Loading...
2001 12-20Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 20, 2001 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, December 20, 2001, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Jerry Centers and Keven Shreeve. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, David Swartley, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Sharon Smith, Dean Willis and Will Berg. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: X Sally Norton X Jerry Centers X Bill Nary X Keven Shreeve X Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regular scheduled meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission this evening for December 20th and to begin with roll call of Commissioners in attendance. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of December 6, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: B. Approve minutes of December 6, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting. Borup: The first item on the agenda is minutes from our December 6th regular meeting and our December 6th special meeting, which covered the Comprehensive Plan. Norton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I'd like to move approval of the Consent Agenda, the minutes of December the 6th regular meeting and the minutes of the special meeting. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor. Any opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 2 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from December 6, 2001: MI 01-001 Request for a Street Name Change from East First Street to Main Street from Cherry Lane / Fairview Avenue south to East Central Drive or Overland: Borup: Thank you. Okay. The first item will be Item No. 4, a Continued Public Hearing from December 6th . We did not hear this item, but it was a request for a street name change for East First and the staff prepared for an update, but not -- I think on this item I don't know if it's necessary, unless the Commissioners need some more information. Have all of you had a chance to read your packet? I think we have a history of the project back from -- back from '98 when it was first proposed by the City Council and then subsequent from that point. Do any Commissioners have any questions on the history? Okay. Brad, I guess the Commissioners feel comfortable with the information, unless you had anything you thought you wanted to -- Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I just had one question, Brad, and maybe I simply missed it in here. I did see where the Fire Chief said there wasn't a concern from the Fire Department being able to respond to calls. Does the postmaster need to have any letter or approval or something like that for a name change or do they have any input? If it's in there I just missed it. I'm sorry about that. Borup: Maybe one item that might be worth discussing and that's on the length. All we have talked about is starting at Fairview. Initially the Council members were talking at one time about having it run clear to Overland and the County Street Name Committee proposed having that it connect at -- where it intersects with Corporate -- no. East Central. That's East Central. That's right where the curve is anyway. I mean right now Overland lines up with Meridian Road. East First is the one that curves. So that was the Street Name Committee and I believe some of the others also and I guess in my -- and that would be my first choice also. It seems like the most sense. I don't know if any other Commissioners have any other thought on that. If you look on the map you can see how Meridian Road is the one that lines up. Okay. Any discussion from any of the Commissioners before we go into public testimony? Centers: Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that the post office would continue to delivering mail for one year to the East First address. Borup: That's my understanding based on the information we have, that they'd use both addresses for a year. That gives a year's transition time. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 3 Centers: If that's the only concern is the cost for the businesses to allow them to change their letterhead and business cards and – Borup: Yes. Depending how often they change that and hopefully a year is enough time to help with that kind of transition. Do we have anyone here to testify on this? Come on up, sir. State your name and address for the record. Stewart: Yes. My name is Terry Stewart. I own Benny's Pawn down here on East First. I have been there for several years. Approximately 12 years now between there and I have one up here closer to -- on the other side when they went through the remodel and then I built the building and moved down there. The cost to me individually is my FFL License, which is licensed through the Federal Government that will have to be changed because all of my firearms that I order and come in will have to come to the address on my FFL License. Borup: How often does that renew? Stewart: My next renewal is 2003. Borup: Okay. Stewart: So that would have to be renewed. All my vendors that I purchase my firearms from would have to be sent new FFL License to each and everyone of them, which is not a lot, but there is about 10 to 12 different addresses that I would have to send those to. Of course, then, I just had my pawn slips all redone. It's -- I just ordered those, 10,000 of those, that's about two and a half years of my pawn slips that I send out or I write each and every day. Borup: How long ago did you order those? Stewart: Less than six months ago. I order them in 10,000 increments so that I can get a cost reduction on my printing at that point. Then also I have also my card -- my individual cards, which is not a big thing. They will have to have those printed up probably next summer the way things are going. My yellow pages have just come out. So all my advertising for my yellow pages, the books and that that just came out. My customers know where I'm at. They have the address. Or that comes along. My renters at Valley Video -- it's my understanding that he has over 20,000 movies that will have to be retagged and new addresses put on those, because if they are lost or misplaced, then they have someplace to take them back to. You spend the time putting your address out to your customers so they know where you're at and so they can find you and I don't understand why the need for the change of the address. If it's going to accomplish something, I wish somebody would tell me. Borup: The numbers aren't changing. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 4 Stewart: I understand. I understand the numbers don't change, just the name on it. Instead of my address being 451 East First, now it will be 451 Main and, that's fine, I can take care of that problem, but the other problem that you have there is your advertising, getting your name out to the public so they know where you're at and that's why I'm not against this name change. If it's to accomplish something, you know, I'd like to have somebody tell me why. That's all I have to say. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Stewart? Were you aware at all that this was -- motion was first made back in '98? Stewart: No, sir, I was not. This is -- when I first got the notice from the City of the name change, I think probably '98 was when they -- let's see, that was after they did the street remodel. That was in '95 or '6, somewhere back in that time. Now if they -- I don't know if you need to make it First East, if you want to make it Main Street in the corridor of town, I can understand that, but it is going to be confusing for a period of time for everybody and we are not even talking the cost to the City to change all the signs. I mean there are a lot of hidden costs that nobody's really addressed and with tight budgets the way they are right now, the money could be spent someplace else I think. Borup: Well, the street signs weren't hidden. That was one of the discussion items that they looked at and got a price on from ACHD. So you weren't aware of when it came up again in '99 either, then? Stewart: No, sir, I was not. If I had I would have come in and spoke up to it at that point in time, but I got my first notice, what, about a month and a half ago when they were sent out. Yes. If I would have been, then I would have come in and spoke about it then or I could have prepared for it if I had known it was coming. I would put off on my slips and other things that had to be done. When I renewed my license it would have reflected that at that point in time. There are things I could have done. You know, but right now you're looking at 2003, 2004 before my license comes up again. I mean I can do it, don't get me wrong, but there are a lot of things involved in this whole deal. Borup: When in 2003 does your license -- Stewart: December. Borup: So you have got -- could have maybe a year that would overlap there? Stewart: Well, let's see -- Borup: It would be next year before this would be adopted, I think we can guarantee that, at the earliest, and so you have got another year. That would put you into 2003. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 5 Stewart: Right and it's December of that year, so -- Borup: Yes. You have got some whenever -- first of the year through to December. Stewart: But that's just down the road. Borup: Commissioner Nary have you got -- Nary: Just on that same note, Mr. Stewart. Does that cost you money or is it the time and paperwork and all of that? Stewart: Well, time and paperwork and all the other stuff that it goes to. My license costs me on a renewal, but I have to do that regardless of what it is. Nary: But the address doesn't have anything to do with the renewal. I mean the change in the address doesn't cost you money, it's just the time of preparing to change -- Stewart: Well, it costs me money and time and preparing and the forms. Nary: You don't have to pay a fee. Stewart: To them, no, I do not. Nary: Okay. That's what I wanted to say. Stewart: It's just an inconvenience to me and it's a cost to me and my time and the people I have do it for me is what it boils down to. I don't have to pay the government to do it, but I have to pay my employees to do it or do it myself, one way or the other. Nary: Mr. Stewart, you said your business has been there approximately 12 years? Stewart: Yes. I was incorporated -- not at building. I was up near -- next to the old -- where the real estate office is down here on East First. I purchased some ground and I built that building down there with the renters on both sides of me. Nary: I think I heard you say a comment that your customers know where you're at. I mean do you think changing your address will impact your customers? I mean they know where your building is. Stewart: Yes, they do, but -- okay. Let's say that you're a customer and you -- yes, he's down on East First and -- well, it isn't East First any more, it's Main. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 6 People look for East First. What happens to East First Street? Do you just throw it away? I mean right now you have Meridian and East First and West First and it goes on out from there. Do you throw East First away? It no longer exists? It would be confusing for some people. I'm not saying it doesn't -- none of this is insurmountable at all. Nary: Sure. Nary: It's just an inconvenience for businesses and it's going to cost them. I couldn't tell you exactly, but it's going to cost them -- people up and down -- up and down the street a certain amount of money. Nary: Thank you. Borup: Maybe one. Do you have -- we've had some letters from several others that have said that all of their customers have been -- when they tell them where they are at they say East First and then where it -- that and the answer is, well, it's the Main Street that goes through town. Have you had that same experience with people asking you -- you say you're on East First and they said, well, where is East First? Stewart: Well, when people ask me where I'm at I use the railroad tracks as a reference that runs through the middle of town. Anybody that's been in the valley any length of time knows where the railroad tracks are that runs through the middle of town. Borup: But Meridian crosses the tracks and Second crosses the tracks and they all cross the tracks. Stewart: Well, they all -- on the Main Street that runs through the middle of town. Borup: You tell them it's the Main Street? Stewart: That runs through town. Borup: All right. All right. Thank you. Do we have anyone else on this issue on the street name change? I guess not. We did have -- I'm not sure if we had more than the one letter. Did we have more than one letter -- the one I read was on discussion and other testimony. Nary: Mr. Chairman, are you talking about the letter from Mr. Erhart? Borup: Yes. Nary: Yes. That's the only one I've got. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 7 Norton: Just for the record, Erhart has written his two businesses and he was in favor of the name change. Borup: And he has said similar to what Mr. Stewart said, when people ask where is East First he said it's the Main Street or main drag that goes through town. Okay. Any other Commissioners -- deliberations, discussion or recommendation? We've got the Public Hearing open still. Centers: I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing. Shreeve: I'll second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I guess as far as discussion, I think the primary reason for the name change is that most people do call it Main Street when referring to it. Borup: It's like the Main Street, but -- Centers: Right. Isn't that the primary reason? Borup: Well, that and I mean, obviously, the City Council has been talking about it since '98 and then I think they kind of forgot about it and brought it up again in '99 and it started happening in 2001. Centers: I think other members of the Commission know me well enough that I -- you know, I look at the turnout and we've sent out about, I don't know, 80 to 90 letters and we had one individual appear and testify, so -- Borup: And we continued it last time, because we thought there might be some more that would want to come. Norton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Could we ask staff if they had contacted the businesses along First Street individually, send them letters before two weeks ago just to give them a heads up on this? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 8 Berg: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Norton, I had a couple of individual students go to the businesses and hand out the notice saying that it was rescheduled for tonight personally to owner or manager or somebody of interest to that business. Borup: So you did that in addition to the letters? Centers: To the first letter? Berg: In addition to the first notice. Borup: Wow. Centers: You told them it was continued to tonight? Berg: Yes. Centers: So they got two notices. Borup: A letter and then a hand-delivered flier to the business. Berg: Mr. Chairman, it's -- the original letters go out to the property owners, which may not be the business owner, so that was the intent to cover the business owner, as well as the property owner. Borup: Does that answer -- Norton: Well, was there anything -- I know it sounds like the City Council dealt with this several -- maybe in '99. Borup: From what I could tell. I don't think there was notice given at the City Council meeting. Is that correct? Berg: Mr. Chairman, there was some confusion about the process that we needed to go through for a name change. In our ordinance and in the County Ordinance it gives the Planning and Zoning Commission the authority to have a hearing, if so desired, to have a name change and recommend that name change. So we went back to the original process of what we needed to do. There was some confusion about the process or procedure that we needed to follow. That's why you have it before you, because you are the body that needs to take care of that recommendation. Norton: Okay. Thank you. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 9 Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I'm not sure if the Commission wants to hold this up for this particular reason, but in reading the City Ordinance here, 8-2-5, in Subsection E is where I think that Mr. Berg is referring to about changes in street names. I think at least from what information that we have here, it probably fits under the category which says that street name changes may be done for reason of duplication, similar pronunciation and spelling or for other reasons related to public safety or convenience and it appears that in the proposal that came from this committee, the Mayor's Ad Hoc Historic Committee from '98, they are the ones that proposed this initially. That essentially what they are talking about in this report was there is basically some convenience for the public and that it is referred to that way commonly by many people. There is obviously, no public safety concerns. The Fire Chief has indicated it's not a problem in being able to respond to fires so it seems to be adequate. The one thing I didn't see in this and maybe if Brad has this information or if we to move this onto the Council, that at least for the Council to have it. It says that the Commission shall take into consideration the number of existing addresses on the street, the length of time each street has used the name in question, the date of the original dedication of said street, and any other factors pertinent to the change. I didn't see that in the report as to how long it's been East First Street, if it used to be Main Street years ago, and -- I don't know that. So we might need that information at some juncture to support what the ordinance requires, at least an evaluation to be made before a name change is done, because I do think -- Mr. Stewart may be the only person who showed up, but I'm sure there are people that would have the same concerns with the time, expense, and cost. It does say, though, there is lot of consideration given to that and not delaying it for a year allowing a long lengthy period of time. Now I understand from what Mr. Stewart's testimony was that may not satisfy all of his concerns, but in reading the ordinance further down it appears to me that once the name change is enacted, it can be enacted within 30 days, which would be I think more of a hardship and I think it's a legitimate hardship for many businesses if we change it in that short of time period. I think by granting a year, that's at least a plus for allowing something like that, but that was just something I noticed that I didn't see in the report in regards to how long it's been that. Maybe Mr. Berg knows. Did you live here when it was Main Street before? Berg: Sometimes it seems so. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the 30-day time period, then, for a safety reason, a very serious concern, so there is a little bit more of a quick response time for that, the length of time -- we would have to check with our historian to find out how long it's been named that. Obviously, the streets are labeled east and west from Meridian Road. So Meridian Road has been here probably a lot longer than any other roads and depending on how the town is structured and the land parcels were acquired probably determined how the roads were made. The north curve, which some of us remember, was a north curve and now it's just kind of a semi-small little curve. So things do Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 10 change according to how people build out their parcels of ground. We can probably get that information and check on it with your recommendation for the Council to have another hearing to get that information. Nary: Yes. The only other comment I would have, Mr. Chairman, is I mean – and I did -- I do concur to a degree with Mr. Stewart, it can be confusing to some people, but I think City Code does take that into consideration in trying to grant the time and trying to allow for these things to be done gradually, which I think is what is being proposed here. In the City of Boise they don't have a Seventh Street and people get confused occasionally, because it's Capital Boulevard. There is no Seventh Street in the main part of town, but most people figure it out and it's not that big of a deal. They get by. Borup: Comments from the other Commissioners? Then do we need any other discussion on the length? At the beginning I had mentioned from Fairview to East Central where the light is there. Is that -- Centers: At KFC? Borup: Yes. Right. Right past there that the -- I think East Central or the street that goes into Winco and those businesses there. Nary: So, Mr. Chairman, if we did that there would be no East First Street at all correct? Borup: Correct. Nary: And that makes the most sense to me, too. I think it would be even more confusing if it stopped at Franklin. Borup: And then have a little section -- Nary: Have one section of East First and then it becomes -- it confusing enough to people when you tell them Fairview becomes Cherry Lane at Meridian Road, that I don't think we need to do that again. Centers: The only other comment I would have, Mr. Chairman, is that I think people call it Main Street now and they'll call it Main Street, of course, if the Council approves it. I can see a time frame of no sooner than 2003. January of 2003 and call it Main until then anyway, and then it gives the property owners plenty of notice and Mr. Stewart his license and that type of thing, as far as the legal name change. Norton: Does that sound reasonable, Mr. Stewart? Stewart: That would be fine. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 11 Norton: 2003. Borup: The formal implementation of it. I think the way it is now the street name would change right away or in time, but the Post Office would still keep delivering to both addresses. Centers: Then we would have two years. Borup: Well, if we waited another year, then it would be two years. Norton: I thought that there was going to be double -- double signs, East First and Main, for a while. Did I read that? So there will be double signs, East First and Main, for a year? That's what I thought I read. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Norton, I think that that is the way that the minutes from the Council read. I think that would certainly be up to your motion as well if you want to include that. Borup: Are you proposing the double sign be there for two years then? Norton: We are talking January 2002 is in two weeks. Borup: Right. Norton: So we are talking like one year. Nary: January of 2003. Borup: Before the new signs even go up? Nary: No. No. No. Centers: No. Excuse me. Borup: I was confused where these two years comes in. Centers: The legality of the name change. My thought was that if we made it 2003, January of 2003. Borup: When the old signs would come down? Or what happens in 2003? That's when it -- Centers: Becomes the City Ordinance I guess you would say. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 12 Borup: Well, then I misunderstood how it is. I had understood that the actual name change takes place immediately when the ordinance is adopted, but the Post Office will keep delivering to both names and both street signs would be up for that year. The legal name would be Main Street. Is that correct how I interpret that? Hawkins-Clark: I believe so, Chairman. Borup: Isn't that the way you other Commissioners understood that, too? Nary: What I had understood, Mr. Chairman -- Borup: Commissioner Norton agrees. Nary: What I had understood in looking at this is that -- it's like you said, that it would become -- it would become Main Street within -- well, no sooner than 30 days after the ordinance was passed. They would put up two signs so that people would have a reference point and I'm going to guarantee that if we are going to say Main Street, they are going to go which one is that and you will say East First? Okay, now I know what you mean. It doesn't matter how we -- people are always going to be confused for some degree for a while but it would be that immediately and they continue to deliver the mail for a year. Borup: Right. Nary: So I think what you're saying is correct. We could also in the motion recommend to the City Council -- they could enact an ordinance at any point. They can enact the ordinance and have an effective date set. Borup: Right. Nary: 90 days later or 180 days later. I think they can enact it whenever they wanted it to become effective, so they can give even more lead-time if they wish and then in the motion we could include that if we want to. That was my thought. Borup: I don't know that the signs would be up in 30 days. I don't know what their lead-time is on having the signs made either. Nary: All the City Ordinance, Mr. Chairman, says is no change shall become effective for at least 30 days after the official action by the Commission. So in recommending it go to City Council that they have to approve, it in that recommendation we could recommend a time period for this to be effective as well. Centers: That was my thought, Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 13 Borup: But are you -- Centers: I thought to stretch it out there as far as reasonable to give the property owners plenty of advance notice, that there would be an article in the paper, and effective January of 2003 it's going to be -- the ordinance would be effective then in 2003. Borup: Well, if the ordinance is not effective, then, you wouldn't even change the street name then. Centers: You wouldn't have to. The signs wouldn't have to go up. Borup: So that puts it out to 2004. Centers: No. Borup: If both names are on for a year it would. If the ordinance didn't go into effect until 2003 and then you left the signs up for a year that would be 2004. Centers: Well, we could also say that the signs could go up within 45, 60 days. Borup: But I don't think -- they are not going to make signs and put them up without an ordinance in place. I mean I'm speaking for someone else, but I wouldn't think so. Centers: Whatever. I don't want to belabor it I'd just like to give the property owners -- Borup: Well, and that -- I mean maybe that needs to be handled in -- Centers: Even though most of them are not even here tonight. Shreeve: Well, I think listening to everything that's been discussed, really, by the time that the City Council gets this, approves this, they -- even 30 days, we are still looking three or four months down the road. You know, the businesses have been notified, they are looking at a year later. Really from today you're almost looking a year and a half down the road. Borup: That's what I'm thinking that's probably reasonable. Shreeve. As far as our time is concerned so I would recommend that we initiate it tonight and send it on to City Council and -- Borup: I think all City Council -- they just need to act on an ordinance, don't they? I mean vote on one, but the approval would actually be done tonight and then I guess they would either go with our approval or amend it. It sounds like Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 14 we may be saying whatever time it takes to enact it is fine. We want the double street signs to be up at least for one year. If it takes another four months to get them up, it needs to be in place for at least a year, which may be a year and a half from now and as speedy as government moves it may be longer than that. Okay. Is that -- are we in consensus on that pretty well then? Are we ready for a motion and move on? Oh, one other thing. The Fire Chief said he would like to see a north and south designation, Franklin Road as the mid point. Is that where our north and south is at this point? Okay. Well, that's just being consistent -- that's just consistent with the numbering already the way it already is. That's not a change, that's just -- Nary: It's probably required by the ordinance is what I would think. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: That we -- first of all, I guess we need to close the Public Hearing. Borup: We did. Shreeve: I'd like to make a motion that we approve MI 01-001, request for a street name change from East First Street to Main Street from Cherry Lane / Fairview Avenue, south to East Central Drive, with -- well, yes, with the north- south destination points on that from Fairview -- Franklin. Excuse me. Franklin. Is that all? Nary: That it would go from Fairview to Corporate Drive? Borup: No. East Central. Nary: East Central. I'm sorry. Shreeve: That's my motion. Borup: And did you want to say anything on the double street signs would be up for a minimum of a -- Shreeve: Yes a minimum of a year. Double street signs minimum of a year by the time the ordinance -- Borup: Was enacted. Any other -- there is a motion. Do we have a second? Nary: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 15 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5. Public Hearing: CUP 01-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Equipment Storage lot in an OT zone for Tates Rents by Tates Rents – northeast corner of North Meridian Road and East Ada Street: Borup: Thank you. Okay. Item No. 5 -- well, Mr. Hawkins-Clark has -- before we even open that up, is there some information on that that you have for the Commission? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, Item No. 5, the Conditional Use Permit for Tates Rents, that was a recommendation given by staff at our front counter approximately three months ago. Our understanding at that point was that that property was zoned Old Town. That storage use in the Old Town designation requires a Conditional Use Permit. We did not discover until about a week ago that that is the only parcel in the stretch between Fairview and Franklin on the east side of Meridian Road that is not zoned Old Town. That parcel was rezoned approximately three years ago to a C-G designation. So essentially we told the applicant wrong information. We told them that they no longer had to do a Conditional Use Permit. The storage use for the Tates is an allowed use in the C-G zone. They do have potentially some issues with meeting the Landscape Ordinance, since they do have Meridian Road frontage and the Landscape Ordinance required 35 feet, they will probably have to potentially seek a variance or some other administrative to meet that. In essence, we have agreed with them to refund the administrative fee for that application, because of our error and we are working with them on that. Norton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Okay. The administrative fee was 283.50 dollars? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Norton: And when will Tates Rents get that money? Hawkins-Clark: Well, they will get it as soon as the Accounting Department is able to refund it. Norton: How soon? Hawkins-Clark: I do not know their time frame. I'm sorry. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 16 Norton: And a letter of apology, maybe? Hawkins-Clark: We can certainly do that. Norton: Thank you. Borup: But the applicant should also know what the zoning of their own property is. I mean it's not entirely for staff to tell someone something that they should also know. I mean it was a mistake, but I don't know that it was entirely one- sided. Nary: Probably don't want to ask me about that. Borup: Are they going to need to come back before us on a variance, then, or is that worked out at staff level on the landscaping? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, of course, variances do not come before this body. Borup: Oh. That's right. Okay. Hawkins-Clark: If they do have a variance request it would go to Council. I do not believe they are going to need one. I think we will be able to work it out under the alternative compliance outlet. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Well, I should point that I don't believe that we are in any kind of difficult communication. I think it was recognized as an oversight on their part. Borup: Well, all I can see a 60-foot lot and a 35 foot landscaping is -- only leaves them 25 feet left. Okay. So there is no action needed on that item; is that correct? Was there anyone here that came for this -- for that particular -- we didn't have anyone here either. Item 6. Public Hearing: AZ 01-020 Request for annexation and zoning of 3.58 acres from R-1 to R-8 zones for proposed Silhouette Subdivision by Tyler Torkelson – east of North Meridian Road and south of East Ustick Road: Item 7. Public Hearing: PP 01-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots and 3 other lots on 3.00 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Silhouette Subdivision by Tyler Torkelson – east of North Meridian Road and south of East Ustick Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 17 Item 8. Public Hearing: CUP 01-039 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Silhouette Subdivision by Tyler Torkelson – east of North Meridian Road and south of East Ustick Road: Borup: Item No. 6 -- actually, Item No. 6, 7, and 8 are all concerning the same project. Item No. 6 is Public Hearing AZ 01-020, request for annexation and zoning of 3.58 acres from R-1 to R-8 for proposed Silhouette Subdivision by Tyler Torkelson. Item PP 01-021, request for Preliminary Plat, 19 building lots and 3 others on 3 acres for the same proposed Silhouette Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit CUP 01-039, request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Silhouette Subdivision. We'd like to open all three of these Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup. The aerial photo of this subject property is on the screen, east -- North Meridian Road is here on the left. Ustick Road approximately 1,000 feet to the north is here. There is an existing parcel, vacant Ag use here. The Onweiler Lateral courses on the north boundary. Salisbury Subdivision is existing and located here on the west side of Meridian Road. That is the property that gives the subject parcel contiguity with the existing City limits and allows them to request annexation. The site photo. This is the east boundary of the subdivision looking south right next to the Onweiler Lateral. This is the lateral here on the left-hand side looking more or less eastbound. In terms of our comments, you should have received a staff report dated December 9th from Dave McKinnon and Bruce Freckleton. There is just I think three items that I wanted to touch on with you. I think annexation and zoning comments are standard and we are not -- we are not requiring a Development Agreement in this application. Site-specific comments for the plat on Page 5, we are asking for a revised Landscape Plan. Just to familiarize you here on the screen the -- again, Meridian Road here. They have a single public road access point to Meridian Road that courses, changes names, and then stubs to the south here. They are attached townhomes. Centers: Brad, Page 5, Number 3 at the bottom first sentence. Do you mean to insert the word meet -- does not meet? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Centers: Okay. Excuse me. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Thank you for pointing that out. The reference there in Number 3 is -- the Landscape Plan they submitted -- again, this is a proposed open space area here along the north and the Landscape Plan, as I understand, did not include details as to whether that would be sod or what kind of shrubbery or trees. That was just a missing item that we are asking for there. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 18 The reference point to include the lots on Page 6, Number 7, there are two existing buildings here on the front on Meridian Road, a duplex and a single family house, and that reference there. Number 7, is to incorporate those two existing buildings into the subdivision, so they are not enclaves, essentially or remnant parcels. Yes. We are asking in Item Number 9 there that fencing, given the adjacent Ag use, be required along the east and north and south property lines and a fence to be installed across the stub street here along the south. I wanted to touch on one amendment on Page 7 there, Item Number 14. The applicant shall obtain a letter from Ada County Highway District and the Meridian Fire Department regarding the turnaround location and size and we just wanted to add by the City Council meeting. I don't think that was -- that was not included in there, just to give a time frame as to when we would like to receive that. Shreeve: What number? Hawkins-Clark: That's 14 on Page 7. It didn't say when. Again, that's referring here to -- they have a proposed turnaround on the east side of their north-south street that is right here and that's within what is typically allowed as a turnaround location. Usually one building lot. In this case given the narrow frontage, they still meet the distance from the stub back so we are just looking for some feedback on that location from the Meridian Fire Department by prior to City Council meeting. I do not believe that there are any concerns with that, though. I think the last thing to point out on the staff report there on Page 9 regarding the open space and they are meeting the ordinance for the Planned Development. The point that we raised was mainly a location and usability of the open space. At this point there are essentially three locations that they have as open space. There is the lateral here along the north which courses and then this lot here is open space. There is a lot here that is open space at the entrance and then this turnaround is designated for a basketball court and is also open space. Our concern was that in this case you have a fairly narrow lot that is probably going to be fenced on both sides and not necessarily giving a scent of open space in the subdivision if it were fenced on both sides. This lot here is at the entrance and certainly meets the intent there. In terms of this third area that's open space, if you have a fence here along the north boundary and then you have a fence along the rear of these lot lines, it creates somewhat of a narrow tunnel effect back there and may not necessarily meet the best intent for open space and usability. So that was the intent of our consideration there for your discussion. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Hawkins-Clark: I think those are the only things I have. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 19 Nary: Brad, is the only contiguousness of this subdivision annexation is the subdivision across the street? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Centers: I'd like to go back to the first area -- or the area map, if you could, Brad. That's my question. Nary: I was just curious, because we have had brought before this Commission before discussion regarding annexing property using the street as the connection and it was north of Meridian Road. In fact, I think it was somewhere on the east side, but it was -- the old issue was using the roadway as the contiguous point between the connection. I don't know why this is any different. Why is this contiguous when the roadway is the only connection? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Nary, the difference would be that the -- if you're referring to Keltic Heights. Nary: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: They were proposing to annex only the right of way. Centers: Now they were down this way. Hawkins-Clark: No. They were up north about a mile and a half. Borup: A mile and a half. Centers: They were up here and the city was down here. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Centers: Were they planning to use the road? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Centers: In this case they -- Hawkins-Clark: But in that case they were using -- they were using just the road to gain a shoestring annexation. Centers: Well, aren't you doing that here, just the road? It's across the street. Hawkins-Clark: Well, the legal description for this subdivision, Salisbury Subdivision, was written so that it extended to the centerline of Meridian Road. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 20 So you essentially have a legal description of a property that is annexed, you know, across the street. They would annex to the centerline as well. Centers: To this one? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: You have got 300 feet of contiguous, counting the centerline. Centers: Well, he didn't until he mentioned the centerline. Borup: Well -- Centers: Well, that clarifies it. Nary: That's great. Thanks. Borup: I know we have had others that -- maybe not rightly, but have annexation taken place that have been corner points were the only contiguous point. Nary: That's the only reason I asked the question is I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't just the road. That's all. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Commissioner Nary, just a point of clarification. State statute requires the annexation of adjacent right of way and we have always required that the annexations -- when the descriptions do come in that they are written to the section line or centerline of the road. That way it's easy for the next one to come in and mate up to it. So that's something we check for routinely. Nary: I just didn't want someone to come back later and say we missed the boat again. That's fine. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Any other staff information or comments? Any questions from the Commissioners? Is the applicant here and would like to make a presentation? Pavelek: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Richard Pavelek. I'm associated with Tealey's Land Surveying. Our office is at 2501 Bogus Basin Road in Boise. We come before you with an application for annexation of just over three and a half acres of property. We have reviewed with staff the proposed density that we are asking for on the subdivision and we mutually Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 21 agreed that the proposed density is consistent with the land uses in this area and provides a vehicle for a viable development on this property. With Meridian -- North Meridian Road being the frontage street, we anticipate traffic along it, so we have proposed a townhouse development as both attached and detached units in this property. The modification that staff has noted I think we could make sure it's consistent with the recommendation of City Council in the Preliminary Plat and that is that we have 19 townhouse lots. Since the application we will be providing two additional buildable lots, which are the two existing houses, and they will be included in the platting of this. They will not be excluded. So that would be the one change and I haven't scanned all of the report to make sure that we have, you know, caught any reference to buildable lots, but there would be 21 lots -- buildable lots that would include those two residences. The layout of the -- if you go back to the overall site plan that would be great. The layout of the subdivision portion of the project was -- took into account basically the alignment of the street as it existed across North Meridian Road, so that was our point of entrance. We will be closing up any other curb cuts that are -- have been provided on that property and we will go with that one entrance. The two curb cuts for the existing houses will be maintained and whatever other construction work the Highway District requires of us we will be putting in. This subdivision does have a single stub to the south and that's at the request of the Highway District and it's part of their desire to have interconnecting neighborhoods a couple ways of getting in and out both for residential traffic, as well as emergency vehicle traffic. The rest of it is pretty straightforward. We believe that all of the lots meet the ordinance requirement. We have noted on the CU the size of the townhouse -- houses and residences there. We agree with the conditions that are being proposed by staff, the inclusion of basically a pathway -- and our understanding is that the pathway would go from our internal street north on the Onweiler Slough there and meander and that by ditching that in that there would be a pedestrian connection back there. We will provide a Landscape Plan to show the detail of how it would be provided. Obviously, when other developments come along we would hope that they would extend the pathway and that it would have some destination that would be usable for this property, as well as the neighboring property. As far as the turnout, the only small change that I would ask you to consider is that the timing of getting the letter from the Fire Department and the Highway District. We have no problem with meeting that, it's just normally that's part of the Commission of the construction plan and they review those items at that point in time, so if it can be done prior to approval of the Final Plat that would be timingwise, I guess, a more comfortable time frame for us. If that's not in your interest, then we will by all means go out and get that. I think we would have more detail for both agencies to review if it was part of the review of the construction plan. Borup: Are you saying that the Highway District and Fire Department normally do not like to review Preliminary Plans, that they want the full construction -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 22 Pavelek: I think it's easier for us to have them review the complete package, because they are going to be looking at fire hydrants and other items besides just that one item. It would seem to be prudent that if the Fire Department is going to look at it, they look at the total package, rather than a single item. Borup: Maybe we might need some clarification from Brad, but I guess I had understood that staff's reason for putting it in there was if the Fire Department or ACHD wanted that moved, this would be a much better time for you to redesign, rather than after you have prepared all your documents -- after you have prepared all your engineering. Wouldn't you rather change it now than after you've drawn everything? Pavelek: I guess what we'd like to find out is whether this is an approvable project and then go about the details, but it would not trouble us terribly if the condition stands as recommended. Borup: Well, unless they want more detail, but I -- wasn't it staff's recommendation just -- approval on just the documents they have at this point, that it's not to have anything additional? Freckleton: That's correct. We'd just like to have their input. That's fine. Borup: Go ahead. You were going on. Pavelek: I believe the -- I believe that's probably, you know, about all of the things that come to mind. There are a couple of typo errors. One you noted already. There was -- I think it's Item Number 9 in the conditions there is a repetitive sentence that probably could be struck out. Other than that, I think we would hope to gain your recommendation to Council for the approval of the annexation and the Preliminary Plat and approval of the CU at this time. If there are any questions I would be happy to address them. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Do you have a copy of the -- is it Mr. Pavelek? Pavelek: Pavelek. Centers: On the staff comments. Pavelek: Yes. Centers: You might refer to them. Page 5, Item 3 at the bottom, you know, their comment that it doesn't meet the requirements? You really didn't address that. You might want to ask for that and continue on. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 23 Pavelek: Basically what happened with that one is that we submitted a plan initially where the Onweiler Slough was, in fact, going to remain in place if they surface the drainage course. In the discussion in review with the staff, they recommended that, in fact, we tile or pipe that drainage way and because -- Centers: We are talking about Item 3, not Item 2. Borup: On the Landscape Plan. Pavelek: Yes and what I was saying is that because -- now, tile -- we did not have a Landscape Plan, because it was not to be landscaped. Now that it is being buried, it, in fact, requires an adjustment to the Landscape Plan and we will make that. That's no problem. Centers: That's not a problem? Pavelek: Yes. Centers: Page 6, Number 9. Could you address that? There is no fencing plan. Pavelek: Well, initially we were not aware that we are being required to fence those areas and we will provide a fencing plan. Centers: With the Preliminary Plat? Pavelek: We can do that. Centers: With a revised plat. You revised it for the extra two lots. You have to replat it for the extra two lots or the two houses there. Pavelek: As I understand it, the recommended conditions are that we will, in fact, be doing that before the plat is finalized. We will be adding those. Now on the Landscape Plan, we -- which is going to be revised within the next 10 days we will show the fencing. Borup: The fence would be on the Landscaping Plan, not the plat. The plat wouldn't show fencing or anything. Centers: I guess I was trying to find out when it was going to be done. Pavelek: I assume that staff would like it done before we go to Council, so we have 10 days prior to that Public Hearing if we do receive your recommendation to, in fact, have that work done and it will be shown at that time. Centers: Then Item 10. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 24 Pavelek: Yes. Centers: Not a problem? Pavelek: Basically as I understand that condition is that that would be part of the construction plan that will be submitted and that will be done prior to the Final Plat. Borup: Yes. That's how it's stated there. Final plat. Centers: Then Item 12 not a problem? Pavelek: At this time I don't believe that it is. The comment I would make there, I looked at that and my knowledge of plant material is is that there is a point at which you can't be -- exact on caliper size is physically not possible and probably not desirable. I believe in that case we do not have large trees that we are removing, so it's not an issue. Centers: And then Page 9, additional consideration where the staff would like to see your open space more accessible. You really didn't address that. Pavelek: Well, I thought I did. My understanding is that what they are looking for is a connection between -- in the landscape buffer lot that runs parallel with North Meridian Road and would connect from our internal street up to the Onweiler Canal and we agreed to put that pathway in there. Centers: I think we were talking that more centrally located. We really don't want to -- for example -- and I -- you know, you don't want to make that open space. Is that what you're saying? Pavelek: No. I think basically what staff -- my understanding is that they would like to develop the Onweiler Slough Corridor as a pedestrian connection and that it become part of a larger network. That would be the desirable improvement to our Landscape Plan and provide a true recreational opportunity, in light of the fact that the configuration of the properly -- it's a fairly small compact piece of development and, you know, we are trying to do the best and that seemed to be the viable alternative and we agree to that. Centers: And then the asphalt walking path that they talk about on Page 10 to connect the open space. Pavelek: Yes. That's basically what we talked about. Centers: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 25 Pavelek: Same thing. Centers: Right. That's all I have. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Pavelek, do I understand -- from what I heard from staff's comment was that you said it was -- the access to the pathway here is going to be in this front end of the subdivision is that correct? Pavelek: That's correct. Nary: Is there any way -- I guess my thought is right now this is essentially a closed track right? There is nothing else on this side, so just the one little piece? Pavelek: It only makes sense if it becomes part of a larger parcel and I think basically staff feels confident enough that over a period of time it will happen. Nary: Was there any discussion with the staff of instead of putting the walking -- the access to the walking path on the front end where there is already a sidewalk here, to putting it somewhere here in the middle? Pavelek: No. Did not look at that option. It becomes more difficult in terms of site setbacks and privacy issues of these townhouses. I think we can provide what the community is interested in the location that is being proposed. Nary: Well, I know what our ordinance says is that it has to be usable open space. My concern is that this closed pathway here isn't going to be used by anybody who lives on this end of this subdivision. They are going to essentially walk all the way up this subdivision, up to this pathway to get to this path to walk backwards to a dead end and then back to this area and come back down the pathway to go back to their house. I mean no one's going to use that. Pavelek: Could I have the staff put up the neighborhood map? I think it was the zoning map and take a look at that. If you take a look at that, there is going to be a series of stub streets that are going to connect the adjoining property with this property, which results in the opportunity of going up the Onweiler. So there is going to be a loop in there. Part of it will be down the Onweiler, part of it will be along the street, and what I envision is that there is going to be a loop in that combination of street patterns and the pedestrian way along the Onweiler Slough. So it is not going to be a dead end over the long haul and, you know, we, obviously, are dependent upon the consistency of goals by Meridian to achieve that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 26 Nary: Correct. What you're saying, though, is once these get developed, and then this will become a more useful path. Pavelek: Correct. Nary: I don't disagree with you. What I'm saying is that when these people right here in the -- I guess that would be the southern part of this subdivision. When they move in there a year from now and this is still bare ground, they don't have a way to get to that pathway, except to walk all the way around to the front of the subdivision on Meridian Road and go to this gravel pathway that's here to walk backwards to a dead end for awhile and then walk back. They just won't use it. So to me, rather than to avoid the complaining that people are going to say what were we thinking and having this dead end path that only has one entrance at the front, why not have an access point somewhere on this end of the subdivision. These people can access it as easily from this side from Meridian Road back, as well as from this south side north. Borup: Commissioner Nary? Nary: Yes. Borup: It sounds to me like you're saying people won't walk an extra few hundred yards to exercise because they are too lazy. I mean it's a walking path. Aren't they out there to exercise and you're saying that -- Nary: But there is no exit. Borup: Well, I don't know if I see a lot of difference between walking around in a circle and walking back and forth in a straight line. Nary: Well, I'm just -- I guess -- Borup: If they are out for exercise. Nary: All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is common sense tells me that if I live in this house, I'm not going to walk all the way here to walk to this dead end and turn around and walk back and come down. If you had an access in the middle it would also, once this pathway gets developed, you would have access to both east and west along the pathway. Everybody that lives on this east side, as well as the south side of this subdivision can access it equally. Borup: Well, no, I understand it's easier to get at, but common sense to me if you're out for a two-mile walk, another 300 feet shouldn't deter you from going on an exercise walk. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 27 Nary: Well, we have had this issue before with other subdivisions where we created these dead end pathways to satisfy the minimum requirements of the open space requirement, but not really creating any usable space that anybody can use. Five years goes by and somebody develops this property to the east and this property to the north and five or eight, nine years from now it's a nice area, but these people for that time period really can't use it for anything. Norton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: We are talking three and a half acres. That's not a whole lot of space. It's not a whole lot of walking. I don't see any problem whatsoever with the open space situation that he has proposed. Three and a half acres is not very much and I don't see a problem whatsoever. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I know where Commissioner Nary is coming from, but I have got to agree with Commissioner Norton. I'm not so sure people are going to use that if there were better access. I know with one subdivision we approved that was about the same size, they went with asphalt in that area to allow for skateboards or rollerblades for children and that type of thing, because, really, it's not that usable, other than just walking up and down. How wide is that? Pavelek: I believe it's -- Centers: Yes. You're just meeting the -- Borup: There is a 25 foot easement for the -- Pavelek: That's what I had assumed that it would be. Centers: So, you know, I tend to agree with Commissioner Norton, but I know what Commissioner Nary is saying, but I don't think of -- how many lots are we talking 19? Pavelek: Nineteen internal lots. Centers: Even if you had better access I can't the see people utilizing that everyday anyway. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 28 Borup: It's not -- you know, you don't have a ball field there or something that it goes to, other than to walk, and my only point is if you're going there to walk, it shouldn't be a hardship to walk another 200, 300 feet if you're going there to walk anyway. It is a little hard to get at, but there is nothing to do there besides walk up and down anyway. Norton: One other point is that – Borup: Maybe go for a picnic. Norton: There is a long walking path -- you just walk down Meridian a little bit and you have this long walking path at Tulley Park. Nary: True. Borup: But I do think it's nice to do this now. If this one doesn't go in, then the next neighbor who is going to have a longer -- will say, well, the other one didn't do it we shouldn't have to. You got to start on these types of things, but I think it's -- Nary: All right. All right. Centers: What was the percentage of open space that you have now with that walking path? Borup: I know the minimum is 10, correct. Pavelek: Let me look through the numbers. I don't know whether staff remembers the number or not. Centers: We have three acres, which is 129,000 feet, and so that's 13,000 feet. Ten percent. Hawkins-Clark: Which was 17,338. Centers: He's over the minimum 13. Pavelek: Thirteen percent. Centers: Yes. Tough to do three acres you're giving up quite a bit there. So all right. Pavelek: Mr. Chairman, the only thing I'll mention is that the owner, Mr. Torkelson, is here. He has done a lot of due diligence as far as going through the utilities and serving to connect with the subdivision homeowners association across the street to work out a viable means of irrigation. So I think we have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 29 done a lot of those things and feel pretty comfortable come with, you know, what we need to do there. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Nary: Just one other question, Mr. Chairman. On the basketball court on the other side, Mr. Pavelek, I guess I can't envision. How big is that? How big is that going to be? There is no parking there. Pavelek: No. What we are using is a turnaround there and it's only going to be used for emergencies and we think -- and including the basketball hoop and a picnic table off the end of that was good use of that space and that -- Nary: So there will be some green space besides the basketball court, a park -- or a park bench or -- Pavelek: It's not going to be a large area, but there is room enough for basically the hoop and a little bit of space there. Nary: There is a little basketball court over in Corporate Drive area behind Wenco. I don't know if you're familiar with that area. Okay. I guess that's what I'm envisioning size wise. Pavelek: It's probably -- I'd have to look at the actual lot. Borup: The lot is 27, almost 28 wide. Nary: Thank you. Pavelek: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone here to testify on this application? Mr. Moyle had signed up. Moyle: Mr. Commissioner, gentlemen, lady, my name is Joe Moyle. I live at 280 North Plummer in Star and the family owns the ground at -- if you'll go to six. This one. We own the property from here and around and out. So you understand whom -- our concern is that, first of all, the density, of course, which I think is kind of excessive. The 21 houses on three acres of -- a little over three acres of ground. I'm also concerned about the way the roads are set up, because they're stubbing another street into our property and this is the narrow point of our property and it makes a lot of property eventually almost useless. If they were to stub the street to the east -- if you will go back to six you will notice that -- if they would stub it to the east, we also have one up here -- as you see, if they stub it to the east it will line up with the one on the east of our property, which only makes sense. It also makes a little sense, because Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 30 you're losing a lot of ground for a turnaround for a fire truck. If it goes to the east, well, then it can back around and go out and you can eliminate that larger problem. As far as -- and just referring to the Onweiler Lateral as the Onweiler Slough, it is a lateral -- irrigation lateral. Not a slough, it's a lateral, and it's awfully hard to irrigate out of the lateral because of the problems we have with subdivisions upstream and also when they put in Meridian Road they have yet to put in the drains along Meridian Road to go to that -- to the South Slough. They never were replaced. I don't know about the drainage on this property and whether the drain area that they have is actually a drainage area that will be full of water a great deal of the time. That's something that concerns me about the design. Also another option for them is they can make their road through their subdivision a U if they get a variance to go next to the brick house that's there right along the fence, they can go in one and out the other. If you can go back to the little -- that one right there. If you take the south side of the property, they could come around go around next to that -- to the brick house and back out there and have a turnaround with no problem at all. We are concerned about the design, very concerned, because of the way it affects our property. When it was originally presented to me that was to be a cul-de-sac at the end. A cul-de-sac would be fine but coming into our property at that line it really destroys the front half of our property and where the Highway District wants to bring the traffic down along the slough from the eastern subdivision, it would be best if they could just drop right into that road right out on to Meridian Road. I look at the -- also the greenbelt they are talking -- or walking path they want to put up there. There is no extension of the walking path -- that walking path east of our property. In fact, the ditch -- over the years -- in 1950 the ditch was where the road is on the north now. It has been cleaned now and moved south. The road was on the south side of the ditch. They went on the north side of the ditch and cleaned it and moved that road right away. So that ditch has been moved substantially since 1950, just every year moved it a little further south, and I don't know whether the ditch company will continue to meet that road or whether it can be made into a city street with its tile underneath it. I don't know. But that concerns me about the way that sits there. Borup: You concerned about where it connects to which? Up here, Mr. Moyle. Moyle: Oh. I'm sorry. I'm looking the wrong way. Borup: You said -- what was it that concerned you about the Onweiler? Moyle: Oh, just that it's hard to irrigate out of it, because it's poorly maintained. You set your siphon tubes and you go home and you come back and somebody's turned a pump on up ahead upstream and it will shut off our siphon tubes and wash our crops out. We have had that trouble, so this year we put it into set-aside, because we couldn't farm it because of the actions of previous zoning commissions and the building problems that didn't protect it. Mother is 90 years old -- 91 years old I believe it is and she gets upset when we do anything Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 31 with her property and that's why this piece of ground hasn't been subdivided, but it will be when mother is no longer in the picture. We keep her house there and two other little houses on the property, but we don't wish to upset her. When she got her little zoning -- notification of this zone meeting, she spent five sleepless nights and I spent five sleepless nights trying to explain to her that you weren't trying to take her property away from her. So, anyway, that's where we come -- we would like to see that redesigned to reflect -- if, in fact, you can't go back out onto the street, then design it so it goes at least to the east and far enough away from the Onweiler that we can put a row of houses in there. Okay? Borup: Any questions of Mr. Moyle? Centers: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moyle, have you had any Preliminary Plans drawn for your land? Moyle: We had a plat drawn up. We originally -- Centers: How long ago? Moyle: Oh, it's been four or five years ago, but we haven't -- we didn't pursue it, because mother and dad couldn't decide what they wanted to see happen to their ground and so we just put them aside. What the original plan was was to make a semi-gated retirement community there of townhouses with lots of moguls and lots of open space. Centers: Well, the reason I ask that is the stub street here -- I don't have my ruler with me, but the scale shows it a little over 200 feet from the street. Moyle: That's right. Yes. Centers: And where is it going to go -- I guess there could be a lot of plans drawn that would tie that stub street right into any development you wanted to do. Moyle: Well, not really. Centers: Well, that's your opinion and -- Borup: Can you show where the location of the existing house is, Mr. Moyle? Is that house going to stay? Is the existing house going to stay on your property? Moyle: Yes. Right there. Right there. Borup: No. On your property. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 32 Moyle: Yes. It's even shown in some pictures. Borup: Right. But I wonder what the relationship of that is to that stub street. Moyle: Well, next one back. That's mother's house right there. That's looking right straight out of her back window right where the road will go through, right through her back window. Centers: Is that south of the proposed plat? Moyle: Yes. That's looking south right down the proposed road. Centers: Okay. So the stub street would run into that house? Moyle: Run right to that house. Centers: So that may be your objection. Moyle: That's my objection. I'd like to see it go to the east where it goes towards the other street that we have to stub into the property. Borup: Do you know what the distance is from this property to the house? Centers: No, I don't. It's about 200 -- 150 feet, 200 feet, something like that. I would have to go and wheel it out to see. I don't know. Borup: In the photograph -- I assume the fence on the left is the east property line? Moyle: That's the east property line, yes. Borup: Then this other fence is the south property line? Moyle: The south and this is the north. This is the north property line. Borup: Of your property. It would be the south of theirs. Moyle: On our property, yes. Down -- that's our property line right there. Borup: So you said this fence to the house is what your -- Moyle: That's what concerns me, because it messes up the front of the property with it coming in that close in that area. If it was to go to the east where it would kind of line up with the one that's on the east, then we could design something to take care of that and still go ahead with what is planned. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 33 Norton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mr. Moyle, that window that's facing this way -- Moyle: That's her bedroom. Norton: So there would be car lights going right in that window; is that correct? Moyle: Yes. Norton: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Except she's not living there. Moyle: She hasn't been there, she's in a -- Norton: The street as it is drawn is that heading straight to that window? Moyle: Yes. Centers: Yes. Okay. Moyle: That just goes straight to the house. But we thought -- when I talked to Mr. Torkelson originally he was going to make a cul-de-sac there and then they decided they were going to -- Borup: I don't think they decided, ACHD told them they would. Moyle: Well, they could go to the east pretty easily and line up with the -- with the stub that's already there and I'm sure the county would go along with that. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Moyle, could you point out where to the east you're talking about? You said you're going to line up with something and I guess -- Moyle: Oh. Okay. Go back to six. You see this road here and if they came in here so that the road could come up around. Nary: Oh. Okay. You're talking about lining up with the roadway -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 34 Moyle: Yes. Nary: Okay. Moyle: I'm talking about they want to have so that other subdivisions can come in -- Borup: Or even this one. Oh, this is off your property. Moyle: That's off our property. That's on Mr. Sweet's property. Any other questions? Centers: Well, I think, Mr. Moyle, if you look at that, the size and the width of that 3.58 acres, it would be tough for them to stub a street to the east. Moyle: No. Centers: Well, I think it would. Borup: Without losing a lot. Centers: They might lose a couple lots. Moyle: They won't lose a lot. If you go to their plan and look at it real close, if they come back -- you've got a – Borup: You need to use the microphone. Would you like to -- Moyle: Well, can I get a pointer? Okay. If you go right -- right here where you got your basketball court and your design -- redesign this lot, this lot, and these three lots right here, you could have the same number of lots and instead of -- you would utilize part of this road and you would use part of this lot to make your entrance into the east. I think there is enough room there. It would also make it possible for you to take your basketball court and incorporate it, maybe, with your park area over here if you readjusted those to where it would be more useful. Be a lot more usable for you. I just think there is a better way to do it. There is a lot of ways to skin a cat and -- Centers: Not with that piece of ground. Moyle: And I just think now is the time to look at it very seriously and -- if he has to come back and redesign a bunch of this, come back with a proposal that would maybe be a little more compatible with our adjoining property. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Moyle? Up here. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 35 Moyle: Oh, I'm sorry. I can't tell where you're at. Borup: Do you have -- did the applicant meet with you at all prior to -- you said -- Moyle: I talked to him once and -- Borup: You mentioned where the cul-de-sac was. Did he have a chance to look at your proposed design? Moyle: We had -- we hadn't even talked about it. He told me what he wanted to do and he wanted to put a cul-de-sac there. Since then I haven't talked to him since they decided to stub a road it there and I have never had any contact. Borup: I just wondered how that road stub would tie in with what your intentions for the property were. Moyle: I'm sorry? Borup: I just wondered how that stub street would tie in with your proposed design. Moyle: Well, our proposed design is -- the one they put in before kind of screwed that up, but the two of them together maybe we could adjust to where we could do what we planned on doing with the property on a smaller scale. That's all. The big house -- the big house that's shown here is quite a big house. You have been into it, Keith. There is a swimming pool, there is a hot tub, an exercise room, large meeting room, and eventually we thought about putting a -- kind of a senior retirement center there and using the house as a clubhouse. That's what we were looking at. We wanted it so that it wasn't a thoroughfare through the thing and by having it go to the east possibly we can divide part of it off and make it work. Borup: I guess I can see with the stub where it is. You could still come and curve it. Moyle: It will lose a lot of its value, in my opinion. Borup: Your development would you mean? Moyle: Yes. It would mess up our development. I can revise what I have already got done, but I can't -- I don't know. You guys are the smart ones. I'm just an old farmer and -- Borup: Well, that's what I was wondering if you had talked with them on your proposed design. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 36 Moyle: I haven't talked to anybody about that the design. Like I said, mother is - - Borup: Because you have got -- like you said, 150 to 200 feet to come down -- Moyle: Well, we have got seven acres there. Borup: Curve the road over and still have housing on both sides of that, it looks like. Moyle: Well, it could be possible. It could be possible. But we would prefer to have it come in at the east. At least a block -- at least enough room so we could put lots between the road and the Onweiler. Borup: Any other questions? Nary: No. Centers: No. Moyle: Thank you. Borup: Do you we have anyone else to testify on this application? Mr. Pavelek, any final comments? Pavelek: Mr. Chairman and Fellow Commissioners, just a couple of things. If we could go back to the photographs of the barn, I want to clarify -- that barn there. If you're actually looking at the plan, that barn is right there. So it's in the -- Borup: On lot six? Is that the one? Pavelek: Basically it's in the middle of our road. So the alignment of the internal road, the stub street, would, in fact, go right through that barn and would not be aimed at that house. The house is somewhere between 200 and 300 feet to the south of our property line there. So it's -- and I apologize, we don't have the proper map that shows it all in one plan, but, in fact, that's the barn, that's the tin barn in the middle of our road and you can begin to see that, in fact, our alignment is well to the west of that house. The second point is is that we are -- Centers: Where it says existing building? Pavelek: Pardon? Centers: Where it says existing -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 37 Pavelek: That existing building attached in to the middle of the road, is that tin barn. Centers: Right. Pavelek: So it's -- I guess maybe there is some confusion about where the streets are in relationship to that, but that's where the alignment is going to be. Centers: Thank you. Pavelek: The second point is is the Highway District, in their wisdom, chose to go in this direction. It does work in our benefit to go in this direction but that was their choice. It gave a couple of options and before we really generated many plans we, in fact, looked at that and they didn't want -- basically the stub street, they did not want a cul-de-sac on this property. Borup: You talked to them about going to the east and -- Pavelek: We asked them what are the -- you know, what are the options and I assumed that on local streets they just don't like people running directly out to the collector and arterial street systems and they'd like have -- kind of work them along through the neighborhood to slow them down and that's I assume why they went to the scheme where we are going to the south with our stub street, rather than to the east. Borup: But I take it -- and you have not sat down with Mr. Moyle, other than to tell him of your initial layout plan where you had the cul-de-sac planned then? Pavelek: Mr. Torkelson basically spoke with his neighbors. I was not part of that and I believe that they did have a conversation initially of what we were trying to do and I believe it was accurately described the basis of that meeting and as far as follow-up, I'd have to ask Mr. Torkelson whether or not there was anything further as we evolved the -- Borup: It just looks to me like maybe some of his concerns could have been answered if that did take place and maybe showing how their proposed design could tie in with this and he could still accomplish what they desire for their property without it really affecting what they want to do. Pavelek: In my perception I think basically there are a number of options here that will work on those 17 acres. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Nary. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 38 Nary: Just so I'm clear, Mr. Pavelek, you said that from your property line about two or three hundred feet to that house there? Pavelek: Correct. Nary: Now I'm looking at the -- and maybe it's just the illusion of this picture, but when I look on this plan, it appears to be about 100 feet to the property line from that tin building. Pavelek: If staff could put back the exhibit that shows the neighborhood plan again. There is a stub street -- and I'm going to walk over and point to it. That stub street is to the north of that existing house. Moyle: No, it isn't. No, it isn't. That is on -- Borup: Wait a minute. Mr. Moyle, we need to get you on the testimony. We can get that clarified. Pavelek: I just want to look at the plan again. Is that correct? Moyle: No. That is -- that goes into Mr. Sweet's property that's south of our place. That's on the south side of the South Slough. The house is right where the -- Nary: My only question is looking at that picture what you're telling us is that from where that barn is it's almost 400 feet away, which is over 100 yards, to that house. It just looks -- it doesn't look very far. It looks like this road is going to run right through their front yard if you have a road there. Pavelek: All I can say is my client said if you extend the stub street that I pointed to in a westerly direction, that existing house is to the south of that point. Now that's all -- does staff have an aerial? Let's go back to the aerial, because that would show. That would solve the problem. There it is right there. Here is the house. There is the -- Nary: So, Mr. Pavelek, what are those buildings -- are those buildings in the corner of that circle there -- the edge of that circle, is that the one that's marked on this plat as existing building? Is that -- Pavelek: That's the barn right there. Nary: Okay. Pavelek: So you can see if you extend it south it will be well to the west of the line of that bedroom window. I'm sorry I didn't think of the aerial, but that's -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 39 Nary: Okay. Thank you. Borup: It appears that the property line is somewhere about there. Okay. Is there any other -- I assume that concludes your comments, Mr. Pavelek? Pavelek: I'm sorry. All I meant to do was just clarify a couple of points. Borup: Okay. Well, I mean have a chance for any concluding -- Pavelek: No. I think basically, as we said before, we have gone over the conditions of approval and I think basically we will address whatever conditions -- if that one condition that I asked some consideration for as far as prior to final plat, if it was prior to City Council, that's fine, we will scurry around and get that job done. Other than that, we are fine with all the conditions of approval and as requested before we hope to gain your support for a recommendation to Council on the annexation, Preliminary Plat, and the approval of the CUP. Borup: Thank you. Mr. Moyle, does this aerial help you see what the -- Moyle: No. I understand what -- I understand what he's saying. Borup: Just state your name again real quick. Moyle: My name is Joe Moyle. Borup: Okay. Moyle: And this aerial shows -- I see what he's trying to say, he's trying to say that that street comes into the corner -- Borup: This is the middle of the street right here and it would stop about right here. Moyle: Well, see the tree right next to the red dot to the east. Right there. That's the corner of his property. Borup: Right there. Moyle: That's the corner of his property. Borup: Okay. So just about where the red circle is. Moyle: Well, it comes about even with the driveway. His driveway. The road will come about even with the driveway -- the garage on mother's house. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 40 Borup: Well, it looks like the road -- the center of the road would be about right here. It would be really close to the -- Moyle: That's your -- Borup: It looks like you have got from this -- this much distance here to bring a road in and come up here and do whatever you want within the property. Moyle: We still would like to have it on the east side of the property, because it will make it easier for us in the future and I don't think that other than having to redesign the property just a little bit -- Borup: Well, the lots are 37 and the road is 50 feet. It would take out two lots. Moyle: Well, they have got 50 feet where they are going the other way, too. Put them down there. Two lots are two lots. You would have two on the south and two on the east. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: I just did some rough layout and I think they would have a net one-lot loss. Moyle: Would it be one lot loss? Shreeve: I just did some quick -- Moyle: But they'd also gain the turnaround, because they won't have to have a turnaround. Shreeve: You're talking about open space that they need anyway. Borup: Thank you. Any other comments from staff? Centers: Was there any other testimony from any -- Borup: No. Moyle: One last concern is drainage and whether the green area, which is full of rocks and sump, is really green area or whether it's a sump and you got drainage problems on the property. The water table is usually, oh, up a couple feet and so -- Borup: Have you seen the drainage areas down further south on Heron Brook? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 41 Moyle: I'm sorry? Borup: Heron Brook Development. Moyle: I don't know. Borup: It's just south down the street. Moyle: Oh, yes. They have trouble -- I don't know whether they have trouble down there or not. Borup: No. I mean it's a brand new subdivision. They have got all the greened in. It's the same type of thing. It's a drainage area. Moyle: With the same kind of drainage? Borup: Yes. Moyle: I don't know. I just throw that out. I don't know. Borup: No comments from staff? Centers: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing. Norton: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Deliberations? Norton: I did have one question just for a clarification on No. 7 on our agenda, where it says Preliminary Plat approval of 19 and he wants 21, is that where we would make a change? Borup: Yes. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: That request was at staff's -- that was staff's request to include those two lots, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 42 Norton: So it's covered? Borup: Well, you would need to change it to 21, who the staff reflects that, otherwise, that would leave two lots -- Freckleton: The application was for 19. However, staff has requested that they include the two houses, making it 21. Norton: Thank you. Borup: The applicant has said they are in agreement with the plan with all the staff comments. It looks like their only real question is to maybe come up with neighbors is the location of that stub street. I don't know if we have any -- Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, in regards to that, I didn't catch it, but that is an odd shaped land and I think they have probably taken about as good advantage of it as they can and looking at your aerial photography I think that the stub street shouldn't pose a problem with any of the existing structures there. Borup: Okay. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I guess to follow up on Commissioner Shreeve's comment, my concern was redesigning that from the Commission's level is someone on the east is going to come in and say, wait a minute, I don't want that coming over my way, I'd rather have it go south, because I mean -- Borup: Well, Moyles own both the south and the east. Nary: But not that -- not the one that's all the way over to the east. Borup: Well, not the subdivision, but the bare ground. Nary: Right. I'm just saying that every time we want to redesign it when it really is someone else's decision to make those choices, we are simply going to open up another opportunity for someone else to come in with just the exact complaint to what Mr. Moyle has, that it isn't appropriate to the east either. You know, I think we always have to wrestle with what's better or what's best, but this is certainly compliant. There really isn't anything else wrong with this. I agree with Mr. Moyle that maybe he would prefer it would be in a different place, but I don't see any reason that we should be the ones to make that decision. That's been resolved by the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 43 Borup: ACHD. Nary: -- Highway District and everyone else. Borup: I guess my only comment, ACHD -- this is their -- they are the experts on this type of design. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Moyle might be pleasantly surprised when an engineer helps him with a Preliminary Plat on his property and, you know, they got plenty of distance there to tie in to that proposed stub street. Borup: Okay. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I would like to make a motion to approve or recommend approval to City Council Item 6, AZ 01-020, request or annexation and zoning of 3.58 acres from R-1 to R-8 zone for proposed Silhouette Sub by Tyler Torkelson, east of North Meridian Road and south of Ustick Road, including all staff comments and in the annexation portion where you really didn't have much to worry about. Borup: The interpretation on this is 3.58 does include that two existing lots; is that correct, staff? I assume the .58 must be the two existing houses and the three was the new subdivision? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. That's correct. Borup: Okay. So those are the correct numbers, I guess. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Centers: Continuing on, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to recommend approval to the City Council Item 7, PP 01-021, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots and 3 other lots on 3 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Silhouette Subdivision by Tyler Torkelson, east of North Meridian Road and south of East Ustick Road, including all staff comments and said plat to include the two existing homes -- actually, the revised said plat to include the two existing homes and, as I said, all staff comments. In addition, I would recommend that Item 14, Page 7, be completed prior to going to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 44 the City Council, as all other staff recommendations mentioned, prior to City Council meeting. Nary: Commissioner Centers, probably recommend amending Item 3 on Page 5. Centers: Does not meet -- right. Nary: Does not meet the requirement. Centers: Good. Nary: Would it now be 21 building lots and 3 other lots on 3.58 acres now, the entire piece of property; is that correct? Centers: Right. Right. 19 plus two. Correct. Nary: Right. So it would be 21 and then the whole 3.58 acres. Centers: Right. Borup: Right. The three -- in the application change to 3.58. Nary: And still be the three other lots. Centers: Which is the open space. Nary: Right. I second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I would like to recommend approval to City Council for CUP 01-039, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development in a proposed R-8 zone for the proposed Silhouette Sub by Tyler Torkelson east of North Meridian Road and south of East Ustick Road, including all staff comments and the applicant has stated no problems with them. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 45 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9. Public Hearing: PFP 01-007 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 2 building lots on 1.46 acres in a C-G zone for Wenco Subdivision by Wenco – northwest corner of East Corporate Drive and East First Street: Borup: Okay. Thank you. That concludes that application. Item No. 9, Public Hearing, request for Preliminary Plat and Final Plat approval of 2 building lots 1.46 acres in a C-G zone for Wenco Subdivision by Wenco, which was the same project we had on the agenda at our last meeting. I'd like to open the Public Hearing PFP 01-007 and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. As you stated, the subject parcel has already been before this body and City Council for a Conditional Use Permit. Due to the illegal split that is currently on the property they have to go through the platting process to formally subdivide the land and here is the proposed plat, which is fairly simple, a two lot subdivision, the Wendy's has been previously approved for lot one and they have proposed a small other restaurant type facility on lot two. Our staff report dated December 18th, we just ask you to incorporate those comments. My understanding is that the applicant has not expressed any disagreement with any of the proposed conditions, so I will just let it stand at that. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Is the applicant here and would like to come forward. Anything else you'd like to add to that? Negge: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Dale Negge and I am the applicant and in reviewing all the staff recommendations we find no problems with it at all. We are prepared to move ahead. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Negge. Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Nary: Mr. Chairman, I'd move we close the Public Hearing. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 46 Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I would recommend that we recommend approval to the City Council of PFP 01-007, request for Preliminary Plat and Final Plat approval of 2 building lots on 1.46 acres in a C-G zone for Wenco Subdivision by Wenco at the northwest corner of East Corporate Drive and East First Street, to include all staff comments from the staff report December 8th . Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. That makes it easier. Mr. Negge, do you care for any of the -- Norton: We'll exchange this for a Wendy's hamburger. Negge: You got it. Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 01-021 Request for annexation and zoning of 4.83 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Berkeley Square Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 1025 North Ten Mile Road: Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 01-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 34 building lots and 7 other lots on 4.83 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Berkeley Square Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 1025 North Ten Mile Road: Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 01-040 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 34 townhouses in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Berkeley Square Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 1025 North Ten Mile Road: Borup: Okay. Our last item is, again, three Public Hearings, an Annexation, Preliminary Plat, and Conditional Use. Item AZ 01-021, request for annexation and zoning for 4.83 from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Berkeley Square Subdivision by Wardle and Associates at 1025 North Ten Mile Road. PP 01-022, request for Preliminary Plat, 34 building lots and 7 other lots on the same project, and CUP 01-040, request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development, 34 townhouses in a proposed R-8 zone. I'd like to open these three hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Centers: Mr. Chairman, before you do that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 47 Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: This name keeps popping up. I'd like for the record -- I have no relationship to Jake Centers, which is part of the application. I guess he owns the property. Continue on. Borup: Okay. So noted. Hawkins-Clark: Could we see evidence of that? No. I'm kidding. Aerial photo of the subject property is on the screen. Ten Mile Road is here on the right-hand side. North Ten Mile. Chaparral Elementary is located here. Currently an older existing farm house to the north of the property. Existing property has more or less kind of split in half north and south, the north half being vacant, the south half does have an existing house right here. The Ten Mile Drain courses here, just one lot separating from the property. Here is another schematic showing that. As you're probably aware, there has been -- Valerie Heights Apartments were approved here with an office use, but there has not been any further action. The property has formally not been annexed, because a development agreement has not been signed, but the City does have an approved use for apartments and office this piece. Thunder Creek Subdivision lies immediately east of the property. A couple of photos. The existing house is just shown here on the left. The bottom one is the west view looking along the south property line. There are several existing trees. Staff did have a meeting with John Wardle, who is representing the applicant on this application, yesterday. Steve Siddoway met with John and they had quite a discussion and there has been some work done on our staff comments, so I don't think I'm going to go into detail on the Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit, because of the degree of concerns and changes that staff had recommended and so they have worked through some of those issues and essentially come up with a complete redraft that they want to, as I understand, share with you tonight. So this is the proposed plan as it was presented and on which the staff comments were made. The elevation of the proposed product is here. I don't know if that will change. Maybe John can address that. But the annexation application request is not affected and staff believes that you could, at your will, act on that potentially tonight. As you know, City Council has some concern about receiving annexation applications without the accompanying development application requests. But there are not any real issues with the annexation request, or the conditions that are there. Ada County Highway District, as you probably saw in their staff report, did have some special recommendations to the City, which also triggered some of the changes that they made. So unless you have other questions, I will just let the applicant go at this time. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Centers: One question. Is this in-fill? Is this surrounded by City or -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 48 Hawkins-Clark: It is not. Centers: Three sides or -- Hawkins-Clark: I can go back to the photo here. As you can see, it's -- this piece here is City limits, but it is not developed to an urban density. That's got a single house on it on the front. Borup: But as far as zoning and annexation, the yellow are -- the yellow are the City limits? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Borup: All right. Any questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Wardle: Commissioners, good evening. My name is John Wardle. My address is 50 Broadway Avenue in Boise. 83702. I am the applicant and I'm here representing Mr. Centers, who is no relation to Commissioner Centers. Also Scott Stanfield is here with us tonight and is the project engineer for this project. I'd like to go through just a little bit about this application. Up on the aerial photo -- or maybe, Brad, if you could go back to the aerial photo for us. Our parcel is 4.83 acres. We are located on Ten Mile Road and there are three applications before you, Annexation and Zoning, Preliminary Plat, and Conditional Use for a Planned Development. Originally we submitted the plan for 34 town homes on 4.83 acres and we were requesting an R-8 zone. To give you a little history of where we have been up to this point, we, in fact, held three pre-application meetings with staff. The first was with Mr. Centers and Ms. Anna Powell with another engineering firm. The second I held myself with Brad and then I had an official -- I guess what you would call an official pre-application meeting with Steve Siddoway. Unfortunately for us there were three separate staff members present at each application process. By the time we had our official application -- or pre-application meeting we were on our third staff member and we were pretty well down the road on a design of the project. The project as submitted before you, like I said, was for 34 townhomes and included quite a bit of open space right down the middle of the project. From our perspective -- and I'm going to paraphrase what some of staff's concerns were -- there were two primary concerns, that was for the location and type of open space that were proposed and the second was interconnectivity with contiguous properties. As you notice on the aerial here, there is 4.2 acres north of us. To the west of us is Chaparral school. To the south of us is approximately 5.6 acres. If you look at the property to the north also is Parkside Creek. There were no connections made from that subdivision south. There is no way for us physically to connect to the west, which is the school, and we really consider our project as an in-fill piece, because we consider parcels to the north and south of a small size that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 49 everybody would be taking their vehicle trips to Ten Mile Road and so we didn't propose any interconnectivity in terms of street connections either to the north or south. The other issue, which was a concern, was the usable open space, whereas deemed unusable open space by staff. We designed the project with the feel of we are going to get kind of a Village Green in between these properties. It was a much larger median than you would normally find and we felt it was a size that could be usable. Usable is maybe ambiguous as it's defined in the ordinance. It could be active. It could be passive space. It could be a visual barrier between the two. But when it came right down it, neither staff or ACHD was really in favor of that much usable -- or that much open space separated by a one-way street going all the way around. So we ran into some conflicts there. It was also recommended by both staff and by ACHD that we provide stub streets to the north and to the south. We understand the importance of interconnectivity, but when it comes right down to it, the parcels were of a size that we felt that the vehicle trips wouldn't really be coming through our development to get to Ten Mile Road, but they would be wanting to get to Ten Mile Road, therefore, we didn't propose any stub streets either to the north or south properties and they are not properties that we own, for that matter. With that said, we can discuss the merits of this plan, but we really have tried to work very closely with staff. The reason this development is before you is because by the time we had met with Mr. Siddoway in our last and final pre-application meeting, our engineering was done, the applications were ready to submit and we were pretty certain where we were going and by the time we submitted them we really got a shift of direction. If I could show you just the new layout of what we are considering now. It would change our product type from a townhome product to a detached single-family residence. I apologize for the roughness of the plan, but, once again, we didn't want to go to a full blown engineered drawing until we had a pretty good understanding of what staff -- that this is where we are going. I can give you a reduction here of what we are looking at. Borup: You go ahead -- since we have got a reduction -- is there some people in the audience that would like to see -- okay. Maybe we can have this turned around so they can see, too. We will make sure it gets turned around. Wardle: Before I get into the merits of this I just would like to say that we did have a neighborhood meeting. We sent out fliers to everybody that was on the list. We had one neighbor show up and the plan that we showed to that neighbor was what you see here and at that point we did not have the final staff report, nor could we address the issues that ACHD presented, so we presented this one to them. I would be more than happy to go back and do so again with them in another meeting. We did send out mailers to about 34 individuals or 34 households and/or homeowners associations and we had one neighbor show up for that meeting. What we are looking at here would be a single family detached development. We would still be going through the Planned Development, because of our setbacks -- not setbacks, but specifically the size of lots. They Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 50 would be two story residences. The street system is public, which was a concern of both staff and ACHD. We are proposing stubs to the north and south. I'm going to address that a little bit more in a few minutes. Open space would be about 10,800, which is a little more than five percent. We do propose to continue to do that pathway connection to Chaparral Elementary School. In the past we haven't had much success working with the school district in terms of connecting to schools via a pathway. In this case we have had a very good working relationship with Mr. Bigham of the school district. They find that this is of benefit to them to have a connection. I'm assuming that they are just looking at the growth patterns or what may be occurring, but it does provide another connection, which is not vehicular to the school. In fact, it does also provide a connection, ultimately, to the park, which is on the other side of the school. So we see it as a benefit to have the micro path there. Also there would be some sort of other amenity to be determined. We are not quite sure what that would be. As the Planned Development Ordinance reads it could be a picnic table, it could be a playground. It's a little ambiguous and we will be proposing something and see if staff could give us some feedback on that other amenity. We are also using four common driveways on this revised layout in order to make this work. The physical setback would be 20 feet from the front, 15 feet from rear. On those homes accessing a common driveway it would be still 20 feet from edge of common driveway to maintain that setback. We would be looking for a five-foot side setback. Period. It would be a maximum of 10 feet between structures. So that's where the Planned Development comes into play. Centers: Excuse me, Mr. Wardle? Wardle: Yes. Centers: Obviously, you know, we can't act on something like this, so what you're hoping is that we go ahead with the annexation tonight; is that what you're hoping for? Wardle: The bottom line is I hope that we could address the issue of annexation. Centers: Yes. Let's just get it out front here. Wardle: I read the staff report. We would only make a couple changes that would change if from townhouse to single-family residents, but I believe the staff report for annexation is still valid, given the product that we are anticipating now doing. So it's -- I'm not asking for any action on the Preliminary Plat or Conditional Use Permit this evening. I realize those need to come back. I believe we can act on the merits of the annexation and zoning. If you choose to hold that and run it all together to the City Council as a package, we are aware that that's been what's happened in the past from the City of Meridian and we are fine with that also, but I believe -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 51 Centers: It's going to be held up either way. Wardle: Correct. I -- Centers: You just start paying taxes sooner on City land. Wardle: But you're not going to annex it until next year anyways. Centers: Yes. That's only two weeks away. Wardle: True but regardless, we believe this project will all be approved next year and we will probably be able to be in construction next year. So it's -- I think that's -- Centers: Okay. Sorry to interrupt. Wardle: Not a problem. I thank you for the clarification. We are not expecting any sort of action this evening on the Preliminary Plat or the Conditional Use Permit. We understand that. If we are going to talk specifically about the annexation application, a couple things that we would recommend -- I think this will clear that up -- would be Item C on page 3, the second sentence, it references townhouse residential. I think that's in quotes. If you just strike townhouse residential from that sentence. Centers: Which paragraph now? Wardle: This is Page 3. Centers: Yes. Wardle: Item C. Centers: Okay. Wardle: Second sentence. Let me get to mine. Where it says staff finds the proposed uses, in quotes, townhouse residential, will change. I think you strike townhouse residential will clarify that. Also Item H on Page 4, if you strike the last sentence completely, where it says the internal streets, however, will likely create future problems unless redesigned per this report. I think the design we are showing you this evening would address those issues in the report. Asking for a public street with stubs both north and south. Then annexation and zoning comments on Page 5, Item Number 3. This is maybe just a clarification and Public Works could probably help us out on this. At the very last we were wondering if we could add wording to the effect of ‘will provide proof to Public Works and building department that a fill slope easement has been procured from the adjoining property owners.’ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 52 Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I don't have a problem with that. Wardle: Would you like me to repeat that? Centers: Yes. Wardle: The very last part -- the very last of that sentence would be, comma, or provide proof to Public Works and building department that a fill slope easement as been secured from the adjoining property owners. Period. Norton: Can you just hand that to our attorney? Centers: We don't take shorthand. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I can just ask a question for a point of clarification. The entire west boundary is school correct? Wardle: Correct. Freckleton: Okay. What about north and south? Will there be fill that will impact the properties to the north and the south? Wardle: We really don't think that there will. If we have to deal -- pardon me, Mr. Chairman, if I can address Mr. Freckleton's question. If -- well, we haven't done a final grading plan on this. Our options are if we have to fill there may be a small retaining wall or if that -- if we can work out something with the adjoining properties, if there is excess fill, to use a slope easement on the property. That may not be a possibility. The likelihood is if there is required fill and it's above, we are going to have to use a small retaining wall to take care of that. Freckleton: Okay. Wardle: We would just like that as an option to pursue if possible. Freckleton: I just like to bring points like that to light just for the difference in grade. A lot of times people will come in and have concerns about height of fences and this sort of thing that are built. On their property, for instance, you may have a fence that would appear to be eight or ten feet tall if they build a two- foot retaining wall. So I just wanted to point that out. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Nary. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 53 Nary: Mr. Wardle, on this sort of rough drawn sketch you have given us tonight, on lots five and 12, what is that? Borup: I think those are sample houses showing -- Wardle: On lots 11 and 12? Nary: Well, on this one here that you have, it looks like -- is that the building envelope or something? Wardle: That is a building envelope. That just represents the setbacks. Nary: Okay. Wardle: We are just showing it to be 15 feet in the rear, 20 feet in front, and five foot on each side. Nary: Okay. Wardle: It's just a building envelope that we just wanted to -- unlike that, that's really the footprint of the house. We have been working with the design for a two-story structure and the best we could do is give you the envelope that we are looking at. Nary: With your proposed redesign that we are looking at tonight, are you losing some residences? I mean it looks like 38 up there, but I don't know if I'm counting them -- or common lots. So are you going from 38 residences to 34 residences? Wardle: Commissioner Nary, the drawing up there on the wall represents 34 residences. Nary: Okay. Wardle: The drawing in front of you represents 35 residences, a net increase of one. Nary: Then on the south boundary line there, are those existing trees on the property? Is that why those are in that particular location? Wardle: Correct. Nary: Okay. Wardle: Along the southern boundary and also in the middle of the property in that island there are some existing trees there that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 54 Nary: But on this proposed drawing you brought tonight, what's that middle roadway going to look like then? It's not going to look like that any longer? Wardle: No. Nary: If it's just going to be a road, those existing trees will go away? Wardle: Correct. We are going to attempt to move those trees on site, relocate them to other areas that we have. They were planted within I believe the last 10 years, so we determined -- most of them appear pretty healthy. It's our intent to maintain those trees, because they are decent trees. They are poplar and we need to go through and make sure they are all healthy. Centers: And, Mr. Wardle, on the new sketch here, your open space is still down the middle? Wardle: It is not. Centers: Where is it? Wardle: The open space -- there would be some linear open space along the roadway. If I can turn this around for you, Mr. Centers. Borup: Where you have indicated common lots that would be the open space. Wardle: Okay. Centers: Green equals open space? Got you. Wardle: Unfortunately, I didn't -- green is -- Centers: Yes. Right. I got you. Wardle: But green does equate the open space. We are providing what would be a common lot down the middle on both sides of the roadway. The buffers at the front on Ten Mile Road, we can't count open space, those are required buffers, and so we are providing open space at the very back adjacent to the school, which probably will create a nice visual corridor through that development. As you're driving in you're going to just see green space back to the school. Centers: Is that going to be a dedicated street, not a private drive? Wardle: It will be a public street. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 55 Centers: Okay. Well, I can tell you from my perspective I think, you know, that that's got a lot more chance of winning some favor from staff, but -- and I had a question for staff. If -- excuse me. If we went ahead with Item 9 with the Development Agreement, don't we -- 10. Excuse me. Don't we have to know what the development is going to be? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Centers, yes, that -- typically the Development Agreements are set up so we have a boilerplate as the main document that incorporates timing language, you know, Exhibit A is a legal description, Exhibit B is Findings of Fact and then Conclusions of Law and the Preliminary Plat. So that is usually how we set up the Development Agreements. Centers: This sketch wouldn't cut it? Hawkins-Clark: No. No. I don't think so. Wardle: They don't like my pretty drawing. Borup: Mr. Wardle, I understood your intention is to maybe get some input on your Preliminary Plat. Is that one of the intentions tonight? Wardle: Pardon me? Borup: I assume both from this Commission -- you have already got it from staff and -- Wardle: Correct. We wanted to present to you the direction that we are heading to make it clear that this is what we are intending to do. We really don't want to get caught trying -- where we are currently and, you know, those things happen. So we are -- this is okay. We just wanted to let you know what we are doing in terms of this project. We do have a couple of concerns that we'd like to address on the stub streets. When we talked with ACHD -- and for our project we don't need stub streets. We have never needed them -- we didn't feel the need for them. However, the public feels that there is a need for those streets. ACHD has told us that they don't intend to allow the properties to the north or south of our property to take access from Ten Mile Road and their access would be through our property. Well, that's a good question. We are a little concerned about that. First off, we don't need stub streets, but ACHD did, and would like us to build those. I'm sure they are not going to compensate us for those, but they want to bring trips through our development. I would be interested to see if they actually take away existing accesses to property, both north and south of us. But they made it very clear that that's what they intend to do. So we are concerned about that. By us providing the stub streets north and south it's a cost that we are asked to bear that we are not compensated for and potentially any trips or development which should be north or south of us would come through our development. Also we are a little concerned about the serviceability of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 56 property to the south. We talked about fill a few minutes ago on our property. The reason we do need the fill is because when we get to the back part of our property towards the west it does shallow up, the sewer comes up pretty quick, the ground drops pretty quick. We are going to need fill in order to get those sewer connections. We are not going to be able to put a sewer stub or main to the south, just because of the depth and the property to the south of us does drop off quite a bit. If we didn't need the stub street to the south we could do it with a common drive, which we need to go back and talk with ACHD about. We really don't have a problem with the stub street to the north and I guess we do need to talk with them and get some direction from you regarding stub streets to the south. Centers: Well, I think the staff has indicated that the density is -- you know, they are finding that fine for that neighborhood and I would agree with that. I think it makes a lot of sense. I think the project makes a lot of sense. To me it's like an in-fill and personally you have my comments and my feelings. I think you just got to get it resolved with ACHD and have at it. Wardle: Okay. If I may make one more comment. There is -- we are going to look for a -- what we would call 33 foot wide street. ACHD has a standard for a 32-foot wide street. It acts the same as a 36-foot wide street. The drive lane is a little smaller, but the Fire Department -- if the local Fire Department is supportive of that, they will let us build a 33 foot wide street, which would allow us to do detached sidewalks on our main street coming through and the north and the south. If we can't get that, we will be doing a 36-foot wide street with attached sidewalks. So I think this was an opportunity. The block lengths are short enough and the trips coming through here are minimal, that a 33-foot wide street makes sense and we would be willing to consider a detached sidewalk under that scenario. I just wanted to bring that up, because that's something that we discussed with the Fire Department. Stand for any questions if the Commission has any or an opportunity to offer additional testimony at the end of the Public Hearing. Borup: Any other questions, Commissioners? Any other comments from the staff? It sounds like the staff has had an opportunity to review this Preliminary Plat and I realize you don't have any written comments, but was there any concerns on the proposal at this point? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Steve is the one that spent the most time with John yesterday, so, unfortunately, he's not here or he would probably comment better. Borup: Are you aware of anything? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. It certainly is -- it's not a plat. I mean it's just a sketch. I mean lot wise -- I think both have merit. You know, initially looking at it I think Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 57 you have got the concerns about, you know, the common drive is probably the most -- the first one that stands out as taking six single family lots onto a common drive that's only 20 feet wide. We would want to look at, you know, in terms of parking situations, making sure that they have got -- off the common drive, that all parking in accommodated on the lot itself. You know, in terms of the fencing, to me, just looking at it, if you imagine a six-foot fence along each of those lots lines, I think you have some -- a fairly unlivable environment. It would create somewhat of a boxy feel. If they were open and if you imagine just driving down that public street towards the school, you know, and you get to that north- south lot line and you have somewhat of an open corridor, view corridor, so that when you're driving down it doesn't -- you don't get a visual sense of feeling so gridded, I think that would help, you know, but certainly when you have a view clear down with a common lot at the very end, I think that's -- you know, that's a benefit. Those are some initial thoughts. I think there is certainly merit to both. Connectivity is good. I can understand the applicant's concern about, you know, some cut through, but we do have to take in mind that Ten Mile Road is a future interchange a mile, mile and a half down the street and five lanes and, you know, limited access on that kind of a facility is a good idea and I don't -- I think in this case I would tend to agree with the highway district, taking three access points in the course of 1,000 feet or so is probably -- it's better to consolidate. Whether they consolidate through their project -- I don't know how -- I mean I think maybe two, you know, but I think they are going to need to consolidate given the future of Ten Mile. Bruce was just mentioning, too, the reduced setback on two story homes, you know, ordinance requires ten feet for a two-story home, 10-foot side setback. So in this case it would appear to be, well, five foot -- is that a two story home, John? Wardle: Those are two story homes. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Wardle: They are two story homes with a proposed five-foot side setback, 10 feet between structures. Hawkins-Clark: Which, as I understand, it would still meet UBC, I think it's just 6 feet. The Uniform Building Code, but you know that would be something else for us to look at. So in terms of your -- you know, if you forward it on to us and ask us to continue to work with them and set a date that's reasonable, you know, whatever your desires are. Centers: That's a question I had, Brad. The applicant mentioned earlier that they had worked with three different planners. Is that the norm? Was that true, first? Wardle: That is true. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 58 Centers: Is that the norm or can we work with Bradley Hawkins-Clark or just Steve Siddoway? I think that makes more sense. If I were in the applicant's shoes I would want to work -- because everyone's different. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Centers, yes, it is a concern and we totally understand their point. It is unusual. We do try to just have a single person from the very start. Centers: So if they want to select you tonight, that's fine? Wardle: I don't think the applicant gets to choose the staff member. Centers: That's why he didn't answer me. Wardle: They may not want me either, so -- Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I know we have public testimony to take, too, but I guess -- I don't have a question, I have a comment. It looks like we have had a -- if not a perfect, but certainly a very creative different idea design for this project and now we have one that's creative and different, but somehow a little bit worse than what was proposed, for at least looking at the staff comments in terms of the road, now their concern is maybe the road is not so bad, but all these 34 or 35 houses are too close together, too boxy, too many fences now, and the only thing that matters is we have connectivity. It doesn't seem like we got a better trade up for the City here, when the biggest concern that I read in this report was that the common area was in those islands, which is a little goofy, but doesn't mean it can't be done. I guess I'm not sure we got something better. It seems like what we had was at least a pretty good attempt to do something different, which is what we hear the City Council say to us all the time, we don't the same old thing every time. So I'm not sure -- I'm not sure what we are going to do with it, but it just seems kind of goofy to me that we -- Centers: I think just because you know you're going to have to do stub streets with the ACHD and this one wouldn't allow for stub streets. Wardle: If I can address that. If you are going to do something different, it requires a different standard. The standard was -- we were requested to put our open space, usable or unusable -- that's very subjective. We wanted it down the middle. We wanted to create a village green for this product type. So looking across the street, instead of seeing asphalt, you're looking through trees and green space. Open space is different. It can be visual. It can be active. It can be passive. It's very subjective. In order for us to do this street it would have to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 59 be private. There is no way that we could get this street approved without building, too, a public street, building -- and to get parking, because parking is important in these types of developments, especially when you're in line like this. We wanted to provide some additional parking. In order for us to do that on a public street, we literally would have had to have built two 30-foot streets and it doesn't make any -- it just doesn't make sense for us to do that. That's why to go from this design to this design is why we had to do that. You know, staff did look at another objection, which would keep some of this -- would limit the open space in the middle. So, like I said, we would be building two 30 foot wide streets through there and it just becomes very cost prohibitive. Nary: I guess my additional comment is I think -- as I said, I mean I don't think this is a perfect design, but, you know, those are -- those are essentially little mini parks that the streets run around them and that's what we have also heard is -- our Park Director say I don't have a problem putting a street right next to open space. So I'm not sure why that's a problem or can't be worked on and the connectivity, I agree, is an issue. I would be concerned -- I mean the applicant is right, unless the Highway District wants them to build a little traffic circle in the middle of this, I mean this is really going to be a very dangerous roadway that cuts straight through this subdivision that people are going to use it like a race track to get some place to the other and going north to south. Shreeve: It's their only point of access. Yes. I mean if it's providing a secondary access, that's a different issue. Nary: Sure. Shreeve: Cars want to get to the shortest trips and going past to Ten Mile Road, they are going to go through their development. Nary: But I guess my preference is -- and I know we have some public testimony, but I guess I'd rather have big greens, rather than the little tiny, skinny greens based along the sidewalk and one big lot on the end. I mean I agree with what you said that one lot on the end provides a visual view as you enter this property, but I like that better, I guess, but with some work – Wardle: Commissioner Nary, under this scenario if we could get a detached sidewalk -- I mean we would have more visual green space going down through there and we would have five feet, four foot, five feet. So it would create a nice parkway going through there. Borup: You're going to have trees in the detached landscape area? Wardle: Correct. Correct. Plus there could be some trees adjacent to the homes. I mean you could end up with a very nice visual corridor through there. So I think both -- both have their merits. At this point, based on the comments Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 60 we have got from staff and from the Highway District, we don't feel that we could get this project approved and make it work for us. Borup: I agree with Commissioner Nary. I mean this was different, but very innovative. It's back to, in a lot ways, a near traditional type of design, a lot of older cities that have the greenscape down the middle of the streets like that. Wardle: Correct. Shreeve: Who did you work with at ACHD? Andrew Tooney? Wardle: Correct. Borup: I think we've probably -- let's move along and have some other comment. I'd like to open this for any public testimony, again, understanding -- I think it's made clear, this is not going to be acted on tonight, but, again, we are here to get comments, so anyone here that would like to -- any questions or testimony on this application? If so, come on up. Fuller: My name is Dave Fuller. I live approximately southeast on Ten Mile, the old Valerie Heights Commercial location. I didn't get a chance to meet with Mr. Wardle on this. I was kind of excited about it when I heard about it, but I just want to bring to some attention to Ada County. Could I pick this back up? Borup: Sure. Fuller: As Keith is well aware of the situation that's happened on my project, the rest of you weren't all here, but I got a real problem with them stub streets after they caused such a havoc in my area and those stub streets need to be kept in mind on these small acreages, because they can ruin your whole project. Actually, this looks better and they wanted the -- the subdivision just north of me, Thunder Creek, to have cul-de-sacs. Well, they stubbed them streets into me and now it's got me all messed up for commercial access and everything else, because nobody wants to be next to commercial and I own the whole corner, which is going to have commercial at some point in time. What I would really like to bring to your attention here -- I haven't been to all the latest meetings, Keith, on the proposed plan and I'm real concerned about this residential going right -- these three to five acres approximately places all together here for residential right in the middle, I was hoping tonight that we were going to see these seven other lots be commercial, but I don't see that. So I want to talk with Mr. Wardle in future on that. But the stub streets here can be real detrimental to this whole project and both of the neighbors, north and south, and I know they are going to be planning commercial and Mr. Wardle -- I think he's talked to the -- one of the neighbors and he has told him out not to sell and you stub a street into him it's going mess him all up for commercial status and commercial development. So you want to keep that in mind. The next thing I have, if you do approve this for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 61 residential, no matter what one you like the best or whatever, the problem was -- with the development on my corner was they wanted us to do all of the traffic improvements down at Pine and Ten Mile. Well, that just kind of sucked, if you want the truth and that's one reason the project is a little bit on hold. I want to know how much money Mr. Wardle or these other people across the street are going to kick in for that development. I haven't heard anybody talk about sidewalks at Pine or the traffic light at Pine or the increased traffic at Pine. We got some real problems there, so I want you to address that. Norton: Mr. Fuller, Vickie Welker said she would put in that. Fuller: That's fine. Norton: So you can talk to her about that. Fuller: Well, what we understand is that people on the opposite side of the street were going to do their side. Were you aware of that? Norton: We were not -- we are not talking about this project -- we are not talking Valerie Heights right now. Fuller: Right. I'm talking about the one across the street. Norton: Right. Let's talk about the one that's on the table. Fuller: That's what I said. I didn't hear anything tonight about sidewalks down to Pine Street or the extra traffic concern that this project will cause. Is it one of your concerns is my question to you. Sally, is it one if your concerns on that side of the street? Norton: Mr. Fuller, at this point I don't think that's an issue. We are -- I don't think that's an issue at this point, Mr. Fuller. Fuller: Okay. Well, I'd just like to mention, then, that -- from Keith, Keith has a little more background, is this in the mixed use area, Keith, as far as you're aware of on zoning? Borup: On the new Comp Plan? On the new proposed -- Hawkins-Clark: Medium residential. Borup: Medium residential. Fuller: Medium residential. Shreeve: Can you go back to the aerial, please? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 62 Fuller: Is there any hopes from anybody here on the panel or thoughts that there will be commercial on that side of the street? Nary: Mr. Fuller, there is no way for us to answer all those questions tonight. Fuller: Well, I'm just throwing this out -- I'm just throwing out to you a suggestion about these stub streets going into the people next door that -- Borup: In my mind it wouldn't be out of place somewhere there. I mean it's a busy street, it's going to have commercial across from it, apparently. Fuller: You got Albertson's right down the street. Centers: Mr. Fuller, I've got to agree with you on stub streets, but I think ACHD is whom you need to talk to. Fuller: Well, I'm just saying when they come to you with a program maybe you can give them some feedback. It's your -- you know, it's your town. That's all I'm saying. Because I have the experience of having the stub streets affecting my project so much. Centers: There is a time and place for them, though. Fuller: Definitely. Definitely a time and place for them. I just didn't know what the zoning was on both of those pieces of property north and south of it. It doesn't do any good to stub the street in to a commercial area if you're going to put, you know, a concrete wall up. Borup: I assume that ACHD's comment was that they were assuming like property use. Fuller: Well, I know that they always do assume residential to residential, but you guys on the Planning and Zoning right up here in front, you can see how that could possibly be commercial on both sides of it. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, one major difference that I would point out is the Chaparral Elementary is immediately adjacent to this property. The school district, I believe, would have opposition to commercial adjacent to their district property. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Nary. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 63 Hawkins-Clark: And the proposed Comp Plan does show residential on that. We did not receive any opposition, as you all are well aware, to the medium residential proposal on the Comp Plan. You left it as it was proposed. Nary: Brad, does the elementary school on Eagle Road have commercial or just office fronting it? Hawkins-Clark: It has office. Nary: It's just office. Okay. Borup: Anything else? Fuller: Any questions for me? Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Lynn: My name is William Lynn and I live at 3170 West Forecast, which is right on the corner of Forecast and Ten Mile, so I would be just to the east -- northeast of this project. Actually, my home sits right on the corner there, so it would be the very first one going into Forecast. Corner lot there. Right there. Getting back to what Mr. Fuller was saying about the stub streets. You can see that we have a stub street down at the end. I'm assuming now that it's his property, I wasn't aware of that. I have only lived here for six months. My concerns are not with the project as much as is the affect that it's going to have on Ten Mile. Just so in case you're not aware, we have a school bus that stops on Ten Mile just to the south of the entrance to Forecast picking children up. We also have a school bus that stops directly in front of my house in the afternoon dropping school children off. Up until this evening I wasn't aware that there was some big plans for Ten Mile, but upon considering this project for approval, I think -- I'm not sure if I have got the letters down correct, I think you refer to it as UHDC or – Borup: ACHD. Lynn: Okay. I think they need to understand, too, that with the amount of traffic that's on that road right now, according to what I have read, they are predicting that that build out on this Berkeley Square that they projected to generate about 340 trips per day. You add that type of traffic onto a situation on a road that's already very heavily traveled, we have a number of people that are backed up on Forecast just trying to get out onto Ten Mile in the morning to head southbound and you have traffic that is heading southbound on Ten Mile wanting to turn onto Forecast that is literally trying to beat traffic that's headed north, so you get them cutting the corner when there is school buses dropping children off. Now I have only lived there for six months, but I've witnessed this day after day and I just think as far as your job is -- when it comes to looking at this project, please have them keep in mind that, you know, we don't need to have people injured or killed Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 64 in order to make the necessary improvements to get people in and out of their homes. The idea that you're going to put in a stub street so everybody has to go in and out of this project, I think it's just going to create more congestion for people trying to get out of this Berkeley Square project, as it has for the people coming out of Thunder Creek. I can see people in Thunder Creek lined up from the stop sign at the corner of my house passed the front road almost to where it Y's on just about any given morning or afternoon when school lets out. So that's all I have to say. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Come forward. S. Fuller: Hello. My name is Shelly Fuller, I live at 890 North Ten Mile, and I'd just like to say that I wish these gentlemen all the luck in the world on their project and that I welcome them. I think that it's a good project. I actually liked the other one that was up here better. I think it's -- I think it's very creative. I don't like the stubbing in of the streets. I think it's a bad idea. But I welcome every house, every apartment, everything that goes into -- off of Ten Mile. It will make Ada County Highway District get off their duffs and get our road fixed. The more the merrier. It's got to be done. It doesn't make any difference, we have got more homes coming on down Ten Mile, you guys all know it, we know it, let's just let these people have their projects, let's get Ten Mile fixed and, you know what, the people are here coming in off the road, they have got to be patient and that's all there is to it. I mean I sit sometimes at my place and have a hard time getting out, but you know what, it's called progress and it's what's going to happen, it's what's going to take place. I wish these guys all the luck in the world. That's all I have. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Atkinson: My name is Irma Atkinson. I live at 1124 North Lightning, which is in Thunder Creek, adjacent to the Fuller property. The scary part is I think I'm agreeing with the Fullers today. That could be a first. We will really go down in history. I hope it lasts. I was happy to see the walk through, the micropath from - - put the other one -- down there from Berkeley Square into the school property. I think that will -- that's a good thing, because the only other access to Chaparral is going through Parkside Creek and as a parent of the kids that ride the bus that we have the same stop in Thundercreek and there is traffic and high school drivers -- and I'm going to have a high school driver very soon I think -- That concerns me that development would be forcing kids to walk along Ten Mile where there are no sidewalks to get into Parkside Creek. So I think it's a good thing to have a micropath. I'm glad that they are looking at a public street direction on the new plan. My concern was if it was private you're going to have all the kids walking through there anyway to get to school, so I mean that makes it a little bit better. I don't know. But I'm glad to see that there is another access into Chaparral on foot. I think the next step is going to be when you have all those kids cutting across Ten Mile that the school district -- and hopefully Ada Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 65 County Highway is going to be forced to put a crosswalk and a crossing guard there to make that a safe transition point. That was my only statement. And I was the one person that was at the meeting. Me and my four year old. Any questions? Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else? Final comments, Mr. Wardle? I guess I would be interested -- it sounds like the only thing that we could even act on tonight would be annexation and have you got a preference? Wardle: Commissioner Borup -- one second. Borup: Commissioners, while they are talking, the City Council said they don't -- and to me I think it depends on the project and whether the property is really -- I mean whether the annex is zoned that, whether that's an appropriate use for that property at that location and -- you know Centers: Well, I think the applicant indicated that they would be satisfied if it were continued. I think they were trying to get a feel for the Commission and that's fine. I think it should be developed. You know, I look at it like with the high density and -- Borup: Mr. Wardle? Wardle: Commissioners, thank you very much. For the record, my name is John Wardle. I appreciate your time this evening and those that have come out for the Public Hearing. I realize that it is close to Christmas and there are many other activities that we could all be involved in and I appreciate everyone that's come out tonight. We do not object to being continued, tabled, to the next hearing when we can bring back a revised Preliminary Plat. Centers: That would be a question I would have of the applicant. What would be good for you to continue it to? Wardle: How long? Centers: Yes. And don't be too conservative here. Give yourself plenty of time. Wardle: Well, talking with my engineer, I believe he's leaving town for a week. He's gone next week. I think for us to get a revised Preliminary Plat back to staff we are looking probably the first full week in January, so -- Borup: Probably -- Wardle: The 7th . Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 66 Borup: We will probably be looking at the second meeting in January. Wardle: And you'd like it ten days before that meeting, so I'm not sure that that gives your staff enough time to get that on the first Public Hearing in January. Centers: Right. The second meeting in February might be better. Wardle: Second meeting in February? Borup: No. Centers: Is that too far out? Wardle: I think that's too far out. Borup: If Mr. Wardle said he could get it by the first week in January, but normally our continued meetings would go to the second meeting, which would be -- that's the 17th of January would be our second meeting. Wardle: I'm getting a nod from our engineer. Borup: So that means 10 days would be the 10th -- or 7th into staff. Wardle: Can you give me one second? Borup: Because our first meeting is on the 3rd that month, so we are -- Wardle: Thank you very much. We think we can make it and be in time for the 17th . I have one question for staff. Would they also be looking for a revised Landscape Plan at that Public Hearing? If we revised it for the City Council meeting? Hawkins-Clark: I would think we -- you know, just conceptual locations would be helpful. Wardle: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Of three locations only. Borup: So I guess you're saying it would not need to be done by a landscape architect necessarily, just to show the landscaped areas? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 67 Borup: Now the other thing I -- we do not have an ACHD report. Is that -- I didn't get one. Anybody else? Okay. And is ACHD pretty adamant on their final and where are they at on their report? Wardle: They -- Mr. Chairman, they have provided us with a draft. They were holding off finalizing that report until there was some sort of determination on if the streets would be private or public. They were both looking at staff reports. We will go back to them immediately and indicate that we are going public and I think that they can adopt their staff report rather quickly, because those conditions are in that staff report. I just wanted to address one thing and it will be my last comment. On the setbacks, we are not really asking for anything different. Front and rear would be the same. The issue we are asking for and that we will bring back to the Preliminary Plat would be a five-foot side yard setback, there would be ten feet between structures. I just wanted clarification. We are not really asking for any variance -- or I guess it is a Planned Development, so we are asking for a reduction in the setbacks, but it would be five feet per property line, ten feet between structures. Borup: I think everyone understood that, that there is a side setback reduction. Centers: You know, I guess what you're saying is that the initial plat that you showed us originally, that's dead in the water, you're not going to try and bring that back? Because I'm with Commissioner Nary, I like it the best. Norton: Me, too. Nary: I'll vote for it. Wardle: We appreciate that. I don't have any faith that we are going to be able to resolve the issues in terms of interconnectivity and ACHD's concerns. Centers: With the stubs. Wardle: Correct. Centers: Yes. Nary: Go to the board. Wardle: Pardon? Nary: Go to the board. Wardle: I have less faith in -- I won't comment on -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 68 Nary: Well, Mr. Chairman, my only additional comment is, you know -- I mean I do believe in interconnectivity. I do think it is good, but I just don’t want to be interconnected to death so that we lose a good idea because we are stuck on one facet that we think has to be there. Borup: It kind of depends on the uses of the adjoining property. Centers: Exactly. I agree. Borup: Whether connectivity is -- Shreeve: For whatever it's worth, I think if you went back to ACHD saying, hey, you know, the Meridian P&Z liked it, you know, try to entertain some possibility -- Nary: I'm sorry. What dream world do you live in? Nice idea. Do we need a motion, Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. To continue to the 17th . Nary: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we defer Item -- continue Items 10, 11 and 12, Public Hearing AZ 01-021, PP 01-022 and CUP 01-040 to the January 17th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Norton: I second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Thanks to outgoing Commissioners. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Before -- we do have a couple other items before we have our final motion to adjourn. I'd like to thank everyone for being here this evening. One, I'd just like to make mention and as everyone here is aware of, we have two Commissioners leaving the Commission. I for one feel real sad about that. I think the Commission we have had here for the last year or so have just about been ideal as far as the expertise and the mix and the way everyone has contributed. So we are saying goodbye tonight to Commissioner Norton, who is off to relaxing, I guess, and Commissioner Nary, who is doing just the opposite, he's off to City Council and I'd like thank both of them. Now we do have something we'd like to give to Commission Norton. This says Certificate of Appreciation. This certifies that Sally Norton has rendered two years of valuable distinguished service to this City and community as Planning and Zoning Commissioner and on behalf of the present Planning and Zoning Commission we hereby issue this certificate in appreciation thereof. I thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 69 Norton: Thank you. This is the hardest certificate I have ever had to earn. Thank you. Borup: And, again, appreciate Commissioner Nary. We did not get you a certificate, because you are still working for the city. Nary: That's all right. I would just like to make one last comment, I guess, Chairman Borup. It's been a privilege for me for the last 18 months to be on the Commission and be part of it. It's been an honor to serve with the four of you. I don't think -- I don't think I would have been fortunate enough to get elected to the City Council without the work that we were able to do here and that's a testament to the four of you and the time that you spend in doing this and the dedication that you give to the City of Meridian. I truly appreciate the opportunity I have had to work with all four of you and I don't think I would be moving on to something else without that. So thank you. Borup: One other little keeps sake and we do have your nameplates. I don't know when you would ever use it again. Commissioner Nary, maybe you could take a felt pen and cross P&Z out and write City Council in. Nary: Yes. I could get some duct tape and -- Borup: Oh, he's already got a new one. Okay. Thank you. Then the other little tradition we have had is the outgoing Commissioner has the opportunity to give the final motion for the evening, so Commissioner Norton. Norton: Thank you. I think we will wait until 1:30 -- Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn the meeting. Nary: Second. Borup: And, yes, we do want Commissioner Nary to second that. Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: We did it at 9:53. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:53 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 20, 2001 Page 70 / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK