Loading...
2001 08-16Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 16, 2001 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, August 16, 2001, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Bill Nary, Jerry Centers, and Sally Norton (late) Members Absent: Keven Shreeve. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Larry Moore, Tara Green, and Will Berg. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: X Sally Norton X Jerry Centers X Bill Nary O Keven Shreeve X Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. We would like to begin our regularly scheduled session of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and begin with roll call of the Commissioners. Commissioner Norton has mentioned she’ll be a little late this evening. She is not here at this time. Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of June 21, 2001 Planning and Zoning Special Workshop: B. Approve minutes of July 19, 2001 Planning and Zoning Regular Meeting: Borup: The first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the June 21st , July 19th . The July 19th I think was carried over from our last meeting because I think we didn’t have a quorum of those that were at that meeting and those that weren’t here hesitated to approve the minutes. Anyway, that’s on for tonight. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I would move the approval of both Items 3A and 3B, the minutes of the June 21, 2001 Planning and Zoning Special Workshop and the minutes of the July 19th Planning and Zoning Regular Meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 2 Centers: I would second that. Borup: Motion second. All in favor? MOTION TIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2001: PP 00-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 by Gemstar Properties, LLC – east of North Black Cat Road and south of West Ustick Road: Borup: Item No. 4 is a Continued Public Hearing from June 21st , request for Preliminary Plat, 30 building lots 16.4 acres for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision. Do we have any additional information from staff on that? I don’t think I see the applicant here. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners this application is for the subdivision on the west side of Black Cat. There is a letter from the applicant dated today, I don’t know if you got copies in your -- okay. This has been continued for some time. They are working out issues on sewer with the Public Works Department so they’ve requested to be deferred for an additional 30 days. If you want specifics on what they’re working on I’ll defer that to Bruce. Borup: I don’t know if it matters to -- so they want it for our next meeting a month from now, which would be September 20th ? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I’ll give you just a little bit of an update. Our consultant, J-U-B Engineers has been working on some modeling for us and we have received some first cuts of the output of that. We’re basically in the process of just trying to analyze that data and make some determinations on our own. I spoke with Brad Watson this afternoon about it and he figured everything would be wrapped up towards the end of August, first part of September. I think if we went to the 20th of September we would be safe. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Although this might become Spring Faire Subdivision by the time we actually hear this project, I would go ahead and move to continue Item 4, the PP 00-023 Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 to our September 20th meeting. Centers: I would second that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 3 Borup: Motion second to continue to September 20th . All in favor? MOTION TIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2001: CUP 01-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of the chamber office and visitor center in a C-G zone for Meridian Chamber of Commerce by Meridian Chamber of Commerce – 215 East Franklin Road: Borup: Item No. 5 is also a Continued Public Hearing from June 21st , request for a Conditional Use Permit for expansion of the Chamber Office and visitor’s center in a C-G zone for the Meridian Chamber of Commerce. We have the previous staff report. I think we’ve got our revised plans and a layout so Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. You should have an updated staff report dated August 8, 2001 on this project. It is the Chamber of Commerce and visitor’s center building that is in Storey Park. Storey Park as a whole is outlined in red. You can see the speedway as a landmark. It’s easy to recognize but the Chamber of Commerce building sits just off of Franklin in this location here currently zoned C-G. All the surrounding zoning is, across Franklin Road its Old Town. This is the revised site plan. You’ll recall if you remember the original site plan it was coming out to the east which was over the existing irrigation easement for I believe it’s the Nine Mile -- the Nine Mile Drain I think. They have revised their plan since that would not work. The existing building is remaining where it is. The new addition projects out front. The existing parking is remaining as is. There is an optional addition that does go out to the west. They are reconfiguring the restrooms in that location for use by the park users. No particular points of contention to point out so, I’ll just let the staff report stand as is and stand for comments. Borup: Okay thank you. Is there anything that the applicant wanted to add? Driscoll: (Inaudible). Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? I think the main problem before is the building was over the easement and the Irrigation District wouldn’t approve it. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Nary. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 4 Nary: I only have one question. Probably Steve can answer it. The optional addition, isn’t really optional? They are going to build that. That’s part of what we’re approving? (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: The optional addition I believe is the restroom that the City is going to be paying for. Driscoll: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners my name is Bill Driscoll. I’m the President of Meridian Chamber of Commerce. The optional addition actually is not going to be built. I mean we are going to expand the restrooms to the west, making them bigger at the request of the Parks Department but that optional addition was we were considering going that way as opposed going south. Then we decided it was best to go south. Borup: Okay. Driscoll: So that optional is not being -- it’s on the east. Borup: The building plan we have does not even show the optional addition then? Driscoll: No it does not. Borup: Okay. Driscoll: I mean the restrooms will extend to the west some to accommodate the new fixtures. Nary: Just so I understand Mr. Chairman on this floor plan that I’m looking at that’s dated July 24th that shows the floor plan and it shows where the restrooms are. It shows some additional like 13 and a half feet or approximately extended out. Is that part of what’s -- Driscoll: It is part of that optional addition. Nary: Okay, so that part is going to be built? That’s what we’re approving? Driscoll: Yes. Nary: It’s not quite as far over as that -- Driscoll: Yes. Nary: Okay that’s great. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 5 Borup: Okay, any other questions from the Commission? Thank you Mr. Driscoll. Commissioners? I’m sorry do we have anyone else here that would like to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Unless there’s any discussion I would like to move that we close the Public Hearing for Item 5. Nary: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Any discussion or you know -- I would like to move that we approve and send to the City Council for their approval Item 5 the Continued Public Hearing for CUP 01-017, request for Conditional Use Permit for the expansion for the Chamber Office and Visitor’s Center for the Meridian Chamber of Commerce by the Meridian Chamber of Commerce. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion is second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT Siddoway: Just for clarification, that motion included all staff comments? Borup: Yes. Centers: Excuse me, it certainly does. Borup: We always want to include all staff comments unless we say otherwise. Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 2001: CUP 01-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a dual restaurant with drive-thru in a C-G zone for Kentucky Fried Chicken by G & H Enterprises II – 677 East First Street: Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 6 Borup: Item No. 6 is another Continued Public Hearing request for a Conditional Use Permit for a dual restaurant drive-thru in a C-G zone for Kentucky Fried Chicken by G&H Enterprises. They’ve submitted a new revised site plan. We do have the ACHD report now. Any additional information Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: Actually we don’t have an ACHD report based on the revised plan. We have the original one and some modifications have been made. Such as removing one of the driveways. However, ACHD does want the chance to review this new plan and have a chance to submit comments. You should have an updated letter from David McKinnon in our office dated August 9, 2001 stating that these revised plans were submitted on August 7th and that we don’t expect comments back from the agencies until after this meeting. So, we recommend continuing this one as well until September 6th or the 20th . Generally these would go to the second meeting as a continued item which would be the 20th . So that staff will have a chance to review and incorporate any additional comments that may be generated by the new site plan from the other agencies. Borup: A point of clarification. This the new revised plan is not the one ACHD --. Are you sure? That is not the one ACHD reviewed? Siddoway: No it is not. The original plan is what ACHD reviewed. They have requested and opportunity to comment on this revised one. Borup: Okay. I guess I was under the impression they had reviewed this one. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Yes, it appears at least the ACHD report indicates Commission it says June 27th August 1st . Then this plan is dated the 7th . Borup: The dates don’t – Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I guess I would agree with the planner. You know that’s a heavily trafficked corner there if you want to call it a corner, intersection, whatever. So, I think they do need to look at that report. It could be interesting. Unless there’s further discussion, I’d like to move that we postpone it to a meeting September 20th ? Do you think -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 7 Borup: Is the applicant here or his representative? They must have been planning on that anyway. Siddoway: They’ve had a copy of this – Borup: Letter? Siddoway: -- memo since – Borup: Okay. Siddoway: Their preference is to be continued to September 6th but the 20th is the standard time. Borup: The site changes, they eliminated an entrance which was the main objection from ACHD. Siddoway: Yes, there are also some sidewalk issues that need to be worked out. Borup: That’s one other thing I wondered. Did they get the right-of-way thing worked out with them? Siddoway: I don’t know. Borup: I didn’t see an indication that it really was. Siddoway: They were negotiating on amounts of right-of-way about what sidewalk is to be built. What sidewalk is to be bonded for future construction? The width of the driveway is a point of contention. They’re showing 40 feet. ACHD allows, on the revised plan they’re showing 40 feet. ACHD allows only 35 as the maximum generally so they are working through some of those issues with ACHD still. I’m prepared to comment on some of the issues that we’ve identified but I don’t know that that’s relevant at this point. Borup: Okay were you prepared to make a motion Commissioner Centers? Centers: Yes. Continuing on I would like to move that we postpone Item 6 the CUP 01-021 request for a Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant and drive through for KFC by G&H Enterprises. Postpone that until the September 20th meeting. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion is seconded. We have an open agenda for that night so we have the two continued right now is all. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 8 (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nary: Commissioner Centers did note that he would not be here that particular night. Item 7. Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 2001: AZ 01-011 Request for annexation and zoning of 9.79 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Franklin Mini Storage by Ron Osborne – 1975 East Franklin Road: Item 8. Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 2001: CUP 01-024 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a storage unit on 9.79 acres with one office/commercial pad for Franklin Mini Storage by Ron Osborne – 1975 East Franklin Road: Borup: Item No. 7 is a Continued Public Hearing from July 5th . A request for annexation and zoning of 9.79 acres from RUT to C-G for Franklin Mini-Storage by Ron Osborne. Our previous motion by Commissioner Norton, the motion was to continue it for three items. I want to review that. Three purposes, one to hear a representative of the homeowner’s association which we have received a letter from them. I’m confused on the three -- the other was that the applicant and Woodbridge representative would get together. Now I’m not sure what the third item was. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: What I wrote in my notes was again I think I would just say that it was limited to simply getting input and comment back from the Woodbridge Subdivision people, O’Neill and the other builders as well. The Greenhill Estates Subdivision Homeowner’s Association and then of course then for Mr. Osborne the applicant a response to those comments. Borup: Okay. That must have been the third item. I’d like to continue this hearing. Any additional staff comment at this time Steve? Siddoway: Not if everyone feels familiar with the project. I’ll just leave the site photos and the site plans. I will simply put up the site plan and let you continue. One minor thing that I would like the applicant to speak to if he can. If we can, there are some slight differences between the site plan and the plan that’s on the landscape plan for example the depth of these is much shallower on this plan than on the previous plan. See, they’re much larger here. Also, on this end row, this site plan has fewer units than this one does. So, I’m just wanting to clarify what exactly we’re approving. Other than that; that’s all I have. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 9 Borup: Okay. Is the applicant or representative here -- like to come forward? Mr. Brown, is that you? Do we have anyone from the public who would like to come forward? The applicant prefers not to. Come on up. Oh, you changed your mind? You do want to? Okay. Brown: Kent Brown, Briggs Engineering 1800 West Overland Boise Idaho. Since we last met we’ve met with the Greenhill Neighborhood Association and made the presentation to them and have discussed it with them. We’ve also met with the Woodbridge Builder’s Team and have discussed things with them numerous times. In fact that’s where we were out in the hall finalizing one of their proposals and going through that. As a part of some of the notations from the Greenhill Neighborhood Association, they voiced a concern that this would create strip development on the south side of Franklin Road. As you know from the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan calls for this to be estate housing from there to the corner of Eagle and Franklin. In my opinion that would not create that kind of strip development necessarily storage units. As you look at them, I think should be viewed as a residential use. They’re a -- quite mobile home park that people take up spaces and visit infrequently and yet they own a space. It would be like having a mobile home park in Arizona during the summertime, most everybody goes back home where it’s a little cooler. They also spoke to different building types on the backside of the building and the discussion about having some shrub. As I discussed it with our Landscape Architect, we have put shrubs up against the building with the tree line that was originally discussed with the Planning and Zoning Commission previously. This upper view, the CC section would show that with the shrubs and would help break up that wall because it is 22 feet high. It should be noted here in this area that there would be a cut of about 6 feet and by the time you got here where our first phase it would be a 1 foot cut along there along the property line from a grading standpoint. So, the building would be a little bit lower in that location and would allow the trees to be a little bit taller in that area. That’s how we propose to work with those ideas. Borup: Is this the Landscaping Plan that the association saw or a previous one? Brown: The previous one is the one that was at our last hearing. It showed a line of trees -- Borup: Okay. They didn’t show the -- Brown: They mentioned in the discussion that the trees will take a while to screen the buildings and asked about having some shrubs or something underneath -- Borup: That’s what’s showing is adding the shrubs? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 10 Brown: Right. Borup: So, you’ve still got a mixture of trees with the – Brown: Correct. Borup: -- evergreen mixed in. Brown: So, we’ve got trees and shrubs here. Those shrubs against the building will work with an ability to help break up that wall in our opinion. Without changing the construction material. We’re still proposing to put all metal on that backside but put shrubs closer to the building to help give that wall depth by having the shrubs closer to it. Borup: With that grade cut you’re talking about that’s going to have a taller foundation, concrete foundation up to that point. The retaining wall – Brown: (Inaudible) as we have the water that’s going to other direction so we don’t really have -- Borup: So, it would just be graded down to that point from the subdivision? Oh, okay, you’ve got a cross section. Brown: In meeting with, initially with the Woodbridge people there was a discussion that what they would like is 130 feet here along the southerly boundary to act as a park for additional space along the greenbelt that will eventually go in there. They asked for a continuous building to be put at that 130-foot mark that we go east west to help screen that. They also asked – Borup: Their letter said 120. They probably wouldn’t mind 130. Brown: We’re going to the 120 – Borup: Oh, you’re getting to that? Okay. Brown: If you’ll be patient with me. They asked for some open space to help break up the roofline here and to put some trees between Phase 1 and Phase 2. After we had those discussions with them we modified our plan. We pulled the units further away and in our original plan we had just a building here. Now we’ve put the covered storage. We’ve left an opening for the sewer people to have access. It has a 2-fold effect. As you look at our building lengths, we are under the requirement for us to have the fire, one hour two hour walls that block puts into them. These would just be pitched roofs and by keeping them this short we’re under the square footage that kicks in that requirement. We felt that that was beneficial. These units here would also hopefully be under that frame and not require that to break up the roof but also provides access to the sewer. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 11 What we’ve looked at is that the way we’ve had this proposed, we have 150 feet from our property line to the closest point here at this building and as you look at the common areas again for the Snorting Bull Development, we’re still 110 feet from the closest point to our building. At this point we’re 80 feet from our property line but the Woodbridge development has common area that’s adjacent to that. Then this building at an angle the closest point is 45 feet from our property line but that 45 feet is adjacent to the Woodbridge’s open area and common area. With the Five Mile Drain running between us, you basically have 40 feet on our side, 40 plus feet and then the Woodbridge’s proposed alignment for the Five Mile Pathway. We maintain that pathway being centered through here with trees on either side of it. We feel that it meets adequately what the intent was. What this proposed design does is keeps us as far away as possible from the buildable units and yet lets us use the maximum of our space in the location next to their common area but still provides and adequate pedestrian walkway for future residents as they will travel on the greenbelt. We also proposed shortening the units 13 through 17 and increasing the landscaping from our sewer manhole here on our site to allow us to beef up more landscaping in that location. I met with the Plants. They had testified in the previous meeting and said that I slighted them by not visiting with them. Their concern was that we would have some kind of solid fencing as they keep animals in their property. As we’ve met with the different associations, Greenhill and Woodbridge and the Plants, what our plan is to put a 3 rail white vinyl fence around the entire site as best we can except where we cross the Five Mile to help keep the animals in this second phase as well as to screen our current property line. We have a barbed wire fence that’s cedar split poles currently, lots of it is falling down. We’d like to put that 3 rail fence all the way around our project and then put chain link fence against our asphalt to provide us with the security that we need. Between the first and second phases, we would like to put that 3-rail vinyl fence in there until such time as we feel that there’s a security need. To somewhat go along with what the Woodbridge people were concerned with we propose putting vines and shrubs along that fence between the first and second phase. Commissioner Norton arrives at 7:31 P. M. Brown: One item that was brought up in our previous hearing was an error in our dates. We have made that modification. Our purpose has always been 7 to 10 years in doing the second phase. One of the owners in the Greenhill neighborhood association would prefer it to be quicker. As I understand he was going to send you a letter asking for that to be quickened. We proposed and moved the units around and propose putting a 2 12 pitch on all of our 30 foot wide building at this end to help make them look more residential. We also proposed blocking the ends and then putting metal over that so that there’s a change and trying to make them look a little more residential but still have that permanency that we need and the low maintenance that we need. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 12 Borup: Did you say two twelve or three twelve? Brown: We proposed three twelve. This is what came from Woodbridge. Borup: All those came from Woodbridge? Okay. Brown: Just prior to the meeting we met with the Woodbridge people again and the information that you were talking about where they’re now --. After they saw our plan they modified it back to 120 feet from 130. We were in discussing that when you called us forward. They asked us to lower the height of this building and to put a berm across the back. We’ve come to agreement on many of those items. Hopefully I can touch on most of those. They asked for a 10-foot landscaping to be put on the west side of all of the storage units. We felt comfortable with 6 and I think we’ve come to an agreement about that, to put landscaping at the end of each one of these units. It will help soften them immediately even though this landscaping will go in way in advance, it will soften the look of those building. We are also in agreement to change from block to metal to create some texture on that end of the building. We are also in agreement with wrapping the block around the corners of the building on that end. Borup: Excuse, me. Do you have a copy of this? Brown: I just barely got one just before the meeting. Yes. Borup: Because you’re hitting and missing and I guess what I would like to see and maybe if its not reasonable tell me, address each item where you agree or disagree and just go down through it. Brown: Okay. Borup: What do you think? Brown: That sounds reasonable. Borup: Okay. Brown: At this point, we’re still having difficulty with providing 120 feet. We are on item B for the site plan. Taking that rear building and having the shed roof. We discussed with them a height of 14 feet and 20 feet for the height of that building maintaining the same pitch. We discussed – Borup: What was your original intention for that building to be? Brown: 17 and 22. The same as the one that’s on the east side. We discussed putting a berm of 5 feet in the trade off for those height exceptions. We’re still at Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 13 odds with item D with regards to a 20-foot landscaping strip. Item E, the 6-foot planter. We’re not opposed to A, B, C. D, we still feel that two twelve pitches is adequate. As I researched this with other storage units that have recently been placed. There’s one to my knowledge that had a three twelve pitch. They also put asphalt shingles on that one. The units themselves were within 25 feet of these people’s backyards and were taller buildings than the ones we’re proposing. Therefore we still feel that no matter how much we dress these up, these are still storage units. They’re going to look like storage units. We’re not opposed to doing them well but, -- and that’s where we --. The fencing, item A, we’re in agreement with. Item B, we’re in agreement with. Item A, again for the outdoor storage we’re in agreement with. I think that we’ve come to an agreement with them. We really don't have soffit but it’s lighting that’s forcing down. There’s not going to be any pole. The same condition as the one that you’ve asked in your staff report. The hours of operation, we’re in agreement. D, I don’t see any problem with having the E or F to be reviewed. The phasing, we’re committed to 5 to 10 years or 7 to 10 years. Centers: Mr. Brown. You’re concurring with his decorative block columns and the wainscot that he’s, decorative block waistcoat that he’s – Brown; Correct. The minimum of 3 feet, obviously we would like to do it a little more. Centers: And you didn’t have that in your original plan? Brown: No. Centers: I’ve got to tell you I wasn’t here July 5th . Brown: No, it was not on the original plan. They were strictly a metal building with one and a half to twelve pitch at that point. Are there any questions? Borup: So, essentially you say you’re in agreement on everything except for, under the site plan? Those items? (inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners) Borup: I would say we’re at --. Those are probably some modification. We’ll probably get some information from Mr. O’Neill and maybe not that far off. Brown: We really aren't that far off. They have been meaning well to meeting with us. When we figured the 130 feet, it figures to be just under an acre of ground. I guess, I don’t know if it’s the principle of the thing or is it really needed to be compatible. Squeezing the driving aisles down. We feel that we need that room. They’ve in their site plan and I’m sure that they can explain that to you, they’re maintaining a similar square footage. I guess it – Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 14 Nary: How much buffer did you want again? Sorry. I just can’t remember what you said earlier. They want 120, in this suggestion. What was the amount that you wanted? Brown: In the plan that we proposed to them our narrowest point is 45. At this point, but we’re 150 at this point where we’re closer to their houses. Centers: How wide is that lateral and how wide is their common space. How close are you to the closest house? Brown: From the lateral going south, its 600 to 700 feet to their clubhouse is that location. Since you weren’t here for the previous meeting. We’re looking at developing the first phase. Centers: Right, I got that. Brown: And waiting 7 to 10 years on the second phase but putting in the landscaping for the first phase. Centers: Would you accept a condition that you could not develop it prior to 7 years? Brown: Yes. We would want that condition. Borup: The 150 feet was to the property line? Brown: Yes it is. Borup: So, the house would be in back from that? Brown: Correct. Nary: Mr. Chairman. My recollection was that there’s some green space, there’s a clubhouse and then there’s some houses. Isn’t there parking, a green space and then more houses? Brown: There’s a cul de sac on the opposite side of their residential collector that comes in. Nary: So, what I heard you say was on the side of the building where its approximately 45 feet from your property line, its approximately 6 or 700 feet from the clubhouse? Where the houses are a few hundred feet further out from that? Brown: The houses go along this way. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 15 Nary: I see. So, the houses aren’t directly south of that 45-point? Brown: That’s their open space. Nary: That’s all open space. It’s a little bit more towards the west? It’s out west? Borup: There it shows again Bill up there on the screen. Nary: Thank you. Is that right? Brown: You’re right. As you look at the site, their clubhouse and I’m guessing but it’s approximately 100 feet north of that collector, residential collector road. One thing I would like to point out and it was discussed in the previous hearing, the proposed uses for our commercial pad. As you look at the commercial zone that we’re in, there’s many retail ones. We’re not interested in any retail uses of this site. We are looking at offices, business and sales offices, real estate sales, I mean insurance offices. Those kind. Medical clinic, dental clinic, optometrists, maybe an auto car wash or truck or moving rental, a U-Haul type of facility. Centers: How big is that site? Brown: Inside the landscaping is 121 by 161 and I’m looking for what that --. .78 acres, something like that. Centers; What? Brown: .78 Centers: I have a question for staff. Excuse me. In the existing comprehensive plan, what was the proposed zoning for this parcel? Siddoway: Mixed planned use development. Centers: How about the proposed new comp plan? Siddoway: It’s currently shown as commercial. In last year’s draft it was shown as residential. Brown: It also shows a higher density residential to the west of us in the current and proposed. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Was there intention to either limit the uses of that commercial property through a development agreement? I heard Mr. Brown say Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 16 they were not interested in certain types of development anyway. Was that one of the conditions that I just don’t recall? Borup: But, you’re not opposed to that? Brown: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nary. Commissioner Nary in a previous hearing had asked for us to come back with what kind of uses we would --. Nary: Okay. Brown: That was my purpose in doing that. Nary: I wondered if there was some intention to then put some limitation on that since --. The reason I asked that I noted in here that Greenhill Estates have the concern I think they probably used a saying that the over development and strip development. Since that’s not the intention to put a drive through restaurant there maybe that’s something we want to – Brown: We’re not opposed to that. Siddoway: The staff report simply says if annexed, all future uses shall be required to go through the planned development process as a conditional use. (inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners) Borup: Mr. O’Neill did you have some additional you’d like --? Did you have -- (inaudible from audience) Borup: Do you have some things that you would like to add? O’Neill: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Derick O’Neill, 168 North Ninth Boise Idaho. I’m here tonight representing Woodbridge community LLC, the builders in that community and the homeowner’s association. At your request and we appreciate it last meeting we have met with the applicant several times. I think we’re darn close to something that would work for us and work for them. Borup: From my notes, they’re in agreement on everything, on items on your letter, 22 3, 4, and 5 except maybe the roof pitch. O’Neill: Yes, I think I can – Borup: Most of it was on the site plan it looks like. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 17 O’Neill: Maybe I might just focus on that so we can move this forward. I think its important to note though that when we met with them a couple of times we asked them if they’d mind us addressing the site plan and still achieving the same amount of square footage or still getting them the same building are if we could do it in a different way that would make them more compatible with us. They were ameniable to that. The plan that we’ve shown still has the equivalent amount of square footage as the earlier plan so they’re not losing any storage space. They are giving up some more space in terms of open space. I can completely understand why they feel maybe the principle of that just isn’t right. We’ve tried to do a plan that gives them the same square footage building wise which they’ll be able to rent up and do the same thing. Then we’ve tried to do it so it buffers ourselves. In terms of the one condition No. A, no buildings located closer than 120 feet from the south property line. That’s what we’re showing on the map here. We’re also trying to show one continuous building. You can see the elevation (inaudible) makes that a little bit softer feel from our neighbors. A couple of important things. As you can see the houses that are right up here in this corner are at a higher elevation so they are looking down. There will be houses right in this corner as well. Borup: All that’s in your next phase? O’Neill: (inaudible) so right up there. So, the 130 feet might have been an arbitrary number. The 120 feet still may be arbitrary. We feel it’s important. I guess we would be willing to come off that a little bit but definitely – Borup: You’re saying you’d prefer the 120 to the 150 that they’re proposing against the residential lots. O’Neill: Yes, I think (inaudible). We would be more comfortable with it blocking off the whole backside of the project (inaudible). Instead of the 2 buildings with the angle the way they have it. We feel that is very important to us. We also think it’s probably important to the city and could be a benefit for the city as well. As you know from Franklin Boulevard all the way up the St. Luke’s area or Magic View, there will be a greenbelt for the city. We have already put in a portion of that and will continue that in the second phase. They’re going to put in a little portion of it and we think that would just make a better environment for people using the greenbelt up and down. There’s more purpose than just for us. We definitely feel that makes it tie in and is much more residential in character. Item B, I do want to clarify that. We do agree to 14 feet instead of 10 feet in the rear. We’d also agree to 20 feet instead of 16 feet in the rear. That is a correct change to that condition if they want to do that. The landscape berm we would like to see changed to a minimum of 5 feet instead of 3. We’re in agreement on that. The other item, the internal landscape planter buffer 20 by 180 at the south end of phase 1 (inaudible). We think that real important is there’s houses up higher that are going to be looking over this to break up all the buildings. We think that’s just Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 18 going to soften it and break it. I know, they’re not in agreement with that. They’re worried about the long-term maintenance of it. We’ve got islands in projects. We’ve got trees – ***End of Side One*** O’Neill: -- there is a maintenance issue but I think overall it makes the project a much better project and something that fits into an area where there’s residential around 3 sides of the project. The 10-foot planter on the west end of the building (inaudible). They’re in agreement on that. We’ll move it to 6-foot minimum. We’re a little concerned about that and the amount of space to put the landscaping in but we’re willing to do it in 6 feet. I think that could be a problem for them but 6 feet will work so we’re in agreement with that. Then under architecture, we think that it is important to go to a three twelve roof pitch. We think that does give it a more residential character. The cost involved is nothing major at all. There is not a huge cost involved into it and I think it just makes the project better. Then the rest of the conditions they agreed to, so I think those were the big issues. We’re willing to move forward if these conditions are recommended up to the Council. We think its good. They have worked well with us. I think they are continuing to work well with us. We’re close. Borup: Okay. Any questions for Mr. O’Neill? Thank you. We had someone else who wanted to testify on this? Smith: David Smith, 2166 East Autumn Way Meridian. I’m a member of the Greenhill Estates homeowner’s association. I believe you already have a copy of the --. A report to the City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission from the Greenhill Estates homeowner’s association. Really just about everything that’s on here has already been discussed this evening. You know the item No. 1 the change of zoning could trigger further commercial development along Franklin if no commercial zoning is approved but it sounds like commercial is already the zoning there. Borup: But, they had agreed to limit it to, Mr. Smith, to some restricted uses like office buildings – Smith: Right. Borup: -- and that kind of stuff which seems to be in line with what you’re letter was indicating. Smith: And number 2 has already been addressed. Our main concern was you know the exterior be of either brick, stone, lamp siding, stuccoed or you know anything of the like in that area. At our meeting back on July 18th you know all we were getting there was, or in my understanding was lap siding. Lap siding could be you know anything. No wood, no steel and there’s many different types of lap Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 19 siding. It sounds like they’ve already addressed that to our satisfaction. If the proposed use is approved, this is number 3, the landscaping should consist of an attractive mix of trees and shrubs. They’ve already addressed that. Borup: You saw their new landscaping plan and agree with that? Smith: (inaudible) the following officers of the Greenhill Estates Homeowner’s association on August 10th , Sam Snider, Dave Smith, Kim Nolton, Sandra Baker, Keith Cooley and Karen Madre. I would also like to state that at our meeting on July 18th there was only one person that expressed any concern about going beyond 2 years for the phase 2. Therefore the association members feel that if Ron wants to go 7 to 10 years, that’s fine with the association. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Smith? Thank you. David, come on up. Paulson: My name is Steve Paulson. I live at 145 Thornwood Drive, its lot 9 on one of the plans there. This is the first time I’ve heard or seen anything about the modified plans. I really haven’t even seen them. It sounds like Ron and Kent worked it out pretty much with the Woodbridge people but I’m a homeowner that’s going to be effected on the Greenhill side. There’s another homeowner I’m sure has some concerns too. I would just like to be, you know, be included and have some input on my site. I mean it sounds like they’ve taken care of the Woodbridge side of this. Borup: The first part of his presentation was on the Greenhill side. That’s where the extra landscaping was added, on the Greenhill side. Paulson: Okay but from my understanding it’s a 22-foot metal wall with a couple of small shrubs and skinny trees that’s going to be on my side. You know, they’re getting a berm on their side and that’s always kind of been an issue with me. I don’t want to look at a 22-foot wall. I understand it’s going to block the rest of the development off of my area. I would like to have you know, just to be included a little bit more in whatever plans they have here. I haven’t seen any of this until just – Borup: You did not go to the meeting then? Paulson: No, I went to the Greenhill Association meeting. Borup: When they made their presentation? Paulson: Yes, with the old landscaping. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 20 Paulson: Not this new one that they just seem to you know work out with the O’Neill people here. I’d just like to, me and the other homeowner I’m sure would like to have a little more input on our side of it. Instead of just a tall metal wall I’d like to see you know I’d prefer a decorative brick at least half way up or a berm at least part of the way up instead of just a wall. Borup: Did you have a chance to see their drawings? Paulson: No, I haven’t seen any of this. Borup: Maybe when we have some other testimony you might have a chance to do that. (inaudible discussion from audience) Borup: It seems you’re asking to put a brick up and then a lot of plants to hide the brick. Paulson: No. Just either a berm or they would have to have some sort of (inaudible) like something else to break up the monotony of a 22-foot high – Borup: That’s why I was wondering if you had a chance to see their drawings. Paulson: Driving by other mini storage units, that I’ve been looking at especially lately I’ve seen these new ones and you know the trees take what 20 years to mature or something and they start at 6 foot high so I’m going to be looking at a metal wall with a skinny tree in front of it for the next 15 years. It’s just some concerns. I just appreciate Ron or Kent including me and the other homeowners that this is going to effect. It borders our property, not necessarily the association because you’ve already heard what the input that we had from the meeting of that but just a, you know, we could have a little input and stuff. I realize its probably going to go in. There’s nothing I can do about it. But I would like to have a say in how it’s going to look out my back door. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Paulson, weren’t you here on the 5th of July? Paulson: Yes I was. Nary: Okay. Were you here when ---. My notes indicated that you had a concern about your view. I didn’t make a note that you had a concern about the wall. But were you here when we sent it back to your homeowner’s association to provide that comment? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 21 Paulson: I’m sorry? Nary: Were you sitting here when we sent it back for this specific meeting today for the Greenhill Association to provide us the comments? Paulson: To provide us comments? Yes I was. Nary: They have provided the comments. Their request wasn’t for a berm. Their request was for more vegetation and landscaping. Paulson: Correct. Nary: Which they’re in agreement with, Mr. Osborne is in agreement to do. Paulson: And then this is – Nary: So, this is your individual concern? This is not the homeowner’s associations? Paulson: Right. This is my concern because I border this property. I understand the Greenhill’s Association neighborhood association has their concerns and they’ve addressed them to you. Nary: Did you express this at the July 18th homeowner’s association meeting as well? Paulson: Yes, to Mr. Cooley and they just wanted to get a package for you guys basically but now all this new information has come up from the meeting tonight that I just heard about. Nary: What information? That they would put for landscaping? Paulson: the one I just addressed about them talking with the Woodbridge people and you know agreements on berms and stuff like that coming up. Now, the first time I’ve seen this, well I haven’t even really had a chance to look at it. But, I just want to be included and I want to see what’s going. Its been changed since the original one that’s been shown to me and I haven’t even seen this changed one. Nary: I guess, Mr. Paulson, the only thing I wanted was why do you think you weren’t included? We set it over a month and a half to allow your homeowner’s association to provide us with some comment. Paulson: Correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 22 Nary: They have. I guess I don’t --. Just because a different homeowner’s association proposed some alternatives that some are in agreement by the applicant and some are not doesn’t mean we should set it over another time – Paulson: I’m not asking you to delay it or anything like that. I understand its probably going to go in. Again, what my point is, I’d just like to be included and have some input on what it’s going to look like from my side. Nary: Okay. Paulson: That’s my whole point here. Borup: Maybe one thing that might help. You may need to maybe just go back and talk to Mr. Brown but there’s a cross section that shows the grade difference. I think that might clarify some of that for you. I’m not sure what point that cross section was taken but it is on their plan that they’ve got right there. Paulson: Okay. Borup: In fact you could probably even go back right now and take a look at that with a little more detail. Paulson: Okay. One other concern that wasn’t ever brought up. There’s an irrigation ditch back there. From when I talked with Kent or Ron, they just plan on burying it. Now, I don’t know the laws or anything about covering it up. But there is different run offs from different levels. I just haven’t figured out – Borup: The ditch is on the Osborne’s property? Paulson: Is it on your guys’ ? Yes, it’s on their property. We have – Borup: Wasn’t that a requirement from the staff from the city to --? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, there are state statutes that protect irrigation water. If it’s an irrigation ditch that’s supplying water through their project they have the responsibility of continuing that through. Borup: And it’s also a city requirement to bury it? Siddoway: It is. To pipe it and bury it. Borup: Pipe it and bury it. They’re not just going to fill it in. Siddoway: If it’s a waste ditch we’re talking about --. Is that what it is? So. Its live irrigation water. Yes, they will be tiling the ditch. They will have to provide, if you have a take out point on that ditch, they will have to provide you with a take out Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 23 point at that same location. Their responsibility is to deliver your historical flow to that historical location. Paulson: Okay, we’re above them. It flows into them but I distribute it just from flood irrigation. Then Butch on the other side of Me., It pans out, it doesn’t go straight down – Borup: So, it’s also a waste ditch? It’s a waste ditch also? Paulson: I don’t know how to describe it. Its you know, I don’t know the terms – Borup: But you were saying, so your excess water, where does it go? Paulson: We’re above them so it flows from us into them. Borup: Into that ditch? Paulson: It fingers off. It doesn’t go straight down the designated irrigation ditch. It you know, we have it finger off and flood off. I’m just trying to figure out how they’re going to bury it if it floods off everywhere instead of being just an open ditch like it is. Borup: So, you’re saying your excess wastewater goes into that ditch at the present time? Paulson: Yes. It always has. Centers: You don’t get your water out of that ditch? Paulson: I’m sorry, not out of his site. No, I’m above him so it comes from me – Centers: (inaudible) Paulson: -- into his. Centers: At your property so that the excess water doesn’t just flow down there. Paulson: There’s the berm right there that I’m – Centers: I mean you may have to put a berm on your property. Paulson: Okay. Again I’m not familiar with these and I’m from Seattle. I’ve only been here 2 years. Centers: Let me ask you this while I’ve got you. Does your property, back property line, abut their property line? It does? Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 24 Nary: Could you point it out to us? Borup: One of these 2 lots? Paulson: It’s the one that looks like the kite right there. Borup: Right there? Okay. Paulson: The line drawn along the back is where the irrigation – Borup: Oh, that’s? Okay. Paulson: That’s where it flows into it. It runs the length of everybody’s back. Yes, just like that. Then his runs parallel. Yes, like that. That’s the way that works. That’s all I had. There was some issues that just was brought up that I wanted to address. Borup: Thank you Mr. Paulson. Paulson: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Lauer: Good evening. My name is Doug Lauer. I live at 247 south Thornwood, just south of Mr. Paulson. Similar concerns. With the new drawings I would appreciate some time to review them and comment on those since I was (inaudible) the opinion of the previous drawings. With that I was unable to attend the Greenhill Estates meeting. We sent comments in. I don’t know how they were considered or anything. Similar comment on the irrigation ditch. I’ve never seen it on the cross sections and addressed and I don’t know if they’ve addressed it with the irrigation people. Similar considerations as Woodbridge and Mr. Paulson. It would be nice if we didn’t have a 22 foot wall to look at and if we could have that lowered and get the three twelve pitch, roof pitch. That would be of some benefit, ease the view and make it more aesthetic. Of course I’m concerned about the trees and the maturity of them but I also recognize, I appreciate to what they have recommended doing. In that they have made some efforts to improve upon it. I haven’t had a chance to look at the drawings. I understood the 3 rail fence to go completely around the property with a chain link fence as necessary in between. I just would like to clarify that. I’d just like to – Borup: You’re question was which side had which type of fence? Lauer: Yes, that there would be 3 rail fence behind, between me and the back of the building, where the current barb wire fence is. That’s what I understood when they were speaking. The other thing I think, you know the key thing is the association that’s representing Greenhill Estates, they don’t know --. They Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 25 represent it from an association standpoint. They’re concerned primarily about the development on Franklin and how it effects the majority of the association but they don’t necessarily represent Mr. Paulson and myself as much you know because it directly effects us. Most of the rest of the subdivision it does not really impact unless it’s out on Franklin and so forth. You can take their comments but it is from that perspective I believe more than from the prospective of the homeowners that it directly impacts. With that, I think that’s all I have to say at this time. I would like the opportunity to review the drawings though and work with Mr. – with Mr. Osborne to resolve and see if we can come to an agreement much like the Woodbridge people have. We don’t have the strength that the Woodbridge subdivision where they have a lot of drafting and engineering and that to support their efforts. We’re just 2 homeowners and our association isn’t as interested in that because we’re already developed where they’re still trying to sell homes. Thank you. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Lauer? Thank you sir. Lauer: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Chairman, I just had one question. Mr. Lauer, I had a note here that a Kim Lauer spoke at our July 5th meeting— Lauer: Yes she did. That’s my wife. Nary: Okay. Because my notes indicate that her concern was the barbwire. Lauer: Yes, the 3-rail fence addresses that issue. And I am concerned about the irrigation ditch that they’ve never addressed it. Maybe they do in the new cross section. I don’t know. Nary: They’re just bound by what the law requires them to do. Lauer: To our knowledge they can’t enclose it but if the city has a different rule then maybe (inaudible) Nary: That they can’t enclose it? Lauer: That’s what, we spoke with the irrigation people and they said that they wouldn’t recommend having that enclosed. Borup: Nampa Meridian said they wanted it left open? Lauer: Yes, that’s just, my wife talked to them and that’s what she learned. I don’t know. Borup: Okay. And I don’t know the applicant’s concerned either way. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 26 Centers: I think they mean that it would continue to flow but underground. Lauer: Yes it could be. Centers: Right. Lauer: Really in some respects if it was closed it would get rid of some mosquitoes maybe. I can’t say I really oppose it. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Lauer: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Mr. Osborne, do you have something? Osborne: Ron Osborne, 373 Thornwood Drive. We’re all really getting too familiar Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Borup: Now, Ron from my notes, at least with the letter from O’Neill enterprises we’re down to really just 3 items. Is that your understanding? Osborne: I believe 2. That’s what I have. Borup: So, you’re in agreement on the three twelve pitch? Osborne: Oh, 3, thank you. Borup: Well let’s cover that right there. Did you do a cost analysis difference between a 2 and a 3? Osborne: We did. Borup: And it was--? Osborne: We talked to 2 different builders that are expert in doing this thing, who’ve done the project. They said there’s a significant cost differential. Borup: Between a two twelve and a three twelve? Osborne: That’s what they told us. I’m not a builder. Borup: What’s your span on those tresses? Osborne: I don’t have a clue. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 27 Borup: Pardon? (inaudible discussion from audience) Borup: Okay. That’s not picking up but – (inaudible discussion from audience) Borup: Okay. Do you want to just repeat that? I’ll repeat it. Lets maybe come back to that. You were going on some other comments I believe. Osborne: I was. As always its good to have Mr. Moore with us but if I may approach Commissioner Norton last time you expressed some real interest in the occupant of discussion. Norton: They’re kind of cute. Osborne: Which were my wife’s horses. At the last meeting I think you suggested I charge fees for the view of those since they were so popular. As you can see particularly that new colt. They are rather cute but I’ve collected no money so far. Secondly, I offered to sell part or all of my properties to any of those people that would like to purchase it and I’ve had no offers so far. The previous 2 gentlemen live 2 and 3 doors down from me. They’re neighbors, even our kids occasionally play together. These most recent comments tonight were news to me. Other than the scheduled meeting we had prior to the last meeting here and the subsequent meeting with the homeowner’s association they’ve never come to my place or flagged me down or anything else, or called and addressed any of these concerns. So, they’re all kind of new. Some of them were addressed Mr. Paulson addressed had a list of them at the neighborhood meeting. From there we have worked with the Greenhill representatives and met with them on a couple of occasions in addition to several phone calls between Kent, myself and again I think per what they read, we tried to address all their concerns. With that if you would like to move on to these other items, Mr. Commissioner on the O’Neill list, I’d be happy to. Borup: Okay. Item No. A, 120 feet. Osborne: Okay. Is there a question? Borup: Yes, I think my main question on that is their comment that you would have the same square footage of rental space that – Osborne: Based on their design. Fortunately they wont be designing my project. If their fees are right though I might consider it. Borup: Was there something on the layout that --? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 28 Osborne: Yes, it resembles Yellowstone Park. I want to be able to provide them an adequate buffer between landscaping and also land but I don’t want to create another Yellowstone Park that would primarily provide to the Woodbridge people. We would like to do something reasonable there and just as you were calling us in, I had suggested to them that maybe we could meet half way on those distance from what we proposed, or roughly half way and what they would like here. We’re willing to meet about half way on that or maybe a little more. I think I suggested around 85 feet. It just seems a little excessive. That’s my problem. Borup: So, your main objection is the extra landscape area that you will have to build? Osborne: My main objective? Borup: No, main objection to their proposal. Not that you would be losing buildings but that you’ll have some extra additional landscaping? Osborne: Yes, or just additional space. I believe what they’re requesting is just too large, too much. 120 feet just seems excessive. Borup: Well, but if you’re not losing any square footage of building – Osborne: Based on how they designed it (inaudible). Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Osborne: There are different ways to put those together, design different ways. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: (inaudible) Mr. Osborne, I guess what your concern is maintaining that approximately almost an acre of ground that really isn’t of any use to that project, to your project and is more beneficial or more useful by the Woodbridge people. Osborne: Absolutely. In fact fairly exclusively to them. They obviously wont be viewed or seen by any potential customers or other neighbors or other neighborhoods. It is pretty much a park area created for Woodbridge. Nary: Okay. But, what about Mr. O’Neill’s concern or Mr. O’Neill’s comment that also in conjunction with the city and the public, if there was a greenbelt type of development, or a greenbelt type of area in that space, that that would also be beneficial to the citizens of Meridian to go through that area. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 29 Osborne: It would. Exactly and that’s why we think around 85 is certainly plenty there with the landscaping and berming. You know, pretty quick its 120 you know 10 acres. Kind if what’s reasonable there and I think that’s kind of where we differed on it a little bit. Borup: Has there been any discussion on deeding that property to Woodbridge? Osborne: Actually I offered to give it to them – (inaudible discussion) Osborne: No, the other side of the creek I offered to give it to them. Borup: On the other side of the creek? Osborne: If I offered to give it to them on this side, I’d need Larry for a good divorce attorney so I probably shouldn’t do that because that’s you know horse space right now. My wife wouldn’t appreciate those (inaudible). Norton: Did they want the property? Osborne: No they did not, I understand. They didn’t jump at it. I’ll take that as a no which is fine it was kind of quasi in gest. I’d like to keep it. Borup: Okay. Osborne: Just a couple of other things that for the drawings we’ve asked for exclusions of the berming, excuse me the tree line behind my personal property we talked about last time which is the last space there on the bottom end of that diagram. Right there, exclude that. The other thing we talked about last time was paving the path. We’d like to maintain that in gravel since that what would be on Woodbridge’s side so that consistent. We want to do it in the same type of material and stuff as a they will have on their side. Borup: Then I think the other item was the item D, the internal landscape between phase 1 and phase 2. Osborne: Yes, they’ve asked us to put a tree of some sort in there that would roofline and those type of things. Since the white 3 rail fence initially will go through that there and separate the second phase from the first phase, we’ve offered to put bushes, vining, that type of stuff, small things to block the --. First of all we offered to put a wall back there, a solid building so there were no doors. That didn’t seem to be too much of interest so we agreed to put bushes or vines, things that would cover the dooring on that side of it which is the south side form them. The reason I don’t want trees is 10 years from now those trees will be big with lots of roots and major project it would cost to tear them out to begin stage Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 30 2. So, I want to be able to have things that are, in a dry season a match might take care of primarily with a little bit of tearing out smaller roots as opposed to large trees, Borup: What’s the height of those buildings in that area? Osborne: Kent? Approximately 12 feet. Particularly the objective to block kind of the building and the doors from view which (inaudible) bushes and shrubs, vinings and stuff along that fence line that will achieve that. We just don’t want trees that will be very large. Borup: Any other comments? Did that cover what you need? Osborne: I think you’re right. Those were the 3 main items that we had some differences on. They’ve been very good to work with and I think we’ve been able to meet half way on most items. We have met a number of times, both neighborhoods made themselves available at request. I was a little surprised by some of the requirements. I met with the Woodbridge people a number of times and less over at the Greenhill but any time they wanted to. Borup: So, the interior buildings are a double-pitched roof? Isn’t that correct? Osborne: Yes, the interior. When (inaudible) Kent will address a little more and maybe answer your question there Mr. Commissioner is by Mr. Paulson’s. That’s where the largest cut into the dirt would be. So, he won’t see a 22-foot building. There’s approximately 6 foot that will be behind dirt. There’s approximately 14, 16 feet roughly that will be exposed there. At the time we met the first time, with him and some of the neighbors, 2 or 3 requests were made by him that we tried to accommodate. One was to change what was before the small buildings illustrated there that you had a questions about, we moved to the large open buildings because originally they were going to be roll up storage on that side, smaller buildings. Mr. Paulson and others did not want to be able to see on the internal roofs. We then offered to do larger buildings that would be for parking of vehicles, motorboats, whatever you have in there. He says as long as all I can see is the skyline. So, we described the 22-foot building with the cut behind there that would block his view of internal and got a positive response from that as opposed to seeing the roofs. So, the change surprised me a little bit there. That was a modification we made to a large degree at his request to not see the internal buildings. We did that for both, all along the east side of the project and at the request of the O’Neill’s on the south side we also had the smaller buildings and agreed to do the large buildings to create that buffer. Those were changes in the plan and also why the building size is different. As far as the irrigation issue. I’m down hill from everybody. I’m a little confused by that. Borup: I think irrigation was the wastewater. Where’s the wastewater going to go now? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 31 Osborne: I assume the same place. Borup: Is it going into your ditch now? Osborne: I’m down hill so (inaudible) Right now it goes into my pasture and the Five Mile Creek. Obviously it will continue to flow in that phase 2 for the next 10 years and then the Five Mile Creek. I’m not sure what I can do up stream on their properties. I’m a little confused at that. Borup: I think they were concerned just on the wastewater. Where is it going to go? Osborne: Whatever it is it will go in my ditch. It does now and I assume it still will. Borup: Well, you’re talking about tiling the ditch, I thought. Osborne: We were going to do what the code requires us to do. Borup: Okay. So, I assume if it gets traveling that water is still going to come that’s going to go right down there through your buildings? Osborne: Well, it – Borup: Unless something is done to handle that. Okay, Commissioners, any questions? Nary: Just one question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Osborne, so if what your preference is on the suggested modifications by the Woodbridge estates was on that number one, you would be comfortable with 85 feet? Osborne: Yes, approximately 85 feet is kind of what I was suggesting out there about the time we heard our names called. I think that’s what we’re looking at Kent, right? Nary: That would be, it says, at least the way this worded that no buildings closer. Wouldn’t you still want to maintain that sort of curved, or angling sort of design of your buildings so you could still be comfortable with --. I think this one right now its 45 feet at the closest point. Osborne: Right. Nary: So, you would be comfortable moving that back 40 more feet? Then the other one would either be, it was 150, so it would be either 190 or still I guess it could possibly be 150 still? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 32 Osborne: I think it would be approximately 85 across but we now have the buildings angled. They want that squared up? Nary: No. Osborne: We’re not opposed to that. Also we show a break in buildings for access to the sewage. As I shared with them I’m not as concerned about that. We want to just do whatever the sewage people want us to do to have access to that. They indicated access can be achieved from the road, that can, we can do a solid building. We’re not opposed to it. We’d be happy to square that up. Borup: I wonder if it would be beneficial to spend a few minutes with Mr. O’Neill. Osborne: Sure. Borup: Tonight? Osborne: Yes. Borup: I mean will that help maybe come to a --? I guess what I’m suggesting Commission is we could go to the next hearing – Osborne: We could do it right now. Borup: --and then come back to this. I don’t think the next one is going to take a lot of time. Nary: Just curious Mr. Chairman. For Mr. Osborne, if you have that break in the buildings I guess one of the things that I thought would allow some access to that green space. Do you not want to have any access from your storage area into that green area? You’re going to maintain that even though you cant use it? And the folks that are using that storage space cant use it and you’re going to maintain that anyway? Osborne: Right, I don’t want the folks using the storage space to enjoy a park any time so that wasn’t the intent for it. It was solely for sewage access. Nary: Okay. Osborne: Solid is fine. I figured on maintaining it I didn’t have much options there. I really don’t want to but I’m willing to do that. One other item on that, we talked about the initial landscaping taking place during the entire project with phase 1. The exception I guess we’re asking for is that the O’Neill asked us to berm the back of that last building in phase 2 which would include up to 5 feet, I think is what we talked about there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 33 Borup: They did ask for berming of that building? Osborne: Yes, on the backside. Borup: Oh, phase 2. Osborne: We agreed to that and I think they showed a diagram with some bushes or trees there and we’re fine to work with that. That part of it obviously wouldn’t take place initially because there’s not a building there to berm up against. The outside landscaping would all take place. That portion of landscaping would take place when the building goes up. Borup: So, you’re saying you don’t want to put berm against a building until the building is there? Osborne: I know, I know, its crazy. Borup: Five feet was okay with you? Osborne: Yes, I’m fine with that. Borup: Okay. Norton: Mr. Osborne Thank you. Osborne: Mr. Chairman, any other questions of me? Borup: I guess we could proceed with this now. It looks like there’s still a few things that aren’t in agreement between you. One choice would be to let the Commissioners decide or we could give you a few minutes if you would like and then we can reconvene after our next hearing which will not be that long I don’t believe. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Yes, Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: I would like to make a couple points if I could. Borup: Okay, lets do that first. Freckleton: Just to let everybody know what the sewer people will want. Borup: Okay, well that might help. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 34 Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, as you know there is an existing sanitary sewer trunk line that runs along a portion of Mr. Osborne’s southern, or excuse me western boundary and then diagonal across the southern portion of his property over into the Woodbridge project. There’s an existing gravel road over that sewer. The easement is 20 feet wide. I just want to make sure that all parties understand as they’re talking about different landscape schemes and that sort thing that that 20 feet, there are no trees that are allowed in that 20 feet. We have to maintain that access through to that sewer at all times. Just keep that in mind as you’re planning. Borup: So, the city’s intention is for the 20 foot of gravel? Freckleton: No, its not 20 foot of gravel. Its 12 to 14 feet of gravel. Borup: Okay. The gravel is for access? Freckleton: Correct and it has to be maintained through. Centers: Is that in your comments Bruce? Freckleton: I can’t remember if it was specific in there. Borup: That was a month ago. Centers: Well, we can just make note of that. Freckleton: Yes. The other point I wanted to make is we’re talking about a lot of changed to plans here and we’re going back and forth. We don’t have a plan that really we can pass onto Council at this point. I just wanted to make that point. Borup: Good point. Siddoway: If I were to make a recommendation on that issue it would be, you know usually we continue things to the second meeting but if everything is really worked out and is all we’re having to do is say yes this is the plan that represents everything we’ve shown. You may be able to handle that on the first meeting in just a couple of weeks. Give the applicant a chance to submit the final approved plan that you can then send on to Council. That would be my recommendation. Take it as you will. Borup: Okay. That makes sense. Did you understand what he said. Osborne: I think I understood real clearly. I want to be on record I’m opposed to that but I’ve got a feeling you’re not going to ask for my vote Mr. Commissioner. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 35 Borup: No, we’re not but he’s saying just in 2 weeks. That would not be, well it would be up to 3 weeks, our next regular meeting. The first Thursday in September. Norton: September 6th . Borup: Depending on the motion, but in passed when we’ve done things like that we’ve closed it to any further public testimony and the meeting was open just to review a specific item. I guess we need to see if that’s what – Norton: Just for my comments, on September 6th we already have 10 public hearings on September 6th . As long as we’re discussing it, it looks like we’re very clear on may be just a few changes but not many. I don’t see any reason to hold it over. I think perhaps we can vote on it and send the plans to the city planning. Borup: I think Mr. Siddoway’s comment is we’re making a recommendation on something we haven’t seen to City Council unless we can make it very clear tonight. Norton: Yes, I understand. Osborne: Mr. chairman, I’d love to make it very clear tonight. Borup: Okay. Why don’t we continue this hearing for a few minutes, give all those interested parties a chance to go outside and review that. I’d like to go ahead and tackle the Phoenix project right now and then maybe take a break after that, if that’s all right with everybody. You don’t think you’re going to take that long? Osborne: Mr. Chairman, my guess is with the O’Neill group if that’s what we’re talking about is these last two items – Borup: Right. Osborne: -- I’m assuming 5 minutes we’ll be ready or so. Borup: Okay. Lets go ahead and do that. Nary: Mr. Chairman, the only other thing, although I don’t at least based on the comments, Mr. Osborne it may not be resolvable but it certainly wouldn’t probably be a bad thing to talk to Mr. Paulson and Mr. Lauer. Borup: I think I’d like to maybe see a cross section and see where the cut is. Nary: (inaudible) not necessarily be resolvable but I think its only fair to them as well. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 36 Borup: So, you might want to take – Nary: (inaudible) to Mr. O’Neill. Borup: That’s why I said all interested parties. You might want to take your diagram out there to discuss that with them. Thank you. Osborne: Any other questions, Mr. Chairman? Borup: Pardon? Osborne: Any other questions? Borup: Not at this time. No, we’re continuing your hearing until after item No. 9. Osborne: Thank you. Nary: I wouldn’t mind getting an agreement. Borup: Lets have a motion to continue this hearing until after item No. 9. Nary: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we continue public hearing AZ 01-011 and CUP 01-024 to the end of the agenda and that we take up item 9 at this time. Norton: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 01-027 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to offer classes for Master’s and Bachelor’s Degrees in a C- G zone for University of Phoenix (office) by Rocky Mountain Management & Development, LLC – 3080 Gentry Way: Borup: Item No. 9 is a Conditional Use Permit request for offer classes, a master and bachelor degree in a C-G zone for the University of Phoenix by Rocky Mountain Development. I’d like to open this public hearing and start with a staff report. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The entire reason this is in front of you tonight is based on use only, not on any site plan issues or new buildings to be constructed or anything. The building is already existing. It has a Conditional Use Permit that was granted a year or so ago in Eagle Road Professional Center building No. 2. You can see the site cross-hatched. Its right Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 37 near the I-84 interchange on Eagle Road. The 2 lots here are the Eagle Road Professional Center. The building that sits on this lot is the subject property. This application is here because it’s an application for a private school, the University of Phoenix. The schedule of uses control says that all such schools require a Conditional Use Permit. So, it’s the use that is before you tonight. This is the site plan. It shows the existing layout of the 2 buildings. Again this is the building here that we are talking about. They are up and have occupancy. These are the elevations of the existing building. I guess that is it. You should have a staff report dated August 6, 2001. Just let those comments stand. If there’s any questions? Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Does the applicant have anything they would like to add? The staff recommended approval. Unless those any --. Were there any thing on any of their comments that you felt you needed to comment on, in the staff report. Simons: I’m Andy Simons with Rocky Mountain Management and Development, 2700 Airport Way. The answer to that question is no. We agree with the staff report entirely. We think that this will be a good addition to the City of Meridian and I will try to answer any questions if you have any. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mr. Simons, on the University setting, I understand about the University of Phoenix. We’ve got some information at the institution that I work at. Will this be a year round school? Or will this be a nine-month school? Simons: Unfortunately, no one from the University of Phoenix could be here tonight. The person who was going to try and be here had to get out of town for something. Bottom line I think it’s a year round school. I think also that they won’t be holding any classes during the day except possibly on weekends if that matters to you. All their classes are typically 6 to 10 at night during the week. Norton: Okay, so 3 graduation dates? Or just 2? Simons: I couldn’t answer that. Norton: Okay, thank you. Borup: Any other question? It sounds like then it’s a night school. One of my questions was on parking. But I think that probably answers that if they’re holding at night then none of the other buildings are probably even in use. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 38 Simons: I can be more specific if it would help you on that one. The site itself has about 254 parking stalls. I just go the final space plan that the University of Phoenix’s architect came up with. It shows 4 what are called vocational rooms. Each vocational room would have about a maximum of 15 to 16 students. Borup: So, we are talking 60 – Simons: And there’s 250 on site and again this is after hours off peak and all of that so there wont be a parking issue. Borup: All right. Centers: 250 per year space or for the whole project? Simons: Both buildings have a total of 254 parking stalls if I remember right and there is a cross parking agreement between the buildings. So, I mean spread 60 to 70 cars throughout there and you won’t even notice it. Centers: And you’re talking evenings and weekends you said? Simons: Yes sir. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Thank you sir. I realize we figure you probably had a short application but everything else on was continued from a previous --. Somehow you got, this is normally a continuation meeting so yours got slipped in ahead of schedule a little bit. Norton: I guess I have one. What is the, since the buildings have already been constructed when is the expected enrollment? When will the classes be held? Simon: They are already advertising on the local media. I don’t know if you’ve seen any of the commercials yet on both TV and heard them on the radio. They are planning to try and start classes in this facility as early as December. Norton: December? Simon: Of 2001. Norton: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you sir. We have no public so I don’t need to ask for that. Commissioners? Centers: Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 39 Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I would like to move that we close the public hearing for item 9. the request for CUP 01-027, Conditional Use Permit for classes for masters and bachelors degree in a C-G zone for the University of Phoenix. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion second to close the public hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Do we have a motion? Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I would move that we approve item 9 and recommend approval to the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit 01-027 to offer classes for masters and bachelor’s degree in a C-G zone for the University of Phoenix by Rocky Mountain Management and Development LLC. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion is second to – Centers: Including all staff comments. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion is second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT (inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners) Borup: Okay. Lets take a short break. RECONVENE AT 8:47 P.M. Item 7. Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 2001: AZ 01-011 Request for annexation and zoning of 9.79 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Franklin Mini Storage by Ron Osborne – 1975 East Franklin Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 40 Item 8. Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 2001: CUP 01-024 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a storage unit on 9.79 acres with one office/commercial pad for Franklin Mini Storage by Ron Osborne – 1975 East Franklin Road: Borup: We’re ready to reconvene. We’re coming out of the recess at 8:47. We’d like to return back to the continuation of the public hearing on Franklin Mini Storage. I believe, it looks like Mr. Osborne is ready to comment. Osborne: Yes, Mr. Commissioner. Centers: Mr. Chairman, did we postpone --? Borup: Yes, -- Centers: So, we’re okay. Borup: We continued it to this point right now. Centers: I’m glad I have Larry on my right. Borup: Okay, Mr. Osborne, you have had an opportunity to have a little more discussion. So, where are we standing now? Osborne: We did. Thank you Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. As far as the concern on item A under I site plan that the O’Neill had, we’ve agreed to square up that building – ***End of Side Two*** Osborne: -- on the O’Neill’s concern under A under item I site plan. The distance between property line, we’ve agreed to 90 feet and we will, run that building parallel with. We’ll run it east and west. Square it up a little bit. Again, based on access to the manholes there, personally we’re not concerned if it’s a solid building or if it has that break. We just wanted, we’ll do whatever’s required for that sewage. Borup: Okay, what’s the public works department’s preference on that thing? Whether it has access in the middle or access on the end would that make any difference? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, we need to be able to access the manholes. If we can access those manholes from inside the storage units that’s great. The easement still is going to have to remain – Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 41 Borup: Right. Freckleton: -- clear through there. Borup: So, the access is either between the 2 buildings or around the end of the building. (inaudible discussion from audience) Borup: Okay, or from Woodbridge? Freckleton: Right. Osborne: We’re comfortable either way. A solid building is fine with us which is what they prefer. In fact it lends some security issues that we’re comfortable with. Borup: So, its not like the city has any problem either way? Freckleton: As long as I can access the sewer. Norton: So, a solid building, is that right? Osborne: Yes. Norton: We need to be extremely clear tonight. Osborne: Solid building. Borup: Okay. Osborne: We’ve agreed on phase 2, phase 2 only, not phase 1, to the three twelve pitch to all the internal buildings. Phase 1 would be as we proposed. Centers: That’s meeting half way. I mean you guys are just --. That’s great. Osborne: We have one disagreement with Mr. Commissioner, love for you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, would love for you to decide on. The berm at the end of phase 1 that will be along D. Yes the internal landscape, yes. We’re proposing bushes and vining, non- large root type items to block the doors and the view essentially of that. The O’Neill’s would like large trees for that and we would prefer bushes. Borup: Okay, very good. Mr. O’Neill, anything different from --? Osborne: Yes, and be temporary. Ours is intended to be removed when phase 2 starts they would like the permanent trees that would stay for phase 2. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 42 Borup: Right. Osborne: We’re in disagreement. We would love for you Mr. Chairman to help us with that item. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Mr. O’Neill is that accurate in what he stated? Okay, and he indicated yes. Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Just so I’m clear, they were proposing trees that would stay there and block traffic that was entering, the ingress and the egress into the storage units? Osborne: In the center of it, yes. Ultimately, will be the mid section. (inaudible discussion from audience) Borup: Look on their site plan is what they’re proposing. Centers : Which would take room from the ingress and egress of the interior of the project. (inaudible discussion from audience) Borup: We’re going to need to get that on record if we want to have some (inaudible) there. Did you have some more clarification Mr. O’Neill? O’Neill: No. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from anyone? Centers: No, I’m fine. Borup: Okay. Osborne: Those are the 3 items, Mr. Chairman in relationship to the O’Neill. Borup: Okay, Thank you. Osborne: We’ve resolved 2 of them and would like you to resolve the third. Borup: Thank you. I appreciate that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 43 Osborne: We’ve had further discussion with 2 of the neighbors from the Greenhill estates. It’s been a very good discussion. Borup: So, they understand the design now? All right, thank you. That will be all. I don’t think we had any other questions. Thank you Mr. Osborne. Osborne: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I appreciate it. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: We have had a couple of issues that we’ve talked about a little bit. I guess I have a question both for Steve and for Larry. WE had tried very hard not to send projects forward to the city Council that aren’t complete. I think we have certainly ironed out the issues that I think we all understand what we think they are. But, has that not been our normal practice, is to simply try to get a final plan to send forward and not necessarily a proposed plan that we think will be that when it gets there? Isn’t that the case Mr. Siddoway? Siddoway: Yes it is. Nary: Okay. Now, Mr. Moore, the other thing is although I think we understand what we all think we’re looking at and may be approving or at least considering approving but do you feel comfortable in sending this forward to the City Council on basically a proposed motion with us trying to iron out all of these things? I guess you have to write up the final report for the City Council. Moore: You’re right. I’m sorry. Chairman Borup, Commissioner -- . That’s true, very seldom. Commissioner Nary, we have had this discussion before. It’s always been the fact that we need a final plan before this body before we send it to the City Council. Therefore my recommendation to you would b e that we get a final plan on paper before we go forward with this, whether it takes 2 weeks or a month or whatever. I know it’s a delay but by the same token that’s always been the way that we’ve done it and I recommend it in this case. Nary: Mr. Chairman, I have one other question. I think Mr. Osborne’s concern was he didn’t state this on the record. He wasn’t real in favor of us delaying it but the concern is the delay that the City Council in doing that. Maybe Mr. Berg can answer, is there anyway to schedule this at the City Council before we make a final vote on the plan? If we waited 3 weeks is that going to delay him another month and a half because the City Council? Or can they schedule this for the City Council in anticipation that we’re not going to have any more public discussion, we’re just going to make sure that we approve the plan as we pass it forward. Can we not delay Mr. Osborne further? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 44 Borup: If it was approved tonight it would be October? If it was approved tonight when would it be on the City Council agenda? Isn’t that what you --? Nary: Right. If we approve this tonight but we made it contingent upon receiving the final plan on the 6th of September, can you schedule it for the City Council before we approve it? Borup: If it was approved tonight when would it be on the City Council? Then the question is can we still schedule it for that date? Moore: Chairman Borup. Borup: Yes, Mr. Moore. Moore: It would certainly be within standards if we were to close your public hearing here, recommend approval of the project based upon receiving that final plan before it goes forward to City Council. Borup: Okay. Then will that keep the time schedule the same? (inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners) Nary: As you can tell my objective is certainly not to delay this project any further if not necessary. But I think, I guess from my personal prospective, I don’t know what the rest of the Commission thinks. I certainly think we still want to have a final plan that, --because they’ve brought a lot of stuff tonight that really looks good but I think we just want to make sure that what we approve is what the City Council sees. Borup: So, would that do that by the statement Mr. Moore made, go ahead and close the public hearing tonight? At that recommend approval and that would go on the schedule as of tonight, or as of tomorrow? Berg: Mr., Chairman, I’m just trying to understand the deal with looking and reviewing the plat. Is this body going to look at that site plan? Borup: Yes. Centers: Yes, at our next hearing. Nary: We’re not going to take anymore public testimony. Berg: But, what if you --? Centers: Subject to receiving. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 45 Berg: I guess my concern, I know what you’re concerned of seeing something and passing it on but my other concern, if you’re looking at it and you don’t like what you’re seeing and you tell them to you know we want to change this or we want to change that. Borup: then you take it off the agenda. Berg: We don’t want to go ahead on the plank and go ahead an notice it if you don’t really have a full recommendation. (inaudible discussion from audience) Nary: I guess what I’m saying Mr. Berg is if we approve it, I mean we have a lot of information tonight and we were to vote to improve it contingent on upon receiving the plans at our next scheduled meeting on September 6th , consistent with that approval. If they weren’t consistent with that approval then Mr. Osborne is the one that caused the delay and no one else. That’s not our problem. If that does delay it then it’s delayed. If it doesn’t then can you schedule it we approve it contingent upon that receipt on the 6th for the City Council for whatever the next scheduled time would be based upon --? Borup: When would that be, the next scheduled time? I don’t think you ever did answer that. Or do you know? Berg: Mr. Chairman. I’m just kind of guessing the dates. If we approve it tonight it would be in one of the 2 meetings in September. If you wait until the 6th of September, you’re looking back into October. Borup: So, right now – Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: -- it would be one of the 2 meetings in September? You’re not sure until you see the agendas? Is that why you’re --? Berg: Well, counting the 15 days. Borup: Right. Berg: Our notice in the paper is Friday with the statesman. We have to get it in by Tuesday and it’s just – Borup: Is that the only criteria, the notice? Or, how’s the City Council agenda? Can it handle it also? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 46 Berg: We make it handle it. Borup: Okay. Commissioner Norton. Norton: Its only 14 days but we do meet again on August the 30th for the comp plan. Perhaps maybe we could do a real quick meeting before the comp plan and take a look at these drawings. (inaudible discussion amongst Commissioner) Borup: Is the 30th enough time to have the plans here? Centers: It’s just a site plan. Borup: The rest of the Commissioners, what do you think about that? Nary: I think that’s fair to everybody if we do that. That would still give Mr. Berg adequate notice to be able to put it on the 18th of September. (inaudible) If you waited until we approved it? That would give you adequate time to put it on the 18th , wouldn’t it? Berg: I’m not sure it would. I just feel uncertain that I can advertise something that you haven’t fully approved because there always this contingency that you still want to look at a site plan before you totally approve the project, even though in theory, you know what there should be on that site plan. I almost would rather have the staff make sure it’s on the site plan and maybe you review it internally. Norton: Yes. Berg: Then if it isn’t what you think it is you can respond back to the staff and say no, they said they’re going to have 90 feet and this is 88 or whatever. Borup: And not even have to have a – Berg: I’m just afraid if you put this contingency of seeing the site plan its really not closing all the information that you’ve gathered to pass on the recommendation. I’m not an attorney but it still seems like you’re looking, or gathering or wanting to see something before you totally pass it on and close the hearing. Borup: So, you’re saying we could make a --. If we went ahead and make a recommendation tonight when the plans come in – Norton: staff (inaudible) Borup: -- staff would take a look at it and the Commissioners could also? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 47 Centers: Mr. Chairman. I just checked with Mr. Counsel here and Chairman Borup could come in and put his rubber stamp on it. (inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners) Borup: Individually but not as a group? Centers: Yes, just you. If we designate you in the motion to come in and approve the site plan for the Commission. (inaudible discussion from audience) Centers: Approving our motion. Moore: He’s not approving the site plan. All you’re doing is verifying that it meets all the standards that have been approved by this body. Borup: Which we don’t even have down yet. Nary: Since I brought it up, I guess (inaudible). If we waited until the 30th , what would that do timing wise to get it to City Council? The reason I’m asking is because I think we can at least consider a reasonable exception to get this moving along. We asked for the delay to allow some opportunity for some input but I don’t want to make such a huge exception that we end up having to make further exceptions like that in the future. I don’t think that makes a lot of sense either. If we waited until the 30th , where would that put us in you being able to schedule that to the City Council? Do they not meet on the 25th of September? Berg: They meet on, excuse me Mr. Chairman, Commission, Commissioner Nary. They meet on the 25th but they only meet for City business. No public hearings for land use issues. They’re trying to keep that to the first and third Tuesday. Nary: So, right now, if we were to approve this tonight it’s possible that it could be on the City Council agenda for the 18th of September? Berg: Very likely. Nary: If we waited until the 30th , what you’re saying is it probably couldn’t be on the City Council agenda? Berg: It probably couldn’t if we – Nary: If we made no changes, if we just reviewed it, approved it – Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 48 Berg: Then pass it on the 30th , I couldn’t notice it in the paper until the next Friday. Not that Friday but the next Friday. See, that kills – Centers; That puts you to the 21st . Berg: Yes, and the 21st is – (inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners) Nary: So, if we waited to the 30th , waiting until the 6th wouldn’t make any difference either? Berg: Correct. That’s what I’m saying. Borup: So, that’s saying the option is we approve it tonight or wait until the 6th ? (inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners) Nary: Rather than designating Chairman Borup as our sort of proxy we can make it simply and I think we have done this. We have made it contingent on the staff’s approval. Centers: That’s what I was thinking earlier. Nary: We’ve done that and that’s not as far outside as having one member of the Commission make that. I don’t know, Mr. Siddoway, are you comfortable with that? Or uncomfortable with that? Siddoway: As long as I was clear on what everything is that I’m looking for. I’m fine with reviewing it. Norton: (inaudible) Centers: I think its got to be Steve too because he’s here tonight. Borup: The map we have of the combination of what the applicant had and the O’Neill’s. Kind of a combination of the 2. (inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners) Borup: This is it. This is the last time. We don’t have the new one that they did. They just brought the board. Isn’t that correct? You didn’t bring any exhibits for us on your new --? Do you have some these size with the --? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 49 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Brown has also told me that they can make the modifications by Monday and have it in. They can do it, quickly. They don’t even need the 2 weeks necessarily. It’s just a matter of days. Borup: That’s not a little section. We’ve got to unfold these. (inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners) Borup: This is the one that he had on his board for the presentation. This is their new revision after the meetings. (inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners) Borup: So, this—its going to be half way between this and O’Neill’s diagram that they gave us. Is that what you would like to do? Go ahead and put (inaudible) down or what? I guess we can put down the notes that everybody’s in agreement on. Those that aren’t we may need some discussion on. Nary: It was my understanding – (inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners) Nary: Mr. Chairman. I would move that we close the public hearing on item 7. Borup: You know, really the first comment you made was even not in compliance with the motion we made before. This meeting was held over to get input from the meeting with the homeowner’s association which we felt we did. Mr. Nary? Norton: Second the motion to close the public hearing. Borup: Motion second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. Norton: From my understanding there’s only one problem and that is whether they put bushes or trees in between phase one and phase 2. Borup: Right but we also need to maybe get some notes on the plat on what was agreed on. Norton: All right. Borup: That was a 85 feet buffer on the south, or 90, I’m sorry 90 feet. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 50 Nary: I made notes that we could provide Mr. Moore for that. (inaudible) Nary: I guess I could start off the discussion we’re going to have. I think having this new site plan really gives us the ability to do this. I guess my suggestion is going to be that we make a motion based on the changes that have been suggested tonight. We can make it contingent on also the approval by the planning department. Mr. Siddoway that the final plan that be submitted are consistent with that. If they aren’t I guess then Mr. Brown and Mr. Osborne can work with them to get them in compliance because its going to need to be in compliance with what we’re going to move in regards to this tonight. I guess my only other comment about the changes that have been made and the set over is, I appreciate the efforts and time that Mr. Osborne and Mr. Brown have made in this. I will be honest on the 5th of July when this was presented to us I really didn’t think there would probably be a lot of ways to resolve this without us having to make all of these choices. I’m glad to see that both Woodbridge and the Greenhill estates folks have been able to talk to Mr. Osborne and he’s real amenable to a lot of the changes. Maybe not all of them and that’s just part of what’s normal and consistent with most projects. The proposed things by the Greenhill estate, by the homeowner’s association I think are consistent and I think Mr. Osborne has been in agreement with those. I think what Mr., Paulson and Mr. Lauer have brought forward, I understand their concerns but I don’t think that’s really before us tonight on the issue of the height of the walls and – Norton: Excuse me, Mr. Nary. Nary: Yes? Norton: I’m sorry, I’m having a hard time concentrating on what you’re trying to say when there’s talking in the audience. Thank you. Nary: Anyway I guess my comments are I think the issue of the height of the wall for that particular building on this side is not really an issue. On the one issue under I guess the contingent dispute, the internal landscape buffer, I guess my opinion is that it makes more sense to me that it’s a temporary buffer and that its bushes and easier to maintain type of landscaping that can be removed in the future. It doesn’t make sense to me to have that be a landscape tree buffer in the middle of the project. I think it just looks awkward and it doesn’t really fit with the overall project when it’s completed. I think its just going to look a little goofy and out of place. I guess I wouldn’t be in support of those being trees and a permanent fixture. I would be more supportive of the vines and bushes and those types of things that can be removed at a later date during the second phase. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 51 Centers: Yes, I just wanted to make the comment and wanted to make it earlier that I’ve never seen such cooperation on a project. Then you read the verbiage on this attachment that O’Neill submitted and it state at the invitation of Mr. Osborne. I think that just shows true cooperation. They’ve bent over backwards and have complied with most of their requests. Comply is probably the wrong word to use. I’m in agreement with Commissioner Nary all the way down the line. Thank you. Borup: Any comment, Commissioner Norton? Norton: I see no --. I agree also. I was just going to somehow get in that on phase 2 there were 3 issues of points that they finally agreed upon. One was the number one the 90 feet buffer at the very end of the property. Number 2 was that at phase 2 the roofline would be three twelve on phase 2 roofs only. Phase 1 would be the two twelve pitch. Then midway I agree with Mr. Nary that it makes sense to have the temporary bushes and vines rather than trees. Borup: I think, and I don’t know that they said two twelve on the phase 1. In fact I thought there was multiple one and a half to 2? Well, we need – Norton: Whatever the multiple was. Borup: Okay. As submitted. Norton: As submitted. Borup: Mr. Moore. Moore: Chairman Borup, I have one question here. Didn’t we change the three on this landscape berm to 5? Borup: Yes. Moore: Thank you. Borup: That was agreed on, on that also. The planters on the east side, on the west side of the buildings were 6 feet.. Norton: Number E is 6 feet instead of 10 feet. Borup: Then a berm went in with the building. I don’t think there was any question on that. (inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners) Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 52 Borup: Yes, then you have that. I’ve got notes on this if you’d like to (inaudible). Item B was the building was 20 in front and 14 on the back on the berm side rather than the 22 and 18 I think. I can’t remember what the original one was. Norton: It was 10 and 16. Borup: Well, that was the proposal but the original applicant was 22 or greater. Norton: 17 and 22? Centers: We have to note that no landscaping over the sewer easement. Borup: Right. Per City ordinance. Freckleton: Commissioner Centers. If I could just clarify that. We can allow bushes, small shrubbery, and things like that. It’s the large tree, deep rooted trees that we have an issue with. The site plan that Kent Brown passed out tonight shows a 10-foot asphalt path and I believe that the standard is 14 that’s going to have to be maintained. Its 12 or 14, I’m going to have to clarify that. Borup: Would that need to be asphalt or would that be gravel like they talked about earlier? Freckleton: It can be gravel as far as I’m concerned. Nary: Would that be in the Conditional Use Permit site-specific requirements or in the annexation requirements? Freckleton: That’s probably more of a site specific. Borup: So, the existing gravel path shows this path tying into is 14? Or should be 14? Freckleton: Its 12 or 14. I’m going to have to clarify that. I can get together with Steve when we look at the site plan. Borup: But the assumption is the existing one that they’re tying into is in compliance so this should be the same size? Freckleton: The assumption yes. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, the parks department standard is for a 10-foot asphalt path. I don’t know if Mr. Freckleton has a problem with a 10 foot asphalt path with a gravel shoulder so that. Borup: Okay. So, there’s a difference. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 53 Siddoway: I guess the issue is that they need 12 or 14 feet clear but 10 feet of it can be asphalt per the park department standards. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the wider width is the fact that our hydro cleaning equipment is trailer mounted and we have to be able to maneuver a truck and trailer down that path. 10 foot gets a little too narrow. It needs to be able to support and HS 20 loading. Borup: you’re afraid the drivers can’t stay in the 10-foot area? Never mind. I think that clarified that. It looks like there are some options so the applicant has some choices there as long as they comply with what the City requirements? Okay. Did you finish all your comments Commissioner Norton? Norton: I did thank you. Borup: I have another I think everything’s been covered. Nary: Mr. Chairman. I’ll take a stab at it I guess. Mr. Chairman I would move that we recommend approval to the City Council, item 7 AZ 01-011 request for annexation and zoning of 9.79 acres from RUT to a C-G zone for Franklin Mini Storage by Ron Osborne at 1975 East Franklin Road to include all staff comments regarding annexation and zoning for this particular parcel from the July 2, 2001 staff report. Centers: I would second that. Borup: Motion is second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay, next item. Nary: Mr. Chairman. I would move that we recommend approval to the City Council on item 8 CUP 01-024 request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a storage unit on 9.79 acres with one office commercial pad for Franklin Mini Storage by Ron Osborne to include all staff comments from the July 2nd memo in addition to the following amendments. That there be limitation, a condition placed on limitation for the commercial pad of uses that would not include restaurants, drive throughs, those types of uses. That they be limited to office or light rental types of facilities, light vehicle rentals, those types of facilities. That can be worked out with the planning staff. The site-specific conditional use requirements would include and additional specific requirement that I think a minimum of a 14-foot pathway, is that correct? A minimum of 14 foot Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 54 pathway for sanitary sewer access and that there be no heavy landscaping including trees in the 20 foot sewer easement that’s in existence. I think those were all the concerns for the public works side. That we would include as part of the comments both the report by the Greenhill Estates Homeowner’s Association and the requests that they made and that I think are all in agreement by the applicant. Also to include the comments provided by the Woodbridge Estates memorandum of August 15th of this year with the additional amendments to that. That under item 1 site plan, that item A would indicate that no building shall be located closer than 90 feet from the south property line. That the building on the south property line will be parallel to the property line and will be a solid building without any break in it. That the item B that there be a maximum building height of 14 feet in the rear and 20 feet in the front. So, amending the footage that’s listed in this report. On item C that there be a 5 foot landscape berm against the back side of the most southerly building that will not have to be constructed until during phase 2 of this project. That item D indicate that there be a temporary internal landscape buffer that would include vines and bushes, low maintenance landscaping and no permanent trees in that location. Item E that there be a 6- foot planter on the west end of the all east west oriented internal buildings. That section 2 on architecture, that items A, B, and C would remain as written. Item D would indicate that phase 2 buildings would have a roof pitch with a minimum of three twelve on all the interior buildings. That phase could be built as submitted. That item 3 on fencing, item 4 on use restrictions and requirements, and item 5 on project phasing and timing would be as listed. That the developer, or the applicant would be required to submit a new site plan for approval by the planning department prior to the submission to the City Council. Did I forget anything? Norton: No. Borup: Yes, item 4 on Woodbridge submission. They weren’t proposing soffitt lighting on item (inaudible). Nary: Yes, you’re right. That item 4B would simply be; eliminate the word soffitt. That would be restricted to indirect downward lighting. Centers: Just a comment too. As far as the use of that commercial pad out front. I think it was mentioned earlier by staff that they would have to come back with any use of that site and some listing of the uses. I guess that’s not really necessary but its okay. Nary: Or, simply that it would state that there wouldn’t be any -- . I think the concern was the commercial restaurants, drive throughs (inaudible) Siddoway: Correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 55 Nary: They wouldn’t have those uses but all the uses would be by conditional use anyway. Isn’t that correct? Any other uses on there would be by conditional use anyway? Siddoway: Per staff comments that is what we have recommended, yes. Nary: Okay. Centers: You’ve included staff comment? Moore: Chairman Borup. We need to make a correction. When Commissioner Nary was reading this he read it as CUP 01-024. It should be a correction to CUP 01-020. I know it says 024 on your – Nary: Oh, our agenda is incorrect? Moore: Your agenda’s incorrect. It should be 020. Nary: Thank you. Norton: I’d second that motion. Borup: Discussion? Maybe one thing, I meant to do that before we had the second. It may be helpful to have a date for staff approval, perhaps the 23rd ? Centers: Mr. Siddoway’s making a suggestion. Borup: Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: I have a suggestion for that date. We have figured that in order to get this on the Council hearing for September – Borup: I think the clerk said he will need to have it in his hands by the 24th . Or would like to anyway. Siddoway: Is that date the 24th ? So, -- Borup: If you could have it on the 23rd ? Nary: 22nd ? Siddoway: Yes, the 22nd . If I could have it by the 22nd which is – Borup: Can you approve it by the 23rd ? Siddoway: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 56 Borup: Okay and I think the applicant said they can have it by the 20th or 21st . Siddoway: As long as they make the 23rd , the 22nd the drop-dead deadline for getting it, I will have time to review it in time to get it to Mr. Berg. Borup: Okay. Any time after that it would be on the next meeting. I think all we need to say – Nary; No later than the 22nd and certainly – Borup: And approved by the staff by the 23rd . Nary: The quicker the better. (inaudible) Siddoway: Can we get a modified site plan and landscape plan clarified for that. Nary: As was shown to us tonight a modified site plan as well as the landscaping that was --. The landscaping was done in the response to the request from Greenhill Estates. Borup: Okay, does the second concur with the change in the motion? Norton: Yes, I would agree with that. Borup: Any other discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: I would just like to say thank all those involved with this, (inaudible) on both sides. When there is some open dialogue and discussion and compromise, it makes our job a lot easier. We appreciate everyone’s input. (inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners) Borup: Commissioners, I guess we can --. We’ve still got an open meeting don’t we? Nary: I move to adjourn, unless we have something else. Borup: Next week we have our comp plan. In two weeks. We did get a nice summary from staff. I think that still may not hurt to review, especially maybe some of the written submissions. I don’t know, have we got a chance of getting through that whole thing that night and moving it on? We’ll find out. There’s still some things I’ve got questions in my mind. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2001 Page 57 (inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners) Borup: Yes. That is definitely at the high school? Norton: Is it still at the high school? Borup: Did that get verified? (inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners) Nary: I move to adjourn. Norton: I second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:27 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK