Loading...
2000 04-11MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING – APRIL 11, 2000 The regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup. MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Kent Brown, Tom Barbeiro, Richard Hatcher. OTHERS PRESENT: David Swartley, Bruce Freckleton, Brad Hawkins Clark, Christie Richardson, Ray Voss, Will Berg. Borup: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. We’d like to begin the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting regular scheduled meeting for Tuesday April 11th . First item is minutes from the March 14th meeting. Any comments, questions, additions on the minutes. Does that mean no. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I wish to make a motion that we approve the minutes from the March 14th meeting as submitted. Norton: I second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES, 1 ABSTAIN Borup: Item number 1 and 2 is tabled from the previous meeting. Items 3,4,5,6 are continued public hearings all on the same project. I’d like to hear a staff report first on the status. We continued awaiting the ACHD report, which we have not received. Brad have you got some update on that. Hawkins Clark: Yes Commission Borup and Commissioner's, the first two items as you know, you closed the public hearings. The others, particularly the plat, was continued for the purpose of receiving the Ada County Highway District report. Our department spoke with Ada County Highway District this afternoon and they have requested that, number one, the packet that you received that had the draft ACHD staff report be omitted and not entered into the record. There was some mistakes and confusion on that. Number two, the date for the resolution ACHD commission meeting was set for tomorrow night. That has been moved off of tomorrow nights agenda. There has not been a new date set. They are in the process, I understand, of working with the developer on several major issues related to the road widening and other issues of dedication and such. Those discussions are happening with ACHD staff and the developer and a revised report has not been submitted for your consideration. Borup: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioner's. Brad, do you know whether the developers representative is here tonight. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 2 Hawkins Clark: I believe Becky Bowcutt from Briggs Engineering did call. I did not speak with her but she did call and state she was not coming. There may be someone else present. I don’t know. Borup: Before we open the hearing, is there any one here representing the application? Thank you. Commissioner's in light of the fact that these were continued for a specific purpose, receiving the ACHD report, is there any motion you’d like to make. I think we could deal with all six items probably in one motion. Norton: Mr. Commissioner. Does staff know when we’d get a ACHD report. Hawkins Clark: We do not. Norton: Mr. Chairman, can we state a meeting date which we could continue this. Borup: If we continue, it would need to be to a date certain. Hatcher: Are there standard scheduled meetings now. Borup: Not yet. I don’t think—we won’t have anything from ACHD in 2 weeks any way. Hatcher: I make a motion then that we take the first six items on our agenda and continue them until our regularly scheduled meeting which would be May 9th . Barbeiro: I’ll second the motion. Borup: Motion and second to continue items 1 through 6 for May 9th meeting. Any discussion. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES, 1 ABSTAIN Borup: All right, nine minutes after and we’ve gone through 6 items. Norton: Would it be possible to move number 15 up next as the applicant had submitted a letter. Borup: I think the applicants letter was submitted concerned that it might be bumped from the agenda, was my understanding. I think out of fairness to the other applicants maybe lets at least take the next two and then and then discuss that. That sound all right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 3 Berg: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, the concern about moving items different from what the agenda, we as an agency we publish our agenda and people get in their heads trying to figure out a time they need to be there, so we just got to be a little bit of leery of moving them too far without the public trying to out guess the time frame. I try to discourage to out guess what the decisions of the commission might be but they still try to do that. I think it is a good idea to maybe to try to not push some things real early if they are late on the agenda unless we can get that notice out a little bit earlier to the public. Borup: I think we make sure the items heard tonight one way or the other without going all night. Brown: Just for the audience to understand, I’d like to make a statement about what our purpose is here. We are a voluntary body. We are not elected. We are just citizens like yourselves. Hopefully that will bring a few more smiles then what I see out there tonight. We are just residents of the City of Meridian and the area of impact, just like you are. We volunteer our time to come down here and make recommendations to the City Council. Our decisions are only recommendations to the Council. They are the decision making body. We spend time reading the reports and weighing the information and hopefully that will make us a little more happy in this meeting. I understand that everybody has their own kingdoms in which they live and hopefully we can do the best for the City of Meridian. Thank you. 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RV SALES, RV RETAIL AND REPAIR ZONED I-L BY MAPLE GROVE R.V.—2490 W. FRANKLIN ROAD: Borup: Brad, have you got anything additional. I think we received a revised plat which is what we requested from last time. Hawkins Clark: Yes Commissioner. Not a plat but a site plan should have been received right. This was continued from the April 3rd meeting. It is my understanding for two reasons. One was to obtain a revised plan per the staff recommendations and then the second was for the variance application regarding the paving. There was— you should have in your packets a March 27 letter from our fire Marshall and Chief, Skip Voss and Kenny Bowers dated March 27 regarding this project as well as an April 6th letter from Matthew Dugan. Just for the benefit of the audience the cross hatched on the screen is the property subject property. The revised plan dated April 6th which you should have, does address most of the staff comments that we had. They are providing a 30 foot landscape setback instead of the 35, but giving the situation of the building on Franklin and here is the—actually we do not have the revised site plan available for you on the slide. It was not provided in 8-1/2 by 11 so apologies for that. The fencing, they are providing solid wood only in the rear storage area. Staff’s initial aim on that was to see fencing on the site, but that would be a commission decision as to whether or not Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 4 you felt landscaping would suffice along the boundaries on the east and west. They did increase the driveway width from 20 to 25 feet, which complies with the ordinance. That was a change. The landscaping shown on the east and west boundaries, there was landscaping shown on the first plan. There is no landscaping shown on the revised plan. We would ask as staff that they address the reason for that change. They should provide landscaping as the previous plan showed. Again, one of the primary issues here is you saw is the issue of fire and water and services provisions. I think it has been addressed in the letters there. We do have the Fire Marshall here this evening if you have questions in terms of them being able to service that site. There has been not been a variance application submitted yet and they feel that it is a City responsibility since they purchased that property was all ready annexed and it did not have services to it which of course is a city ordinance that we don’t annex until there is city services provided. They feel it is a city obligation to provide services and that they should be able to continue to operate until the city can provide that. I think that summarizes. I will let the applicant go from there. Borup: Any questions from the commission. Is the applicant here and like to come forward. The applicant is not here. At this point we’ve got their response letter. Any comments. Brad, has there been any communication. Has the applicant called you at all? Hawkins Clark: I have not. Barbeiro: With our having tabled the first or continued the first six items, the applicant may have thought that there would be 30 minutes to an hour hearings on other items. Considering that the applicant did request that we put this on our agenda very soon, would you consider moving this, moving into Valeri Heights and coming back to it. Borup: Yeah again, I think maybe fairness to all we’ll move this to item number 20 or 19 right after 18. Is there any other discussion or just wait until that time. Brown: Mr. Chairman, is there any comments that maybe we should get from the fire Marshall. Borup: That would be good. You don’t want to stay till the end of the agenda items probably sir. Why don’t we, yes thank you Kent. If we are going to do that then lets go ahead and open this public hearing. Voss: My name is Raymond Voss. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's I’m the fire Marshall for the Meridian City Rural Fire Department and I am here to answer any questions that I might be able to answer on Maple Grove RV Park and would entertain any at this time. Norton: I do have a question. Regarding your letter for the RV Park, Maple Grove RV Park, because there was no city water, there was no sprinklers to help with fire control, what about if the people put in a dry chemical sprinkling system. Would that suffice? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 5 Voss: A dry chemical system for that large of a building, I am not sure is available and approved. Most dry chemical systems we’ve got a little repair garage that is a day and a half garage, they are putting in a dry system in the rural area at this time. It is about as big as they can cover with that particular unit. Barbeiro: Skip can you give us a little history on this site because it is there in operation and according to the letter that the current operation is not within code. Voss: This site was originally granted a conditional use permit for a cement pump truck storage lot—he worked on his equipment in his shed and his living was going out and pumping concrete. It was through Ada County. This property since there was annexed. These people have bought it. They moved in. They never went through any –they just bought it and moved it. They have been there and I’ve heard stories but I am not going to repeat what happened. They are there. This is the first time they have been before the City on anything that I am aware of. It is annexed. It is in the City. They are trying- the letter that he wrote rebuttal, he says that was existing then. Well, grandfather rights are not transferable. Plus, that was a county use not a city use. It has never been brought into the City for a CU or anything until this point of time. It is kind of hard for us to walk out there and say you’ve got to shut down because you have no water. I don’t like going to court to prove I’m right and that is what happens when you do something like that. There is a—why is has been allowed to go on this long, I can not answer. I know Shari and I have discussed this over the last couple of years with problems out there and this is one of many that has happened. They just buy the property, move in and open up and what do you do. Brown: Ray what would be the minimum that they would have to do then to make this accessible in the fire departments— Voss: In my opinion the minimum they could do is they would have to run City water. Located some fire hydrants. They would have to sprinkle the big shop with a fire system. Brown: The one to the very north. Voss: Yeah, the very end. The north one. The big one. That is where they are doing their cutting and welding and that kind of stuff. That would be the minimum to make them close to complying to codes. Brown: There also in this is that there is a discussion about the buildings being very close together. Voss: Well, their units—RV units. They’ve got them parked real close. If you have a fire, I don’t know if you watched the news the other night when they had the big fire in Boston. They lost a whole multitude of million dollar boats because they were moored Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 6 right next to each other. That can happen there. One gets on fire and it spreads and we can’t get in to separate them and it escalates till you burn up ten or twenty of them instead of one. Brown: So, from the site plan then, you wouldn’t recommend storage around those areas that they are doing the welding and— Voss: No I wouldn’t. Brown: I don’t know of any gas or anything else that is stored on site. The only places that would normally cause fire would be at the welding and cutting portion. Voss: It is not just the flammable liquids. It is –farmers invariably and God Bless them, we wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for them. Welding on a tractor will set a hay stack on fire. The hot embers. When you welding your dropping metal down. It is hot. They hit and break and they run. All they got to do is find something that is flammable and it is on fire. Barbeiro: To your recollection, didn’t we ask him to pave the entire site except for the shop area. The plan that I have here shows only the driveway paved and not the parking area. Borup: My recollection was we asked them to pave the driveway. Told them that the sales areas could be graveled. They were talking about just the vehicles be parked there while for sale and moved off. There would not be traffic on and off. The retail parking lost was supposed to be paved, which they do not indicate. And as Brad mentioned, they eliminated the landscaping that was on their first site. I don’t think that was discussed. At least that was not an option that we discussed. Any other questions for the Fire Marshall. Hatcher: I was absent the first time that this project came before the commission. I am still playing a little bit of catch up. Could you explain to me you briefly talked about the facility not being or currently being in compliance. Basically they bought the place, camped out and started up. Could you explain to my why it is still being—why is it still operable or in operation. Where is the governing body that enforces the code and if we don’t approve what is in front of us, how can we sit here and let something that is in code violation continue on. Voss: This is a sticky one. They are not in compliance with the uniform fire code. I am assigned by the Chief to enforce this code to the best of our ability. I operate under the Fire Chief. When this went in, it was duly noted, sent to the Chief. The Chief then goes to the Mayor and the Council and we wait for things to filter down. A lot of them end of in the legal office. I am not blaming anybody but I know there is a bunch of them in there that is floating around somewhere. This is not the only one. I am at liberty to do so much. I can not—I probably could walk out there and kick them off that property, but Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 7 I am not sure how long I would be employed with the City of Meridian. Discretion is the best part of valor and we try to go through the proper steps and procedures which at the time we did know this and Shari and I did talk about it and brought it up, Planning and Zoning would not be one of the steps that it would go through. It would go to the Council and the Mayor at that time for their decision. As it is up to them to do whatever. Why it is before the Council now or the P&Z and what brought it forward, I can not tell you. I don’t know. But, they are here and it just takes time. Hatcher: Okay, so but if I was to understand you correctly though that there is a legal proceeding pending for enforcement? Voss: Not right—somewhere, yes it was given to an attorney and whatever happened—we did have a change in legal staff and something’s kind of filtered off. Hatcher: And, who is the governing body that is responsible to follow up on those legal documents to make sure that they are moved forward? Our City Attorney, Chief? Voss: I really can’t answer that because I don’t know. My progression is to the Fire Chief. Hatcher: Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Borup: Any thing else from the Commission? We are on Item number 7, the Maple Grove RV. We were about ready to move that on the agenda item but I noticed the applicant just showed up. We continued the first six items so that the agenda kind of moved up. Dugan: My name is Matt Dugan. I am the president of Maple Grove RV Service. Our address is 2490 W. Franklin Road. I am sorry that I missed the Fire Marshall’s comments. I got the letter from—I take it that’s what the issue is here now is the water to the site. Borup: We had done a couple things. Once we had the staff report where he discussed the new site plan and then the Fire Marshall is here just for questions. We have been asking him some questions. Dugan: Okay, and on the new site plan was everything up to order. Was that okay? Did we miss something? Borup: Yes. The thing that I noted was the parking lot for the retail parking. From our discussion last meeting, that area was to be paved. Dugan: Over on the side of— Borup: Yes. The one you have labeled retail parking. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 8 Dugan: That should have been marked paved. Borup: I think that we discussed that the area where you are storing the RV’s in this commission I think that was a motion from this commission or discussion any way that that could be a (inaudible) gravel area. The other question I think was that and we had not discussed either way is your landscaping from the previous site plan had been eliminated. Is that correct? Dugan: It has been eliminated from the plan I see, but it again is not a problem and we have no problem in putting the landscaping in there along the fence. Now, my understanding from ordinances was that you had to have a 3 inch tree for 1500 square feet of paving, parking, that kind of thing, so I’ll put whatever trees I have to put out there to make it up to ordinance code. Borup: Any comment on that from the Commission? Brown: Brad, would you prefer fencing or landscaping from staff’s standpoint. Borup: Then explain the City’s perspective on the reasoning. For the fence or landscaping. Isn’t that a buffer for the adjoining property. Are we buffer from a pasture. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner's I think the –there is different elements of the Comprehensive Plan that could be looked at with that question. I think there is numerous policies that speak to esthetics and from that point of view I think that landscaping would be preferred. The landscaping that they showed on their previous plan certainly would not be adequate to serve as a buffer in terms of retaining debris or something when you’ve got trees spaced 30 to 35 feet apart. It is not going to accomplish that but I think long range, those trees mature I think it would be a more attractive site. I think, obviously they have showed the solid wood fence on the north side and that was our specific request was to fence the storage area. They really have complied with the letter of that. The ordinance does not speak to required fencing on commercial or industrial projects unless they are within 300 feet of a residence. That is an industrial use while this is an industrial zone, I think auto repairs are conditional use. I could be argued one way or the other, but the site plan here shows that they are larger parcels surrounding them. I’m sorry I can’t speak to the issue of agriculture uses around it as to whether or not fencing would be preferred, but maybe Matt can speak to that if it is an active use. Dugan: Yeah it is agriculture use all the way around me. I’m by myself sitting there. Everybody else –even though it is zoned light industrial, it all used for agriculture. Borup: Did Brad answer the Commissioner’s question? Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 9 Dugan: I’d like to do it how ever the City would like to do it. Beautification wise is fine with me. If you want me to put up a chain link fence with the slats in it that’s solid, all that is no problem with me meeting ordinances. Borup: You just looking for some guidelines then? Dugan: That is all we’ve been doing from day one is been trying to do it through the City. I am sorry that I missed the Fire Marshall’s comments on that. Again, I think the letter from the Fire Department was really bias one way for the City. I don’t know where they –it is an issue and it’s a big issue. There is no doubt about that. Through the letter, I took it in the (inaudible) the Meridian Fire Department was trying to tell me that I was the one that was paying for the water to run there, not a request that the City of Meridian Fire Department would like to have water on the site. As far as the parking on the site, vehicles too close together, we’re not any closer together than any other parking lot in the Valley. The vehicles are big so it might look like they are parked close together, but the slots and everything else—these are trailers and motor homes and that kind of deal. Your not going to put them in a space more closer together than any other parking lot space. Borup: I think earlier the issue was at least from the commission just on the sprinkling of the building. Dugan: The sprinkling of the building and again I didn’t know that that was a City Ordinance and we wrote in our letter back to the Fire Department that we would do that right away, we would sprinkle the building. Borup: Have you looked into that at all. Have you talked to a sprinkler company? Dugan: I have not talked to a sprinkler company. Borup: The question be whether it is even feasible. Can you even do it with the water capacity needed. Dugan: That would be the issue if the well was able to hold it. We had on the lot at one time when we purchased the property had a water tank that was a volume water tank and it was compressed with air. It had a thousand gallons—I believe it was a thousand gallon tank. The volume of water was increased by a lot. I would imagine that we could probably do something of that nature. We have an accumulator tank on the property and one of our existing little buildings that we have in-between the thing, and having it pressurized and I don’t again specifically wise I don’t know what they require volumes of water to sprinkle the building. I know there has to be ways around it and for the requirement of the volume of water to sprinkle the building would just be like I said the tank the accumulator tank and how much water is pumped through the system. The sprinkler specifics, I could not tell you. I know it can be done. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 10 Borup: Okay, questions from the Commission. Barbeiro: Could we go back to the gravel again or describe where we had intended for gravel to be and where we intended for paving to be because I am seeing again all gravel—I thought again we were going to have gravel only in that fenced off storage area in the back and the entire front would be paved or lawn. Where is it we— Borup: The staff’s recommendation was that that whole front area be paved. We had discussed about in my recollection maybe others need to remind me that correct. Dugan: According to the drawing that we drew up, where we made our mistake we should have done a retail parking where it says gravel, that retail parking should have been marked paved. That’s where we made our mistake. The rest of it I believe is what we did discuss at the last meeting. Borup: That is my recollection. The only other thing we may have over looked and should have is the employee parking. Again and the rational for not paving the other areas is there is not going to be in and out traffic on those parking areas. The employee parking would be in and out traffic. They will be in and out minimum twice a day and more if they go to lunch. Barbeiro: Mr. Dugan. This will be your retail where you’ll have your units for sale. Will the units for sale also be up here. Will this be parking for units that are being repaired. Dugan: It would be. They will be intermixed. I believe that we will only have like maybe five or six spaces right up in here that would be actually selling because like I said from the beginning, we are not doing a brand new sales lot where we are going to have 100 new vehicles to sell. We are just going to have a very small 5 or 6 at a time type of thing. Maybe 10 at the most. Hatcher: Mr. Dugan, could you explain to me and enlighten me a little bit on your previous past conducting business on this site. It is my understanding that you’ve been in operation on this site now for several years. Dugan: Three and a half years. Hatcher: Did you at that time when purchasing the lot and bringing your business on site, did you go through any sort of legal procedure of business licenses or any City requirements such as the conditional use or any of those types of proceedings. Dugan: When we bought the property it was all ready being used for a concrete pumping outfit. It has a mobile home on the property and it was all dirt. We bought the property to go in there and do RV repair. As far as going through this up here in front of Planning and Zoning Commission, no I have not. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 11 Hatcher: So, you never contacted the City or Planning Department or Fire Department or any of the governing agencies on what the requirements are for that property when you bought it and started conducting business on this site. Dugan: No, I did not. I was zoned light industrial and that’s what I thought I was buying was light industrial property to do light industrial stuff on. Brown: Ray, would a pressure tank work to provide fire protection? Voss: The minimum fire flow requirements for a commercial structure is 1500 gallons a minute. That sprinkled. Then if it goes on up from there. A sprinkler system runs requires on the average of 500 to 800 a minute flow for it to operate properly. So, we are talking large quantities of water. It would probably depending on if you’ve got a well to recharge it. The tank, the duration of it, you’ve got to be able to supply that water for a period of 2 hours non stop. We have one tank and well that was put in for a church north of Meridian and they’ve got a 360 thousand gallon tank, a twenty inch well, fire pumps, big pumps in the well and it costs right at three quarters of a million dollars. Dugan: That leaves me out. Where do you get your specifics from? Voss: From the Uniform Fire Code, 1997 addition. Borup: Did that answer your question Kent. Commissioner Barbeiro. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, Brad when was this property annexed into the City. Voss: Late eighties or early nineties I think. Barbeiro: So it has been more than 5 years. Borup: Mr. Berg’s been here 7 years and before his time. Any other questions? How would you like to proceed. Do you have anything else Mr. Dugan. Dugan: No I don’t. I just apologize for being late. Borup: Again, we moved the agenda and got to you a little faster. Dugan: That’s fine. My boy appreciates it. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to add a question for Mr. Dugan if I may. In the letter you sent us it says that the previous owner of the property having obtained a dealer’s license issued by the State of Idaho must have been provided with a variance while using a cutting torch and welder in a non-sprinkler building. What was the dealer license that the previous owner was issued? Do you have the variance that he was Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 12 issued by the State and I’m not certain that a variance from one owner would grandfather to another owner. Dugan: Right, I understand the variance won’t. When the dealer’s license that was one was for concrete pumping trucks. They sold concrete equipment, concrete pumping trucks and that kind of deal. They did heavy welding, heavy equipment everything in there. We’ve really gone out of our way the last 3-1/2 years to clean up a poor eyesore of the community. I just can’t tell you how much money, time and effort that I have put in and my employees have put in to bring us to the professional status. Now, I want to say the Fire Marshall’s name is Ray, right? You came into our building about a year and a half ago and asked us where our fire extinguishers were and stuff and we were short of fire extinguishers so we immediately. Voss: It must have been one of the other fireman. I have not been in the building. Dugan: Okay. I thought it was you, but I could be wrong. It has been a while. We immediately replied to that. I was never told anything else. I was never—I did not realize I was out of ordinance by not having a sprinkling system. I don’t know how much volume of water is per square foot, but we have a 3600 square foot building and I understand the ordinance is for anything over 3000 square feet requires a sprinkling system. We are a little bit larger than 3000 square feet. As far as volume of water now, the church that he is referring to is a huge church. A huge volume. How much system, how much water, how much pipes and all that kind of stuff weighs into this, I don’t know. I just find it—and I won’t say it doesn’t need 800 gallons a minute. I don’t know. I don’t know what’s the normal fire plug put out for gallons a minute. Voss: Normal fire flow again goes on the fire code the minimum requirement for a residential structure is a thousand gallons a minute. A commercial structure, 3600 feet or even a house over 3600 square feet. Dugan: And, all our fire plugs meet that standard. Voss: One fire plug can not do it. You get approximately 1000 to 1500 gallons per fire hydrant. If your required to have 2000 gallons a minute, the recommendation is a minimum of 2 fire hydrants. If you need 3000 its 3 hydrants. Dugan: I guess what my question would be is when you only have one fire hydrant to fight it and you don’t have enough water depression, where you going to get your other water. Voss: In the City we require hydrants to be a maximum of 400 feet a part. We carry approximately 800 feet of 5 inch hose which is classified as large diameter. They call it an above main so we can lay even that much farther. You got two hydrants here and a fire we can theoretically go to a third on if needed. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 13 Hatcher: I have one last question for Mr. Dugan. In the time of your operation over the last 3-1/2 years, have you officially received any documentation from the City of Meridian or from the Fire Department informing you that you are currently operating in violation of the ordinances. Dugan: Not until I got the letter from Mr. Bowers. Borup: Do we have anyone else who would like to come forward. Commissioner's, there is no one else. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I wish to close the public hearing. Norton: We have a motion and second to close the public hearing. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Do we have a motion or discussion or where we would like to proceed. Barbeiro: I also feel compelled to apologize to Mr. Dugan for opening up such a can of worms with regards to his Fire Department codes and all. With the information that he not has in regards to the fire codes, something outside of our jurisdiction I am now concerned that what ever insurance he may hold for fire may be or come into question because he now has been informed that the fire codes within his building are not correct. I commend him for cleaning up what was essentially an eyesore and can do nothing but wish him all the best in running his business. Unfortunately, because of the concerns with the fire I can’t recommend to City Council that we approve this. Hatcher: I also have to commend Mr. Dugan on his efforts and I sit here in the same predicament as Tom whereas I can not sit here and take away the bread and butter from another businessman here in the community but at the same time I can not recommend to City Council that we do any expansion of this project of any kind whatsoever until we can meet these fire code issues. If there was somebody’s hand to slap in the City I would do that because I feel somebody dropped the ball. This property was annexed ten years ago, then it is the City’s responsibility to provide the necessary utilities to that piece of property. If Mr. Dugan does not have those facilities, then I feel it is the City’s responsibility to justify those although I can not move what you’d like forward. I basically say to you, put your plans on hold and I say to the City let’s get this problem resolved and get it resolved now. That is my recommendation. END OF SIDE ONE Borup: Any other discussion? Do we have a motion? Commissioner Brown. Brown: Going through the ordinance and the standards by which we are suppose to approve or deny a project, it speaks that the project will not be a hazard or disturb Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 14 existing or future neighborhood uses. It also speaks to fire protection and those items and drainage and therefore I won’t be supporting the approval the conditional use either. Norton: I concur with the rest of the Commissioner's that although the applicant provided a second plat, it is a moving target. He’ll comply whatever we want. If is not a solid piece of material. It is like, well yeah I’ll put in some landscaping and yeah I’ll pave that even though it doesn’t show on this, so until we get a solid piece that we can rely on, plus compliance with the fire codes, I will not be voting for this. Brown: I would move that Item 7, the request for a conditional use permit for RV sales and RV retail and repair at 2490 W. Franklin be denied. Hatcher: Second it. Borup: Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Mr. Dugan, this body makes recommendations to City Council, so this entire application will go before City Council for a public hearing there. At which time you will have an opportunity to make your case with them. They have the opportunity of accepting our recommendation or making one of their own. This will go on to City Council. Next scheduled time would be approximately a month. I am not sure what the City Council’s agenda is. You will be notified in writing, isn’t that correct. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, at City Council level this will not be a public hearing. Commercial Industrial zone. Borup: Okay, I was mistaken on that. Will the City Council take testimony from the applicant? Neither one. I was incorrect on that Mr. Dugan. Dugan: Since I was asked to come back, I would like to say something to Miss Norton. Borup: Wait a minute. Our public testimony is closed. Can the applicant submit anything in writing? 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE OF 76.24 ACRES FROM I-L TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED CROSSROADS SUBDIVISION BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—1/4 MILE SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW ON THE EAST SIDE OF EAGLE ROAD: Borup: Brad, its all yours. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 15 Hawkins Clark: Yes Commissioner's this application is a City initiated application simply to rezone. It is a map correction of the Crossroads Subdivision as shown on the screen. It is currently zoned IL, the details of which were explained in the application Item number 9. The result of an historical annexation for the properties on both the east and west side of Eagle Road there. The request by staff is to rezone it from light industrial to low density residential R-4. As stated in our comments, since more than 200 property owners were effected, the City did not send individual notices but it was posted and the homeowners association president was notified. The main impact on the rezone really will be on home occupations and specifically day cares which in other zones they can do more than 6 kids with their day cares and in the R-4 they can do a maximum of 5. In terms of impact on the residents that live in Crossroads, that is really the main impact. Otherwise, it is simply a clean up of the map or the zoning map. Borup: Thank you, any questions. Do we have anyone from the public who would like to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioner's do we have a motion? Barbeiro: Brad, if a day care exists in that Subdivision or a home occupation exists in that Subdivision that was approved, would that be grandfathered in and continue to operate. Hawkins Clark: Yes. Brown: I would move that we close the public hearing on Item 8. Hatcher: I second the motion. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Brown: Mr. Chairman I would move that we approve the rezone request of the 76.24 acres from IL to R-4 for the existing Crossroads Subdivision by the City of Meridian. Norton: I second it. Borup: Any discussion. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 12.73 ACRES FOR PROPOSED VALERI HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, MULTI FAMILY, TOWNHOUSE, OFFICE FROM RT TO R-15 AND LO BY VICKI WELKER –NE CORNER OF PINE AND TEN MILE ROAD: Borup: I’d like to open this public hearing and ask for a staff report. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 16 Hawkins Clark: Yes Commission the application here as shown on the screen there is two legal parcels that are involved at the northeast corner of Ten Mile and Pine. The request is to annex the properties, they are requesting two different zones, a limited office which would be approximately 2.87 in the southwest corner and the remainder of the site to an R-15, a high density zone which would be 10.96 acres at R-15. If it is okay I will just review just the annexation and CUP and Plat or would you prefer that we just do the annexation. Borup: Go ahead and cover both. Hawkins Clark: Here is a site photo from Pine Street looking to the north. There is an existing residence in the southwest corner of the site. The request here is for on Item number 10, a conditional use permit for 128 unit apartment complex, which is situation on the site plan here in the center of the project. The limited office zone request under the annexation is here at the corner, approximately 26,000 square feet of office. They are requesting 8 townhouse lots located here along Ten Mile and then on the back side here and those are separate legal lots that they are proposing to plat. The site is currently two public roads stubbed to it from the north from Thundercreek Subdivision. One located here and one here. They are proposing to extend this one to their east boundary. There is also amenities in the complex. They are proposing a water amenity here and pool and clubhouse here situation on the south. The detailed site plans are here showing more detail of some of the specifics within the apartment complex itself and some elevations of the office building, of the clubhouse, of the garages which are located along the outside perimeter of the project. Fourplex perspective and their 16 unit perspective here. Item number 11 is the preliminary plat request. We have addressed all of these items in our memo dated March 9, 2000 to the commission and council. They are more or less platting off these legal parcels—one that would be for the office complex along with its associated parking here. Each of the townhouse lots is proposing to platted. They are of course proposing the plat these public roadways which are at ACHD fifty foot wide right of way minimums. They’ve got the garages. This whole apartment complex is a single legal parcel. Four townhouse lots are single are four parcels there. You do have in your packets a number of submissions from residents regarding the traffic. There is particularly to point out an April 3 letter from Wilder's to ACHD Commissioner Bivens regarding a traffic count difference. From 1997 counts to 2000 counts, about a 3 year. There is about a 5300 traffic count difference, which as the neighbors have pointed out they have brought up to the ACHD commission. The ACHD Commission had acted on it. They have put conditions on the project but as the applicants or as the neighbors point out that they acted on what they believe in incorrect numbers. Staff certainly supports that, that these numbers were out of whack and probably need to be looked at much more carefully. In terms of our role as the City from P&Z’s perspective, we were looking at land use and we feel that long range with the movement of the Ten Mile interchange into the 20/20 destination plan, obviously there is no money there in the bank to build it, but it certainly seems like there is a stronger commitment on behalf of both ACHD and ITD and the City to get that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 17 interchange going. Everyone looks for promises of when it is going to be built but I think it would be poor planning to pretend it is not going to happen and I think that interchange is going to create much more –it is going to basically turn Ten Mile and Pine into a much more arterial heavily traveled corridors then they are now. In terms of planning for high density use on a future arterial, I think that makes sense. As far as the bus way project which Compass is looking at converting the railroad corridor into a bus way. They’ve got $25,000 to look at paving at one side of the rail to have a bus way from Nampa to Boise. This is less than 1000 feet from the rail road corridor and high density serving that corridor, we think also makes sense from a long range planning standpoint. In terms of the existing traffic and ACHD’s lack of recommending a center turn lane, they did not recommend any signalization, certainly you see the logic in that and feel that that probably justifies waiting for the ACHD and taking a hard look and continuing this tonight. Thanks. Brown: Has ACHD acted on this then. Hawkins Clark: Yes. Brown: And their recommendation was similar to the previous one that we had before when we looked at this same site. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner Brown I am sorry I did not go back and compare the staff reports from ACHD for their previous application and this one. I don’t know what the specific recommendation differences were. I do know the center lane was not requested on either one. Brown: The Comprehensive Plan calls this property to be what kind of density. Hawkins Clark: A mixed residential. It does not call out a specific density, but we have interrupted mixed residential to mean that it would not be single family residential because we do have a single family residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan. Mixed residential is a separate designation. There is no density call out, but we certainly think that that means that is would call for a combination of densities, if not high density. Particularly on a high traffic corridor like this with potential bus service probably going down Pine and they are being asked to construct sidewalks along the both Ten Mile and Pine. I would point out, the Ada County Highway District letter dated April 3rd from Joe Rosenlund who is the traffic engineering supervisor and he is addressing this traffic count difference. He said they did not count the traffic volume on Pine Street during the earlier period but it is likely that a similar increase has occurred there and their estimating the traffic on Pine to be about 2600 vehicles per day. ACHD has not done an investigation of the Ten Mile Pine intersection but these volume numbers indicate that it may be time to install turn lanes, an all way stop or both. The date of the action by Ada County Commission was March 8, 2000. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 18 Brown: Brad, one more item. The office use then with your mixed designation is acceptable for this zone also or for this area. Hawkins Clark: Yes, it would be. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? We do have 3 separate hearings on this project. Staff did do his report on all three but we do need to handle them one at a time so they all are separate hearings. We’d like to proceed with Item number 9 request for annexation and zoning. Is the applicant or representative here this evening. Bailey: Good evening ladies and gentlemen and Commissioner's my name is David Bailey. I am representing Gold Rivers Company, Vicki Welker as the project engineer for the Valeri Heights project. I guess before I get started, I’ll ask the question, I have my comments all put together for all three projects or for all three applications and if I could make all of those comments at this point and save us some time in the later hearings, is that acceptable. Borup: How would you like to handle it Commissioner's? No body cares, okay go ahead. Bailey: I also have here with me comments to make and then a short presentation by Scott Harrison who has done the design and the renderings for the buildings on the site. Pat Dobie, Dobie Engineering is the traffic engineer for the project and Michael Markeezee who is a property manager representative of the owner. I think some of you have seen this project previously and then some of you haven’t, so I’d like to go through some of the issues associated with that. Previously we submitted this project as 164 units and a smaller ¾ size of this office building. We had some issues with some tandem parking that were shown on the previous plat where there were parking stalls that were immediately behind the garages. There was some issues about lack of open space and how it was combined within the site. The buildings were single row and spread out around the site. They were along the perimeter of the site. There was some issues with the circulation with the site and one of the things that did not come up in the hearing but was submitted with the plans was there was significant grading required to make the site work with the previous plan we had. We’ve taken those issues into account. The issues whereby the commission and the council thought that wasn’t an appropriate project previously and have tried to move all of those into this project design. Our current project has thirty less units at 128 apartments. They are R-15 zoned and has 8 townhouses that Brad had pointed out. We’ve changed the layout of the site so that the circulation we believe is quite a bit better and the apartment units are contained in a closer area within the center of the site. As I said, there is 30 less of those units all together. The garages are along the perimeter of the site which provides some landscaping area behind them and also the garage is a buffer from the residential zone to the north of this. The property to the east of this is undeveloped and also not in the City so it is under the same question as to what is going to happen with that property there. The buildings have integral landscape courtyard that are between each Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 19 of the buildings where by the entries are between the two sections of the buildings. That would be landscaped in that area and that would be the entry way. There would be a common area there that would be landscaped also. It also takes the entrances away from the view from the road and I think improves the appearance overall. The units each have balconies associated with them. Most of them front and rear and all of them at least on the rear. We do have the top lot which we were able to provide in there. The water amenity in the center of the project and walk ways 5 foot throughout the project to provide good pedestrian circulation. You’ll also see the dark spots that are there on the driveway showing stamped concrete or colored concrete in there to break up the flow of traffic in there and indicate the walk ways to pedestrians within the site. We have fairly extensive landscape provided on this and we submitted some drawings to the City as well as far as the type of landscape and the type of trees that we are going to put into the site. That would be professionally maintained for the apartment complex and for the townhouse lots. We plan to meet with the buildings of ADA and the Fair Housing requirements will be met. We have 304 parking spaces provided for the apartment complex portion and that comes up to 2.375 per unit. The base requirements for the zone would be 2 per unit and then the commission or council could require an additional 1 parking spot for every three units. An additional .3, so we exceed that requirement also if you would go up to the full amount required. I think the apartment complexes that you’ve been looking at in other areas that have been proposed are staying with the two or slightly above. A significant number of those spaces are garage style spaces. There is actually 1.2 garage spaces per unit. Each unit would have an assigned garage space. Those units vary and there is 18 one bedroom, 78 two bedroom and 32 three bedroom shown on here. We believe that there is the demand for the apartments in the area. One the previous application Vicki had submitted a list of personnel who signed up that they would like to rent in this area and I think Mr. Markeezee will state some more about the waiting list that are currently on the books in Meridian here at Aspen Hills and the issue that apartments are a needed item in Meridian. There is a two car garage for each of the townhomes. 26,000 square foot office space LO zone. The staff had made some recommendations as to some specified uses in the LO zone that should be restricted from use and the developer agrees with those restrictions. It is split into three sections. It has the patio area near the street there. The idea is to make a nice appearance from the street but also screen the apartment complex both from the noise of what we think will be a busy intersection at some point in the future and from the view into the site. The covenants that were submitted with the project would not allow any advertising on the outside of that building. The only advertising that would be allowed would be monument sign at each of the entrances of the office building or entrances to the site. Any signage that would be on the front window inside the site. We had previously had two access points on Ten Mile and one on Pine. We have deleted the access on Ten Mile that is closer to the intersection in order to make one to reduce the possibility of cut through traffic within the site which now we feel is very minimal. We continue the public streets as required by ACHD. We are proposing to tile the Ten Mile stub drain that is in the intersection of Pine and Ten Mile and that would give us room there to provide a center turn and right turn lane. I will hold off on the ACHD things for right now. We do have 5 foot sidewalks Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 20 along Pine and Ten Mile. There are center turn lanes required by ACHD at each of our entrances. The utilities are available to the site and one of the base requirements for an apartment complex in your zoning code is that it be adjacent to arterial streets. Ten Mile is now classified as a minor arterial. I believe that Pin Street is a major collector street at this point but in your Comprehensive Plan is a goal to upgrade Pine Street to an arterial street. We think that this provides a good transition from the proposed commercial to the south of this which would be on the south side of Pine Street north of the railroad tracks. There is all ready industrial south of Pine Street on the west side of this project with the storage area. The buffer of those residential areas from this potentially busy intersection we think is an important issue also. We have tried to minimise the impact that this project would have on the residential while minimizing the impact that the streets and the industrial commercial would have on this project as well. Compass has reviewed this, the community planning association and thinks this is an appropriate place for this type of development and that is supports their goals as far as long range planning for the valley. Ada County Highway District. I am going to let Pat talk to this a little more in a minute but I do want to bring up the point that Ada County Highway District has acted on this project and we agree with Mrs. Wilder and with the staff and with ACHD that this ought to be reviewed as far as what we need to do on this. We also think the traffic numbers that they came up with the 8500 on Ten Mile and the traffic numbers on Pine are still within the capacity of those streets at this point. How do you get improvements done on those streets as we need to get close to the capacities or at least be heading in that direction then ACHD releases those funds to improve those streets. In the mean time we are will to and we are going to propose to put in the center turn lane on Pine so there would be a left and right turn lane from Pine. That is a serious for the school right now. The traffic stacks up on Pine trying to get onto Ten Mile. We would support and we will put them in if we can and do the traffic study work that we can. Put stop signs in there and if we could do it we would consider supporting or helping to fund a traffic signal at that intersection if ACHD thinks that is appropriate. We think that as the project sits it improves the situation at the intersection. Your going to hear the neighbors tell you that I am wrong on that and you’ll just to decide for yourself who is heading in the right direction. They live there and see it every day and I can’t say that I do. We have to rely on what the traffic numbers tell us and what ACHD requires the developer to do. We are willing to do what ever it takes to make that intersection right. I did want to cover one issue here. The neighbors here in a petition to you had listed some issues on the front of that and traffic was one of them. I see their concern in that area. We’d like to be able to solve that problem. Traffic on those roads are going to increase with or without this development. There is a lot of other issues that could increase the traffic significantly more than this project could. That apartment area would be private property in that area so if we could work with the fire department if we needed to, to restrict that further we could. They stated in there that the application was previously denied both by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council and that was due to traffic on Ten Mile and Pine intersection. I think we are doing our best to address that issue with this application. We only currently two residential lots that would be adjacent to this property. We have significantly reduced the density of the development from the previous application. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 21 Another comment the neighbors had was that the proposed Comprehensive Plan is out dated and as far as I understand it is still current and we submitted this plan under that Comprehensive Plan and we also think that the Comprehensive Plan for what is proposed in that area is appropriate. They brought up the issue to the schools and we this has been review by the schools and the schools are not recommending that you deny this project based on the capacity. In summary we think the Comprehensive Plan supports this project as far as we understand that your Comprehensive Plan does. We think that the transportation issues support this project and that this can be a benefit to the transportation system rather than a detriment. We thing that is provides a good buffer between commercial and industrial areas and we think we can resolve the traffic issues. We think Meridian needs apartments and there is a demand for it. This is the right place and time and plan for this site. I’d be happy to answer any questions. Norton: Mr. Bailey I am not sure if it is you or someone else to address the issue. Do you still plan on having a tot lot for your apartment complex. Bailey: Yes it is shown. Norton: How far is that from your water feature. Bailey: I would say that is probably 150 feet or 100 feet. Norton: How deep is your lighted water feature. Bailey: I’ve got to say I don’t know the answer. Barbeiro: Mr. Bailey could you describe for me how you would set up the stop signs on a offset where Pine and Ten Mile meet. Bailey: The Pine Street comes into Ten Mile as a Tee. The offset is only slightly offset from the Pine Street. I don’t know the answer as far as whether that meets offset requirements for being directly across from it or if that is something that would need to be repaired. There is actually a stop sign there now and on Pine Street. We would be adding a stop sign at Ten Mile north and south of Pine Street. At some point in the future that would be improved with the intersection. Barbeiro: Can you tell me what the distance is from the intersection to your first entrance on Pine. Bailey: On Pine Street approximately 330 feet. It is over the ACHD requirement. Norton: Are these considered public roads within your complex. Bailey: They are not. It would be a driveway area within the project. Lightning and Gray Cloudway would be public streets. The rest private driveway. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 22 Norton: Your comment regarding reducing any cut through traffic, are you referring to adding gates to your area again. Bailey: I was referring to that but don’t know if it is possible with the fire codes. Borup: Thank you Mr. Bailey. Mr. Dobie want to spend some time at this point. Dobie: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's my name is Pat Dobie. I am a traffic engineer. I prepared a traffic study for the Valeri Heights project. I prepared a supplemental analysis which was submitted and review by the Ada County Highway District dealing with the revised site plan and also dealing with high school traffic which was overlooked in the first analysis. As far as the existing intersection of Ten Mile and Pine, there is a lot of problems out there. Primarily the lack of turn lanes neither on Pine or Ten Mile. The radius of the curves are defined. They are narrow. No sidewalks in the area and peaking problems from the high school traffic. As it currently exists the level of service at the intersection A thru F has a D rating. During peak hours left turn movements off both roads has a service level of F. This is a condition you would experience on Eagle Road most of the day. What ACHD required when they approved the Subdivision was to widen the roads at the intersection to their standards, to install left turn lanes, to construct sidewalks, to change the traffic control at the intersection and over all bring it up to the configuration of a modern intersection. In addition to that they are going to require that the developer contribute $165,000 in impact fees to be used by the highway district to deal with offsite mediation of traffic impacts. The issue has been raised about the relevancy of traffic courts that we used in some of these previous analysis. I’d like to say that it’s really a mood point. Those traffic counts were not used in any of these analysis. The analysis was all based upon peak hour traffic loadings and those peak hour counts were collected manually at the intersection in the months of July 1999. Additional counts collected in November 1999 during the school and there were additional counts collected in February of 2000. Noon time peak hour counts to try to profile what was going on with the high school traffic during the lunch break which is typically the peaking period for high school pupils. In that analysis, what was counted in July 1999 was 780 vehicles per hour on Ten Mile Road. This is the evening rush hour peak. The more recent count that was collected by the Idaho Transportation Dept. This is the count that Joe Roselin refers to in his letter amounts to about 850 vehicles per hour in November 1999. The difference between the two is roughly 9 per cent and plus or minus 10 percent is the variation that you can see in any two counts taken. Statistically the counts are the same. To establish a level of comfort here, again 780 vehicles per hour were measured one time, 850 vehicles another time. My analysis was based upon a traffic loading of 1200 vehicles per hour on Ten Mile Road. In addition I assumed a traffic loading of 770 vehicles per hour on Pine Street. What exists out there right now is about 250 vehicles per hour. There was a substantial increase in traffic loading on Pine and the reason I did that was because of recommendations from Compass that Pine was going to pick up in duty over the next 5 years. The traffic volumes that were considered in the analysis are considerable higher Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 23 than anything that has been measured out there. Generally I tend to inflate ACHD counts and in the Meridian area I inflate Compass counts a lot because they tend to under estimate the traffic out here. The analysis was based upon 1200 vehicles per hour. Based upon that traffic loading, what I found was with the improvements that ACHD has recommended, the level of service at the intersection will maintain the current level of D. END OF SIDE TWO Dobie: increase of traffic plus all the site generated traffic of the 1400 vehicles per day that is being projected from this development. The service level at that intersection after the improvements have been made that ACHD has required will re-establish a service level of D. D is an acceptable standard adopted by both the City, the highway district and Compass. In addition to that, Gold River Company has offered to construct a traffic signal. A signal is justified because of the noon time peak traffic generated by the high school and future traffic conditions that will exist once the Ten Mile Road has been established and the interchange has been constructed on the highway. With the traffic signal at that intersection what you’ll have is a service level of A. As I started out saying there are currently problems at the intersection and in this community the way that road problems get fixed is through new development. ACHD does not fund very much construction with their own money. They tend to use other peoples money. There is an opportunity here through development exaction’s and the payment of impact fees to make substantial changes to that location. If the project isn’t approved, then these improvements probably will not happen until ACHD comes through with some sort of comprehensive program in conjunction with a new interchange on the freeway and it is in the 20 year plan but it could take 20 years before it materialized. Based upon the rate of change of traffic we’ve noticed there could be some fairly substantial congestion. That ends my comments. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Dobie. Barbeiro: (Inaudible) the developer would pay for a complete stop light at that intersection or contribute to a fund that would later be put in there. Dobie: If a traffic signal is installed under a cooperative program with the highway district, ACHD allows the developer to use their impact fees to pay for a portion of the signal. ACHD also contributes the hardware and installation of the signal. There is an opportunity to do it at this point of time and there are capital resources that are available to fund it. Barbeiro: Then could you reassure the neighbors that if this development were to go in that a stop light would go in conjunction with that based upon the developers contribution or would it go to a future stop light. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 24 Dobie: It is a question of applying the capital of this being generated by the project. I spoke to several of the staff engineers at ACHD and they said they would be supportive of a traffic signal. Barbeiro: I think you know where I am going with this. The developer has the opportunity to pay for the entire stop light at that corner and then be reimbursed at a later time. Dobie: Well this development has generated enough impact fees to pay the full cost of traffic signal. It is not a question of waiting for additional development. It is a question of negotiating a cooperative agreement with the highway district. Barbeiro: With the stop light you would allow for 20,000 vehicles per day and that would keep that intersection at a 8 level of service. Dobie: At 20,000 you’d be upper C approaching D. Barbeiro: Would that be considering a five lane road in both directions. Dobie: That would be with a two lane road—I’m sorry a three lane road. Barbeiro: Did you perform the count at lunchtime? Okay. What was the stacking at Pine going back to the east. Dobie: Six or seven vehicles. Hatcher: In your site observation when you were doing your traffic count, did you also observe and do counts when school let out. Dobie: No I didn’t. The system peaks between 4:30 and 5:30 and the traffic during that period was measured. The traffic in the morning and the traffic at noon was measured. Hatcher: But you didn’t measure it throughout the day. Dobie: No, it’s only the high school traffic that is effected by that. Hatcher: I live in the area and see it on a daily basis, so I know why all these people are here. I wanted to know where you counts were coming from and what time. When high school lets out it backs up about ½ mile. A signal or left turn lane would improve it. I agree. Borup: Any other questions. Thank you. Does that include the applicants presentation. No, one more. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 25 Harrison: Mr. Chairman and fellow Commissioner's my name is Scott Harrison. I am with As-Built Systems and I am the designer on this project. So far we have talked about dirt and cars and now I’d like to talk to you about the buildings. One of the things that was brought up in a previous meeting and I did not elaborate too much on it was the actual construction of the buildings. I would like to focus on that first. As with any of these types of projects, one of the concerns is cost. What usually happens is we are faced with the prospect of well how we going to pay for it if we go cheap and it’s not going to be a good project. If we go too expensive then we’ve blown it. What we settled on was the typical treatment that you would see in an apartment complex here in Boise which is asphalt composite shingles, a minimum 40 year life. We looked at several other types from metal to clay type and concrete type. Cost wise we settled on the best one we could find and that the composite asphalt shingle. If we move down along the side of the building and look at the siding, again you are looking at different ways to veneer these buildings. We looked at all of them and the one we are settling on right now is the masonite hard board siding with an optional textured aluminum siding. I brought samples here if you’d like to see them. They have come a long way as they are durable and attractive. There is low maintenance, no painting. Moving to the window treatments we settled on single hung (inaudible) coating with architectural grids. White vinyl frames. With respect to the stairways, this side of the building those are constructed of wood and would meet the minimum rise and run requirements. All hand rails, 38 inches in height. As far as the building itself interior building we are looking at a tight five construction. The buildings will be sprinkled. Each building will have gutters and down spouts and will drain directly. I’d like to address quickly the wall construction would be 2X6 minimum R19 and that would also go for the office building as well. Each of the buildings will have ADA accessibility at the first floor level. All buildings will have minimum 3 foot exterior doors and on the interior spaces we have designed in the floor plans 5 foot minimum radius turns in the kitchen, bath to meet ADA requirements. At least one bathroom in each of the units will be completely ADA on the main level. Borup: Mr. Harrison we need only a summary on the building. Harrison: In a nut shell that is about it. Barbeiro: On the bottom of the drawing there, that 2 or 3 courses of CMU or is that slab that I am looking at. Harrison: That is actually the base of a structural slab. Borup: Thank you. Did you have anything to follow up with? Harrison: A comment was recently brought up about the monument signs. We do have a picture of those I’ll show you real quick. This also shows the colored perspectives of some of the proposed shots. These are brick and marble signs. The commercial sign is slotted in marble so the businesses can put their names on those. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 26 Borup: Thank you. Does that conclude the applicants presentation. One more. Markeezee: In interest of time I will be brief. Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's my name is Michael Martkeezee. I am a professional property manager the owner of Summit Real Estate Services which is based in Boise. I have been in the property management business all most exclusively with multi family products since 1980. Currently I manage 14 different projects, approximately 900 units. The product you may be most familiar with would be Aspen Hills Apartments. It is 120 units up on Meridian Road. To my knowledge the largest project in Meridian and probably the nicest. I’ve been asked to consult with the development of the project regarding management issues to develop a project that could be well managed and based on my experience with the Aspen Hills apartments there is clearly a demand for more housing. Reviewing this project the site plans that I have received, it is clearly a luxury type building with adequate amenities and very well presented. One of the outstanding features is the parking. A luxury building of this type will attract a tenant profile that is more professional. There is less management problems with a project of this type. We engage law enforcement ahead of time. It is a crime prevention through environmental design. It is were a trained professional looks at plans ahead of time and gives advice. I have met with them regarding this project and a statement will come out regarding their perceptions. I have worked through many types of management issues, which are preventative type programs. Before someone can move there we have certain qualifying procedures that checks credit and criminal background. We also have risk management programs dealing with neighborhood watch. In summary there are professional management practices which can be employed to create and maintain a quality living environment. Thank you. Norton: Sir, with your experience with these type of apartments, what do you expect the general rent would be charged for this type of apartment. Markeezee: One bedroom would be in the $600’s. Two bedrooms would be in the $700’s and three bedrooms would in $800’s. Depends upon location and view. We will do the management if they get built. Borup: Thank you sir. Commissioner's are we ready for public testimony. Would we like to proceed with that or would this be a good time for a break. We will take a short break and during that time, let’s consult on dates. Borup: If everyone could gather round we’d like to continue. We like to continue the public hearing on this application. We have some concern on being able to get through the agenda. We’ve talked about some alternatives. Commissioner Brown you said you wanted to discuss that now or do you want to wait. Brown: Mr. Chairman, at least to the people that are here, we should find out how many people are here for the Carol Project. Can I see a show of hands. Okay so every Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 27 body is here for the project we are on. Our hearing will go way late and we told commissioner Borup we don’t want to go to 2am anymore. We can’t make good decisions at 2 o’clock. I know there is lengthy discussion on Item 12. We probably have at least another hour or so on this one. Borup: I think if we can get this rapped up in a hour without continuing it that we have a good chance of getting through the rest of the agenda. Just as a warning, we don’t go past 1 o’clock anymore. Let’s go ahead and start and see how we do and then we may need to take a look at it in an hour from now. In able to give everyone a chance to testify, we would like to limit to three minutes. If someone here is speaking on behalf of the neighborhood as a whole, in that situation there is extra time. Do we have a neighborhood spokesman here. Walters: Reese Walters. I live at 1148 N. Lightning Place. Two houses down from the complex. I have a petition here that has 171 signatures and that is at Haven Cove alone. I was planning on going across the street to Park Creek and am sure I could get another 300 signatures over there. Borup: How many people here tonight are you speaking for? Can we see a raise of hands. Go ahead then. Walters: Did all of the Commissioner's get a copy of the petition? You all ready know the points. Should I go over those points –okay the only thing new that I have is I asked the police dept. to tell me how many traffic tickets they gave out. There was a one week span where Pine was being under construction right at that intersection and diverted high school students into Haven Cove. In that 5 day span of time, six speeding tickets were given on Forecast and several complaints were listed by residents. That is the only new thing I have new from the petition. The people who live right here on this lot had somebody come about 45-50 mph –this is a ditch—and went screaming right through their yard into the ditch, came out of their yard and peeling out in their new grass and took off before the cops could get there. If we put this in we will have so much traffic. It will be those high school students. Brown: With the applicants discussion about the traffic improvement that they are improving at that intersection, do you not believe it will make it better. Walters: I came in right as they were talking about that. I did hear a possibility of a traffic light. Hatcher: (Inaudible—not on mic) Walters: My concern would be that those 250 cars would be backing up that intersection. Maybe if you put a turn lane and light in there now, that would make a difference, but if you put it in there and then add another 250 cars to the area, it will be the same thing as it is now. Another thing is that if we back up and go back to Franklin Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 28 and Overland between 7:30 and 8 in the morning or 3 and 5 in the evening, you’re got 15 to 20 cars backed up on all four lanes. I did hear him refer to the traffic study. That was done in August of 99. I believe there is a new study done on Ten Mile just last week but I did not see it on Pine. Barbeiro: Can you comment on how the traffic would be improved with the stop light, turn lane with the inclusion of that corner development. Walters: I don’t have all the stats and I don’t know—I am not a traffic expert. I don’t think that’s true. I just know when I am out there on Pine trying to turn right at 3 o’clock, you’ve got a pile up, and if you add more – Atkinson: I am Irma Atkinson. I live at 1124 N. Lightning. I will be brief. You have a multi paged packet I left yesterday. I’d like to focus my comments on the conversation that Mrs. Wilder and I had. When we visited with the Ada County Highway District staff on the 29th , we specifically asked them what if the developer agrees to put in stop signs. Tonight we are hearing a traffic signal. He said it is not that simple. You can’t just say I am going to put in a traffic stop light. I disagree with Mr. Dobie. If they are a mute point they why did they suddenly put the traffic counter out a week ago today after Mrs. Wilder and I submitted our letters of concern to the Commissioner's at ACHD. I think it is a very important point. We have sent letters to the Commissioner's. We will be following up with them. We are asking them to reconsider their decision to work with the developer. This is too important to rush ahead on. I respectively ask you to table it hold it or deny it at this point until we get the information we need regarding the traffic. In the Comprehensive Plan’s both the current one and proposed one is says we want people living near public services. Well their an island with sidewalks that go nowhere. They can’t walk to schools or parks. There are no employers there so they have to get in their car and drive and just adds to the problem. Wilder: Commissioner's, Chairman Borup my name is Laura Wilder, I live at 3401 W. Pine Avenue not Pine Lane. Pine Lane is off of Black Cat and this is on the books with ACHD as Pine Avenue even though it is a private drive. In the current Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian, this is listed as a general industrial area. Right now there are 8 families on acreages that live there. The only access we have to the world is this intersection at Ten Mile and Pine. This is the only way that we have out. That is why we are terribly concerned about traffic numbers that don’t matter. They do matter. I would like to speak tonight in opposition of this rezoning and development. I will speak on two major points. One I have a few more things about traffic and another one just about the general character of the area. First of all a lot of people have talked about the intersection tonight. I have photos of the intersection and how this lines up. This is the intersection of Ten Mile and Pine. The reality is this is an inadequate intersection in a rural transition area that has a lot of work to be done before it can support this project. This is where we go to turn left or right. Borup: Have you seen the ACHD report. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 29 Wilder: Yes I have, not the one they started last week. We saw the letter that was in the file dated March 8th on which they recommended approval of the project. After we went and spoke to them they realized that they had used inadequate outdated information and began to recognize that further study was needed. They talked about warrants but before they would be able to write the requirements they needed to study the traffic further. I have seen those requirements. They were given based on the old numbers. After we brought to Mr. Roslin’s attention the new numbers he really felt further study of the intersection was needed. Everyone had information from ACHD that was outdated and this has a ripple effect for the entire project. It is not fair for anyone who is trying to make a decision about approval to not have up to date information. We do recommend that you postpone acting on this until they have studied the situation further. The issue there has been much said about zoning. Multi level density is in the plan right now. We feel that 50 people who spent 7 months working on the new proposed Comprehensive Plan, they have identified this area as medium density which is up to R-8, single family dwellings, not high density. We feel like if we go ahead and ignore the work that they have done and the recommendation that they are making, it is a slap in the face to the planning and zoning process on what people more recently have studied the whole picture. We see apartments being out of place at that corner. Many people have moved that area because they like the single family homes. People move there to raise their family and are not expecting apartments in the area. One thing that does concern me is the tendency of company’s such as Hewlett Packard use these for relocation until their families have found homes. Are there ordinances about short stays, this kind of thing. If you do decide to go ahead and approve this even though the traffic infrastructure is not there and there are compelling safety issues with the sidewalks and roads and intersection, I would ask you please to look at the ordinances. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. END OF SIDE THREE Barbeiro: The developer would like to make that intersection a three lane road with a turn lane in both directions with a stop light. If this commission were to recommend to City Council approval of this development would that improvement be sufficient for your concerns. Wilder: It would definitely help the traffic situation. One improvement that I think is still a concern even though they are putting sidewalk on their side of the road, there are no improvements on the other side of Ten Mile. Prior to the time that is made there are some issues regarding the narrowness of the road and the lack of bike lanes. I do feel the signal would definitely help. Barbeiro: So the signal with addition of turn lanes would not be sufficient for your concerns. Wilder: Not at this time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 30 Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I just want to make a comment. Mrs. Wilder your concern about developing the west side of Ten Mile. The only time that we are going to see the west side of Ten Mile improved or developed without an adjacent development going in is when ACHD makes that development. Wilder: I am aware of that but I think it is an extreme hazard. Hatcher: Correct and half of that wideness that your talking about would occur with the development of this project on the east side. The development on the west side would only occur as if your neighbor develops. I know where your going and what your concerns are. Blazer: My name is Glenn Blazer. I live at 3405 Stone Creek Road. Boise. I am going to try and control myself tonight. What percentage of this project is covered with roofs or asphalt. Would it be 50%. The reason I bring this up is I think the City planning projects are a little remiss in their duties. I talks to Keith Jacobson who is the engineer who has designed all the drainage for our Subdivisions and every thing that should be designed for a rain of one inch. If there were a one inch rain on that project and it is 50% covered with asphalt and roofs there would b 20,000 cubic feet of water. There is no adequate place for that water to go. They are allowed to run the usual amount of water that has been draining into the canal into the canal. The rest of it should be (inaudible) on the project. According to Mr. Jacobson it would take 15 ponds 24 inches square and 2 feet deep to do that. There is not room for them to do that. When you have a project that does not have public parking but private parking, the police are powerless to go in and regulate the parking. This particular case the driveway through the parking is 25 feet wide. The garages are 10 feet wide and adequately depths. A car backing out of that garage into a 20 foot right of way completely blocks the street. If you have 200 cars in a day going around there, there has got to be congestion. Another thing, I think Planning and Zoning duty and original purpose was to help make the City more beautiful. In this project we have a commercial zone that’s rear end to the street. The front of the buildings face the interior. The people who live in the apartments know what it looks like. Around the exterior of the apartments you have these long rows of garages. I control the lots in Thundercreek just north and we will be privileged to look out and see a long row of garages, sheds. It looks like a storage sheds. I wonder if that is giving adequate and due consideration to us who have spend money in making single family homes and trying to develop it. Looks to me like the apartment house projects I have driven around in Boise lately the main apartment face the road. They reversed that from the last time and I was not satisfied that time, but this is—think about children from our Subdivision the little ones have to cross Ten Mile. You add another 50-75 children, they have to get across. That is not reasonable to subject little children to that. Barbeiro: Bruce could you give us a Readers Digest version of his drainage concern so that could be answered right away. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 31 Freckleton: Mr. Chairman members of the Commission, ordinance does require for them to retain their drainage on site. In many instances developers are allowed to use existing drainage ditches for pre-development volumes, if that is allowed by the irrigation district. They have to approach them for approval. Mr. Bailey could probably speak to the volumes of water and his proposed methods of handling that volume. The current City Ordinance does require retention of water on site. Fuller: My name is Shirley Fuller. I live at 890 N. Ten Mile. I’d like to start out by saying that I’d like to apologize to our neighbor. There has been a lot of heated discussion this and misunderstandings. For them I’d like to clear up a couple of issues. We’ve been in this for a long time. When my husband and I decided to put the property up for sale we were approached by 3 developers. One wanted to put 4 homes per acre and do nothing with the corner. He did not want to address fixing the corner. We do not want to leave this property a site. We want to fix it. We want to go away and say we did something good. We lived there 9 years and know it is a problem. It is not going to get any better folks. The second developer came along and you know what he told me. I’ll buy the 10 acres, you keep the 2 acres and the corner. You keep it for commercial. I don’t want anything to do with it. We did not go along with him either. Vicki Welker came along and she said I’ll fix the corner but I have to have enough money to do that. I have to have a project so I can do that. She has changed this project I don't ’now how many times. She has thousands of dollars wrapped up in this. She has tried to please everyone. We think we have a good project. We are doing the best we can. Neighbors I'm sorry. We want to have a good quality neighborhood where the corners are fixed, that’s our goal. Fuller: My name is Dave Fuller. I am co-owner of the piece of property. What most of the neighbors worry about traffic. We live on that corner. We been listening to them traffic counters every night. We can’t sleep. You see our concern. We are going to have more traffic. This is a prime piece of ground. It is a corner. Something needs to be done for the betterment of the community. We’ve been to the new Planning and Zoning proposed 10 year plan, 5 year plan and what it shows that most of these folks don’t really realize there is a big block of ground over by the high school is all planned high density. We are discussing 100 units plus here. That big acreage down by the high school just a few feet down the road could house thousands of apartments. You talk about move traffic. I said this before, who has more right to use the road than the local people living right there at the intersection or on the road than all the people that commute from Ustick, McMillan clear over by the golf course, all the way to Black Cat use that road. There will be more traffic. I am in favor of it. I hope you folks are. Norton: Mr. Fuller do you live close to this area. Fuller: I live on that area. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 32 Norton: Are you going to be staying there. Fuller: No, I have to leave. I am a farmer/rancher. I have to move my operation. De Rosa: I am Joe De Rosa. I live at 1162 N. Lightning. I have two points. I find it interesting that the owner of the property mentioned that one of the developers wanted to put 4 houses per acre but was not going to fix the street. Well, I would assume he would have something to say about that. That would fit more closely in that area. Lightning and Gray Cloud both are going to be feeder roads for this apartment complex. People can look at it any way they want but they are going to go through those two streets to get out on Ten Mile. Second, the Comprehensive Plan, I was involved with it also. I went to those meetings. It has been a long process with a lot of time spent with people who care about this community. That Comprehensive Plan says that they do not want what is existing now and the new Comprehensive Plan would be R-8. That fits more closely with that Subdivision in that area. I went and looked at the packet that they provided you and one of the things I noticed was from the school board it said that Chaparral is all ready above capacity. The crowding won’t be alleviated in the middle or high school until the new ones are built. Barbeiro: There is a new elementary school that will be opening Fall of this year that will cut into the Chaparral district. The new junior high school will open Fall of this year. The new high school is planned to open Fall of 2002. Brown: Mr. De Rosa I have seen hundreds if not thousands of Meridian School District comments over the last 9 years. They have always said that. I have never seem them say even in a vacant mile section where there is no houses, anything different then what you just commented on. Bailey: I think it becomes pretty clear from what we are talking about here and we’d like to emphasize that we think what we are doing here is going to make this intersection better, not worse. When you think about the traffic counts that they submitted to ACHD. It is less than a 10 percent increase on either of those roads. The increase of the level of service of the intersection is 100 fold over what it is now. I calculated the common open space we have on the site and this was concerning Mr. Blazer’s question on the open space. This is usable open space. What I am referring to is the triangle areas within the project and the open space with the club house. That is about 16 percent of the site. The required for PUD is 10 percent. I don’t have detailed drainage plans on the site and have looked in general what it will do and I think 20,000 cubic feet is conservative but in the ball park. There is over 2-2-1/2 acres total of green. If you took a one foot deep swale a half acre 20,000 square feet, you put that 20,000 feet in there. I have no intention of doing anything like that. Our intention is several small swales. Our only intention for using off site drainage on this would be to insure that the pond is draining. We have some historical right to drain the site to the existing drain. Typically the only thing that is used for is a under drain system or system that allows all of those Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 33 ponds to drain after a storm to make sure we don’t have standing water. Hope that answers that question. Barbeiro: When you said a 16 percent open space is that including the perimeter buffers. Bailey: No it is not. Brown: What is your treatment of the street going to be on the inside the street side of the sidewalk. You know when the sidewalk quits, your sidewalk the height of the ground and then you have this barrow pit, what are you doing there. How are you finishing that. Bailey: I don’t have any specific plans on that. If there is requirements we need to meet on that, but I was expecting that we were going to make it just that, a barrow pit. That would not be a traveled area. It would be the shoulder of the road and barrow pit up to the sidewalk, typical of what you see on most developments. Brown: My recommendation would be when we approve those items that gets treated at least a portion of it with grass until the highway district widens the road all the way out. You could gravel a portion of it. As you drive through the new developments and continue up Ten Mile you see unfinished road, ruts whatever, that are along the side there. I would encourage that to make the city beautiful that Mr. Blazer talked about. He felt our (inaudible) was to make it look it look pretty. I think it would be in your benefit as well as the City’s that that was treated. Borup: Any other questions of Mr. Bailey. Thank you very much. Brown: Correct me if I’m not mistaken, multi family developments have different traffic patterns then single family developments. Dobie: That’s true. Brown: Are their peak hours the same as single family residential developments. Dobie: The overall traffic generation and the peak hour generation is about 30 percent less in multi family units then it is in single family residential. Brown: Can you speak to why that is. Your theory if nothing else as to why—it doesn’t really make sense. You’ve got people living here and there. Why is a multi family development have different peaks or different traffic patterns. Dobie: Small kids. You shuttle kids around all day to music lessons, etc. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 34 Brown: So in multi family developments usually they don’t have a large amount of children. Is that what your telling me. Dobie: There is different demographics. There is more retired people who don’t have to commute to work and they don’t have a lot of dependents living with them. It has to do with the demographics. Barbeiro: I’d like to ask a question of Mr. Markeezee please. One of the neighbors asked about the transient nature of this type of apartment complex and people coming in for short term. Could you answer that question for the neighbors please. Markeezee: I don’t know why short term residents would be any more of a problem. Is the quality of a short term stay a corporate housing person more difficult, more criminal oriented, more destructive oriented then a regular resident. I am not sure why that is a issue I guess. Barbeiro: My guess would be that a short term person has little or no investment in the community. Markeezee: Typically corporate housing are professionals that come from top companies in the area. They don’t come in to tear it up. I don’t see the issue there. It has not been a problem at our properties to my knowledge. Barbeiro: As you currently the property managers for Aspen Hills, could you tell me how many people are there on a short term. Markeezee: I don’t have the exact but I can tell you a very small percentage. What we do is have a 12 month lease rate. If somebody wants to be there for 6 months, they are charged a high rate, 3 months a higher rate. Borup: Anything from any other Commissioner's. Okay. How would we like to proceed? Hatcher: I move we close the public hearing. Pearson: My name is Brian Pearson. I live at 1158 N. Clara which is just north of the apartment complex. While my home was being built, I lived in the Clock Tower Apartment Complex and that was the home that was being built by the builder who assured me that it was single family dwellings just south of me by the way, but what tends to happen what you consider a luxury apartment complex and I don’t see where this is different is that at $800 a month for a 3 bedroom, you won’t find –it is not a real family type dwelling place. What you will find is folks that can pay $800 would rather put that into a house payment. What you’ll find at Clock Tower and I would not expect much difference here, it might start that way, but after a while is what you have is 3 single folks sharing rent in a 3 bedroom apartment. A lot of the traffic densities are Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 35 (inaudible) by the fact that you got 3 cars per dwelling, or two. Compounding that, these tend to be socially active folks, real entertaining in nature. It starts with the best of intentions, but economics come into play and there is a profitability factor. They have to keep them full any way they can. There was a retiree there with a 12 month lease and talk to that person sometime. I wanted to point that out because your concerned with the exchange of ownership in the community but I think the life style and dwelling mode of these kind of places that is a different point you should consider. Barbeiro: Does your property directly butt up against this property. Pearson: No, it’s to the north. Brown: I move we close the public hearing. Hatcher: I second it. Borup: Any discussion. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Barbeiro: With regards to Mr. & Mrs. Fuller’s commentary on their property. It is unusual that they would oppose multi family housing in the property adjacent to theirs and then (inaudible) on their own property. I am overly compelled by 170 signatures from Haven Cove alone and do not doubt that you could get 200 additional signatures from other neighbors. While this does not apply, because there is a preliminary draft, several of the neighbors did make reference to the preliminary draft of the new Meridian Comprehensive Plan. I believe that they would equally disapprove of a commercial development directly to the south of this project, but the new preliminary draft Comprehensive Plan does call for commercial development directly south and kiddy corner from this project. And, since it does call for medium density on this lot, I don’t know that commercial development is really incompatible with that. Borup: Anyone else have any discussion. Anyone in the mood to compile a motion. END OF SIDE FOUR Brown: As this does comply with the current Comprehensive Plan, and is appropriate (inaudible) I would like to move that the annexation and zoning of 12.73 acres for the proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision multi family, townhouse, office from an RT to an R- 15 and LO by Vicki Welker at the northeast corner of Pine and Ten Mile Road be approved per staff recommendations. Norton: I’ll second it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 36 Borup: Motion and second, discussion. Any Commissioner's care to speak to the motion? We have no discussion. Barbeiro: I need to go back to this because we are working off of the current Comprehensive Plan. If I may ask a question of staff please. Brad can you please address the current Comprehensive Plan for that corner. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner Barbeiro for the subject corner. As stated earlier, it is mixed residential designation. This does not have an a text of the Comprehensive Plan now any specific policies that speak to density or compatibility issues of neighboring properties or any such thing. What we as staff have been doing on projects that come under this designation have been comparing mixed residential to the other two types of residential that are in the Comprehensive Plan. In 1993 when the current Comprehensive Plan was designed and put together, the conversations that I had with people that were part of the process, was that they intended for that mixed residential to be something other than single family residential. I wish I could point you to a specific policy in the text that would speak to that but it is simply at this point a matter of deduction. It’s designed for a combination of densities. It would allow for some types of low impact commercial or office. It does have the mixed dwelling units mixed uses which we look at from an interpretation point to comply. Barbeiro: If I may ask a question of counsel. Can we use the mixed use residential discussion in the new Comprehensive Plan as intentions for this or does this plan not apply anyway. Swartley: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Barbeiro, that Comprehensive Plan does not apply at this time so you can not, no. Borup: Questions? Okay guess we are ready for a vote. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES, 1 NAY 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED VALERI HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, MULTI FAMILY, TOWNHOUSE, OFFICE FROM RT TO R-15 AND LO BY VICKI WELKER—NE CORNER OF PINE AND TEN MILE: Borup: Brad anything additional to add. Hawkins Clark: Chairman Borup, just to request that previous staff comments be incorporated in this item. Thanks. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 37 Borup: Does the applicant have anything they’d like to add. Would you like your previous testimony incorporated in too? All right. Anyone from the public? Need to come up fast. Fuller: Shirley Fuller, 890 N. Ten Mile. I just wanted to answer your question on why we did not want Mr. Blazer’s project. The reason being because of the corner and the road and the amount of traffic. That is why when my husband and I put the property up for sale, that’s why we went through the 3 different developers and we picked the one we did to fix the intersection. That is the only reason. Does that clarify it? Okay, I just wanted to make sure because I didn’t think you did. Barbeiro: In addressing that concern, the impact fees from a R4 in that Subdivision, would be comparable to the impact fees that this unit would provide for and would be applied to that intersection. Fuller: Talking to the other developer, his discussing was well its okay if it’s a two lane road. It is not a big deal. Yeah we have to do a little bit there, but we aren’t going to. Can’t afford to do a whole bunch. I am just going to put homes in there. That was their concern, okay. That is what we got back from them just to let you know. Hatcher: To bring up a point for everyone that is here and for the board as well is no matter what size the project, impact fees are paid and it basically goes into a slush fund. ACHD holes on to that money and spends it as they see fit, when they see fit. Here on this project you have a pro-active developer who will help during the development of this project, fix that intersection. Keep that in mind as well. Walter: Reese Walter, 1148 N. Lightning Place. I just can’t believe that you guys are totally ignoring the 170 signatures, all except for Mr. Barbeiro, and that is from one Subdivision. I also can’t believe that you guys are ignoring the new Comprehensive Plan which you have before you. Borup: Excuse me sir. We do not have a new Comprehensive Plan before us. Walter: I’m sorry the new proposed— Borup: it’s not even proposed yet. All it is, is a draft by some people and we can’t place any weight on something that doesn’t exist. Hatcher: We just asked legal counsel 10 minutes ago and were gold that we can not address it. Walter: This is not what the City of Meridian wants and I just wanted to make that note. Fuller: Dave Fuller, 890 N. Ten Mile. I think I was clear before but Thomas—I don’t think you understand when you was talking about the impact fees and the people Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 38 thinking about the R-4, they were going to go ahead and fix that corner. They were not. They wanted me to keep that 2 acres on the corner. Put no sidewalks, no turn lanes, no nothing. That is what the proposal was. People are misunderstanding about the R- 4. That will not fix that corner. Brown: With the current Comprehensive Plan, we would have to change the Comprehensive Plan to go to an R-4. If Mr. Blazer bought that piece of property and he brought it to the City of Meridian and wanted to put single family homes on that corner, he would have to do a Comprehensive Plan amendment to put single family homes on that corner. Fuller: He did not want to buy that corner is what I am telling you. He wanted all but the corner. That is the point I am trying to get across to you. He wanted to exclude the commercial 2.3 acres. Are you with me now. Brown: I move we close the public hearing. Borup: Upps sorry. Walter: Don’t have that much to say. Andrea Walter. 1148 N. Lightning Place. I really don’t want it. You all know that. We all support it. I find –the owner who stood up here and said he wanted the best for Meridian and I know you guys can’t talk about the new, not even proposed plan. We’ve been there. We’ve been attending those meeting because we want the best. We are trying to look for what is best for our area, where we want to stay. I don’t feel the apartment complex is the best. Hatcher: I move we close the public hearing. Brown: I second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Brown: When we meant on this site before, there was a lengthy discussion about the zoning before. At that time I was proposing the approval of that zoning which is the zoning we just approved. As I stated to applicant at that time, the project had problems. I believe that they have made an honest effort to change many of those items. Different than Mr. Blazer, facing those units to each other creates a little bit of a neighborhood. With the size of the size the applicant could have pulled those units farther apart and isolated them but this creates interaction with neighbors. They have done a good effort to make the changes that we talked about. I am happy to see that they are trying to put ADA requirements in the lower units. I think it is a good project. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 39 Barbeiro: With regard to the design of the project, I agree with Commissioner Brown. I believe that if single family homes were to go in there the impact fees would compel ACHD to at a later time complete the improvements on that intersection. I do remain compelled by the 171 signatures on this and will not vote for approval on it. Brown: Our job is to follow what the code is. The plan in place says you have higher density and office uses on corners. That is what generates the vote that we have to do. We are trying to make the community better. But, the City Council voted in public officials have the ability to go beyond that. Are you listening Mr. Walters. Our charge is to uphold the ordinance. That is why I vote the way I do. Hatcher: One additional comment to express when this project came up before us last June or July I was a strong opponent of it. It lacked design intent. It was hap hazard. What is before us is well thought out, well designed. As a board we all come from different backgrounds and that is why we were appointed. Our job is to uphold what the City and taxpayers has set forth. Don’t walk away from here thinking your public testimony is in vain. We listen, read, hear everything that you send us. We know there is a traffic problem. We are not in control of ACHD. We try to deal with it. To night I am for this project and I am one of your neighbors. I drive that area 2-4-6 times a day. That intersection with 3 lane improvement in the immediate future will be a major improvement. Borup: One thing I’d like to mention that you need to keep in mind and Brad could clarify this, there are 3 variance exceptions. Are those all still apply Brad. Hawkins Clark: The application did submit a written response to the comments and addressed those. Brown: On Item 10, conditional use permit for the proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision multi family townhouse office from an RT to an R-15 and LO by Vicki Welker on the northeast corner of Pine and Ten Mile, I would recommend approval per staff’s recommendations and comments. Hatcher: Second the motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES, 1 NAY 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 12.73 ACRES FOR PROPOSED VALERI HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION FROM RT TO R-15 AND LO BY VICKI WELKER—NE CORNER OF PINE AND TEN MILE ROAD: Borup: Any additional staff comment Brad. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 40 Hawkins Clark: No just request that previous testimony be incorporated. I’ll point out one item in terms of the conditions on traffic, any conditions that you have talked about that you want tied to this project, need to be addressed specifically, since there are o specific recommendations in our staff report. ACHD’s staff report does address some specified road infrastructure and improvements. If you are looking for conditions that are beyond that, now how that would work out, if you are imposing conditions in terms of traffic improvements such as the light or other things, my understanding is that it forces the developer to approach ACHD to get those conditions changed. It is not the City’s jurisdiction. Hatcher: The currently imposed improvements that ACHD is requiring. I think it is only the turning lanes on Ten Mile and Pine. Borup: Other than dedication of right of way. Hawkins Clark: They are asking for a stop sign at the driveway in Pine and turn lane. Enough for 100 foot length. Not the full length of the project. Norton: To Staff. Is there any City Ordinance regarding playground area, (inaudible) fenced being in close proximity to a water feature. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner Norton. I don’t believe there are any specific ordinances that address that. Norton: I’d like to go on record to recommend that maybe the developer look into instead of just a berm—some kind of fencing for that tot lot. Borup Okay, let’s invite him up now. Mr. Bailey. I need to open the public hearing. I open it, okay. Hatcher: Two questions. In your previous design meetings with ACHD, did they have any feed back to you specifically on the driveway access along Pine. Currently you are showing one proposed driveway into Pine which without a scale about 300 feet from the intersection. Bailey: Three hundred thirty I believe is what it is. Hatcher: Okay. Were they imposing standard distance away. Okay. Where I am heading is one thing that I would like to see on the project a minor reconfiguration o the southeast corner and adding another drive isle. Basically the bottom southeast corner with some minor reconfiguration of the parking garages, I think it relatively easily be able to add another drive isle which would help the east and northeast residents to get out to the public streets. I would think it would reduce about half of the people going out onto gray cloud. The west side dumping out onto Lightning Way current layout pretty Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 41 much is going to the standard flow of traffic is going to put a (inaudible) straight to Ten Mile. Bailey: I would agree with that. We could get more of the traffic out on Pine that way rather than going north and I don’t think the developer would oppose that requirement if you asked us to do that. I think we could get ACHD to do it also. The questions that brings up though is that going to encourage cut through traffic to go up north and cut through the intersection because now we have formed a straight path. I think we have enough capacity on the access and also with the center turn lane near that access we would be able to get out going east on Pine Street. Hatcher: You concur. It might alleviate some of the project traffic going up through the northern Subdivision. Brown: My question about the landscaping. Did you talk to Vicki about that. Bailey: We are not opposed to doing that landscape. If the requirement was to put landscaping – Brown: Your not oppose to entering into a license agreement. Bailey: No, not at all. Brown: How much is there. Bailey: Probably 15 feet once we get the sidewalk in there, so 6 or 8 feet of that would be the gravel pit and landscaping the remainder of it. I think that would be desirable in any case. On the issue of the traffic signal and this was brought up before, about whether we could get the warrants to do that and I talked about Pat Dobie briefly before that and he thinks that the traffic from the high school provides—the list of eleven warrants, you need to meet one or more of those to get a traffic signal is how it works. With the warrant does exist with the noon peak hour traffic from the high school to warrant a traffic signal at that intersection, we do have a significant amount of work including the traffic study and issues that go along with the traffic signal and the design to get that done. We think that if that solves the problem and that’s what the City thinks we need to do there then we are willing to go that distance to do that. The developer would probably cost of the traffic study to get there and the negotiations with ACHD in getting that should we fail to get a traffic, there is two things that come out of that. If we failed we would have to come back to the Commission and or Counsel to talk about that issue, but should we fail to get ACHD to approve a traffic signal, that means ACHD is compelled to believe that a traffic signal is not going to improve the situation at the intersection, which I can’t see that happening. The other issue as far as timing on that, Mr. Barbeiro got to the issue when would it be built and is the developer going to fund this. The answer is yes and the developer is going to get paid back whatever they can through impact fees. The question is when does the cost go or the impact fee go. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 42 developer has to pay that impact fee upon getting their building permit for the units, which means that they either got to pay the fee or have the traffic light built at that point. That money has to go out of their pocket. As a suggestion, the time to tie that traffic signal to would be at first occupancy of the building just so there is time between when you get the building permit and when you build the traffic signal. Those are basically in the same spot. That holds the developer to where they need to be and it also gets the traffic signal and that issue done prior to any occupancy of those apartment buildings and we increase the traffic. I put that out as a suggestion. One more comment. Commissioner Norton talked about the pool. I don’t know the exact design on that but it certainly is our intention to make that as safe as possible and there will probably be some kind of fence around the pool or to keep kids from getting into the pool. We thought about that and would take that into account. Safety is important to us as well. Barbeiro: At the Aspen Apartments one of the problems we had was with the neighbor kids coming over, jumping the fence and using the swimming pool. Their pool is completely enclosed within the apartment complex. Your swimming pool is street frontage and you don’t have residents looking out their window and seeing children at the pool. A see through fence without any supervision of that pool in off hours when no one is at the club house I see a concern of neighbor kids will be over there. Bailey: I don’t know that we have addressed but I am sure we would need to in the management meeting. I will point out it will be a berm with a fence along the street there. As far as direct access from the street, it won’t be that easy. Hatcher: I move that we close the public hearing. Brown: I’ll second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Hatcher: A general question for the rest of the commission. As I understand it looking at this project, with the exception of the all ready staff comments and the issues that they have brought up, the only two additional comments or potential conditions is ACHD'’ 3 lane improvement and we would add the additional condition that a traffic signal be installed prior to certificate of occupancy, and sprinkled landscaping be added in the unimproved right of way. Is that correct? Brown: The turning lanes have been covered by the highway districts condition. Borup: Essentially your saying just (inaudible) ACHD’s recommendations and then add the light. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 43 Hatcher: We concur on that. In that case then I would motion that we recommend approval to City Council for preliminary plat of the proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision to include staff comments and to add a signalized traffic light that shall be installed prior to certificate of occupancy with sprinkled landscaping in the unimproved right of way, both Pine and Ten Mile. Brown: I’ll second that. Borup: Any discussion. Might mention I think, go ahead—even though it is not adopted yet, I think the new City landscaping plan will be proposing something real similar to that. Brown: Before we vote on this I’d like to make a comment. One of the things Mrs. Wilder and the rest that commented, it would be beneficial for you to help knock down those eleven items to get a street light at that intersection. If you would help support the developer, I think it is to all of your benefit to alleviate those concerns that you talked about. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES, 1 ABSTAIN Borup: Hope we did the best we could. I’d remind you again that this is a recommendation. It will be going to City Council and there will be public hearings on all 3 applications at City Council. 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL POLE SIGN FOR CHEVRON/MCDONALDS BY EAGLE PARTNER, LLC—603 S. EAGLE ROAD: Brown: Mr. Chairman, I need to abstain from this one. I’ve commented on a similar application prior to being on the commission and I would like to step down. Hawkins Clark: Yes Commission, this application requests a modification to an existing conditional use permit for Eagle Partners site. The site is cross hashed. The Idaho Credit Union is on the north. The Chevron/McDonald’s on the south. Both are built and occupied. The request is to modify their conditional use permit and as pointed out here on the southwest corner of the lot. Here is the credit union. They are proposing a 77 foot sign back here on Magic View. They have an existing 35-34 foot sign here on Eagle Road. The staff report is dated March 9 and we request that those conditions be included. We sited several issues from the Comprehensive Plan. The previous application requested a 100 foot pylon sign. They have decreased that to 77 foot which is the same height as the Texaco sign just to the south. Staff is recommending denial of it. END OF SIDE FIVE Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 44 Borup: Any questions for Brad? Would the applicant like to come forward. Butler: Good evening to the Commission, 101 S. Capital. This has been going on now for about 4-1/2 years on the site and as you know it is now occupied. It has been developed. The landscaping put in and we are doing the last piece of the puzzle and that is the pylon sign on the far corner along Magic View. I’ll come back to the podium in just a minute but first I am going to have Craig Jamison from Idaho Electric sign come and talk to the commission—just describe the sign. Jamison: Craig Jamison, Idaho Electric Sign, 6528 Supply Way. Some of you have been through this before, but I do see a lot of new faces here. I will try to make this as brief as possible. The original sign we did request was 100 foot tall. We reduced that down to 77 foot. As you can see from the site plan the sign is located in the back corner. I do want you to understand the orientation of the sign. It is oriented to address traffic on 84 headed east and west. In past meetings questions were asked about how much light will be emitted from the sign. The neighborhood having the problem with this is located to the north. That is not the directions the sign is geared toward. We are 600 foot from that neighborhood. I’d like to address staff’s general comments and clear up some issues. The first comment I’d like to address is the draft sign ordinance that has been worked on for a number of months. That is not enforceable and we are working under the current ordinance. Item number 3, the 34 foot sign all ready approved is approximately 470 square foot. It actually is 334 square foot. The sign that we are requesting is the 470 square foot sign. In terms of looking at signs all ready along the Interstate, when I talk about square footage in terms of signs I tend to talk in terms of actual sign space. We know the Jackson’s sign is 77 foot over all height and that has a total sign space area including the message center of 832 square foot. The Texaco sign on Meridian south of I-84 is approximately 70 foot over all height. The Best Western sign is an interesting sign. I don’t believe it has frontage but if you look closely at the picture you’ll also see that there is a crane on it. Later we found out that the City issued a permit to raise the height of that sign to what I understand to be 80 foot. The Meridian Ford sign is approximately 85 foot. Then there are other signs back off the freeway quite a ways—Shari’s, the McDonalds sign is a 100 foot sign. Roaring Springs is about 60 foot over all height. The RC Willey sign is actually 35 to 40 foot from grade. I also took a look at the Meridian Crossroads. You’ve got 4 signs, two on Eagle and two on Fairview, 35 foot overall height. I calculate the sign square footage on those at 350 or more. There is a contention with the staff comments here that there are a lot of gas stations and fast food franchises along I-84 no pylon signs have been observed approaching this height. That is simply not the case. We think that the signs that are found along the interstate are appropriate and feel it is appropriate for us to utilize one. We do have representatives from Chevron and McDonalds here tonight. If approved the pylon would be observed to be the high point on the horizon—that is not the case either. I won’t be the tallest sign. The high point on the horizon might be the hospital and they have a sign quite high up on their building. Once again I would like to re- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 45 emphasize that the sign that we are asking for is not in terms of the actual fascia or face size, it actually comes out to 470 square foot. I’m open for questions. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, may I borrow the pointer please. Is the Texaco right here toward the back. Jamison: Texaco sign is on the front of the lot. Barbeiro: You said you sign being back here would be facing east west and not having an effect on these neighbors. In our last discussion regarding signs the neighbors came from this 3rd and 4th lot and referring to the Texaco sign which is also facing that same direction. By taking you sign from 100 foot to 77 feet that would put your light even closer to the ground and make the neighbors backyard brighter. Jamison: You make a perhaps valid argument. One of the things we discussed at the last meeting and you came to the understanding I think sir was the higher the sign the less impact it would have on anything in terms of the light emission. At 77 foot your still up there about the houses. It is difficult—it is projecting east west. There is a lot of lighting going on in that area that aren’t just signs. The type of lighting that your dealing with the Texaco sign is different too. You’ve got direct lamps that are in that message center. They are constantly going on and off. Clear lamps that do emit a lot of light. We are using Florissant lighting within this sign and that is basically to allow to disfuse evenly over the face. Butler: Jo Anne Butler again. The make up of the commission has changed over a time but as you know we have been doing this now for all most 4 years. A little over a year ago we came to the city –made applications to be reviewed under you sign ordinance. As reviewed under your sign ordinance all the criteria of the sign ordinance are met by this sign. The hearing that we had was tabled and the staff asked us to come back as a conditional use modification because there is conflicting language in the conditional use permit for the service station and credit union. We’ve done that to work with the city on that all though we do agree that we should be reviewed under the sign ordinance which indicates we meet all criteria. We also meet the criteria under the conditional use permit criteria. We would proposed a couple extra conditions which we raised at the last commission hearing. The sign would be turned off during the hours of 11 and 5am, and the McDonalds sign to be turned off between 11 and 6am. This is zoned in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, general retail and service commercial. The whole purpose of that particular zone is to provide for commercial uses which are to provide for auto and service orientated uses located in close proximity not next to, not with frontage, but in close proximity to major highways or arterial streets and to fulfill the need of travel related services. The goal of your CG zone is to serve the motoring public. The applicant is with this sign application attempting to identify its business that serves the motoring public. At the last hearing we mentioned to you that Mr. Kiler from McDonalds mentioned that particularly in a motoring business, a business without a sign is typically a sign with no business. That Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 46 is what we are finding at this particular site. The projected sales at this site has not been at the level we expected. Under you ordinance, we have to show that it is harmonious and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. It was zoned in accordance with your Comprehensive Plan. Your Comprehensive Plan does identify the area as a service commercial in nature. The general retail and service commercial zoned for the property promotes your Comprehensive Plan goals. Meridian states in its Comprehensive Plan that you want to support and stimulate economic development by designating commercial activity centers in the city and this project is located right in the middle of one of those. Your land use element of the Comprehensive Plan also shows that you are to provide mixed use along the I-84 corridor compatible with the high volume projected and planned for this area. This mixed use area in the vicinity of Eagle and I-84 is under your Comprehensive Plan a priority development area. The location of the Eagle Partners project promotes your commercial policy that encourages commercial uses especially travel related services near high intensity activity areas such as freeway interchanges. Eagle Partners has been working diligently with the city and for a long period of time. As your Comprehensive Plan provides to try to take full reasonable efforts to reduce impact on residential areas. That we have tried to do. Mr. Jamison mentioned that the sign in this location is facing east and west. There is a metal band between the two faces of the sign that prevent light emanating to that north direction. The light from this particular sign is not anywhere near the light that presently lights up the neighbors backyard. I was talking with a pilot who flies into Boise all the time and says in foggy weather, the reader board that exists out there is the first light you seen—over Boise tower. That is how they guide themselves into the Boise area during foggy weather. Personally I think that is a travesty and that is too bad. I am sure that the neighbors in this area have been inundated with light from that particular sign. It blinks and flashes. Our sign in any way is not like that sign. We have tried to provide the city both in this hearing and in written submittals and in the past hearings with professional technical expertise and information to show you that we are not producing excessive, as your criteria requires, glare into the surrounding neighborhood. With that I will save a few minutes for rebuttal and will stand at this time and later for questions. Barbeiro: Brad, could you give a short history of the Texaco sign and Miss Butler said that the sign presented today is in complete compliance. Could you address that please. Hawkins Clark: We were talking about that earlier. In terms of the Texaco sign, I did not pull the historical documentation but recollection was about 96 that the Texaco property was annexed brought into the city limits. It was approved at the time with the building permit all there. I do not believe that as in this case the sign is typically are a required element of the conditional use application and I don’t believe that in the Texaco case the sign was approved with the application. They came in another time. 77 feet as was stated is correct. As far as the sign ordinance, its 8 paragraphs and would not be difficult to be in compliance with it. It is weak. It mainly addresses prohibited signs, such as flashing, neon, moving. It does not address any design criteria or height or Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 47 square footage, entry way corridors. We might as well burn it, frankly. That is why we are designing a new sign ordinance. Barbeiro: I recall that because this was not a freeway frontage that we would not approve the sign. Does the ordinance address these tall signs only along freeway frontage. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner Barbeiro it does not address any signage in terms of freeway orientation or otherwise. In terms of location, the only thing the ordinance does state is that off premise signs are prohibited. Hatcher: Humor me. I misplaced this particular package. What was your reasoning for recommending denial. Hawkins Clark: We sited several Comprehensive Plan policies and I could go through those. I think that they addressed some of those. I would say that in terms of the land use goals deal with attractive road way entry areas protecting neighborhood property values. We feel that one of the main reasons is they all ready have a pylon sign on their site on Eagle. They are asking for two pylon signs to serve one building. We feel that one is adequate unless they are a center such as Meridian Crossroads where they can have center signs to service multiple buildings and businesses. That justifies more than on sign. In terms of the high point on the horizon, I think we are talking specifically of this section of I-84. They stated their original application goal was to get the sign above St. Luke's so that west bound traffic on I-84 could see the sign. Obviously they are looking at dropping that. I don’t think they could this over St. Luke's now with their new Phase III. The other main point would be that the comprehensive sign program and overlay should be considered for this area. We are seeing a lot of applications in this Magic View Subdivision in the last year and a half. This would be set in. It would set a tone for entering this new Subdivision which isn’t new but in terms of the redevelopment of it—we have all ready approved two lots for offices. The Comprehensive Plan right now calls for mixed use and then single family behind it. It doesn’t seem to comply with tenure of that Subdivision as it is being developed. Butler: I’ll reserve time for rebuttal. Just a reminder that when we did bring our last application we did make application for a 100 foot sign. We talked about the fact that you could see it from the west bound traffic over St. Luke's but at that hearing we said that 77 feet was perfectly appropriate and that we were will to do that. We understood that maybe until you got to the exit you could not necessarily see it because of St. Luke's. We also understood that you could still see it for east bound traffic and that somehow got lost in the translation at the last hearing so that is why we are back before you. We offered that as a condition of approval that time to reduce it to 77 feet. Norton: Could you refresh my memory—you had mentioned that the gas station was not doing as well as you thought it might be. How can people actually get into the gas station. Do you have to go through the Savings and Loan. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 48 Butler: You can see a number of entrance ways on Magic View and you can get there to the north side of the site from Eagle Road by turning into this street right here and coming in through there and circulating around or from Magic View. Norton: Magic View is between the Texaco and Chevron. I see, okay. Thank you. Staff, how many signs does Texaco have on their property. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner they do have the one pylon sign and then the wall signs. Borup: Okay Commissioner's I am a little concerned on the time with as many questions. We have made some commitment to other people on the agenda that we’d get to them. I am wondering how quickly we can move this along. It is something needed to be continued. You want to move it along. Okay, then it is going to be up to you guys. Do we have anyone from the public who would like to come forward. Trex: Rod Trex, 3091 Autumn Way. On the line that is on the west side, I am at the first lot back in behind that. I’d like to cover 4 points. You can read in the backyard and you can swim by the Texaco Star and so on. Anyway, some points that have been briefly touch on. Last time Mr. Jamison did testify that they had a truck out there and lifted a bucket up to the 100 foot mark and did say that was necessary, not suggested, to be effective sign at that time. They have modified that and 77 is okay. 400 square foot is pretty big. There is not much argument there. I will concede that the Chevron sign and McDonald sign—when the McDonald sign is lit it is bright and you can’t ignore it. The Chevron sign by itself is not as obnoxious. There has been several denials because it does not fit in with the Comprehensive Plan. The first project was for instead of the credit union to have the Holiday Inn Express, that was shot down because it was not considered to be appropriate. I would point out that the R.C. Willey sign was held at the 35 foot for some reason and I am not sure why this would not be any different. They claim freeway frontage but I don’t know how you can claim that when there is a Holiday Inn Express, Medical Arts Building and another Texaco blocking a distance of nearly ½ mile from the interstate. There is two other commercial buildings going up in behind there as well which are block the vision even more. The St. Luke's Phase III will interfere even more, not to mention the Texaco sign is in front of it blocking that west bound traffic view anyway. From the east bound traffic lane there is now a new (inaudible) tower that is 100 foot plus. There is several obstructions and I’m not sure what the benefit it other than to annoy the neighbors. I questions benefits there of that. Lastly the sign facing the north south that is out there now, this is a 35 foot sign on the front of the property on Eagle Road is very clear and legible. I have been watching the rise and fall of gas prices. Hatcher: I don’t want to put any words into the developers mouth, but I’d just like to know your feelings. If they were to sacrifice a 35 foot pylon sign that they currently have on Eagle Road and reduce that to a monument sign so that the light is not directly Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 49 pointed to your property, would you be more susceptible to the freeway that is not pointing to your property. Trex: I would because as you pointed out earlier with that metal skirting around the outside of it, I am pretty well protected. Unfortunately other neighbors are at an angle and would be impacted. Yes, I would— Barbeiro: The Chevron is a 24 hour operation so you would have a lot of light coming directly down over the awning just above the gas pumps. Your property is not buffered by the credit union from that light. Trex: We are partially blocked. Barbeiro: Do you believe that the addition of this pylon sign with compared to the light that comes from the awning would be a sufficient addition to your backyard lighting. Trex: The awning lights are the most intense. Hurl: My name is Chuck Hurl. I live at 3043 Autumn Way. We have been here before. I got a couple questions. I want to know what has changed here. We’ve had it turned down and yet we keep on coming back. Is it to irritate us or you but it is doing a good job of it. I’ve got a question –where is the sign ordinance. Where is the new sign ordinance. Borup: The new one has not been adopted yet. Hurl: We have talked about it over and over and some of the comments—Mr. Jamison talked about lights and different signs and I won’t dispute his numbers. I totally agree that there are signs in Meridian at those heights. None of them abut a residential Subdivision. What they are asking is going to do that. If we are going to have a new sign ordinance, is this application being done to try to circumvent that new ordinance. Miss Butler talked about the business and how is hasn’t lived up to what they thought. Maybe she can address this and tell us what they expected and what is happening. Anyone can say that. I am a business person. I understand signage and the effect it has except I look at it and say we’ve got signs coming from the east, west out on the interstate. Those are nice signs and you know what is coming up. Look at the amount of traffic that coming along Eagle Road everyday and that has to pass all those businesses. Borup: Your time is up and thank you. Barbeiro: Where does your property sit on the – Hurl: We are the 5th house in on the left. If I can read into what your going to ask. Rod all ready addresses that because of where he is in direct relationship to that sign. Yes Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 50 we would probably have more light reflection in our yard from that sign because of the angle. Barbeiro: In your lot the 70 foot sign would be more significant than the awning light. Hurl: They both would have an impact and we do get a lot of light. The awning lights aren’t as much as the pump lights that reflect off of the awning itself. Borup: Anyone else. Foley: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's I am Howard Foley and I reside at 2875 Autumn Way. My residence is here. I want to address two issues. I want to address the issue of prior history. As Miss Butler indicates, this has been a long drawn out process. What we are engaged in here today is some of the opps factor. What happened is the initial application went through a conditional use permit and Eagle Partners forgot to address the signage. I would direct you attention back to the March 9, 1999 proceeding before this body and comments on page 46 by Miss Stiles that addresses that issue. In addition there is a development agreement that Eagle Partners has entered into with the City and they forgot to address the signage issue when they engaged in the development agreement. In particular, Section 5.1.23 talks about the signage proposals that are to be included. There is nothing included in that agreement. Now what we have is in March of 99 a request before you that without public hearing they now be allowed to put up a 100 foot sign. That was determined to be inappropriate so in June we had public hearings before you about this 100 foot sign. I agree with Miss Butler also they offered at that time to do exactly what they are asking you to do today—which is put a 77 foot sign there. What I am suggesting to is this is old news. It has all ready been before this commission. You’ve all ready made a decision. The decision is that that was inappropriate. They have signage. It is not an issue of that someone has denied them signage either under the Comprehensive Plan or under the sign ordinance. They have an adequate sign. It is a good sign. What they want to do now though is move that sign back closer to our Subdivision. By their own testimony the last time they were here, they were telling us all that the illumination would not be bad because it is going to be 100 in the air. The closer you get it to the ground the more illumination your going to have in your backyard. We are now 23 feet closer to the ground. I don’t think this is an appropriate comparison in contrast to say what they are saying. They have signage, the City is done what is required under the conditional use permits and Comprehensive Plan. More signage is not appropriate. Barbeiro: May I propose the same question to you. Does the light from under the awning or would the light from the pylon sign have a greater effect. Foley: We are not effected much on the awning light. We are effected by the higher lights. Barbeiro: Would it be fair to say that your lot is most effected by the Texaco sign. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 51 Foley: Sure, especially in the position they propose to put it. Eddy: Steve Eddy and I am the owner of the Chevron. I would just like to say we are not here to irritate anybody in any way. We don’t think we abut residential anymore. We think we put a great buffer between the residential with the credit union and to try to block some of those awning type lights we put surface mount light in the canopy instead of a mount below to help keep that glare from the neighbors. The high rise is very common in our industry and it does help business and that is why we are asking for the sign. We did talk to a lighting expert to ask of the glow of the typical sign which we have at the airport location which has the Chevron hallmark and the hallmark is just (inaudible) with the same tubes that you see in the ceiling here behind a pretty thick facia of red and blue material. It is not offensive light. We’ve agreed to shut the light off in the middle of the night so I don’t see why that was an issue. We shut it off after the news and don’t turn it on until most people are up in the morning. Something has been said about the Texaco sign and the biggest reason we need a sign on Eagle Road is for the price. Our product is the only business in the world that has its prices posted right on the street. It is a very competitive business. If I have to live with a monument on the street versus my competition I will suffer. The Texaco does have a price sign in the street and it does have a high rise sign. The high rise sign will not shoot the same way as the sign on Eagle Road. It will shoot east and west and should not put out any light to the surrounding neighborhood. When this project first started years ago and as controversial as it was, we were asked at that time by P&Z to do the sign separate and that’s what we did. We have been accused of a lot of things. If we had been told to present that at the time with the first application, the sign package would have been with it. That’s all I have. Barbeiro: Freeway business versus local business—how will this sign effect the difference as to what you originally intended. Eddy: It will effect it in the way that we anticipated the site sales to be. When you go and are traveling on the freeway and you see the highway signs, that’s great. But if you can actually see how close that business is to the interstate, it helps you get off and where to go. Barbeiro: You have stated other signs have been approved in the meantime that were similar. What other sizes where you referring to. Eddy: We talked about freeway frontage. END OF SIDE SIX Eddy: They talked about the freeway frontage. Best Western is the one we have pictures of them lifting the sign with a crane after our application. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 52 Barbeiro: One of the neighbors said that they would prefer to have a 77 foot sign and a lower sign on Eagle Road. Is that a viable option for you. Eddy: As far as the pricing the gasoline, you numbers go from about this big to this big. The speed and traffic on Eagle Road it does put me in a competitive disadvantage. Borup: Any one else. Joanne some concluding comments. Butler: Thank you. I hope you can tell from what has been said here tonight, this is not an attempt to circumvent the sign ordinance. By the way, we do comment the city for taking the time and doing the sign ordnance. As Mr. Eddy said, 4 years ago staff asked us not to present it then, we would not be here tonight if that had been done. Borup: Could you clarify that Joanne. Butler: I can only tell you what I was told. Borup: My recollection is and reading this staff report, they requested the sign be part of the conditional use process and it was over looked by everyone, as stated earlier. The applicant overlooked it and staff did not catch it. Butler: I came in later in the process. I can tell you what I was told by Billy Ray Strite and by Steve Eddy. Borup: You don’t have a copy of the written staff report. I think we saw a copy of it a year ago and I am pretty sure it was in writing on the staff report, that the sign be applied for as part of the conditional use permit at the time of the project. Butler: Why I say I don’t believe that is true is because that came up at one point when we were doing the development agreement and I remember myself going back because we had all the hearings transcribed. I literally search for that to find out if it references and there were none. In fact at all of the hearings the sign issue did not come up and what I understood from Billy Ray was that in pre-app meetings that lets put the sign aside and do that later. We are not claiming highway frontage with this application. That is in accordance with your ordinance too which allows the service oriented to be in close proximity. We don’t have to claim highway frontage and still meet your ordinances. If the city doesn’t permit the sign as proposed, we are asking the city to be very clear as to why the sign is not being approved and what the applicant can do to receive approval. This sign is no bigger, certainly no brighter and no taller then other signs approved by the city and we certainly have the same number of other service stations that have been approved by the city so we would want to understand very clearly why this applicant maybe being treated differently by the city. I want to point out that for the city and the city attorney as you are helping your commission and your council, the supreme court has ruled that unless your zoning ordinance, not your Comprehensive Plan, but your zoning ordinance contains sufficiently objective and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 53 definite standards to guide the P&Z Commission that what your trying to do now with your sign ordinance. Unless there are those sufficient definite standards in the zoning ordinance, then a denial of a sign of this type is probably viewed by the courts as an unconstitutional restraint on the applicants commercial speech. I will refer the city attorney to Lamar versus the city of Twin Falls. I’d also point out for the city that just this week, a case came out from the supreme court Lane County and ruled that a city cannot rely solely on its Comprehensive Plan in making a decision. That is your guide, that is your vision but your ordinances have to be drafted in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and if the ordinance has not been drafted with sufficient definite criteria to guide yours signs, then you can not base a denial on the Comprehensive Plan alone. We realize your sign ordinance is under review and redrafting, but we are guided by the existing sign ordinance in existence and believe that we need all of the sign criteria and we are consistent with the other signs approved in the city. We are respectfully asking the commission to approve this request and allow this business to continue as a full fledged business constituent of Meridian. This is not Chevron the corporation. This is not McDonalds the corporation. This is Steve and Tracy Eddy and George Kiler that run this particular business and they are looking for a sign as part of the condition use. Borup: Commissioner's. Hatcher: I move we close the public hearing. Norton: I second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Would we like some discussion or are we ready for a motion. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, with your assistance my recollection of our last meeting with regards to this sign and it was my second meeting and did not have a real strong grasp on the ordinances as well as I do now. That my primary reason for denial for this sign was my interpretation of the ordinance saying that because he did not have freeway frontage similar to Texaco that the sign did not fit into the ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. Re-reading this and Miss Butler’s comments that freeway frontage is not a requirement for such a sign. Is that your recollection. Borup: That is exactly the statement I made a year ago. I was in the single minority on voting on this last time. I felt that this was a freeway business. I was in favor of the 100 foot sign but I was opposed to the pylon sign on Eagle Road. I felt that was more of a gateway and wasn’t consistent with what we wanted to accomplish there. At that time, I was in favor of the freeway sign and was in favor of the monument sign on Eagle Road. Now they’ve got their pylon sign on Eagle Road so I am not sure how I feel about that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 54 Having two pylon signs on the same property. Barbeiro: One of the other concerns was the Texaco sign that we all believe was a mistake and that two wrongs don’t make a right. Borup: You’ve got to start at some point. And forcing what you feel is right or what the new ordinance is going to be just because a mistake has been made or something has not been enforced. That is no reason to ignore everything from that point on. Somewhere things have to stop and start. I don’t think that is a real pertinent just because it was done in the past needs to be done now. Barbeiro: Since this sign is going to have the greatest effect on Mr. Foley’s property I’ll address him. The last time I voted against this was based upon what my interpretation of a sign ordinance which was that it was not on the freeway property. After being politely disagreed with in our last hearing, I believe I misinterpreted the sign ordinance last time and I am going to have to go against you and the neighbors and vote for approval on this. Norton: Mr. Chairman I have a question regarding the ordinance and supplementary regulation regarding signs and residential. Could somebody please interpret that for me so I don’t misinterpret it . It is 1114-2 under chapter 14 under signs. Hawkins Clark: Any sign or sign structure located on a commercially zoned lot which is adjacent to a residentially owned lot shall be set back to meet the side rear and front yard setback. Is that the correct one? That would be if you had a commercial immediately next for the buildings –the commercial property adjacent to that residential could not put their sign within that setback allowance. So if the residential building setback is 20 feet, then they could not put their sign in that 20 foot setback on their property. Borup: Anything else. Hatcher: On this particular issue I with good conscience can’t go either way and I am going to have to abstain from this which means your going to have to vote. I am at a loss. I can’t go either way. I don’t know what the legal ramifications are other than abstaining. Norton: If I could have a little more discussion on this. I would like –there has to be some kind of written documentation regarding what happened the last—whether or not the signs were asked to be done separately or whether the signs were asked to be with the application. Borup: Either way, the application for the development was way earlier. The sign application that we are referring to was last March of 99 and that is when this sign came up before the commission. The application on the project was the previous year. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 55 Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I may be able to shed some historical light on that. Looking back through my file I found March 9, 1999 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission minutes. Shari Stiles was addressing the commission. She stated that when Eagle Partners project was reviewed and approved, one of our comments was the detailed signage plans must be included as part of the application for review and approval. At no time were any plans presented. The approved site plan that they showed did clearly indicate two locations for signage but just by the symbols used on the plans indicating more of a monument type sign then 100 foot pylon sign they are proposing now. She goes on to say, I put it on the agenda for you to review to discuss what might be the appropriate plan of action. Whether we need to go to the public hearing, go to a public hearing. This is a good example of why conditional use permits should be approved with no signage, should not be approved, excuse me, with no signage included as part of their application. Borup: You don’t have in the file the staff comments from the previous application that she referred to. Freckleton: I might. I’ll keep digging. She did a little later on talk about some miss- statements that were made. She says I would just like to point out that there were some miss-statements about what the conditions of the conditional use permit were. It didn’t merely to the sign ordinance. It said there would be conditions in addition to those contained in the sign ordinance. Commissioner's can put any condition they want. If you say there is no signage, you could require no signage. It is part of the conditional use permit. They didn’t submit information. Nothing was approved. Borup: That part is true. Nothing was approved because there was nothing was submitted. Norton: My next question is regarding the reference to they want exact explanation of if this is treated differently than other signs that have been voted on by this body. Do we have or could we perhaps move this to the next hearing while we do some research regarding all the law suits and legal ramification to a decision. Barbeiro: I would go along with commissioner Norton’s—keeping in mind Miss Butler did bring up a number of items of case law that we have nothing to go on. Perhaps comment from the Counsel on those case law we could look up tomorrow first thing. Borup: I think there may be a difference between approving a sign under a conditional use permit application or approving one in an approved situation. I am not sure how that would apply to how many sign approvals, I don’t know. If we go by the statement that Bruce just read, under conditional use any condition could be put on it that this body would choose. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 56 Norton: I would feel more comfortable. I’d like to move that we table this discussion and continue it at the next regularly scheduled P&Z meeting. Borup: Let me ask a question for counsel. If we are going to table this, this is to get more information. Swartley: You all ready closed the public hearing. If you want to open it back up, go ahead. Borup: Do we need to open it up to— Swartley: No you don’t. She is basically just asking me to look at these cases that Miss Butler has referenced, so you don’t need to open the public hearing. I will just refer them to you. Borup: And then we can make reference to it at that time. Swartley: Right. Barbeiro: Second the motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Did we have a date certain that that was continued to? Norton: May 9th . Borup: The motion was to continue to May 9th . That was a long time coming. We are going to hurry right through these others, right? 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONTINUED USE AS OFFICE/WAREHOUSE ZONED CG BY JEFF AND MIKE HON—BACK OF PROPERTY LOCATAED AT 357 EAST WATERTOWER LANE: Hawkins Clark: Commissioner's this application is to place a second principle building on a single lot in the Honor Park Subdivision. The lot is identified here on the screen on the south side of East Watertower. This is the proposed site plan. There is currently a warehouse building here just to orient you, Watertower here on the north side of the lot. Nampa Meridian Irrigation controlled lateral canal here along the west boundary. This building exists on the front end of the lot with the associated parking. There is a drive that comes along the east. They are proposing a new building warehouse/office here on the south side. We have zero setbacks. Staff had reviewed it. We have our conditions and recommendations before you. They are meeting the requirements of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 57 conditional use permit planned unit development since it is two buildings on a single lot that makes it a planned unit development, which does require the 10% open space and we are saying that in a commercial Subdivision we would consider this open area here with the canal part of that. They do have new landscaping here on the south, some here. They do provide new parking islands and planters on both ends of the proposed parking and some landscaping here. They are meeting the minimum parking requirements and all of their relevant ordinances to the planned unit development. We are recommending approval with the conditions. Borup: Thank you. Is the applicant here and like t come forward. Cook: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission my name is John Cook. I am the representative architect, representing Ron and Jeff Hon on this project. We’ve got here a second building that is going to be constructed of concrete block. The character is to be similar to the existing building. We’ve got an office building of 4800 square feet. Total parking we are looking at 33. The required we are showing 44 in our parking concept. Brown: Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry to interrupt you John but do you concur with staff? Cook: We concur with staff. There is nothing that we’d take adverse comment with. Borup: Any comment on the easement? Did you see Mr. Smith’s memo. That the easement be maintained for the pipeline. Wrong project, I’m sorry. Your in complete agreement with all staff comments. Cook: We are in agreement with all comments. There was one question. They want us to compute the area of the open space. We have 25% and this particular application requires 10% to be open space. Borup: Thank you. Do we have any other public comment on this application. Brown: I move we close the public hearing. Hatcher: Second it. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Barbeiro: I wish to make a motion that we pass this along to City Council with our approval with recommendations and staff comments. Hatcher: I second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 58 Borup: All in favor MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VACATION OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT BY RONALD C. NAHAS AND RAFANELLI NAHAS—LOTS 12-15 CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK NO. 5: Freckleton: Mr. Chairman and members of the commission Gary Smith prepared a memorandum in absence. I believe you have that in your packets. His statements indicate that there are no water or sewer facilities within this dedicated easement. However, there is according to the engineered plans for the Subdivision, a 12 inch diameter irrigation line that was installed to transmit irrigation water to properties on the west side of Meridian road. It is a users lateral ditch. Not under the jurisdiction of the Irrigation District. Due to the fact that that pipe line is there, there does need to be an easement maintained for that use. Readers Digest version. Borup: Did the application respond to that. Freckleton: I do not have any thing. Borup: Is the applicant here. Applicant isn’t. How does that effect vacate an easement if your going to leave an easement there. Brown: Do we know what the purpose of the vacation of the easement was for? There is a lot of times that you can maintain a sewer easement or but vacate the rest and it gives them the ability to continue to build whatever structure by vacating that easement. Borup: Why does that need to be an easement as long as it is maintained—or as long as the water is provided. They could relocate it. Freckleton: They could potentially relocate it. I think the easement is there for the protection of those downstream water users. Borup: Do they need an easement to have the protection? Freckleton: Personally if I was in their situation, I would want an easement. I guess maybe that is a question we should pose today. Borup: Quite often a development has come forward where they relocate the irrigation lines. Hatcher: The piping would have to be relocated before a vacation of the easement could exist anyway. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 59 Borup: I don’t know the pipe is in a easement now. We don’t have a site plan on this one so it is hard to comment. Freckleton: I believe part of the reason they are wanting to do this is they are seeking a lot line adjustment and—I am not real familiar with the application. It does, I do have a copy of a property line adjustment record of survey in the file. Borup: Is there a site drawing? I am thinking I don’t know what difference it makes as long as the water is supplied to the other property. Apparently staff did not have a recommendation on this. Freckleton: From Gary’s comments he said that we don’t (inaudible) with the applicants request is how he has it worded. He goes on later to say that he does feel that an easement needs to be maintained for the irrigation pipeline. That would be our formal recommendation. Brown: Vacations to take place, you to get relinquishments from the easement holders. If the lateral users would –you don’t have a petition currently from them? That’s a lateral users ditch. Freckleton: The blanket easement was dedicated with the plat, Central Valley Corporate Park #5 and it is a blanket easement for utility drainage and irrigation. If I am following where you are going with this Kent, if they got utility line relinquishments and drainage relinquishments, but left in tack the irrigation portion—is that where your headed. Brown: I think we can approve per Gary’s recommendation and we can also put a caveat in there that we can approve the recommendation that they get the irrigation one vacated, but they are going to have to work it out. There is an easement there. The water needs to go through there, that they can reroute it and do something else. But, if they don’t provide that evidence then that easement needs to stay. You can do a partial vacation. You can vacate the public utility drainage and leave irrigation and a part of the state law requirement you have to go through and get the petitions of the easement holders. When the plat was done, you did not know who was going to have the irrigation. Freckleton: I think that would be appropriate. They do have responsibility to provide that water through their site to those down stream users. They do need t work it out with those down stream users if they are going to relocate it. Borup: This still a public hearing at City Council? It is, okay. Brown: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 60 Hatcher: I second it. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Brown: I would move approval of the vacation of the public utilities easement by Ron C. Nahas and Rafanelli Nahas for lots 12-15 Central Valley Corporate Park No. 5, subject to the applicant providing staff with evidence that they’ve got petitions from easement holders including irrigation. If they don’t provide those evidences then those easements will stay in effect and a partial vacation will take place. Hatcher: I second the motion. Borup: Any discussion. Norton: Is there any way that we can add a little bit of language that these people still owe a little bit of money. They have not paid their entire amount. Looks like they owe $20.76. Part of the application fee. Can we include that they pay that. Hawkins Clark: I believe that was—it should have been before it came on but you can certainly add that as a condition. We will take care of that. Norton: Ordinarily you would have taken care of the money. Hawkins Clark: Right, we usually do. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VACANT LOT CURRENTLY ZONED CG FOR PROPOSED 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LEASE BUILDING BY JOSEPH D. HEILKER—TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK: Borup: I’d like to open the public hearing and start with staff comments. Brad. Hawkins Clark: This application is requesting –it is currently a vacant lot and it is zoned C-G, commercial general. They are proposing to construct a lease building approximately 10,000 square feet on the parcel on the southeast corner of southwest 5th and Penwood within the Troutner Business Park Subdivisions. Currently all platted. You should have received comments from Shari Stiles and Bruce Freckleton dated April 7th . The applicant is here and they can address in terms of their intentions for the facility’s conditional use. There is a little bit of a strange bird in that typically you would Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 61 not see an office warehouse building in a CG since their permitted outright. Because of the nature of the lease, staff felt that it should come before you as a conditional use permit. We feel that the intentions as stated in the applicants application are clear enough and we do have some recommendations which are pretty standard for our conditional use permits. We do recommend approval provided that the commission makes a finding that these be harmonious with the surrounding area based on the applicants testimony tonight. If you will note that there was a letter submitted that they are anxious to get this approved tonight. They do have some pending issues on their financial. Borup: Any questions for Brad. Was there any concern that it would not be compatible with the surrounding area. Hawkins Clark: No, there wasn’t. More of a caveat given the lease nature of it in term of some uses do require a conditional use of course in the CG zone. There was elevations submitted and this is again the site photo here of the lot. As you can see, they posted their property. Borup: Okay, is the applicant here and like to come forward. Bleaka: Chairman Borup, members of the commission, my name is George Bleaka. I reside at 507 Hillview Drive, Boise Id. I am the project architect for Joe and Stacey Heilker. I am hear to answer any questions that you may wish to address. Borup: Trying to make this short. The staff had 12 conditions of approval. Does any of those items you in disagreement with? Bleaka: None what so ever. I might explain to you the nature of this building since it is kind of obscured. We had discussed with Planning and Zoning a number of way of how to submit this and to basically execute it through it process through Planning and Zoning so we submitted it as a generic building, a lease building for the owners who are present here this evening. The actual building purpose is a high tech machining processing facility. It is very clean in its environment and noise and or pollution chemically. We believe it fits very well with the nature of the park. The only thing is, is that is just was not properly listed in your zoning ordinance, which I believe that will be corrected in your one to come. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Bleaka? Norton: Number 11 of the staff comments suggests that the applicant should come to the public hearing prepared to address hours of operation, number of employees and noise generation. Are you prepared to discuss that. Bleaka: I can address close to the amount of employees would be a 12 in the actual manufacturing area and there is probably a half of dozen in the administrative area. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 62 There are offices and a shop area. The offices are about 2400 square feet and the balance is a shop which is about 7500. As far as noise, there should be none, as I had mentioned previously. Hours of operation are 8 to 6:30, about 9-1/2 hours. Norton: Aero-Tech? What are you manufacturing? Bleaka: They are a manufacturer of very high tolerant parts for lets say, Micron. These are not computer parts. These are conveyor parts that are broken or they may be parts that they use in manufacturing various sundrie items for their use. Heilker: My name is Joe Heilker, 2491 N. Turnberry Way in Meridian. Aero-Tech is basically and I am the president of the company. What we do there is, companies like Micron or SCP Global Technology all have engineering that does their research and development. They develop new products that actually work on the new wafers and chips that they develop. When they make a new piece of equipment, they have to design it. When they design it, they send up the blueprints, we make the parts for that equipment and send it over to them. Once they have proofed it out then we can run the parts. Basically we make just about anything that they want. They send the prints over and then request we quote on them. If they like the price, because there is probably 30 machine shops in this area that do this, basically we get the job. Norton: Are you similar to Semi-Tool up in Kallispell? Heilker: I’d say that Semi-Tool does have a process inside in-house that does what we do, but they also since they can’t handle there is so much volume of what they do, they can’t handle it themselves, they have to sub it out. We end up receiving that kind of work that comes in. The overflow like from Micron. Micron has a small machine shop and they just can’t handle the volume that is coming through. We basically provide a service and like a support group for most of the high tech companies in this area. Borup: Any thing else. Thank you sir. Do we have anyone from the public who would like to testify? Commissioner's. Norton: I’d like to close the public hearing. Brown: Second. Borup: All in favor MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Norton: I move to approve the request for the conditional use permit for the vacant lot currently zoned CG for proposed 10,000 square foot lease building by Joseph D. Heilker in the Troutner Business Park to also include all of staff comments. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 63 Brown: Second. Borup: All in favor MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 6.68 ACRES FOR PROPOSED CAROL PROFESSIONAL CENTER BY J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC.—WEST SIDE OF EAGLE ROAD BETWEEN FAIRVIEW AND USTICK ROAD: Borup I’d like to open the public hearing and start with staff comments. I think we want to combine all three as far as comments don’t we. This is the same projects before us when we were looking at Comprehensive Plan changes last fall—as a reminded for Commissioner's. Hawkins Clark: Terms of the annexation and zoning application, we talking about 6.68 acres immediately east of the current elementary school that is being constructed. The request is to rezone from an RT to a LO which does comply with the Comprehensive Plan designation mixed use, which they did get approved November 16, 1999. One correction that the applications conditional use permit application –on the transmittal it does incorrectly state that the reason for the conditional use permit is for a rear setback reduction, just to correct that. The reason is because it is in the mixed planned use area of the Comprehensive Plan which requires conditional use for all uses. I think you are familiar with surrounding uses. There is a Carol Subdivision immediately north. There is 3 single family residential lots that immediate abut the north part of the parcel. I believe the applicant has had numerous discussions with the neighborhood on that. END OF SIDE SEVEN Hawkins Clark: Here is a site photo looking toward River Valley Elementary School being constructed. This is the north boundary of the site. On a conditional use permit they do have a proposed sign which relates to the last item. This was a condition that we requested in our staff comments that they have addressed. I don’t know if you received—the applicant did bring tonight a written comments to our staff report. I have reviewed those and they don’t have any outstanding issues and they have agreed on this sign to the recommended size that we have there. Here is the site plan. On the conditional use permit we are more or less asking for the specifics in terms of landscaping on the perimeter. They have provided that. They are showing 8 lots which are addressed in their preliminary plat application. Again, this would be, they are proposing a new road coming off of Eagle through here. They would have lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H labeled here. The proposed elevations front and rear, they are proposing that the front on the culdesac—one of our comments was the culdesac length is exceeds our minimum or maximum and they have formally requested a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 64 variance as part of the planned unit development for the –35 or 40 feet difference. Staff concurs with that. That is all I have, thanks. Borup: Questions from the Commission. Would the applicant like to come forward. Taylor: Good evening. Nancy Taylor, JUB Engineers, 250 S. Beechwood, Boise. This evening I know that we are all most too late, so I’d like to tell you that we’ve been working for about a year to develop a site plan for this site. We feel we’ve come up with a good one and that takes into account the neighborhood and the school. I’d also like to add that we concur with all the comments from staff. One we’d like to qualify. Under the preliminary plat requirements, number 7. There is a request that, let me just read this one because this was the only one we had a little bit of or needed a little clarification on. It had to do with the opticom and it said that Properties West who is the developer of the site, shall be responsible for providing, installing, paying for the optician system. I believe that Mr. Barns who is a developer certainly agrees to participate in that, but that optician system probably should be the responsibility of those businesses that will be using that new access onto Eagle Road. That would also include the Kleiner property to the south when it develops and the school. That is the only qualification. Borup: How do you propose to get that light in at this point when the property is not developed to the south. Taylor: I am suggesting that its just like a sewer or water that is would be a latecomers agreement to participate with that. That’s all. Hatcher: So your client the developer of the property would contribute to actually getting installed and then be reimbursed. Taylor: Yes, yes. They are only going to be about 3 properties as it is now that would benefit from that signalized intersection. The school, Mr. Barns property and the Kleiner property, which is the big parcel to the south that is bordered by Fairview and Eagle Road. 72 acres. I am just saying those are the people using that signal –that they should all participate in that opticom. Borup: Your saying that your client would install it with a proportional reimbursement as other properties came in or developed. Taylor: I believe so. We can ask him. We don’t have an idea of the cost at this point. I don’t know what the cost is. Borup: Does staff have any idea of that.. The lights all ready going to be there. That just needs a signal from the fire department. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 65 Freckleton: The only thing that jumps out at me is the in the comments we do talk about that was a specific requirement of the or in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Comprehensive Plan amendment for this parcel. It was a specific requirements placed upon Properties West. I don’t know at this time we can (inaudible) distribute that cost to other parties. I don’t know. As far as a mechanism of how we would inter into any kind of, I hate to use the term late comers agreement, but your talking about some sort of cost share agreement between the parties. We certainly don’t have any mechanism in place to do something like that. Borup: Will the 72 acres included in the Comprehensive Plan change. Freckleton: No, the Comprehensive Plan change was for – Borup: Right, that’s what I thought. So that other parcel can’t be developed at this point can it. Freckleton: It is designated mixed use on the existing Comprehensive Plan. Taylor: Staff, do you have any idea about what costs we are talking about here? Brown: It is not very much. I don’t mean to spend your money. As I recall when I was previously employed the Boise Fire Dept. had one and it was like $5000. Freckleton: All this is, is a device that is added to the top of the signal bar that controls the—it is wired into the control box and in the fire truck they have, its basically a strobe, that activates the signals and it switches the light green for the on-coming emergency vehicles. Taylor: Thank you. I would appreciate that just because—but otherwise we don’t have any problems with that item either. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioner's. Barbeiro: The proposal that you brought before us prior was a combination of residential and commercial. How is this different. Taylor: How does this relate? Good question. We presented –we worked with the neighborhood and we took a combination of residential and office and worked with them and asked what they preferred and this final site plan we have of the professional office was their preferred options. We respected that and deleted the homes. Barbeiro: That was recollection during the hearing. Kane: My name is Ray Kane. I live in the 3rd (inaudible) just abutting that property. John has worked with all of us very well. We had the meetings at my house. I can Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 66 speak for the other people that we all feel he is more than met everything that we asked. We all are very much in favor of what he is doing. He has met all of our requests and then some. We all are happy. Brown: I move we close the public hearing. Hatcher: Second it. Borup: Moved and seconded. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Norton: I have some discussion I guess. Regarding the Fire Depts. Comments regarding the reduction of the rear setbacks that they are not approving of, what is staffs comments on that. It is regarding the Meridian School District school if they have temporary buildings that would be too close together and too close to property lines. Borup: Do we have a school layout. Is that where the temporary buildings would go? Hawkins Clark: Commissioner I have never seen a layout that would address temporary buildings. I personally don’t see what those buildings would serve that close up to their property line. Maybe the applicant could address that. Do you know Nancy? Freckleton: I think that this comment is probably coming from general past history in the school districts with their temporary buildings. I don’t know of any plan for temporary buildings at this point of time. I have never heard of anything. Brown: Bruce, the temporary building does that not have to come before the City. Freckleton: Yes it does. Brown: So, that can be addressed at that point. Borup: Item number 9 on the parking stall dimensions. Did that adequately get answered. Do they have a redesign. Hawkins Clark: They do. They submitted a redesign of the parking layout. Borup: Lets go ahead and vote on this. Brown: I would recommend approval of the annexation and zoning of 6.68 acres for the proposed Carol Professional Center by JUB Engineers on the west side of Eagle Road between Fairview and Ustick subject to staff comments and recommendations. Hatcher: Second the motion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 67 Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 17.PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 6.68 ACRES ZONED LO FOR PROPOSED CAROL PROFESSIONAL CENTER BY J-U- B ENGINEERS, INC. –WEST SIDE OF EAGLE ROAD BETWEEN FAIRVIEW AND USTICK ROAD: Borup: Brad, any additional comments? I’ll open the public hearing. Hawkins Clark: Incorporate previous comments in terms of the proposed or revised site plan. They have addressed by lot the number of parking stalls. I have not had a chance to calculate that and confirm the numbers. The main thing that stands out is they are proposing 15 compact parking stalls for building A, which is the first lot. There is 98 total parking spaces shown. This deals with that whole issue of overhang for in terms of meeting our ordinance requirement. As a planned unit development they can request reductions without going through the full variance which is what they have done. The ratios of compact stalls mean this ordinance requires them to petition the commission for compact stalls. It doesn’t say a percentage. It just states that if they are allowed if the commission allows them. We all know SUV’s abound in Meridian and in terms of ratios mean 5 to 10 percent is probably as much as we would want to serve one building. Borup: I think the problems that happen is vehicles any size park in them anyway if there is nothing else to use. Hatcher: Staff recommends that at least 70 percent of the stalls should be standardized. The applicant has all ready addressed that they comply with this comment. Hawkins Clark: They did. Borup: Right, but there was some site redesign that would accompany this. That conclude it Brad. Any questions. Applicant like any additional comment. Taylor: Yes Commissioner's, Nancy Taylor. We’d gladly see if we couldn’t get more standard stalls, but we did meet the intent of the letter but we’ll certainly prefer the standard size stalls also if we can get them on there. We’d be happy to do that. Above the 70 per cent yes. We will make every effort to do that. We actually have what is permitted on this site for developable areas about 200,070 square feet of office and in fact we are only proposing about half of that. I think there might be some room to increase that percentage. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 68 Borup: Would you like to explain what you feel the needs is for the west setback reduction. Taylor: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We thought that that is going to be an open fence along there and the school yard. Really there outside of any additional portable buildings, we just felt that with the landscaping and the open fence, the necessity for additional setback was not there. We have seen this occur also at the elementary school over in Boise that is in the business park by the Y—that works well there. I don’t know if it is a ten foot, but having the school next to a business park works well with the open space. Brown: I move we close the public hearing. Hatcher: Second it. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Hatcher: I motion that we recommend approval to City Council on the conditional use permit for the 6.68 acres zoned LO for proposed Carol Professional Center by JUB Engineers, west side of Eagle Road between Fairview and Ustick to include all staff comments and recommendations. Brown: Second. Borup: Any discussion? All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 18.PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 6.68 ACRES ZONED LO FOR PORPOSED CAROL PROFESSIONAL CENTER BY J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC.—WEST SIDE OF EAGLE ROAD BETWEEN FAIRVIEW AND USTICK ROAD: Borup: Brad, any additional comments. I’d like to open the public hearing. Hawkins Clark: I ask to incorporate previous testimony. Borup: Questions. I assume that the new site plan that you have does it address the driveway width. Hawkins Clark: On the revised plan there is one drive way that serves site F in the northwest corner that is showing as 20 feet. That will need to be 25. 24 feet in terms of internal isle width, we’d had no problems with in the past and that is what they are Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 69 showing on the majority of those but they do at the end of the culdesac, going to the north showing 20, so we would ask that be increased to 25. Borup: Okay. Anything else. Any additional testimony from the applicant. You like your previous testimony incorporated on this item. Okay let the record show that. Commissioner's. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing. Brown: Second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Norton: Discussion? I have a question regarding the fire departments comments regarding no parking along the culdesac. Do we need to have any kind of no parking signs posted around that culdesac? Hawkins Clark: Typically the radius on that 45 feet in terms of facilitating any kind of on street parking, I don’t know that it would really – Norton: Why does the fire department make these comments if their—I mean. They specifically ask for no parking of vehicles along there. Borup: They want to be able to turn their engines around. There is plenty to back around. There is more room there then there would be on a hammer head. Hatcher: I don’t think it is an issue. Hawkins Clark: Could be related to painting the curbs, but we can request fire department to write more specific details on that before the City Council meeting. Borup: With three driveways coming off that culdesac, they can certainly turn around there. Brown: I move approval of the preliminary plat for 6.68 acres zoned LO for the proposed Carol Professional center by JUB Engineers west side of Eagle Road between Fairview and Ustick road subject to staffs comments and recommendation. Hatcher: Second the motion. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 70 19.ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: FILE # 00-06ZC FOR ANTHONY R. AND REBECCA ZANDERS – ZONE CHANGE FROM RT TO M-1 (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL) OF PROPERTY CONTAINING 1 ACRE AND LOCATED AT 4670 W. FRANKLIN ROAD, MERIDIAN - SECTION 10, T.3N., R.1W: Borup: Your hear on the County one. Usually we don’t have anyone on the County ones. Brad, Item number 19. As we talked about last time we had a letter prepared from staff, right. Hawkins Clark: Do you have that? Shari Stiles did write up a letter at the end of the day. I did talk with Becka today and we went through Shari’s memo item by item. As you can see they are all strictly Comprehensive Plan policies. After talking with Shari, the main purpose here was to site those policies, some of them or majority have all ready addressed. They met with Ada County Highway District and are willing to dedicate the 48 feet on Franklin. In terms of that strip, the first policy strip industrial not being allowed. They have also been requested by ACHD to provide internal connection when that property to the east develops. Borup: This is Franklin west of Black Cat. Hawkins Clark: East of Black Cat. Just for clarification this is a rezone application only before Ada County right now. They are going to need to come back if this is approved for traffic development studies or plan which the City will get that again to comment on. There is no new development proposed here. It is a 900 square foot building used for their auto business. They are simply requesting a rezone to operate that business in that County parcel. It is in a general industrial zone as far as our Comprehensive Plan so as far as uses go it complies with that. They’ve got the railroad tracks just to the north. They have talked to Central District Health and got approval. Not planning to store any hazardous material. They are willing to put on site storage and water retention. They do have a letter from the fire department regarding approval. They have jumped the hoops. Norton: I’d just like to make a comment that I appreciate the completeness of the application, the signatures of the neighbors stating that they have no objection. The chemical sprinkler system that they will be installing and I just one question for Rebecca about what type of mechanic her husband is. Zanders: He is the best mechanic in the state of Idaho. Brown: I move approval of staff’s comments to the county. Hatcher: Second it. Borup: So, she would submit her letter as written to the County. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 11, 2000 Page 71 Hawkins Clark: The very last paragraph is unless you have other things you’d like us to submit, the County usually prefers shorter specific recommendations. That is what the last paragraph does. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you. Commissioner Hatcher. Hatcher: I move we close the meeting. Norton: I second. Borup: Motion and second to close this meeting. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:34 A.M. (Tape on file of these proceedings) APPROVED: ____________________________ KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: _______________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK