Loading...
2000 02-08MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2000 The regular scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup. MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Thomas Barbeiro, Kent Brown, Richard Hatcher, Sally Norton. OTHERS PRESENT: Brad Hawkins Clark, Bruce Freckleton, David Swartley, Eric Rossman, Will Berg. Borup: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. We’d like to begin our February Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. First on the agenda is minutes of the previous held meeting of January 12, 2000. Before we do that, I don’t know we need to take roll call other then mention that we have all the Commissioner's here tonight. I would like to welcome a new Commissioner, Sally Norton. Tonight is her first night. Commissioner's are appointed by the Mayor, confirmed by City Council. Again, it is Sally’s first night. We are glad to have her here, so everyone be kind to her. First item, minutes from the previous meeting open for a motion unless there is any questions or additions to the minutes from the Commissioner's. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve the minutes from the January 12th meeting as submitted. Brown: Second. Borup: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you. We would like to do a slight adjustment on the agenda. Could I ask, do we have on Item number 9, do we have a applicant here for that item? Okay. Item number 10 is here, I am assuming. All right. We would like to move Item number 10 up. This is not a public hearing, but as a convenience for the applicant we thought is was something we could handle real quick. 10. REQUEST FOR VACATION OF (2) 6 FOOT EASEMENTS-NORTH/SOUTH & EAST/WEST BY HAWKINS SMITH—NW CORNER FAIRVIEW & LOCUST GROVE: Hawkins-Clark: We do have a staff report that was submitted to the applicant you should have in your packets. The applicant, as I understand it, did not have any problems with it, so it is a pretty straight forward vacation request. We just ask that these be incorporated into the motion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 2 Borup: Thank you. Any questions from any of the Commissioner's. What to do that for the record. Does the applicant want to add anything or just confirm what staff said. He shook his head yes. Okay, motion. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve the vacation of (2) 6 foot easements, Item 10, for Hawkins Smith, northwest corner Fairview and Locust Grove. Hatcher: Second the motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RESIDENTIAL PUD FOR PROPOSED WOODHAVEN SUBDIVISION BY DAN WOOD/D.W., INC.—WEST OF EAGLE ROAD BETWEEN OVERLAND AND EAST VICTORY: Borup: I believe we have a new proposal—a new plat. Last month we took care of annexation and zoning. Change would not effect that. Brad would you like to –if I didn’t, this is the opening of the continued public hearing. Brad. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner's I would point out that the Item number 1, the applicant has requested a withdrawal of the conditional use permit application. I will go on and make comments, but since they are no longer requested a planned unit development, they are conforming to the straight R-8 zoning standards. They are not requesting a planned unit development, so therefore a conditional use permit is not necessary. I will go ahead and address Item number 2. Borup: Do we need to have a withdrawal? Hawkins Clark: That has been submitted in writing. Borup: So you have a written withdrawal? Okay. So that is what we should consider at this point. Item number 1 is withdrawn? Hawkins Clark: Yeah, it should be attached to the written response from JUB Engineers which you should have in your packets. It is the last page, I believe. Brown: I got the comments. Before we move to Item 2 then, I would prefer that we act upon the withdrawal. Open it up to comment or the lack thereof and approve the withdrawal or deny the withdrawal. Borup: That would probably be appropriate. This is a continued public hearing. Do we have anyone from the public who would like to comment on this? Again, it is a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 3 withdrawn application, so would be meaningless comments. Want to proceed with the motion? Brown: I would move that we approve the applicants request to withdraw the conditional use permit for the residential PUD for the proposed Woodhaven Subdivision by Dan Wood, Inc. west of Eagle Road. Hatcher: Do we need to close the public hearing first. Borup: Yes we do. I close the public hearing. Sorry and thank you. We do have a motion by Mr. Brown waiting for a second. Hatcher: Second. Borup: Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 45 BUILDING LOTS ON 8.25 ACRES FOR PROPOSED WOODHAVEN SUBDIVISION BY DAN WOOD/D.W., INC. – WEST OF EAGLE ROAD BETWEEN OVERLAND AND EAST VICTORY: Borup: Would like to open this public hearing at this time and ask for staff comments. Hawkins Clark: Up on the screen is the vicinity for this sub. At your last meeting you did recommend approval to annex this with the R-8 zoning. It will be heard next week at the City Council for the second hearing on the annexation. We would ask that our staff comments dated February 4th be incorporated and all the details therein. Written comments have been received from JUB Engineers dated February 8th . This is the revised plat. I would point out that you should have received today a revision which is, there is only, as I understand it from Gary Lee with JUB, just a very slight change from what was earlier. That is along the southern McDonald Lateral of the project. They have, according to the Board of Controls, reduced the easement that is required here which in effect lengthened the depth of these lots a little bit, so as I understand that is a primary difference between this and what you received before. This is a lovely photo of bear ground for you to feast your eyes upon. The page 2 of the staff report, does summarize the main differences between the old plat and the new plat. Notably the main difference, the total number of building lots is now 29 as compared to 45 buildable lots previously. There is a gross density now of 3.63 building units per acre, as compared to 5.45 on the previous plat. The average lot size has increased from 4,545 to 7,608 square feet and of course with the extension of those lots on the south, that average would go up a little bit. I don’t have that for you, but -- Otherwise, I think the applicant has mainly no objections to what we’ve done here. The buffer on Eagle Road is the same. The extension in from the north from Thousand Springs Village is the same as before. That is all I have. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 4 Borup: Any questions from Brad from any of the Commissioner's? Would you like to make an additional comment on your Item number 7. The duplex lot. Hawkins Clark: Certainly. That would be this lot here, the very north western most lot in the Subdivision which was shown as a duplex lot. That was the result of the previous hearing where, due to the mixed residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan, there was some discussion that maybe they need to have different types of housing in the Subdivision and so the applicant can speak to it better then myself, but I think more or less they are proposing to have a common entry drive here and cut this lot so that there are two single family lots –townhouse lots- as compared to just one duplex lot. Staff supports that. Borup: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here this evening and like to come forward? Lee: My name is Gary Lee with JUB Engineers. 250 South Beechwood in Boise. We concur with the staff comments and the revisions presented to you tonight. We would just like to reiterate Item number 7 concerning the duplex lot. We would be agreeable to go with two single family lots there in place of a duplex, if the City will allow us to use a common driveway approach for those two single family houses. I’d be glad to answer any questions you may have. Brown: The common driveway is needed for frontage. It that what it is needed for? Lee: The frontage there now is adequate for one lot, but if you had two lots in there, there would not be enough frontage to allow and to meet code (inaudible). Borup: Gary, then lot 4 the lot right to the east of it, is there any room for adjustment on that lot that would help? Lee: Well its right at 6600 square feet right now. We tried to manipulate these lots in such a way that we could get two 40 foot legs back in that corner, but there just isn’t enough street frontage around that block. It would have to be shared situation. I suppose we could create a common lot there for that purpose or make it an easement. It really doesn’t make that much difference. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioner's. Thank you. We may have some later. This is a public hearing. We are here for any public comments. Do we have anyone from the audience who would like to comment on this application. Young: My name is Rex Young. I live at 2950 E. Victory Road. The comments that I make will pertain not only to my property but the other homeowners along the lateral to the south. First off, I’ve got a question. Borup: Are you a representative for your whole neighbors there? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 5 Young: Yes. They may have some particular comment that pertain to their particular property, but these comments pertain to all of us. The question I’ve got, they indicated that there was change on the easement along the McDonald Lateral. What was the change involved there? Borup: Yeah, we probably should have asked Mr. Lee that. Why don’t you go ahead. We can get an answer to that. Would there be any other questions that – Young: At last months hearing, there was considerable dialogue about our property and the fact that we shouldn’t be too concerned because ultimately it is going to end up going commercial. Exactly when, of course nobody could predict. We’re in process now of having a hearing to establish a high density urban residential subdivision. The front of that property front on Eagle Road. When we take a look at that property, which is for urban residential, and we pace it off to the corner of Victory and south Eagle, it is 80 yards. When I pace it off down Victory Road to the eastern most portion of my property, it is 260 yards. Yet, your saying my property is going to end up going commercial and that particular property there is going to be residential. To Mr. Allen’s property, it is 190 yards. I did not pace it off as far as the others because I was really unable to determine the property line. But anyway, this is just a matter of interest and probably has no bearing, but it is something I thought should be pointed out. Borup: Just a clarification. Do you understand the Item that is before us is on the plat. Young: Yes, understand. I received a copy of the revised plan and took a look at it and I must say that there is certainly some movement in the right direction, I think, from the stand point of larger lots. Still we’ve got the concern about compliance with Comprehensive Plan, specifically the providing of transitional lots in accordance with policy 6.8U. I don’t really need to restate that. I think we have restated that plenty of times. The language in the Comprehensive Plan is mandatory language and we believe that the lots that we occupy to the south of McDonald Lateral are in fact rural residential lots. They were purchased as rural residential lots over 30 years ago and have been ever since. We think we are entitled to transitional lots which are not provided for in this plat plan. I have talked with Betty Bermacello in the past on this. She is with the southwest Ada County Planning Alliance and she is also one of the authors of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Boise, for Ada County and also for the City of Meridian. She indicated to me that this was a classic example of the requirements for transitional lots, yet it appears to me from the discussion that we have had here, that that particular issue is trying to be disregarded. When they had the hearings with –on Thousand Springs Subdivision, transitional lots was discussed. When they put their lots in, the transitional lots along Thousand Springs Village which abuts up against McDonald Lateral range in size from 17,600 square feet down to about 12,500 square feet and we still feel that we are entitled to transitional lots as far as the plat is concerned. Also, just to restate the concerns, and we have done this before, but they really haven’t changed, we want fencing along the McDonald Lateral to be like the fencing along Thousand Springs Village and we want the fence line built up to a level the same as the road way, which parallels McDonald Lateral. We believe that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 6 homes be constructed along the McDonald Lateral should be single story, that is preserving our view and two story or two levels is needed, they can certainly put in a basement to satisfy that requirement. We want equipment work hours controlled. A dust control during construction period and we want the McDonald Lateral undisturbed until an alternate delivery system is put in by the Boise Project Board of Controls. Do you have any questions? Borup: Any questions for Mr. Young. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, with regards to Mr. Young’s comments I’d like to refer to Brad if I may. The term for transitional use as defined in our zoning regulation and Subdivision development says a use of land designed to use as a buffer between conflicting land uses such as single family residential uses and commercial or industrial uses or between residential uses and heavily traveled traffic arterials. Your comment is that this would be a transitional use but going from residential to residential does not, by that definition a transitional use. Brad could you comment on that for us and then allow Mr. Young to go on from there. Hawkins Clark: Sure. Commissioner Barbeiro, the policy that Mr. Young is referring to is in the Comprehensive Plan, not the zoning ordinance. The wording is new urban densities Subdivision’s which abut or approximate to existing rural residential land uses shall provide screening and transitional densities with larger more comparable lot sizes. So, it doesn’t distinguish in the Comprehensive Plan between the commercial and the residential. What your quoting from really is for property that is all ready in the City limits and all ready annexed and you’ve got different (inaudible) projects like a commercial project coming in. I think most would say that the Comprehensive Plan is the gun and the ordinance is the bullets, so to speak. We really need to get back to the Comprehensive Plan. The problem is that you can pick up the Comprehensive Plan and find two policies that state for it and two that state against it. Barbeiro: That’s where I am having the trouble making the definitions to make clear to what Mr. Young is trying to portray to us. Thank you. That helps a great deal. Borup: Brad, can you comment on that easement- changed to the south—how much of an increase that was. Hawkins Clark: There was a letter submitted to City Clerk, Will Berg, on December 7th from the Boise Project Board of Controls that did speak to this and it does state that the easement is 15 feet each way from the lateral center line. So, a total of 30. Borup: Okay, that is what our plat shows right now is 15 feet. So, I think we do have the correct one then. What was the previous? Hawkins Clark: I don’t know. I did not realize there was a change. Borup: Do you know Gary? It went from 21 to 15 then. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 7 Young: During the previous hearing there was some discussion that maybe that strip of land serve as the buffer. No way could that serve as a buffer for a transitional lot. That’s being deeded over, if I understand it correctly, to the United States of America. The reason it is being deeded over is because it is unusual property as far as the Subdivision is concerned and they don’t (inaudible) with the homeowners association with the requirement to maintain it. If they deeded it over then the Boise Project Board of Control and Nampa Meridian Irrigation will have to maintain the property. Anymore questions of me? Borup: Thank you sir. Anyone else? Marquart: Good evening. Dave Marquart. 3100 E. Victory. I live just 2 places down from Mr. Young. Mr. Young has spoken for me in the past and I want to congratulate Rex for doing that for us and for the neighbors in that area. I do want to thank you guys for sending this back so that you took a look at what was happening there on the northern boundary –on the Thousand Springs southern side. You’ve spoken to those folks who can’t be here tonight. There are a couple of questions that I have. One is your requirement for onsite storm water drainage. I don’t see that addressed in this particular plan. I also would like to reiterate and have you guys take a look at that requirement 106.8U for the requirement for having those transitional lots. It was certainly be appreciate from your standpoint. Thank you very much. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Marquart? Do we have anyone else that would like to speak on this application. Does the applicant have a summary? Lee: Yes, thank you. Gary Lee. JUB Engineers. Just to respond to a couple of the comments raised by the public. There will be a fence constructed along that common boundary as there will be on the rest of the boundary as well. The design and placement of that fence will depend upon the final design of the piping of that McDonald Lateral and how the grades will work with the surrounding grades of the development. There will be a fence constructed although the developer will not agree to a specific style of fence or specific elevation of the fence. It will depend upon the final design. In addition due to the size of the lots along that southerly boundary, we anticipate that due to the cost and like I said, the size of the lot, there will be some builders that will want to do some two stories in that area. We would like to have that flexibility. Storm water drainage was brought up as well. In the conceptual engineering of the plans (inaudible) public works, we do have some storm water facilities and they will likely entail seepage beds and trenches. If you have any other questions I would be glad to address those. Brown: Gary are those tentative plans, where are those beds going to be located. Lee: They are going to be along what would be Moon Dipper, I believe. East Moon Dipper Street along the southerly side just adjacent to what is lots 23 and 24 and 25. Barbeiro: Excuse me Gary. Would you mind if Mr. Marquart came up and saw where— Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 8 Lee: Intersection of (inaudible) the north south street and Moon Dipper the east west street. There will be seepage beds along the southerly right of way line extending easterly toward Eagle Road. We reserved some area for that if it is needed. We are going to try to keep it in the right of way. Borup: You said those are going to be beds not a shallow pond. Lee: That is correct. Borup: Those can pretty much go anywhere, can’t they. Lee: They can as long as you make setbacks to water lines you can put them wherever you need them. We do have some additional soils data from the geo tech concerning ground water. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Lee. That’s it. Thank you. Commissioner's, discussion. Brown: I move we close the public hearing. Hatcher: I second the motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Discussion, comments, questions. Barbeiro: I would like to get your opinion on 6.8U new urban density Subdivisions which abut or are approximate to existing rural residential land uses shall provide screening and transitional density with larger and more compatible lots sizes to (inaudible) interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities. In your experience and (inaudible) to Brad, how does this project fit in with this point of the Comprehensive Plan. Borup: I don’t know if I can answer how it fits in the Comprehensive Plan. I know other Subdivisions in this area on the most part I don’t believe they (inaudible) their lot sizes on the boundaries of the Subdivision (inaudible) interior lots or one into the other. I am thinking some of the Subdivisions to the west of here—west of this site. There has been some concessions between some but nothing real extreme that I can think of. I don’t know where you draw the line. The lots on the north end of this are 65, 67 hundred square feet and the ones along the south side are 73, 79, 10,000, 8, 9 thousand, so the larger lots are there and there is some what of a transition. I don’t know where you draw the line. Obviously if every lot that abutted another one was the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 9 same size, we would not have any variation at all. Your not going to be able to make these one acre lots. I am assuming that somewhere between the two. Barbeiro: I’ve seen that Mr. Wood has gone back and done a very nice lay out here with comparison to what we had before and regarding Mr. Young’s concerns, I believe we went from his property having 5 different properties up against it now down to 2. I believe the developer has taken a little bit of a cut here to prepare the lots in compliance with the zoning that we have approved. Those are my comments. Brown: From my understanding, transitional lots from other planners—Mr. Young made a comment about Mrs. Bermacello and her comment on what transitional lots. Other planners for Boise City, because he quoted Boise City Ordinance, view transitional lots as being a transitional of use and the use, if you have single family with other single family, you meeting that transition. Then when you try to meet similar sizes, I believe that this applicant has tried to do that to the best of his ability with the zoning that we approved him on. I think that he has made a very good attempt to try to do that. Borup: Any one else? Brown: Mr. Chairman, I believe we need to address condition 7. It is really not a condition as stated. I would recommend that maybe Brad give us some direction on the particular wording that we would or possibilities that we might have to make that 2 lots so that all the lots or all the lots in the Subdivision are single family residential versus having a duplex lot in there. Borup: Any input on that Brad. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner's, I really don’t. I would say that if you have concerns about size of the resulting lots—we certainly can’t allow them to be any less then 6500 square feet each. If you have concerns about the drive, that is something that needs to be addressed at City Council if you do recommend approval for this. I don’t think there are too many options you can play with given the configuration of that. I would think you would more or less carry a drive straight across the southern boundary of that lot so that you create frontage or if it is a common lot. You could certainly leave that particular design up to us. I would ask that at least the motion include something that you do recommend that it go to single family and not a duplex. Leave the design to be worked out between us and the applicant. Brown: Would you be opposed to recommending a waiver of the frontage requirement and not having a common lot if we to so choose. Would you recommend a waiver of the frontage requirement of the ordinance. Hawkins Clark: So you are saying the frontage would remain as it currently is with the 57 feet. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 10 Brown: Well currently it is showing 52 feet. So you take the 52 and split it in half. You have 26. So each lot, if we approved it that way, would have 26 feet of frontage versus the ordinance requires 40. Hawkins Clark: That is correct. I have not heard of the City just waiving the frontage requirement. I think it would require a variance since it is not a planned unit development. Brown: So therefore, the only way we can do it is if we do a common lot because you would be required to take a variance back before us again and it could be another month, right? Hawkins Clark: Of course the variance only goes to City Council, not for this body. Brown: So if we recommended a variance of the frontage requirement, then could he go forward to City Council with a variance and his preliminary plat application. Hawkins Clark: Yes. Brown: In the same hearing? Hawkins Clark: They would need to meet the minimum—(inaudible) possibility they could do that. Fifteen day notice requirement for a variance application. I would be leery if the applicant would prefer to do the common and you put a condition that they have to do a variance, that pretty much eliminates their option to do a common drive. Borup: Are you saying it could be a either or. Hatcher: I would recommend that all geologists have a solution and I would recommend we leave it up to the applicant to reconfigure the lots to get the corner of that layout single family without a common drive. Borup: Earlier he testified that they tried that. Hatcher: There is a solution to every challenge and it is not up to this board to solve it for him. Borup: Well no. We are not going to be designing it for him. Are we ready for a motion or do we need more input. Brown: I would move approval of Item 2, request for preliminary plat for 29 building lots on 8.25 acres for proposed Woodhaven Subdivision by Dan Wood, Inc., subject to staff comments with modifications to condition 7 to allow the applicant to work with staff to either provide a common lot, to provide frontage or allow the applicant to submit a variance request. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 11 Barbeiro: I’ll second that. Borup: Okay, any discussion. By that motion I assume you are not recommending allowance of the duplex lot. Brown: Correct. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES 1 NAY 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DAYCARE GROUP WITH 6-12 KIDS/R-8 ZONE BY ANNA KUKAY—2512 E. CLARENE: Borup: Brad. Oh, I’d like to open the public hearing on this item. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner's, I would request that our January 31 staff comments be incorporated and that those basically present our standard comments for these in- home daycare’s for 6 to 12 children. The vicinity map is there. This subject property is right on the corner lot here on Clarene and Hickory. This is the basic site layout provided. There is off street parking for parents to leave their kids here on the driveway. There is also some on-street parking available. Primary play area would be here in the backyard. It is fenced. As I stated in the comments, Miss Kukay has been operating a daycare for 5 kids or less since the summer, I believe, and they are to date have not been any complaints given to the City about it. This is the photo of the house where will be designated for play areas outside anyway. I think that is all I have. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's? Is the applicant here and like to come forward. Anything you’d like to add to staff report. Kukay: No there is not. Anna Kukay, 2512 E. Clarene. I have an accessory use permit now with a daycare for 5 and under children and 2 of my parents of the kids I watch are pregnant, so I am needing soon, a larger permit. Any questions? Norton: Miss Kukay, do you have a child care license from the Idaho State Department of Health and Welfare. Kukay: I do. Norton: You have secured that. Kukay: Yes. I am licensed right now for 6 and under children and I have to get a larger license because the license and permits don’t match. The accessory use permit is for 5 and under children and the license you get from the state is for 6 and under. They are a little offset. So, right now my license is for 6 and under children. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 12 Norton: And will you get a license from the state for over that before you begin. Kukay: Yes I would. This is the first step. When I called to ask them about getting a larger license, I have to have this approved first. Yes, I would. Norton: Do you plan on hiring any help? Kukay: No, I do not. Norton: So, off street parking for help would not pertain. According to your application you said you would post a sign on your property. Did you do that? Kukay: Yes I did. Norton: Thank you. Barbeiro: In my reading the staff comments were that no signs could be posted. Borup: She meant the notice of hearing sign is what Sally was referring to. Barbeiro: Ok, thank you. Are you aware that the City of Meridian is now going through a procedure to license with the City individuals and individual daycare operations. Kukay: I have heard that they might be changing it similar to Boise’s license like it is like a number factor versus a number of children. I that what you are meaning. In Boise you have a point system of like 12 points. Like an infant is worth 3 points and you can have--- Barbeiro: A part from the point system, there are a number of other items that they are seeking to implement. Mr. Chairman, you may be aware of this where or the City Clerk may be better aware of this then me. Part of it was that no more then 6 children per 1 individual was one of the recommendations I saw. (Inaudible) that may come up and since you said you had not planned on hiring anybody else, with the new recommendation, you alone may not be able to care for more than 6 children at any one time. Just a heads up to be aware of that. I would not expect that to come before the council for about a year. Borup: I think we need to handle that at a time it comes up and see whats--- Any other questions? This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public like to testify on this application. Seeing none, Commissioner's back to you. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I move we close the public hearing. Brown: I second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 13 Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I motion that we recommend approval to City Council for Anna Kukay for daycare group with 6 to 12 kids in an R-8 zone at 2512 E. Clarene. Barbeiro: I second the motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TIME EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE BY CHERRY LANE RECREATION, INC.—4100 W. TALAMORE: Borup: I’d like to open the public hearing. Brad do we have a staff report. Hawkins Clark: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's there was a staff report prepared this evening by Shari Stiles which should have been at your location on the desk and if the applicant does not have one, we should be able to get that. This is the location here, general vicinity for the clubhouse. The reason this is before you to night is this application as you may recall, came through several months ago END OF SIDE ONE Hawkins Clark: by the City Council that the temporary clubhouse, which is currently located here, the site where they proposed a new clubhouse is here just to the south below it. Here is Talamore Blvd., Black Cat is located over here further. There was a time placed on the applicant by the City Council that this be dealt with—I believe it was 6 months and the letter before you states more clearly, but they are needing to amend the conditional use permit because they did not meet the 6 month time frame requirement. Since the City Council placed the condition not the Commission earlier, it is probably something that the City Council will need to address specifically. Because of the process of amending a conditional use permit that forces it to come before you. So if you do have any other issues or conditions you certainly put those on at this time. The only reason it is before you (inaudible) from the earlier conditional use permit is due to the time frame—failure to meet that. The elevations are here, same as the previous application for the new clubhouse. This is the temporary clubhouse photo here. Forgive the sewer truck in front of it. That is all I have. Borup: Any questions for Brad? Do we have a representative for the applicant here? Miss Butler. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 14 Butler: Thank you Commissioner's. Jo Anne Butler. 101 South Capitol Blvd., representing Cherry Lane Recreation. What I have handed you, just for your reference is a copy of page 14, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that the City Council ultimately did adopt, including condition of approval 1.20, which sets a time frame for use of the temporary clubhouse and a letter dated September 15, 1999 from the building official in which outlines some facts that we applied for our building permit. This was granted by the building official, but resented the next day because of a notice from the Zoning Administrator that all of the conditions of the conditional use permit had not yet been satisfied and so they were asking that the building work not proceed. The City did cash that check the following week and we are assuming that interest is accruing on that. With regard to the issues here. You know that the conditional use permit was granted. During the summer we have been working with the City since that time, the City or we were asked to provide a letter of credit. In fact a letter of credit was provided to the City, but it was provided to the City contingent upon the City signing a deed of trust. That ensued a lot of discussion because the City did not want to get involved with that. It is a fairly standard commercial requirement from lenders, but the City asked that that not happen and several months of negotiations on an agreement in lieu of a deed of trust ensured. That kept us from getting the final letter of credit to the City. Last week, the agreement that was drafted was signed or approved by the City and is being circulated for signature. As staff pointed out, and we thank them for their staff report. As staff pointed out this ultimately have to go to the council. We think that we will be there by probably March 7th , so by that time the final agreement signed by everybody will allow the bank to issue that letter of credit. We think we will be able to meet that. What we are asking tonight, because of the delay caused by the commercial needs of the bank to support the project and give the City the comfort it needed that it could step into our shoes if we did not perform in building the clubhouse, because of that delay we are asking that—we are really asking that you readopt 1.20, not change it at all. By the time there is a modified order at the City Council, and I know they gave us an extra 6 months but (inaudible) If you wanted to make that 6, that is fine to. That would provide the time it would take to complete the construction. However, I would ask this of the Commissioner's and staff. I am making this request for the modification believing the only thing that is outstanding for the building official to issue the building permits is that the City receives a letter of credit and that there is no other thing outstanding that will hold us up. If we could just get that clarified for us tonight that would be really helpful and I think with that the City can be very comfortable with that time frame. If there are no other questions I will reserve a few minutes for rebuttal in case anyone else has any questions. Borup: Any questions for Miss Butler. Mr. Barbeiro. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, Miss Butler you were here for the May 9th meeting? Butler: No, no. In fact I have only been representing Cherry Lane Recreation for about a month now. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 15 Barbeiro: As I recall and the Chairman may recall this too, that meeting was contentious and the room was full of people. It was quite hostile as I recall. Quite an entry as my first month as a planning Commissioner. One of the requirements that the neighbors adamantly insisted upon was if they do not follow through in the time frame that you have set, please do not renew their lease. As I went back through those minutes, it was listed over and over again by neighbor after neighbor. Can you please explain why this needs to be done because I am reading so many different things, I need a simple step by step why it has not been completed and whose fault is this. Butler: I think I can answer you as to why the time frame and I will try to do it real succinctly I actually have a chronology that I constructed for myself. If you like, I will refer to it, but if not let me do this real succinctly. There was the conditional use and you have that in a partial page of this, in which it was required that a letter of credit be given to give the City come comfort that the clubhouse would be done. If that condition of approval had not been placed on there, requiring us to get you a letter of credit that was satisfactory to the bank, satisfactory to the City and satisfactory to the City’s tenant, this would have been completed. But, we had to comply with this conditional of approval. A letter of credit was provided to the City along with a request by ---and Jerry Madison from Idaho Independent Bank is here too and any bank questions, I will let him fill in. He may be able to help you with a little too. So, a letter of credit was provided to the City, along with a cover letter saying, the letter of credit was contingent upon the City signing a leasehold deed of trust, thereby giving the bank some security that if we should default in absconding with money for example-- not getting the clubhouse done, that the bank would have the ability to step in as a tenant and complete those improvements and deal with the City. The City though, from my perspective as a commercial attorney, that to me would have been fairly straight forward. However, the City did not see it that way. Barbeiro: What you are saying is the banks condition was that if the lessee did not follow through with this that the bank would then take over their lease without question and the City would accept that. Butler: Not without question. I don’t know what all the terms of the deed of trust. There is obviously requirements for notice and so on, but in any event, your attorney looked at that deed of trust and said I don’t like this format. I would rather we enter into a separate agreement—he representing the City that was his recommendation to the City, that we City enter into a different agreement that gives me, the attorney, the comfort that I can tell you yes, it is appropriate to sign this agreement so that everybody has the comfort that the money will get repaid. That the clubhouse will get completed and the City will have the project that it wanted. It was that negotiation between the bank the City that took up several months worth of time. To get to the point, the City had an agreement that the Council felt—got the advice from its Council that it could sign. That is where that time frame came from. Am I answering your— Barbeiro: Much clearer thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 16 Borup: Do we have anyone here from the public who would like to testify on this application. Grant: Commission members, my name is Jim Grant. I reside at 3979 W. Harbor Point Drive. I attended the City Council meeting last Tuesday night when they approved the agreement between the City of Meridian, Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc. and the Independent Bank. I understood that the Mayor signed it the following day. When all of the parties have signed and the building permit is issued, I also understand that Cherry Lane Inc. is prepared to begin construction of the new clubhouse. It is my belief that Planning and Zoning Commission needs to recommend to the City Council approval of a conditional use permit or renewal of the old one, whatever is appropriate, to allow occupancy, and water and sewer connects the temporary clubhouse with an extension of time to allow the temporary clubhouse to say in place until the permanent new clubhouse is complete. I assume that extension would be for 6 or 7 months—what ever is necessary with City Council approval. I wish to go on record as favoring such an affirmative recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council. Thank you. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Grant? Anyone else. Margulieux: My name is Gordon Margulieux. I live at 2040 Interlachen in Meridian. Good evening Commissioner's. Actually I want to say right off the bat that I am for an extension. I am looking forward to a permanent clubhouse, even though I don’t golf. I do see two issues here and I am not sure if they need to be separate. One is a violation of the agreement you had all ready which is the placement of the temporary clubhouse. The first one is the extension that we are talking about. Let me cover that first because the letter I saw that the golf club has submitted to you asks for –it is looking for an extension for of 6 months to construct a new clubhouse to complete the parking lot, to begin as soon as the agreement of letter of credit can be reached and permit to build can be reinstated. I am sure the reinstatement can happen overnight, but it is this letter of credit which they still don’t have and is pending upon what you guys decide and what the City Council decides. What that does is let it open ended. The reason why it is stated as it is in the agreement that it is 7 months and they originally asked for 6 the City Council or the Planning and Zoning Commission Commissioner's gave them a extra month. They asked right here, I was standing right here, can you do it in 7 months and they said yes we can do it in 7 months. I remember Mr. (inaudible) standing here and saying I am ready to go. Let’s go. You guys are holding me up. 7-1/2 months because it is all ready expired. This request was given on the 22nd of June and so it is all ready 7-1/2 months and it is going to be another month and a half before it gets through the—with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that the City Council will want to do. We are talking not a 6 month extension. I think we ought to be true about this thing here. We are not looking for a 6 months extension, we are looking for a 8 month extension. We are all ready—the trailer has all ready been there for 5 months so we are talking about what they promised the people in the Subdivision 7 months max on that eyesore. Now we are talking over a year that it is going to be there at the best, because what is going to happen is that something falls Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 17 through on the line of credit, they could say we’ll just wait. They don’t have to do anything. So the condition I’d like to have I’d like to see it change to 6 months from extension period. Not conditional upon the line of credit. Then I’d like to say—so that is the first one, the second one is this not having the line of credit. The third one I’d like to say that by the time you guys decide , you decide, and the time the City Council gets together, I’d like to see something firmer from the bank that says yes, we will under these conditions, I do that when I bought my house, I said I am going to make this offer but I am going to make it contingent upon certain thing. I want to make sure that we have something firmer. That, yes indeed, on the 22nd of March which is 2 weeks for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law after the City Council meeting, that they can sign it and be ready to go. Let’s make sure that it is in place. Otherwise, that trailer may be out there for years. The third one is that any conditional use permit that comes about for the trailer which the lawyer never talked about here, you haven’t even addressed that part of it yet. The extension on that, put the water and plumbing in there, that permit should be conditional upon giving the approval. Now, I know my time is getting short, so I just want to—I talked to the City Clerk yesterday. The City Clerk gave me a real interesting thing. He said officially the trailer is not there because Wally did not move it or the golf club did not move it. The trailer isn’t there. I am going to ask you to bear with me while I tell you a little story. I wake up in the morning and I look outside my window and there is a brand new shinny red Porsche out there. I go out there and I look and there is keys in it. I say I don’t know what that Porsche came from but it really looks nice. I go back inside and getting all ready and I look in the paper and sure enough there is a picture of the exact Porsche that had been stolen the night before. I don’t tell anybody. I did not put it there. Later on, a couple weeks later I open the door and sit in the Porsche and boy it really feel nice. A couple more weeks later I maybe turn on the key. A month later I pop in there and I drive it around. Am I less of a car thief? I am not calling anybody a thief. Am I less—have I done anything that I shouldn’t have done? I did not put the car there but I am using it. Well, Wally or Cherry Lane Recreation did not put that clubhouse there but they violated their agreement. They were not suppose to have it there until after the agreement of credit is signed. Five months later. Not only is it fair but they are using it. You can go there and eat a sandwich there tomorrow morning. The worst part about it no matter what you guys decide here tonight, tomorrow morning Wally or one of his employees will go down there, open that clubhouse door and start doing business out of something that is in violation of agreement that he agreed to at this council meeting. That is what I have to say. I will add one other thing. The deed of trust was not an agreement that the City Council or Planning and Zoning Commission had agreed to in their original (inaudible). The fact that the bank and Cherry Lane Golf course has come up and said, (Inaudible) is not a blame I see on the City part. Who builds a house if they first don’t count the costs. I stood here and heard them say, I am ready to go, just give me a chance. Any questions? Borup: Thank you. Any one else? Commissioner's. Scott: Hello, I am John Scott, 1844 N. Bing Avenue. I am here on behalf I guess Meridian High School and for myself. I feel that Cherry Lane does need an extension of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 18 time because they have been more then generous to take our school in and provide to their best of ability, adequate housing for our golf team and if they were able to have an extension of time in order to build a clubhouse, we might be able to host State there sometime or something like that that would make it more of an enhanced facility for the sport that I love and I would like to share and build upon with other people. That will be it. Hatcher: I would like to request that Jerry with IIB come forward and give us a quick synopsis of where this letter of credit and agreement is at as far as the bank status. And, is Cherry Lane, Inc. ready to more forward. Mattison: Thank you Commissioner's. Jerry Mattison, 1892 W. Hendricks Ct. here in Meridian. Could you ask me that question again. Hatcher: What I would like to know is from IIB’s standpoint, where does Cherry Lane, Inc. stand with the letter of credit and the agreements with the City. Basically we’ve got a 3 way contract here. Mattison: As was stated earlier, there was actually a letter of credit all ready presented to the City. That was done 6 months ago. I can’t remember. We were certainly ready to do it at that time and would be willing to do it again. The condition at that time was in Idaho to do an assignment of a lease—the proper way of doing it is by filing what is called a leasehold deed of trust—in which we prepared and presented to the City’s Attorney for review. I have had, since I presented it to him for his review, I have visited with him 3 different times about that and he never had a problem with it until it come to the day that the City was to sign it. At that time he had a problem and said, no we don’t want to sign it. Then we had to get into this long drawn out—basically it got down to the City Attorney, the bank attorney and Cherry Lane Golf Courses attorney to hash out an agreement. That took a number of months to get done. Hatcher: There is an agreement reached? Mattison: The agreement was agreed to last Tuesday night. Now what we need is the clarification of how time we have to get this thing done. We obviously don’t want to issue a letter of credit putting us on the hook for finishing it, if it has to be finished by the end of January this year, because that isn’t going to happen. We are willing to do the letter of credit if we have the time to get the thing built. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Mattison? The letter of credit take—what are you saying? One day? Mattison: It would probably take more then one day to be honest with you. I’d say 3 or 4. Again, we want a condition --on like a building permit being issued-- if they will issue the building permit upon receipt of the letter of credit. Borup: So seven months is what you feel comfortable with? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 19 Mattison: That is excellent. Borup: Or 6 or.. Mattison: That is more up to the builders. That is a question to ask them. I think 6 or 7 would do it. Borup: I think Mr. Lovin at the last meeting said 3 or 4 construction time and he left himself a couple of months for -- Thank you. Anyone else before we move on. Miss Butler, do you have some concluding remarks? Butler: Just briefly. I just wanted to say that we appreciate the frustration level of Mr. Margulieux. Although not involved, looking back through the correspondence I can tell everybody was a little frustrated with the time that everything was taking. We do agree with what he came up with in terms of not so he has the comfort that this is not open ended. That it is a six month extension from the date that the Council makes its final determination and order which is approximately the 22nd of March. We will assume that the only thing that we have to do is get that letter of credit to the City so that we can pull that building permit unless we hear otherwise. In which case I hope there is nothing else because we don’t want to be asking for any more extensions. Thank you. Borup: Let me clarify. You just mentioned 6 months. Butler: I did just talk to the contractor and asked if 6 months after Mr. Margulieux had said he would prefer to have –would that work for the contractor and he said yes. Borup: Six months after our City Council approval. Thank you. Commissioner's. Do we wish to keep this hearing open. Norton: I move the public hearing be closed. Barbeiro: I’ll second the motion. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Okay, we are ready for a motion. Any discussion first? It appears that the applicant is asking 6 months from the time of City Council approval. I don’t know why we can’t make a motion to that. As it was stated earlier by Brad this thing is going to have to be finalized at City Council no matter what we do. Essentially, we can make any kind of recommendation that we want. No body wants to make a motion? Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, (Inaudible) to say I think everybody involved with this project wants to see it moved forward. They are tired of seeing temporary trailers sit out there for 12 years. The only way that this project is going to be able to move forward is for this extension to occur. To give this extension another 6 months, do we –we thought we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 20 had a guarantee 6 months ago and we are right back to where we are again. Are we going to see this whole thing come back 6 months from now? That is my biggest concern. If there was any way that we could extend this with adequate conditions, it’s a go. It is the bottom of the 9th . Let’s get this thing done and over with and move on. I don’t know what type of conditions we could recommend to City Council that would –I don’t want to tie one hand behind their back, but yet at the same time a little pushing or kick in the butt to push this thing forward I think is appropriate. Borup: I think it took them longer in the preliminary stages. But the building—obviously the plans are done. The building permit has been applied for. They have written the permit check. They are ready to go on that aspect. It’s been testified that the letter of credit is ready to be issued. It has been testified the letter was issued—even though, and that might be one sided testimony but by that testimony they complied 6 months ago. It’s the City the one that causes delay. I think we need to move this forward. We have spend too much time on this all ready. I would like to move this on to City Council and let them get it taken care of. Hatcher: I recommend that we make a motion for approval to the City Council for extension of the conditional use permit for Cherry Lane Recreation, for 6 months from City Council approval and to include staff comments. Norton: I second it. Borup: Motion and second, any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES 1 NAY Borup: We are going to take a 5 minute break before Item number 5. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING AND TOWNHOUSES IN AN LO AND R-8 ZONE (5 ACRES) BY CENTERS CONSTRUCTION—WEST SIDE OF LOCUST GROVE ¼ MILE NORTH OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE: Borup: I’d like to now open the public hearing on this item and hear the staff report. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner's this item before you has last month come before you for annexation and zoning. You recommended approval for the R-8 zone for this 5 acre piece. It will be going before the City Council for another public hearing for the annexation and zoning component next week on February 15. This is the first on the plat itself. We do request that the January 31 staff comments by Steve Siddoway and Bruce Freckleton be incorporated. The plat is here. Locust Grove Road runs here on the eastern boundary. The site is bounded on all sides by existing development. This is a county sub to the south. To the north to west and to the east are all ready annexed into the City limits. We would consider this because it had an in fill project. They are proposing to take the entrance on the very south boundary here on the project. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 21 front piece here, that lot is proposed to be zoned and was recommended LO, limited office, and then to begin the residential. These are all townhouse lots. There is a common area here and there is a common area here. The LO piece in front, this is the proposed elevation for that office building. This is a view of the site taken from the property immediately across Locust Grove looking west. We’ll just go back to the plat and point out that in referring to our staff comments, on page 3, number 3 regarding bonus density. There are 2 mini pedestrian bike pathways now that are being proposed for this site. This plat does not reflect it but discussions have taken place with the applicant and staff and a new one, a new plat will be submitted. I wanted to point out here between lots 28 and 29, they are proposing a 10 foot wide bike pedestrian pad that would come down and connect and would be dedicated to the public. It would stub into the very south part of their Subdivision here. Borup: Is it between 28 and 29 or 27 and 28? 28 and 29 is a zero lot line on my plat. Hawkins Clark: I’m sorry, your right. It would become lot 28, so yeah you are correct. As it understand it, at the past annexation hearing, the property to the south has been amenable to allowing that pathway to continue on through so that connection can be made to the south here. That is the reason for situating it there. In terms of the other— also another thing—a pedestrian issue. There is a proposed a very small stub that would connect these two culdesac here. That would be another amenity. Again, in terms of bonus density, both of these pedestrian pathways in terms of meeting the requirement and the ordinance, if you are going to do increased density you need to provide some kind of amenity. There are two. In the staff report, staff do recommend that two lots and 18 and 17 or down here 35 and 34 be modified to not be townhouse lots but be incorporated into the open space areas. Part of this is to exceed the required 10 percent open space for this Subdivision which for a PUD is required. That still really remains staff recommendation, but we certainly support the idea and this has been discussed with Mr. Centers just dedicating one lot and likely it’s lot 18 to combine with this open space area. The configuration obviously up to them, but that would increase the density to 10.5 percent of the site that would be open space as compared to if both of these lots were combined with this open space it would be in the range of 12.5 percent open space. That is for the Commission to work out in terms of dedicating that. Our preference would be lot 18 and still dedicate at a minimum one lot. We do recognize that there is a walkable distance to (inaudible) elementary, which is up here to the northwest of the site. Given that there are 32 townhouse lots in here to provide contiguous open space, given the minimal. I believe these front yards are about 30x15 feet on each one of these when you subtract out the driveway. There is very minimal yard space in each one of these. The additional open space would be the recreational amenity. On page 4 of the staff report, number 6 on the local road location, this plan currently shows the sidewalk to stop right here. We are simply asking that it continue along this open space area giving pedestrian access into this and continue out to Locust Grove Road. There is a recommendation by staff to shift this road up 5 feet at a minimum. Eight feet is what is in the written report. Right now there is only about a 2 foot buffer right here for trees, so as you come in off of Locust Grove into the site—if this roadway was just shifted north 8 feet, it would still meet minimum parking Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 22 requirements in this office park, but it would allow a little more buffer here along this entry. It is an issue for Ada County Highway District and they are asking that it be located actually on the southern boundary. You should have received their report yesterday, I believe. The main other issue that did come up today was the—this is a 25 foot setback from this office building on the rear. They are only required to provide 20. Right now there is 25 so there is some discussion about moving these lots 5 feet so that this would become a 20 foot separation between lot 3 and the office lot instead of the 25. I will leave it there. Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioner's? Do we have the applicant here and like to come forward. Canning: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission my name is Joe Canning. I am with B&A Engineers in Boise. The address is 5505 W. Franklin. I am here tonight with the applicant and if I could I’d like to approach and hand out some hand outs. Just briefly, the 3 stapled sheets are just a fax sheet on the front –information sheet for the project. The second sheet shows a schematic –kind of a sketch of the project with the pedestrian walkways in it that staff was referring to. The third sheet is the plat that’s on the screen right now with our open space or common lot shown in green. The other handout is bound is just the front page being some colored elevation views of the townhouses themselves and then the interior pages being some floor plans for the townhouses—the first page. The second page once again in the site plan. The next few pages are for the office building, as far as the floor plan and some elevation views. The site is approximately 5 acres. We are looking at essentially 3 uses—2 building uses, one being the limited office for approximately one acre in the front along Locust Grove and 36 single family townhouses on about 4 acres on the remainder of the site extending to the less. They are currently 3 common area lots that we proposed with the revised site plan that is in there. There is actually an additional one being the common area that extends to the south property line being a pedestrian bicycle pathway. Staff has all ready mentioned this is a in-fill site. It is surrounded by current development. The site design—I think there is a few things to point out that are rather important on this site. Number one it is because it is in-fill it is an unusual piece. It is approximately 1000 feet long and about 240 feet wide. It has a point that actually narrows down about half way to the west end that is approximately 220 feet in width. There is not a lot of width to work with on this particular site. The limited office area—on the east end by Locust Grove, we consider that as a buffer to the townhouse of the residential developments in the back. They are single story townhouses that we are proposing. You can see by the elevations on the bound handout that all these are single story. We feel that is a very important point we’d like to point out on this particular project. I think that is very necessary to reduce the bulk size of these structures. There are a number of buildings in that area and we feel that single story is very important item to point out. The applicant is proposing entirely fencing the perimeter of the property with a 6 foot high fencing. Of course, obviously where the 2 pedestrian paths go into the adjoining areas—those would be discontinued at that particular point in time. I think something to chat a little about is the location of the street entry—one of the staffs recommendations was to slide that entry street at least at Locust Grove to the north to provide a little Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 23 more buffer area along that south side. We met early on with the Ada County Highway District regarding this project. We had some concerns about the number of driveway approaches that were on the east side of Locust Grove and staff at the highway district pretty strongly indicated to us that they wanted this road put along the south property line for 2 reasons. Number 1 was to avoid the driveway approaches that were on the east side of Locust Grove and number 2 was they anticipate that this could become joint access for the next property to the south should that ever re-develop. It was important to the highway district that that right of way adjoin that south property line. We did gain ACHD approval. Hopefully you did have that in your packet. That occurred last Wednesday and they did approve it as shown with one exception. They did request that we work toward a pedestrian bicycle route on the west end. We did not object to that at that point of time because it looks like we are heading that way. Just a few things on the staff report itself that I think pertinent to discuss. Number one is the common open space. Particularly the one in the northwest corner. The intent is to have that as a shallow storm water intention area and I do mean shallow. There is a storm sewer that is on the west end of this property. It is the highway district’s. We would intend to probably detain storm waters in our facility and not necessarily retain them all, but detain them. That allows us quite a shallow ponding area back there. It is our intent to make that as a usable area. Regarding bonus density, one of the requirements is that we do provide I guest public amenity—at least in my opinion it is a public amenity is what the requirement is. We feel we have met that requirement now with the addition of these pedestrian bicycle walkways. This actually came up at the annexation meeting last month. Perhaps you remember the applicant was quite diligent to go out and discuss this with the neighbors. They appear to be very willing to cooperate. We are proposing that at this particular point of time. I touched briefly on the access road along Locust Grove. Staff has recommended that we extend the sidewalk on the south side of our entry road to Locust Grove. We do not have any particular opposition to that. Really our intent with the proposal was just to provide a little bit of a buffer strip along that south property line to the property to the south right there. We really would not object to go ahead and extending this sidewalk out to Locust Grove. It just reduces any planning areas down from approximately down to 7 feet to 2 feet. We would still intent to construct the fence along there, at least for the height requirements we could do is approach Locust Grove. It has to reduce in height or disappear. That’s the issue with that buffering. I guess we’ve either got sidewalk or we have more planning area. That’s the way we look at that. Again, staff did note that this is an application for single story townhouses on the residential area of it. We feel that’s quite important. Again I want to point that out. There was also a comment on the staff report, Item 17, that suggested there was no area on the property for recreational vehicle storage area. That actually is on purpose. The applicant does intent to have CC&R’s that restricts outdoor storage of RV’s on the property. We would however, like to point out that just immediately southeast of this property is a commercial self storage area. They are adding on to it right now. We feel that is a much better area for this kind of storage to occur. Item 18 in the staff report discussed a maintenance building. We presume—or indicate that was for maintenance of the landscaped areas. The applicant intents to have a commercial landscape firm maintain the common areas within this project. Our experience has typically been that better care occurs with the common Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 24 areas when it is a professional company that does that. Tonight we do request that the conditional use permit and the preliminary plat, when we get there, be approved. I believe that is it. Hopefully I have given you enough handouts. END OF SIDE TWO Borup: Joe, do you have any comment on Staff item number, last paragraph number 4 on the rear lot setbacks. Canning: I actually did have a response to all the comments back to staff last Friday. Hopefully they received it. We basically concur with those. I talked with the applicant and we are able to meet the requirements discussed in that particular item. Borup: At 11-1/4 rather then 15. Canning: I believe that was what the amount was, correct. Borup: Staff comments that you did not entirely agree with, number 3 on bonus density. Canning: Obviously we would prefer not to loose a lot. The addition of the pedestrian bicycle path even on the south side does increase our percentage slightly. Borup: What percent? Canning: I am sure it is not much. Probably a few tenths of a percent is all. We were able to accommodate that by just narrowing the lots on the south side a little bit so the common area on the east end did not change. Borup: You understand why they are trying to get—I mean the 10 per cent is all ready part of a PUD. That is a requirement—then to get some bonus density you need to do something above the 10 percent. Canning: Correct. I believe one of the options was for a public pedestrian bicycle path. Borup: That is just one of the items that can be taken into consideration. It is not one or the other necessarily. Essentially that and the moving the roadway. Canning: Correct, or sidewalk. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioner's? Norton: Mr. Chairman I have a question. Would you restate about your sidewalk. You don’t want to extend it to Locust Grove as I believe staff suggested. Canning: We don’t have a particular concern with that if the Commission would like to have the sidewalk extended to Locust Grove, we can. The issue is, moving that road to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 25 the north. That is the concern. The highway district specifically requested that we adjoin that south property line with that public road. It is a full 50 foot section now. 50 feet of right of way is what we are proposing. We don’t have a concern, I guess we just like clarification. We are willing to extend the sidewalk. We just would request that it not be moved to the north because of that access (inaudible) on the south property line. Norton: Part of that I would question for staff regarding the comments number 14 school children trying to get from Chief Joseph. Does this sidewalk to Locust Grove have anything to do with the school children moving through that area. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner Norton, not particularly no. That would be all happening all toward the other end of the project. There is of course the access down to the future pending Walgreen’s Store which is just to the south. And, of course Fred Meyer and some of the other amenities there in that complex. Potentially a lot of traffic there. Borup: Any other-- Thank you Mr. Canning. Do we have anyone from the audience like to comment on this conditional use permit. Bross: My name is Richard Bross. I live south of the project. Just down from the proposed office building there. Borup: You’re the lot that ACHD was talking about. Bross: Yes. What I was wondering is if this is going to be—if they can put in a higher fence along my property line. I also have a building that is along the property line that I don’t know how this is going to fit in. It is a horse facility for one thing. I was wondering how this is going to fit in with their program or their so on. Borup: I guess I am not following you there sir. I understand you’ve got a building along the north part of your property. Bross: I’ve got a building in this area here. It is on the property line. Borup: Right on the property line? How did you get a permit for that. Bross: I bought the place that way. Borup: And you wondering how there are going to put a fence in without interfering with your building. Bross: I don’t care if they put a fence in, if they will incorporate the building with it. Borup: Well their fence would be on their property line. If your building is not over the property line it shouldn’t be an interference. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 26 Bross: Okay. I would like to see, okay, in this area your talking about is going to be a park area and I don’t know if a 6 foot fence is going to keep the kids from coming over. Maybe we could go for a little higher fence there? Borup: How big of kids do you have in the neighborhood? Bross: You take a look at the number of houses there and you can make a guess. I am just trying to bring up some of the problems that –what I think might be a problem. Other then that, I have no problem with it. Borup: Right now they are proposing a little bit of a landscaping buffer along your property. You’ve heard staff recommendations and it seems for a safety standpoint it makes sense to have a sidewalk along there. Have you got any comment on ACHD recommendation there. Does that make sense to you to have the road right there. Bross: We’ve all ready got vegetation around there. We all ready have a buffer there. Borup: Thank you sir. Any questions? Anyone else. Bross: My name is Monique Bross. I am also on the same property south on 1975 N. Logouts Grove. I just have one questions as far as –maybe a couple—but as far as a fence, what is the particular laws for the fence as it comes up toward Locust Grove. You were talking about the fact that it was going to diminish as it hits Locust Grove and I was kind of curious how it was going to work. Borup: I would need to go down to 3 foot. There needs to be a line of sight. Six foot is a maximum fence height by ordinance. Is that where your concern was it site line. Bross: I believe so. Borup: The City is concerned and strict on that. There will not be any restriction on the site line from an intersection. Bross: So about how far back will the 6 foot fence actually—well where will the 6 foot end and then slip down to 3 foot. Borup: Brad has staff made any recommendation on that? Is it 20 feet or are you allowing— Hawkins Clark: About 20 feet. Borup: 20 is the ordinance right? Unless you ask for a reduction. Hawkins Clark: It depends on if it is a solid fence or open vision fence. If it is a clear open vision like a chain link, you can go higher because you can see through it. Typically right there if your—our site triangle on local roads is about a 40 by 40 triangle. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 27 So you imagine coming 40 feet from the curb down this way and then 40 feet this way, that kind of creates a triangle right there. You need to keep that open for visibility. Bross: That will be 40 feet instead of 20. Hawkins Clark: Actually yeah. That will—unless –if its clear vision they do something like a split rail or potentially I guess come a little bit closer. Your talking about a sidewalk that is going to be there. Bross: What about the opening to our property. Borup: Which opening? Bross: They were talking about some sort of opening so they could have access to our property in case--- Borup: No, ACHD recommended that the entrance road be on the south side incase you ever want to develop your property, you would have access to that road. They are saying that there is enough access points on there now and they don’t want to allow anymore. That would allow access to your property in the future rather then preventing you from future development. You would have access through that same point if you ever developed your. Bross: Would that affect the fence line at all at this particular point in time. Borup: Not at this point. It would be effective if that future development took place. Bross: One last request that I have is that the fence be solid instead of chain link so that we can have our privacy. Borup: Thank you. Any questions for the Commissioner's? Barbeiro: If you like, I have a copy of the fence ordinance here. It is this page and the two prior to that. Weaver: My name is Bill Weaver. I live at 2137 Sapphire Court. I thank you for your time. I noticed we’ve been covering both items 5 and 6 in this little (inaudible). I’ll try to keep it brief. I am a little concerned about the conditional use permit. I know you are saying you will definitely define and there will definitely be doctors, eye doctors and things of that nature. My questions is, what happens when they can’t get that. What happens when they say, well we can’t put people in there and we want to have this resolved and they go for a conditional use permit for yellow and they want to put a bar in there or they want to put a drive up something in there. How do we stop that. Borup: They would have to come back for another public hearing. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 28 Weaver: So, would it be another public hearing go through the whole thing again. Borup: Oh yes. Weaver: Okay. I notice every time we see this plat we never see the lot lines on the development along with the existing plots, which is what we get when we get our notice from the City. If you would look at that notice that you get from the City you notice that the density of this is all most twice. What I am talking about, this letter that the City sends me and this plat—if you’ll notice that the density of this new lot is all most twice of the existing area. I went to the City Clerk and did some research. He is proposing that the lots be 3500 square feet and by regulation, they are supposed to be 6500 square feet. Borup: That is why they are asking for a Planned Unit Development with a (inaudible) density. Weaver: Even with the Planned Unit Development it is supposed to be 45-50 according to the documentation I have from the Planning Commission and that still what he is asking for is 30 percent below the minimum required. Frontage is required 50 feet. He is going for 29. It is just too high density for the existing plan that is there. Again, we are not saying don’t build there. We are saying build wisely. The comment has been made, well, the lot is too narrow. Even if you put in the 50 foot road, 10 feet on each side, that is seventy feet. Take 70 from 220 and you come up with 150. Divide that in half and you’ve got 75 foot deep lots. Make them 75 by 75 you can put a nice home there. Let’s not put something that is going to detract from the neighborhood for years to come. Borup: You want the lots to be smaller? Weaver: Larger. Larger. Borup: You just said 75 deep. Weaver: He is saying he can’t make the lots large enough to put a real home on it. That is why he wants to go with this 75 by 30 or whatever the plan is. I am saying make them 75 by 75. 75 by 80. Put full size homes on there. I know you think this won’t become rental property but I can guarantee you in three years, all of those will be rentals. You will see the property values in that totally deteriorate and when that happens, so does the property values around it. Borup: (Inaudible) lots are 85 and 88 deep. The lots are 85 and 88 feet in depth. Weaver: Okay, then lets widen them out. Lets not have them 29 wide. Let’s put in housing that conforms with the rest of the neighborhood. That is all we are asking. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 29 Borup: Any comments from the Commissioner's? The plat has presented is 45 lots minimum is what they presented to us. Weaver: According to the documentation at City Clerk is says 29. That is all I am going by. Borup: That was a written application. The subdivision plat, which we will be getting to next has drawn at 40 foot. Barbeiro: Mr. Weaver, do you want to take a look at this. Borup: Who do we have next? Jones: Jay Jones. 1426 N. Carol. I am directly south of this project and I need to address the pedestrian bicycle path. It is true that the discussion has been that the pedestrian bike path on the west end of the property be such and the gentleman on that end said they are working on an agreement to make that happen. They also agreed to provide a 10 foot easement on their property between lots 27 and 28 becoming lot 28. On my side of the property it ends up being in a very unnatural location to (inaudible) from my property. I am willing to allow a pedestrian access for school use only with a gate that I have control over and I guess I am willing to—I have young kids and I four young kids and would be for the duration to let the kids go and come from school and restrict it to that use. There is a way that we possibly could have access permanently between lots 23 and 24, but that is something I would still have to take into consideration that conforms more to a lot line. As yet to determine exactly where that lot line is or how that entrance would work at that location. But that would be on the edge of a property and would not be as difficult I suppose to have an access. But for now, I don’t see that there is any kind of an easement or dedication on my point but would allow the kids to have access for school. A couple other things. Let me ask a question. I know somebody said something about 36 home sites. In reality, if I am not mistaken, it is really only 30. Is that correct, with the staff recommendations—30-31. Something like that. Also they proposed a solid white vynal fence and if this project were to be passed, that would be an acceptable buffer between my properties. I have two properties that extend some 368 feet or so along that southern border. I would like to address one other item on setbacks. I can see the reasoning behind reducing the setbacks to 11.8 versus 15 required. I can see some wisdom in that but yet would ask the Commission to restrict that to only to the very specific lots that is required under this proposed development which excludes all of the southern border lots. They should be able to have 15 feet upon the southern border lots. If the (inaudible) was given to have the 20 foot setback on the front property lines, go from the sidewalk (inaudible) 18.5 feet from the property fence. That would give us –the larger lots and the standard setbacks as well. There is a lot of talk about the density. It would be nice if we had 3 or 4 homes in there with a creek running through it. Maybe a baseball field to go with it, but that is not profitable for the developer and probably not real practical. I think if there is a way to restrict these units to what they have proposed and had meetings that they came to us about it. They said these were going to sell anywhere from 110 to 125. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 30 Well, I realize there is not a lot of control over that but if the square footages or elevations such as a single level and what not can be such that it would keep the property values up then it would be an acceptable proposal to me where I neighbor this property with a couple large parcels. That is all I have. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Jones? Mr. Jones could you reiterate one more time on the path to your property and what your preference was. I am not sure I understood that. Jones: I think what they proposed is acceptable and that is they have allowed a way for the kids to get to school. I agree I will allow the way for the kids to get to school, but I have a hard time with right between my two lots. At this point the intention is for my parents to buy the home I live in and for me to build a new home next door. This pedestrian access would end up right between our two properties offset I guess 6 or 8 feet or so. We have not pinned that down exactly. I am a little nervous about giving up— Borup: Your preference would be between 23 and 24 then? Jones: I am willing to work with either, but I don’t know that I am able to give up on either side because on my new home site that would be access to my potential shop or what not along that side. So, I am not sure I can give up any permanent access but will allow the kids to get to and from school. Borup: What is your number one choice at this point? Jones: I don’t have one. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Bross: My name is Richard Bross again. They plan on putting a well for off season in there and that is going to be adjacent to my property. I all ready have a well there and I am wondering what is going to happen to my water. When the detailed plan comes out like this, we never get to see this type of thing. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Bross? How is your water now. Jones: Fine. I just don’t want to lose what I’ve got. It is a situation that highway is going to go by and take some. Other people are going to come in. And like I say the density is going to be there and there is going to be kids. A lot of problems with this. Borup: How deep is your shallow well now? Anyone else? Brian: Don Brian. 2070 N. Locust Grove Road. I live directly to the east of this project across Locust Grove Road. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 31 Borup: So it is your driveway that they are concerned about? Brian: Ada County. In speaking with Ada County, the way they have come up with their, as you are well aware, with their designated trips of a Subdivision with this type density generates. They have a formula that for each household generates 10 trips a day and each office development generates 11 to 12 trips per 1000 square feet. In visiting with the developer, this office building is a 3900 square foot office building so we are looking at 368 cars coming out of that driveway in one day. The traffic now is insane. That is my biggest problem out there right now. I have watched—I was out there when my closest neighbor was Dick across the street and one quarter mile down the road and I have watched all this development happen around me. I have tried to protect my interest. Right now Dick is trying to protect what he has. He wants to keep this quality of life that he has been accustomed to in the last 34 years and I know what I have lost and as the Subdivisions eat away at the agricultural ground and I hope he can save what he’s got. In getting back to the conditional use permit, I am not comfortable with the office structure on what type of use, what hours are you going to keep, what traffic its going to generate, what kind of a berm are they going to have along Locust Grove Road or is there going to be traffic in and out at night and shining headlights right through my bedroom and living room window. Are they going to create some sort of a screen to keep that from happening. I also feel there is way to much density for the area and I wouldn’t mind seeing a regular Subdivision likes what is around us with one single family housing and not smashed in there like duplexes or townhomes or whatever you want to call them. I will save the rest of my comments for later. Any questions. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Centers: My name is Jake Centers. 5923 Rose Point in Boise. I would actually be the contractor building 32 units as well as the office building up front. I plan to retain the ownership of and actually occupy one of the three spaces in it. As far as answering some of the questions concerning the buffering and type of hours that will be kept, the type tenants involved in it, as anybody knows with any kind of commercial leasing the value of your building is ascertained by the type of tenants you have in that building. As the owner of that building, I am going to make sure I have good quality tenants in there. Tenants I am hoping to attract is someone like a dentist or professional office space like that. Insurance agent or small real estate office, something to that effect and I am sure with yellow zone there is all kinds of regulations as far as the hours and all that type of thing. Kind of put your mind at ease as to what type of building it is going to be and the landscaping, being the owner of it I will make sure that I will protect my investment. I will do the best job I can building a top quality office building. Number one because I want to be in there and number two because I plan on retaining ownership of it. Any further questions. Brown: Mr. Centers, what kind of landscaping are you proposing along Locust Grove. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 32 Centers: To be honest with you I have not had a chance to talk to Joe about that as far as the drainage requirements from the parking area. I think at our last conversation it was going to be a bermed area. I kind of like the Spruce tree kind of look so plan to buffer that with spruce trees and grass. If it is going to end up being a berm, and I think that it is so—whether it is a (inaudible) or a berm, it is going to have plantings in it, grass. There is not going to be rock or anything like that along the road. Norton: Mr. Centers is there any existing trees on the property at this point. Centers: There are. As you can see by the photograph that was taken, most of those trees are diseased and kind of in the process of dying. I can’t say for all of them. There use to be an existing home on this property that has been torn down, so those trees were planted around that home. Norton: Are you planning on taking out all those trees then? Centers: That decision I don’t think has been made at this point. We will obviously try to retain any tree that we can. You just can’t buy those type of trees. Any tree that we can work around and fit into the development that is not diseased and dying, we will try to preserve. Borup: Any other questions? Thank you. Do we have anyone else. Danial: My name is Kim Danial. I live at 2102 N. Zircon. I am in Gem Park. I am north of this project. My concern is my backyard would not back up to rather than one neighbor, I am going to have 3 to 4 divided up. The concerns of course of them later being rentals. So that and also traffic. We have the light at Chateau which I have to wait right now to turn and Carol, which is the Subdivision right before this, has a left turning lane into that Subdivision. I would ask that a left turning lane with the traffic light, this gentleman said your going to have 300 and some cars going in and out of this project. We need a left turning lane. The street Locust Grove is not wide enough for it. It also needs for right. They said they were going to have some type of easement. One thing I have a question about and I don’t understand what the project this large and with the cars and traffic. We haven’t developed all of Locust Grove yet and that is going to— Why can’t you put the street through with the two culdesac so they have access of 2 ways out rather then one. You don’t have it on the map but—right here. Why can’t the street go through. Borup: We maybe get the applicant to answer that but my first impression is that it is off site property. Some one else owns it. This applicant doesn’t control that. Danial: I’m speaking for everybody that uses Locust Grove. We are going to have to— we stop at the light at Chateau, the people at Carol, the Subdivision before they have a left turn. Now we’re going to have to stop for all of these cars going into this. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 33 Borup: Even though that’s a small distance it would be about the same as saying why can’t we run a road through to Zircon instead of there. Danial: You can run through. It’s two culdesac. All is right there--- Borup: There is a culdesac at the end of Zircon also. Danial: My house is there. What I am saying is to me it is like lets put the street through so they have 2 ways out. It will help the congestion on Locust Grove. Borup: I think we will ask the applicant that and see if they have discussed that with ACHD or with-- Anyone else like to come forward? Commissioner's, do you have any questions. Anybody else you’d like to see up. We will have the applicant come up for a final comment. Applicant like to come forward. I don’t know if you have any comments. I think the Commissioner's maybe have a couple items to be clarified. Canning: Well, I made a list. I presume the Commissioner's are probably also making items to ask me about, so maybe I’ll just open it up for questions. Barbeiro: Why don’t you go on with your list. Canning: Okay, I can do that. There was a questions or comment regarding connecting the 2 culdesac. The development off to the left does not touch our property. There is about a 32 foot as I recall, strip of land between that culdesac and our property that is obviously not in our control. We really felt that contacting that neighbor to the immediate southwest of our property and he appears to be quite conducive, at least to the pedestrian path. We felt we were doing pretty good by going that far. The addition of the right of way through there also would require right of way dedication from the individual on the north side, kind of the northeast corner of that culdesac off to the west and we have indication that that party would probably not be interested in cooperating whatsoever. That is the problem. There is 32 feet of land over there that would not permit us to extend that road to connect off to the west. Borup: So you did contact the on neighbor personally, but not the other. Canning: I did not, correct. Perhaps the owners talked to both of them—the applicant itself. I have not. He did contact the individual just southwest of our property. Brown: Did the highway district speak to it at all about it as an option or – I know that they approved it as we see it now, but it was it even discussed. Canning: Well I am trying to remember. They added that or amended that one condition last Wednesday and I did not have a staff report prior to that meeting. The specific condition was that they requested that the culdesac be extended over to the west property line, as I recall. Of course I was unaware of that at the meeting so I got up, pulled it off consent and got up and asked why that way. The comment back from Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 34 the Commissioner's was for the bicycle pedestrian path, as I recall. I think that was the issue. They thought there might be an opportunity to make that connection at some point in the future and we are heading that way. Borup: You want to proceed with your list? Canning: I just want to point out that the highway district has scheduled Locust Grove widening project in 2001, so that plan is on the books. I think the plans are about 95 percent right now. They specifically requested us to hold off on any improvement out there other then the trust fund deposit for the sidewalk because of that impending construction. That should improve traffic situations out on Locust Grove considerable. There was a question on landscaping. You might of heard me over in the corner saying probably on berming. The only caution I have to forward at this point of time is that there probably will end up being a Nampa Meridian Irrigation District easement through that one common area that is on the extreme east side of the property. It has to do with that Jackson stub drain. I just have to be careful of what we can do in that easement area with the Nampa Meridian District as your probably well aware. One of the gentlemen talked about our irrigation well. We could have a note on the preliminary plat regarding a off season irrigation well. Depending what the Commissioner's does with the sidewalk extension to Locust Grove, which I am getting the impression that perhaps we will be doing, we will probably be lifting that facility up and will ( inaudible) on the north side of our entry road, rather then on the south side. I just don’t want anywhere near that sidewalk area. There is another change we will probably be doing. I believe Mr. Jones talked about rear yard setbacks. He is correct. The setback variance we are requesting the rear yard is only for several lots along the north property line. It is not currently planned along any of the units on the south property line. It just has to do with pinched together—like I say just a little over half way back from the east side. The property converges rather than diverges, so there is just a few lots right in that area that would be impacted by that rear yard setback. We at least feel that is probably appropriate. Of course that is up to the Commissioner's to decide. The homes that are in Gem Park are considerable distance from that property line. There is a 50 foot easement area in the back of those lots along Gem park, so any of the structures are a considerable different distance from our property line. Mr. Jones also talked about the location of the pedestrian path to the south. I believe, as far as we’re open to either location. We showed the one on that sketch that I passed out a little earlier. The main reason was we just happen to line up fairly well with the property line. You’ll see some little dashes on my sketch to the south. Those approximately coincide with the property lines to the south. I believe we could possibly locate that at the other location. That was just the reason we located it there was quite coincidental with that property. I believe those were the main points. I would be more than happy to answer any other I may have missed. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's? The fence, the solid vynal is what is being proposed. Canning: That’s correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 35 Barbeiro: Can you tell me which lots will have a setback less than 15 feet. Canning: In the rear? Well, its in the area of 14 and 15 on the north side and it is probably 2 to 3 lots to the east. Borup: Mr. Canning. I’m sorry Tom. The site plan you have are those building foot prints fairly accurate? Canning: Yes they are. They are approximately located around the lots 14 and 15. Borup: That’s why I asked that. 15 looks like it would probably be okay. Canning. Then of course off to the east, so it is perhaps 12 –might be able to scale that on the drawing. Right in there somewhere is where it starts. It increases fairly quickly. Borup: The dotted line on your plat is a 10 foot, is that correct. Canning: Right. Sorry, I should have pointed that out. Borup: It looks to be like 14, 13 –13 is marginal—12, 10, 8 and 6. Barbeiro: Yeah, really about 6 lots. Canning: That sounds about correct. Borup: The other option to not have a reduced setback would, I assume, would be smaller homes. Canning: Correct. Borup: Go to the two bedroom model rather than the 3 bedroom. Barbeiro: With regard to our discussion about the 5 foot shift to make a 20 foot setback at the office moving all of the (inaudible) properties. Did you address that? Canning: We could certainly do that. It was really set up to provide a little more screen back there then the minimum. Instead of the 20 feet, we suggested 25. If the Commission prefer that over in the open space, we can certainly do that. Borup: Any other Commissioner's. Do you have comment on which lots your preference are to turn into open space. Canning: Well, the pedestrian bicycle pathway. That is the obvious choice. I guess we’d like indications from the Commission. Obviously, our preference is not to add any Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 36 additional open spaces. If it had to come to that, we would prefer the ones on the north side. In particular the staff had talked earlier about the possibility –the one, I think it is number 17—number 18 it is. Borup: The way I seem to read ordinance and staff comments, we need to add on for the bonus density. Canning: The way we read it it would be the pedestrian bicycle path that we are suggesting now. Borup: so your saying another one or two tenths of a per cent is enough to— Canning: Not necessarily. I am not saying that. Borup: Oh, I’m sorry. The pathway itself. Canning: No, the additional percentage is very small. Borup: Any other questions? Okay, thank you Mr. Canning. Mr. Brown. Brown: If you did that you would have a single detached patio home, correct. Zero lot line. Canning: Zero lot line. We discussed that with the applicant and apparently that is possible with the floor plan. That is a possibility. Borup: Or, you could prevent that from happening by doing both lots. Canning: Your correct. Borup: Thank you. Commissioner's. Hatcher: I recommend that we close the public hearing. Barbeiro: I will second the motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Would you like to have some discussion before we formulate a recommendation. Barbeiro: Going though the way the developer has laid this out, he has followed the letter of the law and has done what I see to be the absolute minimums to make his development work. When I see the 4250 square foot minimum for a duplex and then Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 37 taking a little bit less than 25 percent off that, it was never my belief that it was the intent of the law to reduce the size that sufficiently any two family dwelling lot. That, in combination with his bare minimum of 10 per cent in bonus area, again it is squeezing an R-8 into a two family dwelling and then taking about 23 percent off of that, then squeezing the bare minimum of 10 per cent into this PUD and again, while it is to the letter of the law I don’t believe this was the way the spirit of the law was designed. With the plan the way that it is right now, it does not appeal to me. Borup: So what recommendation would you make? Barbeiro: I would not recommend – Borup: I mean as far as changing the design that would be more appealing to you. Or is that something you want to get into. Barbeiro: I would like to hear comments from the other Commissioner's first. Hatcher: I would have to disagree with Commissioner Barbeiro. The applicant or the application is not to the letter of the law, but all in all what has been proposed is workable. The density of this project in the location that it is at, in my opinion, is higher than it should be. END OF SIDE THREE Hatcher: I am not opposed to a PUD. I am not opposed to a townhouse. We have a R-8 county Subdivision to the south of it which could, at this point of time, a single family residence and over the course of several months, Doris Subdivision has been told over and over and over that they are going to change into commercial. Well, that is not this Commissioner or anyone else’s crystal ball. They can do what they want when they want. As it stands right not, it is a single family Subdivision. East, west and south and north of this is other Subdivision lots. I think it is all going to work. What I would recommend the applicant do is the square footage of the lots are based upon a PUD – let me back up. Without putting words in the applicants mouth, the proposed size of the lots is probably the main reason for a PUD request. Going under a standard R-8 townhouse requirements, puts him up to 4250. I myself would prefer to see 4250 lot sizes. I do not know exactly—probably take the 30 lots and take it down to 26 and they will lose a couple townhouses by doing that. I think it is a fair market assessment without doing any of the demographics or any of that type of stuff, I think the density can be reduced. I am in support of the staff’s recommendations that at minimum, lot 18 be added to a common area of lot 19 and I would highly suggest that 17 go as well. I am not in favor of taking lot 1, which is a landscape buffer and classifying it as a common area. As many of you know, no kid that lives in any of those townhouses is going to play in lot 1. It is a landscape (inaudible). That is all it is. As far as the sidewalk on the south side of the entry, my recommendation I think would be different than what has been brought up so far. I’d push that sidewalk all the way up against the property line, put in a 5 foot sidewalk and not put any landscaping at all in there. Two Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 38 reasons, one if you put in a 2 foot landscape strip it is just going to become a trash collector and your not going to get any plants to grow in two feet. Second is if the property to the south that fronts Locust Grove does decide to develop into commercial in some time of the future, then the road has all ready been placed as close to that property as possible, also giving the applicant the maximum square footage for his commercial building. Borup: Your saying widen the sidewalk to 7 feet. Hatcher: No. Five foot and just put it right against the property line and add the footage over to the commercial lot. (Inaudible discussion with Commissioner Brown). So your going to have a trash collector anyways? Borup: Or, or you could still put a seven foot sidewalk in there. Hatcher: I just don’t think two foot of landscape is going to do anything there. Borup: A real maintenance headache. Brown: The reason the sidewalk is 2 feet is that it is highway district right of way and if they’ve got to go in and replace the sidewalks, they’ve got room to do that without bothering the neighbor to the south and interfering with his property. Hatcher: The last two things that I had was that I would concur with the applicant that the irrigation well be relocated off of the property line as currently shown and that the current 5 feet extra behind the office basically the northern lot should be adjusted and get that additional square footage into the common area. That’s what I had. Brown: My concern is with Mr. Jones offering a temporary access that if this gets dedicated as a lot within the Subdivision and Mr. Jones changes his mind, we have a pedestrian pathway going nowhere. We are either going to have a pathway or we are not. I think that a requirement needs to be there that that is going to be permanent and that it is going to be there or we don't provide one. I think the applicants tried to do this from comments Mr. Jones made during the annexation request, but to put a stipulation that if he chooses to make it go away later, that to me is not acceptable. I’ve seem pathways around in different subdivisions go in and then not ever be stubbed. They are just a trash collector. I think that the applicant should be either able to get that agreement or that connection and requirement not be required. I definitely think that the connection should be –if he can get that connection to the west, that that should happen that will benefit that development. I would think that Mr. Jones and Mr. Centers could work on some kind of agreement that could provide a permanent access if that’s truly the wishes that provide that access to Doris Subdivision. Borup: Mr. Brown, are you familiar with any walkways being approved with option of vacating the easement in the future date if it did not go? Oh yeah, I guess we had one last month didn’t we. Which would be the other option if the access was denied. Do Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 39 you have anything that you would like to add Sally. Okay, well we have a lot of things mentioned and not all the same comments from each Commissioner. How we going to compile that into a motion. Maybe we ought to start. I think obviously we can start with the staff comments and then any modifications or additions to that. We will give the Commissioner's a few minutes to get their thoughts together. Are you trying to combine your two recommendations into one with out conflicts. Commissioner's are we getting close. Do we want a break or – Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, for your discussion outside of a meaty proposal, what we would like to see and would like to get Brad’s comments on this also, we would like to see 20 feet between each building which would get ten foot to the lot line which would reduce the minimum lot sized down to about 4000 square feet instead of the 3375. Borup: So you want to increase the set back? Barbeiro: The distance between the buildings which is currently set at 5 feet. Ten feet between the buildings and 5 foot off the lot line. Hatcher: Without changing the design of the buildings the way they are currently proposed, instead of having 10 feet between the buildings you increase that to 20 feet which will help you reduce the density and will help increase the open area and will increase the lot size overall. Barbeiro: We concur with the staff and would like to see them include the additional five feet off the office space and (inaudible) 20 foot setback. Would like the developer to work specifically with the neighbors to the south as to where they would put the access for the children to go to school. We’d like to see the sidewalk entering Locust Grove go to 7 feet all across there. We’d like him to consider relocating the well on the southeast portion so as not to interfere with the neighbor. Borup: I think the applicant said if the sidewalk went there they would like to move the well to the north of the property. Barbeiro: Okay, then there would not be a concern. By adding the 10 feet between or from the lot line to the building, adding 20 feet between each of the buildings, that would add 10 feet to lot 36 open space. It would add 15 feet to lot 19 open space and apart from the loss of 4 properties, that would allow him to be within the –well within the 10 percent minimum open space. Borup: Those restrictions—I was just thinking about the 10 foot setback. With those restrictions, they could go to detached housing with a normal 5 foot setback in the same lot size that you are proposing. Isn’t that correct? Your asking for 10 foot setback on each lot, then you could go to detached housing with the present normal setback. It would accomplish the same thing on those size lots. Barbeiro: What is the required setback now? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 40 Borup: Five. Barbeiro: It is 5 feet. Okay Hatcher: But it also (inaudible—away from the mic) Borup: Then you said you had a question on what—my comment on—just on these. Barbeiro: Yes, your thoughts on that. If it were single family housing, that would allow him to then go back and he could redesign the entire item based upon my recommendation. Borup: I agree with everything you got there. The only one I question is that Item number 1. The 20 foot between buildings. It seems like defeating a lot of what they are trying to do here. Maybe that was your intention. I don’t know. Barbeiro: Well I find that taking 25 percent off of the 4250 square foot for a 2 family dwelling again is the letter of the law. I don’t think anybody ever intended for a PUD to come in and take 25 percent off of the 4250 square foot for a 2 family housing. Borup: No, it would be double that. You have a comment from staff over here? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out that if your looking at single family detached, 1000 square foot minimum is what you’d have for a minimum on the structures. It is going to be kind of hard to fit a 1000 square foot on that narrow of a lot in a single story. If you have to start going up, the setback requirements is 5 foot per story, so you are looking at a 10 foot setback if you go to a two story structure. Borup: (Inaudible) another 10 feet on the lot with wouldn’t comply with the other. Barbeiro: The primary purpose is, I believe, that having lots that are a minimum 3375 square feet is very, very cramped and I do not approve of that even though it does again fall within the letter of the law. I don’t believe that was ever the intent of the law. I (inaudible) pretty confident if I follow through with this recommendation it would not be passed this evening. I don’t know that we can—can we make a requirement of somebody, because that requirement is above and beyond what the minimum (inaudible) setback on our ordinance. Borup: But it is a PUD. Barbeiro: Part of a PUD we could make that recommendation. Borup: Well, it is also a conditional use. Probably the conditional use part would be what would allow that . That correct Brad, or either one. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 41 Hawkins Clark: That would be correct. As far as it being a planned unit development I think if you’ve got conditions you want to place on those setbacks, that could happen. It is getting down to the point where your sort of redesigning the site in detail. I don’t know if that is the time or place for it. Borup: Could you clarify the square footage. 4250 square feet. Hawkins Clark: Yeah, that’s per development unit. Per dwelling unit, I’m sorry, for a duplex. Our ordinance is a l little bit wishy washy when it comes to townhouse. It really could be argued frankly both ways on this to use a dwelling unit. To use the duplex, 4250, is a minimum lot area. Technically a townhouse is a single family attached home, not a duplex. Borup: So all purpose of the structure of the building is the same. Hawkins Clark: Right, but and that’s where they get the 4250 and it is acutally 21 percent reduction, I think is was mentioned earlier as 3500 or something. To answer the question about the setbacks at least my understanding of it and maybe the City Attorney can speak to it, if you have the option to require that and make it a condition, I think it would maybe be a little bit questionable if they could make it work, even so. Borup: Do you want me to ask the intention of the 20 feet between the homes, is that open space, you said. Barbeiro: No that would not be open space. The 20 feet between the homes was going back to the idea that the minimum for two family dwelling is 4250 and the developer is asking for a 21 percent reduction of that. I don’t believe the intent when this was written was that there would ever be a reduction in that 4250 as part of a PUD. Borup: Well, not as part of a PUD. That was part of the bonus density. That is why they added the open space and the walking path. That was—those two items were for the bonus density. Barbeiro: I understand that. Borup: Ten percent of those parks was for the PUD. Asking for the bonus density was that percentage over 10 percent. That’s why I ask if your trying to gain some more open space, you say that is not the intention. Barbeiro: I am trying to cut down the density on the site. Borup: Then you don’t need to specify the distance between homes. Just cut down the density if that is what you are trying to do. Barbeiro: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 42 Borup: Which would give them more flexibility on home design to (inaudible) 5 foot setback. You may want to have a design and have larger backyards or—I am not sure what your intent was. What kind of density are you leaning toward. Barbeiro: I’m embarrassed because I am so befuddled with my own words, I’ve lot track. Borup: Right now the lot area are 3275 on up per dwelling unit lot. That is the smallest one in there and then they go up in size. I don’t think we have a breakdown on this plat. It looks like 12 and 13 are the two smallest lots and they all go up from that. Barbeiro: I would like to recommend that we approve to City Council Item number 5, request for conditional use permit for proposed office building and town homes in an LO and R-8 zone, 5 acres by Centers Construction with staff recommendations and would the further remainder of this to Item 6 the remainder of my recommendation. Brown: After all of that? Borup: How about your other – Barbeiro: We’d like to move the property line 5 feet at the (inaudible) for a 20 foot minimum setback as per the staffs request, a sidewalk to the south lot line to Locust Grove to 7 foot. The developer appears to be willing to relocate the well away from neighbors and that the developer prepare or work with neighbors to the south, Mr. Jones, on access thru his property. Included in the request is again the staff comments that additional open space be included which ever the lot that—either lot 17 and 18 or lot 34 and 35 (two lots). Brown: Would you be will to make that permanent pedestrian access to the south. Barbeiro: I would prefer it be a permanent access to the south. That would be a fine idea and I wish to amend my – Borup: How can we control that? Brown: That is the applicant is not able to provide evidence that a permanent access is provided that the access be removed. Borup: So that would be an agreement with Mr. Jones. Okay. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES 1 NAY Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 43 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PROPOSED WESLEY SUBDIVISION FOR 32 TOWNHOUSE LOTS AND ONE OFFICE LOT ON 5.029 ACRES BY CENTERS CONSTRUCTION—WEST SIDE OF LOCUST GROVE ¼ MILE NORTH OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE: Borup: I’d like to open this public hearing. Mr. Clark any additional comments. Hawkins Clark: No additional comments. Borup: Mr. Canning, would you like to come forward I assume and— Canning: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission my name is Joe Canning. I am here tonight representing the applicant regarding the preliminary plat for Wesley Subdivision and I think I have my directions. Any questions. Borup: It sounds like we changed you preliminary plat a little bit. Or at least at this point. Questions? Anyone from the public want to comment on the preliminary plat. Jones: Jay Jones, 1426 N. Carol. Commissioner's my full intent is to allow access for pedestrian use. The problem I have is my lot is 155 feet deep. I am not sure what the requirements are on access but that is giving up a lot of usable land. I have a problem with that being dedicated or in some way restricting. My use of the property, my full intent is for the children to have access. I would argue I suppose with Mr. Brown that my intent is to leave it open, but I really have a hard time in any legal requirement on having that a full access at all times. I just as soon it be closed at night and I just as soon it be used for children access to school. Therefore, that’s the request of the gate and no permanent dedication of that property. Borup: Was it your intention to fence it? Jones: Not on my side of the property, no. Borup: So kids will just be wandering through your yard. Jones: School kids that go to and from twice a day. The only way it would work is if I could put it on the west end of the property and I am not sure how that lines up with the lots for Mr. Centers. Usage. And then I am still concerned because that is taking away drive access to a side entrance garage or shop that I have on that property. Borup: Well, you assuming that you’d bring the path continue in a straight line. Jones: Right. Borup: There is a lot of walk paths in this town where they have jogged over. Jones: Well, that is a possibility. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 44 Borup: At the property line—that is an option if the west end is still (inaudible) access to your corner. Jones: What is the minimum width on a pedestrian access I suppose. Is there such? Borup: Is it 10 feet Brad. Off site I don’t know that—on your property—I don’t know that you need 10 feet on your property. Jones: My intent is to leave it open for the kids, but I don’t see how I can give up access to that piece of property. Borup: Any clarification on that Mr. Brown? I don’t think you were asking for a deeded access but— Brown: My concern is and from my personal experience is seeing pedestrian pathways go in that go nowhere. Without having a permanent access, you have an access that has the potential of going away as someone gets hurt feelings in the future and says your not crossing my property anymore. That is the problem. If it is located near one of your property lines your building setbacks don’t allow for anything to be constructed there anyway. Jones: Well, there is no fence and what not, but I would still like to have a gate there at night for privacy. I actually would like it to be for access to and from the elementary school and if restrictions can be made accordingly then I am fine with it. Brown: Last months hearing we had one and the kids were the ones that were the problem. They were vandalizing the property on either side as they went through. They were the biggest problem and they are the kids from this school. That is the problem that I see is that we put the condition on the developer to put this pathway in and the improvements go in and the space gets provided and then for what ever reason someone gets hurt feelings and the access is cut off. Then we having them come back before us –we need to vacate this because it is just a weed path because the access went away. When it is a great purpose and I think it is a great thing for you to be willing to provide this so that kids have a safe route for school. It is a great thing that you are willing to do. My concern is that it is not going to be permanent. Jones: Can it be permanent with restrictions? Brown: What kind of restrictions? Jones: Well you got school hours or comparable to their access to and from school. Hatcher: I think it is wonderful that we’ve got an existing land owner willing to work with the developer and be able to come to some sort of agreement. I don’t think it is this boards intent to mandate some existing conditions just as easily as this fine gentlemen Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 45 wouldn’t or doesn’t even have to be here talking to us. I think that the developer and him can work it out. If there is a stub to nowhere, there is a stub to nowhere and if it was an undeveloped piece of lot that’s what we’d have. We don’t have that. We have a land owner here willing to let the children cross his property. Until his property is developed in some other way where we can require a dedicated pathway attaching to the developers pathway, then I think we let the developer and private land owner work this issue out. I don’t think it is our problem to solve. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Hawkins Clark: Mr. Chairman. Earlier it was brought up the possibility for to be an easement and I don’t know that that has been addressed. So, as compared to an actual separate lot in the Subdivision, it would be an easement and that that would be much more easy to vacate in the future. You would actually have an easement across your property, but it would be public and it would be permanent, but if you start having problems, one option as was pointed out last month, they can come and submit to vacate that easement. If it is done as a lot, it is actually a re-Subdivision. Borup: Yours talking about Mr. Jones property or on the Subdivision? Hawkins Clark: Well, both. Obviously if you have an easement on one you do an easement on the other. Borup: I have the impression—I don’t think there was ever any intention of an easement – Brown: I would imagine that that’s how you would accomplish that is Mr. Jones is granting an easement for pedestrians to walk across his property and – Borup: It would be that rather then just a legal agreement. Jones: I think either one would work but I still rather close it at 9. Borup: With a lock? Jones: With a gate there that if there was a problem at night, I could lock it and open it in the morning. I have a nice home right now and plan to build an even nicer home. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman I did just want to bring up the fact the previous conversations that I have had with the applicant and Mr. Jones, this pedestrian pathway is also going to serve a dual purpose and that is to get sewer service to Mr. Jones property. We need to—and that would be a private sewer line totally under his ownership and maintenance responsibilities. That is part of the intent as well. Borup: What is the required easement? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 46 Freckleton: We don’t have—10 would be a recommended width, but it is totally private. Once it leaves our main, it leaves our jurisdiction. It is between Mr. Jones and Mr. Centers. Jones: And that would be wide between the lots 27 and 28 is more acceptable for sewer access, where between lots 23 and 24 would have to grant an additional sewer to across the western property that I own to the eastern property. Borup: Is there enough grade to do that? Jones: I believe so but (inaudible) system right now that it wouldn’t matter. Borup: Anything additional? Thank you. Anyone else comment on the plat? Seeing none does the applicant have a final comment. Any questions from the Commissioner's? Guess we are moving along a little better. The hearing is still open. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing. Hatcher: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Okay, did that solve anything? I think any comments on the plat you have all ready handled in the previous on the conditional use permit and the walking path was also handled unless we are looking at any additional modification of that part. Brown: Mr. Chairman. The only reason, and I think I stated it, that I have had poor experiences with non permit easements or micro paths or pathways not going somewhere permanently and that is why I requested on the conditional use permit that they make that. I understand Mr. Jones concern. I am not opposed to the agreement that they come up with having some kind of restrictions on that. Realistically I think there is some exceptions here. There are people that have lived on their property for a number of years, but as a general rule people move and someone else has the property and therefore I just think it is necessary that it be permanent. That is why I made that recommendation. As you understand, we make recommendations to the Council and the Council can change those. This board is just recommending to the City Council. Borup: I can see what you are saying there. I can see some aspects of this may be different then a lot of other situations though. Subdivisions are a little bit more dissimilar then what you normally have the paths between if your looking for a pedestrian thing. The pathway to the west is probably real important but that has not been part of this discussion and I think the only reason it came up was to allow as a convenience for the Subdivision. Sally, are you going to comment. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 47 Norton: Mr. Chairman, for the record I abstained from voting at the last vote. I did not vote. I think there is a real concern here regarding density and I think part of it is my newness. I did not understand. I thought we were voting on the density of this vote. I think it is too dense for my liking. I think we have a wonderful neighbor who is allowing children to access. I can understand Commissioner Brown’s comments regarding it permanent but I hesitate to go that way. Just so the Commission understands where I am coming from. I think it is too dense at this point. Borup: Thank you. Any other Commissioner's have any comments before I assume someone make a motion. Brown: Mr. Chairman I move approval of Item 6 the request for preliminary plat for the proposed Wesley Subdivision for 30 townhouse lots and one office lot on 5.029 acres by Centers Construction subject to staff recommendations and comments. Barbeiro: Second the motion. Any discussion. The motion did reflect the previous motion on converting two lots to the open space park area. I assume everyone noticed that. Commissioner Brown changed 32 to 30. Okay, we have a motion, all in favor. MOTION CARRIED: 2 AYES, 1 ABSTAIN, 1 NAY Borup: Question for the attorney. Do we need 3 votes or just a majority of those voting? Swartley: Mr. Chairman, a majority. You just approved it. Borup: Well we don’t have a majority of the Commission. That is why I asked. We had 2 aye votes. END OF SIDE FIVE Borup: Thank you. That is concluded. The recommendation will go on the City Council. For anyone here, there is another public hearing at City Council where essentially the same process will be repeated. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WOODBRIDGE SUBDIVISION-164 LOTS ON 50.9 ACRES BY WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC—EAST SIDE OF SOUTH LOCUST GROVE ¼ MILE SOUTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD: Borup: I’d like to open the public hearing on this item and begin with staff comments. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner's, this project, as you know, has gone through the process of annexation and zoning and conditional use permit for PUD conceptual. They are now coming through for a preliminary plat and on the screen is phase one , which is the west side of the five mile there which does conform to the conditional use Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 48 permit, planned unit development, conceptual plan, that you and the City Council have approved. This is the view from Locust Grove and a view of the stub street from where you enter the property. A written response to the staff comments was submitted this evening and I would defer to the applicant to go ahead and address those with you at this time. Borup: Any questions of Brad from the Commission? Would the applicant like to come forward. O’Neill: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission my name is Derrick O’Neill. 100 North 9th , Ste. 300. I am president of O’Neill Enterprises, managing member of Woodbridge Community, LLC. Hopefully we won’t be here till 3 o’clock tonight. I want to clarify a couple things and maybe make this real quick. One we have reviewed the comments made by staff in the staff report. We understand and identify the areas of concern by staff. One we agree the reasonably issues and understand our obligation with them and then we also intend to work with staff to define and clarify these comments. As asked, we submitted today some clarifications and supplemental language to their conditions so we could start a dialogue with staff. We also made a copy to you guys here. With that being said, we feel as we did in the past that we would request a recommendation for approval to City Council from you subject to a couple of things. One that the staff and the applicant have the ability to refine, clarify and supplement the comments in the staff report prior to City Council hearing. We just want to make sure we have the (inaudible) not to change the words but to sit down with them and refine, clarify and supplement the comments to the staff report. I think a lot of them are engineering related. I let my engineer go about 9 o’clock because he had to be home, but I think these are issues that we can sit down and work through with the staff. I guess that is what I would ask you to do now. If you don’t want to do that I suppose we can spend a sufficient amount of time maybe going through each of the issues but I think we can work through it the way I suggested. I leave that up to you guys. Borup: Okay. Any questions for the Commissioner's. Hatcher: I have a question for staff. Based upon the applicants comment in working directly with staff and refining these issues, do you have any problems with this? Hawkins Clark: Since most of them are engineering related I will defer to Bruce here. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. As Mr. O’Neill pointed out, a lot of these are engineering related. I guess maybe I would like to just state that we certainly would be willing to sit down and try to clarify our points if they are not clear enough. We want to be intent of the comments for example, site specific comment number 1. You’ve read my comments many times before about sanitary sewer. The requirement on the applicant is to install the sewer mains to and through the proposed development. The designer is to coordinate main sizing and routing with public works. That certainly is something that we definitely need to do with their design team. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 49 comment as I drafted it in this memorandum, I did elaborate a little more than I usually do and those comments were based upon some earlier information that we had at the time of the Five Mile Trunk Line Sewer was built. Our consulting engineer at the time Roylance and Associates prepared a sewer study at the time showing us where mains needed to be ran. Certainly I concur with the applicant that we need to go over hard field data to best determine the routing and size of those lines. I don’t have a problem what so ever with doing that. I have talked several times with the applicants engineers regarding irrigation and so forth. I guess in a nut shell, I don’t really have a problem with meeting with them and clarifying these but I do want to just make sure that the comments as written are our intentions. We intend for these comments to move forward with some modification maybe as far as clarifications. I certainly don’t want to get into a situation where staff is an negotiation process. I want these to move forward, maybe with a little refining. But, not to sit down with staff and negotiate points away. Borup: I am maybe assuming Mr. Hatcher I think is there probably some hesitation on the Commission to forward something on so open ended. We have not even seen the applicants comments to the staff comments or any reply so I assume that is kind of where you were heading. Hatcher: That was not where I was heading but it was one concern. Where I was heading was upon having staffs concurrence with Mr. O’Neill being comfortable that you can resolve staffs comments with your engineers prior to the next or the City Council hearing this. O’Neill: Based on the information we have I feel we could certainly do it but I am not sure we have the information here in front of you tonight to be able to make a decision on whether or not the street corner or the sewer all along Locust Grove needs to be put there. I think we’ve got to do a little more engineering work and there maybe an alternative that is different then that that satisfies the City and City engineers that may allow us to do something. If you did this as written, it says includes all frontage along south Locust Grove Road and we are not arguing with the fact that we need to put sewer through and to the project, we are in agreement with that. We just want to make sure that we don’t have to (inaudible) all the way along south Locust Grove Road if there is another way to do that or if the topography would not let you do that. We are in the preliminary plat stage. We have not done the final design on the sewer. We are working on that and that is something we certainly intend to do. Borup: I think what Mr. Hatcher maybe asking another time to do that before the City Council hearing. O’Neill: You bet. I think we’d feel very comfortable doing that. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman that is an excellent example. Certainly it is Public Works intent that sewer be installed along the entire frontage of Locust Grove. One of the discussion items that we have had is whether it be best served to bring sewer through their development out on to Locust Grove and then run south with it. And, as well as Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 50 run north with it to the north boundary of their development. We don’t know yet until we have some better engineering information whether that north leg would be best served coming back to the line that they would be extending through their development or whether it would be better served running toward Franklin Road. However, it is our intent that one way or the other sewer would have to be installed along the entire frontage. If it is determined that that stretch from their entrance road to their north boundary is better served going to Franklin, then that stretch would be installed by O’Neill’s as a dry line sewer until such time it could be extended on further north to Franklin Road. From Public Works perspective we are looking at sewer in all of the frontage one way or the other. Borup: Just on that example, if it did extend to Franklin, what property would that service? The property on the west side of Locust Grove then? Freckleton: The west side of Locust Grove and the property from their north boundary to Franklin. Borup: Well right, but O’Neill’s would not need that. The only one that it would service along their frontage would be on the west side of the road then. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, lets not forget that this project does also have another piece of property on the west side north of what’s in front of us today. I see these as design issues, not preliminary plat issues. O’Neill: If you read condition number 2 I would be more comfortable, which does the same thing in my opinion—dealing with the water. It is really handling the issue the exact same way. Water service to the site will be via extensions of existing main on Locust Grove Road. The applicant will be responsible to construct water mains to and through the proposed development. Subdivisions designer coordinate main sizing (inaudible) the Public Works Department. In my mind the sewer issue is essentially the same thing. We’ve got to provide the sewer to and through and we have to coordinate that with our final design with the engineer. What I did not want to go through and specifically nit pick these things. I am prepared to, but I feel we can work through these with the City Engineer and by the time we hit the City Council, we will have maybe refined and clarified some of these issues and will be comfortable and the City will be comfortable with— Borup: Question then for staff. What is the status if agreement for some reason is not reached. Does it still go forward to City Council or come back to us. Do we know? Freckleton: I guess I would defer that to legal counsel. I am not too terribly comfortable with this set up. We can not send recommendations to City Council without an approval from you guys. Their then going to go and work this out with staff and I am not going to have anything to recommend to City Council. Nothing is going to them. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 51 O’Neill: I think it is misunderstood what I said. I was—I am saying as long as you recommend approval of the subject to staff and applicant having the ability to clarify. Swartley: Well exactly. I could send something entirely different to City Council then what your going to come up with in your negotiating with staff. I am sorry. Your just— Borup: Are we talking any issues here other than engineering. Are there a couple others that would be separate from – Freckleton: There was a issue of the open area considering the detention ponds as part of the open area. There was comment regarding the fencing and landscaping plan. There was comment regarding assurity requirements by the City for development improvements. Then the multiple use pathway issue on Five Mile Creek. So those are the items that they have highlighted other then engineering. Borup: Any other Commissioner's? Do you have anything else? O’Neill: I’d be happy to go through the specific conditions if you want. I kind of need your direction. Borup: I am thinking in the engineering issues it doesn’t make sense for us to get into. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, do you concur with staff comments and recommendations as they are written? O’Neill: We don’t. Unless we have the ability to sit down and make sure we understand them. We got this report last Thursday. We’ve requested, and not been able to get together with staff, so we understand the specific intent of them. That is the first thing We want to do is make sure that we understand where they are coming from and what their issues are. Second we can make a decision on whether we agree with them or not. Hatcher: Well for discussion purposes (inaudible). If the applicant needs more time to work out these engineering issues with City staff, then we can continue it to our next meeting until they come to a resolution. I think that would be the best interest for everyone involved. O’Neill: We would prefer not that if that means that— Hatcher: That would mean a open book recommendation through until there are resolutions. Brown: Code requires that the recommendation comes from the Planning and Zoning Commission. If you have not been able to work with staff and come up with conclusions, then this should not be the (inaudible) period. You need to work that out with staff. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 52 O’Neill: Then I am prepared to go through our specific comments and tell you what they are. Brown: And, as we discussed, those comments are engineering items and we need comments from staff to know that that is. If staff feels confident to handle that now, as you discuss each one of those items, then I guess that would be appropriate. If no, we are wasting a lot of peoples time. We don’t even have them in front of us. You have not choose to share that with us yet—what your comments are. O’Neill: We got the report Thursday. We’ve tried to sit down with staff but staff has not been able to do that. I’ll share with you right now if you want comments and walk through with them specifically. Borup: Let me ask Bruce and— O’Neill: Shari isn’t even here so I don’t know how staff can address the issue. Brown: Her staff is here though. Borup: How soon do you think a meeting could be set up and how many do you think it would take. Freckleton: Since the time we drafted our comments I have had numerous phone calls with their design team. Staff is pretty reluctant to sit down at a table after we prepare comments and send them to Planning and Zoning or City Council for that matter outlining our position on these issues. We are pretty reluctant to sit down and basically negotiate things away. We are not or can not do that. Once our comments are submitted, they’re submitted. I believe this is the proper form for those discussion items. I certainly can address the engineering right now if that’s your desire. I don’t know if Brad is prepared to tackle the other items or— Borup: Do you have enough information as far as the grade, topography and design. Freckleton: I don’t but I believe that that first comment can be handled pretty simply. Those are design issues that we would have to work out between now and the time that we approve the final plan for the development, which is a normal standard-- I don’t –I feel comfortable with –if you want to refine that comment to say something like routing and sizing to be determined between the applicants engineer and public works. Hatcher: Mr. O’Neill, question for you. Short of going through each and every one of these specific topics and talking about each issue, in general can you enlighten me as to why you have a problem with each one of these. This is not a form for negotiation. We are not lawyers sitting here negotiating a deal. The City’s got requirements that it has to uphold, so I want to know in general where you are coming from and why you don’t concur with these comments. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 53 O’Neill: I think I can do that. Borup: Real quickly go those that’s okay. Just say we’re fine. O’Neill: Condition number 1, sanitary service. At this point we’d request to work with Public Works Dept. so that we can get farther with the final design to determine whether or not their exact conditions are appropriate. We think as we get into final design and further design there may be some alternatives that achieve exactly what staff or what the engineer wants and will satisfy the same purpose. Condition number 2 is okay. Condition number 3, we want to modify and include the fact that we don’t want to pipe or tile the wetlands on the property. There is a small wetlands area on the property that could be construed as a drainage and we don’t want to tile or pipe that. Condition number 4, we would like to be able to and you’ve got the thing that has been handed out to you so you can follow this, we would like the ability to work with staff and give them input and design and location of the street lights. We understand that there is specific codes and we’ve got to follow those, but we’d like to have input in the design and location of them. It is something that we have done many, many times in the past and would like to do. Condition number 5, detention ponds. The detention ponds will be built to handle the necessary drainage for the highway district as well as the City Engineer. There was some question by staff as to whether those would satisfy the common area requirement that we’ve got in the project. We identified common area that would be twice the required common area in the project. We still intend for these detention (inaudible) common areas to service some active and some as passive open space. There was a questions there by staff and I think we’re saying we will satisfy the engineering requirement and we will have some open space that is passive which means kids don’t play in it but it is open and you can look at it. We took staff out to a project and showed them a while a go the way we would design and do these and we still very much intend to do that. Condition number 6. We disagree with and feel that what we agreed to in the conditional use permit was a fencing and landscape plan along Locust Grove Road. That is what we would like to continue to do. We also agreed that we wold bond for that. We don’t feel detailed landscape plans for all of the common areas within the community are necessary for review and approval prior to submittal of the final plat. What we agreed to in the conditional use permit was a landscape plan along Locust Grove Road to be reviewed for prior to. I think you can recall that. Same thing with perimeter fencing. Condition number 7, a letter of credit or cash be required for all pathways, swimming pool, community center, sanitary sewer, water prior to signature on final plat. Our comment on that on the research we’ve been able to do in the last little bit and in past projects is that bonding is not required for primary improvements and code requires that public improvements be bonded for not private improvements. This is a private improvement. We feel with the development agreement and the conditional use permit the City does have authority and the requirements to get us to put those improvements in, but to bond for them, we don’t feel is appropriate. Condition number 9, sewer and water assessments I guess we just want more clarification on that. It talks about in addition to these water and sewer, latecomers fees will be charged against this parcel. We have asked now for over a year Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 54 and a half what those latecomers fees would be and what the formula would be to determine those. The formula has changed and we have not been able to come up a (inaudible) number. We don’t want to agree to a latecomer fee until we understand what in the world it is going to be and what the formula is. Again, something I think can be handled but we have not been able to come to closure on that issue. We also want to make sure that there is latecomer fees that we can generate if we are pulling services to our site that other people are going to benefit from as well. Condition number 10. There is a question about the homeowners association or Nampa Meridian Irrigation District owning the irrigation facility. We fully intent for this to be Nampa Meridian Irrigation system. It talks about year around service to the property. I guess I am still –we have talked to the Engineer a little bit but I am not still real clear to this. Our limited investigation shows us that this condition, if we can’t have year around water, we need to hook up to City water for 3 months out of the year Oct thru Jan, and there would be an assessment or hookup fee for that in access of $90,000. We are not sure we understand that to begin with and/or agree with it. Condition 14, it’s a tough one. We sympathize with the City and I guess what we can say is that it may be ludicrous for the City to maintain and accept liability under such a scenario. We are willing to offer the Nampa Meridian folks as a homeowners association the liability insurance necessary for them to be comfortable with it, but we would like the City to help us work with the irrigation district so we can work through that. As you remember, part of the Comprehensive Plan asks for projects to have pathways along Five Mile Creek. Under this scenario the City doesn’t own or wouldn’t own this immediately. We would be the ones putting it in and owning it and the irrigation district has a problem with that. What we are asking that the City works with us on that but I guess I don’t really have an answer for their concern on 14, other than I agree with them. It would be silly for them to take responsibility of something that they don’t own. I guess that we would ask that we enter into the agreement with Nampa Meridian. We would provide liability insurance to Nampa Meridian until such time it could be assigned to the City of Meridian. I guess I did that very quickly, but you asked for an overview and then I handed you specific comments and some narrative to those comments on each of the conditions. Borup: Any questions. Hatcher: I guess more of a statement. Going through this –following along in you letter as your speaking, a lot of your concerns is that the I’s aren’t dotted and the T’s aren’t crossed and you don’t know what the specifics are. If you were referring to will it be remembered when, if you remember during the conditional use permit and our submittal to the PUD and stuff, I am kinda put the shoe on the other foot. When you came in 2 or 3 months in a row on this project asking us to listen to your general request and while we don’t want to get specific because we are in the design process. This is a overall design intent and while we can’t give you a specific answer because we don’t have one—well now the City’s turned around and said hey, we have specific answers for you. These are our conditions. I can appreciate your position and I know that PUD’s are very harmonious space, but I think it is time that we start dotting I’s and crossing T’s, and it is time for OEI to start dotting I’s and crossing T’s and if that means Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 55 that you have to sit down with your engineer and start working these details out to conform with City requirements, then that is the time –I feel that is where we are at now so we can come to agreement because we can’t keep going forward with generalities from this point on. O’Neill: I agree with that 100 percent. My response to that is if we can’t sit down with the City Engineer to review some of these, we’ve got to put them in front of you. Specifically, Condition number 3. The way we read that is that Condition number 3 would say that any drainage ditch or easement needs to be tiled. We have a drainage ditch that is considered a wetlands and we don’t feel that it is appropriate and/or necessary to tile it. So would ask that that be changed. Another one is we are saying is don’t feel that we need to bond for private improvements because we can’t find anywhere in your code or your laws that says we are required to bond for private improvements. Therefore, we are agreeing that if it is public improvements we would bond for it and in the conditional use permit we did agree to give you a specific detail and plan and we would bond for the Locust Grove Road, which we said was a very specific area. We agreed to do that and are fully prepared to do that. Commissioner Hatcher, I agree with you. What we are trying to do is get some way to work with these guys to say, you know we either come to an agreement or don’t or we got to come in front of you guys and City Council and say what I just did. I guess the letter that we presented to you is our way of crossing the T’s and dotting the I’s. We feel that there is somewhere between what the staff has submitted and what this is should be the ultimate reality, but that is what—we had a 48 hour period of time to turn this around to you. We would have much rather have gotten it to you yesterday, but we did not have time to do that. I agree with you. Hatcher: I can empathize with you. Staff recommendations are dated February 2nd and your response letters dated today. At the same time I don’t think the Commission in front of you tonight and I speak for myself, but I don’t think like you told the first time we met, we are not going to make any snap decisions. If we want to sit here until 3 o’clock in the morning again working these all out, we can do that. Where did we get last time? We ended up postponing it anyway. Not of us could think straight at 3am. Freckleton: If you would like I could fly through probably just a wee bit quicker than he went through and touch on each of those items and maybe clarify some of these points for you. Hatcher: If we could get to come resolution by all means, I would welcome it. But, if we are going to sit here and spin our wheels to night— Borup: One thing I might mention, we do have a meeting scheduled for the 22nd of this month that is all ready on the books. O’Neill: Can I ask a question? If it were moved to the 22nd , would that still leave us the ability with that hearing and approval or recommendation to be in front of the Council on the 7th . Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 56 Borup: Do they need 15 days? It looks like we are a day short for notification. There is just not enough time for legal notification. Commissioner's, do we want to have Bruce – Hatcher: I think you can appreciate where we are coming from. We have been down this road before. I think for your benefit and the City’s benefit we deal with this properly. O’Neill: I guess I need some indication that maybe we should go through some of these and get your guys thoughts on them. What I am hearing staff say is they have written these things and this is where they are and they are not going to move from them. If that is the case, I guess we—it is not going to be between us and staff. It is going to be between us and you folks. I don’t think that is really what the staff’s intent is but – Hatcher: I don’t think staff’s intent is that either, but there are minimum requirements and I think staff has been relatively specific and clear on what those minimum requirements are. How those requirements are met is a design issue and that goes to your engineer. It doesn’t go to this board and it doesn’t go to staff. It is your engineer that needs to provide those answers. Borup: Well, I don’t know if all of that is clear cut on every item here. O’Neill: I think there are some specific code issues and that is what we are asking for clarification on. Take number 7, we don’t see anywhere in the code where it says bonding for private improvements are necessary. We are asking for— Borup: You want to get Bruce and Brad—do you want to go down through those? Take the applicants response you feel is just—can you do that quickly? Freckleton: I would do that, yes. Item number 1 we have talked about. I don’t think we have any –we are in agreement on that. Item number 3-our comment comes straight from Ordinance. Ordinance requires that all ditches be tiled. If there are certain ditches that the applicant can not tile for one reason or another, I believe the proper procedure would be to get a variance to the tiling requirement. That is not something that staff can just set aside. Borup: That is per ordinance. I am going to interrupt here as we go along. Maybe clarify things as we go. Your comment on—the only concern on that was the wetland area. O’Neill: Yes. It is a delineated Army Corp of Engineers Wetland. Borup: It looks like from your plat you don’t need to be realigning the wetlands anyway. O’Neill: A portion of it. We are medigating a portion of them. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 57 Borup: So your looking to make that somewhat of a amenity—Subdivision design and water amenity. O’Neill: Yes. As you can see at the upper part of there, that is the area we are medigating and we will be moving in the area— Borup: You just going to move it over? O’Neill: We will move it over and then medigate up above. That area right above up there is the area of question that I am seeing that is a delineated wetland and we feel it would be appropriate to leave it open as opposed to tile it and ditch it. I think there are words in there that said there were circumstances that would allow us to do that, I think you guys could look—that’s what we’d like to do. Borup: Does the City even have anything that addresses wetlands? Freckleton: Not that I am aware of. Brown: That’s not one that we can wave. If it is an ordinance it’s one that Council has to do. Freckleton: That’s correct. O’Neill: We don’t have a problem taking that up with Council. Borup: That item would be a variance then. Item number 4. Freckleton: Item number 4, Public Works Dept. designates the locations for street lights. The City of Meridian has adopted a standard type of light. If the applicant wants to do more than our minimum standard, they can certainly do that. If they want to go to a historical type light, they can certainly do that. As long as they meet the minimum criteria that we set down, they can do it. If they want to go with historical pole and light, the City requires that they enter into a street light agreement which basically states that the homeowners association will own and maintain the lights. The City of Meridian will pay power on them but we won’t take over ownership or maintenance of them. The concern there is because they are non-standard, non-stock items. If a globe gets broke you don’t just go down to you local electrical supply house and pick a new one up. And it can be fairly costly as well. Borup: And your concern on that item was? O’Neill: My concern was we don’t have a problem at all meeting the minimum requirements, but what we’d like to be able to do is if we exceed or do something that satisfies the minimum requirement be able to do it. For example, if their minimum requirement is 3-25 high street lights and we want to put in 6-20 foot street lights to give you more light and coverage, we want the ability to talk to them about doing that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 58 Borup: That kind of thing— O’Neill: That is the kind of thing we want to do. We want input in the design and location of street lights. Borup: Sounds like that one is okay. Freckleton: That’s fine. O’Neill: Its not if we don’t get the design and input part of it included in there. Hatcher: That is normal design. These staff comments aren’t going to hold you to the law like your implying that they will. Freckleton: I’ll skip over 5. That’s kind of a P&Z issue. I will go down to assessment fees, Item number 9. The latecomers fees as Mr. O’Neill mentioned, we haven’t determined a fee yet. We do have a consultant working for us right now that has been cleaning up some of these old ones to determine these fees.. Borup: This sewer is coming from Magic View area? Freckleton: It runs right up along side Five Mile Creek—toward St. Luke's. The latecomers fee is basically going to be the mechanism that the City is going to have in place to reimburse itself from hook ups. Borup: That hasn’t been figured out? Freckleton: We haven’t had that much development pressure out in this area—not as much as much as we have in other areas, but we do have a consultant working on it. We will be getting that very shortly. Certainly if this applicant does install sewer and water out in Locust Grove as we’ve put in our comments, they would be eligible to or they will be able to make applications to City Council for latecomers reimbursement agreement for that line. That is Council’s decision whether to enter into an agreement or not. Borup: Is there any indication that the latecomers fees here would be anymore than other areas. Freckleton: No. Probably be fairly standard. Just a ball park idea, I’m guessing it would be somewhere around 500, 600. It depends upon the size of the service area of course. This is a fairly large service area for this trunk line so it is distributed out over a larger area. O’Neill: I guess we just feel a little uncomfortable with that being open ended so that is why we suggested—(Inaudible cross over discussion). Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 59 Borup: Do you feel comfortable saying there is not going to be any higher then any other area in Meridian has been assessed. Freckleton: I don’t know that we can pin ourselves down with that Keith. Borup: I’d feel the on that one. How do you agree to—that’s agreeing to a blank check. I guess you’ve got to trust the City is going to be reasonable. O’Neill: I guess that is what we are saying. We’d like something in there that gives us ability to work with the engineer that makes sure it is consistent with and reasonable. Freckleton: If they want to look at the methodology for the calculation— Hatcher: Can we have a specific number to OEI by the City Council meeting from that consultant? Freckleton: Possibly. I’ve got him working on another fairly sizable one right now and I am not sure when they are going to have that one delivered. I’ll shoot for it. Barbeiro: Derrick definitely needs a number because he needs to be able to plan what he is going to charge as fees (inaudible). Freckleton: Item number 10. I guess the biggest thing there was they had some questions regarding the methodology or the why we require a single point connection. Just simply stated it’s to cover the period of time in the spring of the year and the period of time in the fall of the year when you don’t have irrigation/water live in ditches. Now, after talking to (Inaudible) Engineers, I believe that they are looking to Five Mile Creek for their source. If that is the case, that is a year around flow in Five Mile Creek and this is probably a mute point. It is and has been and will be a requirement of the City of Meridian to have year around source of water to a pressurized irrigation system. It depends on the design of the system at this point. Borup: Was it your intention to design that from Five Mile Creek then. O’Neill: That definitely is our intention, but if we are not able to deliver and we are not sure yet we’re not able to deliver year around water the way we interpret this it is in order to have the pleasure for the City they have water for 3 months out of the year Oct thru Jan, we are going to asked to pay a $90,000 plus hook up fee to the system. At least that is the way we understand it. It is the difference in paying for the water to use the water and paying just to have the privilege to use the water. This is for common areas not for individual home sites. There is a big, big dollar issue there that we just don’t – Borup: Has there been any other options Bruce. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 60 Freckleton: There certainly is. They could look into the option of drilling their own well. Some sort of shallow ground water well. Borup: Is there a concern at this point where the Five Mile Creek would have the capacity, is that what your— O’Neill: Don’t know the answer to that. Freckleton: It certainly would be our –it’s in the best interest of the City if they do find an alternate source for their year around. Water is very costly to pump and especially to put on the ground. If they can find an alternate source, it is definitely in everyone’s best interest I believe. O’Neill: We consider we have an alternate source. It just may not be able to be provided Oct thru Jan or Feb. Certainly it is provided Mar thru Oct. What they are saying, if we can’t provide the water from Nov thru Feb, we’ve got to be able to hook up to City system so we can turn our sprinklers on. Borup: That is not the City’s intent is it. Your not worried about water in the winter time. Your worried about water in the early and late growing season. Freckleton: Exactly. In the event we have a drought year and Nampa Meridian shuts the water off in September and people’s yards are dying, they are going to be screaming. That is the purpose of having the second connection. The assessment fee that he is referring to is the potential impact on the City system to be watering the common areas off of the City system. It is based on the square footage of the landscape. O’Neill: We would need clarification on what the specific assessment would be. If we know the square footage of it, is it just to water the common area or is it to get a hook up fee and then we pay in addition to that to water the common area. We— Freckleton: The assessment fee is your hook up fee. Then you will have a monthly billing. The assessment fee is one equivalent residential unit, in other words what one house would pay for every 5450 square feet of landscaping. O’Neill: That’s what we though we heard you say and we disagree with the methodology of that. END OF SIDE FIVE O’Neill: It’s double dipping. It is one for your individual home site and one for the common areas. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 61 Freckleton: No. Your only paying for your common area. Your only paying assessment fees for your common area. The other has all ready been paid for with each individual building permit. O’Neill: Which means its being paid for twice. Freckleton: No, it is not. It is being paid for once. O’Neill: (Inaudible) paid for by us as the developer but it’s paid for by builder. Freckleton: They are paying for their building lot. They are not paying for your common area. Borup: I think there is some confusion there. He is saying your assessment fee would be just for your common area, not the individual lots. How you assess that is 5400— you say 5400. O’Neill: And if we have 16 acres of common space then you multiply that out. That comes to about $90,000 for the assessment to hook up to the system for potentially a 2 month period of time when their might be a dry season. What we are saying is that we just don’t agree with that. Borup: But you’ve got to get your source from somewhere. I think what the City is saying you have there, you get Five Mile Creek or drill your own well. Hatcher: Bruce, this requirement—this 12 month access to water for the common area, whether it comes from the City or other sources, is not the condition. (Inaudible conversation talking over one another) Hatcher: Unless we sit here and change the wording. I concur with him on that. Freckleton: In essence it is year around. It is water that is available year around. However, your not going to be using it outside of the growing season. I don’t know what words to apply to that. That is the intent—is to pick you up from spring of the year prior to April 15 when water comes in the ditches and from October 15 to the end of the growing season, whatever that might be. Hatcher: That source would come from Five Mile Creek or a well or the City. The assessment fee is only incurred if they connect to the City. Freckleton: That’s correct. Brown: The assessment fee is—how is that determined. I mean –you quoted figures. Where do you get that. It’s in the code? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 62 Freckleton: That’s in the Ordinance. O’Neill: We need some help or clarification what section and verse that is in the Ordinance so we can make sure we are comfortable with that. Freckleton: I don’t have a full Ordinance book. Borup: I don’t know if we are going to get an answer to that one. I think you need maybe to do some research on water capacity out of Five Mile. O’Neill: We are doing that as we speak. We were surprised by this one. We weren’t aware— Borup: Yeah, that may answer the whole thing. That has been on every Subdivision— the off season source of water. At least the last few years. I think it became effect because the problem, isn’t that correct. Freckleton: The reason they did—the problems we do have when we don’t have this requirement is people will connect their sprinkler systems to City water and irrigation water and many times, without the property back flow devices, which— O’Neill: I don’t think we have a problem with the intent of this. We just have a problem with understanding the formulation. How do you come up with the dollars and taking to the extreme, it is a large dollar number to us and we’d like to understand where in the section and code (Inaudible) the common areas and the fee that— Borup: Looks like some other options. Not the only choice. Freckleton: Some of that we can (inaudible) from ordinance and some of it is policy. Borup: Do you have a comment on 14 Bruce? Freckleton: I don’t. I would defer that to Brad. Borup: Brad, start with number 5 then. Hawkins Clark: Right. Number 5 deals with the open space areas and I would refer to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that were approved by the City Council. It is paragraph 2.1.5 on page 10 and I assume that you don’t have that so I’ll just--. It doesn’t speak—the findings state that the development should include a minimum of 14 acres of open space generally consistent with the master site plan and I believe this is generally consistent with the master site plan. They have referenced the 20 percent, the findings state 14 acres, I don’t have that for you what that is. Maybe Scott can. The term open space shall include with out limitation an active recreation area and community center, pocket parks, linear parks, green belt corridors along Five Mile Creek. Only site wetlands and corridors between neighborhoods. That must be a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 63 mistake there. In terms of the applicants response that the purpose is to include active and passive uses. It is the intention of the developer to use these spaces for storm water detention I think. It might help first of all to get it pointed out exactly which areas we are talking about. I think if its usable as it states in the findings and fact there were approved by the City, as in many other projects there are design issues when it comes to designing these retention areas. The two percent slope and get it so that there is not going to be standing water. All those issues that come into play. Borup: So, the concern is retention pond and whether they are usable. Is that your understanding from the findings that all the open space was supposed to be active, usable space. Hawkins Clark: That is the wording. An active recreation area and community center. That is the wording it uses. O’Neill: The active recreation center was designed where we are going to have the clubhouse, the swimming pool and an active area for someone to be able to play soccer or throw the softball around, etc. The areas in-between the neighborhood have in the past in all of our projects, and we intend to here, redefine as active open space. Where, if you want to go walk your dog you could do that but your probably not going to have a sanctioned soccer game or softball game there because there is going to be trees and drain rock in the bottom of the retention basin so its going to be used more passively then actively. It still serves as open space and the buffer between neighborhoods. It would meet the drainage requirements where the water has to drain through and for the highway district as well as for the City Engineer. We drove staff, not Brad but Miss Stiles, through several of our projects and she said this is very nice. This is something we’d like to see. Borup: That was my understanding from the first time that they were going to be in there. I guess a definition of what is active usage.. Hawkins Clark: I think so. I guess I don’t see an issue with it. The condition dealt specifically with the detention ponds being designed in such a way that you don’t have that accumulated water. I don’t hear that they are not going to do that so—I don’t see that there is an issue here. They stated they are going to maintain it for the governing agencies and that includes us. Number 6 is the fencing plan in detail –landscape plan. I guess I would again refer to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 2.1.26 is on page 17. It does say that each plat shall address fencing details for the portion of the development covered by that plat. Fencing is not the issue here. It is the comprehensive landscape plan. I can not find and I agree with you, I can not find anywhere in the conditions that is states that we—that they are going to have to submit a detailed for anything but the Locust Grove buffer. Borup: Isn’t that also what you were saying Larry. O’Neill: I am okay with that as long as – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 64 Borup: That makes sense to me. I don’t think (inaudible over-lapped talking) O’Neill: It is a private improvement. Hawkins Clark: The wording in the condition – it is very standard that we require detailed fencing and landscaping plans at the time the final plats are submitted. Interior to the site on the public right of way, it does not matter. We ask for those to review those just for—typically there is not much reaction to them. They are just used mainly to get species so we have something to sign off on when it comes to signing the final plat. O’Neill: I don’t have a problem with they signing off on a landscape plan, but we’ve got 5 or 6 different landscaped areas. We prefer to show you a typical. What we don’t want to do is have to bond for that—have the City have to come out and say you put your tree in four foot deep instead of two foot deep so we are not going to release your letter of credit or bond. We agree with the fencing for the phase that its in, we will do that, but a detailed landscape plan for that entire area is something that we’ve never done before. We don’t interpret the code to mean we have to do that. Don’t have a problem sharing a plan with you. We do it in Boise. We’ve shared a typical plan. They look at it and say that works. Hawkins Clark: Would that typical plan be available at the time of final plat? O’Neill: Between the difference of final plat submission and approval I think is a different thing. We prefer to do that at the final plat approval. When you have to sign it, versus final plat submission. Borup: Your talking about just interior. Your saying you could provide Locust Grove. I don’t know how the other Commissioner's—I think that answers that for me through. Can that wording be changed to reflect that. Hawkins Clark: I guess I would just defer that to legal. To be honest with you I don’t want to speak to the— Swartley: I can’t speak to that either. Hawkins Clark: Maybe Will can speak as far as the public private. Borup: The only reason I can see is a lot of these amenities were added for the conditional use permit and PUD. Since it is conditional use you revoke it. O’Neill: It is real clear that the conditional use and then there is a development agreement that we have executed with the City that says we will put in these improvements and the City can revoke our conditional use permit or our development agreement if we don’t. So, we are feeling that you are adequately covered there and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 65 it’s-for us to go out and file a letter of credit or surety to have you come out and check whether or not we put the pool in the way we— Borup: That makes sense to me. Swartley: Mr. Chairman, one question. Was this in the new code or the old. The new one, the 9606B. You don’t know. Okay. I was just curious. Borup: Then the last one—number 14. Have you answered that. Hawkins Clark: I don’t believe so. The—they are committing to provide the liability insurance through the homeowners association. The idea is for the City to not commit itself on ground it does not own and I just see it as a rewording of what we have all ready stated. Am I missing something? O’Neill: Yeah I think it is an issue that we are going to need to work with and we’d like the City’s support in working with the irrigation district on that. Ultimately, it might be something that could be assigned to the City if the City were to take it over, so we think that Nampa Meridian has said that we don’t want to enter into an agreements with private owners. We’d rather enter into agreements with the City because they have the insurance and whatnot. We are going to try to tell the City or the Nampa Meridian that we will provide them the insurance and appropriate things and it could be assigned to the City. We are going to have a lot better leg to stand on going in and negotiating with Nampa Meridian if we’ve got the City at least to come in and say we support the concept but sure as #### don’t what the liability until it is ours. Borup: I hope City going to work real hard on (inaudible). That’s what we have been trying to do for day one. O’Neill: I guess that is what we’re saying. Boy, everyone wants to do this and now all of a sudden we are being told that we got to go get it done on our own. We understand from the liability stand point completely what they are saying, but we think there is another way to work through it. Borup: Your just asking for the City to work with you on – Hawkins Clark: That’s a condition. That is the exact working that the applicant and the City shall work with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District in securing a license agreement. It’s stated right there. Borup: What I am not sure, I think everything’s agreeable except for 9 and 10. Hatcher: I think number 9 if we can agree that a dollar amount be available to OEI by the City Council meeting would be adequate. Borup: Bruce said he could not commit to that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 66 Freckleton: I could shoot for having that number to you. I did not want to get pinned down to not to exceed. Borup: You can get that number by City Council. Freckleton: I’ll shoot for it. I will try. Borup: Then, number 9 was on –Oh, number 10 was the pressurized irrigation and the alternative water. There needs to be more studies done too. Hatcher: Mr. O’Neill would you on Item number 10 with the irrigation, do you concur or plan to provide year around irrigation water. O’Neill: (Inaudible) would be fully to do that but I can’t guarantee that. If I can’t guarantee that I am willing to live with an interpretation, or at least a fair interpretation of what the City Code and Ordinance says. I would like at least (inaudible) to sit down and discuss a fair interpretation of what that says. Borup: Then your saying if you can’t guarantee it your—all the residents will be without water. O’Neill: I am saying if we can’t guarantee it because Nampa Meridian says Five Mile Creek you can’t draw it out of, they may say you can but they say you can’t draw out of it. We can’t provide a shallow well, then we would have to commit to a single point conversion. I am saying that is a reasonable commitment, but we want to make sure we have a clear understanding of the assessment, how it is calculated and where it comes from and how we get to that – Borup: I think he stated what it is and how it is calculated. I guess the only question is, is that an ordinance or policy. O’Neill: And, I guess I’d like to sit down and have our folks interpret the ordinance as well. I think there might be a different way to interpret it. If there isn’t, there isn’t. Borup: 5400 seems a little small to me for open space irrigation. (Inaudible) residential lot is I am assuming and landscaped area, is that how— Freckleton: Exactly. Borup: I think a resident is going to use more water to let or to maintain the same square footage of area as opposed to an open area. Hatcher: No necessarily. I would not agree with. It probably uses more. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 67 O’Neill: We just want an understanding and it is curious to me that we do have in another project in another area, we do have a single source that connects to it. We did pay a hook-up fee for twice as much open space as this and it was not even close to $90,000 and we do if we need to use it because of the down season. We do have the ability to – Borup: So let say he calculates different then. O’Neill: Right, and I just want to make sure we have the ability to really understand that, more then what has been said, but what’s actually— Borup: Have we spent enough time Commissioner's? I think agreements have been reached all but those two items and those are more information needs to be obtained. We’ve still got some more to handle on this. Did you have anything to wrap up. O’Neill: I think, I’m not sure what we got, but I make concurrence with what we— Borup: I think in my mind everything agreed on, maybe some re-wording other than (inaudible) intent. This is a public hearing. Our time is running short. We are probably going to keep the three minute rule in effect so if there is anyone here who would like t come forward. McMillan: My name is Reese McMillan. East 70 South Locust Grove. I would like to know on this –is this a revised or a spar than the original deal on there. They talked about an exit road to the east, where primaries coming out on Locust Grove Road. Borup: The exit road to the east isn’t even handled in this phase. It is just a first phase. McMillan: What I am getting at though. I’d like to see a road go through there and keep some of the traffic off of Locust Grove because Jabil Mfg. is in operation. Semi trucks coming up and down our road continually and we are going to have a problem out there. Borup: Did City Council revise our recommendation? That road will still go through to the east. McMillan: Like I say, I’d like to see it go through on this phase of construction here and that way you’d get two ways in and out of there without everything coming out on Locust Grove. Also, I agree with or I disagree with the staff over here on the wetlands to tile it in because that has been wetlands for years down there cause the geese have hatched out of there and fly over my place all the time. That (inaudible) should be tiled in. I’d like to see it stay over down there. I agree with them on that. Five mile drain pumping out of that, I doubt if they will have enough water this time of year to even pump out of it because it runs real low. In the summer time when drain ditches and everything are running into it, irrigation water is in there, there is a lot of water in it. This time of year there is very little water in it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 68 Borup: How does it though like through the end of October? McMillan: There is still little water coming in the tail end of irrigation. As the year progresses the water gets lower all the time. They have an existing well on that property out there and I don’t know if they are going to pump out of there or not, but if they get too much water out of there, it effects my well. I am just the second house from that project. We have problems on that deal too as far as infringing on my well out there, because I’ve got water rights on that well since 1969 so I’d be a little bit perturbed if they start draining my water. Other then that, like I say, it’s going to come anyway on the Subdivision so there is a few things I’d like to see. I know you have problems (inaudible) in your area over there next to Eagle Road don’t you Mr. Brown. Brown: Actually, I think it would be better, personally. McMillan: Like I say, it coming over there in your neighborhood, why don’t we propose your direction and I’d like to see something come out that other side to keep everything off of Locust Grove right now because we are in a heck of a mess out there some days. : How deep is your well Mr. McMillan? Barbeiro: In regards to Mr. McMilan’s comment about the access road through to the east, as I recall they are allowed to build 165 homes without that access. Can not built the 166 home until that access is complete. Borup: That did change. That got modified at City Council. Barbeiro: Right, so Mr. McMillan O’Neill can build 165 homes prior to that access to the east. Fox: My name is Allen Fox. I live at 1840 Cadillac Drive. My concern is basically the same as Reese had to say. Jabil uses our road to come down to work so in the morning you’ve got traffic backing up to the east now on Franklin. People trying to turn in on Locust Grove so they can go to work at Jabil. Now, instead of backing up from the west on Eagle, you have to the east on Locust now. I would like to see that road shoved out also to try to help aleve some of the traffic. If you had this 165 homes or 164 homes your putting in here coming down Franklin, you people were nice enough to give us a 93 apartment building on the corner of Locust Grove and Franklin, which is going to be starting pretty soon I’m sure. Everything was passed on it. There is some more coming out right on to that road. As far as irrigation water, the irrigation water goes off the end of September, first of October and he will not see any pumped out at Five Mile Creek. I can all most guarantee it. His water right now is in our irrigation ditch. It will be taken out of our irrigation ditch and dumped into Five Mile Creek upstream. That is where his water will come from. That is all I have. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 69 Barbeiro: Mr. Fox, just for the record I want to remind you that the 93 unit apartment complex was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Fox: First time around it was recommended to pass through and then it came back to you and was denied and then it was through again. McMillan: My name is Belle McMillan and I live at 870 S. Locust Grove. Talking about the water, ours is so hard that we have a little fountain by the patio and if any of that water splashes on my plants, it kills my plants. It is 27 grains and we have to have a water softener inside. When I first started washing my dishes, it look like they had been in a fire. They looks like they were smoked up and come to find out it was the hard water. Meridian water is hard anyway, and ours is really hard. I can’t have plants around my fountain. I thought I might mention that. It is another problem. Lindly: I am Mervin Lindly. I live at 1790 Cadillac Drive. I guess what I have basically is a question. We have an irrigation ditch (away from microphone). If they divert their share of the water from this ditch, that certainly changes our situation. I guess I have questions about traffic lights on Locust Grove either at Franklin or at and or at the Subdivision or even for that matter down where the Jabil Company people come in. I am also wondering about the fencing on the Subdivision and how many more houses will there be built on this property. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. O’Neill any final response? O’Neill: In response to a couple of the comments. Traffic was dealt with. I think you guys referred back to the record and there are specific conditions about a secondary approval when that needs to be put in, etc. I think that addresses that. We are in agreement that in order for us to market and sell this property we’ve got to work hard to provide a solution at Franklin Locust Grove intersection so people want to live in our community not be stuck in traffic here. We are working really hard to help solve that problem. In terms of irrigation we do have a well on the property. We did not plan to use it for irrigation. We were planning on abandoning it. That is something we can research and as Mr. Freckleton said, we might be able to use that to provide our year around irrigation. We will look into that. In terms of Mr. Lindly comments, there is 165 planned homes for this first phase. For the second phase, we have the approval to do up to 283 units for the entire project so we will do the difference. That is 143 or whatever that is for the second phase. In terms of fencing, we will submit a detailed fencing plan. We are intending on the first phase of putting boundary fencing around the entire boundary. That is one of the conditions that was put on us so we are willing to do that. Borup: Thank you. Any questions Commissioner's? Has that been determined, the type of fence? Six foot solid. What is your pleasure at this point. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I move we close the public hearing. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 70 Barbeiro: I second the motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Okay, I think the concern was how to handle the staff comments and OEI’s response to those. I don’t know if we want to try to reword it. In my mind I think there was agreement on both sides on either as it’s written or staff said it could be re-written. Probably Items 9 and 10 and those were—both of those were information wasn’t available. Hatcher: Say that again. Staff agreed that it could be re-written? Borup: I think some of the comments they thought the wording could be. Am I putting words in someone’s mouth? Did staff feel that there was substantial agreement on everything or that they could be worked out on all the other items. Freckleton: We do. We feel that we’ve kicked this dog enough. I think with the exception of 9 and 10, yes we feel comfortable with. Hatcher: Comfortable with what Bruce? Comfortable with our discussion. Comfortable with OEI’s response letter? Freckleton: I think comfortable with the discussion. Hatcher: So if legal counsel rights recommendation to the City for approval, we will have him refer back to our hour long discussion. If I am going to put a motion together here, I am trying to gather this up. Freckleton: Staff could put these discussions, basically paraphrase what we have talked about tonight, put them in writing and submit those to legal counsel if that would work for you guys. Borup: Would that be reviewed by the applicant somewhere in there? Freckleton: Cc it to the applicant. Hatcher: How do we recommend approval based off of something we don’t see? Borup: Well we recommend—we’ve done it before. Essentially with having staff work it out, yeah. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, did we determine that if they did come on the 22nd they would still be able to make their council – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 71 Borup: No, we don’t have legal notification time. What starts the date when the notification needs to be done? Can you send out notices prior to the 22nd . Assuming that we are going to recommend to City Council. So there is still some hesitation. Hatcher: I don’t have hesitation so much as-- Borup: I hope we didn’t go through this whole thing for nothing. Hatcher: Not so much hesitation— Swartley: Mr. Chairman I have an idea. Could you open up the discussion again so Derrick could come back up and I could ask him real quickly. Let’s see how good my note taking is. Borup: Re-open the public hearing and call Mr. O’Neill forward. Do I need a motion for that? Can I open that without a motion? Okay, would anyone like to make that motion. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I motion that we re-open the public hearing. Barbeiro: Second the motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Swartley: Okay. On number 3 we agreed a variance was going to be okay, correct? O’Neill: Let me get to my – Brown: It requires a variance. Swartley: Requires a variance. Same with number 4, correct? Borup: No, that is not a variance. Swartley: Oh, I am sorry. Excuse me. My fault. Five Brad agreed it was okay, correct? O’Neill: Yes. Swartley: Six Brad agreed it was okay? O’Neill: Yes. Swartly: Seven Brad agreed it was okay? O’Neill: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 72 Swartley: Nine and ten will be taking care of about something to the effect of subject to an assessment and I will try to work the language out. Okay. O’Neill: I’m okay it will be agreed on, yes. Swartley: And then, 14. I don’t have anything written there. Brad were you okay on that one also? Borup: 14 was just Meridian would work to agreement with them—Nampa Meridian. Swartly: That’s it. If you want to approve that, I can do the recommendation that way. Hawkins Clark: I’m sorry. Number 7, I do not have any answer on whether or not (Inaudible) is for private cause that has always been required. Swartley: And that again, City Council and Mr. Gigray will probably address that. Okay. Borup: We could address that in our recommendation too, couldn’t we? Whether it means anything, I don’t know. Swartley: Yeah, if you want to take the time to. You want to close it, go ahead. Fox: I am Carol Fox. I live at 1840 Cadillac Drive adjacent to the south side of the Subdivision. My major concern is the traffic problems. Are we addressing the road situation at all. Borup: That was addressed previously. Fox: But it was said if you kept it at 164 homes he did not have to put any additional— the one exit and entry road onto Locust Grove was the only one he needed at this point until phase 2 went in. That is going to leave another 700 or 800 car trips going through, and that is disregarding Cobblestone Village or apartment complex, onto that road. It is going to be total gridlock. We are not going to be able to get out of this Subdivision. It is going to be a joke. It is getting to be that way all ready. Are we just going to leave this go and say there is no—they have one exit and entry for 164 homes. Borup: But you don’t live in that Subdivision. Your worried about the people that live there you mean. Fox: No I am worried about where I’m at. I am living— Borup: I understand where your living now. But you’re the one that is going to keep them from getting out. They are not going to keep you from getting out. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 73 Fox: They are going to keep me from getting out because our Subdivision is a dead end Subdivision. We are between the Subdivision proposed and the freeway. With the added traffic on this road right now, we can’t get out of our Subdivision. We only have one way of getting out of ours. When you add another 300 homes with 4 vehicles per home or 4-5 trips out, you’re a gridlock. Borup: Any questions for Mrs. Fox? Thank you. Brown: The only comment that I can make is that the developer has been given approval previously with a conditional use permit that said that he can put that many units in before a secondary access was required. It is an agreement that caused the developer to go out and come to this point being a preliminary plat. With the guidelines that he could do that he viewed that as being viable. I understand the problem that that creates and I understand where the problem is at and I think Mr. O’Neill spoke to that it is to their benefit to work with you and the other people that are along Locust Grove to help that situation. Borup: The purpose of this meeting is to review the plat. The design, the lot layout, the amenities, that is what the applicant is here for today. Norton: I move that the public hearing be closed. Barbeiro: I second it. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Okay. The attorney mentioned that he feels he can prepare, unless the commission wants to make any clarifications on probably item number 7 was the only one that I think Brad mentioned he did not – Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, if there is no further discussion on this I am ready to make a motion. Borup: Go ahead and make the motion. Hatcher: I recommend by motion that we recommend approval to City Council on the preliminary plat of the Woodbridge Subdivision, which includes 164 lots on 50.9 acres by Woodbridge Community, LLC to include staff comments subject to attorney’s discussion with developer. Barbeiro: I second the motion. Borup: Discussion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 74 Brown: Mr. Chairman, if I understand this correctly, a lot of these items really don’t even apply that the applicant brought up. Am I correct in understanding what this motion is. For example, like the street lights. They clarified that they were speaking the same language on the street lights. Borup: Right. Yes. Brown: They clarified that we can’t do anything about the applicants request for three because that (Inaudible) requirement. Did we clarify that 5 with the retention pond and the open space that we are basically speaking the same thing. Borup: That is my understanding. Brown: The detailed fencing plan on Locust Grove we now agree what’s said in the staff report is accurate. Borup: Fencing and landscape on Locust Grove would be provided. The interior amenity landscaping would not be provided—a typical but they want some leeway in designing. Brown: And then 7 is – basically per staff’s recommendations. Borup: I would have to agree with the applicant on that. I am not sure why we are looking for bonding for private improvements within the Subdivision. Their clubhouse, volleyball court and that stuff. That is one of their amenities. Brown: But, because we don’t know that that’s not the case, as I understand the motion it is yet to be determined, right. Borup: Yes, or we could add our own recommendation in there, which ever way we feel. Whether it would have any force—there is some specific legal requirement then our motion would be mute. Brown: Nine and ten have to do with the financial assessment that is called out by code and the interpretation thereof. Borup: Nine is. Ten is just that the City will—wait a minute. Yes. Brown: And then they are in agreement with 14. Borup: Any other discussion? Any addition or modification of the motion? If not I hope for a vote. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES 1 NAY Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 75 Borup: All right. Well, our unofficial policy was to not start any hearings before 12 o’clock, so Mr. Durkin, looks like your okay—I mean after 12 o’clock. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR PROPOSED RECORDS EAST SUBDIVISION, 3 COMMERCIAL LOTS ON 23.6 ACRES BY DEVELOPERS DIVERSIFIED REALTY CORP.—SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RECORDS DRIVE AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE: Borup: I’d like to open this public hearing and start with staff comments. This is a follow up of previous approvals of which it was finally decided a new plat was required. The applicant first thought it would not require a Subdivision plat and the City decided it would. Hawkins Clark: Right. That is my understanding. I would point out unlike many of what you see, this is a joint preliminary and final plat application. The main principle lay out would be the same but this is the general area here. They are talking about 3 lots on this plat. The staff conditions are more or less typical for our Platting procedures. This lot here that is proposed at the very northwest corner here would be for a separate retail and of course the primary lot for the Walmart and then there is a landscape lot here on the northeast. I don’t have in my file any written response. There was one faxed. Okay. Maybe the Commissioner's do. I can’t refer to that, but I’ll let Mr. Durkin go through it. Thanks. Durkin: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, my name is Larry Durkin. My address is 380 E. Park Center Blvd, Boise, Id. I am the president and owner of Dakota Company Inc., a Boise based development company. I am here tonight on behalf of Developers Diversified Realty Inc. We are here to night to gain your approval for preliminary and final plat for the balance of the shopping center know as Meridian Crossroads. I have gone through the staff report and I have some brief comments. What I don’t comment on, we are completely in agreement to. I had some very minor comments to make on the staff report. Could I call your attention to a comment on page 2 of the staff report. It is paragraph number 2. The comment that an additional lot will need to be designated to accommodate the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation pump stations. Nampa and Meridian required that their facilities are located on property that is under their control. The pump station is not under Nampa Meridian control. In fact there is a couple of letters that we are going to hand out from Nampa Meridian relinquishing control. They have expressed no desire to have control over that pump station. This goes back to April of last year when there was another reason to get a clarification on that. In short, there would not be another lot required for that. I’d like to call your attention to the comment on paragraph 4 immediately following paragraph 2 that there END OF SIDE 6 Durkin: that we will pass out to you from the County Engineer that the final recording of this plat would automatically facilitate a re-subdivision or a lot line adjustment that would Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 76 all be handled in one action so there would be no further sub-dividing required. I’d like to call your attention to a comment on page 3, paragraph 9. I wanted to just comment on a word there. This property has not been properly zoned. We are properly going through the procedure. It is not yet concluded. Borup: So you’d like to strike the word properly. Durkin: Well I just don’t want for the record to show that we are doing anything that might be improper. There is a outstanding matter as it relates to the annexation and rezone and that is the development agreement. The development agreement is prepared by the City Attorney. A draft is prepared. There were corrections and modifications made to the legal description, just general corrections and maybe David would have a comment on that. The final draft was delivered to our office last week. We have approved it and requested the City Attorney prepare an execution copy at which point we will sign that and that goes to the Council for signature. I don’t believe there is any further public hearing on it. It is just a matter of record of the testimony. That is the outstanding matter that is being done as far as the annexation and rezone. We also have received from you a favorable vote for a conditional use permit for this phase of the development and I understand that is to be heard at Council next Tuesday night. What I am trying to do tonight is focus specifically on the plat matter and the questions on the plat. I’d like to call your attention to the section on page 2 of the staff report. Final Plat Comments. This is a correction on paragraph number 5. The second sentence that ends with the word association. There is no association here. I think that would be language for a Subdivision, but there is no owners association here. I would request that you strike that word. No word, just a period after owners. The comment no buildings, fencing, trees or shrubs shall be placed within the storm water—referring to the storm water drainage and retention easement area. We –the easement is going to be in favor of Ada County Highway District and we have the ability to place trees and shrubs in that easement area with a license agreement with Ada County Highway District. I talked with Larry Sales today and they are in favor of that idea. I just would like that we request that we strike the words trees or shrubs and suggest a way to come up that we can do it in accordance with ACHD requirements. We think it will look better. The area that they are talking about is on the gateway of the street into the City right along the front of the project and we think then rather than a big grass bowl, it would be nice to have trees and shrubs in and around it. That was always in our plan. I would like to ask that language be added to the plat that wording that would allow us to bond for the improvements in accordance with the City Code. Either bond or cash deposit or letter of credit. We are taking this through a couple of different –the building permit process and one of the things that has happened to us in the past that we really can’t find it in the ordinance book, but there seems to be a feeling by staff and some of the department heads that some improvements have to be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit or prior to even the acceptance of a building permit application. We will be doing a lot of this work at the same time. We would request they add language in there allowing us to bond or however. I don’t know who decides that, if that is Will’s decision or who decides if it is a cash deposit or a letter of credit or a bond. We would like to have that ability to bond for all of the improvements and have it on the plat. I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 77 think that ‘s in the ordinance now that we are afforded that but I’d like but I’d like to have it on the plat as it is circulated. Those are the extent of my comments on the staff report. I think that you now have these letters. That is the extent of my comments. I have just a brief update on our communication with the neighbors. I have had a number of meetings with –one meeting with Crossroads homeowners association board. I have had another meeting with the Crossroads homeowners association president. They continue to, the president in particular continues to express concerns about cross-thru and some traffic matters that Ada County Highway District doesn’t share that level of concern, especially with the improvements that we are doing on Eagle Road. We are going forward with the installation of a new traffic light at Pine. That will be synchronized with the existing light at Eagle and Fairview and the new light that we recently installed at Records. The three of those lights will be synchronized creating a much more desirable traffic flow. It was our opinion tonight that we would just address related to the plat and not get into any of the development issues that will be heard next Tuesday at the City Council meeting. That is the extent of my comments and I am happy to answer any questions. Brown: Mr. Durkin are you asking under 2 that we add a number 8 that would give you the ability to bond (inaudible) Subdivision improvements, is that what I understand. Durkin: Commissioner Brown. I believe we enjoy that privilege now. It is in the ordinance. I think just for clarification as we go forward, if it would not be a conflict for the City, I’d like to have it in the text on the plat. That is what I am asking for. Brown: Your asking for a note on the plat so you can bond. Durkin: That’s correct. These are, my understanding is these final plat comments would be – Borup: It is up to you to add it on the plat. Durkin: Right. See paragraph 2 where it says please add the following final plat note. Borup: You’d like to include the bond in one of those notes. Durkin: I’d like to add that so you’d have number (inaudible) is what I’m asking. Borup: Any other questions? Brown: Your correspondence with the County Engineer, he is not going to like that. It is a useless piece of text on a plat. A plat is a document that lasts forever and like this old document we are looking at here the information is for the people that are to be there. Any zoning relating things and anything that could change in the future where the text that you are talking about is something that should take place while being processed or it is something that is allowed by code—even if the City Staff lets you, Mr. Prester is going to have problems. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 78 Durkin: I respect that comment and your experience in this Commissioner Brown and I would only then ask that you make some recommendation to staff that that be the case and not necessarily have it on a note on the plat. Your right, it does live forever. Borup: That could be added as item number 10. Question for staff then. Any comments on Mr. Dunkin’s –I think he went through them pretty completely. Freckleton: Members of the Commission I do have some comments. First of all I guess, question for Larry. On your landscaping around the entire site, do you not have an association or some cooperative to take care of the landscaping. Durkin: We have owners that take care of it. There is an obligation in an cross season and use agreement that is a publicly recorded document requiring the level of maintenance but the on this particular parcel the owners take care of the parcel. There is no association. Borup: So each one take on their own lot or building. Walmart would do theirs and the restaurant and whatever would be doing theirs. Is that what your saying. Durkin: There may be—there is a recorded maintenance agreement that everyone takes care of it to the highest standards. If they don’t any of the other parties can step in and take care of it. It just isn’t an association and I just was trying to be as clear on that because it is not, there is no owner’s association or anything like that. Borup: The question Bruce was for the pump station. Freckleton: That is where I was headed with it. Typically, as my comment alluded there, in an MID System they require (inaudible) ownership of the parcel that the pump station sits on. If it is a private system, what our concern is, is that there is some mechanism that—whether it be a cross access easement or something written into a covenant that gives everybody that’s went into that development access rights to the pump station. That is where we were headed with that and in the past it has been a very effective way of doing it to create a common lot whereby you can make reference in your maintenance agreement to say lot 1, block 2 for access or whatever. Durkin: I have an answer to that. We have our common area, excuse me, we have a document that is recorded on this parcel now. It is called a Declaration of Easements and covenants that effect the land. It has been reviewed by the City Attorney and it covers those matters. I don’t have a copy of it with me tonight, but it covers all the matters relating to access, cross access for all of the parcels. It runs with the land. Borup: That would include the pump station? Durkin: It includes the pump. It includes the maintenance of the facility, the parking lot light bulbs and all of those matters. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 79 Borup: That answer that for you. Freckleton: It does. In reference then back to the pressurized irrigation system, I was talking with our review, plan review staff today and I guess they were under the impression it wasn’t a MID system. We did run these plan, the plans for the development through and approve them without a pressurized irrigation plan included. Again, thinking Nampa Meridian was going to be doing that review and approval. So, currently I guess, you have an approval with out an irrigation plan approval so sticking with our standard, we need to have those designs submitted to our office along with an OEM Manuel and the whole kitten caboodle so that we can review and approve those. Durkin: Your talking about the review and approval of the irrigation plans? Freckleton: Yes. Durkin: I’d like to represent to you to night that will definitely be a part of our package when that work is done. If I could take a second I could (inaudible). Borup: Let me ask Bruce on any problem with deleting or changing the trees and shrubs on that landscape easement—either deleting or adding with permission of ACHD. Freckleton: No, and on that issue I guess I would just recommend that the wording of that note be approved by ACHD. It is to their benefit and certainly it’s their note. It’s their baby, so satisfy them. Borup: Okay. Did you hear that comment. That was on number 5. That is ACHD standard wording and they change that something to the effect either eliminate trees and shrubs or say with an agreement signed by them or something. However they want to word it is fine with the City. That is their—whatever you work out with ACHD on that. Durkin: Can I just say—I’d like that sentence if it is possible to read, no building or fences shall be placed within that easement. Borup: I think what Bruce is saying, whatever ACHD will approve is what needs to be. Durkin: Let me complete the sentence. No building, fences, trees or shrubs shall be placed within said easement without approval from ACHD. I don’t you to think I am planning on building a building or anything. Borup: Understand that. I think what he is saying that ACHD controls that so what ever wording they approve is agreeable. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 80 Durkin: That is acceptable to me. The irrigation system plan is being drawn or worked on right now and I can commit to you tonight that it will be submitted to the City for approval with the balance of our utility plans. Borup: Okay. Any comment on the bonding. That has been stated it’s pretty standard. Sounded like just added to the staff comments, is that agreeable. Freckleton: That’s fine with me. I do have one other comment in regard to preliminary plat comment number 4, in reference to the existing the existence of an existing Subdivision. We received CD’s from the County Assessor’s Office with supposedly all of the County and City Subdivision plats on them. That was were we got our information. We could not find this so I am glad that they supplied it to us tonight. The purpose of my comment was that when you do a Subdivision and your incorporating lots in an existing Subdivision, you need to make reference to the existing Subdivision in your (inaudible) statement and that sort of thing on the plat. Referencing an existing Subdivision that you are re-subdividing, so that was the just of my comment was that when the preliminary plat is prepared, the land surveyor will just make sure he references the existence of the – Borup: That letter from Priester—that answer your question there? Freckleton: Well yeah, John is saying that it exists and they have supplied us with the recorded copies of the plat. I don’t think it is going to be a problem at all as long as they make reference to the existence to the plat. That is state statutes standard requirements. Reference needs to be made on the plat because you are re-subdividing some existing lots in a Subdivision. Borup: So, that is another note that needs to be added to the plat. Freckleton: It is not necessarily a plat note. It’s the statement across the top of the plat, plat showing. What it would say would be something like a part of Terrace Lawn Memorial Gardens Subdivision, whatever. It is pretty standard stuff. Borup: Okay, Larry I think we covered everything you had mentioned. Durkin: I’d like the opportunity to comment. Hatcher: Thank you for being complete and concise and short. Thank you very much. Borup: This is a public hearing for review of this preliminary and final plat. Anyone from the audience like to come forward. Yehle: My name is Ray Yehle. I live at 3607 E. Congressional, Crossroads Subdivision. I am the president of the Subdivision. I had a few questions first and then have a few comments. First of all I’ll just state that I am opposed to the annexation. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 81 Borup: Mr. Yehle, can we kind of clarify a couple things. That item is not before us tonight. If you are opposed to that you need to address that to the City Council because that is where that will be heard. What we are talking about is this plat, those 3 lots. That is the only thing that we are looking for information on because the rest isn’t really pertinent. Yehle: But I just want to clarify my position so that I can talk about the rest of it for some of the homeowners concerning a couple items on here. On the plat and what I was saying just one second, myself I am opposing an annexation because I know what it leads to beyond this point because we know what is coming up a week from now which is the Walmart Store. So, we will go back now and talk about a couple of the issues. Can I ask you a question. Has this been annexed legally by the City yet. Borup: Not yet. Yehle: Not yet. Until it is, I feel that we can still say whether we oppose it or not. Borup: That is not pertinent here. If you going to persist on that I am going to have to cut you off on your time. We are here to head testimony on the plat. Yehle: Okay talking for the other residents of Crossroads, okay. We look at the irrigation, we got a little offset at the bottom. I can’t read over there but I think your supposed to pipe that water in. They are going to have to tile it or something. From to the left, to the left across from there all the way over west, okay. Then stops there. I just want to know if the developer is going to stop there at this time or if he is going to continue to the end of his property to the east because I bring that up because once they go in there and disturb that ditch, they just got so much time to get that work done before the season starts. Borup: I can answer that. That is a City Ordinance that all ditches through a property needs to be piped so they will be doing that. Yehle: Okay, but— Borup: They will not be distrubing the normal flow of water. Yehle: Okay, but I’d like to ask that they go beyond that center point and go clear over to Venture Street even though –it looks like they may be going on the adjacent property which would be part of the development. Borup: So you want them to go through someone else’s property and pipe a ditch? Yehle: Well I think it would be a good idea so that we don’t end up being disturbed you know. We’ve had all kind of problems for all last year and the year before. And everybody has been calling (inaudible) irrigation ditch, the ditch rider everyday. It costs us a lot of money every time he comes out, they add it to our taxes and everything and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 82 this year we don't want to go through that again. We are just asking for more help, you know so that, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District is going to work with us but as long as we have disturbances around that ditch and so forth, we are having a lot of problems with our 260 homes. Borup: I understand the problem there, but I don’t know how we can require that, especially when there is not even a design for that property. The ditch may be re- routed another direction. Yehle: Maybe I could ask that it be re-routed and be done by the developer. Borup: You certainly could ask. Yehle: I just ask it. I guess there is not a lot I can stand up here and say to change anybody's mind about approving the annexation and so forth. The only thing I can say is that the impact it is going to make upon our Subdivision and if that doesn’t matter at this point of time, by the extending of that property, by increasing more traffic over there to the west because it will, and by great numbers. When we bought into the Subdivision we did not expect that. People are going to sell out because of it. It is going to bring down our property values because of it. What it is going to cost and the impact and so forth and so I feel that 26 acres is way beyond anything everybody’s imagine when we— Borup: Mr. Yehle, I need to remind you again that that is not the item that is on the agenda. You need to address City Council on that. We have—we have all ready discussed annexation at this meeting. It is out of our hands. There is nothing more we can do about that. Yehle: If you want to put this off the record Okay. I just would like to know how the public can –26 acres and how the public can get involved and if they know what that 26 acres is going to do to them. They know how it is going to hurt them because they know what’s going to happen down the line. If they don’t get a chance to address it or do something about it then— Borup: That is why we hold the public hearing so the public can know about it and comment about it. Yehle: When do you get the opportunity to talk about that 26 acres that is being annexed. When do you give the public the chance to— Borup: You all ready know that answer. Yehle: No I don’t. I am asking off the record. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 83 Borup: Before it happens. That’s what took place last month and that’s what took place several months before when we talked about the Comprehensive Plan change. That’s what’s taken place the last two years. Yehle: (Inaudible) acres was added to it? Borup: To what? Yehle: (Inaudible overlapping discussion) and the public got a chance to come in and comment on it. Borup: Yes you stood here and did 6 pages of comments on it. Borup: Yes sir. Last month. Yehle: The last one was the conditional use permit. Borup: And the annexation prior to that. Yehle: I wasn’t there on that. Did not know anything about it. Our people wasn’t either. Borup: Well, there is nothing more we can do about that tonight. The City Council is still addressing that. Yehle: I just don’t think it is fair the way it is set up. I wish there was some changes made so the public and association members and so forth could get involved and at a decent hour. They are all disgusted. They go home and lost interest. They have all lost interest. Let’s give up in Meridian. Let’s sell out or let the developers buy us out and put it in an industrial area in there and we are willing to sell if we can get more of the value. People can’t even get their money or value out of their homes now. Borup: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Hill: Emery Hill. I live at 1211 N. Legislative way in Crossroads Subdivision. One question. Why are we always last. You know? 12 o’clock last time we –you know the last meeting. I wasn’t here. I had to send a letter. I am not use to this, so bear with me. I will try to keep it short. To make a comment, you say why and I have heard the question asked why aren’t people here. Because they have given up on you guys. You guys, you people are killing us literally. Our Subdivision is dying because of what your doing and how your building letting these guys come in and build around us. I am not against growth, but I am for common sense. We have 260 homes in our Subdivision. They are family orientated homes and they won’t be anymore. People are all ready selling out. When we moved in there, and it not any of your peoples fault, and I am not mad at any of you, but when we moved in there we was lied to from day one. We moved in February of last year. Bought a nice house in there. Have very nice neighbors in there. We were told that the turf farm east of us would stay. We were told Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 84 that when we moved in there, there was Shopko all ready being built there. We knew that there was going to be a Texas Road House there. We know, they told us there would be a strip mall and some other stores, Old Navy on the west end. We said what about this parcel here. They said that is zoned for homes. Borup: Who told you that? Hill: Our realtor and the developers, Capital One Development. Borup: That this parcel here was zoned for homes. Hill: Yup. Now, that is what we were told. Like I say, it’s none of your fault. It is my fault for not checking it out. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I can attest to the speaker that numerous residents in that development did tell me the same thing. Residents who brought during construction were told it’s going to be a small medical complex. Don’t worry about it. I have heard that over and over. Hill: Exactly. Borup: On the additional acres that was annexed? Barbeiro: No, on –where Shopko was built. What’s going around the corner. A small strip mall—some medical offices. Hill: We was. We was lied to. My wife and I was lied to from day one. It’s not your fault. Borup: It wasn’t by the applicant. The applicant from day one was straight forward about there going to be something on that parcel. Hill: With this development here and I know of the parcel that your talking about. It is going to increase traffic and they say, well traffic won’t come through your Subdivision. That is not true because it all ready is just from the Texas Road House. We have all ready had one death on Fairview coming out of that parking lot. You got to do something about the traffic. I know this is probably going to go through and I am talking to deaf ears here, I’m sorry, but that is the way most of the people in our Subdivision feel. Borup: Sir, your not talking on deaf ears but your talking about a subject that has all ready gone and passed. Hill: I know. I don’t know if Planning and Zoning Commission got my letter for the last meeting. I never heard anything from them. I left it at the Clerks Office. She said she’d get it to you people. I just want to let you know why people aren’t here. Not only the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 85 late hour, like I say, you guys want to go home. I want to go home. But, people aren’t here because they have just lost hope. They have lost faith. You people won’t listen to us. 260 homes in that Subdivision. It is dying. It has all ready started to die. Pretty soon all your going to have in there is rentals and it is going to be garbage Subdivision. Barbeiro: I want to make a point with you that first off, you know that I know that you and many of your neighbors were lied to by real estate developers and real estate agents who were selling the property. I just want to point out that 4 months ago, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved recommendation for a site on Overland. The neighbors from Sportsman Point and Salmon Falls brought nearly 120 people to the City Council meeting and City Council reversed our decision based upon— Hill: We’re planning on being at City Council next week, trust me. Barbeiro: Believe me that the volume of people will a tremendous difference and it has happened in recent history. Hill: I appreciate that. Anyhow, I’ll let you folks go home and I’ll go home. Thank you for listening to me. Appreciate it. Borup: Ray, is this on the plat? Yehle: I just want to make a comment. Mr. Borup we will go off the record okay. Borup: I’ll be happy to do that when the meeting is over. I’ll stay as long as you want. Yehle: Well I think you—sir, put it on the record. You allowed this man to come up but you would not let me speak on the same subject and I want to open up this floor and show you exactly what happened that he was talking about and the plan and what the developer did and everything, and you would not even let me because you said it was all passed and everything, but yet you let—and I’m glad you did let him speak because I admire what he said. Borup: Thank you Ray. You can sit down now. I’ll stay afterward as long as you’d like. Yehle: Your very prejudice. Norton: I move the public hearing be closed. Barbeiro: I’ll second the motion. Brown: Mr. Chairman I would ask that the applicant at least have the ability to rebut anything before we close the hearing. Borup: If you would like. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 86 Durkin: I just have a clarification. I’d like to ask staff to point to –could you just make the Commissioner's aware of where that drainage ditch enters the property. It is actually east. The drainage ditch enters the property from this direction from right about that corner and then turns along. Borup: Okay, so it does not—that is where it enters your property at that point. Durkin: Roughly at that immediate area so we wouldn’t be tiling anything toward Venture because there is no ditch. Borup: There is no ditch on your property. Durkin: There is toward Records Drive. Borup: Right. I think that City Ordinance is the ditch is through your property and if that doesn’t go through-- Thank you. Borup: We had a motion. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Okay. Do we have a recommendation? Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I motion that we recommend approval to the City Council for the preliminary and final plat for the proposed Records East Subdivision, 3 commercial lots on 23.6 acres by Developers Diversified to include staff comments with the following modifications. That under preliminary plat comment number 2 be stricken. That under final plat comment number 2, paragraph 5, that the word association be stricken and the words trees and shrubs be stricken and that at the end of said easement, add the words per ACHD requirements. Also under final plat comments, add requirement number 10 that a bond or cash deposit (the standard City wording for bonding and cash deposit) for improvements be added. Bruce did I miss something. Freckleton: Just a point of clarification on that plat note number 5, what our intent there was to let the applicant work out the final wording of that note with ACHD, not us re- word it and put per ACHD requirements at the end of it. Let’s just let the developer and the applicant work out the wording. Hatcher: I make my motion to reflect that—per ACHD’s wording as agreed to by ACHD and developer. Brown: Second. Brown: Any discussion? All in favor/ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 87 9. REQUEST FOR VACATION OF TEN-FOOT WIDE UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT CENTERED ON LOT LINE COMMON TO LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 2, COMMERCE PARK SUBDIVISION LOCATED ¼ MILE EAST OF EAGLE ROAD ON COMMERCIAL COURT BY 4M LEASING/CANVEST: Borup: The applicant did not come. Staff are you handling their comments. Any comments Brad? We’ve got your staff comments. The applicant has agreed to all your comments. Hawkins Clark: Yes sir they have. Borup Staff recommends approval. Anything else we need to know? Any questions Commissioner's. Do we have any motions? Brown: I recommend we approve Item 9 the request to vacate 10 foot wide utility and drainage easements centered on lot line common to lots 5 and 6 , block 2, commerce park subdivision located ¼ mile east of Eagle Road to include staff comments. Barbeiro: I second the motion. Borup: Motion and Second, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: One final item before adjournment. It has been mentioned at this point about 16 applications in for March all ready. Hawkins Clark: I think it is 14. After 10 it really doesn’t matter. Borup: When is the cut off date. Has the cut off date happened for March yet? Hawkins Clark: It has. First day of February. Borup: So there won’t be any more than 14. Hawkins Clark: There will be a maximum of 10. Borup: What’s the maximum of 10. Hawkins Clark: We send them back if after 10. You will never see more than new public hearings. Borup: No matter how lengthy they—don’t you take a look at the projects case by case. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 88 Hawkins Clark: No. Ten new applications regardless and we cut it off there and tell them they will be on the subsequent meeting. Borup: What we are saying, if we are going—in April and May your probably not going to be any better. Now the time to start looking at second meetings. We may have second meetings for a while. By doing that we can hopefully also not have late ones. We are within our criteria tonight. We said we don’t want to take new long applications after midnight and we want to adjourn by 1. The 3 o’clock one was the final straw. We are not going to keep up apparently if we don’t start planning double meetings I guess. So look for a second date in March. Berg: I don’t see you accomplish a lot by going after 10:30, 11 o’clock. We might as well plan ahead. Borup: You mean try to get out by 11. Berg: Well, I’m sorry I’d rather get out of here before 11 and have another meeting than kill yourself the next day. It takes a whole week to get back up. Hatcher: This is a volunteer position and it shouldn’t impact my job tomorrow morning. I concur with what Will is saying. Berg: Unfortunately, Tuesday and Thursday are well used so in March we have the 14th is a regular meeting and we could have a Wednesday the 22nd which gives you another week. Your could have the 30th of March right now, another Thursday. Brown: Isn’t the 30th a cut off for staff. Borup: Are we at regular time the 22nd . Was that decided. Was that a 7 o’clock meeting or can we move it up. We left that at 7. Believe it or not, I did not get that written down. (Inaudible discussion amongst the bench) Borup: What was that third date? Berg: 22nd , 29th , 30th . Borup: I am free all those dates. Anyone with a conflict? Brown: Mr. Chairman, I would move that I believe that this would help us through our hearing is if we limited the applicant to 15 minutes instead of the hour and a half that Derrick O’Neill took. Borup: Well that was our choice. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 89 Brown: Well I know we were going through a lot of discussion with him, but we spent a lot more time than.. Borup: He was through in 5 minutes. The initial response was fast, after that. This meeting is still open. Brown: I would make a motion that we instead of it all of a sudden getting 10 o’clock or later and then trying to make someone else adhere to a 3 minute rule, that we start at the very beginning of the hearing and say, okay everyone that comments gets 3 minutes. If you want to have a representative that is going to represent your neighborhood, we will give you 10-15 minutes, but the rules of order is that they have, the applicant makes a proposal, you can make everybody else that the applicant has stand up, stick to the minute rule. The one person that represents them speaks. That would be my recommendation is that you allow one person a long time to speak and anybody else that gets up, if it’s the engineer is the one that gets up, and he is going to take the time, then the applicant doesn’t, we can ask as many questions as we want to get the information that we need but then that is not counting as time. When we are asking questions of them END OF SIDE 7 Borup: Derrick was well within that. Brown: The thing is that if, and I think that tonight the reason we are out at a decent hour has little to do with us but the people kept their comments short. If that happened consistently and when they walk in the door they know they are only going to get 3 minutes, they start preparing and make their comments and only come up once instead of rallying the troops to come --- Borup: I am ready to meet with Mr. Yehle and he left. Brown: That would be my proposal. I make that motion that we make a motion that we limit the time. Borup: I agree on that but it is tough sometimes. Berg: (Inaudible) Brown: That would be fine with me too. I’d stop sleeping in the back as much. Borup: I think sometimes it is hard to enforce that. Brown: It is difficult, but tonight wasn’t bad at all. We have had people get up and speak for one half hour and if he knows he’s got 3 minutes, I don’t think and we were enforcing that all along, then it doesn’t become an issue when your time is up. You’ve got 3 minutes and you want to talk about annexation for 3 minutes, we will listen to you Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 90 for 3 minutes. If all we knew we were going to have to listen to is 3 minutes, then he’s finally, oh your time is up, then— : Inaudible speaker…and conversation. Brown: Is there a second to my motion? Hatcher: Was that an official motion. I second it. Borup: I agree but I don’t if (inaudible) 100 percent of the time. If I don’t I’m certainly open to some (Inaudible). Barbeiro: Okay. Borup: In fact, that would help me. In Mr. Yehle’s eyes I am a really bad guy. Norton: (Inaudible – not on microphone) . I move we adjourn. Barbeiro: I second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meeting adjourned at 12:53 p.m. (Tape on file of these Proceedings) APPROVED: ______________________________ KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: _______________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 8, 2000 Page 91