Loading...
2000 06-13MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING-JUNE 13, 2000 The meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup: MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Thomas Barbeiro, Sally Norton, Bill Nary. OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, David Swartley, Will Berg. Borup: I’d like to begin this months meeting of Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Meridian. A couple of items of business. We’ve got our Deputy City Clerk Shelby here for the first part of the meeting. We do have a new Commissioner we’d like to welcome. A new commissioner replacing Kent Brown, Bill Nary. Bill has been a citizen in Meridian for 15 years. We are glad to have him. The general procedure on most of the items on the agenda is first will be a short staff report, followed by any information or summary from the applicant. Then public testimony and then final comments from the applicant after which the commission will close the public hearing and discuss the items and make a recommendation. We do make recommendations to City Council and essentially that is the extent of it. First item on the agenda would be minutes from our May 9th and May 24th meeting. Do we have a motion. Norton: I move we approve the minutes of May 9, 2000 and May 24, 2000. Barbeiro: I second the motion. Borup: All in favor: MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN: Borup: Meridian has been working on a landscape ordinance for a year or more and I don’t know, Steve were you planning on going a little bit of the history of that. Okay. Siddoway: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission for the record my name is Steve Siddoway, 685 W. Woodbury Drive. It is my pleasure to present to you the culmination of the last year and 3 months of work on this landscape ordinance. You may have noticed the last month, the day of the hearing two extensive sets of comments were submitted to the City. One from Ada County Highway District and one from O’Neill Enterprises. We did meet as a committee and go through those. I have some memo’s to hand out. This first one is from Christy Richardson. She had contacted Steve Hasson from ACHD who had submitted the comments. Basically, most of the comments and concerns that he had came from a misunderstanding that he thought we were requiring our street buffer trees to be in the right of way and had several concerns. We did work through all of the issues with him. The last paragraph Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 2 states that he would like to do a memorandum of understanding with the City of Meridian once the ordinance is adopted to flush the rules of various agencies out. Ada County has also offered to revise our area of impact agreement to have the landscape ordinance applied to all applications in the county that are within our impact area, so at such time if they are annexed to the city that they are all ready in compliance with the landscape ordinance. In preparing the presentation for tonight and reading through the comments by ACHD and O’Neill Enterprises we did come up with several recommended modifications. To start off with, the process for this is a core committee. We gathered sample ordinances from all the local municipalities. We also looked outside the Treasure Valley and throughout the west and got sample books from all over the nation. From all these ordinances, every time we met we prepared readings from all of the various ordinances we were using as samples. At each of the meetings that we had, each one tackled a different topic that the landscape ordinance deals with. We invited guest experts to come in and discuss that particular issue. For example, when we talked about plant size standards, we invited members of two different nurseries to come and talk about what availability was really like. We have several problems with our current ordinance which requires 3 inch caliper trees. This one, for example reduces that minimum requirement to 2 inches. When we talked about storm water integration’s, we invited Joan Mytle from Boise Public Works, their storm water coordinator to help with those issues, etc. Once we developed the draft ordinance last August, we sent it out to over 54 stake holders. There should have been a memo in your packet that listed those. There was more handed out at the counter. We received comments from the 14 formal comments were submitted. We reviewed those and incorporated those into a revised draft that is before you tonight. The purpose of the ordinance multifold, unscreened and unshaded parking lots though out the city. Hot streets and buildings we are trying to avoid. Also unscreened loading docks and outdoor storage areas. We want to address air quality and noise concerns—reflection and glare. Environment concerns such as wind and water and erosion. The first benefit would the esthetic benefit. You provide the trees along the streets, parking lots they provide shade, color, softening but they are also economic benefits that are not often thought of. We have studies that show there are more profitable business districts and it is more attractive to new businesses and encourages redevelopment in areas that have landscaping. There is also the environmental benefits—air purification, erosion control, noise reduction, pre-treatment of storm water and soil improvements. Obviously the first thing we need to do this is a landscape plan. Landscape plans are required with all conditional use permits, preliminary plats, final plats and certificates of zoning compliance although on conditional use permits and preliminary plats some of the requirements of the landscape requirements are waived in the ordinance so we only require what we call a detailed conceptual plan whereas with the final plats and the certificates of zoning compliance will require the full detail. The plan preparation. This first line in here is the first hot topic that ought to be described for you tonight. In here it says over one acre required (inaudible) stamp—refer you to the memo that I just handed you. This is 3.6. Requiring the stamp of landscape architect has been a subject of much debate. We received several comments that we should require a stamp on all plans required by this ordinance due to the complexity of issues related to the plan requirements, irrigation utilities, ground water issues, storm water integration, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 3 plants facing site triangles, provision of buffers between uses and other liabilities. We also received comments that no stamp should ever be required. We received some that most plans should require a stamp, but specifically exclude small lots like in Old Town so that little moms and pops aren’t hit by the requirements for a detailed plan and hiring a landscape architect. Others suggested that only requiring a stamp on the large plans over 10 acres. My personal feeling is that there is enough issues regardless of the size of the lot that they all should require a stamp. I do point out as a subject of much debate and you will be acting on that yourself. Borup: Steve I think I’d like to have the opportunity to ask questions as we go along. The question I had was on one acre. Is that for the whole site or just one acre of landscaped area. Siddoway: The way is was written in the draft was intended to be the whole site. Borup: That would be every Subdivision. Siddoway: That was pointed out and on the subdivisions we would necessarily have to do –either change it to be based on the amount of landscaped area. When we wrote this it was to apply to all Subdivisions over one acre in size because they all are. It certainly should apply to the Subdivision with certain amount of open space if we were going along this route. The one acre was written thinking of the commercial and industrial projects. It was intended to be the gross area of the project and I don’t think we considered the Subdivision at that time. I would say that even the Subdivision common open spaces have a lot of issues as to their function and how they are arranged throughout in the Subdivision itself, the connections to them, etc. The flip side of the coin is that there are landscape designers out there who do have experience and expertise. The problem with the language allowing anyone who is a designer is that it is very unenforceable. We would like to get away from receiving plans that are not up to scale or measured well or considered the potential impact and the issues that are on a site. The only way to have any assurance of that was to go with the stamp. Barbeiro: Is there a certificate program within some sort of nursery group that can give you a professional certificate. Siddoway: The only one I know of is the Master Gardner but they don’t cover any landscaping or these issues. It is more gardening related. So no. Section 4 deals with design standards. We talk about approved and prohibited plant material. You should have received a copy of the tree selection guide. It covers most of the trees that do well in our climate. There is also the list of prohibited plant material. It deals with problem trees that are prone to disease or those that have no business of being planted along the streets right of way. We would propose adopting this as our list of approved and prohibited plant material. Minimum plant sizes are like we mentioned getting rid of the 3 inch caliper minimum requirement. You have the other minimum requirements in the packets. The species mix is an effort for us to get a variety of species out there. When there are many trees required on one site, we like to see more than one species so that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 4 if one happens to get a pest or disease that it doesn’t kill off everything on the site. We have modified this and reduced the number of species required. In plant quality we are basically adopting the federal standards for nursery stock. Staking not required. Mulch we do want an organic mulch. We’d like to see gravel mulch go away and require vegetation. Utilities, we are talking about. We want to keep large trees from underneath power lines. We want to keep new utilities from trenching through existing trees. We expect erosion control to take place from any designs if there are berms and slopes. Berms are encouraged but not required. Water efficiency also is something that we are encouraging. Irrigation, section 5. Irrigation is required in to all required landscaped areas. We are not requiring irrigation plans to be submitted. We went with a series of performance spec standards where we are asking for some specific information about where the water source is coming from, available water and then specification that address the later issues about back flow prevention, coverage, etc. 5.3 is Irrigation water. That is one that spells out a policy that has been in place for a long time with the public works department based on our permit with the state saying that we cannot use (inaudible) water to serve landscaped areas greater then one half acres in size. They either need to get water from a non (inaudible) water source or from a well. Our permit with the state will not allow us to do that. If there is no irrigation water on the site they will have to drill a well. Subdivision irrigation systems is simply stating that we want the pump station to be on a common lot and the system owned by an irrigation district or the homeowners association. We require maintenance of those. Site triangles deals with public safety. The standards that we proposed are in line with the Ada County Highway District and the City of Boise standards. 40 X 40 site triangles measures along the curb at (Inaudible) intersections and at road driveway intersections, 10 X 20 site triangle. We do have pruning standards. We don’t want evergreens in the site triangles. No class 3 trees. We have talked about saying no trees. Right now we have it written for the basic deciduous trees with trunks that don’t get large. I do have a modification on your note 6.5F, we say no signs are permitted in the site triangle. We then thought about residential Subdivision. A lot of times they want to put a small monument in an island in the center of the street. It would have precluded that. We are saying if it is less than 3 feet in height, we don’t care. We do have public safety and enforcement provisions as well. Street buffers. This is the usual section of landscaping that you always hear about requiring 35 foot street buffers on the entry of corridors. This spells it out so that it is a lot more clear and consistent. We would propose that these street buffers be in-acted based upon the Ada County Highway District street classification map, all local roads and have 10 feet street buffer, urban collectors 20 feet, arterial, 25 feet, entry way corridor as specified in the Comprehensive Plan, 35 feet then 50 along I84. We do have a provision for hardship in here which says that we will not require more than 10% of the depth of the lots. Our proposal is to require one street tree per 35 lineal feet. The tree spacing is up to the developer. If they want to use some big and some small trees and have some open area, etc. we allow for that. We have provisions that tree spacing shall be no closer than 80% of the tree width so as they grow they don’t create additional problems. Parkways and attached sidewalks, we would like to require detached sidewalks on arterial streets focusing on the areas of new development. On these arterial streets we want to have those sidewalks move our and provide a parkway with some landscaping. We talked with ACHD and they don’t Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 5 have a problem with this as long as we are not requiring additional right of way to accomplish it. There are areas throughout town where the road edges are not improved. Large gravel sections, no curb and gutter. We would like to adopt as a policy is that if the unimproved portion of the right of way is greater than 10 feet, we do want to allow them to maintain a 10 foot wide gravel shoulder. This is a change to what is in you original packet. In the area beyond that 10 foot gravel shoulder we would like maintain for people to pull off if they need to. If the street widening project is not in the foreseeable 5 year funded plans, we like to have them at least put in some lawn. To help keep it nice along those corridors, we would like to have the additional right of way landscaped with at least grass. We do not want vehicle display pads in the required landscape buffer. We are encouraging berms to be incorporated for landscape variation. We are allowing for storm water detention areas to be incorporated into the landscaped areas as long as it is grassed with a swale with a smaller inlet for quick infiltration so it gets the pre treatment though the grass and it is a lot better for the groundwater that way. I might mention that class 2 trees in this book are the largest that are allowed in the street buffer. The class 3 are the big ones that get in the 50-60- 70 foot wide range. Those are not allowed here. The maximum width of the trees we allow are in the 35 to 40 foot range at total mature size. They can also go with smaller trees. We want to provide for flexibility. We are saying that one tree per (inaudible) frontage is the minimum standard. The maximum landscape buffer will be 35 feet along streets in the city. Buffers along Subdivision, we are allowing the incorporation of conifers. We are not allowing those on regular street buffers because the police department wanting visibility into the parking lots and stores at night time. I put this light in to talk about the 50 foot buffer along I84 incase anyone is thinking that is excessive. This is out at the Landing number 11. The berm that does exist right along here is 8 feet high. Eight feet is the maximum height you can get at a 3 to 1 slope in a 50 foot buffer. Anytime there are residential areas adjacent to the freeway, that is minimum. Commercial areas we also see it as (inaudible). The buffers at Home Depot well exceed 50 feet. They are bigger. Talk briefly about parking lots. We do want perimeter landscaping along all interior lot lines that are adjacent next to a vehicular use area including parking lots, drive ways, loading areas. This perimeter landscaping issue is going to be a lot easier than our one per 1500 square feet of asphalt which really hits these industrial loading dock areas hard and becomes excessive. We want a 5 foot wide along interior lot lines so in areas where 2 parking lots abut for example on separate lots, each would have 5 feet. This does not preclude providing access and vehicular circulation. We are saying we want it broken up. The internal landscape islands within the parking lots are now based on a sliding scale based on the number of spaces. The more spaces you have the more percentage of landscaping you need to be incorporated within your parking lot. Our planter size is a six foot minimum dimension with at least 50 square feet. We had a requirement for parking spaces for no more than 12 in a row. Our original draft has no more than 10 in a row. We started looking at the plans coming in to us and decided to increase that from 10 to 12. It seemed to be a more flexible standard. We do provide for design flexibility if the amount of required internal parking lot landscaping is interfering with the circulation of the lot, it can transfer up to 50 per cent of that required landscaping to the perimeter to enhance entry way and things like that. We specifically exclude industrial storage and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 6 loading areas from meeting internal landscape areas. When does it apply to existing parking lots, which are going to come up. If someone is just restriping or replacing less than 25 per cent of their parking lots we are saying no new requirements. If they are doing 25 to 50 per cent, up to 50 percent changes replacement of their parking lot new asphalt then we want the perimeter and street buffers but we are not going to make them reconfigure their internal circulation. If it is greater then 50 percent then we want them to comply with the new standards. If it is not possible, the planning director does have some flexibility to configure out what is the most they can do. Here are samples taken out at Roaring Springs. Looking at perimeter landscaping at this location, we would say no more than 12 in a row without a (inaudible) island. This would be a street buffer with no internal bump out islands. Next to it they have another buffer that has the bump out islands every 10 spaces. Any questions on parking? Buffers between land uses. This is where our current says we require a 20 foot landscape buffer between incompatible uses. We want to make the responsibility for the construction of these buffers if it would be higher intensity use unless that use is preexisting with no existing buffers and someone is proposing a low intensity use next to it. They would be responsible to put in those buffers. We do provide for mix and materials. We would like it to be 60% full in at least 3 years. The City has the provision to require walls if the uses are deemed incompatible and we do not want chain link to be uses with in the buffer. We have come up with a series of land uses intensity classifications one through five, basically the low density residential, higher residential being classed to office and neighborhood commercial being class three. General commercial and (inaudible) commercial uses being in class 4 and then all of your heavy manufacturing and industrial uses being in class 5. Then we came up with the minimum buffer width based on what uses adjacent to what uses. I have a proposed chance on this one as well. For some reason we have in your draft proposed buffers where an intensity 3 meets a intensity 3 and 4 meet 4. They are the same intensity and should not require a buffer and deemed incompatible. Just strike those. Borup: Do those classifications come from existing chart or did you determine that. Siddoway: This came from a combination from several model ordinances that we looked at. None of them existed in this valley. There were several ordinances that had this type. We modeled it and made it work for our zoning and land uses are. If you have neighborhood commercial next to residential, we are not saying that buffer completely eliminates pedestrian access. We are trying to provide buffers where necessary and the section on existing partial buffers means that if there is a existing use that has been in place before this ordinance is in acted, they have some that was required—20 lets say and now they are required to have 30 while the lower intensity use comes in next to them, they have to provide the additional buffer required to meet this table in this ordinance. Is that confusing. The relationship to the parking lot perimeter obviously may have both overlying one another. We are just saying that these buffers may include the parking lot perimeter and are not –parking lot perimeter requirements to 5 five are not in addition to this. Just to give you some example, these (inaudible) buffers disappear when you have—they are not as large as you think they may be when you go out there. Any questions on buffers between land uses? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 7 Borup: On this your saying a convenience store is less intensive than a storage facility or indoor manufacturing. Siddoway: That is because it is based on a current zoning ordinance and maybe is shouldn’t be but our current zoning ordinance allows convenience stores in the neighborhood commercial zone whereas we are basically saying neighborhood commercial was less intense than general commercial. That was what that was driving at when we started putting in samples of the various uses, convenience stores are permitted under our current ordinance and neighborhood commercial but storage facilities are not and are required they must be in at least a CC or CG zone. Section 10, tree preservation. We don’t a lot of existing trees in our area but what we do have we would like to keep. We are requiring that site designs accommodate existing trees to (inaudible) possible. The landscape they submit has to show all existing trees on it that are greater than four inches in diameter. Basically we are willing to give up the smaller trees. If they are at least 4 inches in diameter they are worth protecting. END OF SIDE ONE Siddoway: during construction and then there are specific requirements for construction within the drip line for paving grade changes, avoiding compaction and how to provide utilities and not kill these existing trees. If they remove, first of all I should say not every tree that is removed has to be mitigated for. If it is dean or dying or a hazard or if it is a prohibited tree, you don’t have to mitigate for it. If it is dead, dying or hazardous we now have a certified arborist and at the parks department. The Parks Department arborist will have the duty of certifying those dead and dying trees before they are removed on site. We do provide some incentives. We allow for 10 percent reduction in the parking standards if they are saving existing trees. Also, trees that are saved, we will allow to count toward any required landscape issues but we are saying mitigation trees are an addition to it as provided. Storm water integration, we want to allow the developer to integrate storm water. We do have design guidelines that they have to meet in order to do that. They must be vegetated. They must not interfere with the trees that are required to be placed in that landscape buffer and there is no (inaudible) or cobble. We want it to be a landscape buffer. There are other specifics in there but those are the highlights. Any questions on stormwater? Pathway landscaping. We are now changing this title to micropath landscaping because it was never our intention to apply this ordinance to all pathways that might be provided through out the city along canal, etc. We are specifically talking about these connections in Subdivision that basically went along the side lot lines of existing residences to provide access to common open space or to provide access from one dead ended street to another. We want to keep it open and visible. We want to keep those areas vegetated. We want the branching (inaudible) cut up and shrub height reduced. Fences must be see through or 4 feet max if they are solid. That is because of several—you may recently a action by City Council that allowed someone to vacate one of these micropath's due to vandalism to their fences. Their fences were solid. Any questions. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 8 Barbeiro: Steve on a micropath, where it comes to the backyard of a home, can they then abut a solid fence in their backyard so that it would be similar to – Siddoway: I think all of these do that. I am just saying the one right along the pathway must be see through or 4 feet in height if it is solid. The other internal fences can be solid and 6 feet. Barbeiro: So the homeowner’s could not put a solid fence along that chain link fence in their backyard so that people as they came by could look in their backyard. Siddoway: That is correct. The building department issues those fence permits and would ask that they be incorporated into the standards when issuing those permits. Residential Subdivision trees. We would like to encourage trees to be planted on residential lots. We would like to require at least 2 1-1/2 inch caliper trees. The way this would work it’s from the developers end and if it is a all ready existing home it would not apply. When new building permits are issued before that building gets occupancy it becomes a matter of the building official when he goes out and looks will see if there are 2 trees on the lot. If they can not be provided we do have a provision that can be bonded for. We originally wrote this ordinance based on a voucher system. It did not include the building official they just provided money to the city and then the homeowners came into the city and got a voucher. It was a lot of paper work and a big nightmare and they have since modified that so that most of this is handled as a check mark on the building officials check list. We do have a requirement they bond for it. The homeowner can come in and access that bond up to six months the way we have the ordinance written right now, we say if it is not used in 6 months the bond becomes city property to provide trees elsewhere. We have been questioned as to whether or not the city has legal authority to do that. Our legal counsel has advised me to see how Nampa deals with it. If they have set the precedent. I have traded several phone calls but don’t have a good answer from them yet. Maybe the one that receives the bond should be the one that paid the bond. Nary: Steve, in the discussion about this was there thought of using this residential Subdivision section similar to the 3.6 section that is earlier. There they are talking about common areas. We have to approve those plans anyway for these houses, right. Siddoway: Common areas we approve the plats. These individual lot plans don’t come through us at Planning and Zoning at any point. Nary: They come from the building department for a building permit. So, if we are going to require a landscape architect or something else at the plat stage, they are going to have a architect design that house, can they use that at that stage rather then after the fact because then it is all ready on the plans, would that be a little easier from an enforcement end rather than putting it on the building inspector. Siddoway: You mean having the trees provided before the building permit – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 9 Nary: Having it on the plans at least as to where the trees are going to be because the way this reads, they could have a tree anywhere they want and then move it. Siddoway: We did want to provide that flexibility so that the homeowners have control. We don’t want to dictate to the homeowners where their trees have to go. Everyone has their own taste. Our intent is to get trees. We wanted to fully provide that flexibility to the homeowner. A lot of CC&R’s will beef this up and require one in front and etc. Nary: Would there be some language then that if they are required as a part of the CC&R’s that would could toward these trees. It does not say that. They are all ready required to put 5 trees in because of their Subdivision. This would make it sound as if they had to put in two more. Siddoway: No, that was never our intent. If that is not clear we should clarify that. Borup: The bond amount. Was that decided by any—Nampa is $200. Siddoway: They only require 1 inch trees. Residential common open space. We received comments on both sides. We are sticking with our original proposal which is, 5% of the gross land area of a single family residential Subdivision must be in common open space. In multi-family developments, apartments we increase the requirement to 10%. We defined that open space requirement to be exclusive of required street buffers, buildings, parking and anything that is in the right of way. It may include storm water facilities if it is designed properly and we have those provisions in there. This has a provision of one tree per 2,000 square feet of lawn. You’ll see in your memo a proposal to change that. One per 2,000 square feet would be about 22 trees per acre. If we go with one for 8,000 then it drops down to almost 4-1/2 per acre. We will allow pathways to adjacent plan trails to count. We want those common areas to be maintained by a homeowners association or if they are large enough they can be conveyed as a full City Park. If it is a small Subdivision and they don’t work out we have this design flexibility. Landscape Maintenance. We are requiring that the required landscape be maintained and the City has an enforcement policy in place. We are trying to encourage creative solutions. We know that we can’t and never will anticipate every situation that exists on a lot out there. We have a series of conditions that if they need or are proposing something innovative or creative or specific problems with their lot, etc., they can apply for this alternative compliance without being forced to go through a formal variance process. This would be a staff level. If it was part of a CUP then it would come forward. Staff has the ability to say, yes this what you are proposing does meet the intent of the ordinances and is as good or better then what we would have gotten otherwise. Or, we say no. If you want to do this you will have to get a variance. Certificate of Occupancy, we are saying all the landscaping must be in place prior to certificate of occupancy. They can get an extension up to 80 days with a letter of credit. I will stand for any questions. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 10 Nary: In reviewing you memo Steve it appears that the only thing that is left open still is the 3.6, landscape architect. Siddoway: That is the real one that is still open. The others are specific options that we are suggesting. Nary: So is that something you were looking as a recommendation from us tonight. Siddoway: Yes, my recommendation as staff is to required them on all plans, but I know it is a hot topic that you should have some discussion. Nary: Is it something that the committee considered—the section at the end talking about hardship and alternative compliance—was that something the committee considered for that 3.6, if it is a small Subdivision that is barely over an acre and only a few homes on it. They don’t necessarily because it is a single family developer, afford an architect. Those the types of issues they can grant at a staff level. Siddoway: That was the idea in the way it was drafted. We should say the one acre more applies to commercial industrial if that is the way you want to take it and then come up with a standard based on the amount of open space in the Subdivision. Nary: Was there other discussion as to maybe creating design districts for certain areas that like Old Town versus the industrial one so it is clearer in the ordinance as to which (inaudible) we really want to focus on. Obviously a landscape architect is fairly expensive type of service to get and we really want to get and we are looking at a large development. Was there some thought or discussion as to doing it by districts rather than leaving it open to the size. Siddoway: There was some and the focus was on Old Town. On the other hand, Old Town has a lot more design issues. We may want the landscape architects involved especially in Old Town. Someone who does not have that license, I don’t think will be well versed in those types of issues. We focused on the small lots up and down East 1st where we see a lot of these smaller mom and pop type stores going in. To try to avoid putting an additional burden on them would be part of the Old Town district and that was what we were looking at. Then we said, maybe the bigger lots and we can do it by size. It has gone round and round. Barbeiro: Remind me again where the discussion of sidewalks and the concerns with right of way buffers. Siddoway: Section 7 on page 18 under landscaping within the right of way—7.9. Barbeiro: One of the concerns we have had in the past referring to the Hollywood Video on Locust Grove and Fairview is by planing lawn in that area it may be in violation of ADA Standards. Can you address that? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 11 Siddoway: It would not be a violation. The violation we were talking about if you looked at that photo was the fact that there was no pedestrian connection to get from the sidewalk to the street. That would still need to be addressed. Right now the sidewalk ends and just a gravel area. Barbeiro: Could the landscape ordinance include the extension of the sidewalk to get them to the street. Siddoway: Sure. These areas where the streets are not built out are becoming problems. We feel like if we require some maintenance in that area, if the foreseeable horizon of getting those is greater than 5 years out will help to alleviate some of that problem. Borup: Thank you. This is a public hearing. Do we have anyone here who would like to testify on this draft ordinance. Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt. 11283 W. Hickory Dale Boise. I have reviewed the ordinance. I’ve talked to the staff about a couple of issues when they first gave me the draft. I’d like to go on the record with some of these issues. First of all on the common open space definition under section 2, I can understand them excluding the exterior required landscaping but I think when we do those internal residential collectors we utilize landscape medians. We have landscaping on both sides. I think that should be considered as part of the open space and they should be able to utilize that in their calculations. Secondly at this point in time when we submit preliminary plats we are not required to submit a landscape plan. There are times when we have a project of such size or complexity or controversy that we do have say conceptual landscape plan drafted and submitted. However, we most generally we do not. We are required to submit a landscape plan with our final plat for staffs review of any common area within that phase of the plat. I have a problem with submitting the landscape plan with the preliminary plat. One, with the City of Meridian right now we have to submit preliminary sewer and street plans. For preparation and cost for preparation the City of Meridian are higher then they are at the City of Boise. All of the applications that I have ever done we had to charge more for these submittals and you adding one more burden upon the applicant to go out and spend another 3 to 5,000 dollars or more depending on who they use and the size of the project. Secondly, we submit something like that then we are bound by it. Well, when you go into design there are instances where we have to increase our open space because of storm drain problems, ground water problems. We have to make some certain adjustments. Your going to be pinning us down to that plan in a preliminary stage and I think it is a waste of money because we are going to have to turn around, just like we do preliminary sewer and street plans, and we are going to have to do the final landscape plan to submit with the final plat. It is a absolute waste of time and money on our clients part. Secondly they limit you can’t go smaller then one inch equals forty feet. Some of these drawings we have on properties that are very large size, you can’t generate anything one inch equals forty. It is usually one inch equals 100. They don’t make sheets that big when your dealing with properties 150 to 200 acres. Then we have to do mat sheets. That would be Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 12 something that I would like you to take under consideration. The other issue is the requirement that anything greater than an acre be stamped by a registered landscape architect. Just because it is stamped by a landscape architect I don’t think it means that it is either in compliance or that it would be the preferred design for the development. There are a lot of landscape designers out there that are retained by the nurseries. They deal with landscaping issues all the time. I have had Subdivision where I had— this is in the city of Boise, I had one on one side of the roadway that was done by a landscape architect. On the other side was a landscape designer. The city of Boise complimented the one that the landscape designer did in their creativity and the variety they used. The other was just the basic minimum. I don’t necessarily think that that should be a requirement. You can still get quality. Sure, every once in a while the city is going to get somebody that does a hand drawn plan. When I worked at Ada County, sometimes that is what you got. Little mom and pop type operation. Maybe they have a acre and a half. They don’t have $2000 to go out and hire a registered landscape architect to prepare the plans. I think that is one more burden you are putting on the applicant and the applicants are not always the big professional developers that can afford to pay for these elaborate plans. Also it states in here that we can’t modify these plans without prior written approval of planning and zoning department. That is my point when I stated that we can’t deviate and that would cause us problems. In 4.1B it states that all trees should be planned outside any easement along the street that contains under ground water, sewer line, other underground utility. We have your standard 10 foot utility easement that adjoins all public right of ways. It overlaps out side that right of way so therefore the way I read this it would prohibit us from doing any parkways where we come in off set the sidewalks say 5 feet from the back of the curb and have 5 foot of landscaping from back of curb to the sidewalk. That would fall within that utility. The way I read this that would prohibit us from doing any of those. Under 5.2 they are requiring detailed irrigation performance specifications be submitted with all landscape plans. That is not to be confused with pressurized irrigation plans. Right now we do submit detailed pressurized irrigation plans. This is asking for irrigation showing sprinkler heads, all of that information. There again, is that really necessary. I feel that is a additional cost. Right now to run our plans through the City of Meridian, it takes 3 times longer then it does the City of Boise or the City of Nampa. To run our plans through, it takes five times longer than the city of Boise to get a final plat signature. As you add these other levels of review, I guess I wonder how long is it going to take now. I had one other questions in the class one to class two buffers under 9.5. I notice they are asking between vacant R-4 ground and vacant R-8 ground, it would mandate a 20 foot buffer. I guess I had some questions about that. If you had 6000 square foot lots, potentially on one side and 8,000 square foot lots on the other, would those two be considered such an incompatible use that you would need a 20 foot corridor to separate the two or to buffer one from the other. Borup: Did you look at that right? Bowcutt: Well, if you look class one and class two. It looks like 20 to me. That would be one concern. We are creating these 20 foot corridors. I don’t see that those two types of residential uses would be incompatible. On the existing tree section, I do Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 13 promote trying to save existing trees. If at all possible, we do try. I do want the staff to be aware of the fact that there are time where we’ve had to fight with other cities like the City of Boise when we had a situation where we had severely diseased black locust trees that they were insistent that we retain within our development. While we were arguing over the issue for a few weeks, a wind storm came up and blew 3 of them over. When you have something like that that’s discretionary, you may have different opinions. In the guidelines for integrating our stormwater facilities within the landscaped areas, I have always been a proponent of that. If we can make it look good and function well for storm drainage purposes. My one concern is it talks about getting the planning and zoning and public works department should be involved in the design. We do have to deal with Ada County Highway District. I always have some heart burn when I get caught in a situation where I have to make two different entities happy on one particular issue. I don’t necessarily think that is something your staff needs to look at, other than when it comes in with the final landscaping plan with the final plat. In pathways you are requiring trees. In many of the developments we put seepage beds under the pathways. For the record, if you do mandate trees on those micro paths we can not put those subsurface seepage beds through there. I would ask that there be some flexibility there under certain instances where we could deviate from that. Lastly there are two things that I would like to state. In some of these developments where we are doing larger lots, maybe half acre for example. I wonder if the 5% mandatory open space in that particular instance would be appropriate when you were increasing your lot sizes substantially above what the minimum lot size typically is. I’d like you to take that into consideration also. Secondly, I’d like you to keep in mind that whatever we do with this eventually the homeowners will have the burden of maintaining these facilities. There are multiple instances in other jurisdictions where the homeowners association have stated that it is too costly to maintain their open space. I was told by the developer of Quail Ridge where the average house up there is half a million or greater, that the association members had met and talked about shutting down their elaborate water fall because they felt it was too costly to maintain. Even with the higher end Subdivision you find that people are sensitive to those annual association dues. Eagle mandates a large amount of open space and when you compare they are very high. Norton: I see that your name is listed on this that you received a draft of this last August. Is this the first time you have commented to staff regarding the things that you just mentioned tonight. Bowcutt: No. Norton: So staff knows exactly what you have just said to us, is that correct? Bowcutt: Many of these issues I did discuss with the staff. Norton: I see that most of these issues have not been addressed and are revised memo we just got tonight. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 14 Bowcutt: Yes, that is correct. I discussed them with Brad Hawkins Clark and he assured me that my concerns and questions will be taken into consideration when I first got the draft. Nary: Some of what I thought I heard you saying is that the concerns may be alleviate somewhat if the landscape plans were being submitted at a later point in time rather than the preliminary plat state. So, if it was done at the final plat stage, that would alleviate some of the concerns you’d be able to address some of the things that are asked for. The alternative compliance section, would that alleviate some of your concerns. We talked about for example micro paths, sometimes engineering requirements to install the path a certain way that may not be able to meet the requirements here but the alternative compliance section and being able to ask for an alternative method of meeting the objectives and I guess the spirit of what this is intended. Does that satisfy you or you think that is too open. Bowcutt: Obviously any deviation from the standards would be discretionary. There are many times where discretion could be used and your told by staff it is in the ordinance, so you got to do it. If that was utilized in that fashion then that would remedy that problem with the pathway design. Nary: There is a application process and appeal process to do that in here so I wondered if that would be at least for some of the concerns that you have raised. On the issue regarding the landscape architect and designer. Do you have a proposal that is better suited to the market place. Bowcutt: I think when the landscape ordinance is adopted it states for X number linear foot you shall have a tree. Everything is pretty much spelled out. So whether you are using a landscape architect or designer, the standards are set forth. Both with have to follow those standards, so I guess I don’t see the need to try to propose anything else other then just allowing us just to follow the standards. If we have some body, if it is cousin Jim and he has a knack for landscaping and he can design a landscape plan to meet your standards, why can’t a mom and pop do that. Borup: The question I had under 3.7 requiring the written changes and how that may be a problem. Did you have any alternative wording for that. Bowcutt: Sir, I don’t think it would be necessary to remove that from this is we did not have to submit the landscape plan with the preliminary plat. When we come through with the final plat, and my landscape plan we should be bound by that and if you had to deviate from it you should go through the staff and proper channels. At that point in time you are quite aware of any design issues, problems so forth and you have remedied those and your final landscape plan would reflect that. Borup: The other thing I was wondering would adding the word substantial field changes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 15 Bowcutt: What is substantial. Borup: Or, sometimes you may just need like a entrance landscaping or you may need a little more detail. Bowcutt: That is correct. Borup: You just do it for that area. That is what we normally see. Bowcutt: I have had some projects where they will have a blow up of the entrance area because that is typically where you see your heavy landscaping and then the subsequent sheets or maybe one inch equals 50 or 100 depending on the size. Barbeiro: It appears the largest concern you have is alternate and compliance. What I would like then to approve is a time to approval with an alternate compliance—that when you submit one to the City of Meridian that they have 20 25 working days to approve or deny within that time frame that or it becomes a pocket veto and you get everything you asked for. The time frame is important. Would that be fair. Bowcutt: I think that would be fair when you talking alternate compliance but there are other issues with the landscape ordinance that could use some work. Borup: Anyone else. Segmiller: My name is Lee Segmiller. I live at 512 E. Whitehall. I have one comment regarding the micro paths. It seems to me the homeowner is prohibited from building a 6 foot fence between his backyard or back property line against the micro path. I have two concerns. One is a privacy issue. Some of the smaller lots your barbecue area might be very close to that walk way that is a public area. The other is a safety concern. Some people have some dogs that are rather energetic. END OF SIDE TWO TAPE RECORDER MALFUNCTION—Missed the end of Mr. Segmiller’s testimony. Also missed Tom South, Jonathon Seel and Kent Brown testimony. Brown: easements on lots. This waterfall sits on this persons property and he is worried about being sued when some one plays in the pond and slips and fall even with the rocks. The thing that I saw is when you start looking at the amount of landscaping you require, many times the first thought that comes into mind is a park. A soccer field or little baseball field. What I ended up doing was taking the ordinances that Boise had in effect and the landscape one was one I looked at and then went and drove a number of the Subdivision that had been approved over the years and looked at—you put an ordinance in place, people read it and interpret one way. Staff interprets it one way and so on. They then go out and try to install what the code is telling them. I went out and looked at what they were putting in with the guide lines that they were getting and the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 16 thing that I found that became evident is the park areas really weren’t being used. I been in discussions since being for Briggs Engineering with county people and saying well those parks are being used. For the most part for the ones that I saw that were being used was the linear open space where people of all ages walk the parks. That is a useful park versus talking a big open space and the comments I got from developers feedback is the amount of liability insurance that they have to take upon themselves to protect themselves and the homeowners association from having this football field that they are providing for the public. The public does not want to pay for it. Any of these pathways end of being a similar type of thing. I think the pathways are a great thing. They are a great addition to the development, but long term I am waiting for the hundreds if not thousands of pathways that I helped get approved in the City of Boise and some homeowners association