way line into the parking is 24 feet of landscaping and again since we have worked out the right of way line with ACHD, that will truly be 24 feet of landscaping on our property that we will maintain. We feel that this was similar and compatible to some of the surrounding uses that have developed. There is a Hollywood video that sits across the street to the southeast and their buffer there is roughly 22 to 24 feet along Fairview Avenue. We do feel that it is compatible with some of the surrounding tenants that are of a similar size to what we are proposing. Additionally, moving on to Item 9 as far as the landscaping on Locust Grove, we are proposing a 15 foot landscape planter from the right of way line back to where the parking starts. Now this actually is similar to the Fred Meyer site across the street. Fred Meyer from the right of way line back to their parking, has roughly a 12 to 13 foot landscape planter. They do have roughly 5 to 6 feet that is actually out in the right of way so it gives you the effect of a larger buffer that is actually on their site and what we would propose is, in our discussions with ACHD, Locust Grove, the design that they will have that will include a 5 foot planter. Effectively what you will have is the asphalt out in the street, the curb gutter and then a 5 foot planter with street trees, then a 5 foot sidewalk, then a 2 foot utility strip or landscape strip and then you are on to our site. Effectively, with the ACHD’s proposed street section on Locust Grove, effectively we will have 22 feet of landscaping from the street until you get to our parking. That is combining our 15 with the 2 foot utility strip and the 5 foot planter, but effectively you will have a 22 foot landscape strip in addition to the sidewalk. So essentially from the street, you will have 27 feet from the gutter of the street until you hit our parking—the majority of which will be landscape outside of the sidewalk. Again, we feel that this is compatible and again, I guess that we would like to say yes, we will comply with what Fred Meyer has done across the street. We actually have a couple more feet of landscaping on our property. And again, the buffer that they have—part of that is in the right of way. We’d like to also go along those same lines with our proposal here. As far Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 12 as Item number 10, which was the 20 foot of landscaping with a screening wall with adjacent to Carol Street, we would still propose that with the 20 feet of landscaping and then we will have a block wall that runs from our access point on Carol down to the northwest corner and then from the northwest corner of the property, it will extend down to the south to roughly mid site. That block wall is a 7-1/2 foot high block wall on our side of the property and if you look at this detail, you can see that on the neighborhood side, we will have a slight birming to that to help give them a better look so their not just looking at a 7-1/2 foot block wall. They will be able to see more of the landscaping on the Carol side but on our side, there will effectively be 7-1/2 high wall from grade. Item number 11 is relating to the (Inaudible) and reserve strips and that is related to this particular area along the west side of our proposal. Again, I guess what we’d like to look at there is that is to provide some distance and some buffering between incompatible features. What we would like to look at is that provision provides that you will have a 20 foot planting and reserve area. We will have this driveway indicated here that will provide some separation from the property line which is 24 foot wide drive isle. We also have an additional roughly 4 feet of landscape considering both sides of the block wall. In addition to that, that planning and reserve strip does not require a block wall but we are providing one and that is to further buffer the Doris Subdivision. Currently adjacent to this right here in this location is a pasture and the actual residential home sits to the west of that pasture land. So we feel that is a good neighbor there. Right now there is cedar fence that runs right on the property line. We would propose to replace that with a block wall. As far as Item number 12, which relates to the chiropractic building and that is an existing building on the site and location indicated by the laser pointer there. It was stated that that would need to be brought up to code and several of the structures to the rear be removed and at this point there is a 3 year lease on that building and that is I guess part of the reason that this actually is not being redeveloped as the rest of the site is because of that lease and the commitments of that lease. There is an existing lease there with the existing property owner. We would like to see that building removed as part of our project, however, due to the lease and the constraints there are in, we are able to see that happen. As far as removing those structures I guess at this point of time we would have to defer that to the existing owner of this property. His name is John Wortal and I am not sure that he is in the audience, but if you have questions related to that item and discussion related to those structures related behind it, it would probably be best to defer those to him. Item number 14 we don’t have a problem complying with that and we will screen all of the trash enclosures. They are typically screened with opeake fencing as well as the trash compactor behind the building. That will have a fence, an opaque fence around it, so we don’t have problems with complying with that requirement. Item number 14, which relates to handicapped parking, again with (inaudible) to that, our thoughts are that we will comply with the ADA requirements for handicapped parking related to our parking layout. It was stated that the staff felt that the handicapped parking we were providing would not be adequate for this type of a use and I guess what we would have to say for that is Walgreen’s emphasises convience in optaining their pharmacy items and that is the reason for having the drive thru here, so our thoughts on that are, we are trying to actually trying to accommodate people –persons who may have disabilities in that they will be able to go through a drive Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 13 thru to pick up their prescriptions without ever having to leave their car. But we are planning on conforming with the minimum ADA requirements for the handicapped parking on the site. Item number 15 which relates to signage on the site, and I am not sure if you have received our proposal for signage. again we have been working with Brad and we have given him elevations of our sign and told him the locations of the sign, which is indicated on this site plan here. We have provided him with some elevations. If you do not have those, I have a copy of them but our proposal is for a pylon sign and it would roughly be 25 feet in height and approximately 142 square feet in total sign copy. That would be the only site that we would request for the Walgreen’s site, so we would not request any additional monument signs for the Walgreen’s site, assuming that we could get their standard pylon sign there. Then there is an existing sign related to the chiropractor business that exists today that is a smaller sign that is also a pylon sign roughly 12 to 15 feet in height and that would remain for the chiropractor business and they may also want to put another small reader board on that for this future pad site as well. Again, if they want to propose anything in addition to that we would come back through the sign and review process that we will have to go through with application for the signs. So if you need the sign elevations, I have those. They have been submitted to the city previously, so hopefully you do have a copy of our proposed signage. Borup: We’ve got them. Boyle: Okay. I am not sure the copy you have may include an electronic reader board. It has been stated by the staff that their feelings on the reader board would not be appropriate type of a signage there, so we will not be doing the electronic reader. It will just be a standard reader board with the letters that you have to manually change. Number 17 relates to the landscaping and again, we do have our landscaping proposal in this plan. You can see the trees indicated as well as our planning schedule and we just ask that you approve it with the landscaping as proposed on the site. We feel that we have provided our most extensive landscape buffering along the Doris Subdivision side of things. That is our intention is to keep them well buffered so we are proposing extensive amounts of trees along that side to help accommodate buffering that residential area. That’s basically the points—on Item 19, I all ready discussed the multi- tenant building, so I won’t get back in to that. We believe that this is a plan that can be a win win situation for the neighborhood, for the community and also something that will work for us and be a beneficial project to all parties involved. If there is any questions, I’d be happy to answer those now. Thank you for your time. Borup: Commissioner's, any questions for Mr. Boyle? Does that mean, not at this time? Barbeiro: The existing building where the chiropractors office is at that has a 3 year lease, is it your intent to perhaps to remove that building at the end of the lease? Boyle: That is actually not our intent. As part of this proposal, we will actually be right now there is four existing lots. We are going to be combining those into 2 lots with a lot Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 14 line that will run north south between our building and the other two buildings. It will basically split this drive here. As part of this project, we are processing this as a combined application, however, our ownership will be everything that will west excuse me, east of the lot line that will run north south. Basically, we will maintain control over the Walgreen’s parcel, the parcel that is to the west here will actually be under a separate ownership. Barbeiro: Thank you. That wasn’t clear. Boyle: Again, John Wortal that owns the Idaho Athletic Club next door would be—I don’t know if he is here, but anyway there will be cross access agreements in place between Idaho Athletic Club, the parcel indicated with the chiropractor and the future pad and our site. They will have full cross access between those sites. Borup: This is a public hearing. Do we have anyone that would like to testify on this application? Hill: Gaylen Hill. I live at 1404 E. Carol. I’d just like to say that I am opposed to annexing the two lots that are currently single family residence which are on the north side of that property. That subdivision is closed loop subdivision. It was never met to be a commercial development. I would also like to say that if this does go through, that access on Carol Street is also—I think that would be a disaster as well. There is no reason to have an access to that business on Carol Street. It is a fairly quiet neighborhood. The children are out playing and riding bikes and to increase the car traffic through there, I think would be dangerous for the residents that live there. Borup Any questions for Mr. Hill? You say you live on Carol? How far down are you. Are you adjacent property or down a little bit. Hill: We live in this lot right here, which now we look out and see houses along there. As it is now, we’d look out and see a commercial building there, which here is fine, that’s out on Fairview which is a busy street. In closer to the subdivision is not a very desirable thing. Borup: Thank you Mr. Hill. Anyone else. McRoberts: Jennifer McRoberts and I’m at 1490 Carol Street. We just purchased our home there. Some questions that I have that weren’t answered in the presentation are, what are the hours of operation of this business. Is it a 24-hour? What about the lighting in the parking if this is approved. That’s all I have right now. Borup: I can maybe address the lighting. That’s always been a concern for –and that was one of the staff comments that the lighting would not (inaudible) to the neighbors, so that—the lighting has been considered. Anyone else like to come forward? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 15 Ray: My name is Dennis Ray. I live at 1872 E. Carol. I am just across from Mr. Hill. I feel the same way that having an access out of there into our area. Right now we are a p-shaped, dead end area. It keeps traffic down and I don’t want to see traffic come in there. We have a very hard time getting out on Locust Grove right at the present time, because of the traffic at Fred Myers. As far as I can see it would be a traffic disaster. I can’t see how it—commercial is just not conducive to that area. Also, on Fairview, turning onto Locust Grove, north, you also at times of the day it backs up considerable. This would just add to the congestion because of having another retail business in there. Borup: Anyone else? Hawkins: For the record, my name is Colby Hawker. I live at 8645 W. Franklin. I am a developer with Hawkins Smith that has assembled all the property here and just wanted to make a couple clarifications first. The two residential pieces of property that are part of this annexation and rezone – we have spend considerable amounts of time with the neighbors of the Doris Subdivision themselves. There was a restrictive covenant that was in place in the neighborhood that restricted certain lots from being residential uses. Certain lots to be commercial uses. All of the frontage property on Fairview Avenue had a commercial zone and was allowed for commercial purpose. The lots interior to Doris Subdivision have a residential restriction and can only be used for residential purpose only. In 1986 there is a piece of property on the far west side, just follow Fairview Avenue down to the west side and then go one lot deep. It is the larger lot deep right there. That was—there was an amendment done to the restrictive covenants of Doris Subdivision that allowed that lot to come into commercial use. Again through several month process, we have met with the neighbors of the Doris Subdivision and had a restrictive amendment signed by the majority of the neighbors of the Doris Subdivision stating that if we did the buffering along Carol Street with the planning of the 20 foot landscape strip, extensive 7-1/2 foot block wall, put a block wall down the west property line that this would be an acceptable use for them. Again, I would just like to state that we feel, coming in here, this is a natural place for commercial development to occur. You see the Fred Meyer across the street. All the other commercial uses coming in here. The (inaudible) of course is in the over all planned development for the city. I just see it as Clint said before, being a win win situation for the city. We get an opportunity to take ( inaudible) out of the ground out of the county that should be in the city anyway, we have an opportunity to improve the corner by putting gutter, sidewalk around the whole thing. We are going to construct a better looking commercial structure, retail structure that you’ll see in the valley. There is 2 of them that are open today, one at Fairview and Milwaukee, one at Overland and Orchard. Walgreen’s builds a good looking building. They are strong community oriented tenant. They are excited to be involved and come to the city of Meridian—in this neighborhood in fact. They view themselves very much so as a neighborhood tenant. The reason they have chose this location is because the neighbors are all ready here and the traffic is all ready here. Again, we have met with ACHD. I feel tonight this is an annexation, a rezone issue, not an access issue. We are working with ACHD to take access into our site. How they feel is best appropriate for access and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 16 safety of the (inaudible). In closing, I would just like to thank the planning staff and Brad. He has been a pleasure to work with. I think we’ve come a long way. I think we presented a win win situation here for the city, for the neighbors and Walgreen’s coming into the market. We thank you very much and certainly ask for your approval. Barbeiro: When you made your presentation to the Doris Subdivisions residents and pickup up their majority petition to change the CC&R’s, at that time there was no access to your store off of Carol Street in your plans. Hawkins: That’s correct.. And again, we went in front of ACHD with a plan to take access off of Locust Grove Road that did not have access on to Carol Street. ACHD said that they wanted access onto Carol Street because the properties that go north bound on Locust Grove Road right now, if you go out there, you will see several of those properties for sale. What they envision is those properties that are fronting Locust Grove Road, those will continue in a commercial development and that access is needed on that site. It is the most clear –it allows one clear, concise area of traffic movement. You can see all four intersections come together at that one place. Again, what we are doing with the plan that you see in front of you, (inaudible) to widen the intersection inside Carol Street, approximately 80 to 90 feet in, which would be the only extrusion as far as any Walgreen’s customers would be concerned into the site. We are opening it to 3 lanes which gives them better movement and we also increased the capacity along Locust Grove by adding another lane there. So the stacking trouble they have right now is the fact that there is only one lane on Locust Grove. (Inaudible) the people that are turning right and going straight are stacking back past (inaudible) right now. Once the other lane is opened up in there just increases the capacity. Barbeiro: Understanding of that, there is only about 80 to 100 feet of access that would be into Carol Street. Still, when the neighbors signed off on the majority to change their CC&R’s, they did not take into account that Carol Street would be an access into your property. This council of course can not address CC&R’s specific to the site. My concern is that when you present this new site plan to the neighbors, those neighbors who signed off on the majority may wish to revoke their signature for the changing of the CC&R’s. Hawkins: I don’t have any control over where ACHD takes access to their public streets. Those are public streets and I have absolutely no control over where they take access to. My hands are tied about what ACHD is going to do and again we are going to abide by what ACHD is telling us to do. The guess the way I understand it is Meridian has let ACHD have the control over their roadways to decide what is best for the public. In their opinion, an access on Carol Street is the best access for the public in this case. Barbeiro: Mr. Rossman, I wanted to make sure my line of questioning was not out of line because we don’t deal with CC&R’s but we are dealing with public who have seen one site plan and now the site plan has changed. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 17 Rossman: Well and I understand that. There is no obligation certainly in the ordinance to deal with CC&R’s or have anything that relates –modify your project in accordance with CC&R’s. Certainly people are entitled to show up and object and obviously when they see an access point go in there, there may be an issue with CC&R’s, but all we can enforce here is our ordinance and whether or not is complies with it. Barbeiro: If I may, I’d like to ask Mr. Hill and Mr. Ray to address this and if they did sign off as a majority on the change of the CC&R’s. Hawkins: I can answer the question for you right now. Neither of them signed the original agreement. Barbeiro: Thank you. Borup: Commissioner Hatcher do you have--- Hatcher: Not as this time. Borup: Do we have anyone else to come forward at this time. This may be your last chance. Hill: My name is Heidi Hill. I am Gaylen’s wife. My question I’ve heard both of the gentlemen say comments regarding getting the neighborhood to sign off. I’ve never seen anything about a signing off. I’ve never—reading this in the paper was the first we heard. How would we find out about signing off or giving our input to either ACHD issues or this particular Walgreen’s issue. Rossman: If I may. As far as signing off, I think he was referring to CC&R amendments which is the covenants you have with your home. Obviously if you have an issue regarding that, you should probably your HOA and probably get some information from the developer as well. As far as having you say as far as ACHD is concerned, they have their proceedings and they are required to provide notice in accordance with— Hill: Should we have received some kind of – Borup: If you are within 300 feet you should have received— Rossman: Are you within 300 feet of this development? Hill: Yes. Borup: The city would notify within 300 feet. ACHD probably publishes theirs. Anybody have any questions for Heidi? I had one on traffic concerns. Anyone else. Hatcher: I wanted to ask a few questions of staff. The first one, when this was originally reviewed and you compiled your staff reports and recommendations, at that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 18 time what was proposed was the parking count versus landscape ratio. It looked like it was pretty tight both ways and if there was very much increased in landscaping they would need parking and a fine balancing act between them. What that count at that time taken into consideration the property lines as described earlier this evening between the Walgreen’s and the other development. Stiles: Commissioner's, Commissioner Hatcher the we didn’t know that was the intent when they submitted this application and if you look at the application for the conditional use permit, it is for a single tenant commercial building with a drive thru window. That is what their application is for. It was not for multiple buildings on a lot. It wasn’t for 2 drive thru's and at that time when they submitted this, we weren’t aware that they wanted to re-subdivide this property. It is 4 existing lots. We knew they’d have to do some kind of re-subdivision but no, since they don’t show any proposed lot lines, we did not take that into account. By looking at this right now, if you just took were they are showing a line on this revised plan they submitted, it appears that for the Walgreen’s store itself, it would meet minimum parking requirements. Hatcher: So the 4.34 acres that was submitted includes all 4 lots. Not just the 2 eastern lots. Stiles: Correct. Hatcher: Can you clarify for my benefit –I drove by the site and you’d mentioned in your recommendation the removal what looked to be like storage sheds in the back of the chiropractic business. Give me some clarification where you were heading with that. Stiles: Well, Brad did prepare these comments. It’s, I think, I can’t remember what those buildings were used for. It seems at one time they were used for a fruit stand. I am sure they meet no codes what so ever to be usable and that was why the statement was made to remove those buildings. Hatcher: So this (inaudible) the fruit stand not any attachment. It looked like there was some attachment, sheds if you will, on the back side of the building. Stiles: I think there is just a lot of stuff. Hatcher: Another questions, has the Planning Dept. or even the developer received or have documentation from ACHD addressing these issues of not needing this much right of way here and that much right of way there. As of right now, we only have the developers word on that. I would want to see the documentation in writing. Stiles: All we have is the draft report. I believe he stated they are not going to be before the commission until December 1st . Boyle: Yes, that is correct. We have met with ACHD commission once all ready. We have met in front of the ACHD Commission and at that time our proposal did not Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 19 include access onto Carol Street. As part of that first commission hearing there proposal to us was that we come back an access to Carol Street. Since that time, we have talked to their staff and again your right, this is developer’s word on this. I guess what our proposal would be is that we are willing to provide 24 feet of landscaping on our property adjacent to Fairview Avenue. That leaves it in our hands to make sure that right of way is where it is at. If they are picking up another 10 feet of right of way, we would have to provide our buffer behind that right of way. I guess we could even go further, if it was going to hold up this commission to say that if the ACHD right of way along Fairview Avenue were to chance substantially to 10 feet additional or what ever, we would come back in front of this commission. We would be willing to do that because we are confident with our discussions with ACHD staff that that is all they require it what’s existing. Hatcher: Hold on a minute, I got a couple questions. Could you bring the site plan that you have back up. My first question is, is when you were talking earlier you were talking about this being a separate development from this and that you could not address any of the issues that we or I see on the west side. Is that correct? Boyle: They are a part of the same application. Can I use this laser just for a second. This pad, our store will be developed pending our approvals, within the next year. The existing chiropractor would stay. This future pad, we don’t know what the time table would be on that. It depends on how fast we could get tenants as far as the construction schedule on that. However, the improvements as far as the parking area, the landscape islands that you see internal, those would all be constructed as park of our overall application. The only thing that you would be left with for the short term, this pad area here, we would propose that that remain in just a gravel base until we have the tenants. Actually this property owner will be the one getting those tenants for that building so— Hatcher: But you are representing that— Boyle: We are representing that as well and we will develop it. Hatcher: You’ll develop it all together at the same time. Boyle: That is correct. The only think that will not be developed – Hatcher: That is the only thing I needed to know. You’ll be doing the development. Once a right of way set back is established and the property line is established, I don’t see an adequate landscape buffer here. I support staff here. Whatever agreement you come up with with ACHD on these two locations is negotiable, but my biggest concern for the entire development is what is with the new site that was submitted to us tonight, what you are doing is taking a chunk out here for access. This is all getting pulled down and then basically all that landscape disappears and it is all road. There is no buffer for half of the Walgreen’s site. These are the issues and concerns that I see and once you are to make the required adjustments to meet those requirements per city ordinance, I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 20 then concerned that you aren’t going to have your adequate parking count. Even though you have cross access easements, as these two being separate parcels, each parcel has to stay on its own. Boyle: Yeah, and my understanding, as far as the parking on the site and may the staff can correct me if I am wrong, but we are well over on our parking requirements for this site for retail type users. I think originally, part of what they may have been looking at is this pad is a potential restaurant type use or something like that. It will be just a multi- tenant retail. The type of restaurant type of use that you may see would be something like a Moxie Java, which isn’t a big sit down attraction or even a fast food like McDonalds’s. As far as the buffering goes here, your right. This buffering up to the point where our proposed access is, would be reduced down to about 10 feet, if you look on that plan. Basically you’d have about 10 feet of landscaping there. There is a couple of reasons for that. One, this came out in ACHD commission meeting, they are in favor of having the duel egress out of Doris Subdivision, if you may. The right turn out as well as the straight thru left, to elevate stacking of what would occur back into Doris Subdivision and provide them easier access out of Doris Subdivision. So your right, accommodate that extra lane, we do have to add some pavement on that landscaping. The item is, one of the reasons that the access point is where it is on that plan is, directly across the street, there is a driveway that goes into a garage for an existing residential home that is across the street. The reason that we put the access there was so that that access wasn’t closer to the intersection of Locust Grove because ACHD would allow that to be within to be 50 feet away from that and we are back roughly 80, 90 feet. Had we put the access closer out to Locust Grove and provided more landscape buffering up to our access point, all of our traffic would have had their lights shining right in to their windows. So what we tried to do was line it up with the driveway across the street. In talking with the residential user across the street and again this is ACHD’s feelings, that property right now, just due to the Fred Meyer shopping center, has lost any additional value that it’s going to have as far as a residential user. This residential property will no longer appreciate residentially. How it will appreciate, is commercially, and I think it has all ready been proven. This residential user here, has had some appraisals done and his commercial value is substantially higher then his residential and continues to climb as commercial areas develop. Two points. One is that, your right, the buffer through this will be down to approximately a 10 foot buffer. The assumption is that this property more than likely, at least at some point in the future, will convert to a commercial doctors office, dentist, what ever you have there. At that point of time the access points between the two would be aligned as well. For now, we’ve pushed that drive back so that all of the traffic exiting our site, that may be exiting there, the headlights would be shining on to a garage rather then directly into the house. Did that address those concerns adequately? Hatcher: That addressed them. Borup: Mr. Boyle, could you comment on the hours of operation. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 21 Boyle: I do know the hours of operation will not be 24 hour. I believe they will be roughly from 9 in the morning until 9 at night. I do know for a fact that this will not be a 24 hour store. Barbeiro: What are the operating hours of the other existing Walgreen’s? Boyle: You are really putting me on the spot now. Maybe Colby with our office could answer those questions. Hawkin: Walgreen’s has different hours of operations for different stores depending on where they are located. They’ve got a neighborhood store which this store is. Their hours typically run from 9 in the morning until 9 at night. Maybe 8 in the morning until 8 at night. Their location at Fairview and Milwaukee for instance is more of a regional location and it is a 24 hour store. They vary. This is not a 24 hour store and the hours will be some where around 9 to 9, 8 to 9, something like that. Barbeiro: You have another store out off of Overland. Hawkin: Overland and Orchard. That one is open and it is a 24 hour location. Barbeiro: So, right now the only 2 Walgreen’s in this town are 24 hour operations. Is that correct? Hawkin: (totally inaudible) The intent is not to have a 24 hour store in this location. Barbeiro: Thank you. Mr. Chairman if I may ask the staff. Shari today we’ve learned that there will be two separate ownership’s on this lot, while they will be developed by the same developer we have a property that is sub-divided. Knowing that the property is sub-divided, would staff’s comments differ greatly in any way or would it be advised to go back in as a staff and review this again looking at the amount of parking, keeping in mind that each ownership in each ownership must provide adequate parking on its own. Stiles: Commissioner's, Commissioner Barbeiro. We were looking at the application that was in front of us as far as the single tenant building with a drive thru. That is what they submitted the conditional use permit for. They did not submit the conditional use permit for more then one building on a lot or for a second drive thru. You did receive an elevation that indicates possibly another drive thru, but the comments that we made as far as the parking, we probably considered the whole 4-1/2 acres. That’s what we looked at as far as what they indicated would be the square footage for the Walgreen’s, the possible square footage of a future building, but we did not look at it as separate lots. Obviously, depending on the actual square footage of some of these buildings, they may not meet the over all parking requirements. Borup: Do we know what the square footage would be for the Walgreen’s store? Stiles: One per 200. It would be 76 I believe, 76 parking spaces. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 22 Borup: Okay. I just counted about 92 on the revised plat. Hatcher: On the east lot? Borup: So it looks like they are over. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, keeping in mind the public hearing is still open, staff comments do not reflect the use of the existing building or the future pad and they were unaware of this as well as while it is under one development, it will be two separate ownership’s. I am left to wonder if we should not await staff’s comments with this new information prior to making a recommendation to City Council. Borup: Have you decided what other information you’d think you’d be looking at on –for one I assume—looking at re-subdivision, legal descriptions? What other information would you— Stiles: They would have to re-plat it. They are going to have to vacate it. We would like to see signage in accordance with whatever your direction is for the signage and do not want to see multiply applications for signage. I think we should consider this as a whole. Borup: I think the main concern from Commissioner Barbeiro was the aspect of two separate parcels, how that effect the original comments and taking that in light, would it would they substantially chance. Stiles: We are working on transfers of conditional use permits through the city attorney’s office. I believe that will go to City Council next week. Right now, in order to transfer a conditional use permit from one owner or one applicant to another, they would have to start over. That is probably not how is it going to be when the ordinance revised. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, further clarification on that. Shari is there any clarification or adjustment that the applicant needs to do to the submitted paperwork due to this change. We know that we are talking three buildings, 2 lots. Once it is re-platted the applications been submitted as one building, one lot. Is there any clarification in your paperwork that needs to be done for it to be a legal application. Stiles: I believe their application needs to be revised and they need to request in their conditional use permit what they are now requesting. Boyle: Sorry to take up your time here tonight. I just wanted to respond. The site plans that we presented, right now you have in front of you a plan that shows landscaping. We have also submitted to Brad a plan that show with the Meridian City Staff, the lots split, how we would like to see those two parcels divided and in our advertising, in fact in the notice signage that we posted on the site even, it was for multiply buildings on Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 23 multiply lots. That was for the buildings. We have to post this in advance to the hearings. When we went down to the city, that was exactly what they told us to write on the notification was multiple buildings on multiple lots. We felt that we represented multiple buildings in this request, in fact we received a notice on this agenda that stated that it was a single tenant, Walgreen’s, and as soon as we got that notice, we contacted Meridian and asked the planning staff why did this come out like this. Our proposal was for multiple buildings. They assured us that that would be clarified in this meeting. Now, unfortunately, Brad is not here tonight. He was the planning staff person that we’ve worked with, but again it was brought up in front of him just a few days ago to clarify that yes, this request was for multiple buildings. That has been a concern to make sure that that was clear to everyone and it appears that it was not. I just want to state that as far as our representations from the start of this application, Borup: Mr. Boyle, could I interrupt maybe. I am not sure whose signature this is—from your company though? Boyle: That is correct. Borup: Did you notice what it said? Boyle: That says a single tenant commercial user on that. Borup: Single tenant, commercial building. Boyle: I guess again it goes back to since this was previously postponed and even prior to that in our discussions with the city END OF SIDE 2 Borup: I don’t think there was any confusion on that was there? That (inaudible) have been on the site plan from the beginning. I think that was our understanding. I think the original understanding that third site was a future (inaudible) with no building usage, design, anything determined at this point. Wasn’t that what you’d stated earlier that you did come up with a design because Staff said it would need to be a separate application at the time (inaudible) Boyle: They did not inform us of that. At the time, we asked them – we wanted to clarify to make sure that was a part of this approval process, and at the time they stated that that could be a part of this approval process, but that they had not seen elevations on that pad, and that’s what they needed to complete the process; therefore, that’s why we submitted the proposal of elevations for that (inaudible) Borup: That’s why – Rossman: Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 24 Borup: Mr. Rossman. Rossman: I guess a question we can expedite this – the question is, Shari, do you need further analysis on this or is there something that is needed before we can address this application? I mean – debating over whether or not they submitted it right or were asked to submit it right or whether they told Brad or anybody else, the question is, is there something more that needs to be done by Planning and Zoning Administration in light of the fact that they are asking for more than they originally requested. Stiles: I think they need to revise the conditional use permit application. Rossman: Okay. That seems to answer the question. Stiles: Stating what they’re – Borup: Stating two parcels or – Stiles: If they’re proposing two drive-throughs, they need to show that. I know that Brad did work extensively with them. Unfortunately, I don’t think that our staff can be held responsible for filling out their application for them. I also think in light of what has been stated about Ada County Highway District tonight, we have no evidence of that. I’d like to see a revised site plan that incorporates what we have requested and what Ada County has requested prior to your action on this project. Borup: Mr. Boyle, you say ACHD’s meeting on December 4th or December 1st . Boyle: December 1st ; that’s correct. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Mr. Hatcher. Hatcher: Maybe what I would suggest is that we – on this – actually, on both of these Items, continue them to the December meeting after the applicant has had a chance to meet with and receive documentation from ACHD. That way, we also have it. I’d also give time for the applicant and the Planning Department to come to a consensus on the Staff comments. I know that Mr. Boyle’s stated numerous times that he’s worked with Brad and everything, but without Brad here, again, we’re taking your word for it. Boyle: Unfortunately, Shari’s time is valuable and she hasn’t been available to work with; though, we would have liked to have some time to work with her, but she hasn’t been available for any of the meetings that we’ve had. Borup: Either way, we would want to see the documents. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 25 Boyle: That would have been worked out in meeting with their staff – revised site plan, et cetera. Now, as far as the documentation you want from me, ACHD, I think that you probably have their staff report that showed that indicated the access onto Carol Street. Could you just clarify for me what additional documentation you need from ACHD as well as from the Planning staff so we know where to proceed? Borup: I think just the final report rather than the draft report. Anything else, Commissioners, on the ACHD – Hatcher: ACHD – yeah. It just needs to be the final report and it needs to address the specifics of your agreement with them based upon this revised site that you submitted tonight. Their draft report is generic in their requirements, whereas what you’ve described and presented tonight is specific. That’s really what we need to have in front of us from ACHD. Borup: Okay. Then, additional, you addressed some of the Items mainly on the buffering. I guess it’d be up to how the rest of the Commission feels. I think you’ve addressed those fairly well. The one thing you may want to take a look at is on the signage issue. I think we’ve been fairly consistent on monument signs as opposed to the pylon signs. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, back to that ACHD thing before we get off track. The number one concern is why I was saying we needed to have some ACHD documentation is because of their change of right-of-way requests and your agreement with ACHD that they’re not going to need what this typically requested. Boyle: Okay. I guess – that’s fine if that’s what you’re comfortable with. I guess what I was asking for was just that you to place a condition on the approval that they not require any additional right-of-way other than what we’re representing, and if they do require an additional right-of-way that we would have to come back before this Commission. Along Fairview Avenue; do you understand? Do I need to clarify? So, basically, I guess what we would like to see would just be if you felt that you could move ahead with an action, it would just be that there be a condition placed on it, that if ACHD required any additional right-of-way along Fairview Avenue that the application would come back in front of you. Hatcher: That is something that we can do. Boyle: For that one item. Hatcher: For that one item, right. That’s the buffering and – buffering of the revised plan and Staff’s comments and stuff like that. Basically, I would – Boyle: I guess we’d also just like to get a little bit of clarification. As far as the pole sign on the corner, we are just requesting that the one pole sign for Walgreen’s and then that the existing chiropractor sign remain. If we are limited to monument signs, what we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 26 would like to propose at that time would be that we would be allowed to have two monument signs; one at our entry point on Locust Grove and one at our entry point on Fairview Avenue. Borup: That’s why we brought that up now so you could have time to look at that. Barbeiro: I’m in agreement with Mr. Hatcher that I wish to continue the public hearing to our December meeting. Borup: Okay. Make a motion. Barbeiro: Did you make a motion? Hatcher: I didn’t make a motion, but I motion that we continue this public hearing until our December 14th meeting. Barbeiro: I second the motion. Borup: The motion is seconded. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Barbeiro: That was for Item 4 and Item 5. Borup: Combined? Barbeiro: Combined. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Shari, have you got any additional comments on the signs? Monument signs and (inaudible) Is that in general compliance with the City sign ordinances such as it is? Stiles: It would be my preference to see those signs. I think if they’re talking about a single tenant sign, they (inaudible) -- Borup: (inaudible) I give them from now to next meeting to have a design brought to us. Stiles: I think the 72 feet would probably be acceptable for one tenant. Borup: It would seem to me. (inaudible) building – the building signage, et cetera, what you’ve already got there, but – okay. It has been pointed out that this would probably be a good time for a break. We are – do have several more items on the agenda, but hopefully we can get through them. I can tell you last month we went to 3:00. That will not be happening tonight or probably ever again. We will address that as the hours approach. Have a short break at this time. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 27 (at which time the meeting was in recess at 9:17 p.m.) ITEM 8. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON 80.83 ACRES FROM R-T TO R-4 BY WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC—SOUTH OF E. FRANKLIN ROAD AND EAST OF S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD: Borup: Okay. We’d like to go ahead and reconvene tonight’s Planning and Zoning meeting, conditional use permit for 283-lot planned development by Woodbridge Community. Shari -- Is Shari doing this? Okay. Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's this is for the annexation and zoning of two separate parcels of property. The parcel here is adjacent to what is called the Stonebridge Industrial Subdivision. They’ve requested a zoning of LO. Staff has recommended that all uses be developed under the conditional use permit process as a planned development. This 80 acres here they are proposing for a 283 lot single family subdivision. I would like to address both— Rossman: Shari, I wasn’t here at the last proceeding but wasn’t the annexation and zoning all ready addressed in a previous—we are just dealing with a conditional use permit. We certainly don’t want to rehash that one. Stiles: Oh, I’m sorry. No we certainly don’t. This is just the general vicinity map. It is Greenhill Estates Subdivision here. Magicview subdivision here. Eventual access is proposed to hook up with Magicview and go be able to access the signal on Eagle Road so there would be access all the way from Eagle Road to Locust Grove. Down here is where they are currently building the Jabil Mfg. Plant. These two properties right here are currently designated in our Comprehensive Plan as single family residential. Staff would recommend as part of the update to that that these be designated for a use other then single family residential. Probably the most controversial issue and what the few people are here for tonight I guess is the issue of connection of this road to this subdivision. We did get a draft report from Ada County Highway District. They are recommending that the full 50 foot right of way be constructed on the Woodbridge side with curb, gutter and sidewalk and that this section from Autumn to the north property boundary of Woodbridge be constructed as a 24 foot wide paved section with no curb, gutter or sidewalk, for permanent vehicular public access. Staff does agree with the recommendation that this be continued through as a public roadway, however, we would support a condition that they go ahead and pave that 24 feet, provide ballads at the property line to prevent vehicular access in the short term. Still build the 50 foot right of way street section on the south side and as such time as Ada County Highway District and the City agree that needed to be a permanent public access, that the ballads would be removed at that time, but we would imagine it would be sometime before they would cross the Five Mile Creek area and actually need that access. We had a condition initially that we asked for the secondary access to be available after 100 lots were built. The applicant came back and asked if we would consider the second access to be required when development east of Five Mile Creek Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 28 occurred. That would be approximately I believe there would be 163 units in this western section prior to going over the Five Mile Creek. At least what they proposed in their concept plan. We did receive some additional information and have reviewed it, however we did not get the comments completed prior to this meeting. The access that this applicant proposed would also—this access to Magicview would also be in this area that they have proposed. I don’t know, maybe they can address any conversations that have been had with the property owner here or the adjacent property owners here. I don’t know if that is going to be a function of what Ada County Highway District is going to be required to do or not. I note just for the applicant, they have proposed the minimum street frontages. You’ll find in your packets. We would just like to make sure that the type D lots that they have proposed, some of them as they have shown on the concept plan do not meet that minimum street frontage, although with some minor tweaking I think they can easily meet those. I did want Kenny Bowers to comment on the minimum pavement width for the individual driveways they are proposing 14 feet. While they will not exceed a length of 150 feet for their proposal, I would like to get his input on whether that is adequate. They do usually ask for 20 feet of the paved surface. It may not be an issue with him, but like I said I did not get his response. Another area they had, under Item 21 show that the ditches to be tiled would be shown on the final plats and we would ask that those be shown on preliminary plats when those are submitted. Under 24, detailed signage plans will be subject to design review in separate permits we would strike as required by City Ordinance and add as a condition of annexation. Number 26, we would like the phasing to be shown on the preliminary plat map. There is not insurmountable issues. We do very much like this project. It is one of the more innovative projects to come before us in as least as long as I’ve been here. We just did not feel comfortable with the additional information that was given that we fully understand what it is they are proposing and we’d like to make sure that the applicant gets what they are asking and that we know what they are asking prior to making a final recommendation. Ada County Highway District will not be acting on this until the 17th of November and while we do have the draft staff report, that doesn’t necessarily mean that’s what the commission is going to recommend. There is a little bit of a problem in just stating that it will be subject to Ada County Highway District requirements because their commission could significantly change the requires and then it would not be what we had anticipated. There was another issue that the Public Works Department was concerned about and that was in this area here. This will come up during the platting as well. The city is going to require a common lot for the sewer to go through. We had to discuss that with the applicant. It does not seem to impact those lots as to make them unbuildable, but in concern for protecting that easement and protecting the sewer line, we’d like to make sure that that was included as part of any development agreement. Borup: Does that conclude. Any questions from the Commission? Not at this time. The applicant like to come forward? O’Neil: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's my name is Peter O’Neil, President of O’Neil enterprises the managing member of Woodbridge, LLC. We are making several assumptions here tonight that should probably make clear at the beginning. At the end Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 29 of last session, which was in October, it seem that the focus was on three issues. One what we are calling the access issues that had to do with emergency access. It had to do with circulation and where the secondary access –and had to do with the timing of those issues. The second issue was the so called 22 foot versus the 32 buffer strip and landscape area along Locust Grove Road against the project and the third on was brought up by some of the Commissioner's that I had a statement in the letter responding to the initial staff report that in addition to those specific areas, there were several other comments that depending upon how they were interpreted might or might not effect us or the City or what our intents were. In an effort to deal with those three main issues, we met with staff shortly after the last meeting and then decided that what we really ought to do is make an attempt in offering the total conditions of approval which would clarify all of the conditions, some of which were not included in the staff report, but we wanted included because they were part of our application as well as to deal with the specific issues of access and this buffer zone. Let me deal with those first and then I might react to some of Miss Stiles comments this evening. We have not received a staff report, just for you information, what you got in your packet on Friday, was a draft of that was given to staff Wednesday. The final draft which was not a lot different other then the cover letter that went with it that was delivered to you on Friday. Just to save any suspense, there were not of the issues that Miss Stiles brought up now that we think are deal breakers. Again, let me go back and say the way this process works as I understand it is we still have to go through he preliminary plat process and final plat process, but before we do that, the City Council, you have to recommend to them the annexation and zoning as well as the conditions of approval for the PUD approval and conditions there too. We took the position that these conditions as we wrote them, could act at least as an outline or a guideline to the development agreement which must be negotiated between the developer and the City that is ultimately approved by the City Council. I don’t think it—it is our intent to get these as close as we can from an intense standpoint. You get more that two lawyers and more than one lawyer in a room and they are all going to have some pride in authorship. We don’t have a problem with that so long as they are clear and the City knows what they are getting and we know what we are going to get. With those preambles, let me specifically address the access issues—one that people keep forgetting—there is a primary access which is from Locust Grove. It is hard to see on the little drawing, but basically we typically do a significant island at the entry so there is a way in and out, so that helps in emergency as well, you’d have a hard time blocking the intersection. You’d have to have to accidents simultaneously to block that intersection. Secondary vehicular access, we are suggesting that it goes where the arrow is in the southeast corner of the property or at a location that we mutually agree on between the city and ACHD that moves in the Magicview general direction and hooks up with the full transportation system. We have offered or suggested in the conditions that we have to identify that location prior to the platting of anything to the east of Five Mile Creek so we know—can’t very well plat it if we don’t know where the road is leaving. We have also suggested that that be made fully functional by the 166 occupancy permit. The reason that we are picking that is there is essentially 165 units as the plan currently shows it to the west of Five Mile, so the time we get to the east of Five Mile the secondary access should not only be identified but improved. That is our suggestion of the linkage. As it Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 30 relates to the emergency access and the timing thereto, we are suggesting that the connection to Greenhill Estates become the emergency access location that we would hook up to that in a driveable all weather but gravel road at the 100th occupancy permit for emergency purposes. We are suggesting that that be improved at the 166th permit. We are suggesting that that improvement is the 24 feet on the Greenhill side and essentially 24 feet on our side, which would be 12 feet of pavement and 4 feet each side of that of grass (inaudible) and there be Ballard’s installed so it is for pedestrian movement and it is for emergency vehicle movement and keeping in mind that that works both ways. The emergency vehicles can use Woodbridge as a primary access to Greenhill and vice versa. We are also suggesting that our side of that be put within a 50 foot right of way that would be dedicated to the highway district so if as and when the City and the highway district and neighbors and who ever can all agree, that that should be hooked up permanently. At least there is a right of way there to do it. That’s our proposal. As it relates to the Locust Grove landscaping, and that by the way is, I just summarized our point number 7, our condition number 7 in the 7 AB and C. The Locust Grove landscaping strip, we did do a conceptual landscape plan and we did not do a detailed landscape plan because, when you get right down to it, it incorporates a major entry area that we frankly have not designed yet. It would incorporate a significant buffer fence which is really where you going to get the sound and visual buffer. We have not designed that yet. Those could be subject to final approval—the further approval to final plat. Don’t have a problem with that. It just seems a little out of context for us to have a detailed plan that specifies a specific tree and a specific planning program before we know what stock is available and how that ties into the whole plan. Those are covered in 7 and 8. I would comment that this whole sequence of approval of whether the ACHD commission has approved something specific or whether it is a staff report, somewhere you have to cut into it and I guess I would take the position that the City of Meridian, the neighbors and ourselves may be better served if the conditions I have suggested essentially follow what we heard in testimony a few weeks ago. I think was following the tenor or the commission and I would seem to me that when we go to the highway district, if those were approved conditions, the Planning and Zoning Commission was forwarding to the Council, I think that would strengthen the position of getting what it is you want as opposed to saying I don’t know ACHD, you tell us what’s best for Meridian. You can go either way but I take a shot for what it is you think you want, which is consistent with what we want, I think and I believe it is consistent with what most of the neighbors want and we would encourage you to come to the highway district when that time comes around. One thing that needs to be made clear, at least in the staff report from the highway district, it talks about a secondary access, so if Greenhill Estates becomes the full time secondary access, there is no need for an improved access to Magicview, according to their staff report. I don’t think that is good traffic planning for the City of Meridian. That is my opinion. I think what we have proposed is what we ought to do. Again, I could deal with some of Shari’s comments. I think we have covered some of those verbally before with staff and I did not hear anything she said other than this Greenhill Estates issue—connection issue that we would necessarily take exception with. I think we can fine tune some of the wording of some of the conditions which essentially has to happen as part of a development agreement. We can hash them out tonight as well. That is your pleasure Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 31 of how you want to handle that. I think I will limit my comments to that. No sense going through the whole project again. We have been there. I do think it is not often in all honesty that we spend 4 hours in a public hearing and come back again, and in general, not in general, in specific the staff likes the project and is supporting it. We’ve got a few issues and details to work out. I think the read of the Commission last time was it was supportive. It needs to find a way to work it though the process and if the neighbors, by in large were supportive, other than the fact that they wish there weren’t any more cars on Locust Grove and Franklin. We kind of agree with them on that and would like to work or help be a catalyst to improve that intersection at Locust Grove and Franklin. I guess our hope tonight is we end up moving this on to Council and letting them take a shot at it. I’d be happy to answer any questions later on or now, whatever the process works. Borup: Any questions for Mr. O’Neil. Okay thank you. Did you have anyone from your staff or—oh okay. Thank you. I think we have heard what ACHD is recommending. What the developer recommends. Time is for –again this is a public hearing. Do we have anyone here from the public who would like to—again keep in mind, we heard everyone’s testimony last month. We are certainly here to hear anything new. Come on up, who ever would like to be first. Knowlton: I am Kimberly Knowlton. I live at 2369 Autumn Way. I am here representing the homeowners of the Greenhill Estates. I am the committee chair person of the Woodbridge Development for the Greenhill Estates HOA. I would just like to begin by saying that we have recently reviewed the ACHD plan draft for the Weatherby road stub and we believe whole-heartedly—well first of all before I get started, I’d like all the Greenhill Estates homeowners please stand and be represented. You can see we all feel very strongly. We have been working closely with OEI and the development of that 80 acres behind our homes. We feel very comfortable with the preliminary plat. Please excuse me if I am using terms that aren’t exactly accurate because this is not necessarily my field. We were very pleased to see that wanted primary access on Locust Grove and secondary access to Magicview. We were very disheartened when we reviewed ACHD planners report saying that they wanted primary access on Locust Grove and secondary through Greenhill Estates on to Autumn Way. Their estimate, as I am sure you have reviewed, is all most 3000 cars a day and in their ultimate wisdom, and I do want to review a couple of their points, they feel that less then 5% of those cars will actually access our subdivision on a daily basis. It seems inconceivable to me that someone would actually, in that subdivision, go through as many as 2 to 3 stop signs, wait several lights on Franklin up to 4 or 5 if your (inaudible) to take a right onto Eagle Road to wait yet another stop sign before you access the interstate, when you could go right through that Weatherby road stub. There is not a stop sign. There is not a speed bump. There is not a light. There is nothing to stop them and I think we all agree that human nature is to take a short cut—roll and go as I call it. So it is just inconceivable to me that ACHD feels that less then 100 cars a day will come through our subdivision. We are getting an incredible amount of traffic right now from people who are simply trying to avoid the intersection of Franklin and Eagle. We have had a lot of –there is several homeowners that live on those corners—and it is just incredible. All Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 32 times of the day here is subdivision with no street lights, no sidewalks, no stop signs, no speed bumps, and we have hundreds of cars cutting though our subdivision trying to avoid that light. I don’t think it is very reasonable for ACHD to have us understand that those people will be taking those other roads, rather then our roads. We would like to ask you as Planning and Zoning Commissioner’s, to agree with the developer and agree with the homeowner’s that if we are going to open up and combine or connect these two subdivisions, and I think there is some good thought in that direction, that we are restricted at this time to nothing more than a –I don’t even know what the term is--- ballad—emergency vehicle access only with a restricted (inaudible) and to take a look at that in the future as to whether it make sense to open it up or not open it up. The conditions that Pete O’Neil outlined being graveled at 100 lots and actually (inaudible) at 166 lots, I think that we as homeowners can agree with that and can accept that, even though a lot of us would like to be left alone, we understand that progress is inevitable and we feel that we would have a much stronger case at the ACHD Commissioner hearing on the 17th , if we also had the City of Meridian agreeing with the developer and also the homeowners that we would like to see restricted access and really force ACHD to take some long term, a long term look at the traffic not only going to be created by the Woodbridge subdivision, but also the Jabil Mfg. Development that is going on across the street. There is a lot –this is a lot bigger pond then it has been, so we would just ask you to please go with the recommendation made by the developer to restrict that access at 100 lots and restrict it at 166 lots force ACHD to look for a long term solution rather then an easy fix. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Borup: Any questions for – I’ve got one and that is on your what the subdivision feels on the design of that whether it should be (inaudible). Are you in complete agreement with what the developer is proposing or do you understand what he is proposing? Knowlton: I believe that I have a pretty good understanding of it and from what I understand, it will be at 100 lots, it will be a graveled 24 foot wide graveled access— 27—20 feet wide and that at 166 lots, it will be widened to the standard 50 feet—or not standard, I think it is bigger then standard. Borup: Let me repeat what he had here. They are proposing 24 feet of paving on the Greenhill side. 12 feet on the Woodbridge side with 4 feet of the grass (inaudible) on each side. That is a concrete paver type stone that you can drive over, but grass grows in-between them. Knowlton: Okay, and that— Borup: That is their proposal, with of course the knock down ballads and other stuff that has been discussed. It that a design that neighbors and neighborhood has somewhat— Knowlton: I think so. You know it’s hard to conceptualize because a lot of us aren’t familiar with that but I think the restricted access is our main concern—that it is not a full Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 33 vehicular access. That it is restricted for emergency vehicles only and pedestrians because we want to be good neighbors. Borup: Okay, thank you. We have someone else that was like to come on up. Buckert: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's, I am Wanda Buckert, 971 Wells Circle. That is in the Magicview Subdivision, property owner of lot 20. I was unable to be here for the October 12 meeting regarding the Woodbridge Subdivision. After that meeting, I was informed by my neighbors that Mr. O’Neil stated that they could use the north end of my property for their second access to their proposed Woodbridge Subdivision. For the record, I would like to state that I am opposed or at least very reluctant to allow that right of way across my property. I feel that I should have been approached before the O’Neil Enterprises made the statements at October 12th meeting. After the fact, Scott Beecham did phone to ask for a meeting. According to Mr. O’Neil’s remark at that meeting, I had unusable land that could be used for his road. I would like to point out that none of my approximately 5 acres is unusable. I would also like to point out to the staff that I have given Meridian City, number one the main line sewer easement on the north end of my property all ready. That sewer serves—that line services the St. Luke’s hospital and the ever growing Magicview development. Second, the City of Meridian and developers had a main line sewer easement to go from the northwest—they have it. To go from the northwest corner to the southwest corner being the full length of my property, and this sewer main continues under the freeway to serve as future developments on a near or around Eagle Road and Overland Road. Third, the past summer Meridian City needed yet another easement for a 12 inch water main to cross from the southwest corner to the northwest corner. At that point, giving up that much right of way, seemed to be getting out of hand on my property. After thinking about it, decided having access to both sewer and water mains was worth it. This easement was also granted, but I feel enough is enough. Three sides of my property they are all ready in easements. I hope this will explain a little bit why I am not agreeable to more easements, which would go over your sewer easement. I am not use to this speaking in public. An access road would create more traffic then we are all ready burdened with on Magicview road and I feel with added traffic, roadway noise, it would devaluate my property. I feel my property has future potential for multiple apartments or commercial uses and is not unuseful. In the future, whoever might buy my property, they can make the decision as to whether they want to give up or sell land for a roadway on the north end. Of course, END OF SIDE 3 Buckert: I am not opposed to progress, nor the subdivision, but this is my position at this time. Thank you. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's? Barbeiro: Steve do we have this picture in your (inaudible). Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 34 Buckert: Yes, she had a picture up a long time ago. She had an arrow. Oh she isn’t there. This one is it. Barbeiro: Can you tell me which property is yours. Buckert: (left microphone) Okay. Barbeiro: Don’t leave yet. The City has all ready taken this easement, this easement and this easement, is that correct? Buckert: Correct. Borup: Ma'm do you know what the size of the sewer easement on the north of your property. Buckert: Do I know the size? You mean of the easement. It is a 20 foot easement on all three sides. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, how far does Five Mile drainage – Buckert: It goes right through my property. Hatcher: About what location. Is this a correct representation. Rockrohr: Dick Rockrohr, 2715 Autumn Way and I am in the Greenhill Sub. Of course I am in agreement with the homeowners in Greenhill about the emergency access, but in light of what I found out at this meeting about the proposed secondary access that was by the developers across this corner and to that culdesac there, I am rather concerned that maybe they will never be able to procure that for a reasonable amount of money. Either that one or the one to the north, which they could access that one also. At the last meeting they talked about also being able to access that culdesac possibly. I would be concerned without some kind of an agreement or right of way in place before this thing is approved, that when it comes down and they say oh that is the only way you can get out of there and ACHD say’s you have too, they are either going to dump them right out into Greenhill, because that is the cheapest way to go--- Borup: Sir, maybe I could clarify that right now. In their draft copy of proposals, they stated exactly that and I think Mr. O’Neil mentioned that before development would take place to the east of Five Mile Creek, approximately 166 home that there would be a operable access to Eagle Road. They are proposing that that would be in the – Rockrohr: Part of the conditions that they would perfected that access without going through Greenhill. That’s great with me then. I’m sorry. Robinson: My name is Bill Robinson. I am at 2165 Springwood. I would like to make a few brief comments and if I could point out some of the concerns over there. First of all, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 35 I have lived at our present location all most 25 years now. To start with, any connection in from the south to Greenhill's is an invasion of our privacy from the way we see it, and I am sure you have heard that before. Whether it is traffic, bicycles, horses, dogs or what ever. The really scary thing is having traffic going through there. One of the things that I would like to point out, if you look at this, this corner right here is going up a hill at a right angle turn and that is a fairly serious safety hazard right now. Having more traffic going up around there, this tends to be a little bit of a raceway when people are coming out of here, come up the corner slowly and then accelerate down here and go out onto Franklin road. There are times in the winter we get a little snow, the postman can’t get up that hill and we help push him up. Having traffic coming in around here and around these access routes to get out on Franklin is pretty formable to me. I appreciate what I have seen of the development in terms of the quality that is being proposed. I think that is a very good addition over there in terms of access through Greenhill, I am really opposed to having any access through there. If emergency says you have to have it there, that is one thing. But us being a crossroads for other neighborhoods because of emergency, isn’t really very palatable either. That is my personal opinion, but I in general support the Greenhill's position. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Kidd: My name is Dean Kidd. I live on 2127 Autumn Way. Chairman Borup, Commissioner's I’d like to present this to yourselves for a kind of an overall synopsis of what living within the Greenhill Subdivision is becoming. There has been numerous talk about and of course my contention is and the reason why I am speaking now, is because of this stub road. That being the topic tonight. I happen to live right there, so I am not going to repeat what has been said tonight, because virtually I agree with all. I am glad to meet Pete O’Neil for the first time. I have spoke with Scott Beecham. I think O’Neil Industries is a very, very top notch development firm. As a owner within the Greenhill's, I feel comfortable with what they do within RT is going to be equal to our above our standards. I have no problems, development is going to happen, we can’t stop it. The one thing that needs to take some real serious consideration is this stub road. Mr. O’Neil spoke about the main access on Locust Grove. Of course, that’s the common. We have had testimony about an access within this area. The first thing that I would like to ask the lady that testified if she compensated for the easements that went through her property and will she be compensated for a right of way road. This easement in here was established when the subdivision was established many years ago. When that was established, nobody knew what was going to happen. No one knew that there was going to be possibly a subdivision of this magnitude would ever go in there. Because of that, it has been brought out, there is no sidewalks, there is no street lights of any kind. We spoke of the grade going up, which is a very true statement and I will give you one more example. This is a very (inaudible) corner over here. Extremely blind. I almost ran over a child a year ago and I am saying it come so close it was ridiculous at that corner. Our traffic in here from what I can see in the last 11 years that I have lived here has increased dramatically. Why? I am not going to say. I am not going to make accusations that traffic has increased or what ever people cutting the corner. We all know they do, but to what degree, I can’t say. All I know is, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 36 yes it has increased. Harley Davidson motor bikes running about when nobody owns a Harley within the subdivision, okay… We has a major accident right here about 3 or 4 days ago. Accidents are happening. This subdivision is catching it from 3 sides and it is not going to be long until it is going to be a 4th side. We’ve got talks in the plans of widening of Fairview. We’ve all ready had on over, onto Eagle Road. We’ve went through St. Luke's. We’ve got a major intersection construction in the future of the Crossroads of Franklin and Eagle. We’ve— Borup: Mr. Kidd, your going to have to wrap it up. Kidd: I am hurrying. I’m talking.. Borup: But your repeating stuff that we have heard and that we all ready know. Kidd: You all know it. We’ve been through a lot. Now we are looking at this and the last thing we need is a development this access here. Emergency access I have no problem with and I don’t think the sub-development does either. So I would ask that the Commission take and recommend that this hear be emergency access only and as far as what O’Neil spoke about, I would like to see the same thing on our side. Maybe we could do that. Make it a join effort. Make it a nice greenbelt type thing. Emergency type traffic and leave it at that. Thank you. Mecham: I am Brian Mecham. I live at 2159 Autumn Way. I have spoken before in front on this topic, but since the last time a couple things have occurred and we’d like to address those just so that having seen a few thing and if I am a little punchy it is because I just moved back from Singapore and wasn’t expecting to sit here in a 3 hour meeting tonight. The first question I have is on the secondary access—I mean the emergency access. If I understand right, I’d like to get clarification. When is emergency required, at what number of homes. Borup: It is going to be what is agreed on. What the proposal is 166, which would be approximately half—approximately development up to the Five Mile Creek which would be a natural phasing point. Mecham: So no emergency access is required until 166 home. Borup: No, they are talking about having a gravel at 100 home. Mecham: I know. My question is, do you have to have emergency access—when do you have to have a permanent one—when do you have to have permanent emergency access, at what number of level of homes. Borup: 166. Mecham: 166, okay. So I propose that nothing be done in our subdivision on that stub road or that emergency vehicular access until they approach 166 homes. 165, 164 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 37 and what I mean by that, at that point is then go ahead and put in the grass pavers, go ahead and do what is being proposed as far as the width and that, but no permanent pavement, no gravel, but more of a pavers and I can-- One of the questions that I want to bring up having sat here tonight and watched another community be effected by a developer going in and saying one thing and having them change their residents or their technical jargon of changing their restrictions within their community, and know all of a sudden they are going to have a potential road there—I just want to go on record to say that when—I trust O’Neil Enterprise and but I also know that a few things have happened since we’ve started our negotiation and discussion with them. A conceptual plan that we first saw that you have up there, shows a park there. It does not show a road. It does not show anything and all of a sudden it has gone from a park to a road. There is one thing that has all ready been changed that wasn’t there before. They’ve talked to us about it, so it was not like a surprise, but it was a surprise from when we first met with them and started talking to the community. We were very excited about seeing that conceptual plan. There was not any vehicular access into our community. I am a little nervous now that… Borup: But you understand why it was added? Mecham: My question is though is— Borup: (Inaudible) because of a ACHD requirement. The only reason is came up was because of the access that was all ready in existence from Greenhill. Mecham: I want to address something again. When I bought my property I went to the right of way division and talked to them about vacating that so I could buy that when I bought my home. They said, we have to wait and see what is going to be developed. If that developer or what ever is developed that they don’t need access, then we could vacate the property to me. When that conceptual plan came out, there was no need for that road or the developer did not have a plan that the road would go there, I’m sure. Being a business man myself, I know that they drew the conceptual plan and you could yank that park out pretty quick which is what is being done now. I was excited about it cause I thought I could go to ACHD and vacate that because the developer did not need that access. Things have changed and it concerns me. The other thing that concerns me that I found out tonight is no ownership of the land for the secondary access. That is a big concern that I am going to end up with the secondary access going right through my house within 166 homes. These facts that are starting to surface make me start to switch from being in favor of the project to being opposed to the project. The one thing that I wanted to also state, is that going back to the emergency vehicular access, I am still in support of the project from it can bring to our community. What I want to say though is the emergency vehicle access, I don’t want to do anything at 100 homes. I have talked with Scott Beecham and he says there is going to be about 4 to 5 homes—4 sales a month—4 to 5 they estimate how they are going to develop out so 166 homes, doing you math, would be about 40 months. So, about another 3-1/2 years and—so what I am saying, let’s not do anything. Let’s let out community stay the way it is for 3-1/2 years and then at that point, don’t go with the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 38 road, go with the pavers and the understanding that eventually that a road might be in there but it could be 10 years down the road. To put pavement there makes things permanent and you know, if the county wanted it permanent in the past, they should have put the road in in the past and them we would have known that something was going to go through there, but to have it. I just hope that again, we, I just was to reiterate that as long as we can address that, the secondary access or the emergency access to push that back not say it’s 100 homes or something or push it back to 166 homes before any work starts to be done there. Borup: Anyone else before we rap things up. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing. Borup: I think maybe see if the developer would like to (inaudible). O’Neil: I could deal with each of these comments, but I think what the primary thing that I want to say—let me touch two what I would consider minor issues and then one significant one. As far as the design of the emergency access easement on the Greenhill side, we’d be happy to improve that with the same way we are talking about our side, with narrow pavement, grass crete and soft as opposed to hard. I think the only reason it was written like that was we figured we had to give ACHD something and let them get at least half of it the way they wanted. That is not a problem. We can do that either way. I would comment on the last speaker’s issues. I am not sure I followed all of that but I think that was never intended to be a park. It was a pedestrian access because it connected to a right of way and that it is an obvious emergency vehicle location and if somebody needs an emergency vehicle, that is where it would be. That was in the original plan. We did not call out any specifications because we hadn’t even met with ACHD or the City. We have not changed our fundamental at all. We don’t do that, so our credibility is important to us and don’t want that to be of question. The major issue is how to get to Magicview and I very much apologize to Mrs. Burkert. We, I think, attempted to talk with as many neighbors as possible before the last hearing. We were certainly told in no uncertain terms at the last hearing that we better talk to our neighbors to the southeast. I apologize if there was anything we said that could have been construed and could have been reported back to you that we have talked to you and we have access over that property. Quite the contrary. I think we said we had not talked. That the little culdesac that stops there is a logical target point and frankly we just have not done all our homework to know whether that is the most logical place or not. Our point is that we would like to work with you. I think there is some undeveloped property in the back of those two platted corner lots there on the other side of Five Mile Creek that isn’t your property. There isn’t any access and isn’t much that they could do with the property. I apologize very much if it was anything we said could have been a done deal. We understand that we have some work to do there. We want to work with our neighbors, and frankly it is one of the reasons why it’s next to impossible to pin down a location at this time because all of a sudden we are dealing with the most valuable property in the world. It very well could be that somebody in one of those locations would like access to their back forty and that would turn out to be a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 39 better location. It could also be that all of that property essentially in transition anyway and there may be another plan that comes forward in the next few months that we would want to hook into. Our commitment is that some people were concerned. Well, gosh, we end up saying we can’t go out through Magicview so then we have to come through Greenhill. I think Commissioner Borup nailed that one. We’ve got half a project, if that is what we end of doing and anybody that has been in this business, the arithmetic doesn’t work on half a project, so there is a big hammer over our heads to work out an access to the east. Other than answering any questions, that covers it. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's? Mr. Hatcher. Hatcher: It’s not so much a question as it is just for Mr. O’Neil. On the Locust Grove landscape buffer, with the additional clarification information that you had submitted, basically if ACHD doesn’t go over 5 lanes on Locust Grove, everything I think works out great and is per some of your other developments, particularly River Run on the east side. Granted, it got a much larger buffer. My only concern is your lot lines for the front clusters as to if ACHD were to flex their muscles and say, hey, your going to give me that 96 foot of right of way, then we put a curb, gutter and sidewalk in addition to that, basically is what we are looking at is a real small strip of grass before the fence that is on your lot line, for this high end planned community. Has that been taken into consideration? Have you specifically talked to ACHD or what your proposing here, is this based off of track record and assumptions? O’Neil: I’m not sure I can recite chapter and verse in terms of how many trips per day a five lane section—two traffic lanes each way with a turn lane in the middle can carry. I think it far exceeds any projection out in any reasonable time frame that the traffic studies have made for Locust Grove Road, so it is on that assumption that will never become a seven lane deal and if there is, there is room in the right of way to do that. It would get a little tight and by then the landscaping would be so mature that it would probably work. I think we are going on what the traffic guys say and what APA’s future plans and traffic counts say. Just logic tells you that it is not going to exceed that. Hatcher: I am in concurrence with you in that this is not going to happen in your lifetime or my lifetime. Maybe your son and your grandson is going to have to do this remodeling and build a block wall, but I wanted to know where you are coming from and why you were making these assumptions. Borup: A little bit on conditions of approval. Do we want to handle this right now or—it sounds like the Commissioner's were leading toward closing the hearing. This I feel we would need the developers input. Hatcher: Do you want to do a discussion with open public forum? Borup: That would be fine. You had some questions concerning some of the conditions of approval you mean. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 40 Hatcher: I think maybe getting a little more specific. Borup: With the applicant or with staff or both? Hatcher: A little bit of both. O’Neil: Suit yourself on that. We will do whatever you folks— Borup: Let’s go ahead – O’Neil: I think there is—the development agreement is going to be a very specific agreement and I think if we are generally in agreement with the conditions, there is going to be ample opportunity to fine tune them, and whether you want to do that as a committee as a whole or— Borup: That was the kind of point I wanted to clarify. These are still draft and somewhat in general terms that they will be refined when they get into the final agreement. Hatcher: I don’t think we want to try drafting the development. We just want to address some specific issues on your proposed conditions. Seven B and 7C which is generated a lot of discussion, controversy, potential solutions and what not. I pretty much wanted to state on those specific issues that I feel comfortable and I am in concurrence with OEI on their approach to this issue and that the way it lays out is that anything west of the Five Mile Creek would be developed prior to secondary emergency access. Now I know and OEI’s point of view, that is a awful lot of money sitting there undeveloped if they don’t do it the right way and get that proper access. I feel extremely confident that that secondary access and the way it is written in their proposed conditions of approval, reading that they will have an operable access prior to the issuance of the 166 occupancy permit. I wanted to make that a point of discussion. The other point of discussion is I think we have as a group, as a body, in general have gone with what ACHD has approved or recommended. On a few occasions we have bucked the system so to speak. The emergency access to Greenhill's, I think is a perfect example where we need to step up and tell ACHD this is what we think is better for our community, because they are looking at the big picture and not the specific instances. I would even go so far as to change the developer’s recommendation on that I would still maintain the required 50 foot right of way. That is the existing and match up with Woodbridge so that 50 or 75 years from now if a road does have to go in there, the right of way is there. I would go so far as to not even put a paving strip in there. The proposal is for a 24 foot rule street section on Greenhill and then a 12 foot paving section with a 4 foot grass crete on each side on the Woodbridge side, what I would probably proposed, pending Meridian fire dept approval, just put in a 16 or 18 foot wide concrete grass crete strip down the middle of that with ballads so that the fire trucks can get through there, but we don’t have any asphalt. We talk the difference between that 18 feet and the 50 foot right of way, you put some grass and some trees in there and have it as a pedestrian pathway and be done with it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 41 Borup: So you saying no asphalt at all. All grass crete. Hatcher: All grass crete. (applause) Borup: I think the comment I made last time, if it could meet the weight requirements for the fire department. Did we get an answer on that? We did not get an answer on that. It has been done in other subdivisions and met the weight requirement for the fire department. Hatcher: Tom just brought up a point that I would want to elaborate on. As far as bicycles go with kids, maybe a five foot meandering sidewalk on the side of the grass crete or something like that so there is at least a small portion of hardscape for bicycles. This is something that we need to address in general as a group or a body, but as far as specific design, let’s leave that up to OEI and (inaudible). Let’s just approve a conceptual design for that. The last thing that I wanted to bring up is the conceptual idea of the project I think that OEI has done an outstanding job on putting together preliminary information and getting that information to us. As far as not being a done deal as far the secondary road to Mountain View, I leave that completely up to the developer in being able to come to terms and agreement with the potential land owner, the lady that spoke earlier or someone else along the eastern property line as stated in the conditions of approval. The developer will not be able to develop the eastern half of this project until that road is put in and is usable. I wanted to make that point clear. That is all I have. Borup: Okay, Mr. Barbeiro. Barbeiro: Ditto Borup: I definitely agree on the emergency access too. There is several minor things I think on the draft conditions. The only thing that I have a question on is maybe set back. I don’t know if you had taken a look at the set back proposals. I think the matrix, the chart is well with keeping what you would expect in a PUD. The think that I had not initially notices is that the set backs is from the sidewalks rather then from the property line. Unless I looked at this wrong, the property line has landscaping on so in effect it would put some of these—like the side entry garage would be 4-1/2 feet from the property line with the proposals here. I believe that— Barbeiro: Front property line or side? Borup: Front. Barbeiro: That is not the way I read it. Borup: The set backs on the drawings were from sidewalk. It is going to depend on the street. The loop road street is pretty much a normal street section. The other Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 42 neighborhood streets sections have the normal 50 feet right of way with a 29 back to back rather than a 37. O’Neil: We do get along reasonable well with the highway district but there is a few things we have done battle with them on 20 years. I don’t like their typical street sections. One of the reasons we ended up doing a lot of private streets and earlier developments is we don’t think these little neighborhood streets should be 37 feet wide and 50 foot rights of way and so on. We finally won that argument in the sense of the 29 foot road section with 5 feet of sidewalk, but they ran across a state statute that states all public road rights of way has to be 50 feet wide. Even though we have one of those little neighborhoods that serves 20 or 30 lots, you have to have a 50 foot right of way so if you have 29 feet and 5 feet and 5 feet, that 39 feet, we were putting in 42 foot just to give you a little slop on each side. A 42 foot right of way until a few years ago when a new attorney from the highway district said you know there is a state statute that says that all public rights of way has to be 50 feet. I think it is insane because there is not reason that those neighborhood streets are every going to be expanded. That is why we like to go with the back of pavement or the back of curb because nobody else is going to use that property other then the property owner. Rather then have that expensive concrete and a big set back and a little bitty backyard, we’d like to bring some of them back to the street and provide more living space. That is the rationale behind it. It is this kind of artificial notion that every right of way has to be 50 feet wide. Borup: I can understand what you are saying. Maybe while you are up…maybe you could address. I also had a question on the right of way on Woodbridge—the 72 foot. Is the HOA taking care of the landscape maintenance in that. You need to do a maintenance agreement with the highway district. O’Neil: Yes a license agreement. Borup: I was just curious why you went that way rather then a landscape lot. O’Neil: You can do them either way and we have done them both. I think what happens is those right of way get to be very hard lines, and sometimes you want to put a little wiggle in the thing and if it is all within the right of way, you get an opportunity to do some wriggling for (inaudible) purposes and you get a piece of it pushing the right of way so we’ve just decided to do bigger rights of way and then do a license agreement so we maintain the whole thing. Borup: By having a 12 foot landscaping lot along there you still want to make use of the rest of the right of way that was not being used. So you would still need an agreement with ACHD. One of your documents showed an asphalt path on Locust Grove. (Inaudible) showed anything, ACHD specified concrete. Is that something that is still being decided or – O’Neil: I think ACHD’s typical standard is a 5 foot concrete sidewalk right behind the curb. We are suggesting on our side there is no five foot sidewalk on the curb. Instead Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 43 there is an 8 foot asphalt hiking and biking path set back from the curb so if you fall off your bike you don’t land on Locust Grove Road. The section I believe shows a five foot curb on the far side because that is their standard. The bike path will be asphalt. Borup: Who maintains that. O’Neil: We end up with a license agreement in front of Locust Grove. I stopped fighting that because if you want it taken care of nicely, you better make sure you have the right to take care of it as opposed to getting some third party to take care of it. Borup: So your still addressing that with ACHD. I think in their last draft copy they specified concrete. I guess that is still under discussion with them. O’Neil: Yes. Borup: There would not be any garage less then 20 feet from the sidewalk. I am assuming that on the zero setback proposal for the back that that would be an offset. That in your covenants some where? I don’t mean an offset, I mean a staggered—if there was a zero lot line garage on one property line, the adjoining property line would need to be on the opposite. O’Neil: If we do that yes. I think the way we have handled that in the past is with a use and maintenance with the neighbor so the property stays straight. There would not be two adjoining garages. Borup: Any other discussion. I’d like to ask Shari then. I know you have had some concern on specifics, on conditions of approval. After what has been said tonight, realizing that this would be the draft that would go into the development agreement, are you feeling more comfortable at this point. Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's I guess you do have my copy with the notes that I made on their draft. I guess I wouldn’t feel comfortable taking these straight as they are presented without some minor modifications. Borup: Isn’t that what happens when it’s goes into a development agreement? Stiles: It would if you don’t accept it with this draft conditions verbatim as they presented them. Borup: Maybe we need to get some clarification but I understood that’s what the applicants intention was. Anyway. That is was not met to be verbatim. Mr. O’Neil could you maybe clarify that just a little bit. O’Neil: I think that gets to where we don’t want to commit to something we can’t deliver on. The City can’t deliver on. I think that’s a legal or somewhat of a technical issue and I think if you added what ever number of conditions or an overview of your approval or Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 44 recommendation for approval tonight, the conditions of approval as set forth or subject to, modification by staff and City Council in the development agreement, I think that’s what we are intending but obviously we want to protect ourselves that all of a sudden something doesn’t come out of left field from staff that has not been discussed. We did not get a staff report and did not get the hand written—based on what was said tonight, I did not hear anything that causes us particular heartburn. Borup: I don’t think that was—I don’t think Shari was looking at anything new. Maybe just a clarification on (inaudible) and things along that line. O’Neil: I’d suggest that that be added somehow—what ever motion. Borup: I think maybe the concern was that if this was intended to be a final document, that it may need some clarification. If it is not intended to be such, then it certainly is the best place to start. And, it is much easier for the city to take your draft and make any changes into try to draft a thing from the beginning. That was helpful. Thank you. What would you like to do? Hatcher: Mr. Chairman. I move we close the public hearing. Barbeiro: Second the motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rossman: Mr. Chairman. Let me ask a few questions. I was not here at the last proceeding and I apologize for that. I am a little clued out on what we are looking at here. My understanding is it is an application for conditional use permit for a planned unit development that will be followed by a preliminary plat and the final platting process. The issue, and I don’t know what you have in front of you Keith. I certainly END OF SIDE 4 Borup: Approval that OEI drafted that was in our packets. Rossman: What are you proposing from this? Adopt these conditions of approval as conditions of approval of the conditional use permit for the planned unit development and that with the intent that perhaps these conditions will also be incorporated into the development agreement. Borup: Yes, but more of a working draft not a word for word verbatim document. I think City Council has that option anyway. Hatcher: We’d just be recommending approval general approval based upon— Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 45 Borup: I think some of the things in here that are specific and effect the project are the set backs. In my mind that has been clarified. Rossman: Let me ask Shari this. Have they provided obviously our ordinance or the Meridian City Ordinance provides certain requirements be met in the application for planned unit development. Has all of that been provided to your satisfaction. Stiles: Yes, I believe they have provided everything we’ve asked for. Rossman: Are they asking for any variations from the requirements of the planned unit development? Stiles: Not that I am aware of. They do have a list of things that they have not provided. Their not on 13— Borup: On 14 where it refers to specific illustrations—is that one of the things you were referring to? Stiles: Under 13 they put inapplicability of certain PDR requirements. Submission of specific elevation exhibits. Of course we are not going to ask for every house, but they have offered a general elevation, a theme of the development. Some model elevations. Specific of architectural style and building design. Again they’ve got general elevations. Building materials and color. Whether they are going to have a general thyme or their architectural control committee will take care of that. They are going to have to include that in the covenants they submit with their plat. Borup: You saying those are the things normally part of a PUD but they are not applicable here. Stiles: These are ordinance requirements. They are showing they don’t believe they necessarily need to show those. Garbage storage, public parking areas. They show public parking as far as for the community center. They don’t show storage area, guest parking areas and maintenance building. I don’t whether they addressed that. I can’t remember whether they said they were going to have outside people come in and do that. I don’t recall. Those are the things that they have not provided. They are not particularly major items. Borup: Essentially your saying you agree with what they’ve written—other then you might want to see storage and garbage storage areas at the community house. Stiles: You mean I agree with that number 13? I don’t have a problem with that. Rossman: So what your being asked to do is recommend approval of the conditional use permit with the general conditions set forth in OEI’s conditions of approval. Anything in addition to that? Any staff comments that are to be included? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 46 Borup: We want the staff comments. Hatcher: I don’t have a staff report. Borup: I think the only thing, I think the Commissioner's may have differ from the staff report was on the emergency access. Rossman: Okay. Everything that is in the staff report is addressed within these conditions of approval. Borup: Well… Rossman: Your calling on us to draft some kind of recommendation to City Council. We need to make it clear in your motion and in your--.make it clear what you want in that as far as conditions so that we can appropriately draft that. We are not coming back to you with written recommendations for your approval. (Inaudible from the audience) Borup: Lets reopen the public hearing. Rossman: Mr. O’Neil what are you proposing that we recommend to the City Council and we have a process here and we have a planning and zoning commission that has a process before it and that is to make a recommendation to City Council, if there is something more then is set forth in your conditions of approval, what is it that you want this commission to recommend to City Council. O’Neil: I am not sure I’ll give the appropriate legal answer to that, but the conditions of approval go with the application. The master site plan and all of the narrative and sections and things there too. That was what submitted. The conditions of approval are typically the commissions reaction and staff’s reaction to that submittal that says yes, we agree with these. We want to add some additional conditions and that’s what we’ve tried to incorporate here, so I’m not sure we have a debate other than the issue is that there is a plan out there that we want to build and the conditions assure the city that we built it the way that we said we were going to, but by the same token that we have the right to do the set backs and all of the specific things that we suggested we do that you have to go through the PUD and CU to get there. We tried to make that clear last time and I understand that revolving attorney issue. Rossman: It is not a revolving attorney issue, it’s an issue that this type of application does not come before the commission every day obviously and we don’t deal with these every day and we just want to make sure that when we do it, we do it right the first time. O’Neil, I guess that in the letter that was sent last week, our letter is perhaps the City Attorney should review this to advise the process that you go through so nobody gets hung up that jumped over a step that you should go through. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 47 Borup: I am still confused in where you thought there was a problem. O’Neil: Well, if somebody made a motion that said let’s forward these conditions of approval on to City Council with the recommendation that they be approved, that’s part of the application and the plan that wants to be approved by the City Council. Adding future staff reports and so on, obviously the council is going to get their own staff reports, but I just or maybe I misunderstood where you are going with that but it sounded like this was an interim step and— Borup: No, I think so. The staff report was done last month and he was talking about whether incorporate that staff report and with our recommendation which is our normal process. O’Neil: Yeah and that is what this intent was to try to incorporate things that were or were not said. The staff report, if you recall, had some comments, some suggestions and some conditions. What we tried to do was consolidate those in a way that be specific so that somebody could say, what did we approve. Rossman: So my question or the answer to my question is that your conditions of approval address and incorporate the staff report and the conditions in the staff report. O’Neil: Pretty much. Rossman: In understand you position. The recommendation we are making to City Council, assuming they make such a recommendation is that City Council approve your application, your site plan and all your proposal with the addition of the following conditions, general conditions set forth within this document. I just wanted to make that clear so that they understand what they are supposed to do and of course it will be addressed again at City Council and they will certainly say their two cents worth, but there will not be another staff report usually prepared---will there? Shari? I am talking about this stage on this application and City Council. This recommendation goes to City Council. Are you going to prepare another staff report? Stiles: Based on what we got with these conditions of approval, we will make recommendations to Counsel for some modifications of those conditions, yes. They will not be major, they will just be more clarification. That was our intent when we got it. We got this emailed to us and what we had hoped to do before tonight was to actually take that document, show strike outs where we would like the language and add anything that we wanted to clarify. We can still do that at Council because it is another public hearing. Rossman: Yeah, ideally those issues get addressed before the Planning and Zoning Commission first and then addressed at City Council. That is the reason for having the Planning and Zoning Commission but obviously if they are not—there is nothing that would preclude you from raising them the first time at the City Council. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 48 Hatcher: I was just going to ask Shari if we have addressed those issues tonight? Minor modifications. Have we addressed those issues tonight. Is there any of those issues that have not been discussed? Stiles: I did bring up some of them as I was going through the draft. I talked to Scott briefly before the meeting tonight about some of those—the requirement for a development agreement, the future development on parcel B, subject to development under the conditional use permit process instead of just meeting our LO requirements. Taking our some ambiguous language that does not need to be there in our opinion. Adding the swimming pool, which is proposed in their site plan to the open space— those kinds of things. Changing 166 to 164 or 3 or what ever it is that they proposed— minor. That was our intent when we got this was to be able to turn it around, but we just didn’t have the time to do it. Rossman: I am satisfied Mr. Chairman. I apologize for the diversion. Hatcher: I would not see any problem in having Shari compile those modifications between now and the City Council meeting. Borup: Those things would still be level for discussion I assume at that time, between you and the applicant prior to the City Council meeting. Stiles: If this is recommended for approval tonight, it will go to City Council for public hearing on December 7th and that should give us plenty of time to make sure we get our comments back to the applicant and I mean if I felt that anything we were going to come up with would create a significant change, that would require it to come back to Planning and Zoning Commission, I would say so right now. I don’t think that that is the case so— Borup: Since you brought it up, I just gotta ask on the 166, 164. You counted 164 and the applicant counted 166 lots this west of the creek. Stiles: 163 single family homes west of the creek. Borup: So it’s the first phase up to Five Mile. Stiles: They have identified that it would be prior to any platting east of the creek is when that would be. They came up with 166 for some reason, I don’t know. Borup: All right. That’s what I assumed it was just a counting thing. Okay we still have a public hearing open. Hatcher: I make a motion that we close the public hearing. Barbeiro: I second the motion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 49 Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Do we have a motion? Hatcher: Yes, I will attempt this. Mr. Chairman, I motion that we recommend approval of the conditional use permit for a 283 lot planned development on 80.83 acres from an RT to an R4 by Woodbridge Community, LLC south of east Franklin Road and east of south Locust Grove Road with the following conditions. The first one is that staff comments. The second one is that the draft conditions of approval in general be accepted pending minor editing and modifications by planning staff. Third would be general compliance and acceptance of the information submitted by OEI and that there would be no major deviations. How we would define major deviation I’m at a lost for but the over general concept of everything that they’ve presented I think we should recommend, but if they are going to go off on a tangent, I don’t know how we want to address that. The other issue would be the access on the north side of the development that will attach Weatherby access that we recommend to City Council that a 18 foot wide grass crete strip be installed on both sides of that access and that a 5 foot meandering sidewalk be installed, both within the 50 foot right of way and the difference –the remaining difference of that right of way be maintained in landscaping. I think that’s it. Rossman: Just a few clarifications, just on the first two conditions. One, you said staff comments. My understanding is those are incorporated in the draft conditions of approval and we don’t, when it comes down to it drafting the actual recommendation if we have conflicting conditions. We certainly don’t want that. I think if they are in fact incorporated into the draft conditions, then it should just be the draft conditions and exclude the staff comments or the staff conditions. Do you see what I mean? Hatcher: Do you feel comfortable with that Shari? Borup: Well I think staff had a lot other comments had pertained with City Ordinance and etc. that weren’t necessarily addressed in the conditions of approval. Rossman: But with regard to the items or the conditions that were addressed in staff comments—if it’s addressed one way in staff comments and one way in the draft conditions— Hatcher: What am I supposed to put in the recommendation? Borup: My understanding by the motion that the draft of conditions would take precedence accept for the motion on emergency vehicle. That was the only one, there may be other, but that was the one I was aware of that differed from the staff comment. Staff was going along with ACHD’s recommendation. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 50 Rossman: We will do our best. There just isn’t a lot of direction and the fact that now we are faced with the task in going through and comparing the two and determining where there is conflicts and where there aren’t conflicts and what should be included and what should not be included. That is somewhat difficult. Borup: Maybe it would be easier if we reviewed the findings before it went to City Council. Rossman: We can do that. Borup: We use to. Rossman: It will just delay the project and I am not sure that is necessary. We will just do our best and send it up and if they disagree with it, they can certainly raise it up there. Hatcher: Can we not recommend and adopt both staff comments. If there is a conflict that would be noted. We are talking another month in which a resolution can be brought to and discussed— (Inaudible) Hatcher: This is the way it is going to be tonight because it is too big of a conceptual project to recommend the exact requirements. Rossman: The purpose of the Planning and Zoning Commission is to make a recommendation and I think that you make a recommendation and the staff has a different view on it, they will certainly present that to City Council. Let’s not put altering conditions—lets just make a recommendation and if that is in fact these draft conditions, lets stick with those and if staff disagrees with it, they will raise that in their comments to City Council at that preceding. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission is obligated to make a recommendation and I think they need to pick one go with it and they it will be addressed at City Council. Borup: Staff has 19 comments, a lot of them I don’t think they are all addressed in the other and there is no conflict. It’s just one is addressed in one area and one is addressed in the other. Rossman: Okay, well we will go over them and see what we can figure out. On number 2, I prefer to take out the comment that subject to minor change by staff, lets make the recommendation and send it up and once again, if staff has minor changes, they can present those to City Council and City Council can address them there. What that implies is that minor change will occur in the recommendations between here and City Council. What we are going to do is make a recommendation. That is going to be in Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 51 City Council’s file and staff will also present any changes that they will want to make to those recommendations. Do you understand what I mean? Okay. Hatcher: I am glad I’m a architect and not a lawyer… Borup: Essentially this sounds like just one part of the motion needs to be modified and that was on the minor change. Rossman: Number 2, the comments. Comment number 1, staff comments where not in consistent with the draft conditions and comment number 2, just exclude the comment about subject to minor changes by staff. Hatcher: I amend my motion by what he just said. Borup: Okay. We have a motion. Barbeiro: I second that motion. Borup: That motion is seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you. This is completed for this Commission, we hope. While they are clearing out Commissioner's, for general guideline, I would like to see maybe we don’t open up any hearing after midnight. Whatever is going a midnight would probably be the last one. Hatcher: Didn’t we agree upon that as a procedure at the last meeting? Borup: Well, after the meeting was over we discussed that. Hatcher: Well, it was still on record. Borup: Okay, were we.. Item number 9 Staff. ITEM 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CORPORATE HEADQUARTER FACILITY, CREDIT UNION AND DRIVE UP TELLER UNITS BY CAPITAL EDUCATORS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION—LOTS 14,15,18,19 IN BLOCK 2 OF HONOR PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 3: Siddoway: Chairman Borup and Commissioner's, Item Number 9 is Capital Educators Federal Credit Union. It’s a conditional use permit required by the fact that they have proposed drive thru tellers. The vicinity map is before you on the screen. They are proposing using these 4 lots in the cross hashed area right here. Just to get you a little bit oriented, this is Franklin Road, the new fire station site is right here. Meridian Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 52 cemetery is right here. These lots between—to the north up to Franklin are currently undeveloped. This culdesac is also not yet developed. The only development that is in any of these lots is on this lot right here and it is electrical wholesale. The other lots are currently vacant. To the west, these lots are vacant. This right here is part of Story Park and that is where the soft ball fields are. This is the site plan that is proposed. Stratford Drive is up here. You can see the two culdesacs that are on the two sides of the property here. In general, we like the site plan. It has a good separation of traffic circulation. We want to point out 3 comments. One is the requirement for one 3 inch Caliper tree per 1500 square feet of asphalt is not met by this site plan. There is however, plenty of room to incorporate the missing trees. They have street buffers along Stratford Drive and along the two culdesacs along either side. We would request the trees be placed along the street in those street buffer areas. The second comment is regarding the two handicap spots that are adjacent to the main entrance that they actually need to be striped to meet ADA specifications and have an isle of their own and not to use the paved entrance as part of the area used for that handicap access isle. The third requirement deals with this driveway in the rear. It is 16 feet wide. The fire department has requested at least 20 feet in width to give them adequate access. That is all I have. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's? The applicant like to come forward. Simmons: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission my name is Mike Simmons. I live at 1717 N. 11th Street in Boise. I with ZGA Architects and we represent Capital Educators this evening. We’ve reviewed the staff report on the project and we concur with their recommendations and their comments. Borup: I appreciate that report. Any questions from the Commissioner's. No questions. Thank you sir. See how easy it is when you agree with staff. Is there anyone from the public that would like to come forward. Seeing none, Commissioner's. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing. Hatcher: I second it. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you. This is a request for conditional use permit so there will not be another public hearing. Stiles: No. Borup: Right. So do we need to declare findings? Mr. Rossman, for some reason that was decided last time. We were instructed to, in the motion to have findings prepared since there would not be another public hearing. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 53 Rossman: Okay. That’s new to me. That’s fine, that’s certainly appropriate. Borup: Maybe we weren’t instructed but we did it. I don’t remember why, but we did it. Rossman: I’m not sure that’s— Borup: But I think the rationale is that this is the board that hears the public hearing and probably we are the ones that should— Rossman: But the rationale on the other side is that were not talking final action. We’re not making the final determination and under state statute when final action is taken, findings are to be prepared. That’s find, we can send up findings— Borup: I think the thing I like about it is tonight we changed both findings. Two of the three we had to make corrections to. The City Council would not have known that. Hatcher: That puts an additional month into the loop. Rossman: No it doesn’t. City Council would have to come back to approve findings too. Borup: Findings never did take any extra time. Barbeiro: With that, I request that the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding the request for conditional use permit for the Corporate Headquarter facility, credit union and drive up teller unit by Capital Educators Federal Credit Union. Hatcher: I don’t see that we need facts and findings. I just don’t know what the benefit really is. Borup: Well we have to have findings. City Ordinance. You mean have us do it or not? Barbeiro: It will cut a month off. Borup: No it will come out the same. Rossman: It cuts a month off assuming that the body that is taking final action, City Council, agrees. If City Council decides something differently, they are going to have to come back again a month later at City Council for findings. Borup: What it could do is cut 2 weeks off. Hatcher: Just for argument sakes, if we recommend this project now, it goes to City Council on December 7th . Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 54 Borup: In this case I don’t think it matters. There was no questions or anything. Staff comments were agreed upon by the applicant. It’s an easy… Hatcher: It is a slam dunk and that is why I don’t know why we are doing facts and findings. Rossman: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Commissioner Hatcher. I think we just ought to make a recommendation, send this thing to City Council and let them do the findings. They are the body that is taking final action. I do apologize for the mixed signals you’ve been getting. I had no idea that that was recommendation last time. Borup: I don’t remember how it came, but I still would think it was the right thing. Lets go ahead without on this one. Barbeiro: I wish to withdraw my motion. In place I wish to that we recommend approval of the request for conditional use permit for corporate headquarter facility credit union and drive up teller by Capital Educators Federal Credit Union, to include staff comments and recommendations. Borup: Okay we have a motion. Hatcher: I second it. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES ITEM 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR SEVEN GATES INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION BY SEVEN GATES PROPERTIES, LLC—RE-SUBDIVIDE EXISTING LOTS 8,9,10 OF LAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK INTO 4 LOTS: Borup: Do we have a presentation from staff? Siddoway: You bet. Chairman Borup and Commissioner's this what you see in front of you on the screen is the re-subdivision of these three lots in the cross hashed area. They are on commercial street near Nola Road and adjacent to the railroad along the south property line. You have our comments dated November 5th . In general, we concur as staff with the need to re-subdivide these lots. The situation that is out there now, lets see if we have a slide, nope, on the three lots there currently exists three buildings that do not match the lot lines. They were built over the lot lines and this re- subdivision would take into account where the buildings were actually placed on the site and placed the lot lines between the buildings. The only real issues we have with this are, there are two… One deals with under our site specific comments, number 3, it deals with the landscaping. The applicant has requested a variance. The variance Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 55 application has been processed. It will be heard by the City Council at the same time this plat comes before them. Basically this site has 114, 800 square feet of asphalt between the 3 existing lots, well it would be 4 proposed lots actually once the 4th lot is built. Based on our requirement for one tree per 1500 square feet of asphalt, this would require 77 trees. The applicant is proposing 34 trees. We feel as staff that is inadequate. The applications that were made originally for the site had landscaping requirements on them that were never met. We feel that we would like to see the applicant be required to provide a perimeter landscape strip across the west, south and eastern edges of the subdivision to provide as many trees as possible and to get as close as possible to what our ordinance is. They still won’t be able to meet the ordinance, but we have calculated that by doing a ten foot wide landscape easement on the plat in those areas just described, and placing trees 30 feet on center, they can provide another 34 trees for a total of 68, which would only be 9 shy of the ordinance requirement as opposed to 43 less then the ordinance requirement as their current proposal would provide. It would also provide 20 of those trees along the railroad right of way which is a future transit pedestrian corridor and we’d like to dress that up. The second issue deals with the parking and we realize this landscaping requirement would effect the parking. One problem with the parking, as noted in our site specific comment number 5 is that the use of these building have changed from when the building permits were issued to uses that have more intensive parking requirements and the eastern most lot in particular falls short on parking requirements. We realize that taking 10 feet along the perimeter would make it difficult, but we think that a variance from the parking requirements should have to be applied for and that is it going got take some give and take on both the landscaping and the parking requirements but that we should be getting as much landscaping as feasible from this project. That is all I have at this time. Borup: Any questions? Is the applicant here? Hinckley: My name is Rod Hinckley. I work for Edwards and Cummings. Our client is the owner of the property. I guess you guys all have your copy of the preliminary plat. Primarily, we take out approximately 11,000 square feet of parking and putting 10 foot landscaping around that perimeter, approximately 400 square foot of parking space, that is about 27 spaces. Seems like ( inaudible) yeah there is a parking problem. If you take a look over at (inaudible) if could be remedied but it would be real tough with the landscaping. Its asphalt and fenced right to the perimeter. Borup: Lot 4 is you say? Hinckley: The whole, basically the 3 developed sides are. Borup: Asphalt is right to the property line? Hinckley: Yeah, right. See the little symbol in there and it’s got a real nice hurricane fence and it is pretty much asphalt right to the property line. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 56 Borup: That is the easy way to handle this is staff comments that you may have other opinions on. Your addressing number 3 on landscaping. Staff, how long was the current landscaping ordinance been in effect? Siddoway: Since 1993. Borup: And these buildings were built when? Hinckley: I believe in 95—95 or 96. Borup: So they were built after the current landscaping ordinance. Hinckley: And it is really consistent with what goes on in the rest of that subdivision. Notice not trees along the railroad track. Borup: Was there a variance applied for at that time? Hinckley: Not that I am aware of, but I may not have all the information—or about any of the other properties in the neighborhood. Maybe some of them just kinda been let slide, I don’t know the history of all that. As far as the parking goes, what they are proposing to do is move this trucking company or repair company from building three into the new proposed building, have the moving and storage warehouse take over the back half of the building to and they would need some (inaudible) parking back there for their trucks which would help the parking problems in the area. You’d probably want the 22 parking spaces on lot 4 to be striped and ( inaudible) as part of this I imagine. Borup: Any additional comments? Hinckley: Well, it would be not only inconsistent with the rest of Layne Industrial Subdivision, the landscaping that has gone on in every other site on there, but I also understand that there is kind of a bail out position, if it is not suitable for a site where perhaps the owner could provide some trees for public parks in lieu of onsite which might be acceptable to the land owner as part of the approval. Borup: Your talking about the proposed landscape ordinance? Hinckley: No I believe there is a position in the ordinance where you can’t really fit that onsite, you can basically buy trees for your parks. Borup: I don’t think that is in the current ordinance. That is a proposal. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, when they approached us with this we had at one time said, we had proposed a twenty foot wide landscape buffer in the areas I just talked about around, and what we had said was we want you to provide all of the trees required by the ordinance at one per 1500. You must provide as many of that number as possible on the site and then maybe we could work out an agreement with the Parks Dept. to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 57 provide the remainder of those off site on public ground. We are not asking for that in this. We are simply asking for the amount that they can fit on site, to be provided on the site and the variance take care of the rest. Borup: How is the consistency between the ordinance and the other buildings and sites along the same subdivision. Hinckley: We turned in a whole slue of pictures with our application of the whole neighborhood basically. Siddoway: I have not done a site by site inspection. I just turned to Shari. She says that they comply with the ordinance as far as she knows. Borup: Did you have some other comments? I am sorry I interrupted you. It sounds like your main two concerns is on landscaping and parking. Hinckley: Yeah and removing the parking. I know with this lot 4 building 1 that there historically has been a parking problem from what I hear, and I guess it maybe cause there is kind of easy access to a dirt lot there. If it is there, people will use it. Kind of more of a usage and enforcement problem then anything I believe. Borup: Your representing the current owners and they’ve owned it for how long? Hinckley: They built the building—their original owners of those 3 lots since it was sub- divided. Borup: Do you know why that second building I assume it was the second building built -did they start at the east end and work west. Hinckley: They built all three under the same site plan. As a matter of fact, they had on the original site plan they had a building penciled in over here as another building but future building there wasn’t money or a renter to make it feasible to build it. Borup: Was there some type of approval at that time? Apparently there wasn’t. Hinckley: It was shown on the original site plan as a future building. Borup: No No No. I mean on ignoring the original lot lines and building the buildings over the lot lines. Hinckley: Well, apparently so. They had building permits and site plan form that showed that. Borup: So the building department much have— Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 58 Hinckley: Here, we want to build these buildings. We are keeping them 60 feet apart and we want to put a forth one here in the future but we don’t have the money. Instead of getting the conditional use permit and putting END OF SIDE 5 Borup: It looks like it needs cleaning up. Any questions from the Commissioner's? Hatcher: I am surprised that this had occurred. I can’t say, Steve why did this happen, but I mean we’ve got 3 buildings on 3 lots. Now we have an application for the forth building. Did (inaudible) divide these three lots into four lots and build a forth building, does that still meet our density requirements for that subdivision and that zoning. Siddoway: These lots do meet the minimum lot size requirements for the zone. Borup: There is no problem with utilities? Hinckley: Not entirely. (Inaudible). We are going to have to do a little pot holing—not in the street –up by the water meter here and see if we can find this sewer service. It supposed to be over here. There seems to be a little discrepancy between what the builders say was there and what the city kind of has on record from the subdivision as- builts. We won’t know until we get into it. Borup: It should have had service to your new lot 1. Hinckley: There is supposed to be a sewer service there. Borup: Looks like if there was utility problems it would have happened when they built the first 3 buildings. The forth one— Hatcher: Keith, that is not necessary true. Right now the existing conditions are 3 buildings on 3 lots. I’d have to ask Bruce how the utilities were sized on Commercial Street and how is our—what is the water flow, the fire flow, the sanitary sewer. I mean, are the utilities going to be able to handle the 4th building that was never planned for in the original design. Freckleton: Commissioner Hatcher, we have noted the discrepancy in the as-built drawings. It is not clear on our records which building is hooked to which service at this point. The services were designed for commercial set-up when the subdivision was built. There are separate fire lines that run into each lot—separate from the domestic lines. We are going to have to try to get this all worked out as to how we are going to serve this next building. The plumbing code does require that separate buildings have separate services, so some additional service lines are going to have to be installed. To your question of fire flows out in that area. We have been experiencing some lower pressures, lower then desirable pressures in this area. My department currently has plans on the table for a main line extension from Eagle Road down –extension which Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 59 would be Commercial Court, tying into the end of this development. That will tie in a 10 main into the end of this development and a complete loop. We anticipate that this is going to greatly improve the pressure and flow situation out here. Hatcher: You can’t at this time confirm or deny whether or not buildings 2 and 3 are running off of the same service from Commercial Street. Freckleton: Commissioner Hatcher, at the time this development was put in, there was a single service line run in at the common lot line between lots 9 and 10 for service to lot 10. There was a duel service put in to the common lot line between 8 and 9 for service of lots 8 and 9. The thing we are not clear of is if building 4 or the building on lot 4, is connected to that single service and if lots 2 and 3 are connected to the 2 services that were there for lots 8 and 9 or whether there was some crises-crossing or – Hinckley: Or an extra line out at the end that no body really know. Freckleton: Yeah or there was additional services put in during construction of the development. I have no record of it. I am going off of the construction plans and the as-builts supplied by the developer. So his comment as to having to do some pot holing and some additional investigation is quite appropriate. We need to get this flushed out and I think we can accomplish that through our water department and my department and the developer. Hinckley: As far as fire flows I do realize they are a little low in that area. As a matter of fact these other three buildings I believe were required to be sprinkled because of that and the new one would have to be also. Hatcher: Shari, do you have comments on the parking conditions that we have here in the subdivision and or this proposed project taking into account the required landscaping and everything? Due to its use it seems to me without going through and crunching numbers that we would be tight or even short on parking stalls. Did you guys look at that closer? Stiles: Commissioner Hatcher, members of the Commission they would be short based on the use they have now. When they came in with the building that is shown on lot 4, we did not get any information on the number of employees or the number of vehicles that were used in the operation. They can accommodate the needed parking for the most part meet our ordinance requirements if they change the driveway width to meet whatever ordinance requires. They might be a little short. They still will need a variance and they are going to need cross access easements because they don’t have driveways that accommodate those buildings within that lot—each individual lot. Provided the building on lot three remains warehouse, entirely warehouse, they could accommodate that possible on the site with cross access easements. The one on two is probably the worst one as far as parking. And to kind of clarify what had happened in the past on this. When these building were built, we were not issuing certificates as zoning compliance. We did have a site plan that we submitted and when the final Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 60 inspection was asked for from Planning and Zoning, we went out there and they did not have the landscaping that they had shown for the building permit. When I talked to John Forsythe, he doesn’t remember this now, but he agreed that he would make up for the missing landscaping when they developed the rest of the parcels. They did show a forth building on the initial plans. We told them they could not have 4 buildings on 3 lots. Their comment was well we are not asking for that building, we are asking for this building. So that is how it has come them having 4 lots, 4 buildings, want 4 buildings on 3 lots. They were made initially aware that if they wanted to do four buildings on 3 lots they could have to have a conditional use permit and that we could expect the landscaping to be brought up to ordinance as part of that conditional use permit. They did opt, we had the –we did talk to the representative here and it was a choice of either re subdivide it our come in with the conditional use permit. Conditional use permit would have required a minimum of 10 per cent common for the entire site and of course other conditions that could have been placed on it in addition to ordinance requirement. That is why they opted for the re-subdivision. I just wanted to make sure that you had for your record, you did receive a letter from one of the property owners within the subdivision. Another thing, with the landscaping, I don’t know of another site within that subdivision that has this huge expanse of asphalt. There is some equipment storage areas, they are not parking areas. Basically this is building and parking and that’s all there is. Borup: Do we have anyone else here? Seeing none. Hatcher: I recommend we close the public hearing. I motion that we close the public hearing. Barbeiro: I second the motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Do we need a little discussion here? The only two issues were landscaping and somewhat on parking. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, do we have a means of maintaining the correct number of trees without taking away the additional 11,000 square feet. Borup: I need to (inaudible) on the staff and it does not appear that it is possible. Staff’s recommendation only would I mean if they do the other on the perimeter, would come 9 feet short. What do the 11,000 feet come from? From the applicant? Hatcher: Ten foot landscape buffer along the back property line next to the railroad. Which is quite generous upon staff’s—it’s quite generous from staff asking for 10 feet. Storage unit was just built with I think 40 foot on the railroad because of the current requirements. If staff does not have a problem with the density, the locations, the sizes, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 61 public works feels that they can adequately or service the additional building or in the near future service it, I don’t see any major problem with the request. I think (inaudible) with staffs comments. Borup: One staff comment is that a variance would still need to be applied for. Is that both the landscaping and parking. Siddoway: A variance has been applied for for landscaping not for parking. We had no information about the parking until we received the plat as part of this application with the parking information on it. So, based on what we reviewed here, our comment was that a variance needs to be applied for for parking. Borup: That’s what I was saying. Also the landscaping variance has all ready been applied for. Siddoway: It has all ready been processed. Hatcher: And the variance is to reduce it to 10 feet. Siddoway: No, their variance is proposing to reduce the required number of trees to just the 34 that they are proposing. Staff’s comments on that is we would like to see the additional 34 added on with the 10 foot landscape easement for a total of 68. The variance would make up for the additional 9 that are still missing. It may not be a full nine once you take off 10 feet around the perimeter. It might be one less or— Hatcher: So what we currently have now is a sea of asphalt. Staff is asking for a 10 foot landscape buffer on the south property line. Siddoway: South east and west. Hatcher: South, east and west. And a total of how many trees? Siddoway: A total of 68 trees. Hatcher: Which would be 9 short of the required. Borup: The variance is at City Council right. Siddoway: Yes, variances are only heard at City Council. Its been processed and is being held— Borup: We don’t have anything to do with the variance anyway. Siddoway: Your comments would affect the plat and we would ask that an easement be required on the plat as a 10 foot easement for landscaping for the provision of those additional 34 trees. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 62 Hatcher: So our recommendation is kind of irrelevant if the variance is going to be approved by City Council. Siddoway: We’ll be addressing the same issues with them. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we recommend to City Council approval for the request for preliminary and final plat for Seven Gates Industrial Subdivision by Seven Gates Property, LLC re-subdividing the existing lots 8,9 and10 of the Layne Industrial Park into 4 lots with staffs recommendations. Hatcher: I second it. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES ITEM 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 3 BUILDING RETAIL COMPLEX OF APPROXIMATELY 50,000 SF ON VACANT 5.5 ACRE SITE IN A C-G ZONE BY NORCO—NORTH OF FAIRVIEW BETWEEN EAGLE ROAD AND LOCUST GROVE ROAD: Borup: The only question was on signage. We had to conflicting statements. One said that the applicant indicated the pylon 25x15 sign, staff recommended a 72 square foot monument sign. Our minutes what I read indicated that if the applicant proposes a monument sign not greater than 72 square feet that we essentially giving our approval and not need to come back before us with any type of sign approval. If they want to do otherwise—Shari, I had a question on—either way they need to apply for a sign permit? So if they were proposing a pylon sign, that would come back before this Commission? Stiles: NO. We would like you to make the conditions part of the conditional use permit or part of the application. Borup: That it be monument only, you mean. Stiles: Well I think there needs to be limitation on the size and number –if it is something extraordinary were submitted to us then we would bring it back to P & Z. If it was something that staff could not support, we’d come to P & Z and say this is what they are proposing, what do you think. But the 25 X 15 if we are going to be consistent I’d like us to be actually consistent and not say well this one is okay and that one’s not. We had another one on the agenda tonight that was proposing a pylon sign that was denied. Borup: Well, so we were maybe wrong in our discussion in the minutes about even coming back before us, but the consensus was if it is a monument sign under 72 square Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 63 feet that we’ve given our approval. Did they have a secondary sign at the other entrance? Stile: They did but it was only – Borup: A little directional type thing. Hatcher: Clarification. Monument sign is something that is anchored to the ground. A pylon sign is up in the air. I could have swore that we talked about a 72 square foot pylon sign and monument sign so long as the total square footage is signage for the project did not go over 72 spare foot. That is why we joked about having the one sign that was a foot tall and 72— Borup: Well here, the minutes were—well there is a lot of inaudible's here, but it came down to Borup 72 square foot monument sign we really don’t need to see them again. Brown, unless they choose to do another kind of sign then it would come back before the commission. Shari said unless it is 72 feet by 1 foot. I don’t think we even talked about a pylon sign without more information and again that would not be consistent with what we’ve been doing. On the whole City corridors. Our recommendation, well Shari’s recommendation was monument sign. Stiles: That’s mine. I don’t think it was in the comments. The comments that were prepared said that the 25 foot and the other sign that were submitted were approved. Borup: The minutes say a 72 square foot maximum, 72 square foot monument sign was approved. Really what we’ve got is two conflicting things. We can either we can change the findings how ever we want but 1.42 says to construct a sign not to exceed 72 square feet. It does not say monument. 1.16 makes reference that the applicant applied for a 25 x 15 pylon sign and a single monument. Barbeiro: (Inaudible) Borup: A on A Frame or Stiles: I would ask that you just take out the entire last sentence of that. Borup: That is what I was going to say. Stiles: Take the whole thing out and say monument sign not to exceed 72 square feet is approved as part of this application subject to design review. Hatcher: I agree. (Inaudible) Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 64 Hatcher: 1.16 scratch the last sentence and 1.42 add the word monument sign. Done issue. I motion that we do that… I make a motion (Inaudible discussion) I move that we approve the fact and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the conditional use permit for a 3 building retail complex of approximately 50,000 sf on vacant 5.5 acres site in a C-G zone by Norco, north of Fairview between Eagle Road and Locust Grove with the following modifications: 1.16 delete the last sentence which reads applicants indicate a single pylon sign 25 x 15 and single monument sign for the center and only those signs are approved along Fairview Avenue frontage as conditions of approval. Again strike that sentence. And then item 1.42 the applicant shall construct a monument sign, add the word monument, not to exceed 72 square feet. Barbeiro: Second the motion. Borup: Roll call vote. We have a motion and second. Commissioner Barbeiro. Barbeiro: Aye Borup: Commissioner Brown and De Weerd absent. Commissioner Hatcher. Hatcher: Aye Borup: I apologize to the applicant. We did not realize someone was here for that I guess. ITEM 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 157.876 ACRES FROM R3 TO LO BY TOUCHMARK LIVING CENTERS/JOSEPH A. BILLIG: Borup: Public hearing is now open. Hatcher: I make a motion that we continue the public hearing to December 14th .. Barbeiro: I second the motion. Borup: Motion and second to continue the public hearing to December 14th . All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES ITEM 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, SINGLE AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE AND RETAIL USE BY TOUCHMARK LIVING CENTERS/JOSEPH A. BILLIG: Borup: Public hearing is now open. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 9, 1999 Page 65 Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we continue the public hearing to December 14th . Hatcher: I second it. Borup: We have a motion and second to continue to 12/14/99. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Commissioner's, we are out of here at 11:59, oh we are not out of here yet. Barbeiro: I move that we conclude our meeting this evening. Hatcher: I second it. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:00 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: _________________________ KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: ________________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK