Loading...
2000 07-11MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 11,2000 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, Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Richard Hatcher Members Absent: Tom Barbeiro Others Present: Brad Hawkins-Clark, Bruce Freckleton, David Swartley, Shelby Ugarriza Borup: Good evening ladies and Gentleman, I would like to welcome you to our regularly scheduled meeting Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday July 11,2000. First item on the agenda is minutes from June 13, 2000. Norton: I move we approve the minutes of June 13, 2000. Nary: I second the motion. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSTENTION, ONE ABSENT Borup: We have a big group tonight, so we anticipate this may be a short meeting for us. The procedure we normally follow is we start with a staff report on each application, then the applicant will have an opportunity give a brief summary and answer questions any questions we may have. Then we take public testimony after which the applicants have an opportunity to make final comments, then the testimonies will be closed and the commissioners will discuss and make recommendations. This body on the most part reviews the information and make a recommendation to the City Council, there are a few items that are handled just strictly here, and we have one on the agenda tonight but other than that a recommendation will be to City Council at which time there will another hearing there also. Item No. 1. Recommendation Request for Vacation of alley intersecting East First between Pine Avenue and Idaho Street in Old Town by Gary Benoit: Hawkins-Clark: Good evening Commissioners there is nothing additional beyond the staff report dated July 5, 2000, we just ask that those recommendations be included. The project is associated with the Generations Park Two that was before you a couple of months ago. They are seeking to vacate approximately 85 feet of the alley, half of which would go to the subject property which, is on the north, and then half of which would be deeded over to the City of Meridian. And would be incorporated in this park design for future expansion of Generations Park Plaza. They are proposing go to about right to the entrance of the public parking lot to vacate the alley direction is not going to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 2 change which I think was of some discussion at this body but it was decided by City Council the alley direction would remain from east to west. Borup: That was our recommendation also. Hawkins-Clark: Was it? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Okay, glad they listened to you. It is noted in the comments the City has existing sewer main in the alley the applicant will be required to provide an easement to the City for this line. Borup: Okay, any questions for Brad? As he mentioned this was discussed previously. It was decided at that time they needed to apply for a Vacation, so this back on the same as the applicant here. Assuming our recommendation is going to be incorporated staff comments, Brad is that your understanding? Hawkins-Clark: Actually I have not had discussions with Mr. Benoit. Borup: Well that’s the assumption we’ll go with, I believe, Hatcher: Seeing there is no public discussion I move we close the public hearing. Borup: Second -- I am not sure we even opened a public hearing on this one, Mr. Nary is that what you were saying? Nary: I was going to ask I don’t that we have asked for any public comment at this point. Borup: No, we have not. This is not listed on the agenda as a public hearing. Hawkins-Clark: That is correct, the only required public hearing for a Vacation is City Council. Borup: So we are just making a recommendation that the public hearing should – Nary: Mr. Chairman I motion that we recommend approval for Vacation of the alley way based upon our previous comments and to incorporate staff comments. Hatcher: Second. Borup: Motion is second, any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay, thank you Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 3 Item No. 2 Public Hearing request Annexation and Zoning to R-4 of 2.297 acres by Randy Ware located at Franklin and Linder. Borup: Item No. 2 is the public hearing request for annexation and zoning of 2.297 acres to R-4 by Randy Ware, Franklin and Linder Roads. Mr. Hawkins-Clark. Hawkins-Clark: Yes this project on south Linder road is shown crosshatched in the center of the screen. This is the view on the left is looking south on Linder road the right a large shaded area which you probably can’t see anything of a – here is a site on Linder looking west, the new elementary school abuts the very back western portion of this property. The applicant has submitted to Ada County Development Services Department an application to split this property, which they did. This record of survey shows that the front parcel here shows approval for a private road access off of Linder. Our recommendation that both of the single-family homes take access off this private road which does have an easement with a turn-around area here. They were approved by City Council to hook up to sewer and water with the condition that they submit an annexation application and proceed through that process which is why you have it before you. The only maybe item to point out; our staff comments do recommend a 20’ wide landscape berm here on Linder. The overpass, Linder overpass, which is in the long-range destination 2020 plan. Even though probably Locust Grove will be first, one never knows how long it will be for Linder but foreseeing that this would a principle arterial at some point in the future a 20-foot buffer would foresee as being good there and necessary for the single-family homes. The zoning ordinance has a 25-foot side set-back on arterioles and collectors for the R-4 so that 25 feet from the right of away into the property would need to remain free from any permanent building anyway and would probably front on the new private road. And we are not recommending development agreement for annexation. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Norton: Mr. Chairman and Bruce according to staff comments that there needed a new legal description submitted, did they submit that? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, I did receive a new legal description and I have checked and approved it. I forwarded a copy of that to the attorneys office this morning, so were good Borup: Any other? Brad on the comment on the planting strip was staffs intention is that being landscaped and maintained at this time or just easement or area available for future? Hawkins-Clark: I think our intention would be to obviously keep it aesthetically pleasing now but not necessarily do a detailed landscape berm as one would for a formal plat since this is not a plat. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 4 Borup: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here that might come forward? Please state your name for the record. Ware: My name is Randy Ware. Borup: You had the opportunity to read the staff comments, have you? Ware: Yes. Borup: Is there anything that you would like to elaborate, any of those? Ware: No, Yes, there is three or four things I am concerned about. Borup: Those are the ones we would like to talk about today. Ware: I guess since we started talking of the berm situation, I would like to talk about that first. This lot is 366 feet deep and staffs concern of a major arterial coming through here and being to noisy for residences I think is valid, If someone were to build right up close to Linder Road. But the way this lot is set up if you go clear back to back lot line it ends up being 366 feet from the front of the lotment. With a paved road taking you back in there I don’t know why anyone would want to do that. Borup: I don’t think the concern is for the residents as much as the aesthetics for the City. The City’s policy (inaudible) that the major entrance ways in the City would have landscaping, and it’s more of aesthetics. Ware: Okay. Borup: I mean it serves a dual purpose for the subdivision too. Ware: Right. Borup: When that is on the subdivision, but that was more the concern. I am hearing that correct Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Ware: But I liked to remind you too that this is not a subdivision development this simply two lots that have been approved and are existing all were asking for is to be annexed into City limits really. Borup: So you just plan on leaving it like a weed patch out there? Ware: I don’t think it has to be left a weed patch I’m just saying the berm idea is not necessary for that. I think landscaping is a must but I think anybody who gets a building Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 5 permit in there will more than likely landscape the property, I don’t think it has to be left weeds just because it’s not a berm. Borup: Okay Ware: Secondly, the number one on your deal -- I don’t know. I have read through this several times. It doesn’t really match up with the actual City ordinance that I received from the City clerks office today, it least not word for word they kind of pick and choose there words. Borup: As far as the ditches you mean? Ware: yes, but there is that lateral on the top I don’t know if its referring to that or not. That lateral is about 400-foot long and about 10 feet wide and about 5 feet deep, I don’t know if this pertains to that or not, but that would be – Borup: Is that on your property? Ware: It is not, but it is contiguous to it. And then if you look at the wording contiguous is in there. Borup: Okay we will get a clarification on that. Ware: Okay, also the fire hydrant I don’t if they are saying that a fire hydrant is going to be required in front of this property. I don’t know what they are saying it just says it supposed to be – that’s No. 5: coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian water works superintendent. I don’t know what they are saying there. Are they saying a fire hydrant is required or they just – Borup: We will clarify that too. Ware: Okay and then the last is the same thing, with the street light, I don’t know, it says streetlights. I don’t know if there is one if there is – or if that’s up for discussion or what they are actually saying there. But also what happened was when I went to Ada County and got the one time lot split they required me to put a private road in here and so I’m all good to go with Ada County. I can get building permits and everything, except I needed City water and City sewer. So I came to City of Meridian to ask for hook-up to City water and City sewer they said that was fine as long as there concern was that wouldn't ever annexed and I agreed to, I consented to, I had a perpetual consent to annexation basically agreement with them. I don’t really care if the property is annexed that really isn’t my goal the City’s concern was that it would never be annexed. So they wanted me to start the application process which I’ve done, but I am not willing to really go into a great deal of financial hard ship to get into the City. I’ve already got hook up for City water and City sewer, and I’ve lived up to my end of the bargain. So I just wanted to throw that out to you as far as how many restrictions you put on this. May end up -- Eventually its going end up being annexed into the City because I’ve given my Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 6 consent to that. And the concern was what’s gone in West Boise with the people fighting against annexation and that kind of stuff. Anyway – Borup: Okay. If you just want to stay right there and get a few answers from staff. I think probably couple from Bruce and Brad. The one on – maybe first on the ditch he is saying that is outside there property so that’s not contiguous, could you elaborate on that Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, its ordinance 12-4-13, which Randy is correct, its I’m not sure what he meant in terms of not the ordinance he got but the wording contiguous would typically mean property boundaries that touch – Borup: That’s assuming there is a right away for the ditch or canal or – Hawkins-Clark: Easement – Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Yes, where the property boundary would touch an irrigation district easement line would typically deemed contiguous and in terms of the wording there really not – its really not it says all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals exclusive of natural water ways. Is this deemed a natural, the Kennedy? Freckleton: No. Hawkins-Clark: Intersecting, crossing, or lying adjacent and contiguous or which canals ditches or other touchables sites shall be covered and enclosed. Yes if you take it literal there is not much room for interpretation, I mean it doesn’t say or contiguous it does says and contiguous. I think that was Shari’s – Shari did the staff report from our department on this particular project. There is in the first chapter of the subdivision ordinance an item that does refer to the fact that all land being developed would – these ordinances would also apply to, to those even though its not technically a plat. As you know we’ve usually there is many portions of the subdivision ordinance that have been applied to projects whether or not they have been platted. Borup: Randy do you know the size of the pipe? By any chance. Ware: Of the pipe? Borup: Yes, of the lateral? Ware: It’s at least ten feet wide. Borup: I meant diameter, sorry. Ware: Well its – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 7 Borup: Like where – doesn’t cross under (inaudible) Ware: Yes it does but its cement it’s a structure. Borup: It’s more of a bridge? Ware: Yes, its more of a structure than a pipe its huge. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman – Borup: Okay. Freckleton: Just a point of clarification on the directly across the street is Landing Subdivision and if you remember Landing Subdivision they were required to pipe the Kennedy Lateral through the Landing Subdivision. I don’t recall right off the top of my head how big the pipe was. But it was 40, 42, 48 something like that. Borup: Well that’s what I was getting to – 48 the – Freckleton: 48 has kind of been the size cut off to not ask (inaudible) for a variance – Borup: (inaudible) -- Freckleton: We don’t have anything formally in the ordinances saying that, but that’s kind of been the number that has been provided to us by the irrigation district says a good cut off size. Any pipe size larger than that the trash route grates have to be so far apart that you are really losing the safety aspect. The pipe – Borup: Do you understand – in the past a pipe diameter 48 or larger the City has felt that’s criteria to ask for a variance to not to have to pipe it. Ware: There is another paragraph that follows this that says the City may waive the requirement of covering such ditch, lateral, canal if it finds the public purpose requiring such will not be served in the individual case. Borup: Okay, that probably part of what they have hung there hat on that. Ware: Yes. Borup: Which is the City Council is the only ones who have the authority to do that, we do not. Ware: It seems to me, I could be wrong but, it seems like this ordinance is set up for actual subdivision developments not necessarily – (inaudible) property Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 8 Borup: Well it is but the definition subdivision is more than two lots or more than one lot. So that’s where the problem I mean you got to draw the line somewhere, so where do you determine what’s a subdivision and what isn’t? And I think and Mr. Nary is that by ordinance anything over one, two or more? Nary: Well Mr. Chairman you should probably ask Mr. Swartley – Borup: Well – Nary: But I believe you are correct. Borup: I just – Ware: I agree with the definition of subdivision but I think this is referring to subdivision development, meaning – Borup: Meaning – Ware: Your actually dividing – (inaudible) project Borup: You mean like putting in a road or surveying it? Ware: Plat and, yes. Borup: Is that what you have done here? Ware: No, What I have done here is – Borup: You surveyed it? Ware: This is done, its already there it’s approved, it’s a done project all I’m doing is bringing in the City limits. Borup: Okay, lets go on to the other – Nary: Mr. Chairman I have a question for Brad before we move on actually Brad or Bruce. What is on the north side of this lateral at this time, vacant land? The site photos look like it still vacant. Hawkins-Clark: There is a house that sits on two acres. Freckleton: Yeah, there is a single-family residence. I’m sorry we didn’t get it in the photos but a – Nary: So Lot 12 is an existing resident? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 9 Freckleton: Right on the north side of the lateral. Nary: Okay, thank you. Borup: Let me ask as the lateral goes to the west and that’s boring up is that between the school and Whitestone, Is that piped? Freckleton: Yes. Borup: That is piped there. So on both sides of his property would be piped already? Okay. And then on item number three and five on the streetlight and the fire hydrant is that in there as a standard comment or specific for this project? Freckleton: Its standard. What I would suggest on that is touch base with the fire department regarding the fire hydrant requirement, the fire department or the fire marshall Raymond Voss would be the one to make that call whether it is required or not. And the reason we through the streetlight comment in there is if a fire hydrant is required typically we locate streetlights at hydrant and intersect locations. Borup: Okay, the fire department did not have that in their comments, a fire hydrant. They mentioned road width and emergency turn around is all. Does that mean anything? Doesn’t necessarily mean no it means maybe they didn’t think about it. Freckleton: It means that I would probably like to touch base with them specifically on that issue. Borup: Okay, Mr. Ware my interpretation reading this was pretty much the same thing Bruce said. That not saying it has to be there but if the fire department wanted it or if they felt that it did. Not saying its – then about the streetlight. Freckleton: Like I said, the streetlight typically we locate streetlights at locations for hydrants and street intersections. Borup: So that would be (inaudible) if a hydrant is required. Freckleton: Correct, and typically what the fire department looks at is they will look at spacing to exceed 500 feet for fire hydrants. Borup: This is kind of a different situation here. Freckleton: So I mean if you got a fire hydrant in Landing Subdivision that is within 500 feet can serve the lots it probably wouldn’t required. As part of our review we don’t look at that, so that is something the fire marshall is going to have to make the call. Borup: So Mr. Ware needs to contact the fire department before this goes to City Council, would that be the recommendation? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 10 Freckleton: That would be. I would recommend they get a letter from them. Borup: Okay. Nary: Mr. Chairman Borup: Yes Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Ware so is it your position that City code 12-4-13A sub-1 doesn’t apply to this subdivision or you just don’t want it to apply to this subdivision? Ware: I believe that it does not apply to this land. Which is – Nary: And your reason is what? Ware: Because I think this ordinance was set up for subdivision development, which is what I’m not doing here. Nary: Okay, but that’s more interpretation of the ordinance its self. If that’s the case, since that’s part of the staff reports that’s what we adopt tonight. You have the ability to ask for a waiver of City Council. Do you understand that? Ware: Yes, I understand. But I would like that not to happen. I’d rather not have to ask for a waiver. Nary: And your reason is simply you believe that is was not meant to deal with a two- home subdivision. Ware: With the two home lots that are already existing I am just asking that be into the City limits. Nary: I want to ask you about your last comment you made when you had your report. Are you saying that if we pass this with these recommendations since you are only having to go through this process because you want to hook up to Meridian City water and sewer system. And you don’t want all these conditions placed upon this annexation that you are not going to continue to be asked to be annexed to the property therefore you wont have City water and sewer? Ware: No I think that, I guess I don’t understand the question. Nary: Well what you had stated or at least what I thought you had said, was that the only reason you are asking for annexation is because the concern the City Council had in the future on other property owners in annexing this particular parcels at some point in the future. So what the council, at least what I’m understanding in looking at this is what the City Council has said is if you part of the City of Meridian water and sewer Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 11 system your going to have to be annexed into the City now. Not wait to some point in the future. Ware: That’s not correct. Nary: So why are we annexing you now other for that reason? I think that is the reason. Ware: Let me back up. Nary: Okay. Ware: The public works director Gary Smith was concerned, his only concern to me hooking up to City water and City sewer was that this property would become onclay and not ever get annexed into the City. It would end up being surrounded by City property and still be county property. Because of the trends that are happening in West Boise and what’s going on with people fighting annexation. His suggestion was that this property be annexed in before I could hook up to City water and City sewer. What we agreed to was that I simply make an application for annexation and perpetual consent to annexation if in fact the City comes to me at any point and says we are now annexing your property. I am saying I can’t fight it basically is what that agreement says. I’ve got a copy of the agreement here if you would like to take a look at it. So I have no motivation to tile ditches and to put berms in and put streetlights in, because I have already lived up to my end of the bargain which is to apply for annexation. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I am going ask Mr. Swartley that doesn’t appear to be what here for, were here annex, were here whether to decide whether to recommend to City Council to annex your property – Ware: Right. Nary: With these conditions. This is not an agreement that some day In the future you’re going to consent to it, this is annexation now. And if we don’t annex the property from the City Council direction was it appears to me that are going to consider turning off the sewer and water – Ware: They can’t do that. Nary: To that property Ware: We have already gone over that. Nary: With whom? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 12 Ware: It’s in the agreement, they are to provide City water and City sewer Nary: As long as you’re annexed into the City. Ware: No that was not the agreement. Borup: I think that where we are at a disadvantage we have not seen the agreement. Swartley: Mr. Chairman, yes I have not seen the agreement either. You entered into an agreement with – Ware: I did. Swartley: -- with whom? Ware: I’ve got it right here for you. Borup: Clerk. Do you have a copy of that also Brad or Bruce or which ever? Swartley: Brad who is it with? Him and whom? Hawkins-Clark: It’s signed between the Ware’s and the City, Will Berg representing the City on signature. Swartley: Alright, Well to answer your question Commissioner Nary I am not familiar with the agreement so I can’t speak to it at all. Nary: Maybe Mr. Hawkins-Clark can answer that then. Is this an agreement for some future annexation or this agreement that as a condition of hook up for sewer and water they shall be annexed to the City. And if they are not going to be annexed are we going to continue to provide that service to this property that is in the county. Borup: The staff summary says it was a requirement. Hawkins-Clark: That’s my understanding as I read through this, Page 3 of 8 of the Agreement Item No. 7 these are basically the conditions of the agreement. It just says the sewer, water user, which is the Wares, is required to immediately submit an application for annexation of the real property. Which is a condition precedent to the City providing sewer, water system service to the real property. Hatcher: So annexation is required for utility hook up. Ware: No. Hatcher: That is what he just read. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 13 Ware: No it isn’t. He said application for annexation. Hatcher: Which is a precursor condition. Ware: Well I guess that is a matter of interpretation. I can read you the minutes from the City Council meeting on the motion, If you would like to hear those. Borup: Do you have them right there in front of you? Ware: Yes – Borup: Are they short? Ware: Yes it was just Mr. Anderson said Mr. Mayor I’ll take a stab at this. I would like to make a motion that we allow Mr. Randy Ware to hook up to City water and City sewer on properties located on lots 13a and 13b of Van Hess Subdivision. Providing that he make application to the City for annexation and zoning and does not impede the progress. Nary: Was that the motion that was voted on? Ware: Yes. Nary: Okay Ware: I’m not – I guess I think we’re arguing about something we don’t need to. I’m in favor of the property being annexed that’s fine. I just don’t like the ditch thing. Borup: But do you understand our situation here – Ware: I do. Borup: -- we are not the ones that can give a variance or vary from the ordinance? Ware: I was told (inaudible) could – Borup: Our – Ware: That’s probably maybe where I’m – Borup: Okay, right. Ware: I was told that I, by Shari today at the City Clerk’s office when I raised this concern she said you can raise that to the Planning and Zoning Commission and they can take that off. That was basically her – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 14 Hatcher: We can make recommendations – Ware: Which – Hatcher: -- To change the requirements – Ware: -- Maybe that’s -- Borup: Yes. Hatcher: -- But it’s the City that will the City Council that actually approve or deny a variance. Ware: Okay. Borup: We do not have the authority to – Ware: Right. Borup: Vary from an ordinance City Council does. Ware: Yes. Swartley: Yes, Mr. Chairman it seems to me that the problem here is that City Council came up with an agreement that sort of runs in contravention with the provisions in the code regarding recommendations to City Council in such a, in such a, in application. I believe that City Council is the place where this will be taken care of, and he already has the agreement with City Council. I agree with Mr. Ware in the agreement that it does say application for annexation as a condition precedent to, I forget what the remainder of wording was. But I would agree with him that the application was – Borup: (inaudible) providing City water and sewer – Swartley: I would agree with him the application for annexation and zoning was the condition precedent. It does not say anything about approval of annexation and zoning. But again our hands are kind of tied by the code we can’t make the variance, we can’t agree a variance it can only be done at City Council. I would suggest that we do approve the application and that Mr. Ware then take his concerns, which he obviously has pretty good documentation of, which you have already spoken with City Council regarding. And it should just work itself out that way. That is my take on that. For what it is worth. Borup: I certainly agree with that. Hatcher: I agree as well. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 15 Borup: Okay, I’ll give you that back. We do have that in our records so we don’t need to keep that copy. Any final comments, Mr. Ware? Ware: No, I think we covered probably more than we needed to. If, I guess then, I don’t know where we left your recommendation as far as the ditch goes. But that is probably the biggest concern because it makes it not even feasible to do anything. It basically makes the whole thing worthless. Because it isn’t just a pipe it’s a concrete its a big lateral – Borup: Well I’m sure the properties on both sides of you were piped. Ware: Yes they were, when they were developed and went through the development process. Borup: I mean it doesn’t need to be a big concrete thing. It would be pipes that would go in – Ware: Oh, oh well – Borup: It would be the same size that Van Hess put in. Whatever size he had to do, and the same thing with the other subdivision. Ware: Okay. Borup: Anything else? Ware: That’s it. Borup: Do we have anyone from the public who would like to testify on this application? I see none. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I move to close the public hearing. Norton: I second. Borup: Motion second to close the public hearing all in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Do we need any discussion before we formulate the motion, or are we ready? Nary: I’m ready to make a motion. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 16 Nary: Just so Mr. Ware understands, my motion is going to be to approve the application based upon staffs recommendations. Because that is what this board is required to do. Is uphold our code and then as far as whether that pipe needs to go in or not will be between you and the council because you have already had communication with them. Same with the landscaping and everything else this board has to uphold the code. Any variance or discrepancies that you have already worked out with City Council will be dealt with at City Council. So my motion is to recommend approval for the preliminary for the annexation and zoning of R-4 2.297 acres by Randy Ware. As stated by staff comments. Hatcher: Second. Borup: Motion second, any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you. Item No. 3 Public Hearing request for Preliminary Plat of proposed The Hollows Subdivision – 12 lots on 5.60 acres in a R-3 zone by Bond and Shelli Campbell located north of Ustick one half mile east of Meridian Road. Okay Brad. Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Chairman and commission this vicinity map depicts the location of the application. This property immediately to the east came before you I believe about two months ago. With the subdivision name Wanda’s Meadow there is existing Ag Land to the north. Granite Creek Subdivision zoned R-8 is immediately south across Ustick Road. And then Patrick Subdivision is to the west which has R1 zoning in Ada County. This is a site photo looking north from Ustick more or less from the center of the site, other site photos and the proposed plat. We do just request that our staff report of July 3, 2000, and the comments written by Steve and Bruce be included. The applicant has submitted a written response and you should have that in your packets more or less complying with all of our conditions, that’s all I have. Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Is the applicant here (inaudible) come forward or his representative? Unger: Mr. Chairman, Council -- Commission members, my name is Bob Unger. I am with Pinnacle Engineers, and we represent the Campbell’s on this project. Our address is 870 North Linder Road, Suite B, Meridian, Idaho 83642. As staff indicated we have reviewed the staff report we really have no issues with the conditions. As established within the staff report, just very briefly, we are requesting approval of 12 residential lots we have 2 landscaped lots that face on Ustick Road. Those are 20-foot landscape lots which will be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. In the comments from staff there were some requirements pertaining to water line locations, sewer line locations specifically the connections to the east in the subdivision that is currently Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 17 under review, we have no problem with that we will concur with those requirements. I’m not sure if this is the – this is not the revised plat we did provide a revised to staff on this project. Which did reflect their requests. So, we have gone through all the requirements, we really see no problem with them. I was given a letter this evening from staff from a Vernon Blades pertaining to the irrigation situation out there, what we have is we have a irrigation ditch comes in right here comes around goes back down through here. We are going to have to tile that ditch and we will coordinate with Mr. Blades and the water users association in that area and assure to be assured that we will meet their needs. Of course that is required by code. So it will be piped it will probably be 18-inch and we also have to coordinate that with Public Works and get their approval prior to final platting. I just wanted to make this commission aware that we are aware of his concerns and we will take care of those concerns. I believe other than that I stand for any questions you might have. Borup: Okay, any questions? Its nice to have a full response to all of staffs questions, I think that’s probably because got their comments to you in time. Unger: I appreciated that also. Borup: It works real nice when all that happens, timing like that. Any questions from any Commissioners? Nary: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to ask Bruce is there a condition that, since this gentleman said they are going to be able to meet the requests or concerns that are addressed by the public letters on the ditch and these head gates and such. Is there a condition that mirrors that? It seems like number two of the preliminary plat sights specific requirements, it sounds pretty close to me but I’m not an engineer. Is that the one that is applicable to what this letter is? Borup: No, I think it would be No. 5 – Nary: No. 5 – Borup: In the preliminary plat comments? Hatcher: Yes, General Comments No. 5. Borup: Yes, under general comments I’m sorry – Nary: Okay that’s all I want, thank you. Borup: Any other questions? Okay thank you Mr. Unger. Do we have anyone here to testify on this, come on up? Hutchinson: (inaudible) Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 18 Borup: You need to get your name on the record and speak into the microphone. Hutchinson: I’m Ann Hutchinson, I am his neighbor to the north. That is Patrick Subdivision to the north it is not an agricultural field. Blades concern that is he comes across my property to the north and to that head gate and the way fences look it looks like the head gate is blocked off. The rest of us have concern, it is with different irrigation, that’s a double ditch head there and we have had problems that head being blocked off by Mr. Campbell in the past. So he wants – what he wants to be guaranteed the head gate is fixed so his water will flow continue on to the north. The other part of that is Mr. Campbell has moved the irrigation ditch from midway on his property to the back end it goes west and then south on this uphill, he is currently flooding me and he doesn’t have a drainage ditch. The way he has got it, I am not sure what he is doing here. But he has blocked this with the fence he will not be giving anybody access to their head gate and they may not come across my property to do it, because that is not where that ditch belongs. So we have great concerns within the neighborhood all the people who need to reach that head gate can not do that from Ustick Road, with the fence is intending to put in. If I understand this drawing correctly, so he has changed the ditches and not allowing access to the people who need to get back to their head gates to set their water, there is no way to do that from what I understand he is doing. I could misunderstand that but I have trouble reading this plats. I don’t know if that was clear but – Borup: Okay we will get some clarification on that. Hutchinson: I like to submit that in writing (inaudible). Thank you. Borup: Okay do we have anyone else? Okay Mr. Unger is that something you can address or – Unger: Once again for the record Bob Unger representing the applicant. Yes we do understand that at one time Mr. Campbell did go in and move some of the ditches around. Like I stated earlier we would be more than glad to meet with Hutchinson and Mr. Blades and anybody else that are water users okay to assure that we get everything straightened the way it should be so they have access to the head gates. And just to comment there, comment about putting a head gate In the northeast that’s exactly what Mr. Blades was asking for we don’t have a problem with that. We will put in a concrete head gate there and what not and it will be piped and we are going to have to provide accesses and gates to access their water. Okay, if the pipe is on our property then any fencing would have to go around the gates so they would have access to the gates. I think we all understand Idaho code is very, very strict about providing access and providing their irrigation waters. Mr. Campbell is dedicated to that and our engineering firm is dedicated to that. And we will work with these folks and any other users make sure we meet their needs. Borup: Okay as I see this plat this time the plat does not even indicate any fencing – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 19 ***End of Side One*** Unger: -- The plat did not show any of fencing nor did it even show – Borup: I think this revised plat doesn’t show any fencing either – Unger: Is that the revised one? Borup: July 7th I’m assuming that is. Unger: The fencing is shown on the landscape plan. Borup: Okay, well how would you anticipate is that box in the northeast corner, that is a distribution box it is going to need to be accessed? Unger: Yes it will have to be accessed – Borup: That – Unger: Yes it will have to have access – Borup: So how will anticipated that the users would get access to that? Unger: We will either have to fence around on the inside of the property so they can get access to it, or we will have to make some sort of provisions so they can get access – Borup: So there would be a path or something come from Summerfalls they would walk down to or – Unger: Well we will have to work those details out but we have to do it so as far as the details and how we work it out, we will have to work it out so those folks so they can get that access. Certainly we are not going to prevent them from getting access – Borup: (inaudible) – Unger: -- to water. Borup: As you have already stated that is state law. Unger: Right. Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Chairman one point that I was – Borup: Yes Brad – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 20 Hawkins-Clark: -- wanted to maybe point out is that our requirement under general comments item no.5 towards the end of that. This, these ditches, this circuit of ditches out here are users lateral ditches they are not in the jurisdiction of Nampa Meridian, as I understand it. Our requirement is that the applicant work with the down stream users or the lateral users association to make sure whatever they do, do to the ditches to alter them, pipe them meets with the approval of all those users. And that written confirmation of that approval is submitted to my office. That my be just a point that – Borup: (inaudible) – Hawkins-Clark: (inaudible) little comfort that their concerns will be addressed. Borup: Okay, I think that was good to – Hawkins-Clark: That we want that in writing that they are happy with it. Borup: So did everyone here understand that they will need to do a written consent, a written approval of the ditches that will designed? Okay, thank you. Does anybody else have any questions for Mr. Unger while he is here? I assume we still have no other public testimony. Okay Commissioners. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I move that we close the public hearing. Norton: I second. Borup: Motion is second to close the public hearing, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Do we have a motion? Hatcher: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Hatcher. Hatcher: I would like to make a motion recommending approval for the request of the preliminary plat proposed as the Hollows Subdivision for the12 lots on 5.60 acres in a R-3 zone by Bond and Shelli Campbell located north of Ustick Road one half mile east of Meridian Road. Per staff recommendations and comments. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion second, any discussion, All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 21 Borup: Thank you. Item No. 4 Public Hearing request of preliminary plat of proposed Waltman Court Subdivision 6 lots on 8.29 acres in L-0 and C-G zones by John and Sandra Goade Waltman Lane and Southwest 5th . Mr. Hawkins-Clark. Hawkins-Clark: Yes Mr. Chairman, commission this property is currently in the City limits, has been annexed, it was annexed with no development applications of any kind. They are coming through with a plat for the area that was annexed both C-G; it’s this crosshatch portion here. As you can see a portion of the property is zoned C-G the western three-quarters is zoned limited office. The Ten Mile drain does course the property here along the south boundary, Waltman Lane which has some small frontage on Waltman. The principle access will be the construction of Corporate Drive coming from off of Meridian Road, which will be extended, into the site. Also Southwest 5th comes and connects with Franklin here so there will be those principle ingress and egress points and then there is also a proposed stub street, which will basically continue Corporate that they are proposing to stub here to on Ten Mile. Our staff comments do address a couple of things; I would just point out to you. A pathway is in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan along Ten Mile and the written comments that we received back from the applicants engineer does say that they will work with the City’s Park Department to construct that. There was a comment about Waltman Lane Road dedication that they do not anymore dedication. I did speak with Julie Parker of J.J. Howard today and she said they have no problem with an additional four feet of road dedication on Waltman. It will mean a 29-foot total dedication from the centerline of Waltman down there. Corporate of course will be constructed as a commercial section in street standards. I think the one question I guess that remains a little bit unclear, I did ACHD and didn’t get a return call today, but the staff comments do state that we request evidence that they have submitted to the ACHD trust fund money for half of the bridge construction across Ten Mile for the new road. The written comment back from the applicant was that ACHD was not asking for that half construction – half the money to construct the bridge. My understanding the reason ACHD put that in there Is that since their property line does not touch the easement for Ten Mile they can not require them to construct half of it, but it appears by the survey and plat that the property line does touch the easement. It remains a question and would obviously need to be – if you do recommend approval, need to be something that gets finalized prior to City Council, which you could put as a condition. We could track that with them and ACHD prior to the City Council meeting. I think those are the main issues to point out, thanks. Borup: Any Commissioners have any questions for Brad? So the point on the bridge was that it don’t not touch the Ten Mile easement, is that what you stated? Hawkins-Clark: At the ACHD tech meeting where the applicant and ACHD staff and myself were in attendance that is my recollection of what Dave Szplett stated was the reason they did not require it. There is nothing in writing that I am aware of. Borup: So he understood it that the boundary of this property was short of the – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 22 Hawkins-Clark: Of the easement of Ten Mile drain. Borup: I am assuming does not show the easement? Hawkins-Clark: That’s Correct. Borup: I mean its not on here so – Hawkins-Clark: That’s correct. It shows the contour lines – Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: -- which you can see is about two feet – Borup: Into the property line Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: Okay, maybe the applicant can clarify that. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I have two questions for Brad. On page three of your site specific comments No. 6 and No. 7. Number 6 you had a concern regarding these ponds. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Norton: And it looked like the comment response was maybe ACHD will provide some plants for them, what is that? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Norton I, the screening issue with highway district I think would have to be obviously something to be worked out. This is though, the entire plat is before you of which Ada County Highway Districts storm water ponds are a part of Norton: Right. Hawkins-Clark: So my understanding is that conditions could be placed. Now there are obviously some inter-jurisdictional things between City asking ACHD to do certain things as screening. I don’t know that there is any reason for us to doubt that they would do that, I think its – since they were required as part of the annexation to submit a Conditional Use Permit for all uses they did not do that. I think this is the most appropriate vehicle to get them to do whatever kind of beautification of those storm water ponds that the Commission desires. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 23 Norton: So you are suggesting in our motion to include something about screening with ACHD? Hawkins-Clark: I would say yes. Norton: Specifically. Okay, and then No. 7 did the staff ever get access to the property? Hawkins-Clark: No, commissioner we did not. Norton: Do you need access to the property to inspect it? Hawkins-Clark: At some point, yes. Shari was the one I believed that tried, it was fenced off. Norton: So it looks like they have person to contact? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Norton: So you are satisfied with that comment? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Norton: Okay, Thank you. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Okay is the applicant here this evening, or his representative? Mr. Howard it looks like. Howard: My name is Jim Howard with J.J. Howard Engineering, do you need the address? I am representing the applicant on this development. I think there are a couple of issues, we are pretty much in agreement with the staff report. But for clarification the, we would like to join the City in an effort to midigate maybe the landscaping issue so if we can do in anything in concert with the City to encourage ACHD to place appropriate landscaping along that drainage lot. It would be both beneficial to the City as well as this subdivision so we would be delighted to even take the lead if we could get something from the City, maybe a letter or something like that from the City Council or whatever in support of our efforts. So we would like to do that it is in our best interest as well as the City’s. So we certainly don’t have any problem with that at all and if we can help the City in some way we would be more than happy to do so. The other issue, and perhaps engineering Bruce can help me with this, we have proposed no water line to be extended into the cul-de-sac. We are able to serve the lots from Corporate Drive and apparently the City would like that water main extended down into the cul de sac and he might want to comment on that as to why that is needed. Like I said we are able to serve all the lots off Corporate, there may be some reason I am not aware of. By the way that is note number, I think its two, yes the last part of two. No water is shown being into the cul de sac of Southwest 5th place and there may be a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 24 reason he can elaborate on that. That really concludes my comments, Mr. Hickey is here I think he would like to address the Planning and Zoning Commission, and I will stand for questions before I leave the podium. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Maybe while you are still here we can get a comment from Bruce on the water line. Freckleton: Certainly, Jim the reason I made that comment was because on the preliminary plat there is absolutely nothing shown for service off of either Corporate or Southwest 5th . You have a lot without a service, so that’s why I made the comment. Howard: If we could serve those lots off Corporate you wouldn’t have a problem with the, I believe we could serve all the lots. Freckleton: You propose serving lot three where the existing house is off of Waltman. Howard: That could be served Waltman, there is a 12-inch line there. Freckleton: And you will serve lots one and two off Corporate, I don’t think that’s a problem at all. Howard: Okay, not a problem then. That’s -- we just wanted to bring that to the attention of the Planning and Zoning. I think we can work with engineering on that. That’s not an obstacle. Freckleton: The only thing I can think of that may be a glitch here would be if the fire department had some fire hydrant requirement. Howard: We talked about that. Freckleton: Okay. Howard: So if that’s necessary we can do it. Freckleton: Okay. Howard: Okay. Freckleton: Any other questions? Howard: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone who would like to testify on this? Hickey: Hi, I’m Tony Hickey I’m here, 2090 South Cole Road in Boise. I am here to support John and Sandy Goade in this. If there is an issue about access to the property Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 25 I’m available at most any point. I think Bruce and Brad and everybody know how to get a hold of me. So if they need in and they get a hold of John or Sandy to get on the property I would be very happy to go out and do the walk around with ever needs to do that. Borup: Okay thank you. Hickey: Okay. Borup: Okay, any questions for Mr. Hickey, do we have anyone else? Ballantine: I’m James Ballantine 10250 (inaudible) Cliffs Dr. of Boise. We own the land to the north the Troutner Subdivision Business Park. And we are in favor of Mr. Goades application. I would like to have it clarified as to the access through Corporate Drive, I don’t think anybody has addressed that yet, at least I haven’t heard. Of course I am quite sensitive to that, I will show you why. This is Troutner Business Park and we have put in 5th Avenue and, of course, we would like to hook up to Meridian Road through Corporate Drive, which is this way. At this point we are providing all the access to the Goade subdivision and we would like to see not only for Mr. Goade but for ourselves access out through Corporate Drive to Meridian Road. I would like to have the Council and the engineer address this. Borup: Mr. Ballantine Maybe while your – do you know who owns that property that Corporate Drive would extend to Meridian Road? Ballantine: Yes, Doug Tamara and Arthur Berry are the owners of that property. Borup: Okay, it seems like, seems like, I can’t remember if that property been before us. This particular one was a couple of years ago. Have they got plans to develop that do you know? Ballantine: Um – Borup: In the near, I’m sure they have plans but in the near future? Ballantine: Yes, they are not concrete right now. They are working on it, and Mr. Goade certainly wants to see Corporate Drive put through also. So I am joining up with the Goades to request that Corporate Drive access be address by the Council and by the Planning and Zoning Commission and by the engineers, thank you. Borup: Do you have a suggestion how we can address off-site property? Ballantine: By making it a strong condition to, for that entire area to make sure that Corporate Drive goes through. I don’t want to hold up Mr. Goades – Borup: No, but (inaudible) – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 26 Ballantine: -- subdivision (inaudible) – Borup: (inaudible) this is property Mr. Goade has no control over, no ownership in – I mean it would be the same as requiring you, when your project was approved, to connect to Waltman Lane. Ballantine: I was required to connect to Meridian Street. Which in fact (inaudible) we have access – Borup: (inaudible) putting another condition that would require you to connect to Waltman Lane, through property you don’t own. Ballantine: I understand your point – Borup: Okay, I agree – Ballantine: -- (inaudible) understand my point too. Borup: I think we are in agreement there, that definitely needs to go through and I think everyone wants it. I don’t know we can make that a requirement but we could make it a strong suggestion that its encouraged. Ballantine: That’s all you can and I don’t want to make it, you can’t make it contingent. Nor do I have any objections to Mr. Goades subdivision going through even if he had no access through Corporate Drive and I don’t think that’s fair. If we do not get access through on Corporate Drive I want you to understand we will in fact put Pennwood on through which would be actually a poorer access to Meridian than if Corporate Drive is driven through there. So I think everybody should work toward that, rather than me saying I’ve had enough time I’m going to put Pennwood through and than at that point in time I am no longer interested in Corporate Drive. Borup: Okay, I understand. Thank you. Do we have anyone else who like to testify on this? Comments Ma’am? No, okay then I guess you have the conclusion Mr. Howard. Howard: My name is Jim Howard again. I might be able to shed a little light on Corporate Drive. We’ve done some preliminary studies on that for Mr. Doug Tamura, there are manholes a storm drain system is in place. I think the whole world is aware Corporate Drive will be extended. We did some preliminary planning, the storm drain is already centered-up on the proposed right away even though ACHD an easement for that storm drain but it runs down a projected future right away, I think most – ACHD is certainly aware of it. They have a conceptual plan before them. I don’t know where Doug is at on it right now, I could check at the office and find out where they are at in the planning stages. But Corporate Drive will happen in probably within, I’m guessing within the next two years. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 27 Borup: He needs to do it to develop his property – Howard: That’s going to happen that’s exactly what has happened. He has been in contact with us we’ve been working on it. So it’s going to happen. Borup: Do you have any final comments on this application? Howard: I have none. Borup: Thank you. Commissioners? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I move to close the public hearing. Norton: I second Borup: Motion is second to close the public hearing, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff. Borup: Okay. Hatcher: Could you reiterate and enlightened me on this building fund with ACHD for the ditch? The way I understood, what I heard was that if the project was adjacent to the lot then half the money for a bridge would be required for this development. But this particular project is not adjacent lateral thus its not required. So we have a little sliver of land between this project and the lateral that is owned by someone else. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Hatcher that is exactly right its confusing and the assessors data does not show any out parcels or additional lots of any kind between Ten Mile drain and this parcel. The reason I was reiterating was verbally stated at the technical review meeting and how I heard it reiterated. That’s going to be something that ACHD responds to since they do have similar to what sidewalks, if they are not prepared to actually construct a sidewalk the will ask the applicant to submit x-amount of dollars to a trust fund, that would be the same thing for the bridge. Then once the property to the south of the drain develops they would pay the other half and the bridge would be constructed. Hatcher: Okay. This something you know of as standard conditions, but its not stated here. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 28 Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Hatcher: For this potential sliver of land. Hawkins-Clark: Otherwise the property owner to south would bear the full cost of the bridge construction. Hatcher: Okay. Borup: ACHD, it’s in their hands? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Borup: Okay. Did that answer your question Commissioner? Hatcher: It answers my question, it doesn’t necessarily answer the condition – Borup: No – Hatcher: -- it answers my question, to me it sounds like a clerical error. I have a hard time foreseeing a little sliver of land between the two okay that’s it. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Brad on your staff comments you also wanted Planning and Zoning, at the very bottom where the recommendation is on page four, to clarify the pathway on Ten Mile Creek, what did you have in mind on that? Borup: I think its because well go ahead – Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Norton you mean at the end of the recommendation? Norton: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: If clarification of the issues is provided – Borup: (inaudible) because it wasn’t designed on the plat so was nothing specific. Hawkins-Clark: Right, I think the clarification came in writing from the applicant that they would work with the Parks Department to do that. Norton: Okay, thank you. Hawkins-Clark: Yes I think – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 29 Borup: Yes on item number four on the applicant’s comments. Norton: Okay. Borup: Maybe you can answer this Brad I was going to ask the applicant and I forgot to do that, on this ACHD drainage is that property that ACHD had purchased earlier I’m assuming. Hawkins-Clark: On Lot 1 Block 2? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: I don’t know the details of when they purchased it. Borup: I’m assuming they did purchase it, they didn’t go put the (inaudible) on someone else property. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Obviously the conditions that the City put on for annexation everything requires a CUP wasn’t conveyed either. Borup: Right. Okay, any other questions or comments for the Commissioners? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Bruce has stated he believes that ACHD constructed those at the time Troutner was developed. Borup: But it was not on the Troutner property, I’m assuming there was something worked out with the property owner, we would hope so. Do we have any other discussion? Hatcher: I have none. Borup: I guess the only thing up in the air in my mind is staff comment number 4 on the — I was talking about for the letter of credit – I thought I was talking -- no that’s not talking about the bridge. Was the bridge even addressed in the staff comments, Commissioner Norton you were referring to that earlier? Norton: Just the ponds and the path. Borup: Okay, but the bridge – Hawkins-Clark: Item No. 11 on the last page. Borup: There we go, but you are saying that may or may not – so that’s something we may need to address in our motion? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 30 Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it’s one of those issues obviously the City has no control over requires the dedication of the funds for the bridge. It one of those somewhat fuzzy areas. Borup: Well the staff comments say provide positive evidence of deposited funds to ACHD, but your saying that’s not something that the City would necessarily need to require, okay. Sounds like to me, Commissioner that can be stricken from staff comments, Is that your interpretation also? Hatcher: Its not our jurisdiction – Borup: Right. Hatcher: -- but I think that in all fairness to future development that everybody share their equal burden, that this issue needs to be brought up by our planning department and ACHD made aware of it. Because there report is only a draft and not a final, if we can make it a requirement we should but we can’t so we should let the other jurisdiction that does govern this – Borup: I think we can state that they get clarification from ACHD on – Hatcher: Absolutely – Borup: -- and that should handle it. Hatcher: For this purpose that is correct. Borup: All right do we have anybody ready to do a motion? Hatcher: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Hatcher. Hatcher: I motion that we recommend approval for the Preliminary Plat – let me make sure I’m on the right project—for the proposed Waltman Court Subdivision 6 lots on 8.92 acres in I-L and C-G zones by John and Sandra Goade at Waltman Lane and Southwest 5th. To include staff comments with one modification to site specific requirement number 11 to be stricken and reworded in such that applicant provide to staff evidence of coordination with Ada County Highway District of the bridge requirements, pending their requirements. Borup: We have a motion. Nary: Second. Borup: And a second, any discussion? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 31 Norton: Did we want to include anything about suggesting that Ada County do any plantings around the drainage ditch – Hatcher: I forgot that one – Norton: In number six. Hatcher: Absolutely. Norton: That Ada County provides plantings around the drainage ponds. Hatcher: I concur in adding that to my motion. But it can only be a suggestion; it can’t be a requirement. Nary: Would it be better to simply require the applicant, like some of these other ones say that the applicant will work with Ada County to provide some plantings and screening and buffer for those drainage ponds. We can at least impose that type of requirement on the applicant. Hatcher: I modify my motion accordingly. Nary: I would concur as a second. Hatcher: You got that? Borup: Yes, I have to ask Mr. Swartley. Is that still clear. Swartley: Yes. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you. I was glad to see we got a letter from the school district on the impact of this subdivision. Item No. 5 Public Hearing request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed Corn Field Maze by Sam Johnson, LLC – SE Corner I-84 and south Eagle Road. Hawkins-Clark: Yes Chairman, members of the commission we just request our comments dated July 6th be incorporated. As stated this project, same application came before you last year. Was conditioned that it be just one year that it expired November 99 we recommend your approval be on going for the Corn Field Maze during the months from September through November annually. I don’t believe there are any major issues to point out from our perspective. A couple of site photos, there is corn growing Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 32 so that’s good for a corn maze. One issue that was brought up last year was the potential for a fire break, this right photo looking down the south boundary of the site is probably a 25 foot wide dirt path between the residence on the right and the corn field on the left. The applicant can address if there are any issues with that, or any other concerns that were raised last year during there operation. Here general layout, I think that’s all I have. Borup: Any questions for Brad? Were you aware were there any comments or complaints to the City last year on any aspect? I know there is a lot of concerns, my observation it didn’t look like there was anything – Hawkins-Clark: That materialized – Borup: Yes that’s what I was trying to say. Hawkins-Clark: I’m not aware that any feedback came after the operation was over. Borup: Okay. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners) Hawkins-Clark: The City Clerk’s (inaudible) – Borup: Okay that’s what I would have suspected. Okay the applicant. Come forward. Johnson: Sam Johnson 14135 W. Comisky Boise, Id 83713. Borup: One thing I want to know, you don’t have a map here with your application. Johnson: I can give you one. Let me quickly show you. It is a bull rider this year; it says Yee Ha Idaho. At least that’s what we hope it looks like we haven’t seen it yet. Borup: Is there anything else you would like to ad to staff comments? Johnson: As far as the fire boundary there was no comments from fire marshal, fire department this year. There is I think – Borup: Yes there was. Johnson: I mean concerning the fire boundary for the south property line. I believe there is a 30-foot – I’m not exactly sure I know its wide enough for a harvester to go down the road. Wider than it was last year. The comments, I believe I addressed no smoking signs or mentioned that in the application those are very obviously posted in multiple times and reiterated for anybody who buys a ticket. The pathways are six to seven feet wide and always roto-tilled so the weeds and debris is cleared for a level surface to walk on. We are happy to give, now that we know what The Maize looks like or is Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 33 planned to be we can give a drawing of this to the fire department. Haystacks we don’t anticipate having any we will definitely fence those off if we end up having some. Fire extinguishers and emergency exits are always in place. Borup: Thank you, any questions for Mr. Johnson? Hatcher: I have one, it’s more of a comment than a question. Last year when we were talking about this application one of the things was left turn cross traffic on Franklin to enter the sites and I believe – Johnson: Overland. Hatcher: – Overland. This body had recommended as part of the approval process that temporary barriers and signs be put on the sides and down the center of the road no left turns allowed so on and a forth, basically right in right out only. During the time of operation last year I never once saw any of those requirements out on the street. And saw traffic backed up into Overland and Eagle Road interchange at the height of The Maize use. Which was the local peoples concern and safety concern as well I think we need to address that tonight and make sure it doesn’t happen again. Borup: Mr. Hatcher was causing problems coming out of the site? Hatcher: It wasn’t having problems coming out of the site it was causing problems on Overland. Causing a traffic jam, congestion of traffic. A safety hazard at the intersection. People were trying to turn left eastbound left turn traffic. Borup: To get into the site? Hatcher: To get into the site when we specifically stated right in right out only, and temporary barricades should be put up to prevent people from doing a left turn. Borup: Every time I drove by this last year I looked at that also because of the traffic, I must have been there at the wrong time I never did see any traffic problems. Hatcher: I saw it in both cases. I saw there was problems at the height – I can’t remember it was a Friday or Saturday or something like that when its was really busy. Under normal situations it wasn’t problem but during heightened attendance it was a problem. Johnson: I do remember this discussion last year, and maybe I’m wrong. I don’t remember it was a recommendation not a requirement for barriers. We did check and put in speed limit signs on Rackham Lane and no parking signs. Then we were told by ACHD they going to have in place what they have now in place is a park and ride lot and they have widened the intersection of Overland and Eagle. They have repainted lines so now you can turn left heading east on Overland, turn left onto Rackham Lane. There is a turn lane designated just for that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 34 Hatcher: They have done that? Johnson: Those improvements have been made probably just two or three weeks ago I believe. I came back from being out of town and they were done. The improvements have been made they have been discussing for years and ACHD hasn’t made any comments this year concerning that because of now that is a completed project. Borup: I don’t think we were aware – Hatcher: That might not be a problem then. Borup: -- those improvements were made. You were saying that was a problem Mr. Hatcher the left turn. They have a painted designated left turn there now. Johnson: Yes, they have widened Overland Road there between the – Borup: Sounds like that would address that issue. Hatcher: Do we have confirmation from Brad or Bruce, are you guys of those improvements being made? Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Johnson? Hatcher: No. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone here that would like to address the Commission on this application? Mr. Rackham you coming up? Rackham: I just a couple of questions – Borup: Name for the record please – Rackham: Lawrence Rackham, 1260 South Eagle Road, Meridian. They have improved that intersection. I don’t know how they would do it with kind of traffic that The Maize has because that what the Commissioner here said. There was a problem last year with traffic backing up eastbound particularly left turn southbound on Eagle. The left turn lane going south, people were backing up into the left turn lane going south on Eagle onto Overland. There were some problems; I’m surprised there weren’t serious accidents. Back up in the intersection when it turned for the cross traffic to go through there. That was sometimes in the evening it wasn’t a continual problem. The county addressed to some degree they have widened it, they have put a left turn lane in eastbound only. But that left turn lane will hold three cars and if there are any oncoming westbound traffic on Overland following a left turn signal from southbound on Eagle Road you will have traffic backed up again. I don’t know what the solution to that is. Some people think they can beat the signal and then they can’t turn left because there is oncoming traffic on Overland that wont allow the left turn people to turn left into the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 35 lane. And we find that, with just the few cars we have, we find that to be a problem. Some days sometimes during the day late afternoon three o’clock on in fact there is quite a bit of traffic westbound on Overland. From three to about Six-thirty. The concern I have this year mainly is again the same I had last year. The dust and one thing Mr. Johnson did not mention was that they have extended The Maize more westerly and they have extended a sliver of corn along the border on the south side going into the lot. I think with the intention of holding the dust, I don’t have any idea how that would work. The corn would be high but with it being dry there is going to be a lot of space between it and the dust would still occur we had an awful lot of dust last year. Getting into October and November we were able work some days some problems but watering once or twice a day was not a solution. We got into October and I agreed to let them use my irrigation water after they set up a sprinkler system off that ditch on my northerly property but that did not work either because it wasn’t used. I had to go out several times myself and turn the pump on and prime and so forth because the dust was so heavy. And when I contacted Mr. Johnson he was busy running his business so he wasn’t able to do much. And it’s the time when he is busy when it needs to be done when you get 4,5 or 600 hundred at a time coming in there. I didn’t hear him mention a solution to that. But that is a problem that needs to be addressed. Borup: The dust on the parking area or coming from the road. Johnson: The Road is paved. Borup: That’s what I thought. All they back – Rackham: (inaudible) the entrance to the field. There is dirt from there on. The one slide they had here does show that the 25-foot border shows the rest of it from that on over is dust and dirt. Twice a day or even three times a day is not sufficient if you run 100 cars over a wet area it is not wet any longer. We did have a problem with that. Borup: So its more of just an entrance area not the whole parking lot then? Rackham: I don’t know that there will be a parking area problem again because they extended it closer to the west they extended out to the west. But there is an area where they will driving and some people don’t care haw much dust they stir ***End of Side Two*** Rackham: The water was a solution when it was used – Borup: And how big an area is that the width of road and how long? Rackham: I have not measured since they have changed it Borup: Just approximately the area that would generate the dust. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 36 Rackham: Well if they are traveling now in a northerly direction were talking about the southwest corner that is going to have it and you talking about 300 feet by 300 feet. That westerly side were they will drive across to get into the area to park. I don’t know where is (inaudible) so they will be driving all the way back in to get to it towards the freeway northerly and then driving all the way back out. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Rackham? Norton: I have just one question and that is what would you recommend? Rackham: What I recommended last year finally got done that was some kind of sprinkler system be put up. They did get a pump they did stretch some inch or inch and a quarter PVC pipe then I provide the electriCity out of my barn for them to run that pump. When it was working and they did it for a period of time then periodically for a period of time throughout the evening the dust isn’t there because it’s held down. But when it goes – they were watering it a four o’clock and then somewhere around eight o’clock after I made a call they came and watered it again but that was maybe a couple of times three times. Norton: So more than three times an evening? Rackham: That’s kind of an expense way to do it too, to hire a water truck and have them go get water and spread water. Some type of sprinkler system and they could use the water there that is in the corner of my lot. If they want to set up a system and have someone there to operate it when it needed it. Borup: Right there near the corner? Rackham: One hundred feet east from where they go in. I have gates there over at the corner and we can control that water there in a small pond and they can pump it from there. If they are willing to do that and do that and do it on a regular basis there would not be a problem. I don’t think the corns a solution to it though. Once it shrinks and dries out, its going to be penetrable. Norton: It is very nice of you to provide electriCity and the water. Rackham: That was not a problem. Norton: That was very nice. Rackham: It was a solution to be able to make it work for them also. Norton: Thank You. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 37 Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I was going to ask Mr. Johnson, would it be a problem then if, because right now conditional use comment number two simply says an appropriate form of dust control. And that seems fairly nebulous to me. If it were to say instead that daily watering sufficient to act, as dust control be required would that be a problem for you to be able do that? Johnson: No. Last year we did it I can’t say daily but very close to daily a water truck coming through. Then later on in the season Mr. Rackham graciously offered to let use his power and ditch. Little pond we hooked up the sprinkler system for about 200 to 300 feet along the entrance. Where the people would be entering and exiting. This year we did plant corn kind of as an experimental there is about 30 rows just bordering the parking lot and his property. We also have another experimental idea of spreading silage out and tilling that into the top layer to help kind of create a mat that is dust free. But we’re not sure that is going to happen. I plan to continue with a sprinkler line on the entrance road. We used it daily I can vouch for that. Maybe not as often as could have but daily watering of that specific area is not a problem except for water goes out of the ditch mid October and were open until Halloween so the last two or three weeks we were doubling our efforts with the water truck. Nary: But up until that time the water was available and helped you reduce the water truck traffic? Johnson: We still continued with the water truck in the parking lot area but in the alley we designated for entering and exiting the parking lot. We watered that with the water truck and over time it becomes really compact with traffic and the water. It is difficult to keep it dust free because it is a dirt field and there is traffic. Light sprinklings here and there help greatly but that’s very difficult to control how many people drive and how much dust is kicked up. Borup: Mr. Johnson on the sprinkling system that didn’t have to be moved then, that was stationary and just needed to be turned on? Johnson: Yes we just turned the pump on and it lied along the alley. Borup: Sounds like maybe the main concern for Mr. Rackham was it just wasn’t on often enough and had you looked into a timer. Johnson: That is one of our conditions this year. Borup: I think just a residential lawn sprinkler timer would turn it on and off you may need another connection back to the pump to control it also I am assuming but that’s not that hard to do. Is one thing you plan on also? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 38 Johnson: Yes, then its not forgotten when other things are being taken care of so yes. Borup: Any other questions? Nary: I guess I had a question for staff there was some discussion about a fire boundary but that’s not in the fires comments, did you think that needed to be included as a condition? I just heard you mention that and I don’t see it on the fire – Hatcher: Brad maybe I can address because it my issue last year. Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Hatcher: Basically last year the corn was pretty well planted right up against the fence I had required that they till a fire barrier around the corn field worst case scenario the field went up it wouldn’t go into the subdivision in the south. This year that corn was not planted. The barrier I requested last year already exists. Nary: and I understood that what I’m asking would be it be appropriate to make it a condition because were not going to review this every year unless there is a complaint or concern that needs to be addressed. This is on going forever CUP now so should that be a condition that it remain that way and have the 20-foot barrier remain as a condition? Borup: I think that would be appropriate. Johnson: One comment if I may, last year that was a recommendation or requirement I don’t remember. The fire department did waive that because of the -- I don’t know exactly the farmers loss of crop and other issues where corn doesn’t generally burn very well that was waived after – Borup: That was my comment my comment my experience with corn is its tough to burn even after been pulled and lay in the garden for weeks its still tough to burn. And it takes a long time to dry it out. Nary: Mr. Chairman would it then be more appropriate from the staffs perspective rather than putting a condition regarding fire boundaries that simply could be a yearly review by the fire department regarding both fire safety concerns as well as The Maize layouts since that changes yearly. Since we won’t be reviewing this CUP every year that be simply a condition placed in here that there will be a yearly review and approval by the fire department for fire safety needs as well as the layout of The Maize Hawkins-Clark: I agree with that. Borup: But apparently this year the road was left. Was that because of last years requirement or was this decided that way – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 39 Johnson: No the corn this year is to the left and last year the corn was farther back. The harvester for the crop behind the corn doesn’t have enough room on the little 15-foot – Borup: So that for the – Johnson: -- so it was widened for the harvester reason. Borup: So will that be rotated form year to year, the crops? Johnson: Yes the crop will rotate this year it’s on the left of it and next year be the East Side. Borup: Anything else from – Hatcher: On the lighter side since this is going to be a year on going review we should just have Mr. Johnson bring in a copy of The Maize every October 1st for us. Borup: I think it was stated that would need to go to the fire department annually. Any final comment? Thank you. Norton: Discussion. Borup: Yes. Norton: I just have some discussion regarding annual. Is like for ever and ever or until Elks sales, do we have ending point does that bother anybody? Nary: I was a little curious as to what the reason was to – had it in the past been a yearly application and review process and obviously somebody thought that wasn’t necessary to do it that way. I didn’t know what the reason was. Borup: I guess my assumption was they just decided to make this a permanent site. Hatcher: Last year was the first year it was on this site so we gave it a limit because we didn’t know how it was going to – Borup: This still has our standard Conditional Use Permit statement it can be subject review in ten days’ notice. Hatcher: I was comment that Chairman Borups reference to number nine still allows us to pull back here. Nary: Mr. Chairman I had one other question, it is sort of similar to the last comment. This doesn’t have a specific beginning or ending time on a yearly basis either. It just says September through November. Was there any thought to at least placing some Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 40 guideline obviously its corn so there is only so much time they can do this anyway. Was there any thought as to placing some type of time limit on when this would be? Borup: Other than September through November? Nary: September through November. So does that mean September 1st through November 30th ? Hatcher: September 15th through November 15th . Nary: I don’t know that it matters. I recognize that is agriculture property so obviously doing some stuff with it. But leaving it somewhat open ended if another entity were to be operating this I didn’t know whether or not make some sense to have some clearly defined time period of when this is going to be operating. At least for the neighbors concerns, because the neighbors would at least like to know that before September 15th this isn’t going to be there and I don’t deal with that dust. I don’t know if that would make some sense to have at least some definite dates in there. Borup: What been your – Johnson: We typically open from eight to nine weeks. We basically count back from Halloween. And we like to open up on a Friday night. Last year we opened up September 7th this year it’s the 8th . The date is rotating the 8th is not always on a Friday. That’s why the wording is such. Borup: How many days after Halloween? Johnson: Last day is Halloween and then we clean up. Borup: Halloween is the last day? So after the end of October just clean up? Hatcher: It could be worded as such first weekend of September to Halloween. Borup: For operation. Hatcher: For operation. Borup: Does that adequately cover what you – Johnson: Yes I believe so – Borup: For public operation not for your clean up and set up – Johnson: Sometimes we like to extend November 1st or 2nd if Halloween is a Thursday – Borup: That’s true. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 41 Johnson: Maybe 1st week of September to the 1st week of November. Hatcher: Halloween weekend. Weekend after Halloween. Borup: Which would be the 1st weekend in November. Hatcher: Get two more days of business. Borup: Okay the first weekend after Halloween works for you? Johnson: Works for me. The other issue with having this Conditional Use Permit on an on going basis was too not to go through this process every year. Hopefully we can stay at this location with Idaho Elks Rehabilitation Hospital they give us permission on a year to year basis because they don’t know what their plans are for the property. But as long as whoever owns the property we would like to be there at that location. That’s the ongoing permit. Borup: Anything else from the Commissioners? Mr. Johnson? Thank you sir. Johnson: Excuse me one more thing. I don’t know if this matters. In here it is stated as Sam Johnson, LLC there is no such thing. There is The Maize, LLC, and myself Sam Johnson, I don’t know if that matters. Borup: That’s what this one says. Hatcher: Agenda. Borup: The agenda is incorrect the application says it just the way you said it. Johnson: Thank You. Borup: It just got abbreviated on the agenda. Mr. Rackham you had another comment. Rackham: With a permanent approval here whether Mr. Johnson or somebody else is operating this what recourse if you were to give a permanent authorization this do I have to see that we don’t have an inch of dust all over our place every night? Borup: If they don’t follow the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit then you can file a complaint and the permit can be revoked. It would come back for a hearing – it can be reviewed on a 10-day notice. It sounds like one of the requirements will be the sprinkling is kind of the way I read the Commission. Rackham: I know – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 42 Borup: A Conditional Use Permit is also just for Sam Johnson and The Maize, LLC, it wouldn’t be for someone who comes in. Hatcher: CUPs aren’t transferable. Rackham: Alright thank you. Borup: Are we ready to move on or do we want to keep the hearing open for awhile? Nary: Mr. Chairman I just had one other question. With the changes that have been put on the record as to the right-in right-out and the way roadway has changed is it necessary to leave condition six at this point or should be just delete it? That says note ACHD’s 1999 report about right-in right-out we don’t have anew report. It appears that the evidence we have is that that’s not necessary any longer. Hatcher: I would still make it a requirement even with the left lane turn as stated by Mr. Rackham it only holds three cars and it was a problem and it will continue to be a problem as attendance to this function increases. Nary: Would it then be more appropriate that the condition should read that the applicant shall comply with all ACHD requirements regarding access and alleviate traffic congestion of this site something more specific to what the concerns that you’ve raised. Borup: I think that would be probably more appropriate is to comply with ACHD recommendation rather than us trying to put recommendations in there. Hatcher: Correct. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup. Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: That brings up to my mind the only opportunity ACHD has to make conditions is via a Conditional Use Permit . Which means if they did not submit a new request each year then ACHD does not have any opportunity to review the plan each new year. I don’t know that its going to be a big deal but it could be that maybe you just recommend that even though something to the effect of that the applicant at least submit anticipated numbers each year to ACHD development services staff so they can review. They will not have the opportunity to put conditions on with out receiving a conditional use from the City. Hatcher: Could we ask the applicant each year to submit a traffic control plan to ACHD for approval. That’s simple something simple that can be compiled and submitted and ACHD looks at it and says yes great it’s done its over with where if there is a problem it gives ACHD the opportunity to address it at that time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 43 Hawkins-Clark: Particularly given that Overland is slated for construction in the next couple of years one doesn’t know what that may or may not do to induce traffic. Should they have concerns it doesn’t sound like there will be major issues on the – from The Maize, LLC. I think that would at least give ACHD staff a chance to work with them if there are needs for barriers or something like that. Borup: Would this be something -- they would just need a just a tech review at ACHD probably or maybe not even to that extent. Hawkins-Clark: Probably not even to that extent. Borup: Just contact them ACHD would say we have concern come in or no concerns. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: Okay that doesn’t sound like it would be a real big problem then. Johnson: Can I ask a question then regarding barriers I’m not opposed to barriers – Borup: That would up to ACHD. Johnson: Up to them I’m concerned with barriers placed what would then – the specifics would have to be worked out with them. Would it impede anybody from making an illegal U-turn? Borup: I think they are going to have a concern of having to many barriers there anyway. I don’t believe they’re going to want to have a lot. Johnson: And then what impedes somebody from – if the barriers are to far down Overland Road then nobody can – I know that the farmer in the agricultural aspect of this will have a very difficult time getting his harvesters and his equipment down there. That is a big concern on his – Hatcher: In situation like that would fall as a maintenance issue on to you and your teams shoulders to work with adjoining farmers and tenants. If I lived there and I’ve got big equipment coming in and out I’m going to be calling you saying move those barriers so I can get my harvester in there. Borup: I think ACHD is the one who has the expertise to address that. Hatcher: I agree. Borup: I don’t its anything we can handle here. Nary: I was going to say Mr. Chairman I think what we’re talking about Mr. Johnson is simply on a yearly basis that some notice be given to ACHD as to what you and The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 44 Maize want to do in regards to traffic. And your going to be able to at least look at last years traffic as a projection as to what you maybe dealing with and that there may not be a necessity for anything. Your probably going to want your neighbors or the neighbors there to be on board with you as to whether or not barriers are necessary or something else. That gives ACHD an opportunity to evaluate it and see if something else is needed. Johnson: Okay. I agree with that. Hatcher: That gives you a good opportunity again to be the good neighbor for the residents of the immediate area and take care of problems on a year to year basis. If any problems occur. Johnson: I can agree with that. Borup: Commissioners do we have enough. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I move that we close the public hearing. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion is second all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Have we had enough discussion to formulate a motion? Nary: Mr. Chairman I would move that we recommend to the City Council the approval of the request for a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed corn field maze by Sam Johnson and The Maize, LLC, at the southeast corner of I-84 and south Eagle Road. With the following amendments to the staff comments on conditional use comment number one we would recommend that the comment be amended to read at the project implementation period to the first Friday in September to the first weekend after October 31st annually. That conditional use comment two be amended to say that daily watering sufficient to act as dust control shall be used on the ingress and egress drive and parking areas of the site to limit air pollution and negative impacts on the Ada County Rolling Hills and Jewels Subdivisions to the southeast as well as the I-84 traffic to the north. We would recommend that the applicant seek alternative measures to also alleviate dust control where feasible. That number six be amended that the last sentence simply be amended to say that the applicant should notify Ada County Highway District, ACHD annually with a traffic control plan for ingress and egress to the site for there review and comment and that an additional condition be placed. That there be yearly review and approval of this application by the Meridian Fire Department in regards to fire safety and to the layout of The Maize. I think that incorporates all the comments that we discussed. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 45 Hatcher: Mr. Chairman -- Nary: As – I’m sorry -- as including part of the motion that we incorporate the rest of the staff comments in recommendation. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nary would you be open to small amendments to your motion, do you feel it would be necessary to state frequency of watering i.e. two times a day, three times a day, five times on the weekend – state a frequency. And the other thing is stating a timeline as to when notification to ACHD should occur. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Hatcher the only reason I put daily is simply because of weather conditions if it rains if it happens to be a fairly rain involved setting a condition requires three times watering may seem sort of wasteful on certain days and not others. And if its daily enough to really act sufficiently enough to act as dust control then that may be some what geared to the review process. If it isn’t being done sufficient then that would be something we would then review later on that ten day notice that they are not complying that. That was my only rationale was that I was just concerned if it was a wet fall that seemed like a waste of time to put a specific. But on the other one probably for both the additional condition and the ACHD – the additional condition of the Fire Department it probably needs to be done prior to I guess I take your suggestion as to how many days 30 days in advance of the opening date or – Hatcher: Will how long does it take to process something through Fire Department or ACHD? I know ACHD sometimes quite lengthy six or eight weeks at times. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner I think for staff level Meridian Fire Department is pretty quick. Nary: Do you have any feel as to ACHD is 30 days would sufficient for them to have some opportunity to comment. Hawkins-Clark: 30 days I think would be adequate. Borup: Again its just a staff level – Hawkins-Clark: Its just staff level right. There’s no -- Nary: I guess if it isn’t sufficient then the neighbors are going to know that the neighbors are going to be the ones that are probably going to be contacting the City to review this permit that its not being complied with it doesn’t sound like that’s (inaudible). I would be certainly be agreeable to amending both number six and the additional condition that the length should read at least 30 days prior to the opening day of this operation that the must submit for review the traffic plan as well as the fire safety and maze layout. Norton: I second that motion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 46 Borup: Any discussion? I think Commissioner Hatchers comment on the amount of time Mr. Nary said makes sense. With a timer it can be adjusted on a daily basis if necessary as the weather conditions. Okay we have a motion and a second all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item No. 6 Public hearing request for a Conditional Use Permit for proposed triplex apartment complex in Old Town by Merlyn and Brandon Schmeckpeper on the north side of King between 2nd and 3rd Streets. Borup: Mr. Hawkins-Clark. Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Chairman, Commission again this application is requesting the triplex in Old Town it falls here in these two existing parcels. On the north side of King Street it would be considered an in-fill project it is bounded by development on all sides. The staff report dated July 3rd does note a couple of other triplexes and fourplexes in the area there noted both on Ada Avenue and there is two parcels down to the east I believe there is a fourplex located here next t o the church. Being Old Town certainly of course deals with narrower streets this is a couple of shots here of the property this is looking north the alley being in the back of that photo there. This is the alleyway looking west in the rear. Here the proposed site plan for the triplex King Street being on the top of this photo. The have met with Ada County Highway District who is asking for a sidewalk to be constructed. I believe the only other sidewalk on King Street is on the other side of Second Street on the south so this would be new there. They are showing some landscaping they do have the trees here. They’ve got an entry off of King and then here is the alley with the dumpster. They are showing some shrubbery and other landscaping and a walking path on both sides. We have had some conversation with the Schmeckpepers I think the main a couple of main concerns on the setback issue which was item number five on page three of the staff report. Being Old Town our concern was that they obtain fire and building department sign-off on the three foot reduction on the setbacks and I believe they have obtained that written approval for you from those two departments. On the issue of off street parking the garages as stated in the proposal do provide that. There are three single-car garages that are going to be on the ground level that will underneath on both ends. We would not support off-street parking of six allowance being met with tandem parking, parking behind the garages here. I believe even though they did appeal the AHD decision to pave the alley then revoked they are in agreement to pave that alley so that cars will be accessing the rear now. The Schmeckpepers could clarify that. That’s all I have thanks. Borup: Anything questions for Brad? Hatcher: I have for staff, was a second floor plan submitted? I seem to be missing some documentation. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 47 Hawkins-Clark: Yes it was submitted I don’t believe that the second floor plans got into the packets. But the City does have that. That’s what the dwelling units are the second floor. Borup: and then do you have a copy of building department, fire department – Hawkins-Clark: I do not. Borup: -- letters. Thank you is the applicant here and would like to come forward if you could state your name for the record. Schmeckpeper: My name is Merlyn Schmeckpeper. I reside at 157 E. Ada Meridian, Idaho. Borup: We’ve got your application here. Have you had a chance to review the staff comments? Schmeckpeper: Yes, first of all if I may I would like to pass out to the Commission letters from the fire department as well as the building department. Borup: I was hoping you would have that. Schmeckpeper: The first two pages are merely our objective to satisfy the long-term goals for Meridian Planning and Zoning. Following that you will find the letters, copies of the letters from the fire department and the building department. As far as the staffs report we are basically in concurrence on all issues. As a matter of information we have with drawn our appeal to the Ada County Highway department. That appeal was based on the paving of the alley. I still have a real problem with that because it seems to be imposed on us just as a matter of fact. There are no paved alley’s in this area I question the Ada County Highway department I remember when Meridian used to take care of there own maintenance wasn’t a bad idea guys. There comments were yes they were going to pave alley’s my question was when would they pave the one sin Meridian they said they did not know they were starting in Boise. Take that for what it’s worth. Borup: Just so you don’t feel left out they have put that requirement on every development that’s come in Old Town. That’s been one of there – Schmeckpeper: I understand that were not going to challenge that. We did have some concession with them but in ball fencing and it would eliminate our use of those garage areas which we could handicap the parking problem that Brad was talking about. So we withdrew the appeal and it is no longer an issues. The only issue that we really do have is that we request that the Planning and Zoning modify number five and change that to because of the letters to accept the seven foot setback on the property lines east and west. That’s really the only request we have of you folks. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 48 Borup: Okay that makes it simple. Brad is it still even with these letters does it still require a variance request. Schmeckpeper: We had some discussion, if I may interrupt we asked that same question of the staff and others. It seems to me a Conditional Use Permit a basically just that a Conditional Use Permit . A variance would be something that (inaudible) title is tied to existing codes. I think possibly staff may the have the same question of you folks does it really require a variance since it is a Conditional Use Permit . I think we both have the same question of the panel. Was I fair on that one Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Pretty fair yes. I think the Old Town area when it comes to setbacks given the narrow design of the lots has been at least in the couple of years I’ve been here has been open to really site specific. The variance would – the setbacks are – in the ordinance in Old Town are not specific. Since Old Town has a mix of commercial and residential and office. It simply says the setbacks are for that zone that most closely resembles the development. In this case the zone that most closely resembles the development is R-15. Since R-15 is the only zone that allows triplexes. I think there is some flexibility given the weight that the ordinance reads for setbacks for Old Town. I kind of thought about that a little bit after we had that discussion yesterday. And I think certainly the Commission can do what it pleases as far as a recommendation it certainly is a lot of coverage on that lot but with principle issues of setbacks being some fire brick issues. They do have – there is some aesthetic issues to I think but we would feel comfortable if modify that number five. I just think with Old Town the whole question of setbacks you have to get a variance from something. If they were to submit a variance application that something would be whether this is an R-15 and whether you should apply the R-15 in Old Town or not. I just think there is some room for interpretation that the Commission would have there. Borup: Thank you any questions from the Commission? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Which ordinance are you talking about, the setbacks? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Nary its in the Zoning And Development 11-8 chapter eight I’m sorry nine 11-9-1. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I also had a question it appears there’s a letter in here from the Sanitary Service and they also make a reference to the 10-foot – is that to the 10-foot setback or is that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 49 to an access for trash? I just saw the 10-foot minimum width. Are they talking about the setback area – Hawkins-Clark: Trash. Nary: -- or just the trash receptacle? Hawkins-Clark: Trash opening area. Nary: Okay. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I have a question for the applicant. On your triplex, there would be three apartments is that correct? Schmeckpeper: That’s correct and they are single bedrooms. I don’t think you folks knew that because – Norton: That was my next question how many bedrooms. So one bedroom one bath? Schmeckpeper: Yes. Norton: And then what's the square-foot approximately? Schmeckpeper: Of the apartments? Norton: Of the apartments of one apartment. Schmeckpeper: I think two of them are in the 850 square-foot range and the third one is approaching I believe 1000 square-foot so approximately 800 to 900 and 900 to 1000. Norton: Okay. Are there any other apartments similar to this one out in that area that you plan on proposing? Schmeckpeper: Yes if you look at the photographs that I provided in my packet we can – go to photograph three. Were looking north there the project site would be the next lot to your left above the three. So we have the, the lot that is above three and then this fourplex that is above the arrow the 226 through 232 King Street. Norton: Right. Schmeckpeper: That is roughly 25 feet away from the site maybe 30 feet. If you look at the number four that’s actually about a block-and-a-half from the site going south that is Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 50 a duplex if you look photos five and six this is approximately a half a block from the site going north and that is fourplex also it faces onto Ada Street. So yes there are others in the area too within a one block walking distance. There is another triplex Ada Street that I am knowledgeable of at this point and time. Norton: Then I just have one question I was looking at the north side elevation it looks like there are two garages and then this looks like e real large garage. Schmeckpeper: It is that center area on the backside is open because the apartments are down the sides and then the third one is across the front. That area is open for several reasons one is our mechanical equipment sets at the end of that bay which would be about mid building so that’s access – all of our mechanical equipment is going to be on the second floor. It’s also large for larger storage camper or something of that nature. Norton: So you’ll be living in one of these? Schmeckpeper: No. Norton: When you say mechanical what do you mean? Schmeckpeper: Furnaces, water heaters that sort of thing. Norton: Okay. Schmeckpeper: That’s what that center bay is and I think – I don’t know what plans you have do you have the foundation – the center area this is cinder-block construction for firebreak. And this center area is backed up to that large door the mechanical equipment all sits across here. So there is no apartment this apartment is down this side this one is down this side and the third one is across the front. Does that help? Norton: Yes. Borup: It looks like that center bay would accommodate a motor home or something. Is that what you are – Schmeckpeper: If needed it could. Borup: So its one-bedroom it looks like your not really marketing to families obviously. Schmeckpeper: I’m sorry. Borup: With one-bedroom units your not really going after the family market it looks like. Schmeckpeper: No we have found there is quite a need in the Meridian area for single bedroom apartments. There is not a lot here. We have a couple other rentals and we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 51 constantly being asked do you have a one-bedroom apartment someplace. That is part of the reason we decided to do this also the original property believe it or not its only 56-feet wide. The original property had three homes on it. This goes back before any of our time and we finally tore down the last of these when we bought the property. So there were actually three homes on it. So were going back in kind of thinking there was three there once we can put three there again. No were making them single bedroom. We would like to request you to as the staff said maybe change the verbiage in that for the Council so it doesn’t become a problem for the setbacks. Other than that were in concurrence with the staffs findings and recommendations. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Nary: Mr. Chairman I guess my question is more for the staff but if I am looking at this table properly the five foot per story setback is the smallest amount there is. Unless its in an R-40 which is zero. Is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: That’s correct. Nary: So it’s either 10-feet or 15-feet regardless of which type of zone were to apply to this residential district. Either is 10-foot for a two-story building or 15-feet for a two-story building on the R-2 or R-3 is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: That’s correct. Nary: This is isn’t a PUD that would maybe give us little bit more flexibility to really do that. This is simply a CUP and our decision is whether it complies with this ordinance or not. Hawkins-Clark: That’s correct and to be honest with you we did struggle with that. Item number seven which Mr. Schmeckpeper didn’t address also does say that staff recommends the applicant meet the 10-foot building setback to help reduce the overall coverage which I am assuming he would want that changed. Schmeckpeper: Yes I would thank you. Hawkins-Clark: I guess the main factor that we – *** End of Side Three *** Hawkins-Clark: -- and talking with the applicant was that the floor plan for the apartments would be impossible if you take an additional three feet on each side which would be six foot total for the site. It would be in terms of the floor layout that would not be able to meet the handicap hallway width and things like that on the inside. I think your are right in terms of the ordinance that there's basis for both. The five-foot is per story I believe that Daunt has made some modifications if it’s like a story and a half instead of a full true two story. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 52 Hatcher: Brad on situation like this again like dealing with the situation earlier this evening this boards responsibility is to up hold our Comprehensive Plan and our zoning codes. Can we – it would seem prudent for us to approve or recommend approval as stated by staff comments with a trailer that we also recommend approval of a variance to reduce the side setbacks to seven feet pending the applicants submission of that variance prior to going to City Council. Can something like that work? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I was concur with what Commissioner Hatcher just said because if we were to approve this with that additional language that we would recommend that the – because it already says he needs to apply for a variance. Also at this state recommend that the Council consider and approve such variance then the Council wouldn’t need to send it back. Hatcher: (inaudible) you don’t get held up Nary: Because otherwise the Council may need to send it back for us to make that finding. If the Commission feels that’s something they want to recommend tonight that’s probably the most we can do. Schmeckpeper: That’s fine. Borup: I think staff had mentioned earlier that two of the main concerns were the building department and the fire department. They both signed off on it already. Norton: One other question regarding fencing have you required suggested fencing? Has the applicant thought about fencing the area? Hawkins-Clark: That’s Item No. 11 – Norton: Item No. 11 – Hawkins-Clark: On page four. Yes we did ask them to talk about that thanks. Schmeckpeper: Yes we have always planned to fence it. The type of fence has not been determined at this point in time. We were kind of considering the wood dog-eared cedar type. However as recently as today we received as new product here its called privacy link that we are very interested in investigating. Nary: Is it a chain link fence with slats? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 53 Schmeckpeper: Yes however it’s not the type you slide in it’s a different system. Kind of interesting looking stuff. Borup: It’s a little more solid than the normal slats. Hatcher: Yes I wouldn’t recommend the slats. Schmeckpeper: This actually came today just in the mail. If you have been in the contracting business very long you’re constantly struggling with fences. You put up pretty ones they fall down you put up ones that are going to stand up there not quite so pretty. Norton: So this is the type you are leaning toward? Schmeckpeper: Yes at this point and time but we might not be able to afford it, they didn’t send a price. Norton: So this or the wooden? Schmeckpeper: Yes we definitely plan on fencing on both sides. Norton: You will be fencing. Schmeckpeper: It will be five to six foot fences probably five. Hatcher: I would recommend continuing with the cedar. Schmeckpeper: I don’t have a problem with cedar except it’s longevity even when you put them in concrete and steel the pickets themselves are subject to damage. Hatcher: I understand. Schmeckpeper: And the quality of our wood today leaves a little to be desired. You put it up tight and pretty soon you’ve gaps in it. Borup: Okay any other questions? Okay thank you sir. Do we have any from the public who would like to testify on this application? I see none. Commissioners. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I move that we close the public hearing. Norton: I second. Borup: Motion is second to close the public hearing all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 54 Borup: That was all ayes. Do we need any discussion or are we ready to formulate a motion? I think two things were mentioned items five and seven. Yes you might address eleven with the – stated they would be doing the fence. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Mr. Nary. Nary: I would move to recommend to the City Council to approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed triplex apartment complex in Old Town by Merlyn and Brandon Schmeckpeper on the north side of King between 2nd and 3rd Streets. With the accompanying staff comments and recommendations with just the few following recommended amendments that in No. 5 of the site specific requirements that after the sentence that ends with setbacks below the five feet required by ordinance which is the sentence regarding that the applicant requiring a variance application. That we include language that says the Commission would recommend approval of such variance to the seven-foot setback. That be No. 7 be amended the last sentence simply have additional language added. The sentence currently says staff recommends the applicant meet the ten foot building setback to help reduce the overall coverage and bulk on the lot and we would add the conditional language unless a variance is approved as noted comment number. Lastly that on No. 11, I guess that the Commission would recommend fencing be addressed and approved by the building department. So we would delete the first two sentences and simply state and amended the Commission would recommend fencing around the site as approved by the building department. I believe that addresses the comments that we’ve had. Hatcher: I second that motion. Borup: Motion is second any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: We probably should have taken a short break before we did last one but we’re moving along real good We’re liable to be out of here by 10:00. I think we can. Commissioners would you like to take a short break? We’ll take a short break. (Meeting reconvenes at 9:40 p.m.) Item No. 7 Public Hearing request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed addition of 2,574 square-foot to existing 5,715 square-foot telephone equipment building by US West Communications on the northeast corner of Meridian and Idaho. Borup: Mr. Hawkins-Clark Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 55 Hawkins-Clark: Commissioners this project is going to be critical to the phone service for all Meridian residents. I don’t think there is too much opposition as you can see by the population of the seats. The reason for the CUP was stated at the beginning of the staff report. The surrounding uses are listed this is the area here on the photo where the expansion would take place in between the old library branch and the existing office. We’ve requested a few conditions, none of which have been contested by the applicant. We are recommending that the new trees of course be entered into a – to plant those in the right away be entered into a licensed agreement. I did talk with Bob Smith today by phone and he mentioned that they will on item number five page three on the block types they will feed through surfacing that for the right away views putting Drive It on it so it will have a similar appearance and it will be consistent with the building fascia. Other than that we are recommending approval thanks. Borup: Any questions from any Commissioners? Is the applicant here would you like to come forward? Smith: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I am Bob Smith with Hutchinson Smith Architects at 270 North 27th Street in Boise. I’m here representing US West Communications and their request for building addition at 816 Meridian Road. We have reviewed the staff report and their comments and recommendations we have no objections to their comments. A couple of items, Brad Hawkins-Clark touched on I would like to clarify for your benefit is we will – Item No. 4 is requiring obviously sprinkling the trees along Meridian Street and there is an existing automatic sprinkler system on the grounds we will be extending it over. That will be part of the license agreement with ACHD. Just to clarify on the front of the building on the Meridian Street side there is a -- were proposing a wall hung mechanical unit and were also proposing a masonry wall screen to block the view of that. Two years ago, US West went to substantial expense to cover the front end of that building with Drive It material to dress it up we’ll be matching that on the front of the building addition as well as the screen wall to screen out the mechanical unit. The height of that wall is going to be about 10 feet 6 inches, and the reason for that is just to tie into the architectural lines of the drive It and also to make sure we fully screen that mechanical unit. On the Idaho Street side we are relocating the existing above ground fuel tank to that side and we’ll have a six- foot high masonry wall there and it will also be covered with Drive It to tie it in with the building. It will have landscaping shrubs in front of it as well. I think you should notice in those pictures their trucks – this will force them to park in the parking lot that we built for them. Other than that I don’t have any other comments we concur with the staff report and I would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Smith? Just one out of curiosity – this is going to take care of capaCity for how far in the future do you think? Smith: Its difficult to say one of the – Borup: You’re about maxed out on this side it looks like. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 56 Smith: Were getting their yes. One of the driving forces is there is a federal court ruling requiring US West to provide space in their buildings for independent telephone providers and if they don’t provide that space they face fines and all kinds of things. Its difficult to predict how much floor space these other independent telephone companies will request. This will serve those needs as well as additional telephone capaCity in Meridian. Borup: Just for the record do we have any public testimony on this application? I see none Commissioners. Hatcher Mr. Chairman I move that we close the public hearing. Norton: I second. Borup: Motion is second to close the public hearing all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Would anybody like to do a motion? Norton: Mr. Chairman I would like to move that we recommend approval for Conditional Use Permit for the proposed addition of the 2,574 square-foot to existing 5,715 square- foot telephone equipment building by US West Communications northeast corner of Meridian and Idaho to include all staff comments. Hatcher: I second the motion. Borup: Motion is second any discussion all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Any opposed? Thank you. Item No. 8 Public Hearing request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed gymnastics, dance and karate instruction by Dave Williams northeast corner of Ralstin and east Commercial in Railside Business Park Borup: Mr. Hawkins-Clark. Hawkins-Clark: The subdivision is getting built out this crosshatch portion is the building that is the subject of this application, currently being built. Traditional Electric is building on the north half of this lot above it I believe the south half is vacant. Plumbers union is across the street here the future Locust Grove extension is adjacent to the back east portion here that’s obviously going to be preserved for Locust Grove extension. The oak Harbor Freight has this parcel here. I don’t think there is anything to add as far as the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 57 staff report dated July 6th we just ask those be incorporated here’s photos of the surrounding uses. I would like to point out that those uses are – even those it is zoned light industrial the predominant uses around it are more really office, storage/warehouse and nature. There was some early discussion about the appropriateness of a children’s facility gymnastics in a light industrial zone but in terms of the use building the square- footage I think they could speak to that as far as total amount of space. That’s all I have. Borup: Thank you, would the applicant like to come forward any questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to come forward -- anything you would like to add? Staff has recommended approval so any comments or questions on the staff comments. Williams: My name is Dave Williams I am the owner 1530 E. Commercial. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, the building at 1530 East Commercial is about 80 percent completed. All I’m waiting for right now is my siting we’re doing tenant improvements on the interior, all the landscaping, paving et cetera is in place and we’re looking to hopefully be able to put occupants into this building the later part of August. This building is 18,720 total square-feet I have 50 parking spaces. You will note that the south portion of the building is all storefront and the north for truck or trailer or what have you parking. Our proposal is that the academy would take 8,240 square feet be somewhat centered in this complex. On the East End of the complex I have a 6,000 square-foot tenant which is a custom cabinet shop with 5 employees. Those employees will be parking they’re enclosed small trailers that they haul their tools in the back area which is to the north of the complex. They will have a showroom in the southeast corner of this complex with their offices and so on and that will be for their contractors that they work with and their clients for custom work. That leaves me 4,800 square-foot in the West End of the building so it appears I could possibly have three total tenants possibly four. So I am 80 percent leased if you allow us to put the academy in here. I think its an excellent usage I’ve talked with my neighbors as you can see none of them are here tonight they did ask if they should be to support this project and this Conditional Use Permit I informed them of staffs recommendation and so they chose not to be here this late with us this evening. I guess beyond that what I can say is that the usage is in an industrial park. But this is really not an industrial park as what I generally find myself leasing such as Meridian Business Park where you do have industrial usage you have a lot of truck traffic in and out and so on. My project is ending up whereas I’ve going to have very limited trucking in and out that truck traffic will be to the north. As you can see at the northwest corner I have an ingress egress off of Ralstin for that truck traffic they can come at the north of the project back into those overhead doors and also leave heading west out of the project. We have narrow alleyways but the Fire Marshall approved at the east and west ends of the project. So we do have good ingress egress but you’ll note that we have two Ada County Highway District approved 30-foot ingress egress at the south that come out to east Commercial and eventually you will be able to head east and hit future Locust Grove. I think it’s a great location for these folks I think the kids will be well protected in as much as we’re going to have one 12 by 14 foot overhead door at the back of their space. Their space will 103 feet by 80 feet and it that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 58 103 foot at the back at the north that’s simply so they can get their equipment in and out. The children will be accessing the project as well as the parents from the south where we have our store frontage. As far as what was commented in the staff level Fire Marshall et cetera this project was permitted with fire sprinklers system. The fire sprinkler system is in place presently all I’ll need to do is extend that system to the tenant improvement. The -- beyond that, I think we met ACHD’s requirements, et cetera. Any questions? Borup: Any questions for Mr. Williams from the Commissioners? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Williams do you already have a tenant to operate this gymnastics studio? Williams: The president of the Meridian Academy of Gymnastics is with us this evening so they would be the tenant. That’s the conditional use application Nary: Okay is this requirement of one space per 10 children plus one space per staff member is that – I don’t know how many students they are anticipating having at any given time. Williams: I have 50 parking spaces and that is not counting if I were to put parking spaces right at the north of the building you’ll see at the north edge of the property I have approximately 27 parking spaces. Nary: So what you’re saying is you have adequate space if you wanted to put some spaces similar to what's on that south side right up against the building you room on the top on the north side. Williams: On the north side yes sir. Nary: Maybe the lay can address that I was just curious as to how many students they anticipate at any particular time. Williams: Its my understanding that student wise they could have upwards of 250 to 500 students but at one given time keep in mind what happens here during the daytime you’ll have the children that are not in school maybe the younger ones as I understand it. Colleen, are you going to help me out. Nary: Maybe I could tell you where I am going with this so she can address that. I noticed in the staff’s comments it said there wasn’t anything really comparable and they used this comparable of nursery schools and daycare centers for what this parking requirement is. And my experience with this type of facility is that people tend to stay there verses parents – because the classes are fairly short for the smaller kids. So you Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 59 don’t have a drop off like you would at a nursery school or a daycare where you drop kids off and drive away so the parking isn’t quite as vital. Some of the other places that I’ve been to have probably less parking than you do. I know that people do stay there more so if you have a lot of kids in one session your going to have a whole lot of cars there too at those because people aren’t going to drop them off and leave unless they have older children. Williams: The comment I have there and then I’d ask that Colleen who will be running the academy would make some comment. Typically speaking when your going to have the majority of the parents staying to view the children what they’re doing. Would typically be on a Saturday and evenings when the other businesses are shut down nobody is there. And so I would have plenty adequate parking without even being on the street. Nary: Well no because your earlier comment was that during the day its going to be the kids who aren’t in school so you are going to have -- Williams: Right. Nary: -- people there during the date time when your other businesses are open. Williams: Right and I am going to have Colleen address that state your name. Hatcher: Commissioner Nary the required parking per occupancy is going to be dictated by the building department. Its part of the building permit requirements and its also part of the certificate of occupancy requirements and its really not this boards – we shouldn’t even concern ourselves with it that’s at a different level. Nary: That shouldn’t be in the site-specific comments. Hatcher: The existing building has existing conditions it’s the building departments responsibility when issuing out a building permit to adequately -- that the architect will identify what the occupancy is what the occupant load is and what the parking requirements are. And it’s the building department’s responsibility to make sure that those requirements are met. (Inaudible) dictating what those requirements are in this board and Bruce has something to say. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission the building department does not set the parking requirements. The zoning ordinance sets the – by the type of use is where the parking requirements come from. Hatcher: Yes my terminology I’m sorry is wrong but again we – the building exists parking exists so it’s really – is this an appropriate facility for the existing conditions. Borup: But the amount of parking required is going to vary by the use of the building. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 60 Hatcher: And its going to vary by how much square footage the tenant is going to have. Nary: No Mr. Chairman the parking is going to be dictated by the kind of use the building is going to have. To use your example and I know this isn’t probably the case – if you had 200 students there at one particular time that use of the building the parking is inadequate (inaudible) address that, that’s the reason for my question. Borup: What's the maximum you anticipate at one time? Kelly: What we have now is a 7:1 ratio so every seven children would have one instructor. We are anticipating possibly – I run a little gym right now and I just do one class at a time maybe two classes at a time. Or if one or even both of the classes had 14 kids we’re talking 28 kids. Borup: So 28 is what you anticipate being your maximum? Kelly: We said 50 at any one time. Borup: I’m sorry we didn’t get your name for the record. Kelly: I know – Borup: Could you go ahead and do that. Kelly: -- asking questions. Colleen Kelly I reside at 3801 South Linder in Meridian, Idaho. We do a 7:1 ratio with the pre-schoolers your parents do stay around its usually a 45 minute class. When your pre-schoolers goes up to five years old some of those do leave some of them travel together. So at the current business I do I don’t have more than seven cars at any one time and that’s staff, everybody. But yes we are maybe we are talking ten, ten parking spaces and he has 50. If we ever ran a meet we would probably talk to other tenants and try to work around that because that could be – you would maybe have – well it would still be like 40. The USA has a requirement you can have only like 48 entrants in a meet for procession. Borup: What time of day would your meets be? Kelly: Usually if you run a meet it would be Friday Saturday. Borup: So it would be evening and Saturday – Kelly: Friday would be they run days too. Borup: Okay. Kelly: They have dropped off Sunday because of church. So we have kind of waived from Sundays. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 61 Borup: So right now you’re saying on your normal sessions your saying maybe 28 maximum and three instructors so 30 or so? Kelly: I can’t imagine having any more then you really needing. Like right now like I said I’ve never seen more than seven cars there. So even if we went up to ten cars the only time you do it is when you have an overlap when you have some people dropping off their kids that haven’t quite left yet. Borup: Any other questions Mr. Nary? Thank you. Are there any other Commissioners that have any other questions? Norton: I have a question. Borup: For? Norton: Mr. Chairman I’m not sure who to address this to one of our applicants. Its regarding having children in the area of industrial, I’m thinking about maybe having some signs some children signs up so those truck driver’s know there may be wee ones running through parking lot. I have a concern about safety. Have you addressed that? Williams: We’ve been talking about those issues as I had mentioned earlier that the truck traffic would be to the north of the property. The way I’ve set this up just the lay of the building on the lot lins (sic) itself to that. Norton: But also 25 of your parking places are on the same side, is that correct? Williams: Right that’s a good point. Colleen and her partner Cindy and I, we’ve considered that there are things that were going to need to do because there are – at times there is going to be wee ones involved. Little ones there going to be family and kids can be running around and so on. So there are things that I’m going to have to address to cover those issues and signed would be one of those items. Particularly at the West End of the building as you see the flow of the traffic can flow around that building. One benefit we have is they do set off its about 65 feet to the east from that southwest corner. Even so it would be an excellent idea to have some signage up there and tell Federal Express or whoever – Norton: That there’s some children in the area. You did not submit a sign with this application so you will be submitting a sign a later date? Williams: Well I’m not sure about this one but I believe under the – what you’ve addressed just now that would be probably be a condition of the approval of the Conditional Use Permit . I believe on signage we need to go to P&Z and – Norton: That’s a separate permit for the signage. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 62 Williams: Correct for any signage that would be on the property itself. I suppose when you’re talking about a sign what you’re referring to it would similar to a handicap sign something of that nature. Norton: I guess I ‘m talking two different signs one for children in the area sign and the other thing since there was no sign submitted with this application regarding the academy you’ll being doing a separate permit for an academy sign. Williams: Yes. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? And since there is no one else in the audience I don’t need ask if we have any other public testimony I think. Did we have some discussion or are we – are we ready for a motion. Hatcher: I motion that we close the public hearing. Nary: I second. Borup: Motion second to close the public hearing, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Norton: I’m ready to make a motion Mr. Chairman I move that we recommend to City Council to approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit for proposed gymnastics, dance and karate instruction by Dave Williams – northeast corner of Ralstin and east Commercial Railside Business Park to include staff comments in addition to site-specific comment number three to add that warning signs to vehicle traffic shall be prominently placed on the site to warn the presence of children is on the property. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion is second, any discussion? All In favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Williams: Thank you. Item No. 9 Recommendation for vacation of public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along common lot lines Lots 22 and 23 Block 10 Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 6 by Ron Leslie. Borup: Brad. Hawkins-Clark: We received this application just a couple of weeks ago so I do not have any kind of staff report prepared for you. In the packet you did receive something from the applicant right? They’re looking to basically just put a single building on two existing Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 63 lots and in order to do that of course they have to vacate the easements between the two lots and that’s what this application is for. Shari has spoken with Ron Leslie and she sees no problems with it. Borup: I understand he needs to get signed releases from all the utilities I assume. That’s probably the first thing they told him isn’t it? Hawkins-Clark: I would hope so. Yes relinquishment of the easements. Borup: Even if there is no utilities there they need to do that. Any questions from the Commissioners? Well do we have a recommendation? You said they’re putting one dwelling? Hawkins-Clark: Right on two existing residentially zoned lots. The goal is to as I understand it merge the two lots into a single. We don’t have a real clean procedure at the City to merge – lot reduction. Borup: This comes up every once in awhile. Have we decided a good solution for that? Do we need an ordinance? Hawkins-Clark: Probably that would be item number 322 on Shari and Gary’s to-do list, I think. Borup: Well it hasn’t been that often maybe once a year. Hatcher: Brad in my past where we’ve had to do this scenario do you know any information as to the location of the building in reference to this lot line? Borup: As whether the building would cross the lot line. Hatcher: Because if the building crosses the lot line then it automatically joins them when they submit. Basically they’ll submit to you a building permit application saying they’re going to stick the building across the property line which right then and there nullifies that line. That’s how I’ve done it where I’ve had multiple parcels and taken the building and put it on multiple parcels it just basically uses the building to glue the lots together. Borup: I think what your saying if the easement is vacated the building is put just on one lot they can just come along later its still a legal lot and put another building – Hatcher: No that’s not what I was saying. Borup: I thought that’s been the City’s concern. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 64 Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Wouldn’t they need to do a lot line adjustment at some point since they’re going to put a – if they’re going to build a building across property lines as being suggested. The assessors still going to show there is two legal lots there. There going to show there’s a line down the middle of them that happens to have a building on top it, they may be joined realistically but there also probably going to need to do a lot line adjustment of some sort. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman I believe that the way the assessor’s office treats these is when there are adjacent lots and a common ownership after a certain length of time they automatically combine them. I don’t know that they actually have a formal process that you have to through to more or less vacate that common property line. Borup: You’re saying that’s a legal platted lot not adjoining parcels. Freckleton: Well yes. Swartley: So you are saying that after a certain period of time that lot line goes away, at the Assessor’s Office. Freckleton: I believe so. Swartley: There’s got to be some sort of mechanism that does that though it can’t just go away. Borup: I’m assuming I don’t want to put words in your mouth, as far the assessment would go away. Freckleton: The treatment by the Assessor’s Office. Swartley: But the plats still going to show a lot line. Nary: The county recorder’s still going to consider that to be two different pieces of property at some point – I guess its probably not our problem. (Inaudible conversation among Commission) Freckleton: you see this take Mr. Schmeckpeper’s application for instance. Mr. Schmeckpeper his building sets on the eastern 22 feet of lot whatever and the western thirty-some feet of another lot its just the way – Hatcher: One building on two lots – *** End of Side Four *** Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 65 Swartley: I can’t think back that far no I can’t repeat that. And again it may be just the way they handle the tax rules too. That’s a good point I don’t think that the line actually ever does go away since its platted. Nary: Mr. Chairman I guess so that its clear since (inaudible) asking to take so action here we don’t really have a staff report or anything else to go on. What is being requested here is a request to simply vacate a public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement that exists between these two parcels of property. The staff recommendation although we don’t have a report is they don’t have any objection to this vacation all the other stuff really isn’t relevant tonight. If we had a staff report it probably would pretty much simply just make this recommendation and there wouldn’t be any other facts that we need to have on the record to recommend to the Council. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman the only thing that I might point out is that we would probably comment on the fact that they need to go through the relinquishment process. That’s just a standard procedural thing they need to follow through with on there way to Council. Hatcher: Question – Borup: So we should include that in our motion? Hatcher: I see a discrepancy here that needs to be addressed. What's being addressed in the addendum or the agenda states that request for vacation of public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along a common lot line. Then on the application itself it just says description of proposed vacation the long common lot line. We can’t legally go by an agenda so where does it state on this application that the utilities and that stuff? Is that just standard when you get rid of a lot line? Where’s all this other stuff coming from? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman I could probably address that. The common lot lines standard have a common public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement. I think by reference their reference that’s -- guess it inferred. When you look at the recorded final plat for that subdivision that’s the only easement that exists on that common lot line is that combined public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement. Borup: And there are probably no utilities in it they normally don’t run anything down the common lines. Hatcher: I think there are some assumptions being made here because if I – you stated right off the bat when started talking about this we just got this a couple of weeks ago we really don’t know what he wants. I read this flat and simple he asking us to vacate the line. We don’t do re-platting. He wants us to vacate the parcel line between the two lots – Freckleton: That’s what the application reads? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 66 Hatcher: That’s the way I read it description – Nary: I agree Freckleton: We can’t vacate a line – Hatcher: Exactly and that’s what he’s asking us to do. We can’t vacate a line that’s re- platting. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Just one clarification there It reads a long the common lot line it doesn’t say to vacate the common lot line. Nary: It doesn’t say anything about easements though. Borup: No he leaves out easements but – Nary: What are we vacating? Borup: Well he’s vacating something that’s a long the lot line. He’s not vacating the lot line itself. Hatcher: Well again I read it as a long common lot – Swartley: Its kind of a deficient (inaudible) is what we’re going for here. Borup: You’re saying that a and long are two different words. Swartley: There’s obviously a discrepancy here I mean we have a problem and this is a deficient application. Which perhaps if the applicant were here he could clarify for us – Borup: Just by adding the word easements – Swartley: Its not our job – Borup: I know but that would clarify it. Swart: Right. Nary: Mr. Chairman Borup: We can still handle that in a motion say what it is we are vacating and if he doesn’t agree with it then he can re-apply. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 67 Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: The applicant met with the Planning and Zoning administrator and the Planning and Zoning administrator is the one who came up with the verbiage that is on your agenda. (Inaudible) as a result of her meeting with the applicant and her understanding of his request. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary: We have a meeting next Wednesday and we’re being asked to take this up without the applicant here. It would probably be a little cleaner for the Council if we’re going to make a motion and a recommendation to do something that the applicant be here so that he can state on the record this is what I’m wanting this is what this means. Because I agree with you the motion would probably take care of it but I think at least it would feel more comfortable if he was the person here making that statement on the record that we would then make a recommendation. Since it was noticed up on this agenda we can certainly set it over to next Wednesday ask the applicant to be here. I don’t think the agenda is real long. It shouldn’t take very long to do that. I think we all probably understand what he wants but it might be a little clearer for the Council if we had him stating it on the record. We just simply move to continue this to the 19th of July. Hatcher: Sounds like a plan to me. Swartley: Is that a motion? Hatcher: That’s a motion. Nary: I would move that we continue Item No. 9 the recommendation request for public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along the common lot line of Lots 22 and 23 Block 10 Lakes at Cherry Lane to our meeting on July 19th and we request that the applicant be present to explain what particular vacation he is asking us to recommend. Norton: Applicant or a letter maybe? Nary: Either in person or by letter that he has something that we can submit as part of the public record as to what he is asking to be vacated. Norton: I second that motion. Borup: Motion Second all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 68 Borup: Any opposed? Just a reminder before we do as been mentioned we have a meeting on the 19th which is to review the landscape ordinance. The reason we didn’t continue is because this Commission wanted more time to review it so I hope we’ve all had enough time or we will by then. Norton: and Becky Bowcutt will have her comments in writing she was going to make those comments in writing. Borup: Yes she was, Brad do you know whether Becky Bowcutt got written comments turned in on the landscape ordinance? Hawkins-Clark: I do not think so. Borup: I will make a note to try and give her a call. Norton: Because I would like to see that before we vote on that. Borup: That was the other option we have was a copy of the minutes, we got the minute we’ve got her comments right here. We recently asked for that thinking that we would want to review them before we got the minutes but – I assuming that no one here has read that anymore thoroughly than I have in the last three weeks. I read it prior to the meeting but I haven’t done it since then so we have some time to do that. And then we have our second meeting on the 25th and that’s why we have two meetings this month so we can get out before 10:30. Norton: Wait a minute we have what – Borup: Don’t we have another meeting on the 25th ? I had it down twice so the 19th was the second half of this months agenda and we added the landscape ordnance to that. that’s what fouled me up someone earlier said we had a separate agenda item. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we close the meeting. Norton: I second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:30 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 11, 2000 Page 69 KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK