Loading...
2000 03-20MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 22, 2000 A special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup. MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Thomas Barbeiro, Sally Norton. OTHERS PRESENT: Brad Hawkins Clark, David Swartley, Will Berg. Borup: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. We’d like to convene this special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. This is a special meeting because we felt because of the magnitude of the project had deserved a meeting by itself. There will be 6 public hearings tonight. Essentially all relate to the same development. I would like to mention that the Planning and Zoning Commission is a adversary panel essentially. We make recommendations to the City Council and the City Council is the one that can take our recommendations and then they will act on it. Basically the procedure will be that the staff will give a report on each application public hearing. The applicant will have an opportunity to present their project. After the applicant, we take public testimony and finally the applicant will have final summary comments. Before we start, we’d like to go ahead and take roll call. We do have a quorum but we are missing a couple Commissioner's. We have Commissioner Norton, Commissioner Barbeiro, Commissioner Borup, with Richard Hatcher and Kent Brown absent. Having said that, the other item I might mention. Because of the complexity of this project and to try to keep things straight in our mind and probably benefit of all of you, we will essentially be handling testimony on each public hearing separately. Often times we will take testimony on both annexation and zoning and conditional use permit and maybe a preliminary plat that all have to do with the same project. Since there are several different projects involved here, we thought it be less confusing and to make the evening run smoother if we take testimony on the specific item that the hearing is on. We’d like to proceed with that. If someone forgets about that when they are up here, I will try to remind you. Having said that, we would like to start with the staff report. Let me open the public hearing first. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 16.119 ACRES FROM RT TO CG FOR PROPOSED RESOLUTION BUSINESS PARK BY G.L. VOIGT DEVELOPMENT/OVERLAND, LLC—OVERLAND AND LOCUST GROVE ROADS: Hawkins Clark: Good evening Commissioner's. Just as a general comment to remind the Commission and those present this entire area in question here was changed on the Comprehensive Plan this last summer. It was previously designated as a single family, residential and the designation in the land use map was changed to a mixed plan use. That was a separate application and process that was made this last summer. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 2 This application here on the screen before you pertains to this cross hashed area which is the a little more than 16 acres immediately at the southeast corner. We just request that our staff comments be incorporated. We are recommending that the requested zone of CG be down zoned to a CN. Essentially all of the uses that are requested are permitted in the CN, neighborhood commercial. Other than that, I don’t think there is anything else on the annexation application other than what is in the staff report that want to bring up. Thanks. Borup: Oh your done. That was quick. Commissioner's, any questions? Norton: I just have one question for Brad. The change from CG to CN, I understand that the CN zoning would not allow auto repairs, service station, hotels, truck stops, heavy equipment sales and auto sales. Is that correct? Hawkins Clark: That’s correct. There are other uses that would be allowed in the CG. I just simply listed a few. Borup: The applicant or representative like to come forward. Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering, 1800 W. Overland in Boise. I am representing the applicant in this matter. The property is owned by Overland, LLC. As Brad indicated sometime, I think it was late last year, we came through and asked for a re-designation of this property and then the adjoining property owned by G.L. Voigt Development to change the land use from or the designation from single family residential to mixed planned use development. That application was granted. We’ve been working with the city over the past probably 10 months for extension of public services to this area, from the north side of Interstate 84. The sewer was located up in Wells Circle, which is within the interior of that Subdivision you see, right above where it says I-84. We worked with the city to extend the sewer to the south side of the Interstate to Overland and in conjunction, the water line was extended westward on Overland and taken north at the same time through the same bore to the north side of Overland—north side of the Interstate for St. Luke's Hospital. That is creating a loop of the city water system to increase the fire flow capacity that was necessary for the phase 3 of the St. Luke's Hospital. That part of the infra structure has been installed. It was just completed here a few weeks ago, so now we submitted our applications and we are before you on this corner parcel. Originally we asked for a CG designation. The reason being after pre applications meetings with the staff. They said yeah, that is probably the best zone because it is predominantly CG north of us. As you can see all that orange area. When we received comments from the staff stating that CN was probably more appropriate because it does have some limitations on some more intensive uses. We discussed it and we concur with the staff. We believe that the neighborhood commercial would be acceptable because that is the intent of this application for development of this corner parcel is to provide neighborhood commercial uses that would service this area. It was not intended to be like highway commercial like you would find say on Fairview. Some of the uses that we have discussed would Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 3 be such things as dry cleaners, video stores, maybe a deli, possibly a convenience store. Maybe in the future a grocery store, if there is enough homes in that area. We question the fact that we think it is longer term as far as development of this corner parcel. We really believe that that overpass at Locust Grove would most likely have to go in before you start getting enough volume to get tenants interested for commercial uses on this corner parcel. We are looking long term and what we tried to do was come in and put these two parcels together and come up with a planned unit development. Trying to give the commission and council an idea of what can be done with these parcels and how they can inter relate and serve this area. Do you have any questions? Borup: Thank you. We would like to open this up for any public testimony. Again, keep in mind the testimony we are taking at this time is on the annexation and zoning of this parcel on the corner. The staff recommendation was to zone it Commercial Neighborhood and the applicant said they concur with that zoning designation. So if we have anyone you are welcome to come forward at this time. Seeing none—what we are doing right now this is just on the zoning of this parcel. We will be getting to the other ones on the office buildings, the skating rink, the apartment buildings—those are all covered. There is an agenda on the back that lists the different hearings that will be discussed. We are handling these one at a time so that we can keep the comments pertinent to the area where that is the application. The comments that we had from the staff and from the applicant was essentially requesting annexation and zoning of that shaded area. Nothing else at this time. We still have a plat they need to file and a conditional use permit—and then any buildings going in would some of the uses would need to be under a conditional use permit so when they have a specific use for that building, they’d come back before the commission with another public hearing for those uses, because there is a lot uses on the neighborhood commercial that require another public hearing if those type—there would be some permitted uses but other uses require a conditional use. At this point we are not going to be going anymore detail other than the land itself. The question was, what does RT to CG. RT is rural transition. It is the county designation. This property is still in the county. CG is general commercial. We would probably not be zoning it general commercial. Staff has recommended neighborhood commercial and the applicant has concurred with that, which is a lower zoning (inaudible) zoning, less extensive uses. It wouldn’t have the heavy uses allowed in the neighborhood commercial. That’s a liability company. That’s the owner of the property. Barbeiro: If you would like I have a copy of the zoning ordinances here. If you’d like to come up here I will loan you this while you’re here. Borup: Are we okay to answer questions if I repeat them or do we need to get them up here. You can come up, but the question was so we can get it on the record, does the zoning allow gas stations and the answer is no. Is that correct Brad. Hawkins Clark: I would just reiterate that we have requested as staff that any future use in that (inaudible) will require conditional use permit. Even though it’s normal, so Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 4 everyone within 300 feet of that property boundaries that cross hashed piece would receive notification by mail. Regardless of if it’s permitted in the CN. Borup: Did that clarify that. There won’t be anything happening without come back for another public testimony pubic hearing. Any building or any use. Just state your name and address and then ask the question. Demayo: My name is Michael Demayo. I live at 1986 E. Easy Jet Street, Los Alamitos Subdivision. I am not sure of the procedures. Is this the time that we would discuss what kind of improvements to the street and infra structure. Borup: That would be coming up. Thank you. Anyone else. Shipley: I am John Shipley. I live at 2770 S. Locust Grove, right where they are putting in the bridge. I would like to ask the Commissioner's what does the law say about traffic and how much traffic can be on a road before you even discuss anymore develops. Borup: Our attorney may want to answer that but I am not aware of any law that discusses that at all. Swartley: Mr. Chairman, no I am not either and those are issues that would be addressed at ACHD not at this commission. Shipley: I just wanted to verify that the other night I went over to Wal-Mart at 4 o’clock and it took me 2-1/2 hours to get home. Any dumb plumber knows that you can’t stick 4 lanes of traffic into a 2 lane pipe. Thank you. Borup: Anyone else. Commissioner's. Did the applicant have any final comment. Bartell: Marian Bartell. I live at 2534 S. Velvet Falls. My great concern is that Overland Road is over capacity now and my feeling is I’ve got the complete plat from Briggs Engineering of everything that is going in proposed and we have talked to Ada County Highway District. They don’t plan to widen Overland 5 years. They plan to put the overpass in first and then it may be 5 years the soonest on Locust Grove if may be up to 20 years and I am just speaking in general of all it going in. Everything north of Overland, which we have no objections to, that’s good usable commercial property. South of Overland, your dumping so much traffic, as he said, into a tiny space. My opinion is it is highly reckless endangerment of lives and that there is no other way to put it. You can not put that many cars into that area on a road all ready over crowded. It won't work. Five years the soonest before it is going to be developed. Thank you. Borup: I agree that’s a problem. ACHD has stated many times that it’s got to happen the other way. They don’t build the roads without the cars. They build the roads for the cars and—we’re going to need to keep this a little more orderly. We’ve been listening to ACHD reports the last 5 years and we know what they say. They have told us that repeated times. I might mention right now as we do not have the ACHD report on this Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 5 project, that is something that this commission has always required before we finalize anything. We are not sure of the status of that report and where as far as a time frame. Did you have something new? Bartell: Yes. In the mornings and in the evenings Overland— Borup: Something pertaining to the annexation. This annexation has no buildings no roads. It is not going to effect traffic. Norton: I move that we close the public hearing. Barbeiro: I will second the motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: In light of that fact maybe we might want to discuss a little bit where we might want to head. We do not have the ACHD report. It would be my anticipation that we will probably be continuing the other hearings without the ACHD report. That has been our practice in the past. Do the Commissioner's confer. Okay. Then, also keeping consistent with our preference to submit all applications to City Council together. The best option here is to table Item number 1. The attorney feels that the discussion should take place right prior to the vote. If we vote on it tonight, within 45 days it needs to get to City Council. That time frame may work out or we may have a situation where it go to City Council prior to us acting on the balance of the items. I was saying we had a couple of options but probably tabling it is the most viable, if the other Commissioner's agree. Barbeiro: Would that be necessary we go through a motion to table this. I wish to motion that we table Item number 1 request for annexation and zoning of 16.119 acres from RT to CN for proposed Resolution Business Park to our next regularly scheduled meeting of April 11th . Norton: I second. Borup: Motion and second, any discussion. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE OF 37.64 ACRES FROM R-4 TO LO FOR PROPOSED RESOLUTION BUSINESS PARK BY G.L. VOIGT Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 6 DEVELOPMENT/OVERLAND, LLC—OVERLAND AND LOCUST GROVE ROADS: Borup: Mr. Hawkins Clark, do you have a report for us. Hawkins Clark: Yes Commission. Again the application before you we do request that our staff report dated March 20 comments be incorporated into your action. On the screen is the subject property. It is currently zoned R-4 and they are requesting to rezone it to an LO, which is a limited office zone. As stated it is 37.6 acres. It is bounded on the west by the Hunter Lateral and goes to the half section line. Here is a photo of looking at the property, looking west. Staff does concur limited office zone allows for a combination of uses and the planned development commercial project which is going to be proposed later this evening, does comply and does fit with the limited office zoning. We would concur with the rezone request. Borup: Any questions from the commission. Miss Bowcutt. Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering. I am representing G.L. Voigt Development with this application. There is some history behind this particular parcel. I believe it was 1996, I think it was, 96, 97 we came before the City of Meridian and asked for annexation and zoning of this property to an R-4 designation which is a single family designation. Accompanying that rezone and annexation application was a preliminary plat and it had as I recall, 380 some homes that were proposed. Will might correct me. It was something around that approximately. We got approval and one of the problems that we saw was the fact that we needed to find a way to get that sewer to the south side of Overland road. At that point of time the sewer was not available. We debated on what to do with the property and just shortly before the preliminary plat was going to or approval was going to lapse, the Meridian School District came to us and stated that they wanted to purchase the 54 acres in the southern portion for a high school site. They had found a site south of Victory, were very close to closing it and it had fallen through at the last moment and that they had monies that needed to be spent to acquire land for the next high school. So, the property was sold to the school district. One of the conditions that they or that was discussed prior to that sale was the fact that we would not put single family dwellings north of the school site. They were very strong in their argument that they did not want to create another Borah High School situation where you have a large number of high school kids cutting through, driving through single family residential neighborhoods. We agreed that when we got ready to develop the property we would not develop a single family. I asked them specifically what type of uses would be able to co-exist with the high school and its traffic and any of the adverse effects that come along with it. They stated multi family would be acceptable or office or some limited retail—something along that line would be satisfactory. That is one reason we are at the point that we are at asking for this to be rezoned to LO. We choose the limited office zone because it allows the uses that we are proposing along with the planned unit development. The LO zone for this parcel would be the same as the CN where you have to have a conditional use permit for every single use on the property. We know some of our users. We know that this is one of users, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 7 apartment complex. The ice arena. That is one of our known users and then the LDS Seminary, that is one of our other users that are know. As far as these users, we don’t know who they will be. We have estimated that we for see this as kind of being a little bit of a satellite for St. Luke's Hospital. Maybe some of their suppliers would have a combination of office, small warehouse use. Those are typically pretty good users because they generate less traffic then let’s say the commercial activities. We think that the LO zone is appropriate. We have agreed to enter into a development agreement and as I’ve stated everything will be a conditional use permit. If there was a particular use that you found unacceptable, this body and the council would have the ability to deny that. The public again would have an opportunity to express their opinion. Lastly, I would just like to state one thing. We agree with the Commission on deferral of all of our applications this evening. We would not feel comfortable moving forward on any of these applications until the highway district has completed their analysis. They are behind schedule. They’ve lost a staff member. It has caused some backlog, so we really can’t hold them responsible for the delay. We accept it. One thing I would like to state is as Commissioner Borup indicated, the highway district at this point of time finances these roadway improvements in arrears. That means, until these monies are generated through some type of development, they don’t have any dollars. Eighty five percent of their capital creating additional road capacity is coming from impact fees at this time and then 15 percent is coming from (inaudible) and taxes. That is the data that I received from the traffic engineers that deal with the highway district on a regular basis. This project is not going to be built immediately. It is a 7 year, maybe 10 year project, who knows. It is a large project. They are usually typically phased. One building at a time. The Century Landmark Center, is a lot bigger than this. Our firm did that Subdivision and the conditional uses that went along with it. For many, many years it was built and vacant and the first user was the Bureau of Land Management and then as our economy started to heat up, and the Wal-Mart went in, then it started to take off. This obviously does not have the high traffic volumes that you find at Overland Road and the Cole Overland interchange, but my point is it is going to be a phase thing. We want to get those improvements in there. We have talked to the highway district and asked them to try to think ahead because sometimes they think in the short term and they think yeah, we’ve got five year to go in and fix this. I made them aware of the fact that the Meridian School District this fall will be coming before the voters for bond issue. That bond issue is going to include that high school. They have informed me that if that bond is successful, they will begin construction in 2001 because they anticipate that they will need this school in the short term. Eagle High School population has increased at a greater rate than what they anticipated. That is obviously going to accelerate the need for signalization, road widening. They bumped Overland Road up. It was designated as a 3 lane. They have bumped that designation up to a 5 lane arterial and when I spoke with the highway district about was let’s look at doing some type of a partnership. What can we do with this mile between Locust Grove and Eagle Road. Can we do our part—we are a half mile long—then you do the other half mile and work together to get signalization and so forth. What can we do. They said yes, we think that is a good idea. Now that we know that that school is going to go in there shortly, we are going to have to take a hard look at that. So that is where we are trying to head. Whether that’s what Ada County Highway District Commission will endorse, I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 8 can’t say and we won’t know until we come back before you. But that’s what we are trying to do. We are not trying to go out and build this thing out on a two lane section line roadway. Thank you. Barbeiro: Becky, in my discussions with the Meridian School District, they anticipate the school to be open Fall 2002. Can you guess about how much of this development may fill in at the time the school would open. Bowcutt: I would probably –obviously the ice arena that is planned for hopefully construction this year. That would be a nice service for that high school site. You may see some spin off, something like arcade or something like that, maybe a deli, something that could service these high school kids. I don’t think your going to see a lot of heavy commercial. We are not seeing that out at Eagle High School out on highway 44 and Clark. Those kids are still driving into the City of Eagle. It may generate some uses but I don’t see it becoming Burger King, McDonalds, Dairy Queen. It is not going to be like the interchange. Overland Road has like eleven thousand two hundred fifty trips a day. If they are located over at Eagle Road and the interchange, they can have 30 some thousand cars come by. Barbeiro: So if you had to guess you would say that at the time the school opened, we would see for instance the one development there, the ice rink and maybe two or three other buildings. Bowcutt: Possibly. The multi family users, the apartment complex, would like to build their first phase or begin construction on their first phase 2001. That is a 2 phased project. Borup: Thank you. We would like to invite anyone from the public again. This is the same situation as the previous hearing. This application is for a rezone. It is all ready part of the city limits so they are not asking for annexation and we will be getting to the meat of some of the other things on the next one. Any testimony on this rezone application. Okay, thank you. Commissioner's? Barbeiro: I wish to make a motion to close the public hearing. Norton: I second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Norton: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to request that we table the rezone of 37.64 acres from R-4 to LO for proposed Resolution Business Park by G.L. Voigt Development. Barbeiro: I second the motion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 9 Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 107.06 ACRES LO AND CG ZONING FOR PROPOSED RESOLUTION BUSINESS PARK BY G.L. VOIGT DEVELOPMENT/OVERLAND, LLC—OVERLAND AND LOCUST GROVE ROADS: Hawkins Clark: Commissioner's this application does incorporate the high school site to the south. This is the only one of the six applications tonight that does incorporate this area. This was done at the request of the City. This was originally an illegal split. The city requested that the developer’s incorporate the high school, Meridian School District, into this preliminary plat application and they have stated that they do not either support nor oppose the proposed development. The school district is simply willing to be incorporated into this preliminary plat application. In order to formalize the division of land here, this 107 acres, we do ask that our comments that are dated March 20, be incorporated. I’d like to go through about 4 of those points. The applicant has given a response to those. I would highlight number 8, which is on page 6 has to do with the easements which are located they are currently here along the north portion of the project along Overland Road and along the south, typically on plats. The city has requested that landscape buffers that are along arterial be incorporated separate legal lots and the applicant has stated they would prefer those to be easements. Staff don’t have a problem with that. Our main concern is consistency of design and landscaping maintenance in the future. In terms of that, we would be willing if the commission would want to modify that and have those easements just along Overland and Locust Grove landscape buffers. Overland Road is 35 feet wide landscape buffer. Locust Grove is 25 feet. Condition number 10 pertains to the fencing in the project and the applicant is proposing to construct a fence along the east boundary of the Hunter. Again, staff has recommending that Hunter be piped. They had proposed in their plat that that be left over. There (inaudible) say that they concur with that and we would also concur with their comment that the fence they are stating they would prefer to have a fence along the boundary of that lateral in terms of the apartments. Our main point was as long as there is some kind of cross connection there between the sites. Some kind of good neighbor fence, preferably not a chain link. We would concur that if a fence if inter- connection is provided is find in terms of that west boundary on the apartment complex. Then, Item number 11 I think we are in agreement there. There in terms of getting some kind of cross connection here as the plat currently does not propose any connection between this area, which is the proposed apartment complex and this 16 acre piece. How that happens, where it happens we would leave up to the applicant. Item number 13 deals with the private road. Here is the proposed private road off of Overland, which would service this lot number 6 and then lot number 8 simply coming down and making an “L” shaped. If it is only intended as a private drive which is stated in their response to our written comments, basically just to provide some kind of access, private access between these two future lot owners whoever the users are. This could potentially be as traffic moves easterly this will be the first entrance and if it is to be Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 10 private, staff just simply have some concern as to whether this would become sort of the primary entrance into the site and don’t really have an answer but maybe some kind of knuckle turn around instead of having that access directly onto Overland. Just cut that off and buffer it across there. That is it on the preliminary plat application. Borup: Any questions for Brad? Norton: Brad, I have two questions. Back to your number 10 regarding tiling the Hunter Lateral. In other words the applicant agrees to tile the Hunter Lateral and provide a neighborly fence by the apartment buildings. Is that correct? Hawkins Clark: Correct. Norton: Then my next question is number 11, the suggestion of the cross access road. What was the applicants response or did they respond to number 11. Hawkins Clark: They did. If I can read it for you if you didn’t receive. It states a vehicular connection between site A and B could be accomplished from the driveway between building 7 and 8. So they are kind of combining applications here. Building 7 and 8 –here is the next project but so just so you’ll see what we are talking about. I believe they are referring to this northern area here. Here is building 7 so it would be essential be coming in off –the connection which they are saying would be on the south here. It would be coming across through there. Here is the Hunter right here and in order to get some kind of connection here, the proposed daycare is here. Norton: So they are agreeable for the cross traffic then. Hawkins Clark: I would point out they say could be accomplished. They have not out right agreed in their response. Barbeiro: Brad could you go back to the plat that we had before showing the school district site. Incorporating the school district into this plat, will have the school district site currently as an R-4. Then the school district would come back later to change the zoning on that. Hawkins Clark: High schools are permitted in an R-4. Barbeiro: I did not read it as tiling the lateral. I though that was going to remain open. Staffs recommendation not the way we had it originally. Okay, that’s why I was confused. Hawkins Clark: It is city ordinance. It would have to be waived by the City Council if they were to leave it open. Borup: The applicant like to come forward. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 11 Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering. END OF SIDE ONE Bowcutt: Just for the benefit of the residents that are here, this application is that plat which we are asking to basically subdivide the property or cut it up into those lots shown. This does not approve any particular use on the property. This is just a plat. As Brad indicated, when we came before the City with pre-application conference Miss Stiles asked that we include the school district’s lot as part of this plat. She has some concerns because it does not have frontage on Overland Road. It has an easement out to Overland road but no frontage. We talked to the school district. At first they were opposed then we stated it would be of no cost to you. We will put it in with ours, so they said fine. That would be good just as long as it’s just the plat. That is what we have done here. What we are proposing is to build this 60 foot collector roadway coming in at this location here. In the preliminary site plans that I’ve seen on the school, they anticipate the building being located in this particular area kind of next to the Hunter Lateral. The school would be located in about this area and the reason being is the demography of the site. That has a slope to it so the building and their parking lots would go real well there. If they were to put ball fields they would have to do a substantial amount of grading. They anticipate the flatter portions of this site being utilized for their fields. This collector roadway will be bringing extending 12 inch water and 10 inch sewer down the collector roadway to here, stubbing to this site. This street here, the traffic circle and the stub street to our eastern boundary and then this roadway here are all proposed as public street to be built to public street standards and dedicated to Ada County Highway District. When the school is completed, the highway district then anticipates a light will be needed at that location. The school alone will generate approximately 3000 trips per day. The problem with the high school is its peak hour happens in a 30 minute time frame. In the morning, at lunch and when they leave. It is a short period of time. It is hard to manage that type of traffic. It’s been explained to me that their peak traffic would be comparable to say retail uses that generate 25,000 trips a day because it is such a short timeframe. The little lane that we have right here, we have viewed that not as a private road but kind of an access driveway. Because the property line for the multi family would adjoin here, under uniform fire code we’ve got to have vehicular access like around these buildings. Like here, around the arena there is an access. That is what we intended this to function as. Each of these lots having cross access agreements or easements we show that on the plat, if staff still chooses for access, but we did not intend it to be like a public street. I see staffs comments that their worried that somebody may come down and go that direction. We may have to study that a little bit and talk to the traffic engineer and see if that would be a problem. With kids, cause they cut through that driveway we would want to know that now not after it’s built. In staff’s comments, just briefly I’ll go through them. We have agreed to I believe most of their comments stated that we would comply. Pressurized irrigation, we will be building a pressure irrigation system to Nampa Meridian Irrigation standards, turning that system over to the district. I have contacted the Meridian School District to see if they would like to participate in the design and construction of a large regional pump station that would have the ability to service their ball fields and so forth. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 12 I have not received any answer. They may feel it premature at this time. If they have no interest in the pump station then we would proceed with building our pump station. Typically the way the systems are designed they have the ability to be upgraded with larger pumps and so forth. There was a discussion on landscaping on Locust Grove and Overland. We meet or exceed the requirements of the ordinance. We would like that to be an easement. We would be glad to put that easement on the plat. It is an easement for landscaping under jurisdiction of the association tying that into the protected covenants. As staff indicated, the purpose for that is to have consistency in the type of landscaping and the maintenance of that landscaping long term. Item 10, staff asked that we pipe the Hunter Lateral. We have agreed in our investigations on the Hunter Lateral we take a 36 inch concrete pipe approximately I believe your policy has been if it is less than a 48 inch then you are required to pipe it. We have agreed we will pipe it. The apartment complex, they feel it is important that they have some type of perimeter fence there. For buffer, for security purposes it wouldn’t be like some industrial chain link looking thing. They want something that would look residential. As far as the interconnection we took staffs recommendation and we thought yep, that makes sense. Then we could capture some of that traffic in-between the two parcels and the two types of uses. If I may, this is kind of what we anticipate would work. It would be an access point between building 7 and 8 just above the traffic circle, interconnecting the two users. That would provide pedestrian access and vehicular access between the two. We feel the fencing along the remainder of that western boundary would not hamper interaction between the two uses. It would be—this access would be extended. This building would be clipped off. This access would be (inaudible) right here. I believe that is all that we have. The rest of the conditions we are in agreement. Do you have any questions. Barbeiro: On the road connecting in from Overland to the high school, how many lanes is that? Bowcutt: The highway district is going to determine the number of lanes. At this point, I don’t believe it has been determined. We are providing a 60 foot right of way there with a 41 foot section, is what we anticipated. Your going to have multiple turn lanes out there at the entrance though. Like your probably –that entrance will be widened so you have multiple left hand lanes catching the light. With the volumes, there are going to have to do something like that. Maybe a free right hand turn. We will know that within a week of what they anticipate the build out for that. If they need a little more right of way, we do have quite a bit of landscaping running parallel on both sides of that collector roadway. Barbeiro: In the absence of the Ada County Highway District report then you would intend to having one lane in, two left hand turns and one right hand turn lanes for a total of 4 lanes wide at this point. Bowcutt: Possibly. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 13 Barbeiro: And, of course you would not use the second left hand turn lane until Overland was 5 lanes (inaudible). In the mean time that would be cross hashed. Bowcutt: They’d have to obviously have to do something like that, unless they can convince them to—improving that to 5 lanes, then it would be all ready to go. Barbeiro: The Meridian School District in their notes asked for an additional access, emergency access, to the north to Overland. The current plat that you have does not address that and I did not see it in any of the additional notes. Bowcutt: I took a copy of this plat over to the school district and asked for input. They did not give me any comments to that effect, but they may have commented in writing. I have not seen that. There is a stub street here, at this location here at the eastern edge of Los Alamitos. There is a stub street located at the southern end in Los Alamitos. The vehicular access is intended to be that collector roadway there. We did not want to send the traffic this director here. That was based on the neighborhood meeting that we had. One of the main concerns that we heard from the residents, I believe at Sportsman Pointe, was we don’t want that traffic going on to Locust Grove. We are trying to concentrate it at Overland. I think the secondary access is for emergency purposes, was it not? Barbeiro: That was the request. If I may quote Jim Carberry of the Meridian School District, Joint School District #2 would like to see a secondary access road to the north of the school site. According to the plat, there is only one entrance to the high school site from the north. This particular one does not explain whether it was an emergency or full access. Bowcutt: We have multiple points along here that we could, depending on their configuration because I don’t know what their site plan is. They don’t have one yet. I was told that they have authorized the architect to begin the site planning, but I have not seen any drafts other than a hand sketch that was given to us back in 97. There is multiple points that we could create emergency vehicle access through the complex itself. You could even come along here, here or along this parking lot. Like I said, it will be contingent upon their site plan because if I put one over here and that is the baseball diamond, it’s not doing them a lot of good. Barbeiro: I was at the Meridian School District planning meeting for the new high school. They do have two proposed site plans. One which is a single building site plan and one is a campus site plan where the high school might have 3 or 4 different buildings and how those would be situated with the field. I would hope that you’d get a chance to meet with Jim Carberry. Again, I just happen to run into him today and he mentioned that the road had not been included in any of the plats that he’d seen and wanted to be sure that they wanted to do that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 14 Bowcutt: Okay. I’ll be glad to meet with them if they have something that is more concrete then what they had a few years back and we can work with that and try to satisfy them. Barbeiro: The high school going in behind here and as you said your going to have students flying out of there at lunch time, what provisions have you made for walking access from the high school to the existing businesses. Bowcutt: If you look at the colored—this is just a larger version of the site plan that is up there except in black and white. We have meandering sidewalks that will meander in the landscape area parallel with this collector road. They’d be off set from the roadway which would be safer for the pedestrians then putting the sidewalk (inaudible) a curb. They will meander through our landscaping all the way up to Overland and then will end up putting sidewalk all along our Overland frontage. That is always a standard condition of the highway district and the City of Meridian. We’d then end up putting sidewalk all along our Locust Grove frontage and then there is pathways that are delineated through out the multi family complex and then we show some pathways that run through here to try to link everything up pedestrian. One of staff comments was like to provide bicycle racks at some of these various uses. We concurred. That is an excellent idea. Barbeiro: Where I see a concern is since the building will be right here, they are not going to bicycle over here and then come back around over here. They are going jump side here, here. Bowcutt: No, they come through a pathway there at that southeast corner here. This would be piped, the Hunter Lateral. There would be no barrier for them here. We could put a pathway and meander it in here to intercept with the sidewalks or walk ways within the interior of the complex. Barbeiro: That would be a very, very nice idea. Having taught at Meridian High School and Centennial and Eagle High School, I have seen every traffic disaster that teenagers can do in high school environment. Is this site here that the school site in total or does in incorporate off to the side. Bowcutt: No sir it doesn’t. What you see is everything that the school district owns. The out parcel right there is owned by the city of Meridian. That parcel is 4 acres. That parcel is 2.3. That parcel there in Thousand Springs adjoins it and I think it is 3 or 4 acres. That was going to be some type of a neighborhood park. Just to service the neighborhoods. Barbeiro: The plans that you have—do they—I thought the lateral would be open. Will the landscaping remain along the tiled lateral. Bowcutt: Nampa Meridian typically if we tile it, then they want a gravel access roadway over the top of it and they won’t allow us to plant any trees. We can’t even plant turf Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 15 within their easement without their approval through the license agreement process. We would have to work with them. Probably the optimum thing would try to have something that could function both as their access drive and as a pathway. Even if it were gravel, it could function that way. Barbeiro: Assuming I am a teenager with a new drivers license, your proposed access would cross over the lateral –zigzag through your multi family, I am the sixteen year old going to make this run here –cross over to get to Locust Grove so I could make a left turn, so on and so on. Bowcutt: We’ve discussed that. That was one of the concerns of the multi family applicant. One of the things that we talked about was possibly putting up coded gate for the residents and the residents have the code. I’ve seen that done on some retirement complexes in Boise. Older ones that back up, I think this one backed up to a shopping center, they had a key pad. That one was pedestrian only, whereas this one would be vehicular and pedestrian. Barbeiro: So you’d put a center gate which would allow pedestrian traffic and bicycles to pass at will. Bowcutt: We don’t want to create a cut through situation either. So, something like that could be done. Borup: Becky, I think most of my questions have been answered. I am assuming that you had mentioned (Inaudible) Overland is five lanes now. I assume you design allowed for the additional right of way. Bowcutt: Yes sir. The site planning for Overland and Locust Grove takes into consideration of the future right of way needs to expand both the roadways to their build out width. Borup: Thank you. Now I’d like to invite up any public testimony, We do want to hear from everyone this evening. This is concerning the platting. Not the specific buildings. We may need to enforce our 3 minute limit but we will see how it goes. Shipley: John Shipley. 2770 S. Locust Grove. Listening to you folks, I don’t recognize anybody but Mr. Borup. I have not been here for a long time. Obviously, if you knew what the law actually said about developing something ahead the roads and the schools, then it would be appropriate to address these things after those things were done. Borup: Is there a law that you are aware of that we are not. Shipley: I am aware that there can only be so many cars on the – Borup: You specifically said a law sir that we weren’t aware of. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 16 Shipley: It was talked of in meetings and past times and I’m not aware of why nobody here knows about it. I don’t know the number. If your speed is impeded by 1/3 the speed limit because of traffic, then there is too many cars. If you go ahead and okay all of this stuff without knowing what the highway district people have got in mind then it is just like spinning wheels. Borup: We agree. Maybe I need to repeat that again. Our intention—we have all ready discussed prior to that we will not be making any recommendation without the highway districts report. It is not our policy, especially on a project of this size. Shipley: Is the man named Kent Brown is he the same one that works at the highway district. Borup: No he isn’t He is the same name, different person. Avera: My name is Herman Avera. I’m at 947 E. St. Maarten Drive in part of the Meridian Greens Subdivision. My concern if I understand the numbers correctly, is that they are suggesting that the high school is going to add an additional 3000 trips per day. At lunch time most of the fast food places that are there now are out on Meridian Road, which means they are going to have to get out on this one road, make a left turn onto Overland and go down to Meridian and make a right turn there to get to the fast food places for lunch. It would seem that you make a 1000 trips for that and then 1000 trips to get out of here in the afternoon and there is no light or stop light at that exit and that is the only exist out of there. My concern is for the safety not only for the students, but pedestrians who might be walking across there, because I know that the school buses stop along Overland Road now to pick up and drop off elementary kids. I don’t know how that is going to be addressed. Borup: You feel a signal is necessary? Avera: Certainly a signal will be necessary by the time the school completes and the children are driving in and out. Yes. Barbeiro: Mr. Avera, if I may. If we used Eagle High School as a comparative, about 20 percent of the students at Eagle High School do leave and go onto Eagle Road for lunch. Meridian High School is closer to 30 percent. I believe this high school will be somewhere in-between. That would give you between 240 and 300 leaving at lunch time, not the 1000 you had thought. Avera: Do we think that 240 leaving here and turning left without a signal is safe. Barbeiro: It is never—the school is not intended to open prior to a signal being at that intersection. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 17 Christianson: James Christianson. 241 S. Brandy Jewel Avenue. I could not see the plat of the apartment buildings of where the access was to the apartment buildings. Is it coming off of Overland or – Borup: They were talking about right here. This is the apartment buildings here and there is— Christianson: I met how do they get out of the complex. Borup: Overland. That is the intention. Staff (inaudible) some access here so that people who live in these apartments can get to the commercial buildings. Christianson: (Inaudible) if they were going to the access road where the school is to get out or if they was going out on Overland. Borup: If they are travelling anywhere, they going Overland. If they want to get to these businesses I would assume they would use that so they don’t have to fight the traffic. Thank you. Anyone else. Cushing: My name is Terry Cushing. I live at 1989 E. Doberman. My concern is that and I know that some of this has been addressed but I talked to the Ada County Highway District the other day and they assured me after their meeting that they was going to they figured this complex would generate 12000 trips a day. What they said was it would add 6000 and they figured the six was from people who would all ready be on Overland road or in the area. As a person who has to come up Locust Grove and turn onto Overland several times a day, I find it very difficult to do safely. I think that adding any kind of load to the streets there, until that street or until the light is put at Locust Grove, and in front of the high school, I think that it is an error that we should not be in acting any –I am not trying to say not in my backyard or anything, but gracious sakes, we’ve got to be able to get out on that road and right now it is difficult and if you add 6000 trips, it is going to be impossible. Hinkley: Nathan Hinkley. East Puffin Court. What I want to know is what else is going to have to happen. There is no two ways about it. That land can't sit dormant forever. They want to build an ice skating rink and put stores in there and offices and the high school. I’m going to have to pay for the high school so are all my neighbors and my daughter will be using it. That is only right. But, for the rest of it, why does Ada County and the tax payers have to pay for the street improvements. I’ve done a lot of street lighting and a lot of traffic signals, why does not the developer pay for it. The developer should pay a little of it. They are adding the traffic. They are adding the congestion. Just asking why. Borup: Why they don’t pay 100 percent of it? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 18 Hinkley: Not completely 100 percent but most of it. Why don’t we get the roads built and the traffic signals in and then give them permission to go ahead and build. We vote on these things as we go, public hearings, city approvals or whatever. Borup: The applicant may want to clarify that but from her earlier testimony and assuming that’s correct, she stated that 85 percent of the funds would be coming from impact fees, which is paying by the development. So, that has to happen first before the money is there. So the 15 percent would be from tax payers. 85 percent from the impact fees. Yes, developers in this area. Hinkley: Will we get the roads built and the traffic signals and then put all this stuff in. Borup: Because you won’t have the money. They have to apply for the permit and then they pay the money at the time they apply and then the money there. It can happen gradually. Anyone else like to come forward. Rassmusson: Sonya Rassmusson. I live at 1395 E. Peacock. I know there is a lot of concern about all the traffic that will happen. There on Overland especially with all the high school students. I am worried about it too but it is really important that we get a high school because the high school is so over crowded and we do need on there. It is a good location. I am hoping that there is a lot of neighborhoods close by and that I am hoping that the school district will put walk way access from Los Alamitos. It would be nice if the students from Sportsman and even Meridian Greens could walk to the school. I am hoping that will alleviate a little of the traffic. I know a lot of kids will still drive, but I think it is important that we work with the Ada County Highway District. Even just getting a turning lane and a light at the beginning when the school is opened, I know I talked to them. They are not looking at doing anything until 2004 and they aren’t going to bump that up just because a school is going in. I don’t know. How does the Planning and Zoning Commission—can you work together with the Ada County Highway District in getting a turning lane and a light? Borup: I agree. I think that is –again it’s my personal opinion. I think it is going to be necessary for this. I think the applicant would agree with that too. Tom has said the school is going to require a light and the turning lane is going to need to be without stopping up traffic, so I think those are two very pertinent suggestions. Barbeiro: I understood that before the school opened there would be a stop light there. That was one of the requirements and also turn lanes. Are you referring to Overland and Locust Grove or the intersection where the high school will be coming out. Rassmusson: Right now the school only has that one main entrance. They were thinking they should have another one but they have no plan for it right now. The ideal location would be off of Eagle Road but they’d have to cut across. I don’t even know what is going in there, next to the site. Is there anything planned for over there? The neighbors are going to fight if you go through Los Alamitos as a—they don’t want teenagers running up and down their streets. They need to find an entrance Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 19 somewhere else but have at least walk way access for the students to walk through and for the community. They want to involve the community and use the facilities so it would be nice if neighbors could walk. Barbeiro: Are you referring to popping a little easement so that they can access the site just by walking through it. The school intends to be right here and these are all going to be lawn fields so of course you couldn’t have a driving access. Rassmusson: No, but they are still going to be cutting through neighborhoods. If I lived in that Subdivision, I would not want because if you had football games you’ll get a lot of traffic going through those neighborhoods. Barbeiro: I think this is one where when the final layout for the school comes out, that would be the time to find out how you wanted to have that cross traffic going through. I don’t see the cross traffic coming from the high school because it is intended to have emergency access, but this road here will be the single entrance in with the hope that an emergency road may come along. Borup: Any one else. Bertell: Marianne Bertell, 2534 S. Velvet Falls. In all of this development the impact of all the homes, we still have two more Subdivision being completed also in that area and all of this, I really fell the at the City of Meridian needs to put some bike paths and park area usable to the public that live there now and pay taxes. Some of that area should be set aside for the public who lives there. Borup: Maybe like right down at this corner would be good. Bertell: That is not big enough and it is not accessible. You can’t get through to it. Borup: How many acres do you feel it should be? Bertell: I don’t know. I just know more than 5 acres. You needs access also from Locust Grove for people walking, biking etc. Borup: That is a question I don’t know if we know how they are proposing access to that park area. Bertell: It would almost have to go up where your commercial zoning starts and cut across somehow. Borup: Right now there is street stubs right here that would get to the park. Bertell: But again they are the Subdivisions and people don’t want everyone coming through their subdivision. There is a lot of people needing access to a park area and to the school from Locust Grove. A bike path. A walking path. Then, some sort of public Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 20 park large enough to accommodate that large of area of population. 5 acres is not adequate for that large population. There will be thousands of homes there. Traston: John Traston for (inaudible) sub. I was wondering if anybody considered another option on the high school on which instead of having it located back off of Overland, if it joined Overland there would be room for two access streets and to the high school parking area. That would alleviate the high school kids from having to drive in and out of residential areas or retail store areas. Instead of having it behind, have it right up on the street. Borup: And then have the people drive through the school to get to the retail. Traston: Well there in behind that there is room for a park. Borup: And your talking to the wrong people here. We are not the school board. Traston: Yeah, but that seems it would take care of a few problems as far as access for the school and then it would also take care of the next problem number 5 on how to get rid of that nasty old farmer complex. Borup: Anyone else before we sum up. Seeing none. Becky any final comments? Bowcutt: Just briefly, Ada County Highway District stated to me today which is consistent with what Mr. Barbeiro has stated, that they would not allow that high school to go in without that signal being there. They had the same requirement for Eagle High School at Park and Highway 44. Concerning the traffic, we pay for a lot of our improvements with impact fees. The majority of the development out in this vicinity had been single family dwellings where you are paying 600 700 dollars per home. That money is coming in. When you start having your larger users, such as the ice hockey facility or a retail or an office building, they are getting that money in a big chunk. It is not hundreds of dollars, sometimes it is hundreds of thousands of dollars. For example, the BLM Building that we did, the impact fee for that facility was all most $200,000. That provides a lot of money for the highway district to go in and bring these roads up to par. As I stated before, if we can get the highway district to look further down the road and get this as a priority, then it will benefit everyone including the eventual school district. They stated it is on their 5 year plan. It is not 20 years away. It is on their 5 year plan. The way they work it with their 5 year plan, if it is on there, there it is programmed. It may move up on the schedule. It may move back on the schedule. A good example is the Locust Grove improvements that are taking place in your vicinity. They moved –those were supposed to be in 1999. They moved them out to 2002. Then they moved them back to 2000. They have juggled around 4 or 5 different times and finally they ended up making the improvement on the bridge. That is how they work. They’ve got a lot of people that have many items on their wish list and they are trying to prioritize. I feel that this high school is obviously going to have to be a priority. The safety of the teenagers, the adjoining developments is a priority. The stub streets here in Raven Hills and in Los Alamitos, when those Subdivision were designed, they Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 21 were intended to be a residential street to connect to another residential street because this property had come through as a single family development. They were never intended to be a collector roadway for any use more intensive such as the high school. The city has been putting that together (the park site) and has been donated as each of these properties developed. When this property was annexed they got 4.2 acres. When Los Alamitos was developed they got 2.9. When Thousand Springs was platted they got another 4 and when this parcel here is ever developed or asked for annexation, they will get the last piece of the puzzle. I think that the intent is to be between 10 and 12 acres. It is a neighborhood park, not a community park. As far as a park that people would drive to, they want a park that people will walk, bike, job and so forth. It is not intended to be like a sports park or regional park that you find at Eagle Road and McMillan. That one the City of Boise has been constructing and that sits on 40 acres and it serves the whole west side there. This is just intended to service these Subdivisions. Right now we’ve been working in Thousand Springs Development. We’ve been working on a crossing of the Ridenbaugh Canal to make a connection between Los Alamitos and Thousand Springs. That will also facilitate people walking to the park and back and forth. It will also take some vehicular traffic and take it eastward out to Eagle Road, so that will also help. It will give you guys a secondary access because at this point of time you have one access here with a connection to Raven Hills there, but they both dump to Locust Grove. That gives you an alternative. Borup: Any questions for Becky. One clarification. You said ACHD said their going to be putting a signal in—part of that signal include the turn lane. Is that part of the signal design normally or did they indicate either way. Is that something you anticipate the developer would be taking care of. Bowcutt: I anticipate we will end of putting the turn lanes—I think the traffic study stated that a middle turn lane needed to be provided in Locust Grove. Borup: I was thinking on Overland. Bowcutt: Extra lanes in Overland, widening of Overland there and creating some turn lanes. I won’t know the specifics until the highway district completes their analysis. We are going to have to pay our proportionate share. I had some developments where they figured our share of a signal was 50% or 30% and you pay you trust fund that money so you write them out a check for X number of dollars. That money is then used to put that signal in. That happens. We can’t—someone says well why can’t this wait till the roadway goes in. I don’t think they are going to build the roadway until the development goes in and the school goes in. If my development doesn’t go in, the school can’t go in. We’ve got to pull the sewer, the water, 3 phase power, bill collector roadways, there is a lot of work that’s got to be done. We spent $250,000 just getting the sewer across Interstate 84 to Overland Road. That was 2700 feet of a big deep sewer line. We assisted the City with the water line and doing a joint effort there which saved the City a considerable amount of money. We used the same contractor and did a joint effort. We have been trying to do our part to improve the infra structure out in this area. We are not going to stop here with the roadway. We are going to do what we can. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 22 highway district can’t tell a developer go in and you build Overland Road 5 lanes all the way over from Locust Grove to Eagle Road. The reason being is the need for that roadway to be improved is not just due to our usage, but the existing usage in the area. They can’t put that burden upon you. In fact if they do make you do certain things that increase capacity that is not related to you, they have to reimburse you. END OF SIDE TWO Bowcutt: Friday of this week in draft form. Borup: I just want it to be before our next meeting. Bowcutt: Yes. Barbeiro: I wanted to clarify, you had discussed about entering into some sort of agreement where you (inaudible) would pay for the widening of Overland to the half way point, then the County would cover the rest of it. It would be in one single project. Bowcutt: That is what we are trying to do. A joint effort to try and cut down on the cost. Barbeiro: Your going to pay a considerable amount in impact fees. Bowcutt: They would give you impact fee credits. That’s what we discussed. Like they said, they qualified that. That has to have approval of the Commission. The staff can not make that commitment. For example for the public, say we spend $300,000 improving Overland Road and installing a signal. Then, the impact fees that would be applied to the uses on the site, that money would be credited so you would not have to pay those impact fees. They have a provision to go about it in that fashion but it has to have commission approval because they are basically dispensing with public funds and staff can’t do that. Barbeiro: In other words, you would pay your impact fees up front as opposed to paying them incrementally as the buildings come in and then as you buildings come in the County would credit you back the fees that would have come from those individual lots. One of your options is to pay up front impact fees that you may not be charged for 6 or 7 years until you get complete build out. Bowcutt: If Ada County Highway District would agree to that. I have some projects where they would not agree. A lot of it depended on they didn't want to see a portion of a roadway improved because they believe that that causes more hazard then it helps. For example, say building Overland Road from Locust Grove for a half mile 5 lanes and then it nets down to two. They’d want to be able to do the whole thing and (inaudible) sometimes they will say no, we don’t want to use impact fee credits in this instance. Barbeiro: Somehow I think with the implementation of a high school in this place you would find an exception. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 23 Bowcutt: I would hope that they will work with us and I have asked them to look at the options and be open minded and take into account that school that that is going to happen within a relatively short period of time. Barbeiro: Also wanted to get your confirmation if you are aware of it, while the school comes in here about 1/3 of a mile, I believe it was intended (inaudible) was planning to have another light at that point and then go out to Eagle. This 1/3 of a mile was –the light was much later on until of course it is all built in so they would go a light at Locust Grove, the high school and 1/3 mile. Bowcutt: That was one of the things that they discussed today was the timing of that. I think they believe that the light at Locust Grove would come first. My question to them when the overpass is constructed which that may become a reality from what I’m hearing. Its being lobbied for. My question was, would that light then the money spent be wasted and their indication was no. They would have to move the light, but the money spent would not be wasted. Barbeiro: Apart from that when you talk about moving the light—when they planned the lights they still will likely be out far enough where they can build the road and not move the lights. All they have to do is rewire. Bowcutt: One of the engineers thought they would probably have to move it a little bit. Why they do that I don’t know. Maybe they can’t get it out that far when the roadway is up here. The arms are only at certain length. I don’t know. He thought it would have to be moved. Borup: Thank you. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I am ready to make a motion. I move that we continue this public hearing to April 11, 2000 so we can hear and read the ACHD report. This is for the request for the preliminary plat of 107.06 acres of LO and CN zoning for proposed Resolution Business Park. Barbeiro: I would second the motion Mr. Chairman. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND LDS SEMINARY, LO AND CG ZONING BY G.L. VOIGT DEVELOPMENT/OVERLAND, LLC—OVERLAND AND LOCUST GROVE ROADS: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 24 Borup: Brad. Would you like to explain the difference between Item number 4 and Item number 5. I’d like to open the public hearing. Hawkins Clark: Yes, the difference between Item number 4, conditional use permit for a conceptual overall plan. This CUP basically is not approving any specific use that is currently shown up on the screen. It is simply the applicant is coming to us and saying as a concept, will the city approve this conditional use permit. Anything that would come in, if you do approve it, would have to substantially comply with this plan. The planned unit development commercial, which it is called, is designed to be the overall under lane foundation approval for the whole entire 55 acre site or whatever the acreage is. The conditional use permit does not include the high school property. This is—you were talking about strictly these two parcels up here. Specific conditional use permit with more specific details on parking, trash enclosures and this would be a general compliance and I think something that we have used as a department has been that if for instance if the City approves this overall concept plan, we are not talking about specific footprints of a 20,000 square foot retail and a 10,000 here. We are talking about general concept that if it differs by more than 20 percent in the future, then we would say that that is not permitted. Again, that is not ordinance. That is more or less the procedure internally. The purpose of this would be for the developers compared to coming in for each one piece meal. They are saying we want to look at this overall project. We want to get general conceptual approval. Borup: I want to make sure everyone is understood the difference here as far as Items 5 and 6 will be for specific items that is listed on the application. Thank you. Hawkins Clark: I think there are a couple of points on the staff report dated March 20th to point out. I think the applicants response details most of those. I think there is general agreement that the future uses will all require conditional uses. They are proposing two of those tonight. On Item number 4 which the applicant has stated that they disagree on a couple of points. One is the multi family project which is the site B designated on the screen. 200 units including a club house area which here off of Overland Road, the entrance would be coming into the club house is a general receiving area here, the club house situated here with another amenity there. There are each proposed unit as I understand would be approximately 10—each building would be 10 dwellings. One of the requirements that the city has for most residential planned developments is that any RV’s boats those kinds of things they provide storage areas. They are stating that any resident would with RV’s would have to store those offsite and staff has no problems as long as that is made clear and a condition. In terms of the maintenance building proposed for (inaudible) landscaping and that kind of thing, they are proposing that that be a landscape company which bring their equipment from offsite. On the parking issues the staff report does provide a matrix that outlined the proposed parking and the parking required. Item number 7 and we certainly don’t want to see a lot more asphalt either. Our only purpose in pointing that out is as you can see, most of the items the site A, which includes the retail pads and the offices and day care on the west side of the project, that would be all taking access off of Locust. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 25 They exceed the number of parking. Parking required is 531. They were proposing 629 stalls there. In the apartment complex, there is a issue of the tandem parking and we simply want to point out that with Valeri Heights that was something that was discussed and some complexes and property management complexes pointed out the difficulties with that. We really don’t have a strong position either way. Just wanted to point out as far as consistency. I think they seem to be well parked and when you include the garages there is 401 spaces there. On the ice arena again talking conceptually, they are looking at about 1430 seats inside the arena. Technically they meet the city ordinance which is based on one parking stall for every 5 seats. The applicant also did submit a more detailed narrative about their anticipating mostly smaller numbers, some evening events which they could use the parking that is north on site C. It may not be directly serving the ice arena but it would be within walking distance certainly and that would provide them, if they incorporated the other parking on the office and retail sites around there. We said 595 stalls. Since the City of Meridian doesn’t have much experience with ice arenas we feel it important to leave that up to the applicant who has more experience with the type of use. There was some comparison with ice world up in Boise at the near the airport out there. They have had they based their parking ratio on one for every four seats. Understand that they are not having too much difficulty with some events in terms of meeting parking demand. There is some other issues in terms of the hours of operation and alternative transportation. They have agreed in terms of the bike racks and a future bus stop. Potentially designating an easement somewhere within the site for a future bus stop. We would point out that would be important to include as a condition to facilitate future mass transit options. We are recommending again as the other ones that it be continued since there has not been a ACHD report. Borup: Any questions from the commission? Does the applicant have anything to add. Seeing none. Becky did you have anything to add. Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering. I am representing the applicant in this matter. As staff indicated, this is a planned unit development application asking for a conceptual approval of the mixed uses on this particular site. Every user is required to have a separate site specific conditional use permit. The two applications behind this one –one deals with the apartments the other deals with the ice arena. As I indicated before, we know three of our users. The rest of our users are anticipated. We understand that we are committing to circulation patterns, parking requirements, etc. There is always a little bit of minor deviation when you go from a conceptual design to a final development plan. We do expect a little bit of deviation. It is just a given in the industry. We feel that this provides the city with an over look at what is going to happen. One of the big complains like along Fairview, along Overland and some of those areas is what they call a strip commercial development where you have small parcels adjoining a particular arterial. You have independent users coming in asking for rezones and conditional use permits for a multiple type of uses and there’s not any over all through in the layout, interconnection, pathways etc. Everything is done on a piece meal basis. The advantage of the PUD is that we can come in and master plan these two parcels. It is approximately 54 acres in size. The properties are under two Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 26 separate ownerships who are cooperating on this application. I’ll go into staffs comments, you should have a copy of my responses. We concurred with many of staffs requirements or statements and we did state in writing that we understand or that we are in agreement. Item 4, we are in agreement with all sections listed with exception of section 12-6-8-A1-2-3. These particular requirements, Item 1 is storage areas. It says storage areas shall be provided for anticipated needs of boats, campers, trailers, etc. Within the multi family project any type of recreational vehicles will be prohibited. So, we do not want to provide a mini storage facility for those types of vehicles. Those will be stored at a public mini storage off site somewhere else. Item 2 under that is parking space. It reads one additional parking beyond that which is required by the zoning title may be required for every three dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking. In all my previous multi family applications with the City of Meridian and the City of Boise and many other jurisdictions, two parking spaces per unit for multi family is a standard. The staff has asked for 2.3. I think that that is excessive. All we are doing is creating more asphalt, more hard surface and we are taking away from what can be done with common areas and landscaping. It has never been applied in this fashion before to my knowledge on any application that I’ve had. I have not see one recently that it’s been applied and I’d like to reference that it states maybe. One item unique about this project is the fact that each unit has a minimum of one and up to two enclosed, attached garages that are built into the building itself. We also have additional surface parking like you would find in a standard apartment complex. In front of some of these garages you would have a driveway, very similar to what you’d find at a single family dwelling. If you visited a friend there very often, you probably most likely will know what building they live in and were their garage is. You could park behind it. I don’t feel that the .3 percent is required or needed here. I understand the City in the past has not counted tandem parking and we did not count tandem parking in our parking calculations. We have 401 spaces. We have 200 units. Borup: Is you 401 include the garage. Bowcutt: Yes sir. The tandem we felt was just gravy. We had a substantial number of tandem parking spaces. Borup: Could you show that drawing to the audience. Bowcutt: That particular design I’ve heard it referred to as a manor house. As far as apartment buildings are concerned, it is probably one of the most pleasing designs that I have ever encountered. The closest thing to that would probably be the Renaissance Apartments at Hobble Creek. We did the civil engineering on that project and I processed their conditional use permit. Those were very attractive. They used a lot of brick, a lot of decking, off sets in the exterior. That is what this building provides. Going back to the tandem spaces, we have 240 attached garages, 161 surface parking and then 152 so called tandem spaces. Technically you could fit 553 vehicles on the site, if necessary. We feel that we have met if not exceeded, the parking requirements of this facility. Therefore, that is why we do not believe that .3 or that section 2 of 12-6-8A should be applied. Thirdly, the requirement for Item 3 is a maintenance building that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 27 you will provide a maintenance building. I think that was put in the ordinance before the days of lawn care company’s. All of the projects in this development will be retaining a lawn care company. They house and store their own equipment and bring it onsite, do the work and exit. We have no need for a maintenance facility. I’d like Mr. McKeegan, the architect for the ice arena, to address the statements from staff concerning their project because they know their project better than anyone and then I will have a representative from apartment complex may want to make some statements concerning their parking also. Borup: Excuse me Becky, are you saying you’d like to do testimony of both of those at this point rather then at the specific conditional use permit for the – Bowcutt: The only reason was there was some of staffs comments directed at those users as part of this concept. Is that acceptable to the commission. Borup: I think it is if you want to—then they be coming back up again for the same thing. Bowcutt: I think they are just going to address staffs comments, not do their presentation. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, before the architect comes up if I could ask staff a question. In figuring out the 2.3, were you aware that Briggs Engineering did not include the tandem parking spaces in their configuration for the two spaces per unit? Hawkins Clark: Yes. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment or a question for staff. For myself and for the audience could you please explain what tandem parking is please. Hawkins Clark: That would be if on the garage units directly behind the garage as compared to a separated out delineated parking stall that is designated just for a stall you’d actually have parking behind the garage which typically would obviously prohibit movement in and out of the garage. It is technically a space that vehicles could park. Borup: On this definition its tandem would be two parking spots. One is in the garage and the driveway leading to the garage. Essentially like any single family home. McKeegan: My name is Patrick McKeegan. I am representing the applicant for the ice rink. My address is 419 S. 8th Street, Ste. B in Boise Idaho. At this point in time I just want to address the specific items that were requested under item number 7 by staff for this application. What I specifically wanted to address was the parking issue. In order to do that I have to talk a little bit about how we are going to operate the facility. Basically the ice rink is going to have 2 sheets of ice. One is going to be a standard NHL sheet and the other one is going be built to Olympic standards. It will be the only Olympic ice rink west of Salt Lake City. That has a little bit of significance because Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 28 currently the U.S. and Canada are the only countries where hockey is played on in ice skating event and exhibitions and competitions take place on anything less than an Olympic size rink. The number of seats that we are providing in the facility is around 1400 which sounds like an awful lot but the true operation of the facility, if you have 2 sheets of ice with two teams playing on each sheet of ice, an average hockey team has 12 to 16 players, so that would mean you would have between 24 and 32 players on each sheet of ice, 64 participants then the referees and coaches, so you may have at any given time during a practice or standard play, you have both sheets of ice are booked approximately 100 persons who, some of who would be sharing the driving in coming to the facility. Approximately once a month we would anticipate having an event that would be a tournament for league play or perhaps a ice exhibition. Bring in ice skaters or perhaps an exhibition of profession teams from Europe for instance playing a local or American professional teams and giving them a Olympic size venue to show with the different skills actually. Skating on Olympic ice is much different than to play on Olympic ice. It is much different on American ice because you have more of a defensive and strategy game because you have 15 feet wider area to play. We are providing with our area 278 packing spaces. If we are only having during peak periods non event periods 100 per hour there we feel that we have provided more than enough parking at that time and that the additional 7 spaces over what is required or what staff is requesting the additional 7 spaces could come from the retail and office spaces. The reason we believe that is because most of the events will take place on weekends when the office building will not be occupied or in the evening again when the office buildings will not be occupied. Except for architects and planners it seems like most people get to go home around 5 or 5:30 so that space frees up. The reason we’d like to have that kind of shared agreement is so that we are not providing an additional 100 or 150 spaces of asphalt anymore than is needed. We just basically ask that we be allowed to provide the number of spaces that is shown. That concludes my comments right now on this specific item. I will get more on the design of the building and that during the specific conditional use hearings. Also, I would like to mention that I do have a representative from the development group on the operational side of it that will be here to answer questions to. I just thought of one more thing. There was a lot of discussion about pedestrian access to the school and stuff and kids driving off the school to go eat. We are going to do everything we can to capture those kids before they get offsite. In our facility we are going to have some eating facilities and we are going to –one of the things that is being pushed right now is that trying to make hockey a letter sport in the high schools. We anticipate that happening in the next two to three year. One of the reasons that we selected this site was because we knew the high school was going in there. We knew the City of Meridian was lacking in recreational opportunities and we wanted to do some with the existing recreational facilities down the road with Roaring Springs and those facilities. Also we want to be able to work with the high school so that to give them the kids there some opportunities for recreational opportunities without having to drive somewhere else. Borup: Becky, did you say someone else wanted to testify at this point. Okay, thank you. I’d like to continue the public hearing with any public testimony at this time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 29 Bartell: Marianne Bartell. 2434 S. Velvet Falls Meridian. I just have one comment and that is if you look at the plan over there, they have the orange as the commercial. I went to a meeting last week regarding the Master Plan for Meridian and hypothetically it sounded very lovely. The neighbors with a convenience store and this type of development, not heavy, solid commercial in one area. The people from north Meridian were crying for stores, gas stations. We are being inundated with commercial, commercial, commercial. We moved there thinking that was going to be residential. An apartment complex was all ready voted down once by the City Council because the people turned out so highly against it. We are only talking about approximately 1/8 of the acreage there between that mile, that 50 some acres, isn’t there close to 400 all together. Beyond what you are showing on Resolution Park. Borup: Your just saying clear to Eagle Road. Bartell: We moved there with all the intention of being in a residential area. It is becoming a heavily impacted commercial area. Not just servicing our area, but bring people in from other areas to come there. That is not what the conception of the Master Plan was from what I understood last week. It was servicing the area, not bringing people into the area and traffic into the area. It is away from the Master Plan. There is nothing in north Meridian, it is all right in that area. I just—it doesn’t seem to go with the Master Plan and I don’t think it goes with the neighborhood and what they desire. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, if I may ask Miss Bartell a question please. In the 20 year plan and in the original plan, all of the freeway frontage was intended to be commercial. That is what I was trying to understand. Bartell: I am talking about south of Overland and all of that area. Everyone that moved into that area was under the impression that was all going to be residential. We put our roots down. We planned to stay there until we moved out in a pine box. We don’t want to see it a heavy commercial area where people are coming to it. In the Master Plan, my understanding was that each area is to be developed with their own little commercial center and surrounding neighborhoods and to make it a nice place to live. Instead it is becoming heavy commercial all condensed into a solid area and that is very undesirable to the people who live there. Borup: Is that it? Avera: My name is Herman Avera. 947 E. St. Martin Drive. I am the president of the Meridian Greens HOA, a community of all most 300 homes that took 9 years to build up. During that time we have seen the City of Meridian more than triple in population and witness the impact that this population growth has had on the cities supporting infrastructure, including schools, roads and police protection. As a neighborhood that is likely to be directly effected, we are concerned that the approval of this development will have severe negative consequences on our local infrastructure and would urge that you recommend against approval of this development until the following problems are resolved. First, schools. According to Mr. Jim Carberry’s report to the City Council last Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 30 July, the elementary and high school effected by this development are all ready currently over capacity. Middle school is at capacity. Many of us have children in these effected schools and are all ready troubled by the problems of the over crowded classrooms cause. Knowing the difficulty of passing school bonds here, doesn’t it make sense to delay construction of high density housing which would quickly add students to these all ready over crowded schools until at least some new schools are built to handle the in-flow. You have all ready covered the traffic problems. Police and fire protection. Even if the crime and emergency rates per person remain constant, this development with high density development, a high school, new businesses and the rink, will increase the reported incidents in our part of Meridian. This increase will require additional police and fire resources to handle the problems in this area. According to a recent article in the Idaho Statesman, the police captain Dave Bowman is quoted as saying, we are not keeping up with the growth, in fact I think we are falling behind. This is the current situation independent of the additional growth due to this proposed development. If we can’t handle the current situation, how will be deal with this increase. Meridian Greens is a Subdivision that was built up over nine years and we have seen how difficult it is to increase Meridian’s infrastructure to keep pace with the population growth rate. While we can understand the City’s desire for higher density housing, and additional commercial tax revenue, we urge the commission to delay this project until the infrastructure in this area has been developed to handle our current needs, as well as the new needs for this development. Thank you for listening. Borup: Any questions from the commission. Barbeiro: A part from this individual development for residents, the Meridian School District will be adding 1100 new students per year which, according to Mr. Carberry will require at least 2 new elementary schools per year for the next 6 to 10 years. The intent for the high school, they hope that is, was a bond for the high school, an additional Jr. High School and 2 new elementary schools with the hope that they would all come in in the Fall of 2002. The frustrating part is that we can’t continue to build schools, yet this individual development will have as much impact as any development anywhere. What is it about this development that is of a greater priority or lessor priority of other developments in increase of student flow. Avera: I can’t speak to the other developments personally, but Meridian Greens has taken 9 years to add 300 homes. We are talking about adding 200 residents here in probably less than 5. I am just afraid that adding that many new residents with children to the school system will over load it faster then we can build new school for it. Barbeiro: Again, my point is that the school district is aware and is planning… Avera: Well, planning it and getting the money to do it by convincing 2/3’s of the voters to pass a bond is not the same thing. Until is happens, you won’t have the rooms to put the body’s and they will have to go in the existing buildings. I probably don’t speak for the majority of the people here, but the taxes that I pay on my home to send my kids to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 31 school I would gladly pay double for if it kept the rest of the community at a lower density. Keeling: Delores Keeling. I live at 2575 Bayou Bar. Some time ago where there was a petition on the north side of Overland for 275 apartment units, we came out in mass and against that because of the impact on the area. Overland would be much over crowded. The children would not have any way to go to the Boon Docks. There aren’t any sidewalks, Now we going to put in 200 apartments on top of a new high school, business. It seems unreasonable that we would put more apartments in when we have all ready fought. Meridian Greens along has 800 petitions against that on the north side. I just don’t under stand it and if we are going to put commercial in all the way on Overland, let’s go commercial or else raise the –can the high school be put up on Overland so that we don’t have to have businesses on Overland. Borup: The school district doesn’t own the property there. That was their choice I am assuming. Keeling: I am objecting and I am sure there is many here that do object to the apartments. Everything else, if they can get the money for it. You get the impact fees from businesses not from residential. Why don’t they make Overland –zone it for businesses so that we can get the impact fees for the schools that we need. Borup: A single family home is 1294 dollars. Business are more. Your saying you’d like to see all commercial. END OF SIDE THREE Borup: You’d like to see a light there. Keeling: Absolutely. Brimhall: My name is Reed Brimhall. I live at 840 E. Martinque in Meridian Greens. I just want to give you a couple things to think about. We have not talked much about Overland Road west of Locust Grove. Every morning I try to turn left out of southeast 5th and I don’t know that my wife thinks I am patient or not. I think I am. It is a frustrating experience any time between 7 and 8 in the morning and coming back in the evening. I came down tonight. I got off on Eagle tonight. I usually get off at Meridian because I knew we were going to come a participate tonight. As I drove down Overland and stacked up against Locust Grove, I actually started laughing about this discussion we were going to have tonight because the amount of traffic there was on that road at 5:15. It took me close to 10 minutes to get from Eagle to S.E. 5th . The problem doesn’t just end at Locust Grove. The problem goes all the way to Meridian Road, particularly with the developments on the other side. We talked about widening to 5 lanes the one mile between Eagle and Locust Grove and no discussion about widening the rest. We can’t ignore that. The second, I grew up in Pocatello across the street from the football stadium there in a residential area called University Park. It was built when I was in Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 32 high school, so it is really old. It is called the mini dome for those of you who may have watched football one time or another. My parents recently moved out of their home there. I can tell you with things like high school activities and that ice arena and those once a month activities that he is talking about. There were times when my parents would go for 2 hours without being able to get out of their drive way because of the traffic going in and out of those activities. You’ll have people trying to get out of SE 5th and SE 3rd and out of Locust Grove and out of the arterial that come out of their homes at the same times these events are happening. Even with widened roads with those residential areas so close, your talking about a lot of frustrated people because of the volume of traffic. Babbit: My name is Carl Babbit. I live at 1671 E. Time Zone. I have probably been in this area longer than anyone here because I grew up here. One of our Subdivision Los Alamitos was our farm. I guess what I’d like to say is I have no problem with any of that. I know it is coming. It is growth and I know everybody says they moved out there to be in the Country but everybody moves out to be in the Country and then it is not the country anymore. I guess my concern is, I read in the paper that they are talking about the Meridian Comprehensive area and they have had a citizens committee working on it. Well even them have said we need a 5 lane on Overland Road before we do anything. That is the some statement of it. Let’s build this but let’s get the 5 lane road first. If there is any power here, that is where it needs to go. We all know it is going to grow but let’s put in the road. That is what I am asking. Borup: Do you have a solution where the money should come from. Babbit: I think, they are talking about the 5 lane from Kuna Meridian Road up to Locust Grove. Impact fees have been paid on that for how many years now. We’ve go Subdivision’s all on one side. We have Coke and all those places on the other side. The impact fees have been paid. I know they just don’t set that aside for that road. The impact fees have all been put in for that. There is one mile that is all ready paid for. Borup: The residential don’t have enough fees to pay for a mile. Babbit: Well they don’t but with the equipment on the other side and we have all the people working there. I think we are sticking our heads in the said if we are saying that that doesn’t need to be five lane. The money has been there. It should have been planned. You can take the impact fees on South Locust Grove there is a Subdivision a whole mile there with impact fees on them. That’s not planned for 20 more years. It’s there. We just need to use it. I would say they have a good idea paying half of the mile between south Locust Grove and Eagle Road. They pay half. The county pay the other half. I do happen to know the people who bought that land have a lot of money. They are going to make money. So they are going to be willing to do it. This is where the Commissioner's need to come in and say this is what we want. We are talking about the overpass over the freeway. That is where you guys come in. We have to do this. That is what I am asking is that you guys step up and not just wait and hear what the county says and do what they want. That is what I am asking for all of you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 33 Barbeiro: I want to applaud the organization that your neighbors have had in the past and having objected to a residential development kitty corner from where this is going now. If your neighbor organization were to walk in with 150 people to Ada County Highway District meeting and one by one walk up to that podium and tell them what you want, they will do it. Then they come back to us on how they are going to do it. It is unfortunate that their meetings are at noon, but the impact that your organization had at the City Council meeting would be equal if not greater at a Ada County Highway District meeting. Babbit. I don’t usually know when they are. If that was given out and published and maybe to our Subdivision— Barbeiro: They are advertised in the Local section of the Idaho Statesman. They usually have 2 or 3 days advance notice for each of the meeting. Bowcutt: One of the residents asked why does this corridor have to be commercial. If they look across to the north side of Overland Road, we have adjoining uses such as Cesco Equipment, Freightliner, a contractors yard, an RV Park, that is a commercial zone but those users in my opinion are far greater an intensity than your average commercial use. They are more of an industrial use. We have a major arterial that some day is going to be a 5 lane road. You don’t put single family resident up against that. We try to provide some type of buffer. Those buffers are multi family, commercial office then you transition into the interior of the section of your single family. That is what we call good planning and I think with the new Comprehensive Plan map, that is what they are trying to accomplish so that we don’t end up with home backing up to 5 lane arterials in the future. All of us impact each other in this valley. It was said, this is going to draw people there. Yes, some people may be drawn there to go to the ice arena, but it may capture some traffic that may not go through some one else’s area which would reduce the number of trips on our arterials. You’ve got to think of it from both perspectives. It is a give and take. Barbeiro: Becky I have a question I want to ask you if I may. In your draft plan we have a zig zag road here. I am reminded of Park Lane from the highway to Eagle High School. It is a giant drag strip. Is there any other types of road or something that we could do in there that would discourage teenage hot rodding down that 600 foot strip. Bowcutt: Typically with those types of collectors, we’re not trying to make them do 90 degree turns. A collector is to move high volume of traffic in relatively short period of time. Local streets we try to make 90 degree turns to cut down on the speeds. I don’t see them putting traffic calming devices on collectors either. I don’t necessarily think that that is one thing that the highway district would endorse. There is no way you could logically go about that. We are trying to make it convenient. We don’t want people cutting through elsewhere. It is a short stretch. I don’t think they can get up real high speeds through there, but you never know. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 34 Norton: I’d like to continue this pubic hearing to April 11, 2000 for the conditional use permit for the proposed planned commercial development consisting of multi family, commercial, office, an LDS Seminary, LO and CN zoning. Barbeiro: We have a motion and second to continue the public hearing to April 11. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: It might be time for a short break. Then we will reconvene with items number 5 and 6. Thank you. Borup: We’d like to reconvene the public hearing for this evening. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED 200 UNIT LUXURY APARTMENT COMPLEX TO BE ZONED LO FOR PROPOSED RESOLUTION BUSINESS PARK BY DESERT WEST PROPERTIES, LLC—OVERLAND AND LOCUST GROVE ROADS: Borup: Do we have a staff report. Hawkins Clark: Yes. Most of the conditions that we sited in our over all concept do apply, or I should say many of them and they should have been pointed out to you. This on the screen is the designated portion there the site that applies just to this conditional use permit. The density that they are proposing are 200 units on about 14 acres. It is a little under 13 in terms of dwelling units per acre. They are proposing to construct a complex in two phases with the first phase consisting of approximately 140 units and the clubhouse. Again, here is the detail of it. It was not designated which of those buildings would be in the 140, but in terms of this whole traffic question, there is two things that I wanted to point out. In the traffic study that was done by Dolby Engineering, they did submit that with the preliminary plat. They are estimating that the new trips per day for the apartments is 1170. The new trips for the office is 1575. The new trips for the retail estimated at 8655. In terms of new trips per day, the retail is over 6 times the amount the apartment complex. Needless to say we still feel that we’d like to recommend cutting down in the staff report. We’d like to see the first phase limited to 30 dwelling units which would be three buildings and the clubhouse. Until such time as Overland improvements are made, the signals and widening, that would still include the ice arena which they are proposing for 2000. The apartments for 2001. If they stay on schedule 2 or 3 years before continuing on to the next phase for the apartment complex or for the additional beyond the 30. I will say that number was not a lot of calculations went into that. Basically the consideration there was based on the numbers that ACHD uses for new trips generated per dwelling unit which I believe is about 10 to 12. So, if you figure 30 dwelling units, you looking at about 300 a day. The third item on the report is all applicable fair housing and ADA requirements for multi family housing must be met. The applicant did state that that would occur. I do have an elevation which I think we have seen in color here and the clubhouse elevation. That’s all I have. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 35 Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's? While Becky is coming up here, one of the things I circled is where do you get a copy of the Fair Housing requirements? Hawkins Clark: You go to the HUD office in Boise. Borup: Do they have written? Hawkins Clark: They do. I believe so. If not, we can certainly get some. Borup: Last I knew they did not have any written requirements. Are you speaking for the applicant. Go ahead sir. Day: Good evening. I am against nasty old apartments and I think we ought to widen Overland Road. Having said that, I’ll tell you I am with Desert West Properties. We are the applicant who is proposing the apartment complex on approximately 14.7 acres. My name is Damon Day and I am with Desert West Properties at 100 West Overland Road. The subject property I think your all pretty much aware of it by this point, would be the 14.7 acres that would include it’s just east of the Hunter Lateral. I think it is indicated on the hand out that was given to everyone, it is Lot number 9, I believe. What I’d like to address is some of the things that were addressed by the City Council in the memorandum that was given to you. We have responded in writing to all of those matters and I believe that has been forwarded to the Commission. Brad just included some of the comments that were made and suggestions. Borup: Staff only had 3 comments. You talking those three? Day: I believe we were responding to 7 or 8 matters in the memo. I guess some of them were in the PUD. One of the matters that Brad just mentioned is and City Council suggested that perhaps we should develop the project in phases and do 30 units in the beginning phase and then do it at sometime later. In considering development of this magnitude, it really makes it economically infeasible for us to develop 30 units and a clubhouse and then wait until some future date in covering the cost of the property. I did want to address perhaps explain a little bit about the proposed development and address some of the concerns that I have heard earlier this evening about the impact it may have or certainly have upon traffic and the impact in the community. We are sensitive to those issues and very concerned about maintaining the integrity of the area. I believe we have gone to great lengths to see that concerns of those who have voiced a concerned for nasty old apartments and that type of development and voiced frustration with the traffic that is currently occurring on Overland Road. I would like to address some of those issues as well. You can see a rendering of the apartment complex here. It is referred to as a big house concept. We are working with an architectural firm from Dallas that has patented this plan and frankly this is the best plan. We have looked high and low because we have some other renderings and information that would be available to anyone here this evening as well as the commission. Basically what it is, a multi family dwelling specifically designed to blend Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 36 well with high end single family residential areas. You will find that probably 55 or 60 of these complexes that have been constructed and you will find them in more exclusive neighborhoods just based on the amenities and the things that they provide. The concept is that they appear to be homes. They each unit provides an enclosed garage, at least one with each unit. Our particular development we are proposing 200 units, there are 10 units per building, as was voiced the density would approximate a little bit in excess of 13 units per acre. The buildings look like large homes. Each has a private entrance. There are no common entrances. Very, very different than what most people think about when they hear the word apartments. I wanted to address those issues because they are not all the same as some previous proposals that have been made. The density is lower. The number of units is lower and specifically it is designed to create a nicer feel and appeal for an area in my opinion that would much better for residential area than standard commercial development. They are designed to blend and be in with higher level single family homes. These would be, our apartments as I said would be 10 units per building. We are proposing to do 20 buildings in total that would be developed in phases. We had an approximate phase of 14 buildings to begin with as well as the clubhouse. We did use a little bit of a scientific approach to come up with those 14 buildings because when you basically need something in that area to support the initial amenity of the clubhouse to make that economically feasible. That is why we proposed doing the 14 buildings to begin with or something close to that so that we could justify putting in the clubhouse and have that economically carry itself. There was a question as to what units that would be. You could just roughly cut off 6 units from the back side that would consist of the second phase. The first phase would be the 14 buildings toward the front of the complex. I am referring to the front of the complex being these buildings here. With these buildings on the back side would consist of phase 2. So it is a total of 20 you could just roughly take 6 of the buildings. There again we were approximating a number that we felt were necessary to justify the clubhouse. I do have a rendering of that clubhouse. It would be complete with a swimming pool behind the clubhouse, common areas, exercise rooms and a very nice amenity for those residents. As I said, our target demographic market here are the renters by choice. People who choose to rent. The square footages would be somewhere in the area from about 800 square feet up to 1350 square feet. Rents would be roughly from $750 a month to about $1200 a month for those apartments. That would be the market that these apartments are specifically designed to meet. I would be happy to entertain any questions specifically relating to the apartment complex development. Norton: I have a question regarding the CUP. Is the CUP for this first phase only which would be the 14 buildings and the clubhouse or you doing a CUP for the entire first phase and second phase. Day: The CUP would be for both phases. Barbeiro: Mr. Day. I want to reference back to our discussion about 16 year olds driving coming from the high school. We thought putting a gate in there and allow pedestrian bicycle traffic to pass. I still believe the average 16 year old will see all this Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 37 traffic, zip through your complex and try to get out here. I would like to offer for your consideration a couple of round abouts in here where traffic would have to come through and have to make a quick round about which would be enough to discourage a number of the young drivers. Day: Given the type of complex that this is, (inaudible) to maintain the access to residents only. My understand when the City Council suggested that we provide access—the staff, I’m sorry—from our property here over to the commercial area was that they estimated about 20% of the business that was going to be transacted here would originate within the complex. Rather than having the only access to that business be out on Overland and adding that additional 20% to the traffic load on Overland, they wished to have some access that would provide the residents within the complex some form of crossing and accessing that commercial development. So, in order to do that, we would certainly be (inaudible) to do that but it would be our desire to maintain the access to residents only. A gated access for the complex would be a part of what we proposed there to prevent vehicular traffic that does not intend on ending up in the complex or originating in the complex. Borup: Which location do you anticipate the gate to be. Day: Every access and exit point from the apartment complex. Even off Overland. Barbeiro: Our most recent discussion with Touchmark, how the fire department objected to that type of access. Norton: Mr. Day could you point out real quickly where the clubhouse is. Thank you. My next question is there is –as long as we are on the fire department, they did make a comment and I am not sure where these are in your plat. They said if the T’s by the apartment buildings are turned around there can be no parking of vehicles on that. Is that a place where cars would want to park. Day: We did not include those parking stalls in those areas so is not included in the count for parking. Those are not designated parking stalls. Norton: You could mark that as no parking. Day: I am sure we could. Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering. Concerning gates, I had a conversation with Mr. Bowers here a few weeks ago and it was regarding the Touchmark. I asked Mr. Bowers about gates. He says we don’t like them. Fire departments typically don’t like them. I said if you were to allow a gate, what type would you prefer. He said I think we could live with an opticom gate. An opticom gate is a system that when a fire truck or ambulance approaches it automatically opens up. Just like the signal lights. Mr. Bowers indicated if Touchmark were to be gated, they would have to be opticom. We have gone through the same thing with Boise fire department. They mandate opticom. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 38 They don’t encourage gates, but in the event that the City Council approves a project with gates, its opticom. As far as like on the T’s what we typically find in an apartment complex is where the fire truck would have to turn in. They don’t –they want to access all the way around or close to the building and these different sides. Usually the curb is painted red in most instances and there is a sign. Just multi family would do that. One thing I’d like to add concerning staff’s condition to limit to 30 units, I did bring that up with Ada County Highway District staff this morning. Their reaction was, they did not agree. The point that they stated was the fact that the apartments was not one of the big traffic generators. 70 to 80 percent of the traffic is going to come from retail, when that happens, which is the users that are furthest down the road. They did not believe that made a lot of sense. You economically—it would be like going in and building a Subdivision and telling us we could only build out of 60 lots you could only build 10. It would not be worth doing the engineering and getting the contractors out there. There is a certain amount of infrastructure that has to be installed and you’ve got to have the minimum. I am glad that they have this scheduled for two phases. I think that will create some type of a transition on the impact for traffic. Out of my traffic report, just to kind of give you an idea, each apartment generates 5.86 vehicle trips per day. For a single family dwelling they generate 10. The apartments generate 6 single family generate 10 trips per day. Reason being single family dwellings typically have more residents in them. Larger families. An office generates 12.6 trips for every 1000 square feet and a retail center generates 59.7 trips per 1000 square feet. So the real User is the retail. I don’t see that putting that type of a low cap on the multi family is reasonable. If one were to do so, it should apply to the retail. Barbeiro: On the placement of the gate, right here and over here correct? Bowcutt: Yes, that is what he stated. Barbeiro: In placing a gate here I find it (Inaudible) Bowcutt: You’d have to put it inset it to provide adequate stacking, your correct. Barbeiro: What is the customary distance that you would put one in to prevent stacking. Bowcutt: On that mini storage facility you guys approved and I believe I had to inset it I thought it was 50 feet from edge of new right of way. Barbeiro: That would require something of a redesign of your layout here. That would put it about right here. Bowcutt: Is that about 50 feet? Right there, right at the corner. It would be located right there. Borup: Any other questions? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 39 Norton: I have a question about the gates. I have not seen any thing about having gated entries. Are you going to amend your application or is this something that is just going to come up. Bowcutt: I was not aware about the gates. I guess in the narrative I provided I did not mention any gates. I was not aware that they wanted gates. Maybe is was an oversight on my part or some else’s who instructed me on that. Like signage, I think my conversations I’ve had with staff, we’ve been trying to keep our signage down to monument type signs. We did not provide any elevations of signage. Borup: Are we looking at any other additional presentations? Bowcutt: On this. No sir. We will work with staff on the signage. I’d like to work with staff and the fire department on the gates as far as type and placement. Also ACHD, I need to bring that to their attention also. Borup: Do we have anyone here who would like to testify? Avera: Harmon Avera, 945 E. St. Martin Drive. I don’t have comments. Just a couple questions. Is it possible in one of the elevations you could actually show, where the entrances are. Is that one building have ten apartments in it. Day: We have floor plans here that we can provide. I’ll put them up here in front. This would be the end of a building and I’ll make that correlation with the floor plan so you can see where the entrance is what the building layout. If your looking at this elevation of the building, this is the end of the building. The building would lay out this way. We have an over all site plan that would show the way that the buildings are set on the site. They are designed (inaudible) from the traffic areas you see the ends mainly of the buildings. The additional elevations would be here. Avera: The other question I had I thought I heard a comment earlier from the staff about having to comply with ADA regulations. Do these buildings as shown comply or is that something your going to have to modify. Day: My understanding is that they do comply but I would need to check on that. Burtell: Marion Burtell, 2534 South Velvet Falls. I just have a question and that is with the high school behind them and speeding teenagers coming by, who wants to rent there. I wouldn’t. I am wondering what kind of people are you going to get into this complex when you have this element, because I certainly would not want to rent there. Christianson: James Christianson. 241 S. Brandy Jewel. He said 800 to 1300 square feet. How many bedrooms are we talking (inaudible0 Day: Of the 200 units, 40 percent would be one bedroom. 40 percent would be two bedroom and the remaining would be three bedroom units. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 40 Christianson: When you had the plan for the development here, I asked before is there going to be roads to the school road into the Subdivision and it shows it here. That is where your talking about your other gated – Day: Yes. At that point there and I don’t believe has been changed. I believe that is still part of the plan. What the staff suggested that we add to this plan (inaudible) on this side that would allow access to the commercial property but (inaudible) access off Overland and off of Millennial Way. Borup: Any one else like to come forward. Babbit: Carl Babbit, 1671 E. Time Zone. I have a question. They are talking about the ice rink going in 2001 and then this apartment, is it going in 2001 too. So they are going at the same time? So, the road that would go back to the high school would be put in because of the ice rink all ready, correct? Where they are doing it in two phases, I understand what they are saying, that they have to do pretty phase to make it work. I am wondering is if they would be required to go ahead and put the road through to the high school road—the collector. Don’t have to do that second phase now but in regard of doing the (inaudible) if they would be required to put the road through to there, that would give two exits out of that. Borup: We’ll find out an answer on that. Good question. END OF SIDE FOUR MOTION TO CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE ACHD REPORT WAS APPROVED. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FOR ITEM NUMBER 6—BRAD HAWKINS CLARK STAFF REPORT WAS MADE. APPLICANT PATRICK MCKEEGAN GIVING TESTIMONY. MARION BARTELL GAVE TESTIMONY. MICHAEL CLARK GAVE TESTIMONY. HARMON AVERA GAVE TESTIMONY. QUESTIONS ANSWERED BY PATRICK MCKEEGAN. Malfunction of tape machine prevented this from being recorded. McKeegan: For the restaurant portion of the facility we are going to have—if it is allowed by law or wherever the law allows, we’ve—one time we talked about putting in a bar. We decided not to do that. It is going to be a food related with probably with beer and wine as a is a available just like you’d have at any other restaurant. We’d have the same restrictions that the liquor commission puts on. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman may we refer to legal counsel with regards to alcohol within a range of a school. Borup: We could but they all ready said they would abide with the law. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 41 McKeegan: Yeah and I guess if we are within 1300 feet of a school (inaudible). We are right next to them – I’m guessing we may not be able to do it. Borup: The traffic count, about the only thing that would be less traffic then what your doing is maybe a bare weed patch or something. Norton: If you were to compare a high school football game and the number of seats in a stadium to your 1400 seat, are they comparable? McKeegan: It is my understanding, my kids play soccer instead of football because I have girls. All the large games are played at Boise State. I can’t tell you. Norton: The point is being this doesn’t seem like a lot of seats for a whole lot of traffic. McKeegan: It really isn’t. We looked at that and adding additional seats, but the problem is when your digging a hole 16 feet deep, that is a very expensive hole and you don’t want-- Again, this is an indoor venue. Everybody is going to be inside the building. I would guess that if you had practice football games or soccer games on the high school field, those would have more of a noise impact than our use on the inside. Borup: The seats for both arenas—is there any time when both arenas being operated. McKeegan: During a tournament you would. You’d have both sheets of ice. We have I think 350 for the small rink and 1000 for the larger. During the normal course of business we just don’t see that many that large of an impact. Again, it is an interior indoor venue. It is not an external venue like you would have for a football or soccer game. I compare it more to a state championship basketball game. That is probably about the size you’d have with many a couple thousand spectators. Borup: Commissioner's. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue the public hearing to April the 11th so that we are able to consider the Ada County Highway District report on the request for a conditional use permit for an ice arena consisting of office, pro shop, fitness center, restaurant, locker rooms, equipment storage and arena zoned LO by Pat McKeegan. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I second the motion. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: I’d like to thank everyone for being here this evening. One of the main purposes of this commission is gathering information and that’s what we have tried to do this evening. I think you may appreciate sometimes the responsibility or maybe the dilemma we have. We’ve had people testifying all the way from wanting this area to be Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting March 22, 2000 Page 42 all residential to all commercial. I guess that mean that maybe the majority wants somewhere in-between. I don’t know. Obviously you can see, everybody’s desire can’t be met because even in this audience there was no agreement. We do the best we can by gathering this information and try to do what we feel is best for the City of Meridian. As is stated earlier, we are not wanting to continue ahead with out all the information and the information from ACHD is very important. That is why this hearing is being continued to get that information. We anticipate to do this next time is gather this information and then proceed to make our recommendation which again will go to City Council. Again, thank you for being here this evening. Norton: I move that we adjourn the meeting. Barbeiro: I second it. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ____________________________ KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN WILLIAM G. BERG, CITY CLERK