like Hobby Creek being sued because little Billy fell or mugged in one of those and had a problem and the home saying this is just too much and then coming back to the city and saying you want this open space and pedestrian walkways you take care of them. That has been a discussion over and over again. Should the highway district take them. The parks dept. can’t afford to take them. That is what I have seen over a lperiod of time is where that balance. Is. The other one comes in as the amount of landscaping you haven’t put in. Can developments take care of it. The feedback we got the Columbia Village Development which in my opinion what ended up happening was having starter and middle range homes go in and they were putting in upper end landscaping in. The homeowners association came back and said we don’t want that landscaping. Can’t afford to take care of it. The developer is taking care of 50 percent right now but when he leaves, we aren’t going to afford to take care of it. There has been some discussion about the pathways and the fence. In all of my experience I only saw one person double fence and the City went out and sited them and they took down their fence. For the most part, people put in a 4 foot fence, solid and then put lattice on the top. Yes it does interfere with their privacy but the reason that it is short is regards to safety. You know what is going on there. When you look at the micro paths and connections, you need to make sure they are straight and in a location where police can pull up to them and look all the way down them. Borup: Steve you got a final comment. We spent 2 hours on this all ready, probably more than most of us expected. Are any of the Commissioner's of a mind do you think we will be ready to make a recommendation this evening. Are you feeling we probably want to study a little bit and come back. With that in mind, Steve do you still want to sum up tonight. Siddoway: I just want to respond to the issues that were brought up. One of Becky’s first concerns was on residential collectors and how that would not be part of their open space. If you look on the required street buffers there is not a required street buffer for residential collections. The Ada County street classification map does not have the classification for residential buffers. The residential collectors at this time, if based on this ordinance if they did provide a buffer along that on a common lot in a residential collector within a Subdivision maybe with a detached sidewalk, that would be counted toward the 5% open space. On the issue as to whether the landscape plan should be provided with a preliminary plat or want till the final plat. I point out to you that in our Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 17 ordinance preliminary plat and conditional use permit are exempt from M,N,O and P of the landscape plan which are the sections that require the detailed landscape plan. We would want something what we would call a conceptual design to be submitted with those because that is the stage where we look at the entire Subdivision as a whole. After that the final plat just come through piece meal one at a time and that gives us a chance to see the relationship between all of these individual pieces and how they relate to one another on the whole. As for adjustments and required written approval that is a standard comment that we all ready have put in every certificate and zoning compliance that we write. We want them to follow their approved plans. If they are going to change it, it is not a big deal. They can fax us something saying we changing (inaudible) and it gives us a chance to say no your not or you shouldn’t do that because that is a prohibited tree. Or, sure those are comparable no problem. We feel like it is necessary to have that so that changes are not made Willie nilley in the field. The issue on the scale, one to 40 inches as the maximum. That is usually the scale that we get. It is also the current ordinance requirement for conditional use permit. It is all ready written that way in our current ordinance. I feel like if once you get below one inch equals 40 feet, if your talking about a landscape plan it starts getting too small for you to see what is on it. Trees become this big and if it is a detailed landscape plan shrubs and things are not visible. If it can’t be on one we’ve got the provision to put it on multiple sheets with match lines. The issues of trees needing to be outside of an easement. That is only true if there are utilities in easement the way it is written. I have called the joint utilities commission through Idaho Power. Usually those utility easements are provided on both sides of the street and only one side of the street actually has the utilities in it. If there is no utilities in the easement then they don’t have a problem with trees going in that side. The easement would stay in place. They would not have to vacate it. If you are doing a detached sidewalk, those joint utilities easements are usually placed on the back of the sidewalk. Irrigation, again they were talking a lot about the cost of requiring irrigation plants and that is why we dropped that requirement. We are simply requiring with this ordinance those specifications that give us the assurity that it is going to be designed to a level that will provide a well functioning system per current design standards. In the land use buffers. She pointed out that R-8 is noted under class two. I would have no problem with moving that to class one. She talked about fighting with Boise over Black Locust trees. I point out that that is a prohibited tree and they could remove them in the City of Meridian without needing to (inaudible) for a single one of them. Storm water integration, she was concerned about the requirement to make two entities happy. She has to make the City of Meridian happy and now Ada County Highway District or whoever else. This is only true if they are trying to integrate into the required landscape buffer. If they want to do it else where on site, our design criteria for this storm water integration don’t take effect. We are just trying to provide the flexibility to the lot owner to allow them the option of integrating into those design buffers as long as it still looks green and is able to accommodate the required trees. If they don’t want to deal with both, don’t put it in the required street buffer. She asked if 5% was really necessary in large lot subs. I would say, yes. You usually put big houses there. The yards aren’t necessarily that much bigger after the fact and even though they are, even if there were, the idea is to give some common spaces to enhance this sense of community. She also talked about the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 18 cost of these improvements. Our minimum standards are grass and 1 tree per 8,000 square feet. I would point out that I live in Waterbury Park Subdivision which has all of this open space. It is owned and operated by our homeowners association. We also own and operate our irrigation system. Our dues are $125 a year. If you want to put a time line on alternative compliance, no problem there. You mentioned 20-25 days. I don’t know that we would need that much. Two weeks and possibly less. There was issues on privacy and safety along fences on the micro paths. I would point to you 12.9 in the revision memo that I gave you today, we are going to require that all developers are responsible for putting those fences along the micro paths in place before ever issuing a building permit on the lot. That the way the lot owner walks into it with the knowledge that that fence is what is there. If is a safety issue and those open vision fences have little to know vandalism or problems where as if they are solid and fenced off that is when we see the problems. For the fence behind the fence issue along the micro paths, I would say that we will require notes to be put on the plat that states those fences are to remain open vision fences or no more than 4 feet in height if they are solid. Parks are being used in the Subdivisions. He said the linear pathways are used more. As a argument I would say linear pathways would count toward that 5% open space as well as the continuous blocks. With that I will be done. Nary: On that double fencing issue, I agree with what you are saying. I think what happens is that it does become a trash area. As I have seen a few driving around town, the people will fence or lattice off their patio which might be 20 feet from that fence. Technically the way this was drafted that might be a violation because it is a fence and it obstructs the view of the pathway. I wonder if for clarity sake that there could be a statement saying no fence shall be placed within a certain footage of the fence. If somebody puts in next to their pathway and they still have a lot of lawn they are going to pick up the trash. It would provide some of that privacy or screening. Siddoway: We have no problem with an addition like that. Our other intention in requiring the landscaping which most of the micro paths you go out and see right now don’t have that they would be beautiful amenities and additions to the Subdivision that would provide benefit to the lots in terms of trees and landscaping. Borup: Commissioner's do we want to have a discussion on this tonight. We talked about getting some written information from Miss Bowcutt if we’d like to have that on the record we need to keep it open. Norton: Just for discussion sake, I would look forward to the staff making written comments regarding what Mr. Siddoway just said. He seemed to address every single issue that the public came up to talk about. I’d like to see that in writing. Specifically, 9.5 minimum buffer width. 16 with the alternate compliance adding the 14 day time frame for developers and in section 12.9 fencing language, make a revision in there. Barbeiro: Steve what would prevent a homeowners from putting a hedge up against their – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 19 Siddoway: Nothing. We thought about that and decided we weren’t going to get into the realm of dictating why kind of landscaping we can and can not put up again the fence. Just a bag of worms. Borup: I would recommend if we continue it that it would be continued for us to assess the comments and the staff comments. Barbeiro: I would like to recommend that we continue the public hearing to the second meeting in July that date to be determined later in the meeting. Nary: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Do we have anyone here on Item #4. Is the applicant here or anyone else to speak in opposition. I would like to move that ahead on the agenda and Steve could you cover that in about a minute. Siddoway: I need a quick break to get a new presentation up. Borup: Okay, lets do a short break and come back to Item 4. Borup: During the break we did check our calendar. The second commission meeting in July will be 19th . Do we have anyone here other than the applicant to testify on Item #5? END OF SIDE THREE Borup: The pet cemetery. Is the applicant here? Okay I was just questioning that. We may want to move that one up also. Steve, Item number 4. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED BUSINESS TO PROCESS MEDICAL CLAIMS AND BILL INSURANCE COMPANIES/PATIENTS FROM HOME ZONED R-15 BY SARAH O’NEAL—1447 SANDALWOOD DRIVE: Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and commission, Sarah O’Neal would like to do a home business where she processes medical claims. The reason why this requires a conditional use permit is based on the zoning, an R-15 zone our current zoning ordinance requires all home occupations to go through a conditional use permit process due to potential impacts. Staff has no problem with this and does not see it as impactful to the neighbors. That is all I have. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 20 Borup: Would the applicant like to come forward. Have you had a chance to read the staff comments. Yes the 6 items and the recommendation for approval. You have seen this and agree with every thing in there. Anything from the other Commissioner's? O’Neal: Sarah O’Neal. Yes I have and I do. Barbeiro: I move we close the public hearing. Norton: I second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Barbeiro: I move we recommend approval to City Council the request for conditional use permit for proposed business to process medical claims and bill insurance companies by Sarah O’Neal at 1447 Sandalwood Drive with staff recommendations. Nary: Second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED ADDITION OF A PET CEMETERY TO EXISTING PET CARE OPERATION BY LARRY ELD, DVM—MERIDIAN BUSINESS PARK, 654 E. KING STREET: Borup: I’d like to open the public hearing. Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: This is a addition to a pet cemetery that is all ready existing in the Meridian Business Park. Basically staff recommending approval of the project. We do have comments dated June 8 which you should have. We recommend approval subject to those conditions. Borup: Will the applicant come forward. Eld: Larry Eld. I live at 11085 Thomas Drive in Boise. Chairman Borup and members of the commission, I made this application because there are no pet cemetery’s in the valley and there is a need. We get requests for burial rather than cremation for pets on occasion and I felt if we could utilize the lawn space that we all ready have here, we could implement this very nicely with the facility we all ready have. Borup: Have you had a chance to read and review the staff comments. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 21 Eld: I have and I am a little bit confused that they are asking me to pave the driveway and the parking lot. I would just say I would just kind of run some figures through and if I were to require to do that I probably not economically feasible to proceed with the project. The paving bills would be $20,000 to $25,000. I have a concern about that if in fact this is what the staff is saying here. The other thing, the trash enclosure area, we have about one plastic bag full that goes out in the morning that the garbage truck comes by. It would be pretty unnecessary to build a 3 walled enclose for one bag. We just don’t have trash out there. That is a minor problem. The paving really bothers me. Borup: Steve would you comment on that. Siddoway: The requirement to pave is the requirement of our city ordinance and application like this it should be brought into compliance. Without paving, it would require a variance from City Council, which has not been filed for at this time. Borup: How did it get this far without ever being paved to start with. Siddoway: Well, it has been there quite a while hasn’t it? Eld: It has been there a number of years and of course our access there is right next to Handy Trucking and none of Handy Trucking is paved so there was nothing said about paving it. If I were to just pave my driveway and parking lot I still have a gravel access that goes back to Western Insurance. They are holding yard back there and it is all unpaved. There is noting paved right there in that area. Borup: Your parking stalls are not paved either. Eld: We have no asphalt out there, no. I was not required when we put that in. We got permission and it was granted to us. We moved the facility to Meridian Business Park I think in 1995 or 94 somewhere in there. Barbeiro: Would it be advisable to consider continuing this until the doctor is able to apply for the variance. Siddoway: The variance goes straight to City Council. Nary: I have a couple questions about the application. Doctor Eld it appears that you said you are willing to use approximately 7400 square feet of lawn for this pet cemetery. How many animals do you anticipate burying. Eld: We will sell those by the square foot and I anticipate that oh I can’t remember the number now but approximately 4 square feet per animal into 8,000. Eighteen hundred that was it. Nary: I noticed in your application you said that there were no environmental concerns. You were burying these animals in plastic containers. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 22 Eld: They will either be in sealed plastic container or in a sealed casket if the people wish to purchase one. Nary: Do you have documentary evidence that indicates that 2000 plastic containers containing animals is not going to cause any type of environmental concern. Eld: I don’t have any documented or scientific on that but our intent is that they would be in sealed plastic containers. We are working with a laminate plastic group over in Caldwell to make us these containers. I am not talking about plastic bags. Nary: It is my assumption that a person would choose to do this would be to go and visit the animal. Eld: There are some religious believes and personal believes that they just don’t like cremation and they do not have a place to bury an animal out side of their backyard. There is not a public cemetery available. Nary: I think you will have some increased traffic. Some people are going to come there to do that. Do you have any idea of how much increased traffic your going to have on that roadway. Eld: I doubt that the traffic will increase even noticeably. I suppose like on Memorial Day and such we may have 2 or 3 cars come. I also want to put a little fountain and kind of a mourning wall so to speak, a place people can come and sit and spend some time. There will be a little bit of traffic but certainly not like your 7-11or Albertson’s. Most of our cremations as far as we have a pick up service. We have very few clients that come out. It will be limited. Nary: Do you have any documented evidence of other pet cemeteries as to the traffic usage, environmental needs, those types of things. Eld: I would say no. The only other pet cemetery that I am familiar with is Pet Haven which has been closed down for a number of years. That was not regulated at all. We have contacted pet cemeteries. Forest Lawn down in California has one. There is one in Chicago we have talked to as far as putting this in. Nary: Steve, there is a statement in the staff report that indicates that there was –it is an expansion of a non conforming use, but there is not any support that I saw in the staff report that indicates the reason why the expansion of a non conforming use is being approved without some analysis as to how much use is going to be in relation to the current use. Did I miss that. Siddoway: Anytime there is an expansion even if it is a non conforming use it’s suppose to come into compliance with existing codes. If it is a non conforming use that burns down for example, it would be allowed to rebuild the same square footage that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 23 they had but not increase it. Once you get into increases, changes of ownership and use issues it is an addition and that is why it is required to come into conformance even thought is a non conforming use at this time. Nary: That was the reason for the paving and the driveway and all that. Norton: Dr. Eld, I know that you are a very respected veterinarian in the Treasure Valley. How long have you been practicing medicine. Eld: I have been in Boise since 1968 and owned and operated Mountain Animal Clinic until just recently. So I have practiced medicine for 33 years. Norton: Thank you Dr. Eld. Commissioner's, he has been practicing for 33 years in the Treasure Valley. Also, don’t you take care of the zoo animals. Eld: I did for 20 years and then turned it over to the (inaudible) teaching center in Caldwell. Norton: You have been in this area for a long time and taken care of a lot of pets. Number one of the general comments by staff they ask this commission to determine the number of parking spaces that might need to be provided. Judging from your area here do you think there will be any additional space that would be necessary or can people park along your roadway. Eld: On one of the diagrams that Steve put up we drew out some parking spots. There is three there on the east end and three in front and then three on the south side, so there is nine that could be if it was asphalted, could be striped. There would be nine parking spots there. I have one employee and car and I have the delivery truck that comes in there and we average one or two cars a day. Norton: Will there be any additional signage or do you have the monument sign that was on the picture. Eld: That will not change. No more signage. Nothing changes other then I am going to continue to dress it up and make it look more like a Forest Lawn as time goes on. I think if you look at anything I have been involved in has always been very nice and well kept. I intend to do that here. Barbeiro: What about headstones. Eld: We are not going to allow headstones. What we will do is have a plate that is flat on the ground and it will be a small marker plate so you can mow right over the top. We will have a memorial wall where people if they like can purchase a brass plate with their pets name and put on there with a water fountain and a bench. Barbeiro: Would you accept animals larger than dogs. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 24 Eld: I would not accept horses there. In fact we are cremating horses there. We have a machine large enough. What we might do is if someone would cremate the horse we might bury the remains. We would be working in square feet. Borup: Dr. Eld you understand the comments that staff made, those are city ordinance as mentioned. A variance would need to be applied for. Eld: Someone will have to tell me what to do on that. Borup: Staff can work with you on that, but this body does not have the authority to grant a variance and it would be up to city council. Eld: The only question I have is because nothing else around there is paved and I would have a piece of asphalt out there in the middle of a gravel driveway. Borup: That may be a good argument for City Council. Is there anyone that has any comments on this application. Commissioner's. Norton: I move to close the public hearing. Nary: Second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Norton: I’d like to move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the request of conditional use permit for the proposed addition of a pet cemetery to existing pet care operation by Larry Eld, DVM, Meridian Business Park to include all staff comments specifically number one, no additional parking places to be needed. We would recommend Dr. Eld seek a variance for the paving. Barbeiro: We don’t want this to go to City Council until he has put in for a variance. Borup: Can he do that simultaneous Steve. Siddoway: I think they could and then we would just ask Mr. Berg to hold the forwarding of this on to City Council until the variance is submitted deemed complete and then be able to be scheduled for a hearing. Swartley: Mr. Chairman the one problem with that would be is that if it is recommended for approval it has to be heard at City Council within 45 days. That is the one problem with it being held. It would depend on the schedule and whether or not Will could fit it in on the City Council agenda. The one thing in the applicants favor is there are 3 City Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 25 Council meetings a month now. Just two this month, okay. It does need to be heard within 45 days of recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Borup: Your saying hold it until the variance has been granted Commissioner Barbeiro. The fastest way for his application would be as the motion stated with the applicant understanding that he needs to get that variance applied for in a timely manner or it could cause a problem later on. Barbeiro: With that I will second the motion. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: 2 AYES 1 NAY 2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PROPOSED WANDA’S MEADOW SUBDIVISION – 26 LOTS ON 7.99 ACRES IN AN R-4 ZONE BY ROBERT GLENN—1440 NORTH OF USTICK ROAD WEST OF LOCUST GROVE: Borup: This is the same application we saw a few months ago on annexation and zoning and now they are back with preliminary plat. Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: This was before you the previous month. There were issues on this the last time it was here. The biggest one was the stub street being provided to the property provided to the west. The plat that was originally submitted did not have it. This plat was submitted just today to the clerk. I have not had a chance to review it, but it is my general feeling that it meets compliance. With that, staff comments dated May 18th . Standard requirements based on public works issues. The 20 foot landscape buffer beyond ACHD right of way is required. The original plat did comply with this. I would say that we would recommend approval based on the comments in our staff report dated May 18 and allow the applicant to address any concerns he might have. Borup: Are you saying you want more time to study the plat. Siddoway: I am telling you I have not studied it. Borup: Comparing the two it looked to me like the only thing changed is around the area of the Stub street, we’ve added a flag lot there on lot 3 and appeared to my everything else complied. Is the applicant here. Pavelek: My name is Richard Pavelek, 915 W. Jefferson in Boise. What we have done is submitted the revised preliminary plat that is before you to address one of the staff conditions of approval and that was to provide a stub street to the property to the west. All other aspects are as original submission. What we wanted to do is share with you the solution that we feel meets all the requirements of the stub street. We have reviewed this with the highway district and they support this configuration and location Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 26 for the stub street. As far as the other conditions of approval we have no difficulty in terms of meeting those prior to submission of the final plat. I believe the recommendation was from staff for approval and I believe the revision constitutes no defect in this plat. Norton: There seems to be a discrepancy between the application and the staff comments. Are there two or three common lots. Lot one block one, lot one and seven block 2. Are those all three of the common lots. Pavelek: Yes. Barbeiro: Steve, as I recall on this plan in the past, was the property to the east wasn’t that zoned an R-3. We were talking about the road paralleling the property to the east. Siddoway: The property to the west of this project is R-3. The property to the west is a skinny sliver that is still RT. We have received a plat application for that property that also continues that stub street to the west. Barbeiro: I am referring to the property to the east. The sliver property. The discussion prior was that the road for this Subdivision should run center line to that property to the east . That was a discussion when this first came up for annexation and zoning because that essentially make the property to the east implausible. Borup: It is not big enough. If it was down the center line they would have to tear their buildings out. I don’t think that owner requested that. Siddoway: I don’t remember that. On the annexation and zoning there was a plat submittal conceptually shown as what they were intending to do. All of our comments were specific to annexation and zoning and made clear that the plat—none of the comments were in reference to the plat. Pavelek: Very briefly Mr. Chairman we did speak to the owner of the property to the east after the last public hearing and their feelings were that they did not want to develop at this time. If they do choose to in the future they would like to link their redevelopment of the property to their east, which has got a great potential for redevelopment. Siddoway: I was looking though the comments and there was one lot 3 block 2 not meeting minimum street frontage requirements. I am uncomfortable doing a on the fly review at the table. Borup: On the new plat it is lot 3 block 3. The numbers changed. Pavelek: Basically that was a recommendation that we choose one of the two for the fronting side and I think we can easily accommodate that. If it fronts on the north south Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 27 street, it will meet the frontage requirements. If it fronts on the east west street it doesn’t. Borup: That is where I have a disagreement with our ordinance. Steve did that answer that for you. Siddoway: Yes and it still is shy by just barely 79 feet and 80 feet is the minimum. 63.67 plus half of the 31.2 which is 79.31 for frontage along that. Borup: It is short .7 feet. You could take that out of lot 5 I guess if you wanted flexibility. I might just mention a minor thing on item 5, it’s a typo mentions what the applicant said they comply with that. They want you to do some landscaping along Victory Road. Can you handle that. Change Victory to Ustick. Commissioner's. Barbeiro: I move we close the public hearing. Norton: Second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Barbeiro: I move that we recommend approval to City Council request for preliminary plat for proposed Wanda’s Meadow Subdivision 26 lots on 7.99 acres in an R-4 zone by Robert Glenn to incorporate staff comments with a note that the developer will correct the plat to for lot—with staff comments. Nary: Second. Borup: Lot 5 Block 1 has the wrong square footage. Siddoway: We should also note that staff comments when it has lot and block designations it is based on the old plat and not on this one. Barbeiro: We should include Mr. Siddoway’s comment in my motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PROPOSED OBSERVATION POINT SUBDIVISION (FORMALLY TIMBER VIEW SUBDIVISION) – 91 BUILDABLE LOTS ON 40.33 ACRES BY VICTORY 41, LLC— NORTH OF VICTORY AND EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 28 Borup: This application was continued to give the applicant an opportunity to incorporate some of the recommended changes. We talked a little about street alignment and the lot size on the north of the property. Mr. Siddoway. I’d like to open the public hearing. Siddoway: This is Timberview Subdivision now Observation Point located south of Meridian Greens on the north side of east Victory Road. This was the proposed plat and it is not the one that was submitted today. There was no small version that was submitted to us therefore it is not in the presentation tonight. I have not had a chance to do any thorough review of it. I can tell you that they have somewhat snaked that road entrance into where it connects with Meridian Greens, which is one of the requirements. It did provide a stub street to the west although it appears that the grade elevation change location. The lot sizes along the north property line have been increased. They did note on the plat an increase from 1400 sq ft minimum house size to 2100 foot. They still are not providing the mid block pathway connections and the buffer along the western property line adjacent to the nursery and the gravel pit are not shown. That is what I see just glancing at this. Borup: Is the applicant here. Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 11283 West Hickory Dale, Boise. I am representing the applicant in this matter. I will hit on the issues that we were asked to go back and make some minor revisions to this drawing. As Steve indicated originally we had 1400 sq ft minimum house size on the plat because that is what the code states is applicable for the 8,000 sq ft. We have increase that to the 2100 square foot as we had stated in the previous hearing. Secondly you asked us since these lots are approximately 100 feet in width along the southern boundary of Meridian Greens. We had consistently 90-92 a few 94’s spread out through here. You asked us if we could go in and either drop a lot for find a way to increase the width of these lots to come a little closed to the widths of lots in Meridian Greens. We have increased these lots. They are ranging from 98. I’ve got a couple of 94’s but all of these along here are north boundary are 96’s. I’ve got 100 and then this one is a large flag lot. It does have a 90 foot width but yet the square footage is all most 16,000. That was done by adjusting these lot lines here and the stub street shifted down a little. The other issue, this roadway intercepted with Meridian Greens stub street in a linear fashion. I did a sketch for the commission that we could come in and Y this into this corner radius here, therefore causing the traffic to slow down if they were to go in this direction. ACHD we did consult with them on the radius and how this would interconnect and they did agree with our staff that was appropriate. The other thing we did not show the stub street to the west. We discussed that in depth in the original plan. We finally agreed with the commission that we would go ahead and place that stub street. One of the problems we had is we’ve got a great difference because this was excavated as a gravel pit in the past. Therefore we had a distance between here and here to place that stub street. ACHD was concerned about putting it directly right here. If I stick it right here then I can’t Y this intersection. I had two choices. I have to have a 125 foot centerline offset from here to here to meet ACHD standards. The stub streets is located right here at the edge of the slope. The grade Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 29 difference is not a natural one but a condition that they created on this property. I believe that if we provide the stub street, and it is a public roadway, they are reclaiming that pit they would have to fill to that grade to intersect with that roadway. We are providing that access. It is there responsibility to bring it up to grade. The other two issues was the pedestrian pathway. We submitted a variance application along with our others and are asking for a variance of that pathway due to the excessive grades that we have here and the problem we foresee is safety issues. We would like to take that issue up with the council. It was stated in the past hearing END OF SIDE FOUR Bowcutt: and so that would go along with the variance application for the block lane separation with the pathway. We feel we have satisfied the concerns that the commission had and the last two remaining items are something we will have to deal with at the council. Do you have any questions? Borup: Do we have any one who would like to come forward. Segmiller: My name is Lee Segmiller at 512 E. Whitehall. I would first like to thank the developer and the council for giving us this opportunity to express our concerns are to make the changes that they have made. I am disappointed in seeing that the Y intersection is not a bit more curvy. I am afraid that people will tend to just shoot through it straight without slowing down as we desired. I would like to request a clarification on the roof issue. There was comment made about the quality of the level of the roofs that would be required in this Subdivision since Meridian Greens requires tile or shake. We would want to be sure that the roofs in this new Subdivision would be equal quality. There was some comment made about a 40 year presidential which is a brand name of celitex. I would like to see that put in the application so that is tied down. There was also discussion at the first meeting regarding a fence along the south edge of Meridian Greens and the north edge of this property and I don’t know what the status of that was. Those are the comments I have. Borup: Anyone else want to comment on this application. Martinez: My name is Boris Martinez. I live at 521 E. Whilehall Street. I just had a question for the developer. I think at the last meeting we talked about taking one lot and distributing evenly among the others. That is not clear to me that is what happened here so I would like to have some discussion on that issue. Borup: Your right. They did not eliminate a lot. Anyone else. Commissioner's. Did you have any other comments Steve. Miss Bowcutt would you like to come up and address these questions. Bowcutt: What would you like me to address? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 30 Borup: One was on the roofing. I think you stated previously that was going to be part of their covenants—the 40 year presidential. Bowcutt: I believe Mr. Cavin did indicate that at the last hearing and is still of that opinion. Borup: So you are in agreement with having that on the record that would be part of the covenants. Bowcutt: Yes sir. Borup: The comment of why a lot was not eliminated on the north side. Bowcutt: In the discussions at the past hearing we talked about either eliminating a lot or seeing what could be done to adjust our lots in order to increase the size. We looked at doing that and it was not feasible to keep the larger lots throughout the whole development. Borup: Could you repeat that. Bowcutt: As far as trying to place a lot somewhere else in the development so it remained the same number of lots, we looked at the other blocks to see the feasibility of that. Mr. Cavin and I went through them and based on the shape and topography we could not put a lot in there and still maintain the widths that he believed he needs in order to accommodate the homes of this size. Most of those lots—the widths are either comparable or a little narrower but the depths are deeper. That is why we are getting some bigger square footages as you go through the mid section. That is also the steepest part of the property. One of the things that was discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission was trying to bring these lot widths up to be closer to Meridian Greens. A comment was made to make them the same. Another commissioner commented I don’t think we are looking for exactly the same, that is not our intent. We want you to make an effort to get closer to that 100 foot width because we had some 90’s up against them and they had some 100’s. There was up to a 10 foot difference. What we have done by shifting and making some adjustments, we brought those up to all most all of them are 96’s. Two 94’s and one that is 100 and 98 and the rest are 96’s. Borup: The other question was on the fence. I think you addressed that last time. Bowcutt: There was lengthy discussion on the requirement of fencing. I think I stated on the record, my past experience fencing is mandated when your developing a residential development next to agricultural ground. We have always be required to do the perimeter fencing. I have had developments where if we adjoin an existing development comparable type densities we were not required to install the fencing. I think you asked the question of staff that was you recollection that was how it was applied and I’m not sure if staff clarified it or not. So that one, I guess, we will have to deal with at the council. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 31 Siddoway: Our recommendation was to match the existing but the question was whether or not that could be required. I don’t have good answer for that. Maybe legal council does. Swartley: The ordinance does not address it. You can make the recommendation. I was counting days as your remember the annexation and zoning recommendation was all ready approved at the last meeting. I saw this being continued also so I was trying to figure out where the 45 days were up. All we can do is recommend that. Borup: I think the question came up what is the difference between this and a Subdivision that is phased. I don’t see a lot of difference. Siddoway: We do require containment fencing between phases but do not require permanent fencing between phases. Barbeiro: I thought that the pathway was between Forest Ridge and (inaudible). Wasn’t that the intent. Bowcutt: Yes between those two roadways. Barbeiro: When we discussed that and did some calculations doing a ADA rise of one and 12 with a five foot or 8 foot stop that essentially amounted to one foot in 20, we did some calculations here last time and found that that slope would allow for the one in 20 with a little build up on the side. I would rather see that there be a pathway between the two in keeping with the ordinance. Bowcutt: I think the discussion was is it practical—your right I think Commissioner Hatcher did calculated the slope. You guys went into a discussion on the practicality with the landings and then we went into discussion about the variance and the block length is an issue for the council because we submitted a variance asking for a waiver for the maximum block line. With the variance application we submitted with this application that you don’t see, if the council chooses not to approve that application then we would have to insert the pedestrian pathway as staff recommended to break the block. The variance was submitted with the original application. Barbeiro: Is it possible to place a stop sign at the Y where is comes out of the culdesac. Bowcutt: As it intersects with our roadway system. That is ACHD’s determination on stop signs. I don’t know why they would be oppose to it. It would be feasible. Barbeiro: I motion we close the public hearing. Nary: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 32 Borup: All in favor MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Discussion? Comments. Concerns. Norton: I am concerned about not taking out a lot on the north side as we requested. In the minutes of May 24th Mr. Siddoway suggested a variance on various other things that are considering regarding block lane, annexing property that is going to be served as the well, a variance with a landscape buffer to make an easement. So there is a variance involved in here that they could do for things that we are not sure about. I am concerned about them not taking a lot out as we asked. And, not making that Y a little bit deeper, but I know that Idaho Smart Growth has some ideas of how to slow down traffic. Some alternative way to slow down that traffic. There is always speed bumps. Commissioner Nary, are you going to be involved in this vote? Nary: I have received the minutes on this but because your talking about things that in reading the minutes on this particular one it appears that was a portion of the motion that was made-—hat one lot being removed, but I was not a part of that discussion so I was going to abstain from voting. Siddoway: I have a couple of comments for the record, not related to that block size but one on the variance that was filed, I have not personally seen that variance. I believe that from what Becky just showed me it was only for the block length. There needs to be some revision to that to include these other issues such as the required landscape buffer, etc. They will need to get that revised language in so it can be distributed to the City Council in advance of the meeting. The second thing I’d like to state is that the staff comments really only address requiring the buffer along the area where the gravel pit is. We did not address requiring extending it to the south adjacent to the nursery. I have been contacted by the owner of Victory Greens Nursery who says he’s got several other uses on that property approved by Ada County but not ascetically pleasing as the tree holding with the nursery. He has large equipment that he stores back there. He sees just as many potential buffering issues on his lot and maybe more so because his lot is zoned commercial and will remain commercial and could change to some other commercial use in the future. I would like to amend the staff comment requiring that the buffer along the gravel pit to extend down to Victory Road to include that area adjacent to Victory Greens Nursery. Nary: I guess to be fair to the applicant and since I am part of the reason we may have an in pass here I would maybe suggest that the commission considers sending this matter over until commissioner Hatcher can be here. He did hear the prior discussion and did make the previous motion that approved this with some conditions being met which seem to be a contention now. Borup: We going to have a problem getting a second? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 33 Nary: I don’t know. Borup: The problem we have is what Mr. Swartley was referencing earlier. Our time frame. Swartley: Commissioner Nary the annexation and zoning application came the same time as the preliminary plat application. The annexation and zoning application was heard on May 24 and it was approved but it’s been held. So, from May 24, 45 days and that was what I was counting a moment ago, that application needs to go before City Council by July 12th I think it is. They don’t want to hear an annexation and zoning recommendation with out the preliminary plat application. That is the problem we are facing. We could send it over but then I don’t know what we would do with the annexation and zoning. Borup: Your saying the annexation and zoning should have been tabled. Swartley: I have not done the recommendation yet because I have not had the application. Borup: I thought we discussed we did not have a time period if we it as long as it wasn’t –we have not passed it on to City Council yet. Swartley: But it needs to be passed on within 45 days. Norton: I would be willing to make a motion tonight. Swartley: I would tend to agree with Commissioner Nary’s suggestion. Commissioner Hatcher was a very big part of the hearing last time on this application. I think that his input and in site would be quite helpful. I am going to guess that there is a way around that 45 time period. Nary: Mr. Chairman I don’t have the ordinance in front of me. Does it require the City Council take approve or deny it in 45 days. Swartley: It has to be heard at City Council. Nary: The City Council could simply set it over. Siddoway: It has been known to me by the applicant that if the commission feels that the not dropping of a lot is a concern, they would be happy to have the recommendation go forward with that recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to drop that lot and then they will just take it up with City Council. Borup: I don’t know if the issue was dropping the lot. It was to get the lots to 100 feet wide. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 34 Barbeiro: The concerns the neighbors had was the adjacent lots in Meridian Greens were 13,200 square feet and the largest lot adjoining there was 12,400. The neighbors wanted to see those lots closer to 13,000 sq ft. Borup: Was it 13,000 or 100 feet width. Barbeiro: Both issues were brought up by the neighbors when Commission Hatcher was making his motion. He deferred to the 100 foot width. Mr. Swarthy we can not address any CTR issues but we can make a recommendation that the developer consider they are without weight. Swartley: Yeah you can do that. It would be a waste of your time. Borup: Are you referring to the roofing? How can that be addressed. Can it be addressed by this commission at all. Swartley: You can make it a part of the record. Your trying to put in it in the CC&R’s and we have no control over those. Barbeiro: Steve, the buffer to the west of the property –what was the final analysis. After all the discussion if you wanted to remain with the recommendation. Borup: Maybe we ought to discuss that among the Commissioner's. It has all ready been stated that’s in the ordinance that they are going to need to ask for a variance. I think we stated last time the (inaudible) would go to some type of residential use. I have to agree with the applicant on that. I don’t see any sense in putting a buffer between what future use is going to be another residential use. Barbeiro: In that case – Borup: Other then a statement in there about –they had talked about each homeowner I mean in have a I can’t remember. But rather then having a separate dedicated lot to have some landscaping requirements by the lot owner on something on that line was talked about. Barbeiro: It is going to have to go to a variance with the city then I will go ahead and recommend that the council approve the variance for the buffering. Mr. Chairman I wish to make a motion to recommend approval to City Council request for preliminary plat of proposed Observation Point Subdivision (formally Timber view Subdivision) 91 buildable lots on 40.33 acres by Victory 41, LLC north of Victory and east of Meridian Road with staff comments in that we would recommend approval of the variance of the buffer zone to the west of the property which is of course the opposite of what the staff recommended, that we would recommend to City Council that the developer realign the lots on the north boundary to more approach the 13,000 square feet which we believe dropping one lot may l—let’s change it the recommendation that the lots to the north be no less than 100 feet wide along the east Lake Creek Street. That the developer of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 35 Observation Point not be obligated to build the fence on the north side if the ordinance for Meridian Greens was (inaudible) correctly on the assumption that Meridian Greens was required to build that fence upon their build out to this point and if they did follow the ordinance and are in compliance then the developer of Observation Point would be required to build a fence to the north. Borup: How about just stating that any fence on there would be in accordance with City Ordinance. Barbeiro: That would work. Thank you. That we would recommend placing a stop sign where South Andros Way meets East Lake Street and as the develop has requested a variance for the pathway, I would like to keep that in the motion that we follow through with that pathway between the lines until such time as the City Council reviews that variance. Borup: Was there any other verbal staff comments that should be included. Siddoway: There is one new one talking with Joe Roselyn from ACHD that in order for that curb section of the street to function property, there should be an island in the center of it to force people to stay in their lane and not just jump through and cross into other lanes of traffic. Borup: Which street were you talking about now. Is this the same street now the applicant wanted to do last time and ACHD said that they couldn’t. Oh a different island, but it is still an island. Maintained by AHCD. Barbeiro: I would add that to the motion that there be a divider there where South Andros and East Lake Creek streets meet. Norton: Instead of the stop sign? Barbeiro: In addition to the stop sign. Norton: Okay, I second that motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED (2) OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS ON 4.13 ACRES ZONED I- L BY H&W, INC. –CORNER OF FRANKLIN ROAD AND 10TH STREET: Borup: Mr. Siddoway. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 36 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and members of the commission this is a proposal with H&W Inc. as the applicant. This is a copy of the proposed site plan. They would have an access off of 10th and off Franklin road into their parking lot areas. You have our comments dated June 6th . Several things we have asked the applicant to clarify at this hearing that I would like to point out. First of all we do note that the 35 foot landscape set back is required as a condition of the CUP. This plan is in conformance with that requirement. It is also considered a Planned Development due to the fact that there are two primary structures on a single lot and the only why that can happen is through a PUD under our current ordinance. That ordinance has a requirement for 10 percent common open space based on the calculations they provided on their site plan, they are showing upward of 28 percent but that does include extensively this area along the canal which is outside of their security fence. We would say there needs to be at least 10 inside of that. One other hot issue is this corner of the building only has a 13 foot wide paved drive isle which seems fairly inadequate for the types of large trucks that are going to be accessing this warehouse/office use. Another issue with this that we state right in the beginning is we need some clarification. Posed uses are not clearly spelled out other then the fact that they are office/warehouse/showroom type uses. We need to verify if there is any retail uses or anything that needs to be approved as part of the conditional use permit. No specific information as to the tenants of these buildings has been provided. The drive isle is an issue. We point out that our ordinance requires 9 x 19 foot stalls. The plan shows 9 x 18 with a 26 foot driveway. We only require a 25 foot driveway. There is one parking stall on the end and looks like it will have a difficult time pulling out. If we eliminate that one parking stall then we maintain that 25 clear drive access isle that the ordinance requires. We did a parking calculation and show that they have adequate parking with up to 5 company vehicles. We would like the applicant to verify that is enough. Also the tree requirement, although you just saw our new landscape ordinance requirement until that gets finalized, we are still under the one 3 inch caliper tree per 1500 square feet of asphalt ordinance. Given that and the square footage of asphalt shown on the plan they would require 51 trees. This site plan does include 60 trees but not all 3 inch caliper. Our policy has been, if they are dropping caliper inches the total on the site has to be 110% of the total required. We need the applicant to verify the total caliper inches proposed on the site based on the number of trees they are proposing and the sizes. Minor issues such as the including some additional species of trees. I would point out that no signage has been proposed for this application. It is required to be part of the application. Our staff recommendation based on other standard on other entry way corridors is to limit it to a single 72 square foot monument sign plus on building signage if the applicant has issues he should bring it up at this point because what ever is approved with this application for signage is what they will be held to. Let our comments stand and I stand for questions. Borup: Is the applicant here and like to come forward. Whitney: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, my name is Ron Whitney. 1412 W. Idaho Street, Ste 200, Boise representing the applicant. We have reviewed staff comments and concur with the conditions of approval. I have to apologize on the issue Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 37 of the 10 percent landscaping. The architect has assured me that we’re well in compliance with that but hasn’t given me specific numbers as far as the breakdown once we exclude the area along the canal. The driveway that has been referred to on the northeast corner, we do intend on that being a one way drive and the intent is that drive is only serving the easterly building. We do not anticipate retail in there at this time. I would pose the question, do we have the option of asking for approval of potential retail tonight or is that a issue we can address later on. As far as the signage goes we are familiar with the ordinance and have not problem with complying with the maximum requirements in place at this time. Any other question I could help you with. Norton: When you said this will be office building and showroom, what does showroom mean. Whitney: It would primarily be—we are not looking at this being direct retail to the public so it would be something of manufacturing or warehousing that is going on there that would be a showroom to display the product that is available. We are anticipating more of a wholesale type use. Norton: Can you give me specifics what it is going to be. Whitney: Possibly like cabinets, if it were modular cabinets that were warehoused there and distributed out of that building and there would be a display room that would exhibit the product. Norton: You agree with number 13 staff comments regarding there is no signage proposed with this application that any signage you would have to come through for another design. Whitney: Yes. Nary: I was curious on condition 3 and I understand the staffs concern that it is not very clear to me that you have specific tenant in mind at this point. Whitney: We do not have specific tenants at this point. Nary: So the reason for the two buildings is just economically feasible way to make this project more soluble. It appears that the condition doesn’t really give enough for the city to come back. If you have a permitted use on our laundry list of permitted uses, you may not have to come back to notify the staff as to what you are putting in there. Would you be adverse to something a little stronger as to whatever type (inaudible) notice to the city as to what type of business are in there. Whitney: Oh no, that would be fine. END OF SIDE FIVE Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 38 Borup: I think the thing we have conditional use permit can be reviewed on 10 day notice so if there was a problem you just have the city would have to hang their hat on. Was staff concerned potential retail use. Siddoway: I mentioned it because if it is not approved they will have to come through with the modification of the conditional use permit to add that. Borup: If what is not approved? Siddoway: Retail use on the site. It is not approved as part of this conditional use permit tonight and they want to put some in the future then it would have to go through a new conditional use permit. Borup: Is something you would anticipate you would want to do. Whitney: Certainly if we could actually get the approval taken care of tonight so that it came up, we could avoid that process later on. We’d like to do that. Borup: Will different retail uses have different parking requirements. Siddoway: Retail is at one per 200 square feet. The parking calculations that I did were based on the office use at one per 400 and with the warehouse one per 1000 plus one per vehicle in use at the business. Based on those standards they are in compliance with up to 5 company vehicles. If there is a retail use the parking requirement would double in the square footage that is in that retail use. Right now it is calculated at the office and warehouse use standards. No excess parking at this point unless there is less than 5 company vehicles then there might be up to 5. Borup: So if it went to retail they would have to come up with more parking spaces. Would that need to come back before the commission to add parking. Siddoway: I would recommend it based on –it would have to do some serious modifications to their site with that use. I would say if they are going to add retail use in the future, it should come through as a modification of the conditional use permit. Whitney: We can live with that. Siddoway: On number 9 which is the one about the trees, I am concerned that the 110% rule is met and I would just state that if it is not, if it is fine. We need those calculations. But if it is not there will have to be some additional trees provided to get to that 168.3 caliper inches. Borup: Mr. Whitney when you said you agreed and would comply with all the staff comments that included some of the others that are a little bit that aren’t detailed on your site plan. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 39 Whitney: Yes, that is correct. Borup: Anyone else here to testify on this application. Seeing none, Commissioner's. Barbeiro: I motion that we close the public hearing. Nary: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Barbeiro: I motion that we recommend approval to City Council request for a conditional use permit for proposed two office warehouse buildings zoned I-L by H&W Incorporated corner of Franklin Road and 10th Street to incorporate staff comments. Norton: I second that motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 6.36 ACRES FOR A PROPOSED PARK AND RIDE LOT FOR 100 VEHICLES ZONED C-G BY ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT—SOUTHWEST CORNER MERIDIAN ROAD AND NORTHEAST CORNER OVERLAND ROAD: Siddoway: This is a proposed park and ride facility to be constructed by the Ada County Highway District at the on ramp to I-84 at Meridian Road on the east side. It would be accessing that lot off of Overland Road. Looking south a little bit and west toward Meridian Road there is a single family lot that exists on that property to the south. There were several issues as to whether it needs to be platted to dedicate the public road. That is staffs position. I have all ready talked to the applicant who has suggested to me that they will comply with staff comments. Staff comments were submitted by Brad Hawkins Clark. Don’t have the date. Oh, June 9, 2000. I will stand for questions and let the applicant speak to any concerns he might have. Borup: Any questions. I noticed we did not have any comments from ACHD. Siddoway: Not commenting on their own project. I do have some draft comments in my folder. That is all I have. Borup: Is there anything in your comments that you did not corporate in you comments. Siddoway: Yes. They are asking that they not be required to do a public street. That they be allowed to do a rural street with no curb gutter and sidewalk. Makes no sense Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 40 to us to be providing a park and ride lot to encourage alternative forms of transportation and not allow pedestrians or bikes to get there but cars. We want to see it developed as a public street, dedicated as a public street and provide curb gutter and sidewalk. Barbeiro: Could you go back to the plan that shows where it sits on Meridian and Overland. Thank you. Borup: The applicant here and like to come forward. We do have two letters that we received in our packet. One from Sidney Harmon and one from Larry Chadwood from Meridian Ford. Those are part of the record. Sharp: My name is John Sharp, 327 N. 27th Street in Boise and I am the design engineer on this working for ACHD. The location that we have is was selected from about a one year study that we conducted for ACHD and we had 18 sites that we looked at within the Meridian interchange area and selected this one. This has been going on for 2 years so we have met with Meridian Planning and Zoning staff and some of these things I thought we had addressed but the stuff that deals with the entrance road and things I guess ACHD will have to address that. We went through discussions on that earlier and had some things laid out on that and they advised us that it would be a public street and that it be 28 foot roadway through there. That is what it is designed for. At the time future development came in there on the other side that they would be required to do the development for the curb gutter and sidewalk on the other sides of the access street. The road comes in off of Overland Road and goes north and then turns and goes back to the west. Borup: Your saying when someone else comes in they would develop the east and the west side of that section. So what part would you guys be doing? The middle? Sharp: Yeah. We are doing the culdesac and the parking lot area. When we started this we were advised that a lot split would be adequate, now I have no idea how that is going to work out, so if a Subdivision is necessary that can be done too. Borup: So this parcel is being divided off from another larger parcel. Sharp: Yes. It is a little over 6 acres and with the access road right of way and the parking lot area there is about 3 acres coming out of this 6 acres. It is all most a 50/50 split on it with the road and the parking lot combined. The parking lot is a acre or the area we are proposing is about 1.7 acres and the access road right of way into it is about 1.4 acres. There is only a couple issues here that I’d like to get some clarification on. Item 7 about the 20 offset versus the 15, when we originally started that we were under the impression that 15 would be adequate so the 20 foot we would have to go back and do a little bit of shifting. They said we could utilize 5 feet along the east bound on ramp of the interstate by shifting it over. There is a sewer line and a easement thing over there so we would have to be careful how we handled that also. Item 10 we’ve tried to keep the interior of the parking lot open and some of the surrounding area open as much as possible for security reasons. There is a plan to put a video camera in Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 41 there at a later date so we have tried to keep the parking area open as much as possible in order to maintain that security and been seen both from the interstate and Meridian Road. Item 12 on the signs, the majority of the trailblazers for the park and ride lot are up because they are using several places around the interchange now. We would only be putting a couple extra signs up at the intersection of Overland Road and at the entrance of the parking lot. I apologize if I did not get those in there, but I do have the locations of those shown. Item 13 about the future cloverleaf on the interstate. We discussed this with ITD at the on set of this project. We originally looked at the site they keep their stock pile sand for this park and ride lot and they informed us that it would not be a good idea because some date in the future they wanted to development that quadrant with a cloverleaf. In our discussions at the time they were looking at all this they had no plans to do anything additional in the southeast quadrant of that interchange. To my knowledge that is still the intent. If you have questions I would like to clarify them. Barbeiro: The road would be right here about where the L in Overland is. What is the distance from here to Meridian Road. Sharp: I don’t have the right of way plans with me. Borup: Looks like maybe 690 from center to center. Sharp: ACHD has a requirement on a off set intersection to be no more than 12 feet from the 2 center lines and we are right at 11. Barbeiro: This here is the road into Meridian Ford. I have been out here at 8 o’clock in the morning where the traffic is backed up nearly to the Meridian Ford line. I am concerned people trying to make a left turn into here (inaudible) but I have seen many days where the traffic is backed up there. If your going to make a right hand turn your going to have traffic stacking back in here because people aren’t going to let you in to make that turn. How have you addressed that possibility. Sharp: There was discussion about widening that out and putting a left turn lane in there. Barbeiro: Are there any provisions here for bike lockers. Sharp: Yes, there is 4 bike lockers on there plus 2 shelters for bus. Norton: Would ACHD be receptive to the idea of doing a little horse trading. If the City of Meridian would eliminate you requirement to have trees in the parking lot would you put in a right turn lane on Overland Road to be opened about the same time this park and ride would be opened. Sharp: I couldn’t answer that. I don’t’ know if there is enough right of way for that but we’ve got a man here from ACHD you can talk to on that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 42 Borup: Is this intended to be a permanent parking lot. Sharp: As far as I know it is permanent. Borup: You bought the land. Sharp: There are in the process now of appraising it and working— Borup: That is all thank you. Is someone else from ACHD want to come up now or if we got questions. Roselyn: Joe Roselyn. I am a traffic engineering supervisor for ACHD. Let me address a couple things. The concern about the pedestrian access. We discussed that and what we can do or offering to do right now would be actually shift the center striping of the road if you will and put in a curb and basically provide a separated shoulder to separate the pedestrians from the traffic with a curb on the road and wait for the adjoining properties to develop to get the sidewalks in. We have done that at a few other locations around town. It is less than 300 vehicles a day so you will have a peak surge because it is a park and ride but we feel that is not an uncomfortable amount of traffic for pedestrians to walk with the traffic. Borup: Was there any type of modeling done on this at all. Roselyn: We are actually anticipating most of the usage would be coming from people south of Overland road particularly off of highway. There is no real way to model it. Our assumptions are based on where we see the people request (inaudible). We expect around three quarters to 80% actually from south of Overland and the part people coming from the other side of the freeway. Additional traffic would be higher than 20 percent some of those people who are not now ride sharing would be coming off of Kuna Road and coming onto Overland to get in. Nary: I was just curious, was there any discussion or any thought put into any other alternative entrance or exit from that. It seems like the couple of public comment letters we have are simply just concerned with what we are talking about. Stacking of traffic on Overland right in that location. It is a fairly congestive intersection in morning and afternoon. Was there any thought by ACHD an additional access point to that lot— another way to get in and out of it so not everybody has to turn right or left at that street. Roselyn: We are fairly restricted in that lot. You have the freeway on the one side, canal down basically between the lot and Highway 69 and we can’t get direct access onto the freeway ramp. We all ready asked ITD. Meridian Ford on the other side has us landlocked over there. If the residential property develops in the future there may be some joint access that could be worked out. That doesn’t get you any further away from the intersection. That section of Overland is in our 5 year work program, about 2003 or 2004, to be widened out to 5 lanes and with intersection improvements at Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 43 Meridian Road to add some double turn lanes and stuff. We are proposing a left turn lane in and also looking at maybe even because of that Subdivision entrance maybe giving them a right turn lane. Haven’t made the measurements to see how much right of way we have there. Nary: Does that roadway line up with the proposed roadway for that Subdivision right there. Roselyn: It is offset by about 11 feet. Borup: Commissioner Norton alluded to the intersection at Overland and Meridian and I think ACHD has all ready told us the status of that intersection at previous hearings. Has there been any discussion on doing a temporary right turn lane there. Roselyn: We would love to but unfortunately discussions we have had with the property owners—that little piece of private property there on that corner that all most useless for development, but I think the person is holding on to it to eventually gouge us when we come in to buy the right of way. That is what it is going to take. Buy that lot out. That signal pole is basically at the back of the right of way. Borup: The two lots on the east of the access, is part of Meridian Ford or is that . Roselyn: Yeah that is Meridian Ford property. What they are saying is they don’t have any immediate plans. Borup: Your request just to do a paved roadway without any improvement on either side and let that happen as its developed. Is that ACHD recommendation in the past on other applications. Is that normal. Roselyn: I can’t say yes or no. It is a case by case on some of these. It has happened before. It is kind of what we do on collectors and arterial actually. We wait for, we have the developer build the essential road and then we come back later with the improvements to get the rest of it. Borup: You were saying in this case you feel you could do a pedestrian bicycle lane with a curb separation it from –essentially you would be paving it while—so a paved sidewalk with a curbing to separate it is what your proposing. Roselyn: Right. Borup: Do we have anyone else like to testify on this application. Freeman: Good evening. My name is Mark Freeman. I live at 3550 Birdie Court in Meridian. I am a attorney and I represent the property owner to the south of the proposed development Corrine Cope who is present with her daughter Linda. Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's the small squared area the area of the property where Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 44 the residents and the other out buildings are located. The white area that surrounds that is basically pasture land. I will try to be brief. My clients property is zoned R-1. It is a single family residence. I have reviewed the staff comments and my client as proposed my client does not see that this conditional use permit should be granted as proposed, however there may be modifications that can be made through negotiations or otherwise which may make it acceptable to her. I will list the various areas that my client is concerned with. Some of them may not directly involve your commission. She has some concern like I mentioned it is pasture land. Horses are currently pastured on the property. She has irrigation that comes into her property on the southeast corner. I have spoken to the consultant engineer and they are making improvements there. We need to be assured that the way that property be irrigated will allow my client to continue to use the property in a current use. She does not have any intention or plans in the near future to sell it to develop it. So, the comments about developing the property commercially at least as far as my clients property is concerned is just speculation. As far as the comments regarding the access road that would be dedicated, obviously my client believes that a public dedicated road is appropriate. She agrees with the staff comments that it should include curb gutter and sidewalk. I would ask the same question and being a lawyer and wanting a crack at the other side but I would have asked how many times that ACHD has approved that and I know there have been occasions where a similar road has been approved. I think it is unlikely. I think that if I understand the staff comments that the proposal from the staff is to at least to curb gutter and sidewalk on one side of the road. Although it is not a high density road for a number of cars during the day, I would assume that people and pedestrians are going to enter into that lot at the same time the vehicles are going in and out. You may say 300 vehicles but your spreading that out over a relatively close period of time and that is when the pedestrians are there and that is why a sidewalk is needed at that time. There are some other issues that may not be relative today. I need to mention them. One is that either in the plans or as proposed ACHD has talked about or is attempting to obtain an easement from my client for some irrigation purposes just outside the right of way of where the road will be located. She has not be contacted about that and the issue is not resolved. That has not been discussed or obtained. If that is the way ACHD has designed the project they will not be able to proceed unless they obtain that easement or make some other arrangements. We agree with staff comments which state that the proposed use of this property is incompatible with the adjacent single family residence which is owned by my client Corrine Cope. For that reason we believe that the commission and council should consider additional buffering to make it more compatible because clearly it is not compatible. My client has living in that home for I don’t know how long—50 years, and it is residence. It is easy in a growing city like Meridian to look at that and say gee I wish I had that property or the person who has it may want to sell it and they might want lots of other things but until that person makes that decision that is a residential property and we need to understand that. We believe that the additional screening and landscaping on the south side of this project as proposed by the staff is appropriate. The extension of the landscape screening from 15 to 20 feet. That is appropriate. This property since it is not fenced at all between the two parcels and horses roam over the entire parcel. Clearly the applicant, if this is approved, will have to fence off my clients property to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 45 keep the horses and livestock out of the parking lot and off the road. We believe that an appropriate condition would be the building of a cyclone fence all the way around my clients property. The additional buffering on the south side of the parking lot we feel is also appropriate. We would propose—they would like a berm with maybe a fence on it with some screening and foliage as suggested by staff would work but that may not be consistent of how the city would like to do it in the future. Although it may be difficult my client believes that the impact on their property is even more so by the road into the property as opposed to the parking lot. For that reason although it may be that ACHD and the applicant doesn’t have enough width property to it, we believe that it would be appropriate in this use to have the applicant to do some landscape buffering or screening all the way along the road from the parking lot all the way down south to Overland Road. It could be some type of fence or some type of landscape buffer, but again with the understanding this is residential property that road and vehicles turning in early in the morning and lights flashing in the house as they are turning in from Overland Road onto that road is really the same issue my client would have with the access road that you might expect she’d have from the parking lot where lights should be shielded. There is another issue and I don’t really know where the city is on the issue as far as their ordinances are concerned but my client has concern about the way that parking lot will be illuminated. We have received from the engineer a copy of that portion of the application which identified why type of light poles will be used. We have concerns that without some types of shielding, with poles of that height there will be a lot of spillage of light onto there property. That will be difficult and suggest the commission should consider some type of screening or shading as a condition. As I mentioned the current usage—my clients property is residential property. The surrounding land is used as pasture. The horses water in the Ten Mile Canal. I am of the opinion and my clients in essence have a prescriptive easement over this corner of the property to water their horses. Sort of a foggy issue which if I am correct and it is a prescriptive easement, will require on of two things to happen. One this will either be fenced off in such a way my clients horses can get into the canal through this property or we will have to make arrangement with the applicant to have some other type of watering arrangement done. There is one place where the canal is low enough to access it is here because the canal bank is too steep. The sewer line as I understand it is located somewhere around here. If we can resolve these other issues, is there a way for us to get either an easement or a stub for that sewer line and the response I got was that might be okay if it is okay with the City of Meridian. I would just wonder if I can get any kind of sense from someone who knows that whether that would be a problem. My clients property would gravity flow to there if it ever is developed or when it is developed. Borup: I thought there were no plans for developing and now your worried about her sewer access. Freeman: My clients are more interested (inaudible) Mr. Chairman, but I am looking out for their best interests in the long run. That is my job. Those are all the comments I have. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 46 Borup: Any comments for Mr. Freeman. Nary: Would you say the bottom line is your would not be adverse of this development if all those conditions were met. Freeman: If the screening and the others can be resolved then I believe she would not have difficulty with this proposed use. Norton: Does your client just happen to own that little corner piece of property on Overland and Meridian Road. Freeman: No she does not. Borup: Do you know the distance from her house to this property. It is probably 300 and some feet. Freeman: I don’t think it is 300. You might be correct. Barbeiro: Doesn’t the house sit about right here. Freeman: My estimation is that it is a little more to the east. Borup: Anyone else. Johnson: Bryce Johnson. 1565 S. Meridian Road. I own and operate JB’s Restaurant at the corner of Overland and Meridian Road. In 1991 I built the restaurant. I bought a great site. A good freeway location with good access. In 1994 my partner and I bought the rest of the corner, built the Texaco and added to his motel and I built a small office building. I paid my impact fees. We contributed a sizable amount of property to ACHD to widen Overland Road and improve the END OF SIDE SIX Johnson: driveway that was up the hill. We paid to have the driveway moved down so that it was more accessible and safer. This was in 1994 and we were assured by ACHD that Overland road and the interchange and intersection there was going to be improved in the next couple years. The bottom line of why I am torturing you at a quarter after twelve is we are in the middle of the year 2000 and my business is being impacted. John Jackson’s business is being impacted because ACHD has decided that it would be better to build a park and ride then pay for the improvements and improve the infrastructure. Respectfully, and I know this is Planning and Zoning Commission and I understand but I would ask you to please consider if it is a need to have versus a nice to have. A park and ride right now— Borup: Excuse me. Are you saying you rather see the intersection improved then have a park and ride. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 47 Johnson: Absolutely. Thanks for stopping me. Borup: Let me clarify that. Mr. Oland are these funds –I am assuming that there are separate funding and ones probably got some federal highway money in it and they can’t be mixed or co-mingled in any way. Speaker off microphone. Borup: Why don’t you come on up. He mentioned that it was 80% federal money on the park and ride and then you had other comments. Oland: We know the problems occurring out there and we do have project in the 5 year work program. We have modified the signal about a year and a half ago to try to improve the intersection. We are moving forward with our other programs. All it takes is a lot of money. Borup: Do you think in 1994, was there a statement made that it would be improved in 2 years. Oland: Well, it was probably said it was on our list of things to do. Borup: It would all ready been in the 5 year plan to have made that statement. Oland: Well, no. It is on our list to do. I did not say it was going to be done in 2 years. Borup: For ACHD to say it was going to be done in 2 years it all ready would have been on the 5 year plan. Oland: Things more because of money—changing priorities. A lot of these projects get shifted. Borup: I think you can see this for the City of Meridian is a very high priority. Maybe number one. Oland: Yeah, well it was number one then now Franklin is number one and next week something else will be number one depending on—we were all ready this last year made a lot of changes to push Franklin Road up without effecting Overland. Every year we justify our work program based on input from the cities and citizens. It is in the 5 year work program. Johnson: We saw the plan. We actually put sidewalks in based on the interchange plan. I was lead to believe it was part of the 5 year plan and was told that it would be one of the priorities. Two more quick comments. As a business owner and a concerned citizen I would ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to be aware it is a big problem and any help you can do –your sitting here approving Subdivision and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 48 possibly park and rides that are going to generate more traffic in a situation that is all ready a big problem. Borup: You’d like less traffic by your business. Johnson: To be honest with you right now it is to that point, especially during the commuter times in the afternoon. It is not that the property is a problem. It’s the interchange is a problem. The Meridian Overland Road it is an absolute bottleneck. You know that. The other comment. We do need a commuter ride. The scientific survey that I do every day is I have 15 to20 percent of my parking spots taken up by commuter riders. Borup: Anyone else. Boyd: My name is Jim Boyd. I reside at 5016 Lakes Edge Place in Boise. I’d like to made a couple of comments. I am speaking on behalf of the current owner of the property. It is currently in the City of Meridian zoned C-G and with within that zone I would personally think (Inaudible) probably a park and ride would be about as compatible of a use for that residential as I can think of. There are a lot of uses that would have a greater impact for her serenity as a residential use there. Secondly, I believe her house because it is quite close to Overland Road, the noise off Overland and the existing lights and so forth would have as much of a impact as the park and ride. There was one photograph that was shown that showed the distance. Sharp: John Sharp again. Some of the issues that Mr. Freeman addressed – this is going to sound like passing the buck a little bit but Idaho Transportation Department is doing the appraisals and right of way negotiations on this. They are appraising the property and they will probably do the purchasing of the property. It is a Federal Aided project and under that they have to certify the right of way. The irrigation we are trying to fix it as good or better then it is right now. The easement the irrigation the fence the horse water and all those issues that directly effect her property when the negotiation for the right of way is going on is the time she has her chance to handle those because the things that directly effect the property owner a lot of those things we don’t get involved with unless it is a design issue like the irrigation. The irrigation of plumbing is on the plans. There will be a diversion box up there at the road where it is just an open ditch now. It will be a concrete diversion box at that time with a slide gate in it to divert water to the south or to the west to her. There is a little problem with the horses water. There is some trading that can be done- automatic water could be supplied through the (Inaudible) negotiations. There is things that can be done. The location to the water is one somebody else’s property now and she is using the property so we can try to provide equal of better if possible. Ada County themselves have a requirement for what illumination can go to the property line. When I talked to the Meridian staff they said they did not have any requirements for the intensity of lighting at the property line. These light fixtures that we are using are 30 foot mounting height and square box type that you see mostly used around the area. They are shielded as such that most of the light is directed downwards. The screening – we’ve tried not to put too much down Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 49 there for security reasons, but if that is a issue for headlight glare and things like that we can handle that also. All the issues that have been brought up by Mr. Freeman most of that will be handled through the right of way and negations that right now I have just a standard barbed wire fence around the property. If there is another type of fencing that needs to be put across her property boundary then I can put that in the contract as well. Nary: Your talking about incorporating these requests from Mrs. Cope for these concessions. Would you or ACHD have any objection to incorporating those as conditions on this permit. Sharp: Yes and no. I don’t have a problem with it but I guess some of those things need to be worked out through like the easement. That is a condition of the right of way. The irrigation and fencing type, those things always worked out through the right of way negotiations. I guess we could say yes but if ITD doesn’t negotiate those then I am not sure. Nary: It seems like some what of what they were asking for fencing was fencing along the boundary line. Sharp: That is in there. We are completely enclosing it because it is a rural pasture and both sides or remaining portion of the lot that we are trying to acquire plus Mrs. Cope’s property will have to be fenced in order to maintain livestock. Nary: So the lighting and the screening would not be a problem as a condition. Your only talking about the right of way, the water. Sharp: The water and some of the other issues I would prefer those negotiated through the right of way and other big issues that come up as well. Siddoway: I would like to point out a few things based on the applicants testimony and then the concerns raised by attorney Mark Freeman. Most of the concerns are addressed in staff comments. Site specific requirement number 3 does require that a preliminary plat be submitted prior to any development on the parcel that is going to be east of this park and ride lot. That plat will require a variance because this culdesac is long and exceeds the maximum culdesac length as per ordinance so a variance and a preliminary plat will need to be filed. If there is less than 4 lots then they can do the preliminary plat and final plat concurrently. Staffs position on the curb gutter and sidewalk is in staff comment number 5 where we do want to see that. At least one sidewalk on one side but it is zoned commercially, CG, it should be constructed as a commercial street section in our opinion. Number 7 responds to the buffering issue. I don’t know how the applicant got the 15 foot number, but 20 foot wide planting strip is the standard. The option for the lighting problems would be either to provide a 3-4 foot wall to contain those headlights or increase the density of the landscaping along this area so it provides an effectively buffer within 3 years from the date of planting. Also in relation to the trees, we do want to see some interior landscaping. We are saying add some trees in these islands at least four and their security cameras can be located in Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 50 such a way that they can still obtain the site visibility with those trees on the lot. Number 11, they don’t show any van accessible handicapped parking stalls. There is a sewer main that runs along this side here. There trees that are proposed may be within the easement. We don’t know because the easement is not shown. Those trees will either have to be located outside of that sewer main easement. Barbeiro: Bruce there was a question about access of a sewer. Freckleton: I think it is a good question to raise. We have a main trunk line that runs along Five Mile Creek. There is a crossing somewhere in this vicinity down here and then we have a line that runs across here and up paralleling the interstate. Access to the sewer from Mrs. Cope’s property, the trunkline is on the opposite side of the Ten Mile Creek from her place except in the location of this crossing here. So if a service live could be extended to that crossing location, it could be done without having to cross underneath Ten Mile Creek which would be real costly and difficult. Borup: Does that line end at that point. Freckleton: It crosses over and comes on up – On the west side of Ten Mile Creek is the main trunk line. It runs up crosses underneath Overland road and continues out toward Meridian Greens. At that location we have a crossing and then a line that comes up along here and all the way up by Ford. The flow of that sewer comes back toward Ten Mile Creek. I believe that the boundary of the Cope property is Ten Mile drain. The trunkline is on the opposite side of Ten Mile Drain from the Cope property. Barbeiro: I move we close the public hearing. Nary: Second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Norton: It has come to my attention that little corner property is owned by Flying J and may ACHD just needs to bite the bullet and buy that property and make a temporary right turn lane to help out those neighbors and businesses on Overland Road. I understand the need for park and ride. I feel ACHD needs to be friendly to the City of Meridian and help them out. Maybe in return the City of Meridian will be friendly toward ACHD and do a park and ride. That is my discussion. Barbeiro: As a part of what I would like to put in the recommendations is to include staff comments would be if any lighting is to be placed on the south boundary that it be a 180 degree lighting not 360 so that whatever lighting 30 feet high would only go in (inaudible) to the north. That ACHD build a 6 foot chain link fence along the roadway and along the east and north complete to maintain the pasture. That ACHD negotiate with the landowner to the south regarding the (inaudible) Ten Mile canal and has staff Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 51 has indicated continue to include the additional buffering. I believe that between ACHD and the owner because they currently do not have an easement as Mr. Freeman explained, that as a part of their easement negotiations that ACHD would give the land owner the prescriptive easement to the Ten Mile Creek. Siddoway: (Inaudible) by ACHD the map on the wall shows it as part of the lot and I have been told that ACHD has purchased that outright. Barbeiro: Mr. Freeman if you and Steve could discuss what easement it is – Siddoway: We should reopen the public hearing. Nary: Is what your suggesting as part of the easement is that ACHD negotiate or solidify this prescriptive ease that may exist for Mrs. Cope to water her horses. I don’t know that we can do that. I don’t know that we can extract that from ACHD, that they go to negotiate somebody else’s easement as a condition. Borup: I don’t know that ACHD necessarily needs that easement for the irrigation. If there is an existing irrigation ditch or a pipe under that access, all they have to do is make sure it continues on. It comes out of the same place and I’m not sure how that ditch goes along there, but it the ditch runs east to west, they just pipe it and it stays the same use. I don’t know that they need an easement to do that. Maybe it is more complicated. Siddoway: We have some clarification here. They do have enough right of way all ready for the road. What they need is an easement for tiling the ditch that runs along the western side of that road. There is a current users ditch that in its existing location there. It runs north and south on the Cope property. That is why ACHD needed to get an easement for— Borup: Why? If it is not on their property why do they have to tile it. Siddoway: I don’t know. Borup: If the ditch is not currently on their property, then why are they worrying about tiling it? Do we need to worry about this? Barbeiro: I think I just opened up more than I should of. My intent was making note of Mr. Freeman’s— Borup: Sounds like if they are talking about tiling the ditch they are trying to do Mrs. Cope a favor. If it is on both their properties maybe it is a joint helping both owners. If its not the ditch just be left open and they don’t have to worry about it. Sounds like maybe we shouldn’t be worrying about it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 52 Freckleton: I guess maybe we should get some clarification on that location. Is the property line of the right of way line down the center line of the ditch or is the ditch solely on— Borup: Why don’t we re-open the public hearing. Nary: Mr. Chairman, I move we re-open the public hearing. Norton: I second. Sharp: The irrigation ditch comes across the southern edge of Overland Road to Mrs. Cope’s property. At the edge of the right of way that goes into the park and ride, it branches and goes west to her place and then south or north to the park and ride area, that 6.1 acres. Borup: So your concern is tiling that ditch to irrigate the other half of the property. Sharp: We are tiling the ditch in order to not cause future problems but to take the water down to both this property for irrigation for the landscaping and for the additional property that is there. Maintaining it. A permanent easement is standard procedure so that a property owner that is on the other end of the ditch has the right to go in there and maintain it if they need to. Borup: There is no existing permanent easement now? Sharp: They will buy the permanent easement from her. Freckleton: Does the ditch currently serve that property your talking about? Sharp: It serves both properties. Freckleton: At current state there is no easement. It is just a users ditch that has been there for— Sharp: The easement is there for prescription for the irrigation facilities. ITD standard procedure is to purchase a permanent easement and tile it so that there is no question as to maintenance in the future. Freckleton: Does the Cope property have access points along that ditch or is provision being made to supply them with whatever historical use they may have had. Sharp: Presently they are taking water out there that continues on to the west and then it goes down across their property or straight down to the property the park and ride is going on to. What we are doing is piping it under the proposed access road and it will go into a diversion structure there where there will be a slide gate to control the water to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 53 go either north or to the west. My intent was not to disrupt any of the existing conditions. Borup: So the easement that you need because you want to – Sharp: It is a convenience. Nary: I move we close the public hearing. Norton: I second. Borup: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Nary: I am looking at Meridian City Code 11-17-3 which is the general standard applicable conditional uses and I think basically to make this as brief as possible, that is the guideline we have to look at on the conditional use permit as to whether to grant it or not and that is really where we need to focus. It appears from the evidence we have before us tonight condition A is that it will in fact be a conditional use permit as staff has made a determination of that as correct. It is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan that the design and construction will not change the character of the general vicinity. What we have determined from the facts is that this is a CG zoned lot so this is a compatible type of use for this type of lot. It appears that most of the evidence that we have heard is on sub D which is will not be hazardous or disturbing to exist in your neighboring uses. I thing Mrs. Cope’s counsel has told us that they feel it is compatible as long as all of these conditions are met. I would echo what commissioner Barbeiro said earlier that the lighting be included as additional condition that there be 180 degree lighting on the south side boundary lines so that none of the light spills over onto the Cope’s property. That the under conditions under the other ones, there is 9, under the conditional use permit section, the adequate public facilities and services we have had a lot of discussion regarding the sewer lines and access and easement and all that. Also, (inaudible) indicate there is no need for sewer on this property itself. Whether or not it is going to interfere with the easement they are not allowed to interfere with our easement anyway that may be existing for the sewer so even granting this conditional use permit won’t change that. There is no additional requirements or public costs for public facilities for the City of Meridian that are detrimental to the economic welfare of the community in granting this conditional use permit. The evidence has been simply that there is better uses at times. Mr. Johnson pretty much stated simply that he’d prefer a different use or that the roadway be changed. That is not really the issue before this commission. G,H and I. H is the only one that may have some relevance to what we are talking about. It appears from the staff report that this is going to add a whole lot more to what is all ready what is felt to be congested area to begin with. There is some concession ACHD is making. I would suggest that those comments be included to the City Council about widening and creating a turn lane and some of those things to alleviate the concerns that H would have and the neighbors have raised from Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 54 the Subdivision that is right across the street. Other then that these 9 conditions appears can be all met by the conditions that have been proposed tonight, therefore I move approval of this request for conditional use permit for this proposed park and ride lot for 100 vehicles zoned CG by Ada County Highway District at the southwest corner of Meridian Road and northeast corner of Overland Road pursuant to the staff comments and the additional conditions that have been made as part of the record in discussion tonight. Barbeiro: For clarification that we would include a fence along the north and east property and of course the lights. Nary: The only thing on the fencing I think there was discussion about different kinds of fencing. I am not sure what is the most appropriate kind of fencing. Do you want to include that fencing has to be done along the boundary line rather than a specific chain link versus something else. Barbeiro: Fencing appropriate to maintain the pasture and livestock. Nary: Fencing appropriate to maintain the property owner for the Cope’s should be added. Barbeiro: I will second the motion. Borup: Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 2 AYES 1 NAY Borup: Thank you everyone. Commissioner's we are past the time when we said we wasn’t going to keep continuing on. We have 3 more items. I don’t know. Do we want to have another special meeting this month or would you like to continue on. Barbeiro: With 3 more hours we are going to be here another hour and a half, minimum. Swartley: Before we reset these last 3 items. I don’t know what these folks are here for but I don’t know if some of them don’t have any opposition to what the staff’s comments and or are willing to comply with that, there is no opposition from the public, maybe those items we could take up and move along and just if we have to send something over then at least we send something over that is going to be contested. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.7 ACRES FROM R-1 TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED ADDITION OF HOME BY OPAL C. FARRINGTON—NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAST PINE AND ADKINS WAY: Siddoway: This is a application for annexation and zoning from Opal C. Farrington. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 55 END OF SIDE SEVEN Siddoway: that goes into Danbury Fair Subdivision. Their desire is for hook up to City water and sewer but in order to do so we require them to be annexed into the City. Staff comments dated June 5th , 2000 in your packets. We are recommending approval of the annexation and zoning with conditions in that –in those staff comments. That’s all I have. Morgan: Bernadine Morgan. 1187 E. Fairview. The problem we are having is the ditch. That is our irrigation ditch. We are clear over on Fairview and as you can see our irrigation water is in bad shape here on Opal Farrington’s property. The edge of the highway to the edge of the ditch is approximately 3 feet. She is under the opinion that the City of Meridian is to clean this up and to take care of it. It has been 6 years since this ditch has been cleaned and maintained. Prior to that, Martin (inaudible) the farmer that was to the north of her, had all the equipment and he did it all the time. That was not his job. It is on her property to clean. One year she had it burned but that has been several years ago. We have had to fight for irrigation ever since all of this property has been sold from the farmers. It goes clear over to all most Eagle Road where our main head gate is. We have had all of this to fight for 5 years. Most of it has been cleaned up except for two areas. This and the one on the corner of Pine and Locust Grove. On the corner where you now have that cement abutment. That belongs to a man at Woodbee Island and of course we are not getting it through to him. We have gone through Fred Burns over here. He is to assist in these (inaudible). He throws his hands up in the air and says sorry. Nothing I can do about it. A year ago, he did get a hold of them and he was to have that ditch cleaned. The City hired someone to do it but they run a ditcher through there without burning the weeds, so it just slide across the top. We are having a awful bad time. Please somebody clear up our irrigation ditch. Borup: Let me ask a couple questions. For one thing, the ditch does not have anything to do with the application that is before us. Maybe we can answer some of your questions. Mr. Swartley is this responsibility of Nampa Meridian or does the City of Meridian have some jurisdiction. Swartley: What Fred Burns would have gone to the property for was for a code violation. Might have been the weeds. It is in the city limits isn’t it? Siddoway: No. They are applying for annexation and zoning. Swartley: Oh, then I don’t know why Fred would have gone there. Maybe Bruce can help you out. Morgan: No it is not. They deliver only to the main head gate. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman my understanding is it is users lateral ditch. Historically back in the good old days all of the users along that ditch either got together and maintained Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 56 it corporately or each individual property that the ditch ran through they took care of their section. As property develops people go by the way side as far as maintaining their ditches. The ditch is not on City property. I don’t think the city has an obligation to go our there and maintain this ditch. It looks like the ditch was probably disturbed quite a bit during construction of Atkins Lane. The recent paving that was done for the Maws No. 3 Subdivision that went in. I know Morgan’s have had a touch time getting their water through there. Morgan: Who is responsible for this and if this Planning and Zoning goes through and they build one house, will they continue with the ditch like this or what. What are we facing here? Freckleton: If this property is annexed and if it is subdivided, they would fall underneath our ordinances for requirement to tile that ditch through that property. Barbeiro: So upon their bringing the plat to the City, as soon as they subdivide it, there is the immediate requirement to tile the ditch. Freckleton: Correct. Barbeiro: And, it would appear if they are going to go for an R-4 they are certainly going to subdivide. Borup: But, the property has to be in the city limits before we can have any jurisdiction. Morgan: I’d love to see it them. Barbeiro: So you would be in support of the city annexing the property. Morgan: If it will clean up our ditch. If they just put up one house they would not have to take care of the ditch. It is on their property. Not ours. Swartley: They would be subject to the Subdivision development ordinance. Borup: Next step they’d have to come forward with a Subdivision plat and request. Morgan: To put that house on they have to have a Subdivision or can they just put a single house on it. Barbeiro: They have to subdivide first. Borup: Oh, sorry. Staff’s general requirements item number 1, that is enforced on this. The staff comment was saying that the ditch needs to be tiled and unless they specifically ask for a variance from the City Council. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 57 Nary: Does the annexation require the tiling or does the Subdivision plat requirements require the tiling and does that, if it is the latter, does that change the staff’s feeling as to whether or not a development might be a better suited way to get this particular problem resolved since originally say we don’t need it but now there is a different issue raised, would that be a better solution to get this done. Borup: At this point, they can not get a building permit to build a house can they. Swartley: My only thought was that the expense of tiling the ditch may preclude them from wanting to do anything and the problem does not resolve itself and yet we have annexed the property into the city looking like that. If the annexation requires it, it doesn’t matter but would we rather have them have a development agreement so that the annexation does require it. Freckleton: Steve and I are just discussing this and I am not entirely clear whether we can make this requirement with an annexation or whether is has to fall underneath a Subdivision. I believe it is under the Subdivision development ordinance so I don’t know that we can really require it under an annexation. Therefore I think we would be looking for the development requirement. Swartley: Commissioner Nary’s reasoning makes pretty good sense and that would alleviate this problem a lot quicker. Freckleton: We would need to modify that comment. Borup: Eliminate Item number 1 and adding a development agreement if we proceed ahead. Siddoway: Under 4, that is where is says does not recommend a development agreement. Cross out not. Borup: Okay Mrs. Morgan. That’s probably the way our recommendation will go, unless the application withdraws. They would be required to tile the ditch unless they withdraw the application not liking what our requirements are. Morgan: Part of the problem is, what little water we get we don’t have enough volume to push it across the land. Norton: In the application summary it says there are two existing homes and they want to construct a manufactured home which would be the third home. It also says in the applicant summary they want hook up to both municipal sewer and water, but Bruce did you say they all ready have water. Freckleton: I believe they came before City Council and requested service and was granted service condition upon them moving forward with an annexation request. I think that is why we are here. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 58 Norton: If we annex them that is simply annexing to the city. Do they need to have another CUP in order to do this manufactured home. Freckleton: I guess that is where I am a little confused. It seems to me like that would require a Subdivision plat. Your getting multiple structures on a parcel. There is all ready two structures there and now a manufactured home. Steve’s suggestion was maybe we should just continue this so that the applicant can attend the next meeting and have her at the beginning of the agenda so we can get some questions answered. Borup: It does say 3 different parcels so I guess it could be a residence on each parcel. Is there any final answer we can help Mrs. Morgan. How do you have a development agreement if there is not going to be any development. We can put it as a condition for annexation. That might be the best solution. The question is how do we have a development if there going to be no development. Can that be strictly a condition of annexation with no further development or can we just put it in as a condition of annexation. Tiled or maintained. Swartley: Either they are going to develop or withdraw the application, correct. Borup: No, they have 3 separate parcels. Swartley: I like Steve’s idea. We don’t have the applicant here to know what they are going to do. Nary: Mr. Chairman I don’t think you can condition an annexation on the condition precedent like that. You either annex or not. The only avenue the state code gives you is a development agreement. Borup: If this was annexed would the code enforcement officer have any means to— Swartley: Yeah but it would be the weeds. I don’t know that it would be the maintenance of the— Borup: How about a ditch that over ran and made swampy area or something. Swartley: I don’t believe that’s what in the code but there might be something. Morgan: There is a Idaho State Law that they can not impede water. Borup: We are talking about City Ordinance. The best thing for the city to help Mrs. Morgan is if it was annexed and then there may be something more the city could legally do. Morgan: When they come up for the city here— Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 59 Borup: If they come up for any development then the requirements can be placed at that time. Morgan: What is this division of 3 pieces of land and they would not need it. Borup: That’s all ready done. Morgan: Actually they won’t need it at all. Borup: No. Morgan: Then we would have to take them to court to get this ditch maintained. Borup: We hope not. If it is annexed into the city and if they are not taking care of the weeds and maybe if water is running over, there may be something for the city to do. Morgan: This ditch as been here for more than 50 years and to move the ditch or to do anything with it, has to take the vote of everybody on the ditch. Borup: I think what we are saying the best thing to help you sounds like maybe to get this annexed and then the city could do something. Morgan: Will we know when it comes up for annexation? We are not within 300 feet. Borup: That is what is going on here right now. Whatever recommendation will go here will go over to City Council next month. Norton: Could she call Will Berg’s office to find out exactly the date. Yes call our City Clerk and get the date. Swartley: The property should have some posting. Norton: I move the public hearing be closed. Nary: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Norton: I’d like to make a motion that Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to City Council to approve the annexation and zoning of 4.7 acres from R-1 to R-4 for the proposed addition of home by Opal C. Farrington northwest corner of east Pine and Atkins Way to include staff comments with exception of under general comments strike item number 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 60 Swartley: It was my understanding we are taking out number one and then number four taking out not, if we were doing a development agreement. Borup: The question was whether or—it was stated we could not do a development agreement. Swartley: Yeah, that’s true. I think we should just leave it as stated. Barbeiro: I second the motion. Borup: All in favor. Nary: One second, I just want to be clear because there is no requirement then to tile the ditch and we haven’t answered Mrs. Morgan’s questions. The Morgan’s only concern is that the ditch be tiled. Swartley: We need to leave in number one. Nary: We decided that—annexation requirements did not require the ditch to be tiled and the discussion was that the only way we might be able to have them tile the ditch was to have a development agreement because they initially asked for they wanted this to be moved from 2 to 3 parcels and that was the reason because we weren’t going to subdivide it and that would be the only way we could require them to tile the ditch was a development agreement. Borup: So, can we leave it in and let the City Attorney or someone else decide whether it is enforceable or not. Swartley: Yes. That would be the best and Council could change it if they want. Norton: I would amend my motion to leave in number one regarding the tiling of the irrigation ditch. Tom would you agree to that as a second. Barbeiro: Now you got me. I thought we were going to exclude one and then include again take out the word not and have a development agreement. Borup: Her motion is to recommend approval with all staff comments as written. Barbeiro: Okay, I concur and second. Nary: Mr. Chairman, you last comment was having the city attorney make a determination as to whether or not— Borup: No that would not be part of the motion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 61 Nary: What the staff comment was that the annexation ordinance does not require that the ditch be tiled so including item one, doesn’t matter. So we won’t have them tile the ditch. Borup: No its in there. Barbeiro: Here is the way that I see this. What Steve and I discussed was there was some discussion of the assessor (inaudible) three lots but the city only recognizing 2 lots. We can include a development agreement because they are going to seek a 3rd lot and in the development agreement require them to tile the ditch. Borup: We better get that on the record then. Barbeiro: If you look at our map up here there are only two lots recognized on this site. Borup: So there is really not three parcels. Barbeiro: We have no record here showing that there are 3 parcels on this. That is why I went back over to the map on the wall. There is only 2 parcels just as it is described here in our packets. Borup: There could be three parcels but maybe one of them is not a buildable parcel. What are you proposing. I’d like to move this along. Barbeiro: According to this we have three parcels. Borup: We don’t know that they are buildable parcels and that will be determined if they come in with a building permit, right? Siddoway: The staff report from Brad says that there are 3 separate parcels as recorded by the county assessor. The maps that we have show 2 parcels. I do not know where the third parcel is. It does state that they are planning to construct a manufactured home the third parcel which would be new development and require a building permit based upon which, it seems we could require a development agreement for the development of that third parcel with the manufactured home and the condition of that development being tiling the ditch. Barbeiro: Wouldn’t the tiling of the ditch only be required on the third parcel that we were building on or would it be part of the entire three parcel group. Siddoway: I don’t know the legalities of that. Nary: Mr. Chairman with Commissioner Norton as the maker of the motion, want to simply state that we recommend they annex this parcel as requested and that the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission be that the ditch be tiled whether it be done through a development agreement or a preliminary plat which ever Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 62 is most appropriate. The city attorney can make that decision and additional recommendation as well as the staff will have time to formulate that better before council. Our concerns are being addressed that the Morgan’s have raised to us and the council will make the final decision anyway. Norton: I’d agree to that. Barbeiro: I would concur with my second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: I have to apologize. When we started this I though that would be a 5 minute item. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED LARGER SIGN CRITERIA AND ADDITIONAL PYLON SIGN TO SITE ZONED C-G BY DAN CONLIN-IDAHO ELECTRIC SIGNS—OAKBROOK PLAZA 2100-2180 FAIRVIEW AVENUE: Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's this project has been before you with a conditional use permit and the requirement of that conditional use permit was single monument sign no greater that 72 square feet. This is an application to modify that requirement and they are proposing the signs that were originally proposed. Brad’s staff report, I don’t see the date but it was stamped received June 9, 2000. He does not that there is some grounds for allowing a greater sign area but we do need to come up with some criteria for that so it is not just a hap hazard application of various sign standards when we tried to be consistent as much as possible up and down Fairview over the last year or so. Our recommendation is to approve the signs as proposed with the modification that the 25 foot high sign be reduced to a 20 foot sign and that is all. That recommendation is based on the draft sign ordinance which will be coming before you in a month. Brad’s comments make a pretty good case of the issues showing that there maybe comparing it to other sites in the area showing that it is a larger site and based on that there could be some basis to approve larger signs in the 72 square foot sign that was originally approved. Borup: Applicant like to come forward. Conlin: Dan Conlin. I work for Idaho Electric Signs and I am representing Norco Industries in this matter. Mr. Kissel of Norco Industries has asked me to present the sign package again. I guess it was originally submitted for the conditional use permit and during the second Planning and Zoning Commission meeting through this, it was amended through a verbal statement by Shari Stiles to reduce down to 72 square feet. Unfortunately for some unknown reason it was not caught by the representative at the time. I think we are close to staff recommendation. The only design criteria that we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 63 came up with this has a lot to do with what Boise City has recommended in a lot of their sign ordinances. That is what we went off of from discussions with Brad in designing this. He stated that Meridian’s future sign code would mimic with what Boise City had been doing. The five feet seems like a minor detail as far as helping this project get started. One thing we are worried about this time is the production time. This plaza is opening middle or beginning of August and our production time will make it tough to get this sign installed. This makes it difficult for Norco as a hole to least the building out. Respective clients will want to know what kind of sign they will have on the roadway. The five feet again seem minor considering that all we are really doing with that extra 5 feet is trying to copy the architectural design of the whole plaza. With the Oakbrook Plaza we feel that is a really strong case that not only do you put a sign like this, your not only marketing individual tenants that are going to be present at this development, your also marketing the development. Tenants will use Oakbrook Plaza in their advertising and it is important to get Oakbrook Plaza up there as well. We took time to do a presentation. By looking at that if you look on paper at 25 feet tall with the cabinet size it may sound intimidating but laid out on a scale in comparison to other signs in the area, just the McDonald’s Chevron sign alone is 32 feet over all height. The McDonald’s cabinet is 12 x 12. We think it is a clean package and make sense. It ties the entire plaza together. We would like to get the extra five feet. Borup: Any questions Commissioner's. Nary: The comparison drawing here has the two sign from Meridian Crossroads. Is the fact that their location close to that intersection and the Eagle Fairview area, is that the reason for the larger signs versus what is being recommended here. Borup: That was our rationale there. That was a very large development and we felt some larger signs was appropriate. Nary: So this isn’t a fair comparison. Borup: The Crossroads one isn’t. Nary: This other one at the top of the hill there is closer to the freeway. Was the intent of this was because it was suppose to be visible—the Chevron McDonald’s. Borup: Isn’t that the Chevron that is just right down the road. Oh on Eagle Road. That is not the Chevron on Fairview. Well, that is the one that would count. That doesn’t really mean anything then. We would have like to seen some things on Fairview if you were trying to compare. Conlin: The fitness center is on Fairview. If you look at Brad’s recommendations and the comparison he makes to Elmtree Plaza being 2.2 acres and Oakbrook Plaza being 5.5 acres, the scale is over 50,000 square feet with 3 retail buildings. It is a sizable project and I don’t mean to say this is the same size as the family center, but take Brad’s comparison with Elmtree the issue at hand which is Oakbrook and then the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 64 comparison with the family center, in-between there somewhere there has to be a medium that will work for Oakbrook Plaza to be able to market the amount of tenants they are going to have. Nary: Mr. Conlin I think your always going to have (inaudible) the bigger the sign the more people your going to attract. That doesn’t necessarily mean it fits with the topography with Fairview and that location. What would that 20 foot sign be in relation to the other businesses across the street. Conlin: The monument sign is basically almost useless. You can’t really see it heading west because of the cars coming eastbound. The sign is only 10 feet tall. The best visibility the entire plaza has is for eastbound traffic and it is not because of the monument sign. It is because the wall signs face in an L shape for the eastbound traffic. Nary: How high is that clock? Conlin: The clock is 22 feet overall height and that is the top of the clock. The tower goes taller then that. What we tried to do is follow suit with what we applied for in Boise City with the understanding that Meridian’s future sign code would probably mimic in a lot of ways with Boise had done and successful with. Nary: Do you know how tall the sign is at Fred Meyer. Conlin: I can’t visualize it right now. I’d be guessing at it. Norton: It looks like your proposing this Oakbrook sign for ten businesses and according to Brad, he calculated that is 144 square foot sign. Elmtree with ten businesses has a 42 square foot sign. Yours is like a 100 square foot bigger. Is that my understanding. Conlin: Yeah. It is about twice the size. 72 square feet we are going up to 144. Borup: Unless it is a typo, he said that size was 42 square feet. Conlin: it is 72. I noticed that as well. Norton: Where exactly is Oakbrook. You have the address on Fairview but where is it. Siddoway: Look here on the vicinity map. Oakbrook Plaza is this gray site here. This red area is Fred Meyer. Using Brad’s staff report as an example, he talks about the application of the 72 square feet that it has been exampled and close proximity to Oakbrook Plaza that have had the 72 square foot maximum size applied to them include Elmtree Plaza and Subway, Chucks Automotive, Econolube and Walgreen’s. There are others in the area that did not require a CUP and therefore no way for the city Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 65 to apply this 72 square foot requirement because it does not exist as a formal ordinance. It is simply a policy enacted by the City Council. END OF SIDE EIGHT Siddoway: I think it is along the lines of 25 or more. Borup: If you go the same criteria that property is four times bigger than yours, so your would have to be four times smaller. Siddoway: So the issue is whether there is a case that even though this did require a CUP and we have been consistent with requiring the 72 square feet sign with the CUP most of those have been applied to smaller sites so we are seeing—there could be a logical reason to allow for a larger sign, since this is not just a single building, it is 3 separate structures with multiple tenants and the question is, what’s the rationale, what is the basis and what is the appropriate height. Ours based on the draft ordinance, which is the only other option we can give you as a suggestion is that 20 foot height, but we do see there is justification for a larger sign and to be specific the two signs, there is the smaller sign here, a small monument for an individual restaurant pad and then the larger Oakbrook Plaza which we would say or recommend shortening by 5 feet. Borup: Does that answer your questions. You said the applicant did not know or realize that it was a 72 foot sign. I don’t believe that was a verbal comment from Shari. I think that is how is came out of Planning and Zoning Commission and the recommendation to City Council. I don’t know if City Council did anything different but I believe that was a recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission so it was not a last minute verbal change. It was – Conlin: As far as I can tell from reading through the minutes it seems there was several points of confusion on this. I don’t think anyone is to blame. On October 12, 1999 public hearing P&Z commission limited the project signs to a single maximum 72 square foot sign area at the recommendation of Shari Stiles during her verbal staff report. The reports that I have list out what was approved and what we had asked for was approved and then there was (inaudible) on the back with on sentence on a addition I guess that stated the 72 square feet. It was stipulated both ways in the reports I received. Siddoway: I wrote the original staff report on it and believe I did recommend approval of these signs at that time in the original staff report. That was then modified by Shari Stiles in the meeting. Conlin: I think what happened was whoever was the representative at the time looked at that, read the paragraph that he read initially and everything was fine and moved on. Barbeiro: If we lowered the sign to 20 feet then it is going to (inaudible) 5 blocks and one foot off the ground. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 66 Conlin: We would have to alter the roof top or sink it further down to the ground which would give us a problem addressing the vision triangle. There might be some issues there. Borup: Why would that be a problem with the vision triangle. If 2 feet is a problem then 6 feet will be the same problem. Conlin: Is there a criteria as far as visibility. Siddoway: We would require all signs to be outside of the vision triangle. In this case it is a driveway (inaudible) intersection and not that large. It is the 10 x 20 site triangle. Conlin: I think it would be a benefit to the visibility even with the shortened vision triangle. The bottom would be open for visibility. It would be more attractive and safer application for the sign. Borup: Why safer? Conlin: If the sign is lower to the ground we might as well just build a big foundation for it and make it look like an enormous monument and that would block a lot of visibility underneath that sign as far as traffic getting in and out. A lot of cities we deal with any type of pylon sign they will require to be X amount of feet off the ground simply to get the cabinet out of the visibility for the drivers and for traffic as well. Borup: Is there a minimum distance off the ground that would still give the visibility? Conlin: Some cities it is 6. Some 8. Usually not more than 8. The other option would be to flatten off the roof which as far as production wise it would not be a big deal but it would take away from esthetic quality of the sign as it ties in with the plaza. In Boise City one of the things we tried to do with retail centers like this is that they have a criteria for shopping centers under their Comprehensive Plan. We would be attempting to get this approved under a residential shopping center with the square footage (inaudible) it would be more then likely be approved as residential shopping center and the overall height approved would be 30 feet and about 180 square feet would be allowed for residential shopping. Nary: Would it be fair to say that the only reason you are here today is because what was approved by the City Council back in October of 99 is adequate and I think what your testimony is that no one noticed that at the time they approved that. No one ever appealed it to the district court as being arbitrary or anything else. Is that correct? Conlin: Correct and from all the minutes I went through it really looked like there wasn’t much representation here to here and to respond— Borup: And, no one made an argument to City Council. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 67 Conlin: The City Council minutes they went through and different things back and forth and the last statement in the minutes I received said that oh, I’m sorry. Was there a representative here for this. We apologize. It got left at that. No body was sworn in or said what their name was and what they were representing. Nary: But, the applicant knew what the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation to the City Council was going to be. Conlin: As far as I can tell it has been a mess from the word go. Basically what we should have done was not have submitted the signs with the conditional use permit. We should have submitted them with a regular sign permit. Unfortunately it got messed up. Nary: Do you know if a person was there at the meeting because they had a written recommendation or something in writing to make them show up. Conlin: I really don’t know. The minutes that I have addressed somebody but nobody was sworn in. Borup: They would not be sword in. Their name would be on the record. Siddoway: The issue is it is zoned general commercial which does not have a second public hearing in front of City Council. It was not a public hearing. The applicant was probably given a chance to address the council but it was not a public hearing and council acts on evidence presented from the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was a conditional use permit at the time and for clarification, we do require submission of the signage details with the conditional use permit. The one that came through with H&W tonight, they did not submit sign details. We recommended a maximum of 72 square foot, which is what got approved on them as well. Nary: What I wanted to make clear for the record is if the applicant disagreed with that recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission was there a means for them to voice that objection either in writing or in person to the City Council to not approve those recommendations with that limitation of a 20 foot sign. Siddoway: I imagine they would have had to submit it in writing to the City Clerk’s office for distribution to the City Council prior to the hearing. Borup: Actually it wasn’t a 20 foot. It was a 72 square foot monument. Quite a difference. Nary: I move we close the public hearing. Norton: I second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 68 Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Are we in agreement that square footage of the sign is acceptable. Barbeiro: Steve, you did the original recommendation. Was this the size of the original recommendation. Siddoway: Yes it is. 25 feet. I originally drafted staff comments recommended approval based on this size and it was then modified by Shari to require it to be dropped to 72 square feet. Borup: Are we in agreement that the size of the sign is okay. The only question may be the height. I am a little torn. Nary: I understand Miss Stiles recommended the 72 square foot -- The 20 foot comes from the new draft ordinance. At the time when this was approved by the City Council they didn’t deal with 25 or 20 feet. We are dealing with it now and what we are trying to do is be consistent with what we’ve done with smaller properties or maybe with what we’ve done with bigger properties. It appears to me that the sign ordinance will probably resolve— Borup: Essentially that street has a real miss mash. Barbeiro: I wish to make a motion that we recommend to City Council approval of the request for an amendment of a conditional use permit for proposed larger sign criteria and additional pylon sign to site zoned C-G by Dan Conlin – Idaho Electric Sign as presented by the applicant for the 25 foot sign with all other staff comments. Nary: Second. Borup: Any discussion. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 5.4 ACRES ZONED I-L FOR CAFARELLI INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION BY THOMAS M. BEVAN, JR.—NORTH SIDE OF FRANKLIN, WEST OF LINDER: Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's. Here is the proposed plat, 3 lots. I would point out in the ACHD staff report that they make mention of a potential connection for this land lock parcel to come out along Linder road but I would make it clear that access does not exist at this time. Staff comments submitted by Bruce and Shari dated June 9, 2000 stand. I will let the applicant address any concerns. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 69 Bevin: After talking to my engineer I realized I only have 3 items. The first item they talk about the sewer. We agree to that. Item 2, 3,4 we agree to that. Item 5 they are saying they designate Franklin Road as a entry way corridor. As such staff recommends that Franklin landscape buffer be a minimum of 35 feet in width (inaudible) right of way constructed by the developer as a condition of this plat. On parcel 3 we have a building permit that we are currently building the Interstate Battery building on and the city and ACHD approved a 20 foot landscape easement here. What they are saying on the rest of it they want to go to a 35 foot so coming in on Franklin it would go from 35 foot down to 20 foot. What we’re requesting to do is to keep it all the same. We are asking for that exception from what staff recommended. Item 6 we agree with that although my engineer said what that has to do with the landscape buffer having the storm water retention in it. Your staff is asking not to put it in the landscape but underneath the surface of the parking lot. We would be glad to do that but DEQ and City of Boise is trying to get away from that for some reason. Siddoway: I can respond to that now. What it says it should not be allowed in the landscape setback unless design details are submitted that clearly show that it would comply with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan—basically means that we want that just as was presented earlier tonight in the landscape ordinance—it is a required landscape buffer. We want it to look like landscaping. If you want to incorporate the drainage in it, we are all for it as long as you provide design details that show its going to be still a landscape buffer and not just a gravel drainage area. Bevin: That is fine then. We are having grass. No problem. We agree to that and submit that in. Number 7 okay. Now number 8 and 9 we lumped together here. The original approval they allowed a driveway right here. We designed the building around this driveway. It is a drive through building where the semi comes in through here, goes through the building and unloads and comes back out. What the staff is asking us to do is do away with this driveway—we’ve all ready built the building (inaudible—Bevin off microphone through out testimony) plan that approved by ACHD and City of Meridian. We built the building with driveway here. Now they are saying they want to get rid of this and put it over here on easement (inaudible) ACHD was saying that if the easement intersection –they are saying that if this becomes a road and that becomes a intersection, then our driveway here would be too close to that intersection. This easement showed on the original plat so somebody either missed it or what happened. We found out that ACHD we went to them and asked them about it and what they said is if you look at exhibit C on the back page no actually exhibit B of what I handed you tonight, their site specific requirement on page 2 article 3 is they rather instead of getting rid of that driveway, they rather locate a temporary driveway as proposed approximately 140 feet west of the property line as temporary driveway and that is the one we showed you there and will be eliminated when a shared driveway or public street is constructed within the 60 foot easement. What they are saying is they will allow us this driveway here until this road is built. Once the road is built then we’d have access through here. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 70 Borup: Steve, was the staff comments made before ACHD made theirs. Siddoway: No, we do have their comments. In fact we are in line with it. We are saying that the driver locations do not meet ACHD requirements, just as he is talking about the shared driveway. Borup: Your saying ACHD says leave the driveway to interstate battery now. Siddoway: As I understand it, they are saying that this driveway can stay until this road is approved------ Borup: Staff comments says to eliminate that one right now. Siddoway: It says that the driveway on lot 3 is to be removed with access to be taken from the 60 foot access easement public road on the eastern property boundary. We are saying that should go in and should take access off of it and then close off the – Borup: Your both saying the same thing just wording different. Bevin: It is not the same thing, no. Edward: I am Earl Edward of B&A Engineers. What happened was, we had a meeting with ACHD several weeks ago. Brad Watson was there. We hammered out these details that this could be a temporary access and if and when the road was built then that access would be closed off. Some how that did not get in to ACHD’s staff report and so when this came to my attention yesterday I brought it to ACHD’s attention. They re-did the staff report. I faxed it over today. I don’t know if you got it or not. Siddoway: I have a ACHD report dated today or June 13th . In that staff report ACHD is giving them the option of either a shared private drive or a public road within that 60 foot easement. We are recommending this is a large undeveloped all ready zoned IL property to just have privatae road access to. We’d like to see it have public road access. Our recommendation is 60 foot wide access shown as a public road but also she says unless approved as a private road by City Council. Really there is no difference. Our preference is for the public road. Edwards: Currently, ACHD does not want a public road there. They don’t see any reason to have a road that runs back to a dead end and dean ends at a canal. What we are doing is betting the other road is going to come in and saying that we will approve it in the future. Borup: So your saying that ACHD says the driveway on lot 3 will be removed when you can take access from the 60 foot new public road. Edwards: If and when that becomes a public road. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 71 Borup: Steve does staff want it removed immediately? Siddoway: Our intention is to get that access road in immediately and then close it off after they have access. Edwards: The difference shows on the schedule C or exhibit C. This is ACHD map they gave us. Why they want to grant us the temporary and wait and keep their options open because on exhibit C the road that is marked in blue is the road they think is going to happen up here. They think that road is very close to becoming dedicated. Also they told me they have another road that has been applied for but they have not done the process yet. ACHD told us they much rather have access to that northern parcel then they would on our easement. One reason is they don’t want to put a bridge in there if they don’t have to. Plus they thought the city might be more or better for the city to bring the sewer and water over the land like that then it would be over a canal. Also they said they estimate the trips generated by the industrial area north of the Subdivision generate about 60 trips per acre per day. While this is comparatively light, they’d still prefer this traffic to ingress egress up here onto Linder which is a collector street then they would onto Franklin which is a arterial. They don’t want this road. Borup: Steve are you saying then that P&Z staff differs with ACHD’s recommendation. Siddoway: I am not understand how we differ. Borup: Aren’t you saying that P&Z wants the driveway eliminated now and that there be access from that 60 easement. Siddoway: As opposed to what? Borup: As opposed to leaving the driveway in place and have it accessed on that 60 foot easement if it ever becomes a public street. Siddoway: Yes, we do differ in that we are saying it should be dedicated as a public street as part of this plat. Staff does have a problem with that. Number 9 under Shari’s conditions has although the highway district (inaudible) references a future public road to the land lock parcel from Linder road no plans have been submitted for approval by the City of Meridian and the 60 foot wide access easement shall be shown as a public road unless approved as a private road by the City Council. Borup: Who owns that land lock parcel. Edwards: Miss Martin. They don’t access it now it is bear ground. There is nothing there. Just one lot. What I think ACHD is getting at is they are trying to hold this off until they can get the determination on that parcel here. They don’t have it yet but he told me this morning that they have all the terms and conditions agreed between the applicant and ACHD. Now just the formality of the dedication so everyone has agreed to put the road in here and they have not got to that stage yet. ACHD is asking us to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 72 hold off and wait to see if that can be done and finished giving them access in the back in a position that is more favorable to the city and to the ACHD. Nary: I want to be clear from Steve and I know this is not your report, but is the concern trying to match up with ACHD’s recommendations or trying to do something a little different. Siddoway: I think there are more issues with that potential access out to Linder that may make it not as feasible as –the way it is being presented is that it is all most a sure thing and I don’t think it should be characterized that way. We feel that this access should be provided. Martin: Justin Martin. I live at 2332 E. Apricot Drive. I would be the representative for the parcel that is going to be landlocked. My only comments would be— Borup: Is it going to be or presently is? Martin: Landlocked? It is –there is no bridge over the canal. We do have a bridge designed that would meet Ada County’s (inaudible). We have not spoken with Ada County about it. We have no plans for development. We know nothing of the new accesses from Linder except what Mr. Bevin showed me tonight and obviously I will be looking into that. Borup: What would be your preference. Martin: I think it would be better if we had one on each. Borup: You willing to pay for them? Martin: We weren’t willing to buy the access to Linder Road based on the price the guy who owns the land was giving us. We would have rather built the bridge we designed. My concern would be that if it is not dedicated a public street, and easements don’t come across from Linder Road at that point that road we’d be accessing our property from Franklin on would be too close to the other driveway. So I guess on the other hand is that it is looking like ACHD is giving them a open ended contract. We have no problem paying for a bridge. Norton: Lot one does not have any sanitation. Are you planning on developing lot 1. Martin: Yes eventually. Nary: I move we close the public hearing. Norton: I second that. Borup: All in favor? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 73 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Steve do you have any idea why the other one was approved at 20 feet. Siddoway: How long ago was that put in. I don’t know. END OF SIDE NINE Nary: Is the 35 foot buffer basically going down Franklin west of this property so just this one portion is what the applicant is asking he wants it to be 20 because the one piece of property to the east of him is 20 feet. All the property going west of this property is 35 feet. Siddoway: Our standard should be 35 feet along all interior corridors. That has been the standard for years. I don’t know where the 20 feet came from. Nary: One glitch in the program should not change the standard we have. Borup: What are we approving on lot 3. Siddoway: Interstate Battery sits on lot 3. It is a 3 lot Subdivision. Apparently the 20 feet that has been discussed was approved on lot 3. Borup: That was part of a building permit not part of a plat. Siddoway: Correct. Borup: Is there a difference. Barbeiro: How can a building permit change a ordinance. The building permit allowed only a 20 foot setback. That doesn’t make sense. Borup: The building is how far back from the road? Siddoway: Based on the site plan that was approved for lot 3 with Interstate it looks like they have a 20 foot landscape buffer and then the two bays of parking with drive isle in between with the minimum standards and then the building abutting against the parking. I think we are stuck with 20 landscape buffer on lot 3 and then this line here would show what the 30 foot buffer would then line up with it. The building is constructed. I think we have to live with that on lot 3. Nothing else to do. Nary: I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for the 5.4 acres zoned IL for Cafarelli Industrial Subdivision by Thomas M. Bevan, Jr. north side of Franklin west of Linder with the staff comments as attached specifically addressing the condition 5 which has a 35 foot landscape buffer that we specifically want that to be included but would Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 74 recommend to the City Council that condition 8 and 9 be amended to reflect that they be in compliance with the ACHD requirement that the shared driveway on lot 3 only needs to be removed when the access on the easement public road that is adjacent the 60 foot access easement is becomes a public roadway or public or private road when it is developed. Until that time the driveway on lot 3 can remain where it is at. Basically performing 8 and 9 to be consistent with the ACHD’s requirement as presented by Mr. Beven and his comments on time B which is ACHD’s site specific number 3. Norton: Would you amend your number five for the thirty five foot setback for lot 1 and lot 2 since lot 3 is all ready been built on at 20 feet. Nary: Yes, absolutely. Norton: I would second that motion. Borup: Discussion? Barbeiro: One of Mr. Bevin’s concerns was that should there be access off of Linder and 10-20-30 years later they decide they want that easement frankly they can come back and do that. Do you want to make any sort of amendment that if access is on Linder that we will no longer accept the option of easement off Franklin. Borup: The motion was to accept the ACHD recommendation and I don’t know that ACHD addressed it to that extent. Nary: I am not sure what the concern is that some time in the future that is going to impact (inaudible) remove that driveway in ten years. I think that is the way ACHD— they left that open. Borup: Either that or apply for a vacation. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 75 Nary: I move to adjourn. Norton: I second. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 2:44 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ________________________________ KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: ______________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK