The URL can be used to link to this page

2001 01-04MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 4, 2001 The meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 4, 2001, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Jerry Centers Others Present: Will Berg, Bruce Freckleton, David Swartley, Steve Siddoway Members Absent: Richard Hatcher Borup: -- gentleman I’d like to begin the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for the City of Meridian this evening of January 4, 2001. I’d like to start with – I don’t know if we need to do a roll-call – need to mention the Commissioners that are here Commissioner Norton, Commissioner Nary, Commissioner Centers, Commissioner Hatcher is absent and Commissioner Borup. Item A. Approve minutes of December 12, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Borup: First item on the agenda is minutes of our December 12, 2000, meeting. I assume everyone has had a chance to go over those. Are there any questions, comments? Norton: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adopt the minutes of December 12, 2000. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion is second to approve the minutes of December 12, 2000. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 1. Continued Public Hearing from November 14, 2000: AZ 00-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 339.73 acres to R-4, R-8 and C-N zones for proposed Keltic Heights Subdivision by Parkland Development for proposed use as single-family residential and neighborhood commercial -- west of Meridian Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: Borup: First item on the agenda is a continued public hearing on Annexation and Zoning for Keltic Heights Subdivision. I think – each of you have received a copy it was continued – I believe someone can fill in if this not correct – waiting a legal opinion on the annexation. We received that from the city attorney. Staff were you planning on somewhat of a report on this? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 2 Siddoway: I can be brief. You have our original staff report dated November 8, 2000. You should also have as you mentioned memorandum from the city attorney’s office regarding the legality of the annexation and case law. You should also have a copy of full staff report with today’s date on it that looks at all of the conditions that must be met for annexation as well as a comp plan analysis. I don’t see the need to belabor the full staff report at this time because the real question is still is whether it’s even legal to do. I think that’s been answered that it’s not. I’ll stand with that unless there are any questions. Borup: Any questions or comments from the Commission? Is the applicant here? Have you had a chance to read the legal opinion from our city attorney? Any additional comment you would like to make? Now is your chance. Did I open – well it’s a continued the hearing is already open. I guess we’re reopening a continuation. Mr. Brown. Brown: Will do I need my name? Borup: Yes. Brown: Kent Brown I represent Briggs Engineering and my client is Parkland Development on this annexation our address is 1800 West Overland, Boise, Idaho. I did have an opportunity to view Mr. Swartley’s letter or memo dated in December. As I look at each one of the cases that he presents he has situations where the city in my opinion went out and forced an annexation upon someone and annexed them. I think it comes back to – in the previous hearing Mr. Nary talked about that we’re not opposed to annexation, we are asking for annexation similarly as done by the city and by St. Luke’s as my examples previously showed. Those were similar opportunities for their connectivity but they did not opposed annexation. The case law speaks to those people who didn’t want to be annexed or were being forced to be annexed. I think that there is a difference there. There’s – my law as I understand it obviously your attorney has more experience in that than I do. As I interpret what he’s showing us that’s what I see. I can go through staff’s comments briefly. I haven’t had that great of opportunity – I got them at five o’clock today I don’t know when you got them. They speak to the comp plan compliance I have my list and I would be happy to go through that list with you. Did you want to speak to more than just the attorney? Borup: I don’t think so at this time I seen the Commissioners – Norton: Mr. Chairman I don’t have any comments or questions of Mr. Brown at this point. Staff comments we just had sitting here as we arrived. I don’t think any of us have had time to look through them. If you wouldn’t mind going through your comments we would appreciate it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 3 Borup: Yes we may have some more questions for you Kent. Was there anything specific Commissioner Norton that you – I think – have you had a chance to read their last paragraph? Norton: No. Borup: Mr. Siddoway maybe just comment on your conclusion on staff comments or on any others that would be pertinent. Siddoway: Page 11 the recommendation says the annexation does not meet the requirements of continuity. There are – it does meet the requirements on the annexation for essential services sewer availability, water availability as well as – if you’ll look on page four Item E maybe we’ll just hit the highlights. We’ll start with A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and if not has there been an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The requested neighborhood commercial zone that’s up in on the corner of Chinden and Meridian Road is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of single-family residential. There has not been an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Item B, has there been a change in the area or the adjacent areas which may dictate that the area should be rezoned. There have been no changes in these areas its still – it would be an isolated development from other part of the city limits. Item C, will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious in appearance. Its difficult for us to answer this because there’s not a formal development application all we have is an 81/2 by 11 of the concept plan and nothing else to go from. Will the proposed use – this is D, will the proposed uses not be hazard or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. No real problems here only possible disturbance would be to adjacent agricultural uses but that could be addressed to the right-to-farm act. Item E is where a lot of items come in – started to reference at the beginning will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as Highway, streets, police and fire protection, drain structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer et cetera. The area in the proposed annexation would be sewered by what's known as the North Slough Trunk. It has not been designed yet let alone began construction. The easements to get it to this site are not in existence at this point. Neither is it a priority by the City Council they’re working on the one south of this which is the White Drain Trunk. None of the site can be sewered by existing sewer lines it would all have to be sewered to the North Slough Trunk. Water facilities are also not available a new well would have to be drilled to service this proposed subdivision. A school site is proposed in the concept plan to address the school one. There is some question as to the timing as to when it could be built. Roadway capacity ACHD there’s been no traffic study done for this project because there’s not a development application again just an annexation and ACHD comments say they cannot provide a staff report until such time there is an actual development application and a traffic study done. Fire and emergency medical services there is a policy to maintain Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 4 the five-minute or less response time to all fire, police and medical emergencies within the city. Being that it is out and the new sub-station on Ten Mile Road has not yet been constructed we question whether or not this goal can be achieved. Item F, the project will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities. Services will not be detrimental to the economic welfare to the community. Our response to that is that the necessary sewer and water improvements that would be required to service this site would be a public cost. Item G, will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processed materials et cetera that are detrimental. There would be additional traffic but again we have no details since there’s no development application. Item J, maybe to sum it up is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. The annexation does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan which is for single-family residential cannot be based on -- a detailed plan one has not been provided. It contributing to urban sprawl does not appear to meet the requirements of either a Planned Development Ordinance or the Landscape Ordinance. We then go into general comments for the annexation and zoning that are standard. A series of the applicable Comprehensive Plan polices some of which support many of which do not support the application. I did try to provide some input on the concept plan even though all we had was the one – it is just a concept plan that’s what it is. It was just a little 8 ½ by 11 for the full 340 acres. The concept plan had problems to point out like the – there are apartments – what appear to be apartments I couldn’t find a label in the southeast corner and apartments are prohibited in the requested R-8 zone that they are requesting for that site. They also show large lots running the full length of Meridian Road and Chinden Boulevard which again aren’t labeled they appear to be commercial lots. The area that they are zoning is residential and they would be prohibited. This project would be required to be submitted as a development and would be required to have 10 percent open space which would amount to 34 acres. Again its difficult to tell how much is there but it seems to clearly fall short of the required 34 acres of open space. Several block lengths are the longer than the maximum. There are numerous flag that we had concerns about. The landscape buffers that are required don’t seem to be required for. That was all the specifics I could pull off the plan. Based on all of this our recommendation is to deny the application if for some reason the Commission feels inclined to allow the annexation to happen one possibility that would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan would be to annex it all as a residential R-2 zone for example because this area is intended for a lower density single-family residential zone but not for the strip commercial developments that seem to be showing on the concept plan. Also if you look at the final paragraph of the recommendation it says should the Commission or Council choose to annex staff recommends that a minimum a cost benefit analysis should be prepared by the applicant detailing the over all projected cost to the city to serve the new homes and how the subdivision benefits the community as a whole if it were annexed. There is a comp plan policy cited that supports that. That’s all I have. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 5 Norton: Thank you. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Would the Commissioners like to – are there any additional comments for Mr. Brown? Centers: Mr. Chairman. I guess I would say we have an attorney – an attorney opinion and to override their opinion would be not to smart. I understand personally smart. I have empathy for the applicant. I would say be patient it’s not going to be long before it will be contiguous. I think I understood that at our last meeting that there’s an applicant in between – the other way – I still don’t think it will be long before it will be contiguous. I would have to move that we deny the application for annexation and zoning of AZ 00-020. Borup: I assume your making a comment at his point before we do a motion. Centers: I did the motion. Borup: We haven’t closed the public hearing. Centers: Oh, excuse me. Borup: I think – discussion going on there. Mr. Brown is there any final – I think you kind of see the way it looks like the Commission is heading is there any final comment you may have? Let me ask this first have you looked into some of the proposed projects and how that would effect the annexation on your parcel? There’s two or three I think that they either have applications in or discussion of applications. Brown: Mr. Chairman and fellow Commissioners. Yes I have we’ve looked at that. We’ve been waiting for this White Trunk this white elephant if you will that’s slowly coming along. Staffs comments tonight that about sewer and extension we’re willing to do that right now. We have the easements to the treatment plant to make that happen. That’s the difference from what the problems are with the White Trunk and what they’ve been waiting for to happen. Then staff recommending tabling or denying of those projects that are in the White Trunk that have been submitted to you. Some of those areas would make us more contiguous than the approach that we’re proposing to you at this time. But those have all been tabled because this White Trunk or white elephant is not going forward. So yes it is kind of frustrating as you were told a year ago by the city engineer that would be completed in March of this year and it hasn’t even started. Yes I understand Commissioner Centers asking us to be patient and we feel that we have been but we’ve tried to get this moving target that the city keeps showing to us I guess. Yet we are willing to come forward we realize this project’s going to take a great amount of time and I’m willing to address staff’s analysis. As I didn’t have a staff report I was in the process of preparing something that showed the areas where the comp plan can be supported. I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 6 understand the major issue and the one that was raised by Commissioner Centers about connectivity and opposing what your legal staff has said. Borup: How I read the other Commissioners I think that’s probably the major issue. The other things I think could probably be answered and addressed. A lot of ways they’re not different than most other projects we see. Brown: Correct. Borup: Other than the annexation issue. From what I’m hearing I don’t know that the Commission feels a real way around that problem. I think that’s what Commissioner Centers was saying about being patient maybe a few more parcels coming into the city would give you a more contiguous. Centers: I like developments as well as the next guy and growth. But how can you override an attorney’s opinion. You just can’t we hire them for a purpose and how can you. That’s the obstacle regardless of the development and what zoning you are going after. To me that’s irrelevant at this stage. Because we can’t annex it according the attorney opinion. Borup: I guess unless we had another legal opinion that said otherwise – Brown: Then it would be our legal opinion verses his. Nary: Mr. Chairman I guess the only comment I have I don’t know if they’re any folks that are going to want to talk on this issue. I have read Mr. Swartley’s opinion and I do agree with it. I think Mr. Brown raises a very good like argument – I hope that doesn’t offend you Mr. Brown. I understand that and that may have simply been the case in the past without any opposition if the city does choose to annex property and no opposition is raised and no judicial review is ever sought then its done. It becomes part of the city and whether or not it complies with the statute or not would likely be relevant. I don’t know that this is that kind of project that is not going to be opposed. It doesn’t appear to be to me that it’s going to be something that no one would oppose. Its very big there’s a lot of development you are talking about here its a lot you are adding to the city. I guess I would say that the – Parkland Development has brought good things to the table here in offering to build the sewer line and things that would be more beneficial to the city. So it’s not a complete loss to the city but in looking at least the limited information we have and what's being asked. The bottom line decision we have to look at is can we do this legally. I believe Mr. Swartley’s opinion is correct in saying that I don’t believe we can. At best even if we agree with you Mr. Brown if someone were to oppose it you would probably lose. I don’t really think that’s smart business from the city’s end or from this Commission’s end to approve something in the hope that no one would oppose it. I don’t think its good planning on the part of the city to annex property based on the hope that no ones going to have an opposition to it. I don’t think its good Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 7 planning at this time for the City of Meridian to expand to this degree when there’s no contiguity with the city and the gap is so large between where the city limits end and where this piece of property’s going to be. I think those are issues beyond just the legal argument of whether or not we even can legally do it. That to me makes it very difficult to want to support this at this point. I think the legal opinion we have is well done and well reasoned and I think it’s a good one for the city stand on. I know one thing that the court has never said is that they have never said the has to annex anybody they don’t want to. Right now I don’t think there’s legal reasons as well as good planning reasons that just isn’t really right for the City of Meridian today. What was done on the other ones I know myself Commissioner Norton and Commissioner Centers weren’t here I don’t know if Commissioner Borup was here when some of those other ones were done but the three of us weren’t. What was done in the past that’s a whole different issue as today whether or not this is a good legal idea or whether it’s a good planning idea? In my opinion it neither. Norton: Mr. Chairman while Mr. Nary takes a breath I‘ll get my two cents in. I just wanted to make note for the people that are here we did have about six neighbors testify at the December 12, 2000 hearing. There was some opposition to this. I remember that Mr. Brown did say at that time the developer would pay for the sewer and water. The sewer to be extended to this development. I think it’s a big development with three different zones plus the annexation problems and being contiguous with city limits I don’t see how I can vote anything but no on this at this time. Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone here from the audience that wanted to testify on this? Commissioners, are we ready to proceed? Nary: I would move we close the public hearing. Norton: I second. Borup: Motion second to close the public hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Sounds like everyone has put forth an opinion – Centers: -- formally do it now Mr. Chairman. Move the we deny the application AZ 00-020 for annexation and zoning. Request for annexation and zoning of 339.73 acres to R-4, R-8 and C-N zones for proposed Keltic Heights Subdivision by Parkland Development for proposed use as single-family residential and neighborhood commercial west of Meridian Road and south of Chinden Boulevard. Nary: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 8 Borup: Motion is second, any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 3. Public Hearing: CUP 00-055 Request for Conditional Use Permit for temporary placement of an office trailer to serve as Sonntag Eye Associates office during construction by Johnson Architects – Gentry Way and Allen Street Item 4. Public Hearing: CUP 00-049 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a branch bank with drive-thru teller in an L-O zone by Mountain West Bank – Magic View Office Complex Borup: Thank you. Before we proceed, we do need to make mention of a few things. We had several properties that were not posted and several requests by the applicants that the hearing tonight be postponed. Let me go through and mention that. Item No. 3, request for Conditional Use Permit for Sonntag Eye Associates, the applicant asked to have that removed from the agenda this evening. Mr. Siddoway information that we had that Item No. 4 the Mountain West Bank was not posted has anyone – (inaudible) changed. Siddoway: I believe that’s still going on tonight. The Mountain West Bank. Borup: The property was not posted -- was the information – I received a note. Siddoway: I don’t know. Borup: You do not know? Okay then maybe we need to ask the applicant that. Item 5. Public Hearing: PP 00-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R- 4 zone for Autumn Faire No. 2 by Gem Star Properties – east of Black Cat and south of Ustick Road Item 9. Public Hearing: AZ 00-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 00-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 9 Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 00-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: Item No. 5 is a Preliminary Plat for Autumn Faire the applicant has requested postponing on that we will be moving that to the February 1, 2001 meeting. Items No. 9,10 and 11 has also asked – requested to be postponed which will be to the February 1, 2001 meeting. So anyone here on Tuscany Lakes, Autumn Faire and Sonntag, we will not be having a public hearing on those items tonight. Two of them were to the February 1, 2001, meeting. The Sonntag just asked to be removed I don’t know if they were looking at continuing or – Siddoway: They want to be continued. We called and verified that. Borup: They do want to go to – Siddoway: Yes. They’re not asking to withdraw the application – Borup: That’s what their letter said – Siddoway: Well, it said off of tonight’s agenda. It says remove from tonight’s agenda. Borup: They do want to be moved? Siddoway: They do want to be moved. Borup: Okay that will go to February 1, 2001 also then. Well make note with that as we continue I just didn’t want anybody wasting their time here if they’re here for one of those items. Item 2. Public Hearing: CUP 00-050 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a sales and project information office in a temporary trailer for Ashford Greens No. 4 by the Brighton Corporation-- Black Cat Road and N. Waggle Place: Borup: Item No. 2 is a Public Hearing request for Conditional Use Permit for a sales and project information office in a temporary trailer for Ashford Greens No. 4 by Brighton Corporation. Like to open the public hearing and start with staff comments. Siddoway: This is an application for a temporary office trailer to be moved on to one of the lots in Ashford Greens No. 4 for basically a sales office. The Conditional Use Permit has been submitted because Schedule Of Use Control Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 10 says they are Conditional Use in the zone. To in short – you have our staff comments in short. We really don’t have a problem with this Conditional Use Permit. We would point out the one-year time limit per phase that the trailer can be there, and I know that there is one other outstanding issue on Site-Specific Item No. 3 which says the applicant is not requesting hook-up to sewer. I believe the applicant wishes to so I will let him speak to that. That’s all I have at this time. Borup: Steve has there been any discussion on Ordinance change on allowing this type of use. Siddoway: Not that I’ve heard. But that’s what the Planning and Zoning Commission can do is can recommend those types of changes. Borup: There has been some talk. I know there (inaudible) – come up in the past. Just need a new Ordinance written to address this type of thing. Siddoway: Yes it would require an Ordinance change. Borup: Would that normally – I assume that’s going to work faster if that’s spearheaded by someone rather than waiting for staff – okay I think we’ll bring that up in the future. Is the applicant here, like to come forward? Wardle: I’m John Wardle with Brighton Corporation 12426 West Explorer Drive in Boise, Idaho. We’ve read through the staff reports and we concur with all the conditions that are there. The one issue that Mr. Siddoway brought up was site- specific number three which was sewer hook-up and that would also be water hook-up. We do intend to hook-up to both sewer and water and we will work through issues with the building department and public works at the time that the trailer is removed from the site the future builder or homeowner will use those hook-ups. As I understand that can be taken care of through the public works department. If I might address the issue of the Ordinance when I started working with staff on this and found that there wasn’t any possibility of doing through existing City Ordinance, looked at both Ada County and the City of Boise and they do allow it. You obviously would submit a building permit and staff would review it but it wouldn’t necessarily be through a Conditional Use Permit. Would be willing to help out on that and put together some information if it goes to that point. We may not have a need for it in the future we know what to look for if we do a master plan community gets that in our Conditional Use Permit. But it might be helpful to other applicants and clear up your own agenda in the future – offer some assistance. Borup: You don’t have that compiled at his point do you? Wardle: I don’t. I looked at it initially to see if there was an opportunity to do that. I don’t have it but I could put that together and provide that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 11 Borup: We would appreciate that I’ll get in touch with you later. I assume there is no problem with the time frame that staff talked about. Does that work with your schedule okay? Wardle: As I understand it, it is a year from the date of occupancy. Is that correct? Or is it a year form date of building permit? Site-specific number 10 and its starting from date of occupancy. I believe – Borup: Yes date of occupancy – Wardle: -- that will be okay with us. I think there’s some flexibility – Borup: -- looks like another six-month extension so that would give you a total of 18 with the extension beyond that. Wardle: At that site staff has written in there that we will be able to move it to another site. Submit a new site plan we have Ashford Greens No.5 and No. 6 in the future so – Borup: That time be enough for that location – Wardle: Yes. Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Centers: I have a question for staff. How did you arrive at 12months? Was that a request by the applicant? Siddoway: I actually do not know. Brad wrote this report and I haven’t talked with him – Borup: Isn’t that part of the Conditional Use? Siddoway: -- (inaudible) plat. The plat expires after a year after 12 months if its not recorded. After it’s recorded they have two years to begin building. Borup: I assumed it was just sounded like a logical time. Siddoway: Did you have conversations with Brad about that time frame? Wardle: We didn’t. We’re fine and comfortable with 12 months. Borup: That’s what I wanted to ask because I don’t think its set in stone. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 12 Wardle: We didn’t propose that. I could see in some other projects that are larger than Ashford Greens where they may have a temporary trailer for three or four years. That may be something as the Ordinance is written that might allow that. But in our case we don’t have any issue with the 12 months. But it wasn’t something we requested either. Siddoway: I believe it may have been arbitrary the first sentence says the maximum time frame needs to be established for allowing use of temporary trailers. Just so they’re not on going. Borup: I think (inaudible) how many years. Siddoway: Nice round number. Borup: that was my assumption. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I just had a question on site-specific requirement number eight about the parking. It says there’s no off street parking for this and it will be just on street parking. They can’t – no obstruction of North Waggle Place right-of-way this parking for the trailer should be restricted to the west side of Waggle Place. It should – I mean if neighbors come and complain about parking and construction there’s going to be some houses built during this time period so there is going to be houses in there while this trailers in there. I’m thinking should it say shall – Siddoway: -- shall, shall not. Nary: -- instead of should. That way we don’t have a lot of people complaining there’s really no way to deal with that. Siddoway: I think so I think it’s a good catch. Nary: Would that a problem Mr. Wardle? Wardle: That’s not a problem with us. Borup: Anything else? Centers: I had another question Mr. Chairman. I don’t have a problem with the 12 months. In my understanding that the staff has given a blanket approval for 12 months on that lot and then 12 months on another lot or is it going to have to come back? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 13 Siddoway: Per phase – Centers: (inaudible) move the trailer to another lot. Siddoway: It’s going to have to come back to staff. It’s not going to have to come back as a Conditional Use Permit. Centers: Okay. Borup: They would just be looking at a new site plan that would be submitted at the new site. Wardle: That’s my understanding also. Borup: you don’t want to see it again I take it. Centers: I think the applicant doesn’t want to come back again either for a temporary – are the wheels coming off that by the way? Borup: According to the application says it’s going to be down at ground level. Either the wheels are off or buried. Wardle: The picture does not by the time its complete we will go through the building permit process it will match or at least look very similar to the construction of what's in the development. You won’t see the wheels it will look like it’s supposed to fit temporarily. Centers: You are going to want it to look nice with the homes that you sale. Wardle: Correct. Borup: Thank you. Wardle: Thank you very much for your time. Borup: Do we have anyone here to testify on this application? Seeing none. Commissioners. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: I did have one concern that I wanted to raise. That is with the sanitary, sewer and water hook-up I don’t have a problem with that. Typically what we have done that in the past those assessments that are paid on that lot Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 14 run with the land so when the trailer is picked up and moved those assessments stay on that lot. So when that builder comes in to build on that lot he is credited. Borup: I think that’s what Mr. Wardle mentioned. Freckleton: Right. The concern I have is if this trailer is picked up and moved to a different phase I just want the applicant to understand those assessments stay on that lot. Borup: Is that your understanding? Freckleton: And the new assessments would have to be paid with the new lot. Borup: I think where they – there the developer they can control how that’s going to work anyway. Freckleton: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Norton: I move to close the public hearing. Centers: Second. Borup: Was that a second? Centers: Yes. Borup: Motion is second to close the public hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I move to recommend to City Council to approve number two CUP 00- 050 request for a Conditional Use Permit for a sales and project information office in a temporary trailer for Ashford Greens No. 4 by the Brighton Corporation. Black Cat Road and North Waggle Place to include all staff comments with one change and that’s site-specific requirement number eight. The last sentence: no obstruction of the North Waggle Place right-of-way is permitted and parking for the trailer the word would be shall instead of should be restricted to the west side of Waggle Place. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 15 Borup: Anyone else have anything to add? Item number three on site-specific comments. Nary: Sewer hook-ups – Borup: Yes that’s item number three. Norton: To also include site-specific requirement number three that sanitation sewer service will be requested. Centers: They also wanted water. Norton: Sewer and water would be requested. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion is second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 3. Public Hearing: CUP 00-055 Request for Conditional Use Permit for temporary placement of an office trailer to serve as Sonntag Eye Associates office during construction by Johnson Architects – Gentry Way and Allen Street Item 4. Public Hearing: CUP 00-049 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a branch bank with drive-thru teller in an L-O zone by Mountain West Bank – Magic View Office Complex Borup: Thank you. Item No. 3 reminder again that Sonntag Associates that has been removed from today’s agenda and will be on the February 1, 2001 agenda. Item No. 4 Public Hearing request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a branch bank with drive-thru teller in an L-O zone by Mountain West Bank Magic View Office Complex. Mr. Siddoway and maybe we need to clarify the posting before we proceed. Siddoway: Is the applicant here? Borup: Would the applicant maybe like to come forward? We haven’t even opened the public hearing because on the question on whether the property was posted. McKinniss: My Name is Mike McKinniss and I am a senior vice president and the area administrator for Mountain West Bank. My understanding was that we posted for the public hearing on December 6, 2000, when we had our Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 16 neighborhood meeting here in this room. I do not know if we – I don’t know if our architect posted for this meeting. Borup: (inaudible) posted for the neighborhood meeting you are saying. McKinniss: Yes. Borup: Apparently no one turned in an affidavit of that it had been posted is that correct? Siddoway: That’s correct. Borup: Do you know who it was that signed that affidavit attesting that they would post it? Somebody did. Siddoway: James M. Patano of Patano Architects signed it. McKinniss: Yes he is our architect and he is out of Coeur d’Alene. Borup: That’s along drive for him. Mr. Swartley do you have any comments on this. Swartley: Chairman Borup was the site posted for this meeting tonight? Borup: That’s what the question is. There’s no one that can attest to that. Swartley: I’ll leave to the Commission. Is anybody here to testify against this? There’s going to have to be another hearing on this at City Council. At which it will have to be noticed up again. If it hasn’t been noticed up this time I would be worried about procedural due process issues. But I will leave it up to the Commission to make that decision. We’re postponing others on the agenda tonight because of this same mistake it might be wise to just be uniform through out. Again I’ll leave it up to the Commission. Borup: Any comments from the Commissioners? Centers: I think we’re postponing others because they didn’t have their affidavit that they did post the property and I don’t see how we can make an exception with one. I really don’t, unfortunately. Borup: Mr. Foley -- Centers: Unless you can get that guy on the phone. Borup: You were one that was here against – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 17 Unidentified: I rather do it tonight. Unidentified: Yes me to but its not going to happen. Borup: Do you fell the property was posted? Are you here because of notification or the previous posting or – do you have comment on that. Unidentified: that’s directly behind my property and I was just asking neighbors sort of (inaudible) whether its posted I don’t know. Unidentified: Is there a notice posted on the property. Unidentified: We have photographs. Borup: The posting is a legal notification that’s out on the property. Unidentified: we received a letter. Borup: No it’s beyond that. Unidentified: We don’t think so. Swartley: Chairman Borup I would be more comfortable moving this to the next hearing to make sure all the notification processes are followed. Unidentified: Would that be in conjunction with the Ameritel request also? At the same time. Borup: Ameritel is not on today’s agenda. I think Ameritel is next – it is on the same. Unidentified: that would be a good time – Swartley: Keep in mind those of you who can’t make it on the first we do take written testimony. So if you came here for this tonight – sorry but somebody screwed up. Norton: Is it possible to take testimony tonight for the people that are here tonight? Borup: Not without opening the hearing and to open the hearing without having – Norton: Without having posted Borup: Sorry for the inconvenience on that item. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 18 Nary: Mr. Chairman do you need a motion to move this to the February 1, 2001 hearing. Borup: Yes I believe that would probably be – Nary: I would move that we postpone item No. 4 which is CUP 00-049 request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a branch bank with drive-thru teller by Mountain West Bank at the Magic View Office Complex to our February 1, 2001 meeting. The reason for that is it appears that we don’t have verification that the property was posted on the site with notice to tonight’s meeting of January 4, 2001. I would move that we set this over to February 1, 2001 Norton: I second. Borup: Motion is second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you. Item 5. Public Hearing: PP 00-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R- 4 zone for Autumn Faire No. 2 by Gem Star Properties – east of Black Cat and south of Ustick Road Borup: Item No. 5 has also been postponed to February 1, 2001 well that’s we will do. Do we have a motion to that effect we do have a letter from the applicant is that all we need. I guess that’s all we need. It will be postponed to February 1, 2001 as per request by the applicant. Norton: Mr. Chairman – ***End of Side One*** Norton: -- postpone it to the 18th of January I don’t have it front of me right now. Borup: Yes it did request the 18th . Item no. 5 Keith Swartley: We’re not going to have enough time Chairman Borup. Borup: For the 18th ? Swartley: For posting – Borup: I’m sorry for January 18, 2001 I’m thinking of February 18, 2001. Norton: Could somebody notify the applicant then that that – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 19 Item 6. Public Hearing: CUP 00-054 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct the new Meridian City Police Station in an R- 8 zone by Lombard-Conrad Architects – south of Franklin Road and west of Locust Grove Road Borup: February 1, 2001. Item no. 6 Public Hearing Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct the new Meridian City Police Station south of Franklin Road and west of Locust Grove Road. Like to open that public hearing and start with staff comments. Siddoway: Chairman Borup and Commissioners you have our staff report dated December 4, 2000 on this project. The proposed site is in the crosshatched area here at the end of Watertower Lane near South Locust Grove road. Franklin Road is at what is the top of the map. The cemetery is in this white area right here. On this site just to hit the highlights they are asking for a waiver from tiling the Hunter Lateral and trying to make it an amenity to the site. The staff report requests the applicant verify the number of vehicles that are going to be parking here. The number of police vehicles et cetera so we can verify that they do have enough parking. It appears that they probably do there are 75 public spaces and 150 in the rear but we just wanted to verify the total amount of usage that was expected on this site. It also requested the applicant address the – there's a lot – lets see if I have a site plan here. This is the Hunter Lateral that being requested to remain untiled the parking that I was just mentioning surrounds the building, the public parking being in the front next to Watertower and the parking for the police vehicles being in the rear. There is an area to the west that says future development and would like to have something on record as to the intended use of that portion of the lot as well as the time frame of developing it. There has been some question about site-specific comment number nine regarding the building height and requiring a variance. The maximum building height is 35- feet. The top of the building does exceed that but the definition of the building height says it’s to the center of the roofline and I believe that they are actually in compliance with that. I’ll let the applicant speak to that because they may not actually need a variance and that may need to be taken out of the required comments. There are some – a few plan modifications needed there’s a planter that needs trees in it, no fence details were submitted and there’s a maintenance building on the lot that needs to be shifted. It’s only three feet to meet the minimum 15-foot rear setback requirement. That’s all I have at this time Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Is the applicant here and would like to come forward? Thomas: I’m Mike Thomas with Lombard-Conrad Architects. I’m representing the City of Meridian for this proposed police department. (inaudible) – Borup: -- any comments on the staff recommendations? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 20 Thomas: We propose to comply with all the requirements in regards to parking there are 26 patrol vehicles. Those patrol vehicles will require probably two personal vehicles per each patrol car and the administrative staff. That is why we have 150 private parking spaces for that facility as well as 75 public parking spaces and 4 meeting rooms in the facility as well. In regards to the building height I’ve had several conversations with Brad Hawkins-Clark the planner for the Planning and Zoning. In regards to the variance and how your Ordinance reads the zone on that says its to the bearing on a sloped roof its to the bearing height, the bearing wall of the roof and (inaudible) highest at the entry is 27 feet for that the remaining bearing point for the main roof for a two-story structure is 24 feet. My overall height will be approximately 38 feet. Borup: So it sounds like that’s in compliance. Thomas: Yes. The drawings that P and Z staff was originally looking at were 8 ½ by 11 and I also submitted a full size sheet that was 24 by 36 showed that those elevations were at 16-inch scale. With that in mind they could have scaled the drawings and that would have been a mute point. Borup: How about the future green space? Thomas: The future green space will remain undeveloped at this time. There’s been several proposals on what that facility may be. Either soccer fields or development by PAL. At his point in time it will remain undeveloped for the City of Meridian and the police department. When that comes to play with the City of Meridian it will be determined at that time it is undetermined what that facility will be at this point and time. Borup: any other questions from the Commissioners? Thomas: In regards to the fencing I believe. Borup: Okay. Thomas: The fencing right now the front portion of that fence that faces Watertower Lane is proposed to be a wrought iron fence. It will be eight feet tall and then the remaining three sides around the private sector of that parking lot will be an eight-foot chain link fence. Borup: are we going to need a variance application on the fence? Siddoway: The zone on this is C-G – Borup: So we are okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 21 Siddoway: What is it? Borup: Oh yeah its R-8. Thomas: It’s an R-8 zone. Siddoway: The maximum height in an R-8 zone is six-foot. Borup: That’s why I ask. Siddoway: If they are going higher than six feet under its current zone it would require a fence variance. It would be a fence variance and not a standard variance. There’s a separate application for fence variances. Borup: Is that where that would go to the fence committee? Siddoway: Yes. Centers: Does that apply if it’s a chain link when it’s visible? Siddoway: Yes. Borup: Even though – probably part of the confusion here even though it’s zoned R-8 it’s in a commercial area. You understand that you will probably need to apply for a fence variance? Thomas: Yes I do. Borup: any other comments? Thomas: The only additional comments – the proposal on the tiling of the Hunter Lateral. We submitted a letter on December 6, 2000 to the Planning and Zoning I don’t know if your packet has a copy of that from my office. I have a copy for you if you need one. It addresses how we would like to beautify that lateral in lieu of tiling that at this point and time. It would simulate the Jabil Circuit canal beautification but will be a step farther. Do you have a copy of that I can give you one? Basically we would like to preserve and protect and enhance the wildlife environment because will be due to agricultural nature of that area right now we will be needing to provide for the existing upland game that already sits in that area. The quail and the pheasants and we would like to provide some type of habitat and enhance that. I think it would be the aesthetic qualities of the physical environment should be encouraged for this site. My landscape architect has provided additional information on the type of shrubs and fescue grasses he proposes to do for that and a small drawing as well if you would like to address that a little farther. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 22 Borup: Any questions further on that? Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: yes. Norton: Mr. Thomas you had mentioned that there were going to be four meeting rooms in this police station. Are any of those meeting rooms going to be open to the public for community use? Thomas: Yes, maybe I should identify there will two meeting rooms at 75 per person and going to separated by a folding curtain to where you could have a capacity of 150 for a meeting of 150. They will be in hopes open to the public at some point in times for some night visits. Norton: There is a real lack of meeting rooms for the community to meet in so I ‘d like to hear that. Thank you. Borup: Anyone else. Thank you Mr. Thomas. Do we have anyone here this evening that wishes to comment or testify on this come forward please. Smith: Robert R. Smith 335 South Locust Grove Road. In this drawing there’s not any allocation for irrigation lateral that takes out of the Hunter Lateral it goes into the Meadowmont Subdivision. It delivers water for the Meadowmont Subdivision and all of us that live from Locust Grove where Watertower would hit Locust Grove to the north clear to Franklin Road. I didn’t see any allocation. I can show you about where that is on there. Borup: That’s an existing – Smith: Our delivery point is from about right here it goes straight north to a junction box right on the Meadowmont property which would be right about where the C is on police. Then it goes both east and west from that point to another delivery box to the far east and then goes straight north to Franklin Road. We have about 55 inches of water delivered to us continuously through that box. I don’t see anything on either one of those maps allowing for that to be either – Watertower Road will have to cross that it lays at the highest point of that property right now is why that line lays there. It will have to stay in that position in order for that water to be delivered. The road will have to cross it and I don’t know if they will provide a siphon or what's going to be done for that at this time. I think we would like – Borup: (inaudible) Mr. Thomas. The water delivery will continue. You’re already aware of that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 23 Smith: Yes. We don’t see anything there and I’m wondering if it was neglected hopefully. Borup: You’re saying it’s going about where that dotted line easement is about where it is? Smith: Yes but it’s in a direct straight line it will be pretty close to what that dotted line is yes. Borup: We’ll ask that from Mr. Thomas. Anything else? Lets see if anyone else has any questions or comments first and then we’ll hit them all at once you may have some others. Come on up sir. McMillan: Reese McMillan 870 South Locust Grove Road. Reese McMillan. Are there any plans in the near future to extend Watertower Lane onto Locust Grove to accommodate this facility? Because were just about car poor out there on that road right now. We’ve got the new subdivision opening up they’ve got about six, seven houses in there almost completed. We’ve got Jabil Manufacturing coming out in there three sifts a day (inaudible) Locust Grove Road. Borup: So you want it extended? Is that what you are saying? McMillan: I don’t want it extended. I didn’t want it out there in the first place I didn’t want Jabil out there in the first place but what do I know. Borup: (inaudible) clarify that. I believe that parcels owned by someone else and not a part of this application. McMillan: I thought that whole 10-acres went to Locust Grove. Borup: But that’s not part of this that’s something else. McMillan: I just was wondering if there plans in the near future to extend out there because they’re planning on widening out Locust Grove they’re planning on putting an overpass over it. All this stuff could be held up until the road is completed and then give us a little breathing room maybe. Borup: Thank you we’ll see what we can find out. Anderson: Hi my name is John Anderson I’m the District Water Superintendent with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District although I didn’t come tonight about this waiver I’m kind of concerned when I hear things like that. On the Hunter Lateral like many of our other laterals we came to the city a long time ago with concerns about the cause and effect of open ditches running through developments. They were getting called as often as we were these laterals saturate out which leaves soggy ground, it drops ground, its hard for us to maintain in a subdivision setting Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 24 even worse in a business setting. I really hope you think long and hard before you waiver that. Another and probably my biggest concern is safety they mentioned they are going to have soccer fields out there. These canals are magnets to children. Once they’re piped it adds a very big safety measure and kind of prevents those kind of things. One of the other things I heard them discuss was putting habitat out on these ditch banks and that’s good I hunt, I fish, I like all those kind of things but it doesn’t really work and exist good with the kind of things that we do. We burn these ditches out every year we dip silts out and we have to spray vegetation. Our 2-4-D a mean that we use and inrodeo (sic) or round-up its not species specific it will attack it all. If they build something like that actually piping and then putting something like that in there and still leaving us a roadway maybe a situation like that would work. But if its left in the open ditch condition we have no choice but to keep it sprayed back to control that growth. I have a lot of concerns there and I hope you guys think long and hard about that. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay Mr. Thomas I believe the two questions were on water delivery and that’s – first item. Thomas: He’s correct on the water delivery. There is some existing irrigation ditches that fall predominately about where that dash line is. Our civil engineer proposes that they just be re-routed. We can shorten the end of that length of that one lot but it will basically be re-route around the end of that and just be re- connected. We are proposing all those irrigation ditches remain open at this point in time. The developer will have to provide the culverts necessary to provide and maintain that water flow underneath Watertower Lane. Borup: There been any studies as far as grade? They’re any – Thomas: There’s approximately on the seven-acre parcel about a six-foot drop from across the property running due north actually northeast on that site. Borup: So crossing under the road is not a concern then. Thomas: Not at this time. The high point right now is the canal. The canal is the high point due to the fact that that’s how they use gravity feed to flood irrigate all those agricultural fields now. Right now that Hunter Lateral is the high point of the property on either side of those parcels. Borup: You are saying the ditch is going to be essentially moved a little bit to the west so it’s out of the parking lot area. Thomas: Yes and basically we just plan on putting a new junction box and re- routing it around the end of the parking lot is what our civil engineer recommends and just maintaining that lateral as it is now. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 25 Borup: This application not proposing any extension of Watertower to the east. Thomas: No it is not. That would be again upon the developer to provide his parcel plat and when he proposes to provide that extension is all by the developer of that entire property. Borup: At this point I don’t think we’re aware of anything being proposed. Thomas: I don’t think anything but submitted at this time. Borup: Thank you. Did that answer question – maybe not. Smith: Robert Smith again 335 South Locust Grove Road. That upsets me too because originally anything that’s in the city is to be put in pipe and there’s 55 inches in our ditch. Right now we have a tremendous time with the development that’s going on now with paper and everything else getting into the grate that feeds the underground system. Borup: Do you know what the diameter of that is? Smith: Yes 12 inches. Borup: You weren’t proposing leaving that open were you? Smith: That’s what he just said – Borup: I may have misunderstood then. Thomas: Yes its proposed right now that they all remain open. Borup: Even the small irrigation ditch going – okay. We may have a comment on that. Smith: That’s one thing that – we really want to be concerned with. Also when you start re-aligning that that piece of ground Mr. Robertson and I shot that previously when Meadowmont Subdivision come in with our own transits. Right where that ditch is the highest piece of ground the rest of the fall – falls to the west out of our ditch. And it falls to the east. If you start moving that any direction out of its original delivery it’s going create a problem for that water to get to where it comes to us. It will not take very much because the fall from that point to that other box is only about two-and-a-half feet. Borup: At this point it’s a 12-inch pipe under the road and that’s – Smith: At this time there is no pipe. There is a 12-inch pipe in our delivery now in Meadowmont that is adequately delivery 55-inches of water to us. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 26 Borup: (inaudible) 12-inches adequate size. Smith: Yes. But there is nothing on this parcel of ground right now that’s has this – there’s probably I think we shoveled that last year, Archie and I did I think there’s about 300 feet of ditch from that delivery point to this box. I recommend if they pipe this they ought to pipe the entire thing to eliminate the problem of debris and everything getting in this underground system at this time. Borup: One of the staff comments is all those ditches would be piped. The applicant did not make any comment on disagreement with that staff comment so I assume by that they were agreeing to that. Smith: Thank you. Are there any questions? Centers: I think you should be aware of the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District letter it says any encroachments within the easement of the Hunter Lateral with out written approval are unacceptable. They are trying to look out for your interests too. Smith: Right and that’s true but after it leaves the Hunter Lateral it’s our ditch. They have no jurisdiction of that ditch and again like I say it’s real easy for those ditches to be completely abolished. Jabil done away with my neighbors last year and they had to completely re-trench that ditch because it come from a delivery point out of this open ditch they’re trying to make a aesthetic looking situation. They covered all of his ditches and he got into a problem at irrigation time. I just want to avoid this from happening. Borup: Its City Ordinance delivery ditches crossing will be tiled. Smith: But as he said they’re leaving it to the developer which I think right now if you’re going to tile it you should tile it all the way and not just the little portion that will be the City of Meridian property. Borup: you are talking about tiling it when it gets north of the road? Smith: North of the road. All of it should be tiled at this time. Then it would all be taken care for the rest of that when that develops on the other side of the road. I think a realtor told me there’s two parcels that will be divided on the side of that road. Borup: That may be the problem you are into there. You’re going onto some else’s property. Smith: It’s still on the developer’s property. The same developer (inaudible) City of Meridian. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 27 Borup: But it’s on an undeveloped parcel. Thank you. Anyone else? An unbiased opinion. Gordon: My name is Bill Gordon. I am the Chief of Police; resident address is 201 East Idaho. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I believe I can answer the gentleman’s question on Watertower Road. Part of the – one of the agreements on the contract when the land was purchased was the developer would finish Watertower Road clear through to Locust Grove within 18 months of the sale. So that will be done. Also there will a connection into that commercial development I believe its Adkins Lane so there will be another exit and entrance so some of those cars can get out of there. Borup: That’s the Meadowmont Subdivision, Adkins? Gordon: I believe it is yes. There will be three entrances and exits which will also hopefully relieve some of that problem on Locust Grove. Unidentified: Within 18 months? Gordon: Within 18 months of the signature which was last May. The developer proposes to start construction on the road within the spring of this year. Unidentified: Before the water gets in the ditch? Gordon: He’ll have to or leave the water alone wont he. Were not going to mess with your water were usually the ones that get called when somebody does mess with your water. So I assure you we are going every effort to stay out of that ditch. To answer the question that Commissioner Norton had earlier. Those meeting rooms are public meeting rooms. Norton: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Any other questions for Chief Gordon? Thank you sir. Do we have anyone else? Any other comments from the Commission? Mr. Thomas was there any question in your mind on tiling the ditches? Thomas: No. Borup: Okay. That’s per City Ordinance but that’s talking on ditches across the property. Would the Commission like to proceed, do we have any other questions? Do we have some things we need to discuss? Norton: I just want clarification that includes the Hunter Lateral to be tiled even though they are requesting that it not be tiled. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 28 Borup: A variance for that needs to be presented to City Council. Is that what you just said? What's the volume on that – Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission other stretches of the Hunter Lateral have been piped recently I believe have been 48-inch in diameter. Borup: That’s kind of the brake even – Freckleton: -- 36. Okay 36 to 48 Norton: Thank you. Borup: The variance needs to be requested from City Council. We wouldn't be acting on that either way. At this point we just let stand the staff comments at this point I assume. Was there any other – we didn’t have any modification to staff comments there are a couple of things to be clarified and I think that was clarified. Nary: I would move to close the public hearing. Norton: I second. Borup: Motion is second to close the public hearing, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Do we need any discussion before a motion? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman I just point out the only modification that I heard was not requiring a variance on the building height. That was – Borup: Well you said if it exceeds 35 feet and by definition it does not. I guess were okay there. Nary: I think the staff comment can be left as is it doesn’t have to be changed because it just says they just have to request it if it exceeds it. Their testimony (inaudible). Norton: What about the fence do we need to include in our comments that he needs a variance for the eight-foot fence. Borup: That probably wouldn’t hurt. Just for clarification. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 29 Nary: I would move the approval of CUP 00-054 the request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a new Meridian City Police Station in an R-8 zone by Lombard-Conrad Architects south of Franklin Road and west of Locust Grove. It appears to be the following amendment to the site-specific comments of the staff that in comment number 12 that the applicant has indicated they were going to put eight-foot fencing around the property. Wrought iron I n the front and chain link in the back. Simply make note they must request a fence variance to construct a fence beyond six-foot in the R-8 zone. Other than that I think all the other staff comments we ask just simply be included as part of this recommendation as is. If there’s other request for variances in regards to the ditch that will also have to be taken up by the City Council in regard to leaving it open. It’s recommended to be tiled as part of the staff comments simply leave that as is at this point. Norton: I second the motion. Borup: Motion is second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you. This would probably be a good time to take a short recess four or five minutes. (MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:23 P.M.) Item 7. Public Hearing: RZ 00-008 Request for Rezone of 5.17 acres from L-O to R-4 by JUB Engineers for proposed Devlin Place No. 2 – south of Devlin Place between Sunburst Subdivision and Sunnybrook Farms: Item 8. Public Hearing: PP 00-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 building lots and 4 other lots on 5.17 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by JUB Engineers for proposed Devlin Place No. 2 – south of Devlin Place between Sunburst Subdivision and Sunnybrook Farms: Borup: Okay we are ready to reconvene the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Lets start with Item No. 7 request for Rezone of 5.17 acres from L-O to R-4 by JUB Engineers for proposed Devlin Place No. 2, and in conjunction with that is public hearing Item no. 8 request for Preliminary Plat l for 16 building lots and 4 other lots on 5.17 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by J-U-B Engineers. I would like to go ahead and open both public hearings and start with staff comments. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 30 Siddoway: Commissioner Borup, members of the Commission. This project is Devlin Place it’s actually an in-fill parcel in this hatched area right here. This is Cherry Lane and north Ten Nile Road. There’s an existing phase of Devlin Place Subdivision just north of this proposed number two. You should have our staff comments that are dated December 7, 2000. This is the plat it includes 16 building lots and four common lots on five-acres. The applicant has signed a statement verifying that this was posted so this application can go on tonight. One issue that needs to be dealt with is the fact that there is a Conditional Use Permit in effect already on this property. This is the approved site plan it was for Prestige Care which was an assisted living facility. These are the elevations of the structures that have already been approved there. This would be obviously not following the approved Conditional Use Permit and the – there is a procedure in place for revoking a Conditional Use Permit I don’t think there’s any opposition to revoking it. But it still needs to be taken care of so that the Conditional Use Permit no longer is in effect on this property. Preliminary Plat comment number one -- there is a remnant parcel that is left over as a result of this plat, south of it between the proposed plat and Cherry Lane. The intent is that the owner of this remaining lot would do it as an office. It is currently zoned L-O which is Limited Office and they intend to put an office on that site in order to clean up the fact that the overall lot has never been platted. If that large lot is not included in this plat the owner of that lot will be required to do something fairly strange which would be a one-lot subdivision to plat it to clean up the public record and make it a legal lot that has an actual legal description. Centers: Its separate ownership? Siddoway: it is under separate ownership at this time. Centers: how big is that parcel? Siddoway: It is eight acres, I think. Centers: No, the remnant lot. Siddoway: It’s about three. The total is about eight and five-acres is the area in the proposed subdivision. So it’s a little less than three-acres, 2.69 to be specific. We really don’t have a problem with this going forward without that lot included but we would just point out that it will have to cleaned up with a one-lot subdivision on that parcel before a development application can be entertained on that lot. The Conditional Use Permit however does need to be taken care of and revoked so this application would not be in conflict with the existing Conditional Use Permit. Borup: And how is that handled? Application by the – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 31 Siddoway: The Council – rezone comment number four, the existing Conditional Use Permit must be revoked by City Council in conformance with Section 11-17- 9 to do this Council must notify the permit holder who is a company called DD&F I believe out of Portland, I could be wrong about that. It is DD&F of their intention to revoke the permit and provide them with an opportunity to contest it. If they do it then a public hearing must be held if they have no objection, which is the response I would anticipate because they don’t intend to develop it under that Conditional Use Permit anymore they sold off two-thirds of the lot. Then they just need to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to revoke that Conditional Use Permit. Other staff comments stand I just let the applicant testify if they have any concerns about them. I’ll stand for any questions. Borup: Any questions at this time? Centers: Yes. How about the modification or the Development Agreement that must be modified. Do we do that tonight or – number three on – Siddoway: The Development Agreement will need to be modified because the Development Agreement specifically speaks to the assisted living facility. The process for that I’m not completely sure of I know it goes through the City Attorney’s office. I don’t know David if you are aware of the process that would have to go through. Swartley: Not entirely any I don’t. Siddoway: It would involve the City Council. Will do you have -- modify the Development Agreement. I personally haven’t been involved in the modification of a Development Agreement. Borup: The Development Agreement was signed with the City Council so – Siddoway: -- between City Council and the applicant. Berg: Yes I would say we have amended Development Agreement’s before the City Council and I think before we pass the Ordinance for Rezone we would have that modification. Siddoway: Yes we need to have it before but I believe the Commission can pass it on without the Development Agreement being modified yet. Borup: Is the applicant here and would like to come forward. Fluke: Mr. Chairman, member of the Commission Thank you. My name is Daren Fluke with J-U-B Engineers representing the applicant in this matter. Lets deal with the Development Agreement first since it’s all fresh in your mind. I think what we would propose if the C’s going to be vacated anyway the Development Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 32 Agreement will go away as well and we’ll just enter into a new Development Agreement with the city specific to our development. I think really more of a process issue than anything else. There’s nothing in the current Development Agreement that gives us any heartburn for this particular development so really it’s a matter of procedure. Shouldn’t be a problem. With regard to the plat, the platting issue and the remnant parcel. Just point out for the Commissions consideration that in fact the entire eight-acre parcel is a remnant parcel and should have been platted at some point in the future I don’t know how many of you were around at the time. When Devlin No. 1 was developed to the north there was also a parcel that was carved out for a city park that was dedicated to the City of Meridian. In the course of all those doings there was a remnant parcel left and so this entire thing is a remnant parcel. We have been in contact of course with the owners of the remainder of the parcel and they realized that hey will have some clean up work with the city when they come in to develop what's left of their parcel. We really believe this makes more sense than the Conditional Use Permit for the assisted living facility if you look at the configuration of those stub streets on the site. It really make more sense to link those together with a sort of similar development rather than putting in a destination that probably nobody in the neighborhood would ever drive to anyway. This really makes more sense given what's actually on the ground than what was previously approved. The only other issue that we have with the staff report has to do with the Landscape Ordinance I guess it would be Item 11 and 12 in your staff report on page 3. Number 12 says that we did not submitted a landscape plan and number 11 says we don’t have five percent common open space. Both of those things are true and that is because our application was submitted way back in September before the city had adopted a Landscape Ordinance. Clearly that doesn’t apply to this application because it wasn’t in effect at the time the application came in. Having said that however I would point out we will be very close to complying with the spirit of the Landscape Ordinance if not the letter of the law. In that we do have a drainage lot – Steve could we see the plat real quick please. Right below the big word site – I can’t read the number I think its five is a drainage lot. We have high ground water in this area and so we will have sort of a water feature there a pond that will accommodate our storm drainage. We will be landscaping that lot in a way that would comply with the City Ordinance. In addition you see this skinny little lot on the south that goes to the south. That is to leave a sewer stub to the parcel to the south will also be developing a micro-path on there and that will also be landscaped. So with the provision of those two lots there we come to almost 11,000 square-feet. Five percent of our site would be 11,260 square-feet. Even if it did apply to us we would be awfully darn close to complying with that. I think that’s all I have for the Commission unless you had questions. Borup: Does the Commission have any questions? Fluke: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 33 Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? I’ve got a question for somebody on the timing. The effective date of an Ordinance. If an application is submitted does that – Siddoway: Technically if it’s submitted then that Ordinance is not necessarily in affect for it; however, this is a rezone application and consistently the Commissioner and Council have placed conditions on rezones and annexations above and beyond what might be in the Ordinance. We have been asking projects to comply with the elements of Landscape Ordinance for several months prior to the Ordinance actually being adopted. On annexations and rezones where the city has the authority to (inaudible) Conditional Use Permit’s. Where the city has the authority to place additional conditions on there. They are close as he pointed out if they are 11,000 that’s splitting hairs to me. 11,000 verses 11,260. They also have some open space I believe that’s being landscaped along here that may also count towards that. Fluke: I would love it if we could do that but actually we have a ditch that runs along there that we will be piping. So we won’t be able to landscape it. Although it will function as a path. Siddoway: It could be grassed and still count as open space and meet that extra 260 feet. I mean were not going to split hairs with that. Number 12 we would still like the landscape plan to be submitted for approval for the final plat. I don’t see it’s going to modify their plat configuration. We’re just asking that a landscape plan be submitted with the final plat to show the landscaping that will be on those lots that were just described. Borup: Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission? We’ve got both – did I already ask if anybody else is here. I thought I did. Okay we’ve got both public hearings open at this point. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: One more question for staff. Regarding your comment number five regarding the sanitation the sewer line to Lot 12, Block 1 is questionable do you see that as a problem if the developer works with public works to get that cleaned up so they can get sewer. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Norton. We have had some discussions with the applicants engineer on that. I believe what they’re proposing is to run the service line across the common lot which is also serving as the drainage lot below the word site. There would be an easement created across that lot for the service to lot four. Unfortunately out in this area we have Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 34 very shallow sewer and it’s not the best situation but it appears like it’s probably the only way that it could be served. I think its something that we can work with. Norton: Okay Thank you. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Just so I’m clear from the applicant. The only two conditions that you had concerns about was 11 and 12. At least from what I’m hearing from Mr. Siddoway he thinks – basically your argument is more technical you don’t believe technically the Ordinance applies to this application but you think you could probably comply pretty close. What I’m hearing from Mr. Siddoway probably get this worked out so you’re or at the requirement. Borup: I think the only thing we’re lacking just the landscape plan. Fluke: I don’t think we can actually quite meet the five percent. Perhaps if we grass the strip there on the west we’ll be awfully close I haven’t ran the numbers yet. Not to be argumentative but I’m quite positive that the Ordinance does not apply to us because it was not in effect at the time we applied. Borup: That’s what Mr. Siddoway said. Fluke: Right – Nary: I understand that part of it. But what I think he is saying is because this is a rezone we don’t have to rezone it unless we choose to we can certainly oppose that as a requirement – ***End of Side Two*** Fluke: -- landscape plan is not a problem because we are going to landscape it anyway so if you want to see what we are going to do we certainly can give you a plan. Centers: If we said a minimum 11,000 you could meet that? Fluke: Again I hate to tie me down to 11,000 exactly but we’re awfully close we’re at 10,900 just off the numbers that I ran before I came down. Borup: So we could say if Lot 13 landscaped and the – and you plan on landscaping the sewer easement also you said. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 35 Fluke: That’s right we’ll be putting a path and the lot to the south and then we’ll landscape the drainage lot and if your condition read to that effect we wouldn’t have any problem with that. Borup: Okay does anyone else have any other questions? Norton: Mr. Chairman I move to close the public hearing. Borup: Both of them. Norton: Both public hearings. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion is second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: First item then is a request for a rezone. Norton: Mr. Chairman I move to recommend to City Council to approve the RZ 00-008 request for rezone of 5.17 acres from L-O to R-4 by JUB Engineers for proposed Devlin Place No. 2. South of Devlin Place between Sunburst Subdivision and Sunnybrook Farms. To include staff comments. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion is second. All in favor? I didn’t ask if there was any discussion I assume there was none. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Next item. Norton: Mr. Chairman I move to recommend to City Council to approve the PP 00-025 request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16 building lots and 4 other lots on 5.17 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by JUB Engineers for proposed Devlin Place No. 2 south of Devlin Place between Sunburst Subdivision and Sunnybrook Farms to include staff comments, require landscaping of Lot 13 and Lot 5 – Nary: Micro-path. Centers: The micro-path. Borup: That was Lot 5 wasn’t it? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 36 Nary: The pathway along – Borup: Higgan. To the extent to they can do what they can do now. Norton: I think that was in staff comments. Centers: What were you putting along Higgan Street? Borup: That had an irrigation piping isn’t that what you said? Centers: It’s going to be a walking path which you could – Fluke: It will be gravel for the ditch rider. On the north we certainly can put grass on that (inaudible) for that. Nary: I think basically what the comment was that we wanted some substantial compliance to the city code not necessarily strict compliance. Some substantial compliance and it appears that they could do that. Just working with the staff on providing a landscaping plan and such what we were asking. Borup: I think we're all comfortable with that. We just interrupted a motion there. You got it down okay? Do we have a second? Centers: Second. Borup: any further discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 9. Public Hearing: AZ 00-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 00-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 00-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 37 Item 12. Public Hearing: RZ 00-009 Request for Rezone of .25 acres from R-8 to C-G for general commercial use for proposed Tranquility Ponds by Potter Land Surveying – East 3rd Street and Fairview Avenue: Approve recommendation to City Council Borup: As stated previously Item 9,10 and 11 have been postponed to the February 1, 2001 meeting. I hope there wasn’t anybody that came in late that was waiting for that. Item No. 12 Public Hearing for rezone request for rezone of .25 acres from R-8 to C-G for general commercial use for proposed Tranquility Ponds by Potter Land Surveying at East 3rd Street and Fairview Avenue. I’d like to open this public hearing, start with the staff report. Siddoway: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission this is also an in-fill parcel currently vacant. At the corner of Fairview Avenue and East 3rd Street in this area right here that is crosshatched. Referencing the staff comments on December 29, 2000 -- surrounding properties to the north include the Burger King on this side Tel-Car Paging here. There’s and an apartment complex in the R-40 zoning district right here to the south of it. On the east, on this lot here is Ponderosa Paint, south of it is a mobile home park. West of it in this location id Rocky Mountain Collision Repair and an emission test van. The request is to rezone this parcel from its current zoning to which is R-8 to general commercial C-G. We don’t have a problem with the requested zone C-G it seems to make sense with what's around it as far as general commercial. The main thing I would like to point out is there was a concept plan submitted with the application that does have several compliance problems in terms of their dimensions and such. We feel that we can work with the applicant on those issues as they come in for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. We recommend approval of the rezone with the understanding that the submitted concept plan needs some work. That’s all I have. Borup: They have not submitted a new site plan then showing other access or anything? Siddoway: No. Borup: But that has been discussed? The Fairview access? Siddoway: It was discussed in a meeting at ACHD. Borup: I mean with the applicant. Siddoway: The applicant was present. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Is the applicant here and would like to come forward? You heard the staff comments any other questions or anything further you would like to add? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 38 Reid: My name is Holly Reid from Vancouver, Washington. That was a total rough draft. I was doodling at my desk and speaking with Brad Hawkins-Clark several times and I did get a copy of the off-street parking and loading facilities. We kind of going over it while I was on the phone and this is something that I hadn’t intended to send to you. He recommended I send to just so you had an idea on what I was proposing to do. What it would add to the City of Meridian and just the beauty of the landscape that we bring to. But other than that we want to be completely compliant in all that we do before we submit our building plans to get the permits necessary to continue. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mrs. Reid it sounds like a great idea and a wonderful business to have in Meridian. You are aware that ACHD has recommended not to have a turn in from Fairview but from 3rd street. Reid: Correct, yes. Right there was a previous Fairview access from Bodine Oil Company and brad and I discussed that he didn’t think it fly but we would just throw it in there to see what would happen. We were trying to gain the Fairview address because he said we couldn’t have the Fairview address unless we accessed from there. We don’t have a problem with accessing from 3rd Street at all. Norton: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing none. Centers: I would move to close the public hearing. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion is second to close the public hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Do we have a recommendation? Centers: I would that we make a motion to approve Item No. 12 RZ 00-009 request for rezone of .25 from R-8 to C-G for general commercial use for proposed Tranquility Ponds by Potter Land Surveying located at East 3rd and Fairview. Subject to the conceptual plan approval by the necessary Planning and Zoning and departments. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 39 Norton: And to include staff comments. Centers: And including all staff comments as submitted. Norton: I second. Borup: Motion is second, any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 13. Public Hearing: AZ 00-024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.20 acres from RT to C-G for proposed Sparrowhawk Subdivision by Hubble Engineering, Inc. – Northeast corner of N. Nola Road and E. Franklin Road: Item 14. Public Hearing: PP 00-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 3 building lots on 20.20 acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Sparrowhawk Subdivision by Hubble Engineering, Inc. – Northeast corner of N. Nola Road and E. Franklin Road: Borup: Thank you. Item No. 13 lets open Item No. 13 and 14. Public hearings first a request for annexation and zoning of 20-acres from RT to C-G for proposed Sparrowhawk Subdivision by Hubble Engineering. Item 14 is request for Preliminary Plat approval of 3 building lots on 20-acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Sparrowhawk Subdivision again by Hubble Engineering. Generally at the northeast corner of North Nola and East Franklin. Like to open these public hearings start with the staff report. Siddoway: Chairman Borup and members of the Commission. This application is for approximately 20-acres along Franklin Road on the north side near the intersection of Nola and Franklin which currently has a stoplight you may be familiar with that. This is an application for both annexation and zoning going from RT currently in the county to C-G which is general commercial. As well as the second one that was open was for a plat and its 3 building lots on this 20- acres. Some site photos this is looking along Franklin westbound the property would be on the right hand side of this photo. From the west boundary near Nola looking across the property you can see an existing pond that’s on the property right now. That pond -- we're not sure as staff but may have wetlands issues that the Core of Engineers would be involved in. This is not in the staff report but we would request an additional condition that the applicant submit a letter from the Core of Engineers regarding any restrictions or protection that’s needed on this pond with the submittal of the final plat. Some other site photos this is along Franklin, says north view its actually looking more west you can see Franklin Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 40 right here and the overhead power lines running east-west on the north side of Franklin. Looking east from Nola in to the site again looking from the intersection of Nola and Franklin into the site here. This says southwest but actually should be northwest. Looking northwest from the existing pub which is on the eastern property line of this proposed subdivision. This is the proposed plat three large lots on the 20-acres, I’m not sure if there’s anything after that guess not. Just to go over some of the issues we recommend that a Conditional Use Permit be required for all three lots when they are developed. That a Development Agreement be required for the annexation. There’s also buffering requirements, all these comments are in the staff comments by the way. There’s buffer requirements next to the existing single-family residential use which sits on this lot. I believe the owner is here tonight. I point out that the plat incorrectly – it does follow the correct line. The applicant’s property line is kind of a faint line it kind of goes down at a little bit of an angle it should actually follow the – legal description for the annexation has been corrected to accurately reflect the proper boundary. The plat needs to be modified to show that – no. Legal needs to be modified I guess. Borup: Has not been modified yet? Siddoway: I thought that it had. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. In our comments annexation and zoning general comment number one talking about legal description submitted with the application meets the requirements of the City of Meridian and State Tax Commission. The reason I put that comment in there is because the legal description does legally close per state statute. It does put the parcel contiguous to city limits. However when we compared the boundaries of the legal description and the Preliminary Plat to the assessors map we found the discrepancy. Later on in our comments item number seven under Preliminary Plat site-specific we talk about the discrepancy. Shawn Nickels with Hubble Engineering has had some conversations with us regarding that. They’re aware of it and they are working on trying to get the boundary line straightened out. At this point and time it doesn’t appear that that has been rectified. Siddoway: So legal description and the plat need to be modified. And we recommend that the plat be revised before the hearing with City Council. I’ve already mentioned the pond, the plat needs, – there’s another revision that needs to happen on the plat to show the proper right-of-way from the centerline of Franklin Road. Usually there not showing enough in this case they are showing more than they need to. 66-feet as opposed to 48-feet that is a modification that needs to happen to make it accurate. The last item in the staff comments was that the applicant was to provide written response to each of the comments – we’ve not received any. Our recommendation is to continue this hearing anyway until – the ACHD report has not been done on this application at this time. We feel we need to continue the hearing until one is complete and we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 41 would also request to have a written response before that date. We could have the legal and plat map done by then too that way the Commission could review that before sending it on. That would be our recommendation. That’s all I have. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to come forward? Nickel: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. For the record my name is Shawn Nickel I’m with Hubble Engineering. My address is 1442 Allen Street in Meridian I’m sorry 701 Allen Street. I kind of mixed up the Eagle address with the Meridian. It’s 701 Allen Street Suite 102 in Meridian. I’m here tonight representing Sitzler Real Estate Development Group, LLC. It looks like we have a couple of issues to discuss here tonight regarding the plat. First of all to address a comment that Steve mentioned I did fax over a letter on Tuesday morning or dropped off – let me see what we did regarding the comments from the city staff. They were faxed over to you Tuesday morning I do have a copy of those. Siddoway: We just need a copy they are not in our file. I don’t know what happened. Nickel: I can give you my original copy. We really didn’t have any objection to any of the requested requirements both site-specific for the annexation pr for the Preliminary Plat. I did have a question I needed to ask staff. First before I do that I would like to comment on staff’s recommendation. They are recommending approval of the annexation but they are also recommending tabling of the Preliminary Plat because of the ACHD report and I would like to discuss that real quickly. Because we are requesting an annexation, rezone and a Preliminary Plat. We are not at this requesting Conditional Use Permit for any of the uses that will be on these three lots. The main reason for ACHD to request a traffic study was so they could figure out the access point on Franklin Road. Because we do not have any uses at this time we do not know where those accesses are going either. We are in the process – actually we are doing a traffic study right now it will be prepared tomorrow and we will get that to ACHD on Monday. It will go to their Commission and I am confident that it’ll be at their Commission and back to the city prior to the City Council meeting. I would ask that we could move forward tonight with your recommendation just because of the fact that we simply don’t have any uses. We don’t really know what the access point’s area and ACHD will just establish (inaudible) either two or three or have shared accesses between lots two or three or one or two. We’re not going to have any problem with that because there will be a sign off on the plat. So that’s our request on the recommendation from staff for the tabling. Then if you want I can got through the other issues – Borup: How about the second half of their request for tabling? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 42 Nickel: That was regarding – Borup: The legal description. Nickel: Soon after we submitted the application to the city we did a phone call from Mr. John Anderson regarding the legal description and we did make attempt to fix that. Let me show you what has occurred. Mr. Anderson’s property and his home is right here. The way is parcel actually sits its actually kind of skewed this way and there is a small spike strip right here and then strip right here. Our property actually comes up to this side then his property comes down to that side. Is that correct John? Anderson: That’s correct. Nickel: We did make one attempt on the legal description. I think what we did is we just fixed the north portion we didn’t fix the south. That is a condition of approval that you have and we can provide that to staff next week regarding that legal description. We’re not in – there’s no discrepancy and we’re not in objection to Mr. Anderson’s contest that that parcel is the way he has it. We will fix that and we will get that back to you next week and prior to City Council which is what the condition of approval is on your report. Borup: How far back did that description go? Looks like someone screwed up somewhere along the line to have a -- or is that the case? Nickel: Well there was a discrepancy with the – Borup: I’m talking about the two triangle pieces on both ends. Nickel: I don’t know how that happened maybe somebody fell asleep – Borup: I assume that was a number of years ago. Nickel: Yes I’m – John’s lived there. He would probably has the history of that more so than I do. But we will work with him and work with the city on remedying that and getting the proper documentation to the staff. Then regarding and issue came up regarding the pond. We don’t necessarily have a problem getting a letter from the Core of Engineers. However we don’t feel that’s going to be a problem because that pond is man made pond. It was created as a result of irrigation water being back up. It’s the intent of the developer to relocate that – relocate and pipe that ditch and that pond will go away. If staff feels it appropriate to get some documentation from the core we can do that. The other question I had for staff was regarding the landscape plan being submitted and landscape buffer lot. Because we are going to be developing these as three separate Conditional Use Permits. It was our intent to have that landscape reviewed at the time of the Conditional Use Permits rather than just placing a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 43 standard straight landscape buffer along Franklin Road and Nola Road. I was wondering if that could be part of the Development Agreement or condition of the plat I don’t know how – Siddoway: The Ordinance reads that those required landscape buffers in a plat are required to be on a separate common lot owned and maintained by a business owners association. In this case – we just see that more likely to be maintained consistently along the entire frontage if it’s a business owners association – if they’re commonly shared in ownership and its required to be on a separate common lot the way the Ordinance is written right now. Borup: The question – Mr. Nickel I think probably the question here is correct me Steve. Not so much a landscape design just that they’re separate deeded lots for the future maintenance. Nickel: Could we do this Steve, could we show a common lot and then at the time that the Conditional Use’s come in could we modify the configuration of those lots so they would meet the design of what ever the uses would go in there but they would still be – Borup: -- the only modification would be you access points wouldn’t it? Nickel: What I am saying if we plat a landscape lot just a straight landscape lot all the way along Franklin Road. Then the individual Conditional Use Permit’s come in there’s a way we can modify the outline of those lots so they would conform better with the design with what ever uses. Do you understand what I am saying? Borup: I think – are you talking about making the lots smaller or the option of making them larger. You’ve got you’re minimum buffer. Nickel: they would still be required to meet I’m assuming the minimum percentage of open space required. Instead of being a straight lot they might be reconfigured to match what ever design the businesses in that. Siddoway: The minimum width is 35-feet along Franklin Road from – Nickel: I guess they could be larger. Borup: Couldn’t they go ahead and increase it with just a landscape easement or something with out – Siddoway: I think the 35-feet needs to be designated on the plat. Borup: Right. They’re saying they want some -- some options of – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 44 Siddoway: Are we talking about not making it a common lot or we are talking about a plan. Nickel: I’m more worrying about the maintenance of it if we reconfigured it once the uses are established. We can make them minimum with the 35-feet but say we want to increase that and keep it in a common ownership and maintenance. I’m just wondering how we would modify the plat or we do an easement like the Commissioner suggesting. Borup: It’s either that or re-platting it isn’t it? Nickel: Or a lot line adjustment I don’t know if – Siddoway: I’ve only seen these as common lots. The issue about them being crossed by a driveway is not a big deal because the Ordinance allows for that. If you were – the 35-foot minimum I don’t frankly I would be surprised if you wanted to increase it. I’ve never heard anyone wan to do that. Nickel: I just want to set up something where a future user might have a problem in its design. Siddoway: As long as they meet that – I think that we need a 35-foot wide minimum shown on the plat. If they add landscaping to it – I don’t see that’s going to be a problem. Borup: I would think there would be some options either do a lot line adjustment – Nickel: I’m (inaudible) making to big of a deal about this I’m just looking in the future. Borup: Or there could just an agreement for the maintenance to take place on the other property – couldn’t there be? It would be up to the development how they want to handle that. Siddoway: Common maintenance is what we were looking for within that street buffer. Nickel: In that case sorry for wasting your time we will go ahead and submit the design to staff with a 35-foot buffer on Franklin Road as – Borup: (Inaudible) doesn’t sound like your access points would be a factor in that. Nickel: -- show them to you. Everything else staff has included in their staff report we’re in agreement with. I’ll get them a copy of my comments. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 45 Borup: Any questions for Mr. Nickel while he is up? Norton: Mr. Chairman I do have a question. Mr. Nickel we received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Anderson, they have a concern about the Barker Lateral and also about construction being taken place. Dirt getting into the ditch. Have you received a copy of that letter? Nickel: I have and I have also talked to Mr. Anderson briefly before the meeting and the developer has as well. We will work with – I don’t believe he – when he gets up here he can explain this but – does the I don’t believe the irrigation district has control over the lateral or do they. We would be more than willing to work with Mr. Anderson on – his concern is we’re going to get in there and mess with the ditch and then the waters going to have to be turned on they’re not going to be able turn on the water. We will work with him – Norton: You are aware of the problem? Nickel: Yes. Norton: Okay Thank you. Borup: Thank you Shawn. Nickel: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone here who would like to come forward on – I assume Mr. Anderson would. Anderson: My name is John Anderson I live at 120 North Nola Road. That’s the property he is talking about that laid a skewed. My only concern is just my property line is left correct so if I ever go to sale my property we don’t have some kind of lot line dispute. If that done before any permission given having work the irrigation district for 24 years I’ve seen a lot of problems occur over far less lot lines than that. I really don’t want to get into that. They have said they would take care of it the only assurance I’ve got is the city protects that to he Commissioners protect that. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at that. The lateral that I was speaking to it is the tail end of what's known as the – let me back up. That the property the reason that is a skewed that’s all part of the old Barker property. That little section was sectioned off for one of the sons I believe back in the 1950’s and they built that house as a basement house. I can only speculate the only reason they left that sliver was to protect a waste ditch that goes down that side of the property. That’s purely speculation but its makes a lot of sense to me because I’ve seen disputes and people not wanting people on their property. That’s as much history as I know. My concern with the ditch although it’s not under the jurisdiction of Nampa Meridian Irrigation District it is Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 46 under the jurisdiction of us water users. I’m kind of the quasi water master so I get to do it at work and come and do it. So I kind of watch out what happens on those and I would really like the opportunity to make comment and review along with the city personally if I could be a party to that to make sure that is done and where were protected. The dates I’m concerned of when they do any work – that they only be allowed to do that kind of work from October 15 to March 15. This facility is the tail end of the Barker Lateral. There’s two exits it services from Eagle Road Greenhill Estates all the way down to Locust Grove a full mile. Almost in a straight line if you parallel almost completely all of that. If you cross Franklin Road paralleling Eagle all the way down to the railroad tracks and back all the way plumb to Five-Mile Drain which is passed old Brownie Mads place which is past Locust Grove Road. It takes in a lot of area. If those water users in Greenhill Estates say I don’t want to water they open the gates that shoots down that ditch if nobody is watching it, it should just go right on back into Five- Mile Drain or Evans Drain to the west of that. The only other dump is go underneath Franklin Road up by Alma Golightly’s is closer to Eagle Road and very seldom does anybody think to pull that one. Most of these people in subdivision don’t want it they pull a gate and here it comes. Those people down off Lanark are really getting tired of getting flooded and I get called home from work and everybody knows me due to work and so I get to take care of that sometimes on my own. I think it would just really serve to protect a whole bunch of people’s interests that we watch that really carefully and protect that. The pond I don’t know how to address that we really have nothing to do with that. It has been there for a long, long time. Its always just been filled by the land owners but that doesn’t really pertain to us so I guess I wont comment to much on that. Borup: Thank you any questions for Mr. Anderson? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman I could maybe address part of the concerns there. Borup: Okay please do, on the lateral you mean? Freckleton: Yes, on staffs general annexation requirements number one it does require of the applicant to submit plans for tiling of irrigation ditches to the lateral users association and get there written confirmation of approval. That has to be submitted to the public works department. Mr. Nickel has a – he is very fortunate in this situation that we know who the water master is. Most of the time on users laterals it’s a big mystery. I think that will -- John wears many hats. Borup: Anything else Bruce? Freckleton: No that’s it. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to come forward? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 47 Cullip: Mr. Chairman and the rest of the Commissioners I’m Rod Cullip. I live right directly across in fact I can go over and show you here. I live on this section right here it goes all the way down along the creek and everything. The Barker property it’s got a long history behind that. My family – in fact my brother lived here 30 years ago. There is a pond right here and that pond does serve a lot of wildlife geese, there’s nest right on that pond. There’s ducks, there’s quail, and there are pheasants and they all use for drinking purposes. There also used to be another gravel pit that was dug here and that did have a whole bunch of goldfish and all kinds of wildlife and somewhere along lines after the Barker’s sold it – or Stutsman’s ended up getting it. Somebody went in there and they dumped a whole bunch of fill in that one big pond area. It’s got garbage. If you go out there, there’s cars -- all kinds of garbage in there. That’s something that needs to be checked out. Also this irrigation that comes through here that was fed to that pond and that pond took and fed all the irrigation down on the lower lots. That’s been there since 1950 so about 50 years that that’s been like that. This irrigation comes across Franklin here, comes down and crosses the road and feeds all of this land down here. It also goes next to John’s property there crosses Nola and feeds this 80-acre lot that uses to Madden’s Ralph Madden’s. My concern is basically that and I didn’t get a letter to this. I just happen to see it on a power pole across the street I was walking by one day. I thought I would come find out what's going on I’m glad I did. That’s my concerns. Borup: We just note that your name was on the list of letters being sent to. Not sure what happened. If you didn’t get it, it was mailed out. Nary: 1821 East Franklin – Cullip: 1821 East Franklin Road right. Borup: Anyone else like to come forward? Did the applicant have any final comments? Nickel: Good thing you require us to post the site so that gentleman was able to make it here. To address his comments yes the ditch is and all irrigation will be maintained and we’re going to pipe the ditches and everyone’s going to still get the water they currently get. From the history we got from the Stutsman’s that pond no longer serves as irrigation for any of the lots below. I think that’s all we – Borup: Shawn maybe while you’re up here I’d like may be a clarification of what you are asking us. I believe you stated – you did say you would like to proceed ahead. You felt that you could take care of the buffer on Franklin as far as separate platted lot. Then the other question is the legal description. Nickel: We can fix the plat to include the buffer to fix the legal description and Mr. Anderson’s lot. Also to get the traffic report to ACHD Commission prior to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 48 City Council meeting. Specifically because the main issues were the access points on Franklin Road. Borup: That’s one of our concerns is forwarding something on to City Council that still needs correcting. I can understand on the access points that’s going to change as the development is decided on. The legal description will not change I don’t know if there’s a big concern. That’s maybe what we need to clarify. Nickel: that would be up to Bruce. The other concerns they had were already in your report to be cleared up prior to City Council (inaudible) legal description. Borup: Right. That may be the one thing we need to discuss. Nickel: I hope (inaudible) Bruce is comfortable that we can get that to the and maybe move on. Borup: Mr. Freckleton do you have any concern on that? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman I really don’t as long as we receive it prior to City Council. Borup: That’s what I’m – Freckleton: Where you’re a recommending board and Council has the final say. That does give us the other opportunity to raise the concern. As long as I get it before City Council and have a chance to review it. At least one week prior so that we’re not bound up. I don’t really have a problem with that. Borup: Would you be able to communicate that to Mr. Anderson after your review? Freckleton: Certainly. Borup: Will you feel comfortable with that situation John? If he reviewed it and verified that the legal description matched your and – Anderson: Yes. Borup: Okay. Just trying to get a few things out of the way before we proceed. I mean clarified. The – Freckleton: Mr. Chairman. There was the issue of the width of the right-of-way. Centers: The landscape. Borup: No. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 49 Freckleton: No the width of the right-of-way on Franklin. I believe they showed 66-feet and 48 is required. Borup: So does the applicant mind taking some land back? Nickel: Mr. Chairman to explain that when we originally contacted ACHD prior to submittal that’s what they told us the right-of-way was going to be. Once we got to tech review they gave us some of our land back. So we have no problem modifying that on plat as well. Borup: I wouldn’t think so. So 48 they’re talking 96 there -- is what they’re projecting – that should be real soon. The next few years. We do have two public hearings open. Nary: Mr. Chairman I just had one other comment. We did have a letter from Milo Elston in our box today basically opposing this subdivision. At least my reading of this is that Mr. Elston’s concern is that this is a residential subdivision. It doesn’t appear that what's being requested that’s not the zone that’s being requested. That doesn’t appear to be the type of use that’s going to be on there. I just wanted to make note that we had received that letter and I did review it but it appears that his concerns probably at least not a problem today. I guess if there’s potential for rezone in the future then maybe that’s the case. Borup: His concern was he owns a manufacturing company he is worried about noise effecting the residents there. Nary: Mr. Chairman I had just one other question. It appears Mr. Cullip raised a concern I think the use of this pond but I think that is addressed somewhat in the Preliminary Plat requirements from the staff. That they’re going to have to provide some information as to what that is and if there is going to be some need that they have to meet with this Core of Engineers or somebody else to eliminate that pond they are going to have to go through that process. I think we’ve addressed all the concerns. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nary. The pond is just simply briefly mentioned I believe in comment number four. We do feel like we need to get that letter from the Core of Engineers. That is not specifically in the comments at this time and would need to be added. Borup: Mr. Nickel. Nickel: (inaudible). Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 50 Siddoway: Love to have it prior to City Council. I don’t know how fast the Core works on something like that. Sooner is better especially if it’s going to effect your plat. I felt it was more reasonable to expect it before the final plat. Borup: Anything else? Nary: I move we close the public hearing. Borup: Both? Nary: Yes numbers 13 and 14. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion is second to close both public hearings. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: First item is request for annexation and zoning. Nary: Mr. Chairman I would move the approval of AZ 00-024 the request for annexation and zoning of 20.20 acres from RT to a C-G for proposed Sparrowhawk Subdivision by Hubble Engineering at the northeast corner of North Nola Road and East Franklin Road. It appears – with staff comments incorporated -- I hear (inaudible) and addressed all the concerns and I really haven’t heard any opposition to the staff comments in regard to the annexation or even the need to amend the staff comments as to (inaudible) here, unless I’m mistaken. Borup: No that’s the same way I read that. Norton: I second. Borup: Motion is second. Any discussion or all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Nary: On the second one although I did note Mr. Siddoway had we requested maybe we put off the Preliminary Plat or actually put off both of them. It does appear to me that there is probably not – of all of this information provided before we get to the Council level since it’s really left to them to make this final decision. That seems to be adequate. I mean normally wee don’t pass them on if there’s a lot to be done but it doesn’t sound like there is a lot to be done before it gets to the Council level. If all that accomplished which Mr. Nickel is hoping he can. I don’t see a reason to delay it we can move it along. If it doesn’t get done then I guess the Council will have to delay it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 51 Siddoway: Just for clarification – ***End of Side Three*** Siddoway: -- my verbal comment about the Core of Engineers letter – Nary: I’m going to add that for the Preliminary Plat. Siddoway: This is just the zone I’m sorry. Nary: Yes this was just the annexation and zoning. Anyway with that being said I would move for the recommendation of the approval of PP 00-026 request for Preliminary Plat approval of 3 building lots on 20.20 acres in proposed C-G zone for the proposed Sparrowhawk Subdivision by Hubble Engineering. At the northeast corner of North Nola Road and East Franklin Road. With the one modification of Preliminary Plat specific requirement number four that it also include language that the developer receive approval from the Core of Engineers for any changes to the existing pond that is on the property. I think the other information in there regarding the plat and all that the property lines were already taken care of. The landscaping – this requires a 35-foot and I think we were all comfortable with that. I don’t think there was anything other than that to amend. That correct? Borup: Did we get the – go ahead Nary: That’s all I had. Borup: we have a motion. Norton: Second. Borup: Second, discussion? Did we get the legal description comment in as part of the zoning? Nary: I think the legal description in the annexation and zoning the condition that already existed said the legal description has to be cleared up – Borup: Okay. Nary: -- City of Meridian and State Tax Commission requirements anyway. Borup: The only question I have on the timing – don’t we have a – if the items are not in – do we have a potential time problem this getting to City Council if there was a delay? Don’t we have a minimum time that it needs to be for the next hearing? Yes – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 52 Nary: 45 days. Borup: It’s just got to be passed on to us. It can be delayed before it goes to City Council though if they are waiting for information? Nary: I believe the city Council can set it over if its not in the City Council can set it over. They have to take it up within 45 days. Borup: Okay we do have a motion any other discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you. That concludes our meeting this evening at least as far as public hearings. Do we have any other items we need to take up – we do have – are we okay on our fifth Tuesday? Berg: Of the month? Borup: Yes. Berg: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, yes the Council was excited about having a workshop on the fifth Tuesday – Borup: That did come up two days ago then when ever? Councilwoman de Weerd was not aware of it earlier in the week. Norton: It was in the paper this morning or yesterday. Borup: Tuesday morning she was not aware of it but Tuesday night they were. Berg: We talked about that even when we were creating the Ordinance saying that there was a fifth Tuesday every four months. They thought that was a good idea to meet with the Planning and Zoning Commission for a workshop. I don’t know where she was coming from – I think they are excited until maybe they find out every Tuesday for the rest of their life is a meeting. Borup: We were going to add one item to that agenda – Berg: I just want to make kind of a recommendation like we do for the City Council workshops. The president of the Council puts that agenda together and if you have issues that I know our Chairman would, II could get that before – the week before so we could put an agenda and have all the issues on a rough agenda that we know what were going to talk about. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 53 Borup: We had talked about adding one item to that agenda – the temporary trailer. Berg: You will probably be seeing more and more things talked about – trying to get it done at staff level rather than going through. Nary: Will that meeting I assume be here in this room the Tuesday. Berg: Yes. Borup: So does everybody have that down that would be January 30, 2001? Berg: Everything is at 6:30 for Council from now on. Borup: Okay I didn’t have that down yet. Norton: I didn’t either I was thinking it was – Thursday. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Borup: That’s right too much going on in December. Nary: So the first will be January 30, 2001 at 6:30. Borup: I think the next one wasn’t until May or something. Berg: I will have to put out a notice because it is a special meeting with both parties. I will put out a notice as a reminder. Like I said I will get with Keith and we’ll try to have a draft agenda. Borup: Well we have our agenda we came up with several months ago. Berg: Get the information to me so I can put it in a constructive format. Borup: Last time we talked we figured had two or three items we had to pull. Nary: Comprehensive Plan. Borup: Changing – that maybe a long process. Berg: Something we had talked about in between was the findings being approved at the P and Z level before it gets passed on. Because you are meeting every two weeks. Borup: Was Mr. Swartley still here? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 54 Nary: I was going to say was it is the intent – Berg: No were still on – Borup: We still have an open meeting but we can answer your question if you want to wait a minute. Nary: Was their intent by the Council or the city Attorney staff to have somebody there from their staff? Berg: At the workshop? Nary: Yes. Berg: Yes Bill Nichols will be there all the time and we can even have Mr. Swartley there for a little bit. Nary: I was just thinking if in case there is some directives of something to do especially in regards to an Ordinance change or something like that. Berg: Bill is there all the time and I’m sure Mr. Swartley would be there at the workshop too. Swartley: On January 30, 2001? Borup: Comment on your memo. I had the impression you assumed we were receiving copies of – Swartley: I thought Sally was but did you stop doing that. Norton: I was receiving copies until about mid-summer and then they haven’t been put in my box so I haven’t been getting them. Swartley: I thought Marlene was supposed to continue to put them there. But you hadn’t said anything so I assumed – okay. I didn’t know that. Norton: I wasn’t sure – I didn’t know if you wanted my comments or not – stopped appearing in my box. Swartley: I have nothing to do with them going into your box. Berg: its kind of a two-fold thing if P and Z is starting to approve their findings then they will be back in front of you to modify or add a word or what ever it may be from what the interpretation is. But if we continue to do the same thing we’re doing now then you won’t be able – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 55 Swartley: Do you guys want to see your own – Borup: See I was confused – I thought we’re just doing a recommendation and City Council preparing findings. The last ones I saw said that the findings – Swartley: The last one – the last what? Borup: I got two of them in my box Tuesday which is the first ones I’ve I had I think. Swartley: Two what? Recommendations or findings? Borup: Findings. Swartley: I haven’t done any findings. I’ve only done recommendations. And State Statute provides that – Borup: Okay – Swartley: -- Planning and Zoning Commission does recommendations. Borup: It was a very formal recommendation. It looked just like findings. Nary: In Boise what's done is normally at the staff level what the Commission is reviewing is the findings. Borup: I noticed that. Nary: If there’s changes – it depends on how significant the changes are. If they are fairly minor like we change should and shall or something like that they usually don’t see them again. If they are fairly extensive changes they would seem them. Swartley: (inaudible) I think this kind of relates back – remember the workshop we had where Kent Brown tried to explain – I think that’s what were kind of going for aren’t we. Is to try to get things a little more streamlined. Berg: The idea was to get them through faster. When we were only meeting once a month and the idea of you as a Commission approving findings was just like we used to do – I don’t want to say in the olden days but when I first started. It wasn’t delayed it another month and so it was tying to streamline or get it going faster. The real concern is still if the Commission still wants to review what the attorney prepares. I would suggest in a more formal findings than the Council even has the option of approving the findings after their hearing. Correct Bill? Well we will adopt the P and Z findings because there is no difference in what we heard tonight that makes any changes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 56 (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Swartley: Yes they are and they are almost prepared exactly they way staff is preparing them 95 percent of the time. Borup: I mean your recommendation is pretty much the findings that are adopted? Swartley: Yes. I believe so I haven’t seen what Bill does to be honest with you. When he does his findings. Borup: (inaudible). Swartley: Pretty close. Borup: Does he have the computers in network so he’s already got it in there so he just makes changes if he needs? Swartley: I don’t know. Borup: You don’t know if your computers are networked? Swartley: Our computers are networked yes. Berg: You don’t know if he – Swartley: I don’t know if he pulls it up that way or if he dictates them to somebody else. Borup: -- (inaudible) scratch is he? Swartley: I doubt it. Berg: I guess my other question – does Marlene do a lot of those and let him look at it. So she’s probably using your basis – Swartley: She probably is using it yes. Berg: And just adding a few little – Swartley: Which is kind of the way I’m doing it when Liz the secretary in Nampa does them I’m using the staff report as a basis. We just have (inaudible) forms. Berg: I see that it would be getting done faster when were going to two meetings a month. That you approve the findings because then it’s a final document. The Council can just approve or modify by one or two sentences. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 57 Swartley: My understanding of the problem was I was sending on recommendations which you guys were making a motion to approve with staff comments only. Then those recommendations were getting to City Council and somebody would say no these recommendations aren’t what was motioned. At the City Council level. Which is really hard for me to screw up because it’s basically the same thing staff is doing. That was my understanding of the problem. Borup: I asked Tammy about what it was that brought it up and she couldn’t remember. She couldn’t remember the application. Swartley: If you guys want to see the recommendations before they go on – that’s an awful lot reading for you to do. Borup: Let’s see what comes out of the workshop. Nary: -- the 30th and in the interim maybe just getting a tape or something to make sure – Swartley: Yes, Will can we do that? Can you make copies of tapes? Nary: And you may not need very – sometimes if they’re all pretty cut an dried like a lot of these were tonight – Swartley: Tonight’s were very simple exactly – Nary: -- real contentious and there’s a lot of modifications. Norton: They have been in the past very contentious. A lot of modifications, a lot of add this and take that out. Swartley: If you guys noticed tonight somebody would make a motion and somebody wouldn’t pipe in with what about this and what about this and then it gets a little bit confusing. Even when you read the transcript I don’t know if – the transcript is what's going to be going on and if there’s ever a judicial review that’s what they are going to be looking at and if they can’t figure it out. Borup: Some of those longs ones like that may be (inaudible) make sure they are re-stated. Norton: I think if it would help City Council it would be – I would be willing to read those findings and I think we would probably go through them real quickly. Swartley: Okay the findings or the recommendations? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 58 Norton: What ever. Then there’s still also the checks and balances to. As I understand that nobody here tonight goes on to City Council and somebody has ever read the recommendations except for City Council. There’s nobody looking at saying yes. Berg: The staff, the applicant and the City Council review the recommendation. Nary: What I’m assuming – (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Nary: An applicant said that’s not what they said at P and Z and here is the minutes now which have now been completed which weren’t when the revisions were done. Saying there’s a discrepancy I’m just guessing. We could put them on whether or not we have to do an Ordinance change or not. We could certainly if the Council is comfortable with that we can put them on a consent agenda item there’s no testimony for it. This is what we said that’s all were doing is looking at these recommendations to make sure that’s what we had agreed to and what we voted on. Borup: In the past we handled each one individually. Nary: If there was one that had a discrepancy or a problem – (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission) Nary: We can pull one off and discuss that and say this is what we want to (inaudible) – Swartley: -- (inaudible) they are going on to City Council and somebody wasn’t there or hasn’t seen the transcript is then saying this is not was passed or recommended by the Commission. I don’t think that’s right I think if it comes back to us then it would be – it would sound a lot better, it would look a lot better – Borup: And it would be what we recommended. Swartley: We could zip through those pretty quick they shouldn’t take much time. Centers: Our minutes aren’t there. Swartley: They’re there – they are this thick it will take you a half-an-hour to find what you are looking for. Borup: City Council can’t make it through there own minutes. They’re not going to read ours. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 59 Berg: City Council wants less and less paperwork. Hopefully you saw in your packets this last meeting that you only had information that was detailed documents. Everything else was put on your cover sheet what we got if there were any comments – Norton: Yes, I liked that. Berg: Most of the Council doesn’t want any more paperwork as minutes or any other long explanation. Swartley: When Kent did that workshop didn’t he have a sheet that said something along the lines of if your problem is such and such with the recommendation. Norton: I still have those. Swartley: Do you remember what I am talking about Sally? Norton: Yes. Swartley: If there was a problem just mark it down and then we can really quickly at the beginning of the meeting. Do you remember that Keith? Borup: Yes. Norton: I can bring them to the workshop if you want. Borup: I’ve got it somewhere too she can probably find hers. Swartley: Rather than making notes just put it on that sheet we can very fast – quickly go over those. Borup: That would be good rather than us trying to write notes on piece of scratch paper or something. Swartley: Exactly, I mean here’s a problem with annexation and zoning number whatever and here is my problem I thought this was missed. We can quickly check it. If there is a – Borup: If we come prepared with that filled out we wouldn’t spend much time at all. Swartley: I thin it would be very quick. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 4, 2001 Page 60 Norton: I think it would be fairly rare. But I also think it would look too better if we actually reviewed the recommendation. Swartley: That’s happening a lot I guess not a lot but de Weerd didn’t remember what it was so. Borup: No so it must have not been real big. Berg: Sometimes things get confusing too from public hearings to public hearings. Somebody would testify one thing and him or her I’m sorry next time they testify something else. Swartley: Yes that happens a lot too. Berg: Why did the P and Z have this recommendation well it was because of the testimony said that at your hearing. Swartley: Right and one guy is going to say this is what was said and another guy is going to say this is what was said. Borup: We ready to – do we have a final motion? Norton: Mr. Chairman I make a motion to adjourn. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion is second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:55 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK