Loading...
2000 05-09MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING--MAY 9, 2000 The regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was call 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, Will Berg. Borup: We’d like to call to order our meeting this evening. This is a regular scheduled meeting for Planning and Zoning Commission. I’d like to go through attendance of the Commissioner's. First item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. I would entertain a motion for approval of the Consent Agenda. Brown: Mr. Chairman I would move approval of the Consent Agenda, Items A,B and C, minutes from the March 22nd , April 3rd and April 11th meetings. Hatcher: I second the motion. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Brown: I would like to be excused for the first 7 items. Borup: Okay. Have fun. Item number 1 and 2 were tabled. I believe we tabled those items wanting to finalize Items 3 through 6. Would we like to skip to Items 3 through 6 and come back or would the Commissioner's like to open and vote on 1 and 2 right now. 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 17 LOTS ON 107.06 ACRES IN PROPOSED L-O AND C-G ZONES FOR PROPOSED RESOLUTION BUSINESS PARK BY G.L. VOIGT DEVELOPMENT/OVERLAND, LLC—OVERLAND AND LOCUST GROVE ROADS: Borup: Does staff have any additional comments to make on this. It was continued for the ACHD report. We had the draft report a while back. We have the final report now. Is the applicant here and like to come forward. Do any of the Commissioner's have anything additional they’d like to ask the applicant, other than the ACHD report. Bowcutt: These items were deferred because we were awaiting Ada County Highway District Staff Report as you recall at our public hearing a month or so ago. We had not even received a draft. The staff, I think they went through about 3 versions of the draft Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 2 and it did go to the highway district Commissioner's last Wednesday at their noon meeting for discussion. To bring you up to date the Commissioner's did recommend approval of all the projects involved. They instructed their staff to get with us and the City of Meridian and the school district and see what can be done to exhilarate the upgrade of Overland Road between Locust Grove and Eagle Road. At this point of time, it is on their 2004 plan. They realize that they could have an operational high school as early as 2002. That did concern them. They have also required multiple improvements of my client, which includes constructing a 3rd lane from the east end of our property up to the intersection of Locust Grove and then south on Locust Grove to our southerly boundary. On of the comments that was made by the Commission, that type of improvement can run anywhere from $125 to $175 thousand dollars. If we go in and we construct that 3rd lane and then they come in 6, 12, 18 months later and tear it all out to build their five lane, it makes more sense that we exhilarate the 5 lane and put those monies to use building or helping to construct the 5 lane. Therefore, it would save some public funds. The things that I want to bring to your attention that they placed upon this project, they have asked us to contribute 25% of a signal at the intersection of Locust Grove and Overland. The intersection operates at a level of service A at this time, however, the left hand turn lane operates at a level of service F. According to ACHD’s traffic counts the counts at this time do not warrant signalization. In the future they realize they will need a signal there. They understand that the retail that we propose at that corner is down the road is not one of the first 3 or 4 phases that is going to be further down the road then that. Probably co-insiding with some type of a Locust Grove overpass. They accept the fact that a light is necessary, but state they will construct that light when it is warranted. Secondly, they have asked us to contribute $112,500 which would be 75% of the light at our new Millenium Way Overland intersection which is the collector roadway for the high school. That 75% does include the high school or the school district share. My conversations with the school district, they have indicated that they will pay whatever proportionate share the highway district deems is attributed to their traffic volume. There is approximately 5000 trips a day through Millenium Way. Of those 5,000, 3,000 will be from going to and from the high school site. They’ve asked us to contribute $52,800 dollars to a trust fund for sidewalk along Overland Road. We asked them to allow us to construct the sidewalk versus trust funding for it. The policy of the City of Meridian is they would like to see those sidewalks go in as soon as possible. Their concern was if we placed the sidewalk in at the edge of the new right of way that it could be torn out when the road is rebuilt. Our suggestion was we’ll take the sidewalk and meander within our 30 foot landscaped area. Therefore, we will be outside the right of way and would not require any modification. The Commission seemed to believe that’s a viable option. They asked staff to get with us and discuss it. We will be building decel lanes at the intersection. They ok'ed all of our approaches on Overland Road. They asked us to upgrade our collector. We shoed a 41 foot collector roadway section for Millenium Way. They indicated they’d like that to be 46 foot section. My client agreed to that. They asked us to provide adequate stacking room for any of the approaches as they intercept with Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 3 Millenium Way. The only major revision was on Locust Grove. We have this approach right here. They have asked us to move this to offset it from this roadway here to increase that distance of offset. We will shift this building this direction and then shift this to the south and then put parking in there. Our offsets from all of the major intersections for the signal will be installed in the future are acceptable. This was the only thing of significance. This is a multi phased project and the highway district commission liked this—the idea of a long term project. The first phase will be the ice hockey facility. The second phase would consist of 140 units of the total 200 apartments, 2001. The seminary will go in whatever time the high school goes in. All of this is down the road. Your staff placed a limitation on the conditional use permit for the apartments—40 units in the first phase. I brought that up with Ada County Highway District and they said that doesn’t make any sense. That is one of the lowest traffic generators on the site. Also, you can’t afford to pay all of these trust funds and make all the improvements if you can’t begin the projects. 40 units is not acceptable. My clients indicate they can not function with 40 units. Ada County Highway District did look at impact fees generated by this project. The school district is exempt from impact fees but all of the uses on the property would be subject. The multi family project would pay $160,000 in impact fees. The retail space would generate over one million dollars. That brings you up to date. Barbeiro: Becky is Millenium Drive to be placed as part of the first phase. Bowcutt: Yes sir. The first phase we are constructing all of the public roadway systems. We’ll built Millenium Way and put all the sewer, water, 3 phase power and then build this public street here, the rotary and this public street here. We have all ready designed all of those roadways. Barbeiro: Can you remind me of what kind of meetings you’ve had with the school district in regards to Millenium Drive, the students that will use that and the roadway being the primary road for all of the construction at the high school. Bowcutt: They will be coming up and down that roadway. It will have to be there before they can pull their permit. The highway district has indicated they want to focus all of the high school traffic where that signal is going to be constructed. Barbeiro: As I recall, the conditional use permit for the high school won’t be available until the signal is operational. Bowcutt: According to your planning staff the high school does not require a conditional use permit in their R-4 zone. They will just be submitting for building permit. That is why the highway district imposed the 75% of that light—the $112,000 because they would not see that school application come through. All of my users will be conditional use applications. That was the other thing that they liked. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 4 Norton: According to the Ada County Highway District we received the draft report and then the final report sometime today. The difference between the two is that instead of paying the $52,000 for the sidewalk on Overland, you will put in the sidewalk in your landscape area. Is that correct? Bowcutt: That’s what we requested. Norton: You started to talk about not doing the center lane improvement on Overland in order for Overland to be widened to 5 lanes earlier. Would you go through what you said on that. Bowcutt: In the staff report approved by the Commission it mandates that we construct a 3rd center turn lane for the entire length of our property. It would be from our perimeter to the intersection and then down to our southern boundary here. Three lane on Overland and Locust Grove. Norton: How close is your far east property to Eagle Road? Bowcutt: This is one half mile. In our staff report we are required to construct that. The issue we brought up with the commission is we would like to see the improvements accelerated. We don’t want to see the third lane wasted. The elevations will all change. Norton: Did you get any idea how far up the priority list it was going to be moved? Bowcutt: The staff and I had at least four discussions. They indicated that their superiors would not make a decision. We would have to take our plea to the commission and that is what we did. They instructed their staff, you need to figure out a solution and now. With that school coming in 2002, I would anticipate them trying to accelerate it two years—If I had to guess. Norton: Are you under the understanding that that road will be five lanes by the time school goes in 2002. Bowcutt: That is what I hope and I think the commission wants their staff to figure out how to do that. Borup: At this point, something could be worked out that’s the way to go. If it can’t be worked out then the 3 lanes are going in. Bowcutt: We will end up building the third lane. Those requirements are set down. I did forget to mention, they are going to add additional turn lanes at the Eagle Road Overland intersection and that work should begin in a few months and they indicated they are going to get started on the Meridian Road Overland intersection for that improvement. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 5 Borup: Before we proceed I’d like a show of hands how many people are here to testify on this application. We have received public testimony over the last three months so what we’d be open for is anything pertaining to the ACHD report we will be glad to take any testimony on. Bertell: Steve Bertell. I live at 2535 S. Velvet Falls Way. Mr. chairman and members of the commission, at this time I would like to present to the board a total of 725 signatures from residents from all the impacted Subdivisions, all respectfully asking the commission to at least delay the approval of this development until such a time as Overland and Locust Grove Roads are widened. Those who have signed the petitions are frustrated over having to drive in all ready heavily trafficked roadway on a daily basis. We agree with the ACHD impact analysis statement that the findings of the development would only intensify the all ready major traffic problems in this area. In fact, I parked at the intersection of Overland and Locust Grove the afternoon of March 23rd from 3 PM until 6 PM and I counted 3137 vehicles using that intersection, either crossing or turning from one street to another. This coincides with the ACHD report findings of approximately 11,422 vehicles using Overland Road on a daily basis. This is existing traffic. Also, during that 3 hour period, I witnessed one rear ender accident, one near accident and my wife and I came upon another accident on Overland Road on April 10th at 5:50 PM. The traffic on these roads will easily double if not triple as a result of this development. The Ada County Highway District has no plans to widen Overland until 2004 since it is in their 5 year plan. No plans to widen Locust Grove south of Overland until sometime outside the 2005 year plan. No plans to install a traffic light there until it is warranted. I don’t know what the definition of warranted is. The developer stated they wanted to start the major ice hockey and sports arena this year pending bond approval. The high school could open as early as fall 2002. Don’t misunderstand us. We are not opposed to this development, but what we are saying is that we are requesting that Overland and Locust Grove be widened to accommodate the dramatic traffic increase that this proposal would create. If there is a traffic mishap on the freeway, Overland Road immediately backs up. If emergency vehicle needed to get to one of our Subdivisions, it would be difficult at best for that vehicle to get through. Let’s not make Overland and Locust Grove roads another fiasco like the Curtis Road extension was. At least consider the opinions of the 725 residents as well as all of us who live in the 6 impacted Subdivisions. Borup: You feel that the road would be improved on a faster time frame without the million dollars that this project would contribute toward the roads. Bertell: I am a lay man and don’t know where the money would come from. We are concerned about— Borup: We are lay men too (Inaudible) and it is not going to come from anywhere other than this type of thing. So, the fastest way to get Overland approved, is to get the money. Since this has been carrying on for several months, we had quite a number of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 6 staff recommendations on this project. Do we need a refresher on that. We know staff’s recommendation is. I am thinking I mean the applicant either agrees with them or –she mentioned one in her report, so I think I’d like to get Becky back up. You had mentioned one item as far as staff recommendation on number of apartment units. We’ve got your response to all of staff comments. That was the only one that stuck out. Were there any others? That was under the CUP, Item number 2 on your response. Bowcutt: The annexation and zoning application, we were in agreement. preliminary plat, I highlighted item 8. The applicant intends to provide landscape easements along Locust Grove and Overland Roads. An association will be formed to govern perimeter landscaping. We ask that that be an easement. I believe that staff had a discussion about it being a separate lot. Borup: Staff’s concern was who will maintain it. Bowcutt: At a minimum the landscape buffer shall be placed within a permanent landscape easement designated such on the plat. We would like that to be designated as an easement on the plat and provide an association for maintenance. Item 8, preliminary plat requirements. Item 10, we agreed to pipe the Hunter Lateral as requested by staff. We ask that we be allowed to provide a western fence along the western side of the apartments. Staff made a statement they prefer that it be unfenced if we pipe the lateral. Clarification on Item 13. We have a little access road. It was not intended to be a private drive. It is an access way providing joint access to those buildings. We just want to clarify that our intention was not to construct curb gutter or sidewalk there because it is an alley access. Under the PUD, I highlighted Item 4. We did not provide any RV storage, parking areas for the multi family. Those uses will be prohibited. Only personal cars will be allowed. We do not propose a maintenance building at this site. All maintenance will be contracted out with a maintenance company. We disagreed on Item 7 concerning the parking requirements. Staff asked for 2.3 spaces per dwelling unit. The ordinance mandates 2. I know of no multi family application where staff imposed 2.3. I went to another complex that has garages called the Renascence next to Chinden and Eagle Road. We did that civil engineering for that site. That one has garages and I noticed that people who have two cars but have a single garage, their spouse parked in front of the garage. I think what staffs intention for additional parking was for guests or something like that. Our contention is, it is not necessary with our type of design we have more than what we would ever need in parking. For the Ice Rink, I think there was a difference of eight spaces. Mr. McKeegan got up to discuss that stating that we have substantial amount of overflow parking to the north and there will be very few events where you would find that all parking spaces would be completely utilized. His contention was that adequate parking was provided. Obviously we were opposed to the limitation—it was the limitation of 30 units in the first phase of the apartments. We had asked for the first phase to consist of 140. For the record and for those people in the audience that were not here at the last hearing, we are asking for conceptual approval of this planned unit development, but we are only asking for site specific approval for the ice arena and the 200 unit apartments. All the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 7 other users with the exception of the high school will have to come back before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. All surrounding properties within 300 feet will be notified. Legal notice will be put in the paper. Each user will have to come back before this body and go through this process again. That is one factor that should be taken into consideration as far as what improvements are done out on these roadway systems when the timing of these lights and so forth. If a user comes in say a year and a half from now, and he will generate a substantial amount of traffic, at that point of time if those improvements aren’t out there to support that development, I would anticipate commission having a difficult time of proving it. We’ve got to start somewhere and we’ve got to get that collector roadway and this other network of roadways and utilities to provide access to the high school. The only way we can afford to do it is to take these first couple phases and move forward. Borup: Thank you. Any questions from the commission? Barbeiro: We can ask staff questions as a whole or individually. The one that catches my eye right now is the storage areas because that is a city ordinance. Other then that, if you wanted to go down the line with some of the things that Becky disagreed with. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner Barbeiro, members of the Commission the ordinance requirement for storage areas has typically been something that if the developer makes a commitment we have waived at this level. It is not necessarily required a variance. It really particularly when garages are provided. It is something we look favorable at. Borup: At this particular site there is a proposed mini storage unit down the street. Barbeiro: How about the maintenance building. Hawkins Clark: I think when the covenants, correct me Becky if they are not, but typically we –they are going to contract out. That is not ordinance required. I think it is a recommendation. We are fine with that. On the parking issue mainly we were pointing out that the fact that on Valeri Heights no tandem parking was allowed. If your going to allow it here, we just mainly wanted to raise the attention. We certainly aren’t looking for more asphalt. I think we concur with the 460 number for required parking. The cross access issue was important. Obviously we’d ask for a revised preliminary plat that shows that, that shows the new Locust Grove Driveways to be submitted for the City Council—prior to the City Council so we can review the revised preliminary plat that reflects these changes. Barbeiro: Becky, in our last meeting, you did tell us that you were going to have a cross access over the Hunter Lateral, is that correct. Bowcutt: Yes, I think our sketched out we were going to make an inter connection between those two buildings and just north of the daycare facility into that little rotary. We make on making that revision and getting that to staff prior to the City Council. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 8 Barbeiro: Brad the recommendation regarding landscape buffers. 25 versus 30 and staff would prefer to have a separate lot where the developer would prefer to have an easement. Comment on that please. Hawkins Clark: This issue comes up frequently. It is mainly our concern is the consistency of appearance for principle arterials like what Overland is going to be. I think in this case with the easement going to be maintained the full buffer distance by a single entity, that’s fine. Our main issue is when you have single, multiple single lots that all have a easement, each of them can take care of that landscape however they want. Barbeiro: Becky, the property will remain under one ownership, is that correct. Bowcutt: No sir. When you plat it then it would be eligible to sell off the lots to separate owners. What we propose to do is place landscape easements on the plat and then we will have to have covenants, obviously governing the uses on these lots and so forth. On these covenants it would stipulate like lot owner dues. They would not be homeowners association dues, but lot owner dues which would provide for the maintenance of all of the landscaping. It is all maintained the same. We are going to provide a landscape plan so all of it would be the same. You would not end up with a hodge podge. That is not our intention. Barbeiro: Your new plan will account for 7 handicapped spots at the arena. Bowcutt: Yes sir. Mr. McKeegan when on the record last time that they would add those. Barbeiro: Brad, when we talked about the 30 dwelling units for the apartments, Becky’s note was that ACHD thought that the apartments would be one of the lower traffic count generators. Can you comment on that. Hawkins Clark: It was a bad day. Staff has re-thought that. Those are national transportation engineer figures that seem to have been accounted for. This is the only –there are only two projects that are coming in right now and certainly when you look at traffic generation you can’t really take into account projects that aren’t before this commission. Your really only have two projects that are before you and to put some controls on—your certainly not going to put a control on the ice arena. They are going to have events and that will draw—I think the apartment complexes—we did talk about if they are doing the 140 previously they had outlined a phase one which was more or less the northwest portion of their site B there and it didn’t provide for any vehicular access out of that phase one out onto Millenium Way. Every one of those 140 was funneling out through the driveway onto Overland at the west end and not Millenium Way which is the collector. I think we would point out that we would like to see some kind of vehicular access in phase one over to Millenium Way. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 9 Bowcutt: I think the applicant indicated at the last hearing he would be willing to revise what they had proposed as their first 140 units because you felt or this commission felt it was critical that they intersect with Millenium Way. So their will be an access. We will go on the record with the first phase will intersect with Millenium Way by that vehicular connection. Barbeiro: The final point was, the gates we discussed in the last one to prevent cross tracking through the residential from the high school over to Locust Grove, the developer suggested putting gates in. Is that something that will be a final item for you or is it still up in the air. Bowcutt: I think they are still under the opinion that they would prefer some type of gates. Borup: This was a gate at which point? Barbeiro: There was to be a gate over the Hunter Lateral crossing to prevent the kids from crossing through the apartments and the developer also considered putting a gate into the entrance off of Overland and just past the entrance off of Millenium Way. I believe there were three gates. Is that correct. Bowcutt: Yes, that was my understanding. We would have to have approval from your fire department to install those. The location would also have to be approved by Ada County Highway District because they want to make sure you have adequate stacking room. Borup: Has that been discussed with ACHD staff? Bowcutt: It was brought up briefly and their comment was we have to have adequate stacking room. They allow you to do it within a private roadway network as long as you have it 50 or 75 feet into the property. Maybe its 100, I can’t remember. The last one I had was a mini storage. They don’t want 3 or 4 cars turning into the site and then waiting for the gate and sticking out into the roadway. I would recommend that the commission put their subject to Ada County Highway District and fire department approval. Borup: The only other comment I think staff was on the fence –I don’t think the staff comments addressed that either way, or did they. (Inaudible)privacy fence (inaudible). There is no concern there is there. Hawkins Clark: No. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 10 Norton: I have a question for staff. At our last public hearing I had a question about gates, but has been addressed. My notes say signage of gates would be worked out with staff. Has signage been addressed. Hawkins Clark: Signage of the gates –of the project. They did have a written response on signage from I believe Idaho Electric Signs and then McKeegan responded for signage on the ice arena in writing. That should be in the packets. Bowcutt: I think we did have a discussion because they had some types of lights on the side of building. Norton: That was addressed on the ice arena, but for the apartment complex— Bowcutt: I did provide some specifications on signage. I believe it was a monument type sign. END OF SIDE ONE Bowcutt: I’ll have to check my packet. I believe it was a monument sign. That is what staff has proposed. Borup: I think we’d be comfortable that it wouldn’t be anything difference than a monument sign. Anything else. You checking or are you done Becky. Oh. Any final comments from staff. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner I think the main concern—I don’t know that there is an emergency vehicular access issue has been resolved to our satisfaction. With the school site—schools are allowed in the R-4 without any public hearings. They can just come in when they get this approved and not have any public hearings on the school site and really this is the opportunity to deal with the school site even though the majority of this— Borup: You taking about a secondary access. Hawkins Clark: Yes. What did they say potentially 1800 students or something. We certainly understand and want to support the protecting these neighborhoods from cross through traffic from the school, but there is a stub street here on the west boundary of the site and then there is a stub street here immediately next to the future park site, which would be here. Whether or not those are extended into the site or how that would work, I guess our main issue or concern is that it be dealt with and maybe it can be dealt with at Council level, but somehow there’d be another access into this 55 acre school site other than just Millenium Way, particularly for emergency vehicles. Borup: Have you discussed it to what point. Would the emergency break away ballards or something like that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 11 Hawkins Clark: Right. I don’t believe the fire department has really specifically addressed it. Barbeiro: Brad, we have two opportunities to add emergency access. Is this where the seminary is going? Hawkins Clark: No. Here, right. Barbeiro: With the new LDS church, is there any opportunity to have a emergency access straight through their property or off of this road here as that roads appears to abut the property of the high school. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner, the LDS church is being built. It is designed. The site is under construction. I don’t think there is any opportunity there. Borup: Sounds like here and here are the two stub streets. I don’t think the intention is to have a traffic flow through there. Break away emergency ballard would let the fire trucks through and isn’t that staffs concern. Do we know where this building maybe sited. Bowcutt: I can answer that question. The only information we received from the school district is that the school would most likely sit back in this location here up against this Hunter Lateral. Obviously the parking lots and field would be back here. There is two existing public streets right here coming into Raven Hills and another one here in Los Alamitos. It is the highway districts intention that those not be connected to the site vehicularly for like student use but be connected for pedestrian bicycle and possibly emergency access. I would assume something like ballards or maybe what they propose there. It depends on the site configuration. I stopped at Mr. Carberry’s office today to see if I could obtain a copy of their draft site plan. He indicated that he does not have a copy of it. You got one. He said I don’t have one, in fact I think they are still working on it. Your going to have to talk to Skyler at Hummel Architects. I said it would be nice Jim if I could see it to make sure your needs are met as far as secondary emergency access. Until we see where those circulation patterns of the school are located, we don’t know what to do. Borup: Maybe at this point we just need to put some requirements in there and let them design around it. Bowcutt: Our agreement with the school district states that we…the seller acknowledges that the above described street, which is our Millenium Way, shall be the sole access route to the school which buyer intends to construct on the premises other than the emergency access here and after set forth. So, (inaudible) if we it we’d want an emergency access through you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 12 Borup: So hereinafter set forth they are not specified. Bowcutt: Yeah, it was emergency vehicle access if required. In order to meet uniform fire code. (Inaudible) got a lot of parking lot along here, if they need it and if that is a adequate location, then it makes sense that we do have a secondary emergency access. It would all depend on their site plan and their needs. Borup: What are saying would be secondary. Bowcutt: If you look at— Borup: Okay, the access is still from Millenium right? Bowcutt: Yes sir. Borup: So from Millenium Drive is blocked there is no secondary access. Bowcutt: This is their primary vehicular access. There is landscaping and parking areas— Borup: Okay, your saying they could come down here through the parking lot into the site. Bowcutt: Exactly. So if the school says based on our configuration we need some emergency vehicle access here or here or even link into this drive that wraps around here. That would be an option. If its needed. I have not seen the site plan. Have you seen it. You got a copy of it. Barbeiro: It was the first draft which was two months ago. Bowcutt: Oh. He said they are still working on it. I am going to try to obtain a copy hopefully before we go to the council because I'd like them to see that and I think it would be beneficial if we know what it looks like. Borup: Sounds like the mood of the City and probably the Commissioner's is that there needs to be some type of emergency secondary access. Not a vehicle access but just emergency. Barbeiro: So when building our recommendation we would include additional emergency access through this site to be determined later. Or more specific. Borup: I don’t know that we need to be more specific as long as there is another access. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 13 Hatcher: One thing to take into consideration when we are discussing emergency access of the future high school site is as Becky has pointed out, if we were to bring in a second emergency access in the approximate location of the ice hockey arena or possibly at the apartments, first of all the apartments are a congested meandering parking lot. There is no primary means of traffic, just a private roadway system. I don’t think that is a valid option. Second, bringing a secondary emergency access in and around the ice skating rink I don’t think is a valid option either for the sample fact that if you have a event occurring your going to have high traffic volume there. Playing devil’s advocate we have an event at the school that requires emergency vehicles and we have the ice rink letting out. Millenium and all those roads are going to be plugged. When considering an emergency access to the high school, I think we should look at the options of doing emergency break away ballards down at Raven the Subdivision down below with the public road. Borup: What is the purpose of the secondary emergency access. Hatcher: If the fire truck can’t get to – Borup: And that would be because of heavy traffic or because of some accident blocking the entire roadway. I assume it would be something blocking the entire roadway and then they would need another access. Hatcher: That is correct and that is why I am saying if we (inaudible) by the ice rink, they are too close together. Borup: Your saying something would be blocking both roads. Hatcher: I am saying if an event at the ice rink was to let out— Borup: That’s just heavy traffic. That’s not necessarily blocking – Hatcher: Hey, we’ve all been there. We know what it can really be like. One all ready looks like it is all ready a culdesac if I’m not mistaken. One of the two southern ones— we put the condition on the school district now and let them design accordingly and be done with it. Barbeiro: Couldn’t we have a primary and a secondary. Hatcher: You would. Millenium would be your primary. We are talking about the secondary right now. I don’t think this site is big enough to need three accesses. Borup: Okay, one of you guys had a motion earlier. Hatcher: I was trying to make a motion to close the public hearing. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 14 Norton: I second the motion. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Barbeiro: Which hearing did we just close. Borup: Technically we closed— Hatcher: Can we close all of them, one through six. Borup: Technically we closed 3, cause that is the only one we opened. I think all the testimony we received was on all the applications, so – Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I motion that we close the public hearing for Item 4,5,and 6. Borup: Let me open it. Open public hearing for Item number 4. Hatcher: I motion that we close it. Norton: I second it. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: I’d like to open Item number 5. Hatcher: I motion that we close it. Norton: I second it. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: I’d like to open Item number 6. Hatcher: I motion that we close that. Norton: I second that. Borup: All in favor. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 15 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Would you like to handle Items 1 and 2 and then go on to the others. Barbeiro: Can we do both of them at the same time. Borup: They are both two separate items, but get those two out of the way and then get into the other—or those two have all ready been closed, so— Barbeiro: If there is no discussion, I have a motion. I motion that we recommend to City Council request for annexation and zoning of 16.119 acres from RT to CG for proposed Resolution Business Park by G.L. Voigt Development to include staff comments. Hatcher: I second the motion. Borup: Any discussion. Norton: I have discussion. I believe we discussed the CG change to CN change. I’d like to make a friendly amendment to that motion that the CG be amended. Barbeiro: Thank you Commissioner Norton, you are correct and I wish to amend that to be a CN. Borup: Any other discussion. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Item number 2. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I wish to recommend approval to City Council request for rezone of 37.64 acres from R-4 to L-O for proposed Resolution Business Park by G.L. Voigt Development with staff comments. Hatcher: Second the motion. Borup: Any discussion. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: We have four more items. Again, comments have been concerning all of them. We have two items on the preliminary plat. No one item, sorry. Barbeiro: The discussion between myself and Commissioner Hatcher has to do with— we would like—here’s what we’re differing. I would like to see a development Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 16 agreement between ACHD and the developer prior to any certificate of occupancy of any building. Hatcher: What I was trying to go for on a condition of approval from this board or recommended condition of approval to City Council would be that no certificate of occupancy would be issued to any of the proposed developments of this project until Overland Road improvements have been instructed. If that means the ice rink waits until 2002 or 2003, so be it. Barbeiro: You want a 5 lane road before anything opened. That is going to put a crimp in the developer, but I think if we had a development agreement with ACHD and the developer to have 5 lanes prior to fall 2002 when the high school opened, seeing how the development would be phased, I believe that would be correct and proper with this development. I would hate to see the development held back because the 5 lanes wasn’t open for then as a condition they have to ensure that it is at least 3 lanes. If they are going to go out and do 3 lanes then ACHD is going to come in tear it out. That seems like a tremendous waste of public funds. Hatcher: Absolutely. If it boils down to working things out with ACHD. Borup: Oh it does and I agree with what your saying there, but your putting a requirement on the developer that they got no control over. Barbeiro: If we have a development agreement, that is something the developer and ACHD— Borup: ACHD don’t do development agreements specifically do they. Just a written agreement. Hatcher: Putting money into a slush fund for future improvement on this project is not acceptable in my opinion. That is exactly what ACHD will do. I have no opposition of the project. In fact it is a wonderful project. Overland Road can not handle any capacity that this project would generate without the required improvements. Barbeiro: So ACHD does not do development agreements so this— Borup: I don’t know if that is the terminology they use. I am not sure either way. I just have not heard that used before. Hatcher: Bruce can you comment on how ACHD typically has been dealing with those issues. Freckleton: Commissioner Hatcher and members of the commission Becky was just indicating that she is aware of one that they have done with Touchmark. I know they do non-development agreements when you have a plat and your doing it in phases if you Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 17 want to record the entire plat without bonding or building the other phase. That is something we would have to address with them. Barbeiro: What would staff’s recommendations be to insure that somehow we have an agreement amongst all the parties that this is going to be 5 lanes prior to a large portion of occupancy. I do not want to put a high school there without a five lane road. Hatcher: I personally don’t want to stop the project. I don’t want to stop construction of any of the projects on the site, but I don’t want to see any of them operable until the road is done. Freckleton: My personal opinion would be unless we’ve got it nailed down when these things are going to happen, I would not even issue the building permit. Your looking at a can of worms if you issue a building permit and hold up occupancy without some dates being set. Hatcher: Okay so the building permit will not be issued until some sort of agreement is been reached without Ada County so that their construction schedule coincides with the projects construction schedule as deemed by the time line we are discussing. Basically what that does—I would say put one hand behind the developers back. Now we are putting both hands behind with the building permit because there is a lot of negotiations that have to go on between the developer and ACHD to meet these requirements. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman would it be of any assistance to re-open the public hearing and get some comments from the developer on this. Hatcher: I don’t think it is going to help. Borup: Have you got your thoughts together on what it is that you maybe recommending. Barbeiro: Well, now that I know there really is no such thing as a development with ACHD and my other concerns are that with the new high school, this would also stop any issuance of a building permit for a new high school to be built which would cause great problems with the school bond election coming up because of the state law requiring the school to allocate the funds for and spend the funds any certain time frame. If they can not get a building permit that may cause problems with the school bonding. Hatcher: Keep in mind as well as it was brought up by staff, school district does not need public hearing. As soon as phase one is done and Millenium Drive is built, that high school can go up. We have no control over that, so any conditions as of brought of that includes traffic, any conditions we want to impose on that high school have to be done during phase one. You could have 5000 high school kids going to high school on a 2 or 3 lane road. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 18 Borup: Do any Commissioner's remember what the going to the 3 lanes what that did to the service and what the road could handle. I am not finding that. Do you remember that Brad at all. What capacity was that going to add. Where I was going or at least the ACHD report is saying that the present configuration on Overland can handle a little less than 3000 additional vehicles. In the same paragraph they are saying that it would add 6. They are over 3000 short without –that’s with the current road. I am not sure what the 3 lane would add to that capacity. I don’t think it adds a lot of vehicle capacity. It will alleviate congestion. Hatcher: The third lane is a turning lane so it’s going to allow people to stack up so that they won’t be able to turn left because of on coming traffic. Borup: ACHD’s statement is that a traffic signal is not warranted yet because traffic volumes are low enough. Barbeiro: That’s Locust Grove and Overland, not Millenium. Borup: No, the side driveway is on Overland. I don’t think they are taking the school into consideration on any of these figures. That adds a whole different aspect of it. Barbeiro: I need your assistance on this so we don’t shut down the developer, we don’t shut down the high school but we insure that there is a five lane road. Something that we don’t seem to have a lot of control over. Borup: It is in the hand of ACHD. I don’t have an answer to that. I think we can make some recommendations and let City Council look at it. Hatcher: The way we would want to word it to City Council would be that we recommend approval pending – Barbeiro: ACHD’s commitment to widen that road. Hatcher: Commitment is not good enough. It has to be in writing. Barbeiro: Well, can the City work into a development agreement with ACHD as opposed to the developer. Hatcher: I don’t think you want to bring the city into this. Borup: Why would the city want to. Barbeiro: We’d have a bigger gun than the developer does. Borup: To do what. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 19 Hatcher: We do? Barbeiro: Sounded good. Borup: Lets go ahead. Lets get a recommendation drafted and put the conditions on you’d like to and --. At this point I assume your going to incorporate staff comments. Barbeiro: I have some comments within those too. Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval to City Council request for preliminary plat of 17 lots on 107.06 acres in proposed L-O zone and C-N zones for proposed Resolution Business Park by G.L. Voigt Development to include staff comments making note of Item 8 on page 6 that we would recommend an easement as opposed to a separately platted buffer— Swartley: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Barbeiro what are you trying to do an easement as opposed to a buffer? Barbeiro: As I read it, the staff wanted to have a separate common lot as opposed to an easement. Swartley: Oh okay. I understand. Barbeiro: That Item number 10 that applicant will go ahead and build a privacy fence, Item number 11, the applicant will built a vehicular access over the Hunter Lateral between site B and site A, included in that the developer will put a operable gate there with cooperation of the Meridian Fire Department to prevent student crossing to get over to Locust Grove. Help me out with number 12. The applicant wanted a minimum of 35 foot landscape buffer. We are going to allow them to put a meandering sidewalk as opposed to a sidewalk right up to the easement. Page 8, item 7 allowing them to— Swartley: Mr. Barbeiro could you repeat the numbers 10 and 11 for me please. Barbeiro: Number 10 were we—the developer build the privacy fence. Number 11 in his cross access between site B and site A we put an emergency gate or a gate between the two with the cooperation of the Meridian Fire Department. This is all subject to the recommendation of ACHD and the Meridian Fire Department. Borup: That was on the motion. Hatcher: Road improvements, refresh my memory. We going to tack that onto the preliminary plat or conditional use permit. Borup: I thought you were doing it on the conditional use permit. I think they lumped it all together. The traffic is going to be generated by the conditional use permit project not by the plat. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 20 Hatcher: Okay, lets see if I got this right. Borup: ACHD’s comments addressed everything all together. They combined all their comments as a project as a whole. Hatcher: The last outstanding issue I wanted to add to Commissioner Barbeiro’s motion is that a written agreement between the developer and ACHD that coordinates and synchronizes construction completion of a 5 lane Overland improvement prior to the completion of phase one occupancy. The agreement be submitted to the City of Meridian prior to the issuance of a building permit. Norton: I would like to add to that motion that a revised preliminary plat to reflect the changes that have been discussed be submitted to the city prior to the City Council meeting. Borup: I think that was in the staff comments all ready. Hatcher: So you made the motion, we amended it so your going to have to second it. Barbeiro: To include their comments from Commissioner's Hatcher and Norton in the motion. Norton: I’ll Second. Borup: Any other discussion. Seeing none, all in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Barbeiro: I wish to recommend approval to City Council request for conditional use permit for proposed planned commercial development consisting of multi family commercial, and LDS seminary in proposed L-O and C-N zoning by G.L. Voigt Development to incorporate all of our notes from Item number 3. Borup: This was a conceptual concept that was made mention earlier. This is a conceptual approval of the project as a whole. Barbeiro: And to include that page 10, item 11 storage areas that we waive the requirement for storage areas, page 10 item 12 that we waive the requirement for a maintenance building. Borup: Actually that should come under item 5. Barbeiro: Thank you Mr. Chairman. You are correct. (Inaudible) make the recommendation for approval for incorporating all the comments from Item number 3. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 21 Hatcher: I will second that. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Okay now item number 5 which is the conditional use permit for the apartment complex. Barbeiro: I wish to recommend approval to City Council request for conditional use permit for proposed 200 unit luxury apartment complex to be zoned L-O for proposed Resolution Business Park by Desert West Properties, LLC to include all comments from Item 3 and Item 4 and from page 10 item 11 the storage areas waiving the requirement for storage areas, page 10 item 12 waiving the requirement for a maintenance building, page 11 CP apartment complex, item number 2 where staff recommends a number of units constructed in phase one be limited to a maximum of 30, make that a maximum of 140. Hatcher: I second the motion. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I wish to recommend approval to City Council request for conditional use permit for an ice arena consisting of office, pro shop, fitness center, restaurant, locker rooms, equipment storage and arenas zoned L-O by Pat McKeegan to incorporate staff comments and comments from Item 3,4, and 5. Hatcher: Before this last issue is voted on, the preliminary plat did we property address the secondary emergency access to the high school. Borup: No we didn’t. We spend time talking about it and then did not get it in the motion. We need to address that. We need to go back and amend the motion. Norton: I second the motion on number 6. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I wish to return to item number 3, the preliminary plat for the 17 lots and make an amendment to include the or note the developer will work in conjunction with the school district and arrange a secondary emergency access through their property apart from the primary access on Millenium Drive. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 22 Borup: Do you want to be more specific. Hatcher: I think you want to be more specific in location. What I just heard you say is a second emergency access through the current development. I would prefer to have a second emergency access through break away bollards down at Raven Hill. Borup: The road is all ready there. The stub street is there. It is all ready dead ended. Hatcher: It is a stub street. You’d have to dead end it with emergency bollards. Barbeiro: Is the school property also part— Borup: That is a separate lot and they will not be coming before us for the school property. Hatcher: It is not part of phase one but it is part of this development. Barbeiro: I would concur. We have a secondary access from the south through one of the two roads that are coming in. Borup: Emergency break away bollards not direct vehicle access. I think that sounds consistent with ACHD wants also. The no vehicle access is consistent. We need a whole site. Hatcher: You have the adjacent Subdivisions. Borup: What do you want, street names. There is only two streets to choose from. Two out of the two. Go over and talk to staff. Let them choose a street and it not come from the north. Bruce, do you have any idea how man times in the last five years the fire department has ever gone through the break away bollard. Okay that’s what I felt. Did you hear that comment Commissioner's? Commissioner's: No. Borup: As far as Bruce has understand it the fire department has never had to use emergency access and the break away bollards. I am saying it needs to be there, but its not going to be a traffic issue. Hatcher: The one street we are talking about is East Blue Tick Street. The other road appears to be South Red Cloud Avenue. Borup: The reason I asked that question maybe for anyone living in those areas, the emergency access not be a traffic—it hasn’t happened yet in this town, but like anything Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 23 it is an emergency. It is there for emergency, so its there. Brad did you have some input. The amended motion was to state a southern emergency access. Barbeiro: A southern emergency access with break away bollards and not regular traffic. Borup: No specific street? Hatcher: No specific streets required. Borup: So, if they can come up with another street, that’s fine. Barbeiro: Before we make the final vote, lets see if staff has anything. Borup: The motion that is in effect now is that there be an emergency access from one of the southern streets, not from the northern. We did not specify beyond that. Did you have anything to add. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner just as a suggestion that was provided which has not been considered. As far as emergency there is here on Locust Grove, as I understand the goal of your discussion as a Commission is to help get emergency access so that Overland is not the only way. Another one on Locust. One suggestion is to provide on the southern portion emergency ingress egress here on the southern portion north of this LDS church that is being built between the retail and the daycare which does access the high school site. Borup: So, that could be a third option. Hawkins Clark: Could be in terms of accessibility and response time for EMS, police, fire. Certainly an argument can be made for greater direct access as compared to going through either Los Alamitos or Raven Hill. END OF SIDE TWO Borup: to work out as far as the access for them. Barbeiro: Okay lets go ahead and say that additional access the developer will work with the school district of the options themselves for along the southwest boundaries. Commissioner Norton, does that work for you? Okay. Hatcher: I second the amended motion. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 24 Norton: Mr. Chairman I would like to have a little more discussion on number 5 with the apartment complex. 140 apartments, does that also include the club house? I’d like to amend the motion then to include the club house to be constructed along with the 140 apartments. Borup: Is that different that the original or what the developer was planning. And the club house. Norton: Okay, I’ll withdraw that. Borup: Anything or are we ready to move on. Let’s take a short break. 7. TABLED FROM APRIL 11, 2000: REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL 77 FOOT HIGH POLE SIGN FOR CHEVRON/MCDONALDS BY EAGLE PARTNER, LLC—603 S. EAGLE ROAD: Borup: This item was tabled to allow more information which I think you’ve each received in your packets. Do we have any comments, questions or discussion or anybody ready for a motion. Norton: I am ready to make a motion on number 7. I would like to recommend to City Council the request for modification of conditional use permit to allow additional 77 foot high pole sign for Chevron/McDonalds by Eagle Partners be denied based on using the Comprehensive Plan as a guide only and taking into consideration the following: 1. The pylon sign was not addressed in the development agreement with the city on March 9, 1999. 2. This commission made a decision in June of 1999 that a pylon sign is inappropriate. 3. A Chevron pylon sign doesn’t set an appropriate tone for entering the Magic View Subdivision. 4. This pylon sign is too close proximity to a neighborhood. Hatcher: I second the motion. Borup: Discussion. Barbeiro: When we voted in June of 1999 on this issue, the two primary items that I saw were that the light from this sign would be detrimental to the neighbors and that there was presented an ordinance that only freeway frontage could have such a sign. In our last— Borup: Freeway frontage or freeway business. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 25 Barbeiro: Freeway business I believe it was. And, as I recall—do we have such an ordinance. I was unable to find such an ordinance saying that freeway business or freeway frontage is a requirement for a pylon sign. Borup: I don’t believe so. Barbeiro: And in our— Borup: I remember or thinking that we said that freeway business would be appropriate for signs. Barbeiro: When I voted in 1999 my vote was primarily based on that which was as we discovered, does not exist. In discussion with the neighbors who did testify, all but one said that it was the canopy lights over the gas pumps that produces more light than would a 77 foot pylon sign. With that I would prefer to change my vote from June 1999 with that bit of additional information and would vote for approval of the 77 foot pylon sign. Borup: Any other comment. My vote on that was I was in favor of the pylon sign but not the one on Eagle Road. I would rather see a monument sign on Eagle Road. Commissioner Hatcher, you had a comment. Hatcher: The two comments the reason why I feel that this modification should be denied is basically on two conditions. The first one is anyone driving on that freeway knowing where the sign is going to be—the time you’ve see the sign you have all ready passed the off ramp. The applicants argument for the sign was to increase his business off of the freeway. Well, Joe and Betty from Seattle on their way to Salt Lake aren’t going to see the sign until after they pass the off ramp so he is not going to get their business so what’s the sign there for? The only thing it is going to do is let us as local residents know that there is a Chevron there. We should not be driving if we don’t all ready know it’s there. Quite frankly, the issue is if I had some sort of engine that I could use, I would get rid of that Texaco sign. That was a mistake that we don’t need to repeat. Borup: Any other discussion. We ready for a vote. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: 2 AYES, 1 NAY Borup: Commissioner Brown has rejoined us for the remainder of the evening. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 23.6 ACRES TO C-G, R-15 AND R-8 FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL TEARE TERRACE BY ZAMBEZI GROUP—FAIRVIEW AVENUE: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 26 Borup: Brad, do we have a staff report. Hawkins Clark: Yes Commission. I will address both the annexation application and the preliminary plat application. For orientation quickly, this property on the north side of Fairview located between Locust Grove and Meridian Road. Currently a vacant parcel. We would deem an in fill. It is bounded on the north by Meridian Place Subdivision and Willow Subdivision. There are nine single family lots that abut the boundary of this site there. Rountree Auto dealer and Ultra Touch car wash are immediately across from the site. The two largest commercial uses. Fairview Terrance Mobil Estates located here. This is an existing ag vacant also an in fill parcel here to the northwest. They are requesting 3 different zones. Jackson Drain does course the property. This is the stub street coming down from the north. I believe it is Teare Street stub. The annexation and zoning application is requesting 3 different zones. They are requesting an R-15 zone for block 3, lot 1 here. They are requesting an R-8 for five residential lots here. The request is for a C-G zone on this lot as well as the remainder of the commercial lots. Fairview Avenue again down here with the principle Victoria Street entrance here. We ask that you incorporate our staff comments dated May 5. To point out a couple main issues that we are asking for—a down zone on this lot from C- G to C-N, much for the same reasons Resolution Business Park since it does have residential immediately adjacent on the east and to the north and to the future apartment complex or whatever they propose for the R-15. ACHD has responded. They are proposing a jog in Victoria Street that would about this point come in and jog down. They are asking for a movement for about 60 feet to the west of this principle entrance to align more with the private road across the street. I will leave it at that and available for any questions. Borup: Any question. Is the applicant here? Martin: My name is Gerald Martin. I am here this evening representing the applicant. A representative of the developer, Mr. Leroy Atwood is present as is the engineer, Carl Geiger. I am with EHM Engineers and we have prepared the plat. Quickly, moving on the issues that were addressed by staff concerning the down zone of lot 1 and lot 2 I believe from CG to CN, we would concur in that recommendation. Secondly the staff comment regarding relocation of Victory Street’s access onto Fairview, we have met with ACHD and will work with them and concur in the adjustment of the alignment to meet that requirement. A couple other comments concerning staff report that I either would like some clarification on or resolution on. First of all, there is a little conflict concerning Jackson Drain. One place in the report it addresses piping the ditches and another place its recommended it be left open for wild life habitat. The second one concerns irrigation. It is the intent of the developer to use surface water rights, not city water for irrigation of the common area that would exist when both the residential apartment portion of the project and multi family portion and the landscaping in the commercial. There is a recommendation that landscaping be utilized wherever commercial comes in contact in direct with residential both existing and proposed. We would like the opportunity to be able to substitute a landscaping feature such as wall or Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 27 screening devices where more appropriate. I think they are more appropriate in some areas where light or sound may be more of an impact on the adjacent residential areas. We do not disagree with the 20 foot landscaping requirements in those areas appropriate. In some areas we think a landscaping wall screening may be more appropriate especially in the areas of the rear of the commercial development. A 20 foot landscaping strip does very little in terms of providing protection in terms of light and noise and traffic and security. A wall might be more appropriate or a wall with a reduced landscaping strip. With that I’ll be glad to answer questions. Borup: Any questions. Brown: Specifically, which ones did you have a problem with. Which lot. Martin: North boundary of lot 2 block 2 primarily. It will have its back toward that residential area. It would have its service area, its loading docks and I would think along that line a landscaping screening wall might be more appropriate. The other location where a similar situation might occur might be along the north boundary of lot 1 block 1, which is really a line between two properties owned by the developer. We don’t disagree that there should be landscaping separation, but it would better be located on lot 1 of block 3 with a wall on the property line. That would be on the back side of a commercial facility. Brown: Taking Mr. Martins comments, how do you feel about those—the landscaping. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner Brown this was quite a key issue in the Meridian Crossroads Subdivision no complex with the Shopko. There was a lot of testimony about the block walls of a commercial building and a block wall between the boundary, particularly when you have fairly narrow area. You can all most magnify a sound as compared to dissipate a sound. Some of that is design issues that could be looked at. I don’t think the ordinance was intended to preclude a wall in the 20 foot planting strip if that is the developers choice. Brown: What about the drain. He made a comment about leaving the drain open. Hawkins Clark: Yes, sorry for that oversight in our report. It is ordinance to pipe and it would require a variance to not pipe it. We would support or P&Z would support it. Might have some disagreement between our two departments here. Freckleton: Maybe just a personal opinion. If it is a apartment complex with several children, I think it would be an attractive nuisance as well. I think you have to weigh both sides. Martin: That drain, if you have not been out to look at it, it is very deep. It is as much as 12 foot deep. It is a potential hazard and a concern to the development. Some piping or protection to that is appropriate. Our preference is to pipe it, yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 28 Barbeiro: What is the proposed zoning for lot 1 in block 2. Martin: The request was for CG but we would concur with staff recommendation to reduce that recommendation to a CN zone. Barbeiro: Then you would build single family homes in block 4 and perhaps apartment complexes in block three. Martin: We would conform to the building is allowed within the R-8 and R-15 zoning. That is correct. Borup: This is a public hearing. I’d like to invite anyone from the public to come forward. Sigmiller: My name is Lee Sigmiller. 512 E. Whilehall Street. There are specific blocks that have been designed for use and absorption of sound and sound retaining walls and before you give up the idea of a sound block wall, you should investigate these. They are more effective than the standard blocks. Ewing: Galinda Ewing I live at 983 Tammy. I was curious if they are going to open Teare when it comes around or is that going to be a wall. I am very interested in what they are going to do with that wall in there and what they are going to place in this block 2 of lot 2. What kind of commercial is lined up. Brown: Do you have a preference. Do you want the street open. Ewing: No. I do not want it open. I like it the way it is. Borup: That is a good question and we will certainly find out. Miller: My name is Gene Miller. I live at 1855 N. Teare. I and some of my neighbors have a question dealing with the proposed increase of traffic coming through (Inaudible) Subdivision by Jericho, Clarene, Teare and Tammy which is the short street. How that would be addressed and handled. We also had a question concerning noise level. How it would effect the existing residential areas from a proposed commercial. Staff has all ready acknowledged that as a concern. We also had a question as far as the type of commercial businesses that would be proposed for the site. Also the type of maintenance and upkeep proposed for those commercial areas. We have a question concerning the multi family dwellings—type style and location and where they would be placed. On the single family dwellings their placement, size and price range. How they would mesh in with the existing Subdivisions. Would their covenants be with our existing covenants in our surrounding that field. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 29 Borup: Maybe rather than continuing on, Mr. Martin could you come back up and answer some questions. First of all, question on Teare Street whether your intending that to continue on through. Martin: It was the preference of the developer that it be closed, however ACHD has requested that an emergency access be provided through there. The project development is in such a manner that it will certainly not encourage any traffic on that road, but it would be open. Borup: What is ACHD requesting. Martin: The most recent request and what is summarized in the staff report is a 20 foot emergency access lane which would go from Teare over to Victoria along the north boundary of that lot. I do not believe that would preclude closing the access to other traffic with knock down barricades. That would have to be revisited with ACHD. There has also been a request in the staff report that pedestrian access be provided. That is acceptable to the developer. Borup: At this point, do you have any type of businesses that you for see. Martin: There has been some preliminary discussions but it’s the type of business that is highway related business that you see up and down Fairview. Restaurant type facilities on the front corners of Victoria and strip mall type development as you see across the street further up Fairview. It will be the smaller second tier type of retail users. Borup: On the apartment complex, the conceptual design on that. Martin: There is no conceptual design at this point. Initially when this project was submitted there was another partner involved that was going to develop the apartment. That arrangement is no longer in place and the applicant is discussing with other potential developers the development of that property. It will be developed in accordance with your ordinances for that particular zoning. Borup: Would the applicant have any concern if that was annexed with a conditional use permit placed on that. A requirement of conditional use. Martin: We would not have a problem with that. Brown: Can you speak to the traffic for the gentleman about what the impact will be on the adjoining streets. Martin: From an engineering standpoint and our discussions with ACHD, the only traffic that we and ACHD envisions was emergency traffic entering by way of Teare Street by the nature of the fact it would be entering toward the back side of the building. Very Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 30 minimal. Some pedestrian traffic. The design is to access of this property by means of Victoria Street and two private approaches off Fairview. My opinion is that traffic impacts on the residential subdivisions will be very minimal or non existent. Barbeiro: If you were to put in—Block 3, Lot 1, what is the size of that. Martin: That is seven and a quarter acres. Barbeiro: We conceivably have 80 apartments in this area. I believe you’ll have traffic crossing through there to get to Fred Meyer, Locust Grove. Martin: I was speaking to the commercial portions of the project. It is all oriented toward Fairview. With the residential there would be some traffic, but I believe in primary access through that property would still be by means of Victoria Street. Borup: I’d like to continue with the public testimony. Miller: Gene Miller. I still had two questions that weren’t addressed as far as on the style location of the multi family dwellings—where they are set in on the map. And, on the single family dwellings. Our main concerns were a type or style of dwelling that may drop our property value. Borup: As far as the single family, there is not a lot of choices. They have minimum setbacks by City Ordinance. Hatcher: In regards to these residential lots, it is a simple solution just having the developer sit down with the adjacent Subdivision and finding out what your covenants are, making sure that they are equal or greater than your existing covenants. Commissioner Barbeiro just pointed out if you look at the layout, these proposed new lots are anywhere from 50 to 100 larger than the existing lots so that in itself means those lots are going to be more valuable than your, which should raise your price not lower it. Borup: We didn’t answer the question on the apartments for Mr. Miller. At this point they don’t have a design. We talked about having this on a conditional use permit which means they’d have to come back before this commission with that project when it was ready to be proposed. Any one else. Commissioner's. We have received testimony as normal of both aspects. We are on the annexation and zoning. Hatcher: I motion that we close the public hearing. Brown: I second. Borup: All in favor? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 31 MOTION CARRIED: ALLY AYES Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I motion that we recommend to the City Council for the request of annexation and zoning of 23.6 acres to CG, R-15 and R-8—CN-CN, R-15 and R-8 for proposed residential and commercial Teare Terrace by the Zambezi Group to include staff comments. I don’t have any add on's. Borup: Anybody else have any. Brown: Mr. Hatcher would you be willing to take the amendment to Lot 1, Block 3 be required to have a conditional use. Hatcher: Absolutely. Thank you. Borup: Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Is it included in that the screening would be worked out with ---never mind. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 13 LOTS ON 24.89 ACRES FOR PROPOSED TEARE TERRACE BY LEROY ATWOOD, ZAMBEZI GROUP—FAIRVIEW AVENUE: Borup: Anything additional to add Brad. Hawkins Clark: No. Please incorporate the comments from Item number 8. Borup: Mr. Martin, Is there anything that you’d like to add pertaining to the preliminary plat? Martin: Nothing new I don’t believe. I’d just like to reemphasize the issue of the landscaping and wall that we have the flexibility to work with staff on utilization of screening walls where they may be more appropriate than just a landscaping strip. Borup: Your talking essentially on the north of Lot 2. Martin: Specifically the north boundary block 1 and 2. Borup: Are you familiar with the sound deadening blocks. Martin: I certainly am and think those would be highly appropriate especially in the areas where the delivery service vehicles— Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 32 Borup: Can you explain what is different on those. Martin: First of all you have a non flat surface. You’ve got a broken surface and then some of them utilize a (inaudible) light fill which is a sound absorbing material which goes in the void of the block and then you also can use a spray on texture on the surface that further absorbs sound. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else from the public who would like to add further testimony to this. Schmidt: I am Glen Schmidt of 1920 N. Teare. The question that I have is the gentleman said that the traffic coming in off of Clarene onto Victory will be minimal. Borup: He is saying specifically for the commercial businesses. Schmidt: Okay. With Jericho running with a school and all that and Clarene coming right together, how is he going to maintain that there is not going to be any increased traffic. There is a lot of kids that play in that area. They cross the street and go to school each morning and go to the bus stops. I want to know how he can say there won’t be an increase in traffic on that. Borup: Do you want an answer from us? Any Commissioner's like to address that. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification the applicants representative when stating that there would be little to no traffic impact, he was specifically referring to the commercial development that blocks 1 and 2. Block 3 I think it is obvious will impact traffic there. My personal opinion is that it will be a minimal impact. I think what you’re going to see when that apartment complex goes before us in the future, we will be discussing traffic at that specific location. Just standard human behavior, I would suspect that 2/3 of the traffic that is generated by that apartment will go straight out to Fairview. What that count is, I could not tell you until we know what is going to be designed there. Borup: As far as the morning when children are going to school before the commercial businesses are going to be open. The afternoon could be a different matter. Hatcher: As we have discussed many times before on other projects traffic patterns from apartment complexes do differ from residential Subdivisions. The people that work have the same time frame as you and I and the ones that stay home are the more of the what you would consider the come and go tenants. Borup: The traffic studies have showed apartments have less per unit traffic than residential. Anyone else. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 33 Hawkins Clark: I’d like to point out one thing for those of you who have not read the ACHD report. They are requiring a 10 wide by 50 foot long landscape island in Victoria Street approximately in this location. It is a requirement of the highway district in terms of transitioning from this commercial use down here to the residential north. It may not deal with issues at this intersection here, but want to point that out. Borup: Their intention of that so that left turns not be possible out of there. Hawkins Clark: I think it is more of a transitional issue. Borup: Wouldn’t that also have a tendency to discourage left turns. Hawkins Clark: Depending on where they would side their driveways on lot 1, block 1. Borup: Did the applicant have any final comments. Commissioner's. Hatcher: I move that we close the public hearing. Brown: I second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Do we have a motion? Hatcher: I motion that we recommend approval to the City Council for the request for the preliminary plat of 13 lots on 24.89 acres for the proposed Teare Terrace by Leroy Atwood and Zambezi Group to include staff comments, ACHD report of design changes and I have to support staff’s comment on the landscape buffer. The developer wants to discuss that with staff or City Council, your free to do so, but I recommend the landscape buffer stay as is. I am not opposed to even adding a wall to that landscape buffer. Norton: I’ll second that motion. Borup: Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GROUP DAY CARE IN AN R-8 ZONE BY DEANNE YOUNG—2176 E. LOCHMEADOW COURT—CHATEAU MEADOWS SUBDIVISION: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 34 Hawkins Clark: Commission there was a staff report submitted dated April 26 which addressed recommending conditions for this project. I would just ask that these be incorporated. It is here located off of Lochmeadow in Chateau Meadows Subdivision. The site is on a culdesac located here. General site plan for the house and site photos. We do recommend approval with our conditions. Thanks. Borup: Is the applicant here this evening? You heard what staff just said. They’d recommend approval with their conditions. Have you had a chance to read their conditions. Young: My name is Deanne Young. 2176 E. Lochmeadow Court. I have read the conditions. No concerns whatsoever. I have spoken with the sanitation department and am in contact with someone in regards to the assessment agreement. They would plan it over 18 months to see if there was any extra water usage with the daycare. Norton: Do you maintain a child care license from the state of Idaho. END OF SIDE THREE Young: Not at this time but I do plan on doing that before it goes into operation. Norton: Are you operating a daycare home at this time? Young: No, not at this time. Norton: Are you caring for any children at all? Young: Just my own. Norton: And you plan to open a home to care for 12 individuals. Young: Not 12. The conditional use permit is for 6-12, but I plan on—I have to count two of my own and my total would be 6 to 7 including those two. Norton: Do you plan on hiring any employees. Young: No. Borup: Thank you Mrs. Young. Do we have anyone here who would like to testify on this application. Williams: Commissioner's, my name is Randy Williams and I live at 2530 N. Meadowglen. My property abuts the property for the daycare. I was one of the first tenants in the Subdivision. I bought this property for the peace and quiet not to live next to a daycare. I think on the culdesac is not appropriate for a daycare. There is no Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 35 through street. It would increase the traffic both on Meadowglen and on Lochmeadow and I think it is totally unnecessary. I am totally opposed to this. Borup: You said it would increase the traffic on Meadowglen? Williams: Not necessarily on Meadowglen but on front of Meadowglen. That whole neighborhood the traffic will increase if this is a daycare. I did not know how many kids would be allowed here, but if it is up to 12, it could be12 different vehicles for that matter. Borup: Thank you. Any one else. Seeing none. Commissioner's, any other information you’d like. Brown: Do you want to speak to the traffic. You’re the traffic expert here. Young: In the report, it does state that it could generate up to 54 additional vehicles per day. That’s if there is 12 children. Like I said, at this point of time, and I understand his concern, there is only going to be 6 to 7 kids, which two are my own. 54, that is calculated as 4 trips per vehicle. One to my house, second is away. One to pick up the kids is the third and one to leave my house after pickup. That pertaining to if they are all from different families. There my be 3 kids from the same family, which would include one car. At this point of time there is a lot of traffic through our subdivision. There are a lot of kids. There is an average of 2 kids per house on my block in my immediate Subdivision. I have seen signs where you can put out in the culdesac, kids playing, please drive slow. I am also planning on putting in my contract that there are many children in the neighborhood and to please watch for the children and drive slow. Norton: Do you have or what are your credentials or your qualifications for caring for other children. Young: I took care of multiple families, I am from North Idaho so from a very small town. I am also taking a CPR first aid pediatric classes. Central District Health—I am in contact with them. I’ve got a 4 year old and a 9 month old and I also have taken care of my nieces and nephews. Norton: What are your hours of operation? Young: From 7 a.m. to 5:30. Norton: Are you aware there are many, many organizations in this valley that daycare operators get together. There is quite a wonderful organization for early child hood development that you might consider joining. Young: I am also a part of child care connections. I have gone on to their web site and found articles on how much work Idaho needs to work on child care development and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 36 seeing how the children’s development from ages one to three is very important. I want to be able to help other peoples kids. Barbeiro: I do know that the State of Idaho does allow for one person to care for 12 children. Currently there is a group here in Meridian who is drafting a child care licensing ordinance. I believe a license now would allow you to care for only 6 or 7 children. Would you be willing to accept that. Young: As long as I could count my two yes. Or not. Barbeiro: I wish to move we close the public hearing. Hatcher: I second it. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, if there is no discussion on this to appease the neighbor and with Mrs. Young’s approval here can we go ahead and ask that only 8 children be a part of her daycare as a part of the conditional use permit. Staff can we do such a thing? Borup: We have not in the past. I think the problem is that our ordinance counts that they occupants their own children, so that often times people have been one or two older and from they intended to do but had to do it. Hawkins Clark: One of the required findings that the ordinance has for a conditional use permit is neighborhood capability. Certainly you are allowed is my understanding, but legal counsel has opinion on it but you can put conditions on a conditional use permit and particularly if you tie it to one of the required findings being minimal impact on neighbors. Borup: Are there some others in the Subdivision 6 to 12. Hawkins Clark: I am sorry I am not in that Subdivision familiar with what – Borup: I am thinking we have approved some others in this Subdivision or adjoining ones. I am not sure. To answer your questions, yes you can. Brown: Mr. Chairman, condition number 6 as presented by staff states that daycare will not adversely effect the surrounding properties due to children noise and traffic and other activities. Then, condition 14 states this is a zoning certificate and can be revoked if there is a violation of any of these conditions. So, I think that from Mrs. Young’s standpoint if we approve this per staff recommendations, allowed her to have the number of children and she realizes that if the traffic and her patrons create a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 37 problem, this gentleman or any other neighbors have the opportunity to notify the city and then the city can revoke the approval we are granting her. They would have to document that and staff would have to do a part of that as I read what the staff is recommending. I have a good friend that has a swimming pool down the street and she has kids coming and going and they are coming every hour, but she monitors that. There is not a problem. She does not allow them to park on anybody else’s property and they are there for a whole hour while swimming lessons are going on. I think that the condition is here that covers and protects you and if there is a problem—your worried about a potential problem—if there is a problem you can bring it back to the City. That is the way this recommendations is written. Borup: Do we have somebody ready to make a motion? Barbeiro: In light of Commissioner Brown’s note, I’d like to go ahead and recommend approval to City Council request for conditional use permit for a group daycare in R-8 zone by Deanne Young to include staff comments. Brown: I’ll second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR OPERATION OF A LANDSCAPING/LAWN MOWING BUSINESS OUT OF HOME BY PAT KING—1917 LEISURE LANE: Borup: We’ll have a staff report first. What interested me was your bottom paragraph that it was not a valid application. Hawkins Clark: Just to orient you here, Leisure Lane here. An accessory use permit, the way the ordinance reads, there are a set of criteria to which they need to comply to even submit for a home occupation. I do have the ordinance here if you want to note more details. A couple of those are not more than 25 per cent of the residential gross floor area can be used to operate the business. No employees other than those who live in the house and if these standards are not complied with, technically an accessory use permit is not a valid option. The schedule abuse control does state that an accessory use is required for home occupation and I think at this point staff just told the applicant --he can submit an application. We won’t keep him from submitting. The way the ordinance reads is if there is any objection to the application then it has to go to public hearing. Several accessory use permits for home occupation are just issued without coming to you. In this case if there is an objection it comes to you. That is the reason your seeing it because there were some written objections received. A couple of site photos. I understand that some staff on Planning and Zoning department have recognized that this site has been cleaned up from previous citations. There has Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 38 been—our code enforcement officer from the police department have been working with the applicant off and on for sometime and at this point it is coming to you since they did submit for a home occupation. No action has been taken by the code enforcement officers. One of the issues I believe here at the left photo of the house shows a bit of an encroachment of this berm into Leisure Lane. Leisure Lane is a private road so there are easements from each property to the center line. I do not have a copy of the easement agreement but typically those private roads needs to be kept open and available for access. Hatcher: Could you address the issue specifically of the application not being a valid application. Hawkins Clark: I’m sorry. I can’t really speak to it. This report was drafted by somebody else in the department. My understanding is that what I mentioned before. In order to be a valid application, it needs to be compliant with the 5 or 6 standards required for an accessory use permit. In this case he did not meet two of the standards. That mainly being the increased traffic and employees that don’t live in the house as well as using more than 25 percent of the area for the business. But, we choose to accept the application anyway. King: Pat King. 1917 N. Leisure Lane. I do have a copy of the easement agreement that was signed by every homeowner in August of not August but of 1988, twelve years ago. The corner lot that you see where the berm was put, my property—it was agreed upon that I would give up 24 feet from property line of my property to the property to the east side of it would have a whole use of this property because it was a small lot. I also have a curvature that comes in and at 35 feet is exacting where my berms stop and I was going to landscape and put grass on them. I’ve had 5 eye surgery’s in the last 4 months and haven’t financial been able to finish the work. Borup: The road right of way is 35 feet? King: There is a curb that comes into a culdesac and where the point of my property ends by a telephone pole and a fence, it was agreed upon that I would give up 35 feet in a curvature so that –of my land of my eastern portion of my property because the other person or the property was zoned to another property and they were not asked to give up more property. It is now a Subdivision. Also the curvature follows into the northern portions of my property line, not giving up any of my property on those property lines on the northern portion, so that the property is just due—you can see the long narrow property actually give up more of the property. It is all right in here in the easements. They were signed and agreed to under declaration 1988. I did some research at the County Assessors office. Borup: Does the berm go over what your understanding of the road easement is. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 39 King: No, in fact my berm was pushed back because they were complaining I took up too much. In this agreement I can actually take back what I gave up earlier. I have actually given up about 3000 square feet of my property where no one else has given up any for the road. Borup: That was part of the agreement your saying. King: No, these people forced me to give up more property because this is what all stemmed the complaint. They forced me to give up more of my property due to what they thought was an ingress egress. They weren’t aware of the easement agreement that was all ready established. I had always maintained up to my property line when I decided the ditch was flooding me out every time water would go in the ditch. I piped it and them put a berm on it. I was going to landscape it. This is a natural easement. They all signed it—the previous owners in 1988. I have given up a lot of my property. Hatcher: The question I have is if this is an invalid application, why are we proceeding with a public hearing. Legal Counsel please-- Swartley: Mr. Chairman, the reason this is proceeding is my fault. I was dealing with Mr. King and I told him to go to Planning and Zoning and talk to them. I asked Planning and Zoning to push it through. To come here in front of you to tell Mr. King-- to explain to him why he is not entitled to an Accessory Use Permit to be honest with you. It is my fault. King: I don’t understand home occupation. I mow lawns. My customers never come to me, I go to them. I really come home every night like any other person who works outside the home does. I have a acre and a half. I don’t raise farm animals. I don’t know how to grow crops to any degree. I just store my equipment on it. It came with the shop and I utilize the shop from time to time to work on or service my equipment. There is no employees that stay and work on my property. If they do or if I have anyone work on it, it’s just landscaping. I am landscaping a acre and a half to make it look nicer. I am trying to better the property. When I got there it was really bad. It had old car parts I had to haul off. I have made great improvements on it and will continue to do so. I need materials to landscape with so I don’t what home occupation means in your eyes. I don’t use my house for anything but for occasional phone call. I use a cell phone and a pager to answer my customers. I talk to them on the phone that way. I sit and write bills once in a while. I am gone about 8:30 in the morning and don’t drive home until 8:30, 9 o’clock at night. My home looks as good or better than the home around me. I think I should be able to use my land to store my equipment. It would be a great burden for me to rent a place somewhere. I would do anything I can to comply, but I don’t see why it is invalid at that point. Brown: Mr. King it appears that most of the comments that I have read talk about your compost. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 40 King: I have a 50 by 50 garden and I use all most 90 percent of it there. I will be redoing my lawn and using the compost to it. The compost is for my own personal use. I’ve got it to where the wind generally blows southeast toward my window. Borup: Would you like to address the chipper. King: The chipper is driven by my tractor that I use for tilling up my garden. I probably put on 10 hours in the last 8 months. I usually do it during the day time hours. Never in the evening and never on a Sunday. It was stated I did it on a holiday. I am not a school teacher and abide by legal holidays. I’ve got 8 months to make a living and have to work when I can. The chipper runs at a hour or two at a time. That thing hasn’t run in over 3 months. Norton: How long have you lived on this property. King: Two years. Norton: I have a comment. Have you ever heard of a organization called the Sounding Board. King: No I haven’t. Norton: The Sounding Board is a free mediation service that specifically helps neighbors mediate with neighbors. Regardless of what this Planning and Zoning Commission determines, this may be a real good board for your neighborhood to call. King: That would have been nice to do that before we got this far. I would like to say one thing. Out of 12 homes, there is about 8 other businesses being ran there. Borup: Any thing else Commissioner's. Thank you. Dave you mentioned the accessory use was maybe not the proper applied for. Swartley: That is correct. Borup: What would have been the proper— Swartley: He is not eligible for an accessory use permit. Borup: Because he’s not operating a business on site. Swartley: I believe he is operating a business on site, out of his home. Do you have the ordinance there. Borup: Yes. I’ve got the definition. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 41 Swartley: Right and I believe as Brad said, there are two or three requirements for a accessory use permit, which Mr. King does not meet. Borup: I think that part of what I’m saying—it's a short paragraph. A use or structure on the same lot with and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to the principle use or structure. Accessory use or structure—and we are not talking about a structure here—does not alter the essential characteristic of the principle permitted use and does not include a building—which defined here as a building unit. That’s it. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner's also section 11-9-4, paragraph 3 home occupation standards, I believe you were reading from definition section. That is the definition section that you were reading from. Chapter 2, the actual accessory use standards are in Chapter 9 of the same title. It does have A through F which are the standards for accessory use. Brown: Mr. Chairman, I want to take some liberty’s here. I am going to ask the City Clerk to read A through F of those characteristics that are considered standards for the home occupation. Berg: Home occupation Standards. It is the intent of this provision to permit home occupations in residential dwellings which do not change the appearance of the residence nor the condition of its residential character. The following Conditions shall apply: a. No persons other than members of the family residing on the premises shall be engaged in such occupation. B. The use of the dwelling unit for the home occupation shall be clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes by its occupants and not more than twenty five percent of floor area of the dwelling unit shall be used in the conduct of the home occupation. c. No article shall be sold or offered for sale on the premises except such as is produced by the occupant on the premises and no mechanical or electrical equipment shall be installed or maintained other than such as is customarily incidental to domestic use. D. No significant traffic shall be generated by such home occupation and any need for parking generated by the conduct of such home occupation shall meet the off street parking requirements as specified in this title and shall not be located in a required front yard. E. No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation which creates noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odor, or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses off the lot if the occupation is conducted in a single family residence. F. In no way shall the appearance of the residence be altered nor the occupation be conducted in a manner which would cause the premises to differ from its residential character in the use of construction, lighting, signs and in the emission of noise, fumes, odors, vibrations or electrical interference. Brown: Thank you. So Brad, I guess that your stating a couple of these caused this to not be a home occupancy. Do you want to take a shot in the dark and tell me which ones. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 42 Hawkins Clark: Commission Brown, Brown: Cause, unless he is having employees park there, that’s a problem, its still a residence. Hawkins Clark: I’d say that b. is one. c. does not apply. It does not appear that d. applies. e. regarding the equipment, the definition of a home occupation is any gainful operation, which is customarily incidental to (inaudible) a dwelling place. That also applies. Brown: With b. being the 25%, is that because this is were he stores his clippings? Hawkins Clark: The first section of b. Probably the 25 per cent is going to apply to a home occupation that is operated internally. Borup: Its in 25% of the floor area, the dwelling unit. Brown: Okay, not the total property. Hawkins Clark: Acreage. That’s never been interpreted that way. Brown: Okay, I think we need to get the rest of the public comment. I think we know where we’re at. Borup: I don’t understand b. being in violation because of the dwelling units. Does the commission want to proceed. We’d like to quickly take some public testimony. Sanchez: Tino Sanches, I live at 129 Leisure Lane which is the far one away from Pat King’s property. I submitted a complaint to you guys. Some of the things in there pertaining to the ordinance and stuff, its R-4 place and says that in the R-4 that’s not impact at all. He has employees coming there, driving onto his property, leaving his property and it is a very narrow lane. Mr. King, on the berm part, we need to have some more investigation on that. It is not just the berm itself. It is the property line and the fact that when you construct a fence or a berm, you have to have a permit. Am I correct? Brown: Mr. Chairman, I really don’t know what the berm has to do with the home occupancy. The road has nothing to do with the home occupancy. You guys have an easement. You guys share the easement. Sanchez: We don’t know anything about the easement sir. Brown: Well you have a private lane. I don’t see where that really applies to the home occupancy. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 43 Sanchez: I was concerning my fact on generating traffic. That is what I am saying. The other thing is he says he has run his chipper just once. That is not true. He has dug over a 3 or 4 foot hole and put all his clippings in from his business. We smell it all the time. He constantly runs his machinery over there in the morning. He has employees there on the weekends and there has been a few times he has worked on Sundays. The pictures are a real falsehood. He just spend all weekend cleaning it up. I think the other pictures should be shown. We totally oppose this because he has been running this business for over a year and a half and never applied for a permit. He got caught is why he is applying for it. He has made a lot of his neighbors mad. Borup: Are you running a business out of your home. No at all. Your not in contract with Pojo’s and their video games. Sanchez: Sir, I work for Pojo’s. I park when I come at night, I may have a video game in my truck that I have to deliver to the other store the next morning. Crabtree: Denise Crabtree. I live at 927 Leisure Lane. I wish to thank the commission and my Meridian neighbors for listening and having this opportunity to voice our concerns. We are here because this where we live and it effects our daily lives. This is uncomfortable because it is in our neighborhood and we would really like to have more peace. Mr. King moved in about 2 years ago and at that time the property he is on was a grassy pasture and when he moved he created an unsightly bleat of landscape. He has trucks and trailers and lawn equipment and more trucks and trailers. He has a very stinky compost pile and piles of branches and piles of pots and he has workers arrive before 8 in the morning and then they start up stuff and then go away. They come back at night and leave and go up and down the road. He if very active at that address and is operating a business off the property whether it is out of his home or not. My home is down west from their compost pile. It smells like I live next to the dump. It has been very uncomfortable living next to something so unpleasant. Norton: Do you run a business out of your home. Crabtree: No, I do not. Fellows: My name is Ron Fellows. 1932 Leisure Lane. I have the property directly east of the King property. I face west. The property is really deteriorating over the last two years he has had it. Those pictures was from this weekend apparently because I never seen it that clean. If the property was kept that clean, none of us would be here. I watch his crew run the chipper 8-10 hours a day. He hauls compost out in pickups. Unless he moved his garden, I can’t see where he is using it for his own use. I really would object to him doing this legally. Trebilcock: My name is Tina Trebilcock. I live at 1930 Leisure Lane, which is directly north of Mr. King’s property. One thing they were talking about the compost. It is not a compost bin. It is like a pile and the smell unbearable. They have totally changed the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 44 appearance of the property. Three years ago it was a pasture. Now it is totally dug up with equipment etc. all over the place. I have counted 13 trucks there at one time. King: I am Linda King. I live at 1917 Leisure Lane. I wrote a letter to address the concerns in the letters we got from the neighbors. With you permission I’d like to read it. I have not submitted it. We have carefully noted the complains against us and have made a consorted effort to bring the lot and situation up to a higher standard than that which the complaining neighbors have been satisfied with from others in the neighborhood. Within the last 2 years there has been an increase in traffic, both in large trucks, semis to be specific, and regular cars. There are at least 4 teenagers who have come of driving age and periodically speed up and down the lane. There are businesses being run directly out of the homes without permits. There are multiple vehicles being stored on various properties. All of these things are going on even if the King’s did not live on Leisure Lane. The fact is the complaining neighbors have accepted these things to be okay from themselves and others by virtue of their silence and now they point their fingers at us alone ignoring any of their (inaudible). I want to make it very clear that at no time have we ever sought to turn the lot into a commercial site. We value the neighborhood and have through to live within it to the same level, no more and no less, as have the other neighbors around us. I will explain what I mean, however, I feel it has to be noted that only 4 of the 12 homes on Leisure Lane made complaints. It also has to be noted that Mr. Crabtree and Mr. Sanchez went around to the other neighbors to (inaudible) complaints from them. As has been told to us, the other neighbors do not have any complains and want nothing to do with the “trouble makers”. As I read the four letters of complains I was floored by the hypocrisy contained within each letter. I believe it is very important to our situation that the inaccuracy and hypocrisy’s be shown for what they are. I feel the complainers are demanding that we live up to a higher standard then each of them is willing to live up to because our property is situated on a corner and not fenced it is in full view. It is unfair for the four that have complained to expect more of us simply by virtue of the fact that their property are less up front. Following I have noted the areas of concern in the letters. A. Chipper noise. We concede that chippers are noisy. We agree to whatever the guidelines the board sets forth regarding the chipped use. However, Mr. Crabtree did not seem to mind the noise when he contributed branches from his own property. Again I have to mention the hypocrisy. We only ask for fairness as we not the only ones who have and have used a chipper in the neighborhood. B. Compost. Two of the complaining neighbors have asked to contribute to our compost pile. END OF SIDE FOUR King: Mr. Crabtree has enjoyed the convenience of dumping his debris in our pile. Certainly both Miss Trebilcock and the Crabtrees had no complaint at that time. C. Increase traffic. We have not increased traffic on the lane to any greater degree than others have. Compare the three vehicles that drive in in the morning and the three trucks that drive out and vice versa in the evening. Miss Trebilcock said the trucks drive in and out all day long, which is not true. Compare this activity to semi’s, 8 in a day, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 45 hauling wood to be sold. Then, consider the buyers who drive in, pick up their wood and leave. Consider the large truck that hauls equipment from Pojo’s. This is negative increased traffic. Why didn’t the complaining neighbors say anything about these items. D. Running a business from home. We have aspects of a business on our property. It can not be considered running a business from our property in the true sense such as what the neighbors have. We do not have a clientele ever at the property. We store equipment and supplies to be used daily elsewhere. Most of the pipes, tubing, compost, shrubs and trees mentioned in Miss Trebilcock’s letter are in deed for personal use. We have more property to landscape then the neighbors and had long standing plans to do that as time and finances permit. I seeing nothing wrong with storing the supplies until we use them. The complaining neighbors did not mention the businesses run from their homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Crabtree has been running a auto repair business out of his home for years. I have seen tow trucks towing cars for him to repair. We have invoices from Doug’s Repair—the work he has done for us. Mr. Crabtree doesn’t seem to mind the eyesore in his own yard due to junk sitting around. We have a very compelling reason why we would like to keep the equipment and supplies close to our home. We have a son who has chronic health problems that periodically send him to the hospital. My husband can both watch our children and oversee the equipment as is goes and comes from our home. E. Branches and leaves allowing harborage to rodents Mr. Fellows letter. Rodents need a undisturbed place to nest. The neighbors behind us have piles and piles of junk that has not been moved in the last two years. If Mr. Fellows has a rodent problem, he can look to the Crabtree’s. F. Impact value to surrounding property. We can see that the lot has looked shabby and messy. Our long term goal is to have a nicely landscaped property. We have cleaned up the lot and intend to keep it clean. Again I ask, why have the complaining neighbors overlooked the Crabtree property. In conclusion, we must all be considerate neighbors and not so quick to point fingers. We too deal with noise and smells. Please be fair in your consideration. Our intend is to get along in a peaceful neighborhood even as we look out for our livelihood. Borup: Could you leave a copy of that for the clerk to put in the record? King: I can and would you like the picture’s we have taken. I will leave them with the letter. Borup: Commissioner's is there any other information you’d like? Sanchez: One reason why there is only 4 neighbors here is I talked to the Code Enforcement Officer and he said the submittal for the approval had to be given within a 300 foot radius. That was not done. It was only done to the abutting properties. Borup: We’ve got a list of who was notified and it included 12 people. 12 addresses on the list. Sanchez: Okay but can you clarify if it is abutting properties or 300 foot radius. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 46 Borup: According to our list it looks like it hit every body on the street. Sanchez: It did not hit us sir. We know because we got—we talked to Mr. Crabtree about it. We did not get it and are right next to them. Berg: Mr. Chairman, according to the Accessory Use requirement, notice of the application shall be mailed to the Certified Return Receipt mail to owners of property which abut the external lot or boundary lines of the property under construction. I don’t know what the requirements when it goes to a public hearing, but I assume that we keep with that consistent requirement. Borup: Okay, did that clarify. That is ordinance that on accessory use it is abutting. Crabtree: My name is Doug Crabree. I was repairing cars as the Kings said. I have stooped and am not doing it any more. I could see what was going to happen when this started. Yeah I’ve got some extra stuff laying there. If it is bothering them, I will get it cleaned up. I have done it for years for friends. Borup: The statement has been made that the property was cleaned up last week. Is that the same week you stopped. Crabtree: No, I stopped before then. About a month ago. I have had people come by and want to look at something. I said I could do it, but not here. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I move we close the public hearing. Hatcher: I second that. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Barbeiro: I’d like to refer back to Commissioner Norton’s (inaudible) that we are not a mediation service or referee. We have a neighborhood problem that is between a group of people that has been brought before a governmental board that as described by staff they don’t meet the requirements. I don’t even know why we are here with this. With a use of a mediation service the neighbors could come together and find a resolution for this. We can perform no resolution. All we can do is listen and act on nothing. Brown: I could be wrong. I don’t believe that I am but the action that is required from us is either approval or denial or tabling for more information. The application has been submitted and the reason it was that staff comes to an in-pass that they can’t take care of so then it has to go to a (inaudible) even though we are not elected by any means. It Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 47 is our responsibility to do one of those three items. The recommendation before us and staff is for denial and we can either act on it in that fashion or we can approve this or we can try to mediate this somehow and table to see if something happens in the future. The biggest problem is the odor and the storing of the grass clippings on site. I would be unwilling to make an approval on this at this point with the way it is currently being operated, in my opinion. Borup: Anyone else? Are you saying with some requirements and restrictions that you feel more comfortable. Brown: As I listen to the comments, those are the main items that I see that are of an issue. If the applicant is willing to meet with staff and discuss those and come back another time and come up with a solution for that then that would be some kind of mediation with the problems. If not, I would have to go with staff’s recommendation and ask for denial. Swartley: Mr. Chairman. From a legal prospective, Mr. King does not meet the requirements of a.,b.,c, and e., clearly. Your approving that would be a direct contradiction to the ordinance. Just wanted to put that on the record. Borup: I am still confused about b. Swartley: Regardless of whether you got a problem with one of the five, you still got one or two that he is not meeting. One will do it. Borup: How would we like to proceed. Norton: I would move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council to deny the request for accessory use permit for operation of a landscape lawn mowing business out of a home by Pat King at 1917 Leisure Lane and to include all of staff’s comments. Hatcher: I second that motion. Borup: Brad, does this go on to City Council or is this the only public hearing. Hawkins Clark: Accessory Uses are final with P&Z. There is an appeal period. Norton: I’d amend my motion then that this P&Z Commission deny. Borup: Motion and second, any discussion? Hatcher: My comment is this is a (inaudible) government board and I think it is quite inappropriate to launder your dirty laundry at this forum. The neighborhood has a problem and they need to resolve it. The only reason it is in front of us is because an Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 48 application was submitted through the Planning and Zoning process. It has been determined that it was invalid due to violations. If there are other homeowners in this neighborhood that are violating their own covenants of their own city ordinances, it is the neighbors who need to help enforce that. I am appalled at the laundry at this level. Borup: Are you recommending that staff needs to take a look at other home businesses that are in there without--- Hatcher: It is not staff’s job but the –I believe it is our police department that the zoning ordinance and if there are other violators then they should be cited equally. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Brown: Mr. Chairman, are we going to get all this items tonight? Borup: Do you want to go on to 12 and 13 right now. What a break. Brown: What I don’t want to do is be here until midnight and then tell the last two applicants that we aren’t doing them. If we are going to table someone, I am getting tired of being here until 2 in the morning. Borup: The question is— Hatcher: Let’s do a show of hand as to who the greater public is. Borup: Item number 12 and 13 is Autumn Faire Subdivision. How many are here to testify on that? Okay. How many here in opposition testimony. Items 14 and 15 is Generations Plaza buildings. How many here on that item? Any opposition? Okay, thank you. Item 16 and 17. That must be the rest of you. That help any Commissioner's? Last item on the agenda is requiring the most testimony. Let’s get started on it. 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 78.4 ACRES FROM RT TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED AUTUMN FAIRE SUBDIVISION BY GEM STAR PROPERTIES, LLC--SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLACK CAT AND USTICK ROADS: Hawkins Clark: This application is for the property generally located at the southwest corner of Ustick and Black Cat road. For clarification we did include this in our staff report in which we do ask you to incorporate our comments. Their application did state 78.4 acres which is generally encompasses the plat. There is a drain that more or less meanders across this direction through the property. This are is actually 100 acres. My understanding and maybe the applicant can address this is that they are actually asking Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 49 for 100 annexed to R-4 zone. That is a clarification. We processed it and all the fee issues have been worked out. The property is eligible for requesting annexation. Ashford Greens and the city golf course are here immediately west of the property. Turnberry Subdivision is immediately south. There is a church here in this LO zone, just to the south on Black Cat. Two properties are excluded from the annexation request at this time. Staff spent quite a bit of time trying to look at the required findings for annexation and was detailed in our staff report. There is several things that would support not annexation this property at this time until several services and other issues are addressed. They are technically in terms of sewer and water it is available. They meet the principle elements for meeting the annexation. In terms of the next application, here is a couple of site photos. The plat is requesting again for the R-4 standards—78.4 acres of the 100 being requested and we had several conditions. They have met with Ada County Highway District, several issues have been dealt there. A little bit misleading. This is actually a east west orientation on this plat, but north is to the left. ACHD has requested that this stub street here actually not be stubbed. Rather that the stub be continued from this street—the main reason the flow of traffic would encourage a greater distribution on Black Cat. Norton: I have one question regarding your number 4 on page 5 of staff comments regarding limited services and how response time from the now existing fire department without having that new fire building built, how serious do you think that would be a problem not getting there at a reasonable time. Hawkins Clark: Commissioner Norton, I did speak with the fire department. They’re issues are a little different than the police. The police typically has officers that are roaming and their response time is quicker. The fire from where they are at would not meet the Comprehensive Plan goal of 5 minutes when you figure that their main route is Franklin all the type to Black Cat and then north. The current tentative plan is to break ground in October on the Ten Mile Station. Borup: The applicant here and like to come forward. Stanfield: Scott Stanfield with Earl and Associates. 314 Bateola in Caldwell. I will try to make this real quick. General statements, we feel this proposal does conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Utilities as indicated by the staff report are readily available. ACHD staff report in conjunction with our own traffic consultant has indicated no adverse impacts to current traffic conditions. Borup: What I’d like to hear about is the items that you have a conflict with or disagreement to. Stanfield: I’ll address the fire department concerns since Commissioner Norton brought that up. October groundbreaking on the fire station. We don’t anticipate building our first structure until September due to the planning and design. The Findings of Facts listed opposing our annexation request. Number 1, the school site. We recognize that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 50 the Comprehensive Plan does indicate a school site in the vicinity, however it is not specifically shown on this site. The school district did not request a school site. They have not approached us. Does not mean the door is closed. Roadway capacity, again ACHD staff report indicated there are no adverse impacts. ACHD indicated the level of service currently is A. ACHD feels that a build out this project will still have a level A. Service centers, again people coming to and from the traffic issue should not be there. The reference about delaying this project until commercial and recreational uses are available to the site, the fundamental premise on development is residential comes first and then commercial will follow. Unlikely commercial will go in there. Fire and emergency medical services, we touched on that. Currently the response time from St. Luke's and the fire station on Franklin is greater than 5 minutes although that is a goal in the Comprehensive Plan and can appreciate that. But I highly doubt that you can get to a lot of areas in the city from St. Luke's within 5 minutes. Item 5 regarding parks again this is a school site in the Comprehensive Plan and we recognize a park or open spaces shown to the west of this project. Again specifically not on this site. We have consolidated all our retention areas at staff recommendation. In addition to tulley park, fuller park is about two miles to the southeast. Tow park is about one mile to the south east and a future 56 acre park at Ustick and Meridian about 3 miles away. Item number 6, staff suggests duplexes or townhomes. We don’t want to propose those. It is not follow the Comprehensive Plan for that area. We do not want to go against the Comprehensive Plan as that would require an amendment. We rather not go through that process. Townhomes and duplexes will not be compatible with Ashford Greens or Turnberry Subdivision and I highly doubt that Ashford Greens would be very supportive of them in this vicinity. It is conflicting so we would prefer to stick with single family. Item 7, in fill priorities. We recognize the importance of developing in fill area within the city but there are no real incentives for developer to develop them. A lot of sewer capacity is all ready taken up for these areas. Item number 8. We believe that we comply with that statement. The lands have been in ag use as long as possible and utilities are now there. We propose a phasing set up where farming will continue as long as phasing is there. We will keep the grounds in ag operation until they are phased out. In general, our plan does conform with the requirements and we will meet the requirements other that the townhomes and duplexes. The city will benefit from this project. We do agree to a well site. The contribution to the Black Cat trunk line will be great--$370,000. Borup: Any questions. Norton: As a representative of the developer I am going to ask for Pie in the sky and in the older days developers use to donate land for a school site. This development with 248 residential lots, it seems to be it might be a real nice gesture to the City to donate land for a school. Any thoughts on that. Stanfield: We have thought about that greatly. We agree with your statement, however we are all ready giving up a large area for a well site. To give up a well site, park site Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 51 and a school site it is uneconomically feasible. The lots sales would not be there after we gave up all that land. Norton: How many acres are you giving up. Stanfield: The well site will be a minimum of 100 by 120 as required by the City. Green spots total combined about 5 acres. That includes the 30 foot buffer zone I’ll add. Norton: So, your not even accepting the idea of donating a school site. Stanfield: Not necessarily a school site. Let me go back to the area P&Z staff mentioned about the 20 some odd acres that are not a part of this preliminary plat. That is on the other side of the drain and sewer is not accessible there. There could be options for a park land in that area. Not a school site. Barbeiro: I am not familiar with the processes of developers donating school sites. Norton: Combs Park. In Boise was donated. Hatcher: We just had one at the beginning of the evening. The high school lot for—no it wasn’t purchased. Borup: What I’d like to see is the purchase could be at a very reasonable price. Something like that would be appropriate. You mentioned access south to the drainage. What would be the access. There is no access from Black Cat is there? Stanfield: Currently no. There is that out parcel. That is a residential use parcel. There is a stub street from Turnberry. And, stub streets coming in from our project. There are actually two. ACHD has a modified report as of Thursday. That goes out to the out parcel. I would add on the school site, we need to be careful here because of the sewer capacities issues. I don’t believe there is any time table on the Black Cat trunk. The funds aren’t there yet, but this project will contribute significantly to that fund. English Gardens to the south, I believe also contributed significantly. Borup: We’ve has a few projects contribute to this and we need a few more for it to become feasible. Two comments. You mentioned the placing on the school and park site on the Comprehensive Plan where it specifically on this property but I think you realize that a Comprehensive Plan is just in the general area. Stanfield: As this area develops to the west, that is part of the McDerrmott trunk line. It can not feed in to the Black Cat trunkline. A new trunkline system and lift station will have to be constructed to anything to the west. If a school site is identified to the west, then sewer capacity would be brought online. Brown: Have you spoke to the school district. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 52 Stanfield: We have sent letters to them. I don’t believe we significantly raised the issue. Again, the door is not closed but I am hesitant to say we would want to put a school site in because of the sewer capacity. I would add that the confusion between the 100 acres versus 78 acres –if that was an error on our part in the application, we decided to go for the entire 100 acres. If the commission is not comfortable with that we will tone that down to just this area unless the commission wants to seek a park land to the south of the drain. Then, that would have to be included in the annexation. Borup: Are you offering that? Stanfield: It is on the table. The area is not serviceable by sewer as it sits. The Black Cat trunkline does not have capacity for it. Brown: The out parcels, are they current owners of the property being annexed. Stanfield: Correct. Mr. Dean Langley if he is in the audience. I have not met him in person yet. He is the owner on the parcel in the far northeast corner. I don’t believe he owns the south. He can attest to that better than I. Borup: One final question –shaded area shows the one out parcel down from the corner. Does the plat shows the other area to the north of that not platted. Stanfield: Correct. Borup: Is the other part of the annexation and Subdivision or is that a out parcel also. Stanfield: No, that hatched area in the extreme corner is part of the annexation. It is not part of the preliminary plat because it is a current residence unit. Borup: Half is staying as residential. Half is being annexed and the other have is not. Standfield: Two parcels there. One is being annexed. The other parcel is not. I believe it was created on a one time split numerous years ago. Borup: Anyone else like to testify on this application. Langley: Dean Langley, 3185 N. Black Cat Road. That would be the out parcel in the north corner. I am a partner in Langley Farms Ltd. It is a no brainer that I am in favor of this project. Let me review a couple things. If you look at the staff report of May 5, going over this with Brad last week, pointed out on page 2 on location. There is some confusion there. It refers to the parcel up there on the north corner of .7 acres. What the deal is the little finger of land that is cross hatched to the north there was offered for sale to the Gem Star people. They have told us some month ago that it doesn’t fit with their plan because it is such an odd size and small. They don’t want to buy it. That is Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 53 the last I’ve heard. Our tentative plans are to not sell that to them. To join that partnership .7 acres with the acre that I personally own and make 1.7 acres on that corner to block out the rest of the corner. When Brad and I went over the legal description he confirmed to me on Friday that indeed that is the way the description shows it. The other thing, the map that was sent out April 13 or dated the notice from Mr. Berg did show our one acre parcel being in the area that would be annexed. That was an error. It is correct here. Our desire is to poll 1.7 acres on the corner not be annexed and be left out of the project. Borup: The latest one we have shows it that way. Langley: Yes, thank you. Moving on quickly on the do not report section from staff report, page 4 number 1, school facilities and Commissioner Barbeiro had referenced that. I do know for a fact, I worked for Jim Carberry for 3 years, there is a school site that has been purchased in the old (inaudible) property. It is now Dakota Ridge. There is a elementary site that has been acquired there. That is within a half mile of this site. The staff report references that they want school sites within one or two mile radius. I think that easily accommodates that until such a time further development—maybe doesn’t necessitate that but I would think that would be a ways down the road and it would be really early to push on the school site. On page 4, number 3 the service center issue and Mr. Stanfield did address that on the commercial facilities and then again the old argument on which comes first commercial residential. The Albertson’s that they referenced on Ten Mile and Cherry Lane indeed happen that way. After the development was there, Albertson’s came in and it has been a great asset to the community because it saved a lot of trips farther away. I think that is living testimony to that. Much of the traffic from this proposed development would be short stop to that kind of a development that is all ready in place and is quite handy and most of that mile two miles to that is 4 lane, Cherry Lane that has been developed all ready. Page 5 number 4, fire emergency, Mr. Stanfield and Commissioner all ready address that. It is obvious that thing is on line and that is going to be developed so the fire station and emergency services will be available. Page 5, number 6 on housing diversity and affordability issue. I had a chance to interview Steve Bradbury. He is an attorney with Jones (inaudible) and they represent a number of developers several of which have applied to the city in the last two years for mixed use. He tells me that overall it has been very difficult to get those approved. There has been attempts to that and I agree it is a good idea but just speaking to that, I think there (inaudible) aside from this one perhaps a future on west. On the preliminary plat requirements, page 9 number 11, I wanted to voice our support for that recommendation from P&Z staff here. That is supporting a roadway connection or vehicle connection to the north property that we own for future development and access to sewer internally in Subdivision. On the south property which has not been referenced, but my sister who is a partner in our company has that 2.7 acres that is pie shaped right there and we are asking that their recommendation for the stub to there be also approved and encouraged as well. Those two properties were are not going to be there for ever and they will offer some opportunities for both mixed use and or commercial. In conclusion, for a most part we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 54 are an old neighborhood there. There is a handful of families that have most of the acreage on that mile. END OF SIDE FIVE Langley: Its been a good neighborhood, had good relationships and I want that to continue. A number of those folks are here tonight and I have not spoken to them personally recently, but encourage any comments even in opposition of things that they want to voice. We do want to continue to be good neighbors. Brown: I am curious about the out parcels. Langley: It is just preliminary. We don’t know that we intend to be there long term and so we don’t want that impediment to future growth and development so at least it is there so the future property owners make that step. On the north corner where our property is, the acre there, if there is not allowance make in the plat for a driveway access then it would be pretty hard to put it in after the buildings are built. Annexation specifically, if it suits the city, we are amenable to that. We are on sewer systems on both the properties now. Brown: Is that your biggest concern that annexation kicks in the sewer requirement. Langley: Yeah, that would be the concern. Borup: Any other questions. Yes Mr. Kuntz. I was going to call you forward even if you did not come up. Kuntz: Tom Kuntz. 268 W. Claire. Just one item. I’d like to voice my support for the staff comments in regards to parks. There are no neighborhood parks within a one mile radius of this site. Our new Comprehensive Plan that hopefully will be adopted in the next 30 days will call for neighborhood parks within ½ mile. Your going to have approximately 800 people living in this area. They need to have green space and a place to recreate. We need to have open space for these people to be able to recreate. The developers need to step to the table and partner with the city. There are several ways to do this. We keep adding houses with any real consideration giving for park land. Meridian has right now 1.2 acres per 1000. The national average is 5 to 10 acres per thousand. This would go a long way for this developer to step up and say we will set aside 5 to 8 acres for a community park. Brown: Would the Parks Dept. be willing to take over maintenance. Kuntz: Right now we have a procedure policy in place where for us to maintain those they need to be 5 acres minimum. If there were enough of those smaller sites in one Subdivision, sure. We are open to all offers. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 55 Barbeiro: What is a property size for a neighborhood park. Kuntz: The national average is 4 to 8 acres. I would say 2 acres minimum and that would allow us to put a playground structure. Drise: Ronald Drise from 6295 W. Ustick. My property is on the map and most of the people that are here are represented by that property west of this property. We have no problem rezone that as far as we are concerned. Janasak: Lela Janasak and I’m on 2256 N. McDermott and we are just northwest. We adjoin on the back of Turnberry and then just south of the Subdivision. We own the acreage that goes all the way through to McDermott. We have been there for 25 years and have no problem with the annexation of this property. Borup: Applicant have any final comments. Stanfield: Mr. Kuntz’s requirements regarding the park land again the area south of that drain we are open to discussion there for a 8 acre parcel in the event that our (inaudible) are not acceptable to the parks department. As far as sewer, I am sure that the engineering and us could work together and probably squeeze a restroom in there without dropping one residential unit in Autumn Faire. If it pleases the city to get a small neighborhood park. We are open to that. Hatcher: Could you or do you know the size acreage land south of the drain. Stanfield: That annexation is approximately 22 acres. I don’t want to give away the farm to be honest but we could be in the 4 to 8 acre range. Borup: What was the location of the well site? Stanfield: We envisioned that in the northeast corner. Mr. Freckleton and I were discussing there could be an issue on septic system locations currently that the (Inaudible) may or may not have on site. That will dictate where the well site is. Hawkins Clark: There are two main things. One is services and two there is no development plan connected with that 22.5 acres. The development agreement could potentially have some wording that would speak to that. Borup: Any other discussion Commissioner's. Norton: One question. Is it possible to squeeze a restroom out of the sewer. Freckleton: That is something we could visit in the sewer model that we have. I think the capacity is there for a restroom. The lot that we kind of targeted is there on the northeast corner. Brad Watson and I were looking at it today. They probably could do Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 56 some shifting and not loose a building lot. The location of septic drain fields may hurt us. We have to maintain sanitary separation of I believe 100 feet from a drain field to a well head. Hatcher: If those two lots were annexed in, those are all ready connected to sewer. Oh they are on septic. So if they were annexed in then they would have to connect to city and the drain fields would not be an issue. Freckleton: Mr. Langley would like to operate the way he currently is until such time that something does develop on that parcel. Hatcher: Didn’t we all ready start construction on the Black Cat Truck on Ustick road and have it stubbed for certain locations or is that in the planning stages. Freckleton: It is in the planning stages. It would be a financial contribution through the trunk line expansion fee. Hatcher: This Subdivision would currently then be facilitated by the existing temporary line and lift station that currently exists at Ashford Greens. Freckleton: It would go into the Black Cat Trunk and this property would also be subject to the latecomers fees for that lift station. So they have the trunk line expansion fee and also would be paying latecomers contributions as well. Brown: Is it a policy that they have to connect the sewer or is it a ordinance. Freckleton: It is ordinance. Brown: So they would have to have a variance to not do that if we requested it. Their only hang up with being annexed – Freckleton: That probably would be appropriate in this case. Brown: We could do that with a development agreement? Freckleton: I think it could be spelled out in the development. I believe you would still have to require a variance. Stanfield: I need to add one more thing. I told the adjoining property owner Mr. Jack Anderson who is due west of out project on the south side of Ustick there is an existing 10 foot easement. In the squared off corner at the bottom of that map. He does have a recorded document for that easement for irrigation. We have to honor that. We have proposed to him to give him a new pipe line and alter that so it doesn’t leak as much and give him a new easement. He asked that we bring that up at this meeting that we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 57 have been meeting with him. I have copies of our letters and proposals to him, if the commission requires. Brown: I move we close the public hearing. Hatcher: Second that. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Discussion first or ready for a motion. Barbeiro: With the staffs comments about customarily not annexing unless there is a plat plan for entire area. The plat will come back before us, okay. Hatcher: Would it be appropriate on this project to—certainly we can move forward with the annexation and zoning but would it not be more appropriate to table the annexation and zoning pending a revised preliminary plat that would resolve and identify park location if we were to make it a requirement. Borup: We could go either way. No, we would need to table it if we going to be asking for a revised plat. Hatcher: Approve the preliminary plat with the park in it. Borup: If that is the way we are going which is the next item on the preliminary plat. Hatcher: If we are not going to approve the preliminary plat we need to table the annexation and zoning. Borup: Don’t need to. We just need to annex the whole 100 acres so a park site would be included in there. Then the preliminary plat would be held up. (inaudible) conversation off the microphone. Borup: It all has to be worked out with staff and parks department anyway. Brown: There is a stub street to it. Your talking about another parcel. We know the general area and we are not being specific as to what it is or how they are going to work that out. Is it necessary that we see it and go back through this--- Borup: Are there any other concerns on the plat? Other than a proposed park site. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 58 Norton: We don’t have any pictures of what that little parcel looks like. What is the contour of the land. It is appropriate for a park area. I would feel uncomfortable sending this forward with not specifying how many areas the developer will give up or even if he is willing to do this. Borup: They said 4 to 8. Norton: In that area on the other side of that lateral. Borup: What do you need for a park.—Is this the drainage in the picture at the left Brad. No, that’s just an irrigation ditch. Do you have a picture of that drain? Hawkins Clark: I’m sorry, we do not. Norton: I still have some problems with approving an annexation without approving a plat and only sending part of it to City Council. Brown: I can’t see we have a problem approving the plat even with the requirement that they provide a 8 acre part and that they work out the details with the parks department. We don’t need to see it. Borup: Unless there was any other concerns with the plat. If the park is the only item Brown: We need to set kind of a basis with what they need to work with. City Council could approve that and not even know the configuration. That is why they hire staff to do that. I see any value added in calling them to have the developer spend another month to draw something that is going to take sitting down with the parks department and City Council to decide what it is they want to purchase or donate. Borup: I have to agree with that. So do we want to go forward on Item number 12. Norton: As long as we connect them together and either hold them both or send them both forward. Freckleton: the only thing I was going to bring up is typically we do require the preliminary plat be revised prior to moving forward to council. What ever recommendation you make here to night. Brown: Is there a building requirement for a park site that requires that to be a platted lot. Borup: What we are saying, the park site isn’t a necessary part of this plat. It is adjacent to this plat. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 59 Freckleton: There are several items that ACHD has brought up that could be put on the plat. Borup: Our recommendation could state that before the hearing at City Council that the plat be revised according to whatever comments we have. That if the revision is not done prior to City Council then it would not be on the agenda. Freckleton: That is what we have done typically with all preliminary plats that have come through. Borup: Maybe we just need to specify what those recommendations need to be. You had stated the well site and – well else? Access to the north parcel. Freckleton: We would also need to revise legal descriptions to be inclusive of those other parcels too. The out parcels for annexation. Borup: Is that one of the items we were discussing. Brown: I don’t know if the rest of the commission has a concern about it but I would encourage it. We can have the development protect their current interest. Freckleton: I would support that. It is messy to go back and clean up those enclave parcels down the road. Brown: The city doesn’t do it. That is the problem. Borup: Anything else. Three items. Have the well lot designated. Some type of access to the northeast parcel and then annex the two out parcels. Freckleton: The ACHD recommended stub street. Borup: Well, yes and the applicant addressed that. That needs to be on there to. Brown: The request of annexation and zoning of 100+ acres to include the out parcel to the northeast corner and the out parcel to the southeast corner to R-4 zoning for the proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star Properties, LLC on the southwest corner of Black Cat and Ustick Roads subject to staffs recommendations and on page 3 that are in support— Borup: Well, staff did make some recommendations on page 7, four of them— recommendations if it was annexed. I don’t know that we need to address the ones where they have recommended—but include the ones that they have site specific requirements. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 60 Brown: So the ones that we would have would have would be the ones general annexation requirements 1-8 and site specific 1-4, and that the parcel south of the drain be included to work with staff on a 4 to 8 acre park site prior to going to City Council. Hatcher: (Inaudible) open to an amendment that say in (inaudible) park rather than 4 to 8 acres. I was asking Kent if he would be open to amending his motion to an 8 acre park rather than a 4 to 8 acre park. Brown: If you want to make a substitute motion I’ll let you do that but I think that we should leave it with the parks department and the developer to work it out. It is more reasonable. Hatcher: Very well. Borup: Okay. So the motion was to approve with the staff comments 1-8 and 1-4 on requirements and to include a park site south of the drain. Is that essentially your motion. Okay. Do we have a second? Norton: Do we need to include the stub street. Borup: No, that will be on the plat. Hatcher: I second the motion. Borup: Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 78.4 ACRES FROM RT TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED AUTUMN FAIRE SUBDIVISION BY GEM STAR PROPERTIES, LLC – SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLACK CAT AND USTICK ROADS: Borup: Brad. Anything additional? Hawkins Clark: I’d like to spend the next hour going over some---nothing further to add. Brown: Is it a needed requirement that that be a lot in the Subdivision for the park site. Borup: As long as it is in the city limits and has a legal description and its got access to that – Brown: (Inaudible) building permit other than a one or two holer. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 61 Hawkins Clark: There is an existing 100 acre and essentially they are coming in for a plat on one, so that creates a remnant 22.5 acres. That remnant piece its going to be section land so if your saying—I am not aware of any ordinance that says a city park well site anything is required to be included in a Subdivision. I need to check on that. Borup: The larger parks have not been. Hawkins Clark: At this point it would be very difficult it seems to be especially for the developer to develop a meets and bounds description for a park site before the next City Council meeting. There are issues to be worked out with accessibility. Borup: It depends on how fast Mr. Kuntz and his department can get moving. Sounds like the developer feels they can do it if an agreement on the exact location can be worked out and the location is going to have to be at one of the two stub streets. Or another stub street need to be provided. Hawkins Clark: Parks technically are not permitted outright in the R-4 zone. It would require a conditional use permit. If it is designated as a lot in a plat it does not require a conditional use permit. Borup: If it was not a lot then it would require a conditional use permit. Hawkins Clark: That’s correct. Borup: So between now and City Council it does need to have a specific lot designated. We said that. So we add one lot to the plat apparently, unless we want to come back in with a conditional use permit and rezone and everything else. Sounds like they are prepared to have that added. Mr. Stanfield any other comments you’d like to make. Stanfield: We will do whatever it takes to keep us moving along and get this park shown on our preliminary plat for council meeting and recognize we have to show it before the agenda is set for the next council meeting. We will work with the parks department. We will meet ACHD’s requirements on stub streets, 3 locations. The well lot will be shown and all those conditions will be met except for ---we can meet all of the conditions. Borup: Do we have anyone else. Langley: I just want to mention again since I don’t believe I heard conclusion on the issue of the page 9 number 11 issue on the stub on the south parcel and the vehicular access on the north. Borup: Those are both or will be included in the preliminary plat. Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 62 Norton: Mr. Chairman I’d like to close the public hearing. Barbeiro: I second the motion. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Brown: I recommend approval of the preliminary plat of approximately 277 lots on more than 78 acres for the Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star, LLC on the southwest corner of Ustick and Black Cat subject to staff recommendations with the inclusion of the two stubbed roads (inaudible) by the applicant and the access on the northeast corner also. Norton: I will second that motion. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Our policy is to close this meeting by 1 o’clock END OF SIDE SIX 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REVITALIZATION OF EXISTING BUILDING TO HOUSE A RESTAURANT/OFFICES ZONED O-T BY COLE ASSOCIATES— GENERATIONS PARK PLAZA BUILDING 1—FIRST AND IDAHO: Brown: Mr. Chairman, I would move that these people don’t sit through this. We are not going to get to those last two items. I just don’t see that we are going to do it and these people are going --- Borup: We had one public testimony on this item, but I would tend to agree. You proposing that we move it to the next meeting. Brown: I just don’t see it happening and I feel really poorly for these people that sit here and at 1 o’clock we tell them we are not going to go. That is my feeling. Borup: Your proposing that we move 16 and 17 to next meetings agenda. Do we have enough room on that agenda to add – Hatcher: If we were going to move it, we should have moved it hours ago. Not now. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 63 Borup: This could be first on the agenda of that meeting because it will not be noticed so we could revise that agenda. How do you commissioners feel? Hatcher: I concur with Kent’s idea. We are probably not going to get to this within the next hour, but if we were going to propone it we should have done it several hours ago so these people did not have to sit here all night only to hear that we are postponing it. Borup: I think we brought that up. Brown: I did bring that up. Hatcher: And, it was not dealt with at that time. Borup: For some reason we did not have our physic here to tell us how long the testimony was going to be. Norton: I would go with the pleasure of the people sitting in the audience. Borup: How many people for Item 16 and 17 would like to see if we get to it tonight or guarantee that it will first on the next times agenda. We can accept written testimony. How many for postponing it? How many would like to proceed ahead tonight? The 24th we have a special meeting. Not on this item we wouldn’t. The letters would go out on the other items. This has all ready been noticed so the notification would be tonight. At the special meeting we have that set at 6:30. Norton: Mr. Chairman do you require a motion for that? I am prepared to move that we move Item 16 and Item 17 to be first on the agenda to table it tonight, move it to be first on the agenda at our special meeting on May the 24th at 6:30 p.m. Barbeiro: I second the motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 2 AYES, 1 NAY, 1 OBSTAIN Borup: If this gets done in 15 minutes we will see if we made a mistake or not. Hawkins Clark: The next two items are related, however they are 2 different legal parcels. This deals with what is being called Generations Plaza 1. The current site is located here. Did you receive comments that were just completed by Shari today. They are dated May 9. There was written comments that should have been sent over earlier. You may or may not have received those. The couple main things to point out, this Variance application did go before City Council on the 2nd of May for this site regarding off street parking and the City Council did approve the variance. They are requesting 2 different uses. Retail for the lower level and office for the second floor. The existing Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 64 alley—no that is on Generations 2. We will have to get you copies of this. Here are site photos of the building here that is currently exists. As I understand it they are proposing now to demolish this building and construct completely from ground up. There has been discussions with the park department regarding this addition which would be outdoor seating. Here is Idaho and the alley behind. There is an agreement that needs to worked out with the City regarding this area. As I understand, this small sliver here to the north is the city is not willing to negotiate with in terms of use for this project. Cole: My name is Stan Cole. I represent (inaudible) who are developing these two sites. I respectfully request that we can with my discussion address both Generations 1 and 2 at the same time. Our project consists of two buildings. Now they both are going to be new buildings, two story. To the east of Generations Park we are proposing approximately 6,000 square foot two story building that would accommodate restaurant in the first level, office in the second level. To the north we are proposing approximately 12,000 square foot building which would accommodate retail, restaurant on the first floor and office on the second floor. We are proposing to vacate the alley. This would help address some of the park issues. Help expand the park towards the north. Help us get more pedestrian flow through both buildings adjoining the park. We feel that this is a real asset to the downtown part of Old Town Meridian that would help front generations park, help get pedestrian flow through those areas. Hatcher: Quick question Stan. For clarification, did I catch something the existing building that is to the east of the park is no longer being—the CUP was submitted for revitalization of the existing building. But, you now are coming to us this evening (inaudible) that building. Cole: Though our investigations, our structural engineer would now decided that the structure is not sound to renovate. We are proposing to expand the existing foot print pretty much as is except a little to the north which we have property for us. We are adding approximately 360 square feet total, each floor for the footprint. The design will not change. We are staying within the same perimeters we had initially. It will just be a new structure. Hatcher: Was there any attempt or plans of salvaging the historic phasod to the south. Cole: We talked to the Historical Commission and they don’t feel this building warrants any consideration. It will be somewhat similar to what is there now. We aren’t modifying our design and our design was based on original structure. This is Generations 1 which is the building to the east which was existing. Our plan is to replicate our design with a new structure other than extension in the back to accommodate more square footage. Generations 2 which is to the north has a phasod which represents some of the historic downtown nature. I think your elevations that were presented as part of this (inaudible) delineate that further. I have some drawing to add to it. In terms of the findings that were submitted to us by the Planning and Zoning Commission, I would like to also compliment the staff. We worked very closely with Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 65 Tom Kuntz the Park Director and the Mayor and the Planning and Zoning Staff to get where we are today and without their assistance this project would not come about. In terms of some of the comments we have some concerns with. Item number 11, the outdoor seating is really part of the amenity to what we feel the buildings present to the park. We would like to work with the city staff and at least 28 to 30 spots for seating on the outside. Number 12, we will modify the awning to accommodate the property line. Number 15 which is relevant to the sewer line. The sewer line is actually at the center of the alley. We would like to work out some kind of a compromise with the city. If its truly in the center line then it really becomes property shared by both parties, because the vacation of alley goes through the center line. Item 16 regarding the windows on the east side of Generations 2 we have made every attempt to make as much glass as we can. We also have some concern with security on that site being that it is not exposed to some of the pedestrian traffic on the parking side. We will consider some other name. Any questions? Norton: Will one of these buildings take the same place where Stan’s Lawn Mow repair is--- Cole: That building will be demolished and Generations ! will be in place of that. It will front the street similarly to what is there now—the edge of the sidewalk and accommodate maximize the property each corner to the north south east west. We are providing new parking as part of this project to the east of the new building. Norton: Do you have any other names in mind. Cole: I’ll let Gary Benoit speak to that. Norton: One more about the signage. There are no signs proposed and that they would require a separate permit. I want to make sure we are all on the same page on the sign thing. Cole: We understand that is a separate permit and they will probably be signage on the building itself. Borup: At this point, has the Parks Department reviewed the set of plans that we have in front of us. Cole: Yes, we have been very heavily in reviewing our development. We are working with the landscape architect that is working with the Park so that our two projects mesh together. Borup: Tom do you have any comments at this point? Kuntz: The only comment I think Brad covered is that if you look to the north of the patio, there is a small sidewalk that connects to a – right there. We have requested that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 66 be deleted and I believe that was acceptable. Actually the park has been designed differently than what you see as far as the park goes there. I can get you a copy of those plans so the Commission can see what the park will look like. We have been working very closely with Mr. Cole and our landscape architect. Borup: Anyone else wish to come forward. Sir do you want to— Benoit: I’m Gary Benoit with Stewart Lanee Benoit one of the partners in this project. We just got the information. We have a name change for the project. We have not had a lot of time to talk about it. I am assuming—we would like to keep it—we want to identify with the Generations Plaza because every one knows where that is. If there is a consensus if there is confusion with it we would probably opt to do something similar to what they have done at the Grove where you have center on the Grove and the hotel. We would probably fall in line with the name Generations Center. We need to give that a little more thought but I am sure we can come up with something that side skirts the plaza question. There was another question and Tom where did we stand on that side (inaudible) on the Generations 2 building. There was a question as to whether we needed to have a sidewalk there next to the patio. The way Shari has written this it indicates that they would like to see that. If we do that, that will actually create 2 parallel 5 foot sidewalks. Kuntz: I don’t think that as been final as far as resolution. Your talking about a sidewalk that would go where the alley is now? Benoit: Yes. Kuntz: I don’t think that issue has been totally resolved. Benoit: Shari put it in her write up. I don’t know if that is cast in stone of if this is the time to address that. Kuntz: Our position is that if that alley is abandoned we going to have a 16 foot easement through there which is more than adequate as far as sidewalk. I don’t want to speak for Shari and her staff so I think that is an issue that we need to sit down and discuss with them and come up with a solution. Benoit: I would have no further comments. Brown: What condition was that Gary. Benoit: Number 11. On the Generations Plaza building number 2, right here there is a 16 foot alley that we vacating here. 8 feet will go to the city and 8 feet will belong to our property here. We are proposing or like to have an outdoor patio. Not an extensive patio but enough patio there that it creates this people wandering type of a thing which we feel is part of this whole growth of Generations Plaza setting. The question is, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 67 city is proposing they are going to have a side walk here. The way that Shari has written this up they would want us to take and put another sidewalk immediately parallel to it, which doesn’t make a lot of sense to our way of thinking. As long as the city has a sidewalk here, the patrons if they choose to walk out here and go on should be able to use the sidewalk as much as they would if they exited off the front of the building onto any other kind of sidewalk. That is the only question that we have at this point. We would like to not be obligated to put any kind of a sidewalk in and be able to use that for patio area and then use this common area sidewalk for park patrons and for our building patrons. Norton: Is that patio in conjunction with a restaurant that you are planning on being there. Benoit: We are interviewing several people. Starbucks are looking at it right now. We anticipate probably a coffee house kind of use. Not a full service restaurant. Norton: I was just wondering how many Mexican Restaurants the City of Meridian is going to be getting in here. Benoit: We’ve talked bakery, ice cream shops. We want that whole building and that whole area to be fun and a gathering place. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, the only thing that I was going to point out is there is an existing main that runs down that alley and with the alley only being 16 foot wide, what we put in our comments was that there needs to be the whole thing needs to be covered by an easement down through that area. If we had to dig that thing up, your going to need all of 16 feet to dig it up. That is in our comments. An easement would have to be dedicated down what was the alley. Borup: What’s the option? Right now there is no easement. Freckleton: When the alley is vacated an easement would have to be created. Benoit: We would have not problem dedicating an easement there for the use of the sewer line. The one question that Stan alluded to is the way it is written now, they would require if there were any work done on that alley, that we would foot the bill. We are saying well it is a 16 foot alley and 8 feet belongs to us and 8 feet belongs to the city so it would follow—half the bill would go to the city and have to us as opposed to 100 percent to our nickel. Freckleton: That is certainly how we were thinking about that. We weren’t thinking you would foot the entire bill. If you put in a lot of improvements over there and they have to be removed for construction, that is what we were getting at. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 68 Benoit: I don’t think the improvements have been finalized. It probably with this new easement in mind I am sure what we will end up with is pretty much what the city will end up with. We are not going to spend a lot of money on something that maybe has to come out of there. Borup: Is that sewer line going to have to be replaced in our life time. Freckleton: Well it is one of the oldest ones. I think it is an 8 inch line. It is probably clay or concrete. There are methods of doing rehab without digging up large areas. I think a minimum of 8 is what we want. I believe part of Shari’s concerns were on the site plan. It did appear that there was some over hangs or something that went beyond the 8 feet. Benoit: Stan when he drew that did draw that and does appear that way and we will pull that back in. Borup: Is there any outside restroom usage in the design here. Benoit: No, we talked with Tom Kuntz a little about this and we can’t see how it really fits or how we can fit it into what we are doing. A suggestion Tom and I had addressed was porta potties for major events. Tom had mentioned that maybe the city could dedicate some land and create their own. We could work with the city and redesign the building and dedicate some of our land to that. The one thing we did feel comfortable in doing was committing the inside restrooms that now belong to the Smokey Mountain Pizza people. We can’t commit those to public use. If there were a reasonable opportunity to do something like that we would certainly try. Reasonably opportunity would be something that we did not have to maintain or be liable for. We thought about putting the restrooms in side of our walls but if you do that you run into certain maintenance obligations or questions or legal liabilities. If somehow the city needed to have a 6 foot strip off the back of the building to create some restrooms, we could work out an agreement of some sort with that if they were willing to build the restrooms back there. If the city wanted to take on that responsibility we certainly would work with them to provide some land of some sort or do something. When I say provide we in to that land at $33 a square foot so it is not land we want to give away. The whole project financially is upside down right now because we have to spend extra money to tear down the building. Before, we might have felt a little more generous. We are not nearly as generous now because it is starting to hurt. Kuntz: I think the concept was and actually is was Councilman Anderson who felt real strongly that some type of out door restroom would be beneficial to special event type of things. I don’t disagree with Mr. Benoit. I think he raised some good points. The concept I had in mind would be a restroom that would be unisex that would be used by employees of the restaurant, not the people using the restaurant and during special events could be locked from the inside of the restaurant and then opened from our side. During these special events it would be used by the city and be responsible to maintain Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 69 it clean it with crews the next day. We’d be responsible for damage and that type of thing. If consideration were to be built inside the walls of their facility as an employees restroom that we could use for special events, then there would need to be some kind of cost sharing from the city side to help pay for that restroom if we were going to use it. Borup: How many special events a year would you anticipate. Kuntz: The new design of the park incorporates a small stage area and then a raised grass area for people to sit on, so I guess we are hoping to host music events once a week in the summer. So, maybe once a week for a 2 month period. The tree lighting ceremony at Christmas. Dairy Days. Probably a total of 10-12 days a year. Benoit: I still see it a difficult thing to do while we would like to cooperate as much as we can, we still have tenants to appease. These people are paying good money to be there and it is difficult to go to them and say your employees restroom, we’d like to turn it into a public restroom now on certain events. Hatcher: If I understand what I am hearing an 8 foot by 8 foot unisex restroom adjacent to the exterior wall at Generations Plaza can not fit at all into the floor plan. Stanfield: We are really constrained because the building (inaudible) is only 30 feet wide and to get anything that we don’t have in there now is going to be a big impact on the design of the (inaudible) and tenant space. It may sound like a small piece of the puzzle but it has a major impact. The other issue if you really do use this and it becomes popular, one unisex restroom isn’t going to be enough to accommodate the use. Your still going to have to provide— Borup: The question would be then on these events, where are the people going to go. Stanfield: Porta potties. Borup: What is going to keep them from going into the restaurant and distributing that business. Stanfield: They will probably put a sign on the door and do the best they can to keep them out. Hatcher: Question for Tom Kuntz. Prior to this project what were you planning on doing for special events at Generations Plaza. Kuntz: Actually the issue never came up before because we weren’t planning special events until that was brought to the attention to the Council that they would like to see the Parks Department provide some kind of after hour music, gathering events and that type of thing. The Christmas Tree lighting ceremony is short enough and cold enough where people don’t want to stay around for much longer than an hour or so. I think the porta potties are a valid –we use those now at other park sites when we have large Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 70 special events. I do have one question. Gary commented on land toward the back of the building where we could add a small unisex restroom. Would that fit within outside the footprint and still allow alleyway. Benoit: I don’t think it would fit outside the footprint because of some of the questions that we have all ready addressed. It would have to be inside the footprint I think. My biggest question is for all the pain that one unisex restroom would cause, would that really accommodate the needs. If you have 300 or 400 hundred people out there and one restroom, you have a problem. Kuntz: I guess I am thinking outside the box here a little bit to where I can see families coming to picnic there on weekends, work days, workers eating their picnic lunch, for maybe 45 minutes to an hour. To have a restroom available there may not be a bad idea. If there is a way it could fit into the over all plan I think a little foresight now would save us a lot 10 years down the road. Benoit: The other question I have, in Boise a lot of their restrooms are locked during the day. You go to Ann Morison Park, Greens Park and you can’t use those restrooms because they have had problems. Norton: Just to throw out another idea to our staff, if in fact the City of Meridian purchases the Valley Shepherd Church for City Offices, is it possible that the City could open their doors to the city residents during these events. It is across the street so you’d have to cross with the light, but it might open up more restroom facilities for people. Hatcher: To make it as clear as mud, I think we need to think within the box and reality. This is not a destination park. People are not going to get in their car and drive to this park unless there is a special function. The occasional person who will go to this park is to meet with a spouse for lunch, bring the kids down on a hot summer day to play in the fountain. Surprisingly in the first year, it has gotten a fair amount of use, but it is not a destination use. I personally feel that the porta pots are appropriate solution for the issue at hand and we should be done with it and more on to the next issue. I would like to address Item 16 from Shari’s letter. The lack of windows on portions of the east side of the building seem to district from the overall project. The parking lot side Generations Park Plaza 2. I am looking at this elevation. Stanfield: I have given a new elevation to the City Clerk that shows all the elevations. South and north are pretty much mirrored so we did not feel a need on that one, but I have (inaudible) on the new elevation. In regards to her comments, we provided as much glass as we possibly can other than in restroom and elevator areas. Hatcher: So, this portion here your saying (Inaudible). Borup: It is on the board up there too. Your saying this is glass at this end. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 71 Hatcher: We are dealing with (inaudible) can we do (inaudible) windows to the other side to balance it out and create some (inaudible). Stanfield: I don’t think that would accommodate your needs. I think we can do something with score lines to break up the wall a little bit. At this phase a parking lot is not really what we consider – Borup: That’s what I was going to say---worried about the parked cars having a view. Hatcher: If I am going to come to this building, that is the site I am going to see. Stanfield: The sites we’re concerned with are the ones that address the streets that people see when they pass the building and we can’t always accommodate windows in every portion of the building. Hawkins Clark: We’d like to request one issue related to number 12 on the vacation of the alley. We talked about this. The vacation request do need to be submitted to the city as well as Ada County Highway District. I don’t believe there was one submitted yet anyway. Benoit: We met with the Mayor, and several people and Shari included and nobody was quite sure where that application went. The actual application goes to Ada County Highway District and they have it and will be heard May 24 and then it takes 90 days after that. The City of Meridian wrote a letter endorsing the vacation was how they handled that. That letter has been sent to the Ada County Highway District as part of our application. Kuntz: Just two things. One is we sent a letter of support and then also we received notice from Ada County Highway District this week. I think it came to the Clerks office and we received a copy asking—anyway Ada County sent a request for comments on the request to vacate that alley and we received that this week. Gary Smith has sent a letter in regards to the sewer easement, so it is just a matter of us replying to their request for comments. Hawkins Clark: If I’m not correct, the City both bodies need to act on vacation requests of public rights of way. Brown: Mr. Chairman, the City Council has to give consent and that’s it. State law requires that petitions be given for the easement holders. They relinquish their rights. The highway district has to act upon it but the City Council because it is in their jurisdiction. Hawkins Clark: Which I don’t believe formally has been done. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 72 Brown: The City Council could give their consent –this goes to them—they act upon this right. Hawkins Clark: As a CUP right. Brown: If staff wrote it up, they could put it as a consent. Borup: Your saying is has to be on our agenda. Brown: It doesn’t have to be on our agenda. Hawkins Clark: Correct me if I’m wrong, this site plan shows that there has been a proposed change in the directions of the traffic flow. END OF SIDE SEVEN Hawkins Clark: City parking lot located here coming down the alley moving west bound and then going out north through this and it has been changed to enter on their parking lot. ACHD has asked for that to become an alley through the isle way there, go east bound and then exit through the city parking lot. Item 13 on the comments does talk about the fact that since this alley way is currently the opposite direction in terms of traffic flow, it will effect other property owners further down the alley. Stanfield: The reversal of this traffic flow is based upon discussions with ACHD. It was not a request but a recommendation and we followed this recommendation with reverse flow. Another issue with some of the findings is that requirement of paving the alley to the other end. We’d like to pave it to the extent of our property. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, maybe Dave could give us some guidance on the vacation issue as to how we need to proceed on that. Swartley: Is there an application pending. No body knows. You say it was lost. Don’t you usually receive a vacation application of an easement at the planning and zoning department. Borup: We have in the past. Swartley: Then I’d guess that’s the procedure. Have you put an application in with the city as well. Benoit: Not with the city. We were not told to do that. We were told—matter of fact talking with the city they told us they did not have control over Ada County Highway District – Swartley: Is it their easement then. It is not a city easement. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 73 Benoit: No, its Ada County Highway District. Swartley: Then I don’t see why the city would need to get involved. Benoit: What they did need they told us was the endorsement of the city which we got through the form of a letter from the Mayor’s office. Champion: Brian Champion. I own the property that’s east of the city parking lot. 129 E. Pine. I have some concerns with this project. However, on first glance it looks like it is a very advantageous project for everybody in the community. The deeper I am getting into this project the more concerned I am getting. I did sign a statement that I would be an alley vacation, but the statement that was sent to me…if you could send the picture back up of the alley that’s vacated. What I approved showed an awning right here and I was told that this alley would become part of the park. Now I am understanding that it is going to be Starbucks outdoor seating. That is number one. I also had written down on the alley vacation that the alley I would agree to it if the alley was paved all the way down. I did my conditional use permit I had to pay for my portion of the alley and put it into a fund. The County would not let me pave that portion alone. They said as soon as other developments come into the area we are going to do it all at once. It is very important to me that it gets paved. I have all ready paid my money. Currently, all of the alleys in this city all run from the east to the west. What they are proposing to do in this change is change this so its going to run the opposite direction of all other alleys in the city. Everything that they are requesting to do, benefits them but it hurts me. I have customers that drive in and turn into my parking lot here, I am going to have to redirect them to come up east (inaudible) turn right come down the parking lot go down here and then turn in. It is inconvenient. I am all in favor of working out a solution with these people so they can build this project, but first with this sending up the flag to me. With the becoming Starbucks Coffee, that’s the second flag. Now the fact that we are going to have all of this as adjacent parking are still not enough room with this alley vacated to put in a rest room. That is the third flag for me. Redirection of all the alley’s – that is the fourth flag. The fifth flag is they can’t afford to pave the rest of the alley. That is 5 flags that I’ve got. Norton: Mr. Champion, I am not familiar with your business. What type of business do you own. Champion: I own it’s a cottage house. It has been renovated into a business. There is a physiological services that are in there and a environmental company. I am going to be the one looking at that windowless wall. Borup: Are you the landlord or do you run one of those businesses. Champion: I am the owner. The landlord. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 74 Borup: Your not actually in the building. Champion: My wife is. Borup: She is one of the tenants. One of the two businesses. Could you explain a bit more about this alley fund. You say you contributed to that. To what extent. To the frontage that you had on the alley. Champion: When I requested a conditional use permit, the county request that I pave clear down to the end of the alley. I thought that was quite excessive being that I owned the very center of the 60 some feet of the alley. We worked out an agreement that I would put the money that they figured that it would cost to not just repave it but to dig it up and redo it because they were concerned about lines in the alley at the same time. These sewer lines. I put the money in the account with ACHD. Borup: Enough money to pave the whole alley. Champion: No. To pave behind my portion of it and I was assured that it would be done when the next project came online. I did not force the issue and get that in writing. My money is just sitting there with ACHD right now. In a fund, yes. There is going to be a big increase in traffic going up and down this alley with these businesses here. I am in favor of this project. I just don’t want to take the whole brunt of all of the negative aspects because they are working on $33 a foot. I limited my project and didn’t increase the size of my project, stayed with the scope of the property and I don’t want to be negatively impacted for renovating a piece in Old Town. That is what Old Town is supposed to be is renovated and bring it up but what I am seeing is we are going to have two brand new buildings that are maximizing every possible square inch and giving me a view of a nice wall and wanting to take my alley access away. For the love of God, I don’t know how any semi truck is going to make the turn to get off that alley. There are semi trucks that deliver food to existing businesses right now. Borup: Presently the alley is one way. So right now your clients would come –they come that way and then they have to go out through the city parking lot. That’s assuming they are coming from the south. You say there is a median going in on east 1st ? Brad. (Inaudible – people talking off microphone) Borup: Your saying there is a median strip down Pine. So what is the problem. Champion: The traffic won’t be able to come from this direction and turn. Borup: Mr. Benoit maybe you can clarify this. This cement median strip that is on your property or out in the middle of Pine. That’s in the middle of Pine. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 75 Benoit: (Inaudible – not on microphone)—so people won’t come the wrong direction and turn that way. In our conversations with Ada County they’re saying well maybe you don’t need the median because people aren’t going to go against (Inaudible) on way sign. Borup: So any one coming from the north or south would turn down Pine and in there just like they do now. Hatcher: The current parking of the adjacent lot comes from the east of the alley. I don’t understand the advantage of reversing the flow of traffic down the alley way. Benoit: Ada County Highway District wants to reverse that flow of traffic because what it does –the direction of this alley is coming out on E. First street. This is a huge hazard here. No, light or signal. By sending them out over to Pine street they can come out at a signalized intersection. Second, they reversed the direction and brought them in this way and out that way because this entrance is too close to the intersection and they would have only been able to give a right turn only. Here they can go out and turn right or left. No restricted turn there. Borup: That is over 315 feet. Benoit: 175 is the requirement and it is 180 on this one. This is a collector road. Hatcher: I still don’t understand the advantage of reversing the alley has to do with that. You take your parking lot and reverse it so that you enter here and exit here. Even if you put a median up here to keep people from criss crossing the thing that you are doing by reversing the alley is that this parking lot right here, which is your new parking lot, would then exit then this way or down the alley way. Benoit: We are trying to get it so we can exit out here and come out at the signal light. Hatcher: I understand that and I am not arguing against that. You proceed with reversing your parking lot –keep the alley way the same way. Have the alley way come from the east side and turn right here into your flow. Your going counter clock wise and its coming from the east. I don’t understand—what the benefit. Proper paint on the asphalt will address that. Benoit: When Ada County Highway District looked at and I’ll address one more element of this too, Brian made mention of this is going an opposite direction. There is no connecting alley on this side and on this side, so it is an isolated one block section of alley that does not tie in with anything. ACHD looked at it and said what really works the best. Hatcher: Stan can you address— Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 76 Borup: Does anybody know and maybe Richard this may answer your question too. Does ACHD have any problem with ending the alley designation at this point right here. Stanfield: I don’t think ACHD cares which way the alley flows. Their main concern is where the curb cut is in relationship to the relationship to the intersection. Hatcher: That is exactly my point. Do what we need to do for this parking lot but lets not change existing (inaudible) work this out and find a happy medium. Benoit: Mr. Champion’s customers—I’ve done quite a few surveys down there because parking has been a question on this. The only person that seems to park behind his building is an employee. There is only one car I have ever seen there. Front Street there is seldom any cars there. Champion: I do have the required amount of parking spaces. Whether they are being fully used is in-consequential. With the variance that they been given for off street parking, the fact that there use to be positions in the front of my building is going to be a has been. There is not going to be a place on the street to park for blocks around. I do need to protect my parking places. The variance that was given, they will have 40 employees at the pizza joint and another 40 at the Generations plaza that are parked 8 hours a day. That to be is like another 80 cars. Borup: That is quite a business that would hire that many employees. Benoit: The other thing Mr. Champion the city (inaudible) 2 hour slots around there so an employee that works 8 hours a day can’t park in a 2 hour slot. Champion: They are not 2 hour slots in front of my— Benoit: A variance was issued and I think you were out of town for that variance meeting but we presented a evaluation of the downtown parking conditions and off site parking was sited in several areas. I am on the Mayor’s new committee for the new downtown renovation and the answer is not immediately available, but it is there. We can see all kinds of real estate and ways to reorganize things to get parking for downtown. As we saw it, the real question downtown wasn’t so much the lack of parking as it was the lack of customers. We see this as a huge step in the right direction to create a parking problem downtown. That is the best problem we could have because we can fix that. It is hard to fix where there is nobody down there. You can park anywhere you want downtown. We are hoping to fill it up and to help these other businesses up and down the street. I don’t think is will take your parking because it is all ready for the most part 2 hour parking. Champion: Gary is correct in the fact that the parking lot is now fairly empty. Before he did his survey and before the 2 hour signs went up, it was filled with one business. There is a telemarketing company with some 20 employees that fill that parking lot and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 77 left nothing. That is what made to city come out and enforce a 2 hour parking. Now it is available. We do need more customers down there. I am in favor of their project. I am not in favor of re-directing the alley and I want somebody to show me how the existing semi truck are going to exit out of that new alley. (Off the microphone) Benoit: Ada County Highway District outlines that. They are identical. They are both 60 foot lots and the flow on both sides will be exactly the same. They also have turning radius and prescribed to us, they know what is required to get semi’s in and out of there. Borup: I would think it would be a delivery truck not a semi. Norton: I can add to that. My husband is a semi truck driver that delivers groceries for Associated Food Stores and he takes his big semi into very itty bitty little mom and pop grocery stores and it is hard for him to get in and out of them. Champion: I approved his going for the vacation of the alley, but if all these other changes are going on and the alley is not going to get paved and I got to change my direction, I resend my approval of the vacation of the alley and I will oppose it. To work with you keep the traffic going my direction. Brown: Mr. Champion, this is truly a highway district issue. They talked about when the vacation is coming up. If you have a comment you can take it up with their traffic engineers. The city does not have traffic engineers. They can explain the turning. I know from me working downtown and I saw trucks turning in and out of tighter parking lots. Champion: It is a City of Meridian issue because I am a business owner in the city. Brown: I understand that sir. We are not traffic engineers and that is why I said there is where the issue is. You wanted to resend your vacation, that’s where you resend it. They are the agency that does the vacation. Champion: Okay, that’s great. Last issue then. On the side of the building that Mr. Cole said that there is nobody to look at. That’s me. I am nobody. My business that I think I did a real nice job in proving it to be part of the community not to be excluded from the downtown area, will be the one that looks at the blank wall. Borup: You think the building that is going up is a step down from what you are looking at now. Champion: Three sides of it are very attractive. The back side is ugly. Borup: Compared to what is there now? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 78 Champion: Good night sir. Borup: Any other comments from the Commissioner's. Hawkins Clark: I did check. We do have a requirement for the City Council to hold public hearings on vacations and public rights away. It is a separate application for the city that is going to be required. It is 12-10-2. Borup: So you say it needs to be or all ready scheduled. Hawkins Clark: It needs to be a separate application that—the way it reads is that the commission reviews it but does not have a hearing. This body has dealt with them numerous times. You simply make a recommendation. No public hearing. Then City Council acts on it as a hearing. City ordinances can be more restrictive than state statute. That is what we’ve got in this case. Borup: Do we need a written request or can it be verbal. Hawkins Clark: I think if you put it as a formal recommendation I guess that I don’t see the ordinance is not clear that it requires from this body. I think that will take care of it if you just included whoever makes the motion that should be a condition added. We would need an application submitted. Borup: I don’t know how to address it if you don’t feel you received one. Just now looking how the ordinance was written. That’s got to come to you first and then to us. If you can state you considered you received it than I guess we could address it here. So we could still act on this and address the other application later. I’d rather do that. Hatcher: Let’s address each issue. Brown: I move we close the public hearing. Barbeiro: Second the motion. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Hatcher: I am ready for a motion. Brown: I would say we need to do some deletions on item number 11 or condition 11. Talking about the dual sidewalk issue. Borup: From the site plan we have that sidewalk from the patio to the north was deleted. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 79 Hatcher: I motion that we recommend approval to the City Council for the conditional use permit for the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a new building as identified by the applicant as Generation Park Plaza 1, east of Generation Park to include staff comments and to no additional comments attached. Borup: Do you want to mention the sidewalk from the patio to the north was deleted. Hatcher: I was going to do that with the next building. Borup: That is the wrong building though. No, no it wasn’t. I don’t think staff had mentioned it that Mr. Kuntz had in his comments. I think Brad made mention of it also. There was a sidewalk coming from the patio north on the building shown on the site plan. Hatcher: That is in the park area. Borup: Right. This little thing right here. Hatcher: Oh. That is in the scope of work as proposed. So the issue is what. Borup: Mr. Benoit was that—well never mind. We all ready closed the public hearing. Was there agreement on that wasn’t there. Kuntz: There was agreement with the applicant to delete that sidewalk to the north of the patio. Is it shown in the existing plans before you. I would like to have it deleted in the motion then. Hatcher: Add it in. That’s fine. Brown: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES, 1 NAY 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING AUTO GARAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF 2 STORY RETAIL/OFFICE ZONED OT BY COLE ASSOCIATES—BLOCK OF FIRST & PINE: Borup: Again, we have heard testimony on this. We’d like to open the public hearing. Hatcher: I would be more than happy to put a motion together on this one but would like a little discussion on this first. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 80 Borup: We need to close the public hearing first. Does anybody have anything they would like to add? This would be the item for Mr. Champion to comment on because it effects—but he is not here. Brown: I move we close the public hearing. Hatcher: I second it. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Hatcher: As I look at the drawings and listen to the staff and Mr. Champion I see a couple issues that I think we should address. I feel they are minor issues. The City sidewalk, the duel sidewalk thing. I think that is redundant. One sidewalk on the city side adjacent to the property line. I am talking condition 11. Go ahead and put the 5 foot sidewalk on the park side in that vacated area of the alley way. Allow the developer to put an outside plaza space in the vacated alley way. That can always get torn up if there is ever—brick pavers are easy to tear out. I see that we need to create an easement at the vacated alley way for the existing sewer and other potential lines that are under ground. I feel we need to maintain the existing flow of the alley way traffic and that the applicant needs to work closely with ACHD to be able to have proper vehicular flow the proposed parking lot. I have no objection to reversing the flow of traffic or adding the median per ACHD request. The forth item is number 16. I am very confident on Stan's abilities to be able to take that north side of the east elevation and be able to create cemetery of what is on the southern portion. I look at the plan, the main entry you got 2 story curtain wall. That could be mirrored or shadow boxed so it doesn’t affect the equipment room for the elevator. Is it functional, no. Would it add to the building, yeah. The second story windows, I don’t think it would be a necessitity to put windows in there. You could put awnings in there. Some recessing on the (inaudible) is very easy to play with and to be able to create a balancing cemetery of that elevation. Those are the four issues I got. The last comment, I think this is a very –well I have been on this board for a year now and this is the first project that has come across that has had some real architectural substance to it. I back this project a lot. Borup: Okay. Mr. Kuntz had a comment on one of – Kuntz: Just number 11. Shari’s comment. I think what she was alluded to there is that if the applicant is allowed to come to the mid line of the alley way, then the city is obligated there 8 feet as the walkway. What I envision is not a sidewalk, but some kind of a paving system or concrete that is stamped. What Shari was thinking was is it fair for the city to use their 8 feet for the walk way with the applicant not giving anything of their 8 feet but using all of it for the awning and seating. If the city were to say with our park we want to go to the mid point of the alley way, applicant you provide your 8 feet Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 81 for the sidewalk for walk way, is that fair. Probably not. So to reach a mid point to say the applicant gets 4 feet, we get 4 on our side and the middle 8 will be used as a pedestrian access area. I think that was what Shari was trying to say by number 11. I am visualizing 16 feet of pavers so that the whole 16 feet is a pedestrian area. If the applicant wants to come out 4 feet with a seating, great, but the question is, is it fair to assume that the city provide their 8 feet for the walkway. Hatcher: You won’t get the 8 feet if this project doesn’t go through because they won’t be vacating the alley way. It is a give and take. Kuntz: We have a 2 foot high oval shaped seating wall that will go to the back of our property line. It would expand the whole grass area. Brown: Mr. Chairman, I would like to second the motion. Borup: It wasn’t a motion. Did you make a motion. Hatcher: I was wanting discussion but these are the ideas I want to put in the motion. Borup: I would like to get some comments from the applicant. Hatcher: Lets make it quick. I think it is cut and dry. I don’t want to be stepping on another departments toes either. I motion to re-open the public hearing. Norton: I’ll second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES, 1 NAY Borup: Okay you have a solution for the sidewalk issue. Stanfield: We have always envisioned that to be paved the full width of it so it just allows more flexibility whatever. We don’t anticipate the seating being maximized to the point that you can’t walk around it. Borup: so if the city wanted to move their benches out 4 feet into there that would not cause any problems. Stanfield: No. Talking to the landscape architect doing the park design, if we weren’t going to do our project and they moved out to the point they would still have to provide some kind of pedestrian access behind their seating area. It is a compromise. Kuntz: So conceptually if we were to move our park out to the mid point of the alley way and the patio seating were to come out to mid point, where would people walk. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 82 Stanfield: You would not have room. What if our project was not there and you moved your park project to the center line of the alley. You would still have to have walk way width. Borup: A fair thing might be if you’d move your seating out 2-1/2 feet from the center line. Stanfield: Wouldn’t the best use of that space be complete paved so it allows more flexibility for both of us. Benoit: If there is a major difference that has not been brought out yet, by shorting the patio side it distorts one of the major things we are trying to do. That is create a people area. Borup: Are you having a walled off area. Benoit: No. It will be open. It can spill over until somebody says some day, hey the easement goes right down the middle. You only have 6 feet on your side. Originally Tom when we talked about this, what the city requested they wanted to have an access across the back part of that park. There was also concern about bringing that park too close to that building because it would make it feel like this. If we slide the park another 2 feet and put the sidewalk in the middle, what it does is create a canyon affect. It shorts our patio and we won’t be able to get the right feel for the patio. I figured we’d match what ever the city did and all do the same thing. Hatcher: Put 16 feet of pavers down that alley way, 8 feet from the park and 8 feet from you guys and be done with it. Kuntz: The point Shari was trying to make was we aren’t going to put anything on our 8 feet. They are putting patio. The point Mr. Champion made was the original blue print of the building was to allow for that patio on their existing property without the alley way being involved. That was his point. Benoit: We are trying to make it the right thing. We are trying to have more space there so if the patio isn’t cramped. The walk way feels like a casual one and the whole thing works. Hatcher: I motion that we close the public hearing. Barbeiro: Second. Borup: all in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 83 Hatcher: I motion that we recommend approval to the City Council END OF SIDE EIGHT Hatcher: the conditional use permit for the demolition of the existing garage and construction of 2 story retail/office zoned OT to include staff comments with the following modifications: Page 2, item 11 16 feet of the alley way will be installed with excuse me, the applicant will install his 8 feet to the center line of the vacated alley way with pavers and use as he deems necessary. Second item would be to create an easement through that vacated alley way which will be addressed in a vacation application. Third item to maintain the east to west flow of the alley way traffic as is currently is and the fourth would be to request from the applicants architect to create cemetery on the eastern elevation which is item number 16. The appearance of cemetery—identical materials. That would be it. Borup: Do we have a second. Barbeiro: I will second. Borup: Your saying your recommendation at this point on the traffic flow is not necessarily in agreement with ACHD’s recommendation. Hatcher: It is my understanding that ACHD’s recommendation is to add the median on Pine Street and to reverse the flow of traffic in the parking lot, which I am in concurrence with. I am saying don’t change the direction of the alley way. Borup: What difference does it make if it is an alley or parking lot. Hatcher: We hashed that all out. The parking lot would flow in a counter clock wise fashion and the alley way would enter it from the east. Brown: You have a motion and a second. Borup: Yeah, we are in discussion. Any other discussion. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES, 1 NAY. Barbeiro: I make a motion that we adjourn the meeting. Hatcher: Second. Borup: I’d like to open item number 16 and 17. Do we have a motion to continue to the 24th . Hatcher: I motion that we move Item 16 and 17 to our special meeting on May 24 or continue it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2000 Page 84 Norton: I second it. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:43 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ____________________________ KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: ______________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK