Loading...
2001 07-05Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 5, 2001 The City of Meridian Planning and Zoning regularly scheduled meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, July 5, 2001, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Bill Nary, and Keven Shreeve. Members Absent: Jerry Centers. Others Present: David Swartley, Bruce Freckleton, David McKinnon, Steve Siddoway, and Will Berg. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: __X__Sally Norton __O__ Jerry Centers __X__Bill Nary __X__ Keven Shreeve __X__Chairman Keith Borup Borup: -- scheduled July 5th . Lets start with roll call of attendance. Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of May 17, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting: Borup: The first item on the agenda is our minutes of May 17th . Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I move to approve the minutes of May 17th . Nary: Second. Borup: Motion is second to approve the May 17th minutes. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 4. VAC 01-001 Request for a vacation of the 20-foot utility easement between lots 1 and 4 of Block 2 of Sue’s Subdivision for the construction of a four-plex by Sunrise Engineering – 551 West Idaho Avenue: Item 5. Public Hearing: CUP 01-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a four-plex family dwelling unit in an Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 2 R-15 zone for Sue’s Subdivision Block 2, Lot 1 by Charles J. Eldredge – 551 West Idaho Avenue: Borup: The first item on the agenda, actually Items No. 4 and 5 are pertaining to the same project, same application. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: These two projects are something that I am personally involved with so I would like to excuse myself through this presentation. Borup: Okay thank you. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: I think before we go, just one -- do we have anyone here to testify on Item No. 13? Hairstyling salon for Susan Guzman. Are you Susan? Are you the only one? Is there anyone else here? (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: We were anticipating there might not be anyone, but if someone shows up we still mat need to have a Public Hearing. Well, there will be a Public Hearing but it looks like there may not be any testimony. I guess, going through all that really didn’t help you any. Someone still may come in later because it was scheduled for the end. That was all at this point. Okay Items 4 and 5, we would open both of these and have the staff report and public testimony. First is a request for vacation of a 20-foot utility easement between lots 1 and 4 of block 2 in Sue’s Subdivision. Then, related to that a request for a Conditional Use Permit for construction of a four-plex dwelling unit in an R-15 zone for Sue Subdivision in lot 1 block 2. We’ll open those hearings and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you Mr. Commissioner, or Chairman Borup and members of the Commission. Do you want the report on the first two items together, the vacation, and the conditional – Borup: Yes, we thought that that would be more convenient. Siddoway: Item 4 is a vacation. Basically, this is a property at 551 West Idaho. See the large red arrow pointing to it on the aerial photo? They are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a four-plex which we’ll get to more detail in just a second. Part of that request with the four-plex would be to shift the lot lines. To shift the lot lines they would have to vacate the existing easements Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 3 where the current lot line sits. You can see the current lot pattern and the existing zoning. There are several high-density residential uses in the area. I believe the zoning throughout that area is R-15. This is a photo of the site. There is an existing duplex on the rear portion of the lot. This is standing out on Idaho. The vacant lot is the subject parcel right here and that’s more photos. This would be the front part of the parcel, looking west down Idaho directly across from the site. To the east are these existing four-plexes. This is the proposed site plan. I believe north would be up and Idaho Street would be out here. The driveway coming in. You see the four-plexes. Each has a single car garage, driveway out in front. They have three additional parking spaces so not quite one additional per unit. These would be the elevations. Similar in character to the ones across the street. I don’t know if they’re the exact same I don’t think they are. I think they’re a different builder. That would be it. This project came through originally as a plat with the mix of duplex and four-plex lots. This is coming back before you tonight to amend the original Conditional Use Permit. This lot was approved as a duplex lot originally and they are now requesting that that be modified to allow four-plex. Nothing from Bruce so, I’ll stand for any questions. Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Steve, we’ve got a letter objection from a Steven Hansen that’s dated today. There's a comment in here that he makes that says that these lots were designed and approved for duplex use and that all of the roadways, garbage collection, lighting, site density and all were calculated with that duplex in mind. That this change would negatively impact tenants in the surrounding units but it doesn’t state why. I noted in your staff report, it says there is no negative impact at all. Was there any other information somebody supplied or any other comments from anybody else said what makes it negative? Just those additional two units that are being approved? Siddoway: I do not know why it would impact it negatively. It would be just the additional trips generated by two additional lots. I believe the public facilities in terms of water and sewer and things are adequately serve a four-plex as well as a duplex. Garbage, you know each person will drag theirs out to the street like everyone else. Nary: So, it was already approved for two? We’re only basically (inaudible)? Siddoway: You would be adding two units to it. It’s approved for two. You’d be adding two to make it four. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 4 Nary: Thank you. Borup: Okay I think one thing I noted here is that the parking, off-street parking looked fairly adequate, especially compared to some others that we’ve seen. I mean as far as percentage and numbers. Okay, would the applicant here like to come forward? Yes, right here. You need to state your name and address and then I guess any additional comments that you’d like to make in addition to what the staff has – Flager: Sure I’m Ken Flager. I’m with Sunrise Engineering, representing the owner. Borup: Raise your microphone just a little bit and name and address. Flager: Is that better? Okay my name is Ken Flager. I’m with Sunrise Engineering, 10200 West Emerald in Boise. We’re representing the owner, Charles Eldridge. Basically the situation is as the staff has presented it. The reason we’re going for the change in the lot line is simply to facilitate the side setback on the four-plex building which is presented in the CUP. I’d also like to mention that at present, the surrounding buildings on the properties, even though it was originally designated for duplexes are four-plex buildings already. I don’t believe that would negatively impact the area at all. Do you have any questions? Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mr. Flager, I didn’t see any place in the materials what type of materials this four-plex would be made out of. Do you know? Flager: Type of materials? Norton: Yes, building materials? Are they going to be brick, siding? Could you repeat that for your microphone? Flager: Vinyl siding and brick would be the construction materials. Norton: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 5 Nary: Mr. Flager would you comment? There’s a also a comment in here from Mr. Hansen that indicates that this change in density will create excessive traffic and conflict between the tenants on the private road. How is this project going to impact a private road and the use of it by the other people? Flager: Well, we concur with the staff report. I don’t feel that there will be any negative impact. It is a private road. It’s a small road. People are going to look as they back out. I don’t believe it will negatively impact that situation at all. It will add some vehicles. It’s a private road, a dead end road. It’s not like through traffic. Nary: And the current tenants already pay for the maintenance of that private road? Flager: Yes. Nary: So, these new tenants in these four-plexes will also pay for the maintenance of the private road? Flager: It will be set up the same way. Nary: Okay now, we talked a moment ago with the planning staff. It’s an additional two units, but is it an additional two units per lot so its actually four additional units overall is that right? Flager: No on the other lot, it’s a duplex. Nary: Oh, okay. So, its just two additional units? Flager: So, its just two additional units. Nary: Okay, because he talks about two different lots and I thought maybe – Flager: Right there’s just a duplex on the south lot right now. Borup: That’s this one? Flager: Right the building you see there is a duplex. Borup: And that’s what is using the private road at this point? Flager: Right the four-plex would be just this side of it in that vacant property. Nary: You also commented, sir that the other lots, or the other buildings are four- plex units as well? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 6 Flager: Yes. Nary: So, they aren’t being used as duplexes currently are they? Flager: No they’re being used as four-plexes. Nary: Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? Thank you Mr. Flager. Do we have anyone else with any testimony or comments on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? We need to handle each item separately. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: Okay we’ve got two items that we need to address. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I move we close the Public Hearings on Items 4 and 5. VAC 01-001 and CUP 01-022. Norton: I second. Borup: Motion is second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT, ONE ABSTAINED Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I would move that we recommend the approval of City Council of VAC 01- 001 the request for the vacation of the 20-foot utility easement between lots 1 and 4 of block 2 of Sue’s Subdivision for the construction of a four-plex by Sunrise Engineering at 551 West Idaho. Norton: I second. Borup: Motion is second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT, ONE ABSTAINED Borup: Item No. 5. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 7 Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I would move that we recommend approval to the City Council CUP 01- 022 the request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a four-plex family dwelling unit in an R-15 zone for Sue’s Subdivision block 2, lot 1 by Charles Eldridge 551 West Idaho Avenue, to include all staff comments of the staff report prepared June 29, 2001. Norton: I also want to include the Fire Marshal Joseph Silva’s comment. Borup: That’s fine. Nary: Al the staff comments including – Norton: He particularly had stated three different items that need to be addressed regarding the Fire Marshals. If that’s included in the staff’s comments, I’ll be happy and I’ll second that. Borup: Motion is second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT, ONE ABSTAINED Item 6. Public Hearing: PP 01-013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots on 1.66 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 10 by Steiner Development, Inc. – west and north of West Harbor Point Drive, North Miranda Avenue and West Teter Street: Borup: Okay Item No. 6 is -- I’d like to open the Public Hearing on PP 01-013 a request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots on 1.66 acres in an R-4 zone for the Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 10. I’d like to begin with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. This is the proposed plat for The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 10. This area was actually already platted once as the Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 8 I believe. It’s coming back because they have -- I think it was due to a land swap is that right Bruce? There was a land swap. They picked up some additional land behind some of the lots. They’re re-platting it to increase the size of some of those lots. You can see the area already planned out, or graded out there in the site photo. These are the 6 lots in question that you can see crosshatched on the screen. This is an existing site photo. Actually I’ll go back. Standing at this intersection and looking north down this street, this is what you see. You can see there’s already been Building Permits issued on some of these lots. The proposed plat would simply increase the sizes. I believe there’s no problems with the proposed plat in terms of Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 8 frontage or conflicting with existing building pads or anything. Existing lot lines, existing easements are all covered. The frontages all stay the same. This is the proposed plat. It’s these 6 lots wrapped around here. This is the original lot line. They are adding the additional land behind it here. You have our staff comments dated July 2nd and we recommend approval with staff comments. I’ll stand for any questions. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? The side lot lines have stayed the same. The only change from the two plats was that area where the pressurized line was moved back and et cetera? Siddoway: (Inaudible) the location of the side lot lines is in the same place. They have been extended back. This lot here was, what it is now? Borup: Well, that explains why there’s houses already built. They were built on the first plat and the lots have been increased. They can do that without effecting any of the side setbacks? Freckleton: That’s correct Mr. Chairman. All of the utilities existing wont be modified at all. The side lot lines, front pins remain the same. They are adding the lot that Steve’s pointing to now. It was excluded from the plat of No. 8 because of a square footage, lack of square footage. By picking up the additional square footage, they do meet now and so they have included it in this plat. All your frontages are going to be the same. Borup: Okay thank you. Is the applicant here and like to put forth any testimony? Bradbury: Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Steve Bradbury. I’m at 225 North Ninth in Boise. I represent Steiner Development. Between Bruce and Steve, I think they got it all in there. This land was originally platted as Lake at Cherry Lanes Subdivision No. 8. Last October Steiner Development and the City of Meridian entered into a Land Exchange Agreement whereby Steiner Development acquired the additional that it is seeking to have incorporated into these lots in exchange for other land that Steiner Development owns nearer to the golf course. That land would be then used for golf course purposes. I brought with me, sorry I only brought one package of the Land Exchange documents in case you folks are interested in it. Borup: I don’t think we’ve got a question on that. Have you already got that in your file? Berg: Mr. Chairman its in my records as far as approval with the City Council. That’s all been taken care, should I say last winter. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 9 Borup: Unless any of the Commissioners wanted to take a look at that? I didn’t think so. Bradbury: I’m happy to leave them if you’d like them. Otherwise, the intent then is to simply incorporate additional land into the existing building lots to make them larger. About 20 feet more or less at the back of the lots and then to make the excluded land large enough to be a building lot. That would be that second lot from the left. If you have any questions I’ll answer them otherwise I think we’ve pretty much got it. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Bradbury: I did have one I guess inquiry either of the Commission or perhaps of staff. I’m not sure. That is with respect to the need for site-specific requirement No. 1. Since the subdivision is already built and the infra structure is all in place and all we’re really doing is adding some additional land to the existing lots plus the one lot that was basically carved out. I’m wondering if there’s really a need to provide a new landscape in pencil plan. I don’t think any of those things changed. Maybe, if there’s a reason for it of course we’d do it but I’m not sure there is. Borup: Any comment on that Steve? Siddoway: If there’s already an approved one, then I think that we can let that one stand. It’s less than the 5 acres that would kick in the new requirements for the 5 percent open space because that won’t effect it I think if there is an approved landscape plan. I didn’t know there was one when I wrote these comments. If there is an approved Landscape Plan I think it can stand. If there’s not, we will need one. Borup: Do you know the answer to that? Bradbury: That’s fair enough. I don’t know the answer. Maybe we can just phrase that requirement in the type of phraseology. I think there is but if there isn’t certainly we – Borup: Where would the Landscaping Plan have been on a subdivision of this size? That’s not even a normal requirement is it? Bradbury: I’m not even sure what would show on the Landscape Plan. Siddoway: Landscape Plans are a normal requirement Mr. Chairman. There is an island, but it looks like from the photos where we just turned back to that its already there so, there is that island. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 10 Borup: Okay I was going to say, it needs a common area and I didn’t see any common area but that would be it. It looks like the landscaping is done. You need something on the plat if it’s not already in then that is fairly simple. That was the only thing I think that confused me a little bit is staff mentioned that there was existing houses and I didn’t realize that, reading that paperwork. Okay thank you. Bradbury: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Come on up sir. Ferner: My name is Rodger Ferner my address 4078 West Teeter Meridian. I’m a homeowner that bought right next to what’s shown there in lot No. 56, I believe it is. No, its 58. When I received my notification in the mail, I became very interested in this zoning change. What I would like to do is thank the Planning Commission for the opportunity and the privilege to speak on my behalf and I hope the behalf of my neighbors. During the course of my research the essence that I came up with, why we’re here tonight on this particular item is Steiner wanted to go from 5 buildable lots ion that area to 6 buildable lots as has been stated. They’ve gained another lot and whatever that represents in their income stream, minus the cost of going through all this changing, which is fine. During my research and investigation into this I had the opportunity to visit the City Clerk’s office and I find the people there very helpful. If they couldn’t answer a question they would do their very best to find out someone that could. All of the important questions I had were answered, or they referred me to the Building Department. Then I’d go over to the Building Department and they’re very helpful so I want to commend the Building Department, the City Clerk’s office and the Planning and Zoning Department over there on Water Tower. Everybody’s been very helpful to me. Even though it took a number of trips and a few phone calls and several hours of my time being a novice at all this its been kind of an interesting experience. Now, in that process of looking at the records at the City Clerk’s office I had the opportunity to look at the CC&Rs that were in the file on this particular proposed change. It appears that someone had made a mistake and has the incorrect CC&Rs on file. Borup: On file where? Ferner: The City Clerk’s office. How that mistake occurred I don’t know. I was going through and I find all these discrepancies between the CC&Rs that were on file in the City Clerk’s office and the – Borup: Maybe I can get a clarification right here. I don’t know that the City requires CC&Rs to be a part of the file other because its not something the City has any -- the City doesn’t have any enforcement responsibility over. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 11 Ferner: That’s right that’s something I found out during this research. Borup: So, what would be at the City Clerk’s would just be something more of an accommodation not a requirement of the City. Ferner: Right the accommodation. Somehow they got the incorrect CC&Rs in there. I found out that it was incorrect by contacting – Borup: No, but what I’m saying is they don’t even need to be there. It’s not really pertinent. Ferner: Right, but they were there. There were some CC&Rs in the file. I was going through them and I found a lot of problems so I call back and end up with Brigg’s Engineering who represents the client, Steiner on this. They said the intent, their intent and I’m here to get this into the record, their intent is for the CC&Rs for this proposed Cherry Lakes, The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 10 shall be the same essential CC&Rs as The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 8. No. 8 originally included this area. I want to commend Brigg’s Engineering for their very prompt action in getting me this information because as a landowner next to it. It’s in my interest to make sure that Steiner incorporates the same CC&Rs, or essentially the same very next to me as I have. Borup: I understand, and you’re No. 4? Ferner: Yes, I’m in The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 4. I find out that the CC&Rs No. 8 essentially comply with No. 4. If they incorporate CC&Rs for No. 8 into this new proposed No. 10, we’re all going to be happy. Borup: So, that’s your concern, that the CC&Rs be consistent? Ferner: Right exactly. Steiner has ensured me through Brigg’s Engineering that they will incorporate. They will use the same CC&Rs essentially except to make detail changes to match these new lots and so forth. Borup: I think that’s normally what a developer prefers to do. Otherwise, they’ve got to pay to have thing redone. Ferner: Right. Borup: The only people like that are the attorneys. Ferner: They’ve had to pay a little bit of money to get all these changes to get that extra buildable lot. I’m sure that was their motivation of going through this exercise. I do also want to commend Steiner and their agent here in Boise on the prompt action to my inquiries. I’ve been very satisfied with the way everything has worked out. I want to thank you for letting me get up here and Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 12 voice my concerns and let you know that things are going along very well and your staff is doing a good job. Thank you. Borup: Would you like Mr. Bradbury to re-affirm what your feeling is? Ferner: (Inaudible) I don’t know if he’s been involved in the CC&R fiasco that was listed at the -- here are the CC&Rs that I got from Brigg’s Engineering today. Borup: I think that he just wanted to essentially – Ferner: -- here are the ones that were on file from the City Clerk’s office. Borup: No. 10 is going to be essentially the same covenants as 4 and 8? Bradbury: Mr. Chairman I can tell you that the CC&Rs for No. 8 are already recorded. They’re a knock off (inaudible). Ferner: Right. Borup: Okay. Bradburry: We just changed the names and numbers. Ferner: How this got in that file I don’t know. Bradburry: For No. 10 we’ll just do a supplemental – Borup: -- I think it’s probably in there because they were the same as before and just not repeating it. Ferner: All right thank you. Borup: Okay thank you. Anyone else? Commissioners, seeing none. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: I propose that we close the Public Hearing on the Preliminary Plat approval of 6 buildable lots at The Lakes of Cherry Lane No. 10 by Steiner Development. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion is second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 13 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: I propose acceptance of the Public Hearing of PP 01-013 request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots on 1.66 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 10 by Steiner Development Inc. west and north of West Harbour Point Drive, North Miranda Avenue and West Teeter Street, with all the conditions listed in the staff report except, I guess what’s with the landscaping? Nary: What I was going to suggest Mr. Chairman is the maybe if Condition No. 1 read simply provide or verify the existing details of landscaping and fencing plans. That would essentially put it on the developer to either make sure it’s already there or provide one. Shreeve: I accept that as part of the proposal, part of the motion. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion is second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 7. Public Hearing: AZ 01-011 Request for annexation and zoning of 9.79 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Franklin Mini Storage by Ron Osborne – 1975 East Franklin Road: Item 8. Public Hearing: CUP 01-024 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a storage unit on 9.79 acres with one office/commercial pad for Franklin Mini Storage by Ron Osborne – 1975 East Franklin Road Borup: Item No. – (Inaudible discussion amongst commission members) Borup: Okay Item No. 7 and 8 again are on the same project. Seven is AZ 01- 011 request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.79 acre from RUT to C-G zones for Franklin Mini Storage by Ron Osborne. Item No. 8 is a CUP request for Conditional Use Permit for construction of storage units on 9.79 acres and one office/commercial pad Franklin Mini Storage. I’d like to open both these Public Hearings and start with the staff report. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 14 Siddoway: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. You can see on the screen a site photo from the air of the proposed property. It is outlined in red. Adjacent uses include the existing Green Hill Estates Subdivision to the east. The large parcel to the south now has Woodbridge Subdivision on it which has been constructed since this photo was taken. Significant site features include the Five Mile Creek which crosses the corner of the property right here and continues around. You can see the existing land use pattern on the Zoning Map. The subject property is hatched in. You can see the lots from Woodbridge on this map and Green Hill Estates. The property across the street to the north was approved a few months ago as Sparrowhawk, a commercial project. The property to the west is still vacant and pasture use. Some site photos. This is standing in Woodbridge and looking northwest from their pathway. The subject property would be in the background here. This is also looking directly into the property from the Woodbridge side looking north. This would be Five Mile Creek where it comes down close to Franklin Road so the subject property would be just east of here. This is the proposed site plan. North is to the left on this plan. This would be Franklin Road. Come in, there’s an existing house here which would become the quarters for the caretaker. Then, they’re proposing to basically build out the property with the exception of this corner as storage units. They want to plat, or plat the right word? They want to have this lot, this parcel here be a commercial lot for separate commercial use. The specific use of which is unknown at this time. Until such time as it is, there is a separate commercial use, they can go on that parcel and they wish to use it for surface storage of RVs and we’ll get to the staff comment that deals with that in just a second. This is their proposed Landscape Plan. Basically you can see the perimeter landscaping surrounding the property. There’s also a requirement for a section of pathway to be built along Five Mile Creek to continue the system that’s already been done by Woodbridge. In front of you tonight is an application for Annexation and Zoning as well as the Conditional Use as a Planned Development. The requested zone is C-G which is for general commercial. The Comprehensive Plan states that this area is mixed Planned Use Development so they are applying for the zone under that designation. That designation requires any proposed uses to be done as a Conditional Use and a Planned Development which is why the Planned Development is before you. I’d like to point out annexation requirement No. 1 in the staff report. Underlined at the end of that it says if annexed all future uses shall be required to be approved in the Planned Development process and as Conditional Uses. We’d like to have the future commercial uses which are not known at this time to be able to be reviewed by the Commission and Council. Other issues that need to be discussed include chainlink fencing around the boundary of the property. On Page 4 of the staff report, Item C under standards for Conditional Uses. This bottom paragraph talks about chainlink fencing within required landscape buffers. They have a required landscape buffer between land uses here and the Ordinance, a letter of law states that no chainlink fencing is required within it. The chainlink would have to be beyond it. We kind of detail that issue on the next page state that if the Commission and Council feel that a security fence would be appropriate in Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 15 this location for safety reasons. It can be submitted as alternative compliance through Landscape Ordinance without a specific variance but we would like the Commission’s input as to whether the fence would be okay on the property line as proposed. I would point out that if approved, all of the landscaping, all of the perimeter landscaping would need to be done around the entire project. They are proposing to do it in two phases. The second phase being basically 2007 through 2010 is what the phasing schedule shows on the site plan. Even so, we feel that it should be landscaped and buffered around the entire project from the start. One additional issue that doesn’t show up on the site plan is the access to this home. I ask the applicant to address this tonight. They have said verbally that they wish to add some vehicular access in the front of the building. Already the existing building encroaches into the required 35-foot landscape buffer along Franklin Road. We don’t think there’s a need to move the house but adding additional driveway access in the front and cutting that down further we do not support and would like the access to be taken off the backside. As to Item D on Page 5, hazardous and disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. There are existing residential subdivisions bordering this. I think the Commission should rely on the testimony tonight from the applicant and from neighbors here to testify to determine that. Site-specific requirements on Page 7. I just want to point out a couple. One was already mentioned in Item No. 3, the ten-foot wide pathway being required along their portion. Item No. 7 they need to specifically state the hours of operation and we’re saying that 24-hour operation should be prohibited. Item No. 8, this is in reference to the out parcel and commercial here on the corner that if it is used for storage it must be improved with asphalt and landscaped and have fencing around it. These are the elevations of the mini storage structures. I think that is. With that I will stand for questions. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Anything else you could maybe add or clarify on the chainlink fence? Siddoway: The Ordinance says that chainlink fencing is prohibited in required buffers. The idea of that was that chainlink is basically unsightly. We want the buffers against existing uses to be just that. Attractive buffers that separate existing uses from more impactful uses. Borup: So, is the Ordinance anticipating no fencing at all? Siddoway: It allows walls, fences of wood or stone to be incorporated into but specifically mentions chainlink as prohibited within buffers between land uses. That if chainlink was used it would be beyond the buffer is how its written. We agree there might be some situations where that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense which is why we’re asking for the Commission’s input. Borup: Thank you. Is the applicant or representative here this evening want to come forward? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 16 Brown: Kent Brown, 1800 West Overland Road Boise, Idaho. I represent the Osborne’s. To begin with we have a long narrow site. Ron and Carla live here on lot 13. After the Woodbridge Snorting Bull project went in, they bought the land behind them to create a buffer. To kind of begin with, Ron and Carla made an agreement amongst themselves and Carla said she wants this for pasture. Ron said if he bought the property he had to do something with it. He contacted us and we looked at different uses in that mixed-use Comprehensive zone. Being a neighbor, he wanted to find something that was livable for the neighbors. We talked about the storage unit use versus apartments or townhouses or even an office complex that would be allowed in those mixed-use zones. We felt that this was the least intrusive. There are a number of places throughout the valley where residential and storage units abut each other. Then we went to, in our designing. We came up with a rough draft. We met with O’Neil Enterprises and discussed some of their concerns. One of theirs was the open parking and it kind of lends itself that we would have our open storage closer to them. We talked to them about not wanting to see doors for the most part. From that standpoint we went into designing. We met with the neighbors in a recent neighborhood meeting. Some of their comments were that they really didn’t want to see it therefore we made some changes to our site plan. The biggest change that we made was that we took all of these units along the eastern boundary and increased the size of them for open storage so that its covered storage having a 22-foot wall on the back sloping the roof to the inside of the development. Having so that we could buffer the Green Hill Estates Neighbors as much as we could with that. In our proposal, we would like to work with these neighbors in locating our trees so that if there’s an existing sensitive area from a window or whatever that we can locate the appropriate tree in the appropriate locations to better screen them. We initially talked about a chainlink fence right on our property line with the security wire on the top. Since then, in talking with them just prior to the meeting, just the few that we talked to. They were still interested in the chainlink fence on the property line but not interested in the wire on the top. We’re not opposed to that. We feel that we have kind of limited access and we have a solid wall that basically provides security to the inside of the development. The existing house, we would remodel, pull the siding and so forth off so that we could make that more architecturally appeasing to the development. The way that the site works is the drainage flows to one side. We have a bio-swell. We, using that bio-swell – ***End Of Side One*** Brown: -- the existing sewer line that’s in here that has to be maintained by the City. We need to provide them access so as you look at the landscaping, we have the landscaping tight against our westerly boundary up until the point that we get to the sewer easement. Then we swap it. We put the landscaping on the inside and the bio-swell on the other side so that we can miss that. Landscaping both sides of the Five Mile and putting landscaping here along our southerly boundary will re-abut with it. We would need to have the security fence in here Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 17 after we get off of the pathway. We feel that if we could put fence along here, we have one neighbor up here and then the open field here. The office would be in the basement of the existing house. It’s a daylight basement. The upper part would be used as their residence. The hours of operation, we would like to go between 8 and 6:00 for the office use and then allow keypad entry after that up to 10:00. We realize that we have residents that live close by and we need to not have a 24-hour type of service and we’ve never wanted to do that. These units are all white with a gray or charcoal trim around the doors. Everything else that we propose on them is to be white. We’ve tried to put smaller units in here where the doors are internal. Then the doors are internal on these units versus having doors that would be out here that might be seen. With the 25-foot landscape buffer then the building, we’ve pulled things back. You’re 130 feet from our property line with this unit and we come to the closest part. We abut their common area with those trees growing for 7 to 10 years, by the time that we do any development on this portion here we should have some pretty mature trees. The traffic use in a storage unit facility is generally fairly low. The reason that the numbers were high from the Highway District it has to do with a commercial pad. They don’t know what those numbers would be but the storage unit facilities. Generally there are no peak hours. That’s what makes them a good neighbor. We anticipate them being close to the industrial are and the medical are around St. Luke’s that will have a lot of business use for our storage facility. We do have an existing metal building that is located in this corner and this morning, Ron asked me that if possible he’d like to use that as a storage facility feeling that he has like two bays right there. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to tear it down. The people would have access from the parking lot there at the office. It’s an existing building. It does encroach the landscaping about 10 feet into that landscape buffering that already exists there. Borup: That is not indicated on any of the site plans. Is that correct? Brown: It is there is an outline of that metal building shown on the site plan. Borup: Yes, it’s – Brown: Called out as a metal shop. Borup: -- on the site plan. Brown: We would like to work with the neighbors on the landscaping and fencing. After we heard their concerns about not wanting to see the units we modified the building. That building would be 22 feet on their side and basically a solid white wall. We would be willing to work with the O’Neil’s on materials. They mentioned Tuesday prior to the 4th that maybe there are some concerns about the building materials that we’re using. We’re proposing all metal. We want something that from a maintenance standpoint, I think that the advantage in the part that abuts Woodbridge is that we have that 7 to 10 years that we’re Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 18 committed to. Ron says his marriage hangs on it. We’re committed to not going in that area. Obviously we have to get our trees approved through the Planning Department. The trees that are called out in this area. These are four Cottonwood Trees, 50 to 60 feet tall. They are a rapid growing tree. If the Planning Department would accept those, they grow on an average of 3-foot a year. So if we wait 10 years, that’s 30 feet height above what they are when we plant them. The Colorado Spruce that we called out in that area also grow 1 to 2 feet per year. The height that’s called out on the plan could show 6 feet height. We feel that when this finally gets developed on this end that we’ll have some mature landscaping. We’ve tried to, with the all white building, with the charcoal trim. The Osborne’s have a loafing building out there that they currently gone along with those colors. We didn’t want the big orange doors, the big blue doors. We wanted something that was the least intrusive. We’re willing to work with whomever. Ron has told me that he’s offered the builders in the Woodbridge Development. He’s willing to meet with them and work out any of the building materials and try to come to some compromise but the type of facility that we’re trying to do we want to do a nice attractive type of development. Are there any questions? Borup: Any questions? Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mr. Brown, what about entrance into the house where do you propose to put the driveway into the existing house? Brown: Currently there is a garage that exists on there. The Highway District will not allow us to access that. If we could not work that out with Planning Staff, the required 30-foot landscaping after you take the right-of-way out, the landscape buffer goes through the existing house. Obviously if we put a driveway to that garage, that would require some flexibility. If we couldn’t use the garage as part of the remodeling, I guess we could put it in the bottom. We have plenty of room down there. It’s just that those people would have to enter I guess through the basement and go upstairs. We’re only looking at this unit, you know providing a residence for those storage units. Norton: I guess I’m not really clear. Brown: We would prefer to be able to drive into the garage but we would need flexibility with the landscaping to be able to get to there. Obviously – Norton: If there’s no flexibility, you would go around? Brown: We’re wiling to go to the basement and go there. Norton: All right thank you. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 19 Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Brown there’s a staff comment in here about putting in all of the landscaping prior to building. I wasn’t hearing you saying that. It sounded like you wanted to put the landscaping a little later? Brown: We want to put the landscaping in now. Nary: Okay thank you. Brown: The only place – Nary: Maybe your anticipation is the back part, putting the storage units in would be later so the landscaping will have matured by then? Brown: Right that’s correct. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. Nary: No that was probably just me. Thank you. Brown: The only place that we’re not real excited about putting the landscaping is what would currently restrict the Osborne’s from getting to their four acres where their pasture is. Borup: Were there any other staff comments you had any questions or concerns about? Brown: We didn’t have any questions with any of their comments. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: There’s a letter dated June 22nd by Ron Whitney. He just mentions among other things but the recreational vehicle storage by the bio-swell area. Is there going to be recreational vehicle storage? Brown: No. Shreeve: Okay I didn’t think so. Brown: We’re not proposing any open storage. That was one of the initial comments by O’Neil Enterprises. Anything that we do, we would like to have under covered storage or -- the only open storage we would have would be on that potential commercial pad – Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 20 Shreeve: -- on Parcel 1. Brown: Parcel 1. We’re not opposed to doing that asphalt or that either. Borup: So, if that was used for open storage it would be asphalted is what you’re saying? Brown: Yes. Borup: Anyone else? Any other thoughts on your fencing. I don’t know if I’ve got a clear understanding of what -- I mean I know what you’ve proposed here but you say you’re open to other alternatives? Maybe we just need to wait and hear some testimony from some neighbors to see what their preference would be. Brown: When we met with the neighbors some of them suggested maybe even putting slats in the fence which means that they wouldn’t even be able to see the trees. Ron told them, he said if that’s what they wanted he would be wiling to do that. Since that time, we’ve raised the height of these units. I think that that takes care of that concern. They really didn’t want to look down these rows here. I mean, we basically could have changed out units and oriented them differently. We could have put a solid building over here which would have created a wall. One of the projects we did recently was the Ironwood Development along the freeway. The homes are on the other side. It creates a buffer between the homes and the freeway. It’s a mixed-use. We had looked at that but when we looked at traffic circulation when someone wants to go to building 6 between these two, they can make a short distance and go here versus going the long ways and having more travel time within the project. We would propose to have our lighting going down. That was obviously a comment in the annexation and Conditional Use. We’re not opposed. We would like to put lights on the internal side here to light this area, lights that would be on the front of these buildings, once again going down. Nothing going up which I believe complies with your code. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions? Nary: Mr. Chairman, maybe I was just slow tonight. With that one long building with the open covered storage on that, I guess that’s the east side. Is that correct? So there wouldn’t be any fencing along that? The trees and the building would act as your buffer is that correct? Brown: This is the Green Hill Estates side. Here’s the cut line so you’re looking into there. We would have a chainlink fence here. Nary: Right on the property – Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 21 Brown: Right on the property lines then our trees and our landscaping. The backside of the building and the building is 30 feet long. Basically you have this wall right here that creates that buffer. Nary: Good. Norton: I commend you for meeting with the neighbors and working with them regarding location of trees. Neighbors appreciate that. Brown: Well, I mean if they’ve got a window that they’re concerned about that just makes sense. Borup: Thank you. (Inaudible) a number of people that signed up for testimony. We’d like to go ahead and take testimony at this time. Come on up. Paulsen: My name is Steve Paulsen. I live at 145 Dormwood Drive. I’m one of the neighbors along that end that would be really effected by this. Thank you for listening to my comments tonight. Borup: What lot are you on sir? Paulsen: Pardon me? Borup: (Inaudible). Paulsen: I’m on 9. Borup: Okay thank you. Nary: To the east you said? Paulsen: That would be the northeast. Yes, I’m on the east side of this development towards Franklin, lot No. 9. Okay the timing of this notice kind of came out in between -- we have a Green Hills Estates Neighborhood Association. It involves the acre and the half-acre lots which are around 100 homes. I understand they needed to notify people within 300 feet of this project so that was a total of maybe 7, 8 homes out of this 100. What I would like to propose on this, on Item 7 and 8 is just recommend the delay of this zoning and use permit decision until after the association can discuss and explore the impacts of first of all the commercial zoning, the effects on the neighborhood, quality of life, property values, irrigation and environmental noise, lighting issues et cetera. The association meets again on July 18th of this month. You know I would just like to have as many people in this association are our neighbors but as possible know about this and give input. Ron and Kent seem to be wiling to work with us and we appreciate their candor and the meeting that they had with the 6 or 7 of us but that’s I’d just like a little more time before you make your Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 22 decision upon the zoning and you know the commercial pad and everything until we could give you a little more input about the impact on our neighborhood. You know when we bought this house we had a nice view of a pasture. Now, we’re going to have a view of a white wall. It’s just, you know I understand progress and they own this land but I prefer looking at a pasture over a big white metal wall myself and I believe that everybody along that side with the exclusion of the Osborne’s feel the same way. Like I said, I just ask, I’d like to ask for you guys to give us a little more time so that our neighborhood can meet and discuss these issues a little more and do it like that. Thank you. Borup: Any question for Mr. Paulsen from anyone? Commissioner Norton. Norton: I have one question Mr. Chairman. Mr. Paulsen, how long have you been a homeowner on that property? Paulsen: We bought two and a half years ago and that was part of the appeal of purchasing the property. As far as I know everybody else is the same way. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: Let me just ask you kind of a hypothetical question. Of course you know, we’d all like to look off into a green field. I for one would like to do that as well. However you know sooner or later this will be developed into something. What would you like to see it developed as? Paulsen: There are options. I mean I understand there could be far worse things that could go in there but there could also be far better things. This is kind of the middle of the road. Shreeve: What are some of the far better things? Paulsen: Well, the option of allowing each of the neighbors behind them an option to purchase that and extend it out as their own pasture. We don’t have horse pastures there. There are other things as far as there could be some nice housing back there. I understand the limited access of course so there would be a private lane. With this zoning now, they tell us they could put up what 8 or 14 houses per acre. I’m not sure of the specifics but they could also put you know one or two half acres, nicer upper scale homes. The neighborhood itself right now is in the, I would say the $200,000 range so those homes could also go in there. A private school, or if you have to go commercial you know, maybe just a doctor’s office with hours 8 to 5. It’s starting to become a medical development anyway on the other side with the hospital opening up in the fall. Again, there are a lot of different options. There could be worse or could be better. A nursery would be great too or a park. Anything, this is one of them that they’ve chose. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 23 Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Paulsen, do you have a view easement on your deed? Paulsen: Yes I do have a view of this. Nary: A view easement? Did you pay more money for your property and have a deed -- on your deed an easement recorded that entitles you to that view? Paulsen: I’m not sure. I really don’t know on that. Who do I check with? Nary: Well, you can look at the deed to your property. When you bought your property did somebody tell you you’re paying more money for the view and that you’re going to have it recorded on your deed so you can have that view? Paulsen: I’m not aware of that, no. Borup: Just a quick question Mr. Paulsen and I certainly understand your concern on how it’s going to effect your neighborhood. Of course that’s why the notices are given. In this particular case, it looks to me like the main effect is those people on Thornwood that are abutting this. I’m not sure the concern with the balance of the subdivision how this project would --- you said you want to wait so the neighborhood meeting could meet and I guess I probably would understand how this is going to have an effect on the rest of the neighborhood other than the view which would just be the abutting properties. Paulsen: No, there’s a lot more involved. First of all, it brings out the City limits to our backyard of the neighborhood. Borup: You’re saying that’s bad? Paulsen: No I have nothing to say about Meridian. I’m sorry. Also it opens up you know commercial zoning. Let’s say it starts here on Franklin with this commercial lot. There are some people in the neighborhood association, a few, that it might be able to open up some commercial zoning to them, and in the covenants you know our covenants it really doesn’t -- you know I’m not sure on the covenants I asked a few people from the association themselves to come and speak tonight. That would kind of open up some commercial development that would also effect our neighborhood as well. Say if they did it with residential homes or something it wouldn’t impact it as much. Also I don’t know about the property values of say having a $200,000 house sitting behind me in view of a metal storage unit. What would be better for me? I would say the housing the Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 24 residential would probably increase my value more if I go to sell than a storage unit behind me. Borup: Would that have influenced the price you paid for your house if that was there two and a half years ago? Paulsen: Yes, it would have. Borup: It would have? Paulsen: Yes, it really would have because in a way that price included a view for us, my family. It was worth paying that price to have that view. Borup: Thank you Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Paulsen, how often does your Homeowner’s Association meet? Paulsen: I believe at least four times a year, six times a year. The next meeting is coming up. It just happened that the notice came, fell in between the meetings so that only like 6 or 7 in the whole neighborhood were notified. We had to get the word out to the rest ourselves. Nary: Did you notice that the property was posted? Paulsen: The property was posted. Nary: With a notice? Paulsen: The property itself on Franklin? Nary: Yes. Paulsen: I did not notice, no. Nary: Okay thank you. Borup: Thank you sir. Paulsen: Thank you. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff real quick while the next speaker comes up. Borup: Would the next person like to testify, come on up. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 25 Norton: In the existing Comp Plan, isn’t it commercial already? Mixed-use or commercial? Siddoway: I think its mixed planned use on the current Comp Plan, the 1993 Comp Plan its mixed planned use development. Norton: Okay thank you. Plant: My name is Morgan Plant 300 South Locust Grove Road. I hate to differ with Mr. Brown but he did not contact all his neighbors that he should. I am thoroughly confused on the fence issue. If there are lights constructed in this area, I wish them to be put on the perimeter pointing inward towards the project. Borup: Mr. Plant could you maybe point out your property or maybe Steve knows. That little narrow strip abutting right there? Plant: That’s correct. Well, we go back here but (inaudible). Borup: Right your house is where? Plant: The house is up here. Borup: Okay you had two concerns. One on the lighting I think – Plant: One is on the lighting and one is on the fence because the City has made a thorough mess of the property boundaries right in there with their installation of the sewer line. I’m thoroughly convinced that where he’s going to put buffer zone and where he’s going to put fence approaches our property. Borup: Oh, he encroaches on your property? Plant: The sewer easement is on our property. They have to keep that open. You’ve got an either or. If I had my way, I’d have a chainlink fence the length of this entire project. Borup: Well, we may get – I believe that’s what its showing. It does show a chainlink fence the entire length of the property. Plant: It’s been pitched back and forth so I didn’t know where we were at. Borup: The fence stayed the same place. Where they were doing the trees moved back and forth because of that sewer is my understanding of the testimony. As it indicates there the fence would be all along the property line but the trees had to move because of the sewer easement. So, that clarifies that? Plant: Yes, it clears much. I’d like to meet with Mr. Brown – Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 26 Borup: It’s just like it shows on the plat. Plant: It offsets then? Borup: Yes that’s the tree. The fence doesn’t. The fence goes clear along. Plant: Okay, I’ll buy that. I would like to meet with Mr. Brown and get a little more understanding what he proposes before he says that he has met with the neighbors. There are neighbors on the west side also. Borup: Okay I think he may have meant the other neighbors probably. Plant: Thank you. Borup: Thank you sir. Next. O’Neil: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission my name is Derrick O’Neill 168 North Ninth Boise. I’m here tonight wearing several different hats. Generally, I am the applicant so its different for me to be here as a neighbor I guess. I’m here tonight representing the Woodbridge Community LLC. We are the owner of the 80-acre parcel that is the direct neighbor to the south of this property. I’m also here representing the homeowner’s association of Woodbridge. Right now we have one homeowner living in Woodbridge. We have one homeowner living in Woodbridge but we have 20 that have bought houses that are not yet living there that will be there soon that will be definitely effected by this. Then I’m also here representing builders who have purchased property from us in Woodbridge. Maybe to start with I ought to get a couple of things straight. We’re not here opposing growth. We’re not here saying nothing should happen and we’d like to see just a pasture here. When we bought our property we knew that something would happen and that it would be developed. I guess what we’re here tonight to talk about is responsible development and something that works for the City and for us and for the applicant. Just to give you a feel for (inaudible). All you saw before was a vacant piece of ground but we’re actually completed with the first phase of the project. There are over 40 homes under construction in the community. Twenty of those have been purchased by folks and it’s a real live project. The community center is full and its operating. That will give you an idea of the character of the community. I think I would like to echo a couple of earlier comments that were made. They probably ought to define what neighbor means and technically I guess neighbor means anyone within 300 feet of the project. I’d certainly think there are folks who are adjacent to this project and are impacted and should have the chance to have a voice in here. Kent talks about neighbors. I don’t consider us being treated as a neighbor. We were contacted in April and Kent came in and said here’s a concept of what we’re thinking about doing. Can you give us some general thoughts and we’ll definitely talk with you as we go. The next time we Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 27 heard from these guys, we didn’t hear form them we got the public notice. That was in mid-June. Borup: Did your turn any comments to them? O’Neil: We didn’t. We asked them to contact us after we gave them some feedback and we did not hear from them. Borup: You did give them some feedback? O’Neil: We gave them feedback. I was not part of that preliminary meeting. I was told that it was a preliminary meeting just to get some ideas on different uses for the property. We weren’t aware that they would come in with a direct storage use. The public notice was given. We still were not asked to comment. We weren’t invited to any of the neighborhood meetings. We called and asked for a meeting with the developer, or the applicant. That meeting was just last week so our first full understanding and knowledge other than the package we got from the City was last week. We’ve had a little bit of time to make sure we know what’s going on as a neighbor and to allow our builders to know what’s going on and the people who have bought in our community. I do think that we may be going a little too fast. I understand due process was probably handled appropriately and everyone knew but I think it would stand to reason that we do step back a little bit and make sure that everybody that has an interest gets to comment. We don’t support this application as it is in front of you today. We would like the opportunity to sit down with the developer and his representative and talk to him about some of our specific concerns. We’d like to be able to schedule a meeting just like these folks with our homeowner’s association as well. That’s maybe just some general comments. Number 3, the City Comp Plan land use and vision, I know you guys are working real hard on this and going through it. We realize that today’s existing comp plan identifies this property as mixed planned development and we know what that means. We’ve also seen a Comp Plan Map and a Comp Plan that identified this as medium density residential and was going through the process just as recently as two weeks ago or three weeks ago. This new Comp Plan Map identified it again as general commercial so, its not clear to me that the City has got a real clear vision, or if they do, its been changing pretty considerably on what this property and the surrounding properties in this are -- should be developed as. If we had our rathers and had input and we will have input into the Comp Plan, it may be too late at that point, we’d like this to be a transition zone and medium density residential. In terms of the staff report, the staff report says it supports the conditional use but it asks the Commission to take public comment on the annexation and rezone. There are several findings in there. I guess condition No. C, we don’t feel as this is designed today that it is harmonious to the existing uses. The chainlink fence with barbed wire on it. That is adjacent to us. We don’t think that is compatible. They say they’ll work with us but I’d hate to make that decision tonight without really understanding what a section of that fence Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 28 would look like and how it would be treated. Does it change the character? Certainly it changes the character of the -- Condition D, will it be disturbing to existing and future uses? I guess that’s in the eye beholder. It definitely will change it. I think by people having access it up to 10:00 at night, open doors directly so we can see it form our homes and from the community center, it will be disturbing. The fact that it requires a Development Agreement I think is very good. I think we would like a chance to look at that Development Agreement and make sure that it has the appropriate items in there. One thing we’re concerned about is this phasing of the project and the fact that it will be 2005 or 2007 before the second half of this thing is built. If at such time they decided to sell it in between now and then, we’d want to make sure that the Development Agreement runs with the land. I’m sure it will but we would want to make sure that someone else cant come in and have a piece of property that’s zoned and do something different with it. A solid fence is important to us. The wrap fence, our are is over there and we didn’t get the benefit of a solid fence or the Landscaping Plan to the extent that those other neighbors did. We would like to see that. From a project design standpoint, I could sit here and talk to you about 15 or 20 items. The overview of the project design, I think we need a more effective buffer than fencing and landscaping. Yes, trees will grow. Kent talks about 10 years from now. 2007 is 5 years from now so that’s a lot sooner. I think the adjacent units which are right close to our project should be more residential in character, the roofing material the siding material, the architecture, the colors. We haven’t had a chance to work that out with them. They say they’re willing to work with us but I’d hate to have them work with us after they’ve already got something approved. I’d like to be able to do that prior to that. I think there are some very good examples of how storage and residential projects can work together but there are also some atrocious examples of that. A good example I would encourage them to look at and what we would like to see incorporated is a new project off of Warm Springs. I think it was very well done and also a project off of Apple and Park Center. Two new projects that are being done that are very residential in character and that are working with the neighbors. I guess from a conclusion standpoint, we’ve got other builders here tonight and I’ve got another representative of my company that’s going to give you a little more information. I guess my number one item would be I would ask you guys to continue and defer this and let us work with the developer and the others. I’m glad to hear that we’re not the only one that feels like we’re not a neighbor. We’ll do it right away. We’ll get with them early next week. We’ll do it before the next meeting whatever it is to give them our feedback. I would ask you to defer this. Let us work with them to see if we can come to agreements and solutions. If you don’t do that, I guess we would have to ask that you deny this request based on some of the reasons I added and we’ll have some here in a second. I guess I stand for questions. I do have probably a more detailed description of (inaudible). I didn’t want to take more time than I already have but there’s those specific points outlined. I stand for questions if there are any. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 29 Borup: Any questions for Mr. O’Neil? Just one that maybe I was curious on. You spent a lot of time talking about notification, neighborhood meetings. How many neighborhood meetings did Woodbridge have? O’Neil: We had several. I bet over the course of the time, Keith we had over 12 neighborhood meetings. Borup: With Green Hill? O’Neil: I wouldn’t say with Green Hill but with our surrounding neighbors. We had the whole association we met with their president and their association. We had several. We make it a very big point to consider neighbors just 300 feet people from us but the entire community. We had over four months of meetings and discussion before we had our first hearing on this issue of Woodbridge. Borup: Anyone else? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: On the north side, that whole yellow is Woodbridge? O’Neil: Yes it is. Nary: On the north side there of that project, is there fencing along there? O’Neil: There is not current fencing. We have fencing all the way down to the last home site there. Then there’s the sewer easement that comes through and there’s a flood way flood plain area. Nary: Is it a solid wood fencing all the way across? O’Neil: Yes, it is solid wood fencing all the way down to where that property is. Nary: The approval for Woodbridge requires solid wood fencing the rest of the way -- O’Neil: Yes sir. Nary: -- in those phases? O’Neil: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 30 Nary: What type of fencing do you want to see, if you’re going to have a fence on either side, what are you wanting to see on the other side? Another solid wood fence? O’Neil: Well, there’s a flood way flood plain there where you see that common area and there is not fencing required in that area. Nary: Okay. O’Neil: There is fencing where it takes off from the next lot all the way up. There’s probably about a 200-foot strip where there is not fencing required. In fact you wont be able to do solid fencing for a certain part of it because there’s the flood way flood plain area. Nary: On your side or on the other side? O’Neil: Yes there will be an open area for sure but it’s going to be focused on the creek and drainage. Nary: Okay. O’Neil: Thank you. Borup: Thank you I did allow Mr. O’Neil some extra time because he said he was speaking for several others. We’re going to need to stick to our normal time limit I think. Beecham: Thank you my name is Scott Beecham. I represent O’Neil Enterprises. My address is 168 North Ninth Street. I’d like to add to the testimony given by Derrick O’Neill but distinguish it a little bit in that much of the testimony and the Commission’s discussion have been on compatibility with existing uses. I think we’re skipping over a step of addressing the compatibility with the Comp Plan. The current Comp Plan as well as some of the considerations that you’ve made for the future Comp Plan. Currently the property is designated mixed planned development which staff has indicated. Typically the vision for mixed planned development is a mix of uses not a single use commercial. I would count this even with the commercial pad to be a single use commercial project. Mixed use generally feeds off other uses and doesn’t create more intensity or activity but actually feeds off of each other and reduces it. There are four main areas I’d like to focus on as far as what your current comp plan addresses. By the way, I’d like to point out that with all respect to staff there are many policies contained within that Comp Plan that are not addressed in the staff report in my opinion. These starting with goal No. 8 of the comprehensive plan. These by the way are addressed in the back of the letter that was submitted by Derrick O’Neil. Goal No. 8 is to establish compatible and efficient use of land through the use of innovative and functional site design. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 31 That’s maybe somewhat subjective. My opinion on that and I believe many of the people here tonight would agree with it. That’s not necessarily an innovative site plan that we see before us. Next, I’d like to go into the land use. I wont go through each policy. You have them there and can address them at another time. My main concern with land use is that an approval of this project would extend the higher intensity use that we’ve seen north of Franklin Road to the south side and that could set a trend for future development, future commercial development on adjacent parcels in this area. Again, Derrick pointed out that the most recent revision to the proposed comp plan identifies this as a general commercial area. My understanding from staff is that that was done in reaction to the submittal of this application. It seems to me that that land use map should be more visionary than reactionary. I think that that’s maybe taking that a step too quickly and should maybe we should wait to see the outcome of this application prior to changing that. The second area that I think is important and we’ve touched on just briefly is Five Mile Creek runs through this area. From a natural resources and an open space perspective, this is a very important natural amenity to the City of Meridian as well as the immediate neighbors. We’d like to see more focus given on that. Lastly, the community’s design. There are 3 policies if you want to read through them really quickly. Borup: You need this time to wrap up. Beecham: Community design. There are 3 very specific policies that deal with compatibility that were not addressed in the staff report. I feel they should be addressed. I guess in closing, I’ll echo Derrick’s remarks. If we are not allowed the opportunity to meet with the applicant and achieve a compromise or redesign on this project, if we are not allowed a continuance to do that we would make the recommendation for denial as far as a neighbor is concerned. Borup: Any questions --? Beecham: I’ll stand for any questions. Borup: Question Mr. Beecham. Your comment on the Five Mile, you feel that something more should be done other than what they’ve designed. Is that what you were getting at in your comment? Beecham: I guess I should clarify that all I’ve seen is the color rendering of the landscape plan in front of us. Borup: Right. Beecham: It appears to me that while there is a pathway included and while there are some trees included. It will not necessarily compliment what Woodbridge is going to establish or has established as a natural corridor along Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 32 the Five Mile Creek independent of what the land use is, we think that the city should pay very close attention to how that is built out. Borup: That’s what I was interested in. What do you feel should be done different? Beecham: I guess the compatibility issue or at least one aspect of that is chainlink fence and barbed wire fence is not what I would consider to be a nice environment to be walking along. This is a pathway for the City of Meridian not just the residents of Woodbridge or Green Hill Estates. Borup: So, you haven’t really looked at the plat then on where they are proposing the fence? Beecham: I have looked at the plat. Borup: The one you looked at showed the fence adjoining the pathway? Beecham: By the location of the pathway and the creek the fence has to be adjacent to it. But again my comments are not specific detail as much as that there are some larger scope issues that I think should be addressed. Borup: Right. My question was just on that one particular item that you mentioned that you thought they weren’t adequate on how they treated --That’s what I was wondering what they should have done different. This shows 20 trees along that area. I’m trying to get a clarification here on the fence which I don’t see on the plat that we have. Oh, there we go. (Inaudible discussion amongst commissioners) Borup: Yes. Beecham: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I see what you’re saying on the fence. It’s not consistent with the design here. Beecham: I don’t feel – Borup: -- what the intent I don’t think. Beecham: I think if we had the opportunity to meet with the applicant we could achieve some understanding of this and I may be able to answer the questions better for you but at this point don’t completely understand it. We would like that opportunity. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 33 Borup: I think I see where that would be confusing. I had understood from previous testimony that the fence would be on the applicants side of the Five Mile drain. That’s not what the plat shows. We’ll get some clarification on that also. Thank you. Does anyone else have any questions of Mr. Beecham? Thank you Scott. Next. Murphy: Yes. I’m Jay Murphy. I’m with John L. Scott Real Estate. I’m also an on-site sales representative at Woodbridge. My address by the way is 6223 North Discovery. I’m an on-site sales representative in the Woodbridge Community and represent 4 builders on the adjacent property. There are a couple of items that I would like to read from the staff report. Specifically in the standards for conditional use. Item No. C says will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area. Item No. D will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighborhood uses. Specifically the design, I’d like to point out the size of the project, the number of units. The intensity of this use is incompatible with residential use. Site design planning does not adequately buffer adjacent uses. Treatment of the Five Mile Creek is inconsistent with the city’s goals of preserving natural waterways as an amenity to the community. Landscaping buffer to the south end of the property we don’t feel like it’s sufficient to screen the units opening up to the south. Building materials are not consistent with the adjacent residential properties and proposed fencing specifications, chainlink with barbed wire are not compatible with adjacent residential uses. So, we would like to recommend that you continue and defer his conditional use annexation and if not, we request that you deny the application. Thank you very much. Borup: Thank you. Murphy: Are there any questions? Borup: Any questions for Mr. Murphy. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Murphy when you said that there is an intensity to this use, in what way? Murphy: Intensity as far as the density of that use. Nary: In comparison to what? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 34 Murphy: In comparison --. All we know at this point in time that the applicant is asking for a certain amount of storage units. Obviously we know what he’s asking for certainly. Future uses, we have no idea what an applicant would come forward to. All we know is what the applicant is asking for at this point in time. We feel like its intense use. Nary: More intense than homes that would be there? Murphy: Absolutely, for an example. Nary: But not say, apartments? Murphy: Right, exactly. Nary: So, we’re between those 2. All right. Thank you. Borup: is traffic one of the concerns when you’re talking about intensity? The amount of number of cars coming in and out of the project? Murphy: I don’t think so, to a storage unit Commissioner Borup. I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s an issue. ***End of Side Two*** Murphy: Thank you for your time. Lemoine: Good evening. My name is Bob Lemoine. I represent Whitney Homes. Whitney and I are partners. Our address is 1412 West Idaho. The city recently addressed both publicly and from their own philosophical standpoint that they wish to start to encourage in fill development, prevent the sprawl. Woodbridge certainly does that. In order for us as homebuilders as well as developers to want to take that risk to pay additional, to pay for higher property costs. To do better developments, to do higher quality developments in infill areas, we feel like the city needs to be sensitive to what our needs are. To be sensitive that what the development is within the city and what develops around these areas. We certainly feel like philosophically the city was in that mode when they originally, in the original draft of the comp plan indicated that this was going to be medium density use which now is compatible. With lower density use, with quality homes, with estate homes, diversified housing that is within Woodbridge development. We think that certainly the commercial development that may or may not exist. If I can get the site plan up there originally. The area plan. In reviewing what the area plan itself shows and the comments originally that the sites on the north side of the street were in fact commercial. We think is consistent with what is going to happen to on Franklin. But it also would be consistent for the remainder of this area to be essentially medium density. To develop this transitional area, to allow for higher quality developments to take Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 35 place. Not only here but in other areas of the city. In order to foster that kind of development, that quality of development with infill sites it’s going to require sensitivity on the part of the city towards the developers towards future homeowners. I think that, getting back to the original comp plan and the original draft of the comp plan as was brought up earlier. It was medium density. It wasn’t until this application brought this application to the city that that specific piece of property changed. It became commercial. We think that’s again, not consistent with what is good development policy and certainly not with what the city’s philosophy was early on. It was mentioned several times by Mr. Brown that the neighbors have been contacted. Certainly as a builder and one of the members of the builder team in there, neither myself as Whitney Homes or any of the other developers or builders in there that we talk with regularly as part of the builder team were contacted. The folks across the street, the folks to the west side, certainly I think these other folks as this gentleman represents here certainly deserves to be part of this process. Their home values will ultimately be effected by what happens on that piece of property. Borup: Its time to wrap up. Lemoine: In any case, what really is important here is that this development is going to continue like an y kind of development like this might continue around a residential area. Significant buffering the transitional zones are very very important and they have to be observed. They have to be developed and certainly if that kind of thing is not going to have an opportunity to develop between ourselves and the developer and the applicant of this property here, we would recommend that you deny the zoning, the annexation and the Conditional Use Permit. But we would like the opportunity to work with the developer and the applicant if we could get a continuation on this process. Questions? Borup: Thank you. Any questions? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Is it Leboine sir? Lemoine: Lemoine. Nary: You know it seems like no one ever wants these storage units anywhere. It seems like people seem to oppose these quite often. Most of the time the opposition is because of 24 hour access. The cars coming all night long and getting things out of storage units and the disturbance to the neighbors. Here they’re offering to limit that service to their customers to 10:00 at night which isn’t significantly different than office. You know, (inaudible) doctor’s office those such of things are more compatible with residential neighborhoods. So, tell me guess Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 36 in your opinion what is the difference here. They’re going to limit the time. Why is that much different than what office uses might have in light office? Lemoine: I think that any of those kind of offices. I think to assume that light offices or doctor’s operate until 10:00 at night, I think is incorrect. Certainly most retail businesses in this valley, unless it’s a big box type retailers they’re not open until even 9:00 at night. They’re typically open until 6:30 7:00 at night. Nary: We just approved one just further down Franklin last month that was a light office design and we allowed use up until 10:00 at night to allow like a coffee type thing or something like that, something very light commercial right on that same side of the street. Tell me again, why would this be incompatible? Lemoine: You know, Commissioner, I don’t disagree with you. But in a typical commercial development on this type of an arterial, unless it’s a big box developer, unless it’s a regional shopping center, normally would limit to about 500 feet from the street. We wouldn’t have a problem with that. That safe guards most all the residential neighborhoods whether its to the east, to the west, certainly to us to the south. We don’t have a problem with that. But doing 1500 feet of commercial that impacts 200 people on this side, or 100 people on this side and potentially 200 more people within Woodbridge, I think is unreasonable. I don’t disagree with you, there is a place for commercial. On Franklin there is a place for that but its not 1500 feet deep directly up against a quality home subdivision. Nary: If this was an office type of development, and I don’t know whether you would be opposing or if these other folks would be opposing if these were offices that they were proposing to build rather than storage units. But because they’re offering to limit the access to which is similar --. I know its not the same but similar to office development. Tell me why this is more incompatible to have this type development than if it were to be offices and stuff. Lemoine: I would tell you the same thing. Regardless of what it were, whether it were offices or – Nary: So, any commercial, it doesn’t matter? Lemoine: That’s right. Nary: Whether its an office or – Lemoine: it need s to be properly buffered. In this development it is not properly buffered. This development directly impacts a number of homeowners. A lot of which aren’t addressed here because they’re not quote neighbors. Even at that, those of us that are quote neighbors haven’t been addressed yet. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 37 Borup: How do you buffer people that aren’t neighbors? Lemoine: I’m talking about just developing – Borup: Okay. I was just going to make a statement you said it wasn’t properly buffered. Lemoine: That’s correct. It is not. The idea being is – Borup: How do you buffer someone that’s not a neighbor then? Lemoine: Well, again if it were properly buffered, if these folks that live in these 7 or 8 lots here to the east had a comfort level that and this min storage was done in such a way that it wasn’t effecting their home values, it certainly wouldn’t effect the home values of the other people in there either. Borup: Right. Lemoine: that’s where the buffering comes in. It will effect ultimately these other people that live here. They may not live within 300 feet, if these 7 or 8 people have their home values effected, the rest of these people in the neighborhood will ultimately be effected as well. Its just comps, just real estate comps. Why they think of these other homes have a lesser value in 5 years than do the homes that are right up against it, the same. The same is going to be true. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Lemoine? Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: Yes. Just a question, again just the question that I asked the gentleman previously. If it was your land what would you put on it? I mean there’s a potential of commercial. I guess it sounds like you’re really not commercial just all together. Is that a fair statement? Lemoine: No, that’s not true. Again I have said this site plan right here indicates what is in fact proper commercial development in that area on a major arterial. It is essentially within 500 feet of the centerline of the roadway. That is proper intense commercial uses. Borup: It sounds like you’re advocating strip development more than – Lemoine: Strip development how? Borup: On Franklin. If you’re saying it would be okay if it just cam within 500 feet from Franklin. But if you go more than that – Lamoine: I think anywhere in any urban area that’s true. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 38 Borup: That’s strip development. Lemoine: What would you do otherwise with commercial development? Build malls on the roadway. That would be the only thing that would – Borup: It’s hard to have a use that’s not strip development. Shreeve: And this parcel is unique. It is long. That’s what is the matter with that parcel because it is long. I guess, like the gentleman said before, you could have worse things granted., This may no t be the best thing but you could have worse things too. Lemoine: Well, I will tell you that we have done some developing as well as home building. We do some commercial construction as well. I can tell you that we have bought pieces of property where it was consistent and correct to do a commercial use, or one use on the front side of the property and do a different use on the backside of the property. Reason dictated that that was the smartest thing to do with the piece of property. Just because we found a piece of property that met our needs for the front. We’re looking at this property right down here on Fairview. Its in the City of Meridian, right on the edge of your zone. We’ve tried for 3 months to put it together. The back side is residential. The front side was commercial. We tried to find a use by putting all the pieces together and integrated what was there to make the best use of the piece of property. That didn’t mean the whole thing was going to be commercial. It just meant that it was smart to use that portion of it that had the greatest and highest value as commercial. But, yet take the remainder of the property and put it into residential development which made more sense. There’s 2 ways to do it. We could have done single-family lots and sold them. We could have done apartments. The point is that there has to be a transition area between what is very high quality residential development and what is otherwise considered very intense commercial use. We’re not arguing that commercial use is not appropriate but where and how is something we have a great deal of concern for. We just want to be able to work that through with the applicant if that’s possible. If not, we’d just like for it to be denied. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: Just one more question (inaudible). But in terms of the neighbor question that has come up with a developer meeting with the neighbors, as a builder I guess my question is, is it fair to accuse Mr. Brown of not contacting all the neighbors when it sounds like there are myriads of people? How would he know who to contact? I guess I just, is it fair to criticize Mr. Brown when in fact maybe he tried the best he could just to by virtue of parcels, not so much all the – Lemoine: Let me put it to you this way. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 39 Shreeve: I guess the question is for the city how can we help that if that’s the case? There’s been past problems, being a new member on the Commission if there are issues of how to rectify this in the future or if that’s even a legitimate issue. Lemoine: If I might address it like this, the applicant lives in one of the lots that abut the development he wants to do. So, he knows those people. Personally has gotten to know them because it’s a necessity that he get hopefully favorable approval from those people. The people, as this gentleman here spoke he’s not another little factor. He lives right there in the street on Locust Grove. The folks, we as neighbors own the lots are building homes. They’re not invisible. (Inaudible) could point out here and give him our name and phone number and address or either write us a note. Invite us to a meeting or give us a phone call. We’re not an unknown party. We’re physically there building homes. Shreeve: I got the point, its just that 300 foot. I mean, you’d have to go – What do you do a mile? I mean somewhere you’ve got to cut it off but that’s not my – Lemoine: But even with 300 feet don’t you think that that’s a known quantity just by looking. Shreeve: Now, those who were missed, those are legitimate arguments. Absolutely. Lemoine: the lot that we are building on backs up right to the corner. Borup: You did receive a notice of the hearing though from the city right? Lemoine: We did receive a note. But we have not been treated as a neighbor. That’s our only complaint. We haven’t had a chance to have some input, to say okay this may not be the best and greatest use for this but here are the kind of things that would be helpful. That would help us and our property values. Borup: I think the Commissioner’s point was, maybe the city needs to be a little more proactive on that. We do not have an ordinance requiring neighborhood meetings. Lemoine: An I’m not faulting the city. Borup: No but that’s been discussed before. There are some projects that are probably more in need of that than others. Lemoine: I think that (inaudible) mad broad statements that all the neighbors have been contacted and we’ve had these meetings, I think is a little faciscious. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 40 Borup: I think he regrets saying that by now probably. I was interested in your statement on other uses, on a dual use. You said you had a project you was looking at with commercial in front and residential in back. Are you talking apartment units on the back? Lemoine: We had designed, actually 2 ways. One for us was as good a cash flow and a profit line as one was for the other. We were going to do either 16 residential lots or we’re looking to do phasing into apartments. I will tell you in that process, when we went to speak with the city, it was very, very specific as to how much buffering we were going to have to do. Separation if we were going to commercial. If we were going to do higher density residential. Borup: Right. Lemoine: The separation and buffers, landscape areas, walkways. All those things were part and parcel of what we were told we had to do. Whatever is going to happen here, if its going to be more intense we would like to have the opportunity to be a participant. Borup: It sounds like you almost decided not to go ahead with that other project that you’re referring to? Lemoine: The only problem is we had a landowner in California who didn’t want to sell the land to, didn’t want to be a participant, they wanted to sell. It didn’t make any financial sense at the price they were asking. Borup: Okay. That was not the project itself? Lemoine: That’s the reason it didn’t go forward. The local property owners were very willing and very happy with what we proposed to them. Borup: Thank you. Any other questions? Did you have a question Commissioner Norton? Norton: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Actually 2 questions Mr. Lemoine. Are you a builder or a real estate agent? Lemoine: We are a builder. Norton: You are? Lemoine: We build homes. Norton: I guess my question has more to do with real estate agents. That is, when you build a home on property that backs up to vacant lot, what do you tell those homeowners? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 41 Lemoine: We tell them it’s a vacant lot. We tell them it’s a pasture. We tell them what we know. We have to disclose what we know. Norton: So, its in the comp plan that its mixed use? Lemoine: That’s correct. Norton: Then my next question is, is it hearsay or fact that the new comp plan was based on mixed use and then changed to commercial? I mean I haven’t heard that. I’ve heard it commented twice tonight. Was it hearsay? Lemoine: Our understanding in talking with staff and this was through the O’Neill folks and some other discussions that we’ve had. That the original use, again, I’ll quote this as the draft – Norton: the new draft. Lemoine: -- of the comp plan showed that as medium density, which is a perfect characteristic and a perfect philosophy for what is happening in that area. That makes perfectly good sense. Norton: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Chairman. I guess I just had one more question and comment. Mr. O’Neill I did hear you say that you are within the 300-foot and you did receive a notice. Lemoine: Correct. Nary: I guess, maybe this is a comment for you as well as the other folks. That whole purpose of notice is to make sure you get here. Lemoine: correct. Nary: You are here and here to make a comment. I think what I heard Mr. O’Neill and Mr. Paulsen say that they haven’t had adequate time to formulate all the responses to whets been proposed for this project. Lemoine: Correct. Nary: Is that the same for you? Lemoine: That’s correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 42 Nary: Or do you feel like you’ve had adequate time to – (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Lemoine: I think the thrust with all the people who are here with O’Neill and the other people in our builder team are that we don’t disagree with them. There are a lot worse and better. We don’t think that this is the worst thing that could be there. We do some things because we are builders because we are developers ourselves we see some things that not only would help the development but certainly would improve our property values and these people’s property values (inaudible) and still help their development be what it can be. But if we don’t have an opportunity to sit down with the applicant and share some things that we know, we’re not even guessing at some of these things. The people involved in this subdivision as builders or as developers are very knowledgeable people. But we want to protect our interests and we think we can help the applicant but we have to have that opportunity. Thus far we have not had that opportunity. Nary: Is your only notice you received about this project then is the mailed notice, the 300 foot radius mailed notice? Lemoine: Yes sir. Nary: No one ever contacted you any other way? Lemoine: We have had no personal, no phone calls, no letter from the applicant, then the letter from the city. Borup: so, Woodbridge did not contact you? Lemoine: We got contacted from Woodbridge after we got our letter. We got our letter, -- Borup: they didn’t do that back in April when they were notified then and asked for input? They did not ask for any input from you then? Lemoine: You know, I’m going to defer that. My partner, if you will, opens the mail. I do most of the fieldwork. My partner does a lot of the admin work and he happens to be out for a few days. The conversations that we know that we have had is that we were contacted only by mail once the project became a notice form the city, then we were contacted by the O’Neill people as the rest of the builder team were. We met and we said what are we going to do? Borup: The reason that I asked, is that Mr. O’Neill said he was contacted, I believe he said April for input. It sounded like that did not go out to the builder team then to offer any input. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 43 Lemoine: We had not heard of it until recently when the thing came back fro m the city, the notice came back from the city. Borup: All right. Thank you. Lemoine: I think also what Derrick said was that we had an initial call but then so some conversation – Borup: Yes. Lemoine: -- but we never were requested to meet with the applicant. Borup: to review the project after – Lemoine: (inaudible) Borup: I think what I understood from him is after some initial input but not on the design of the mini storage. Lemoine: That’s correct. Or any of the potential amenities or buffering and some of those other areas that make it appealing to everyone as well as the neighbors. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Lemoine: Thank you. Borup: Mr. Lauer. Did I read that right? It must be Kim? Lauer: Kim, Kim Lauer 247 Dormwood. My husband and I are neither for nor against this project and have been informed by Ron and Carla of the different (inaudible). After to listening to all the testimony tonight, we would like to continue to be informed if any changes do take place with what they presented to us. If we could go on record saying that we would like to be notified in writing since we are adjacent to the property and it will effect our property values to see what’s going to happen right behind our house. Borup: Okay. I have a couple of questions. Do any other Commissioners? Were you involved – The applicant’s representative said that the project was redesigned after meeting with the neighbors and putting a taller building there. Was that one of your (inaudible)? Lauer: I didn’t ask for taller buildings. My concern is I want a chainlink fence. We have small children. Borup: You do want a chainlink fence? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 44 Lauer: I do want a chainlink fence if its not on the property line that’s fine with me. What I don’t want is the barbed wire. I think that’s ugly. If they’re going to go to the point of putting trees behind the buildings, I want the benefit to see those trees. I mean they’re going to be nice looking landscape. The fence would give me some added security with my children. Borup: Okay. Lauer: Just so they’re not getting into any trouble back there. Borup: Yes, but you’ve got a fence of some type there now, I assume? Lauer: Right now we have barbed wire in the back. Borup: So, your preference would be the chainlink so you can have the view of that landscaped area? Lauer: Right. Borup: (inaudible) Okay. Anything else that you had a concern with specifically on, I guess I’m referring --. Since you are an abutting neighbor I guess, you know on the buffering aspect. Lauer: I’m in a unique situation. My sister in law is one of the homeowners that abuts up against the storage units on Apple in Boise. After talking with her we came up with some concerns which I presented to the Osborne’s. One is on the loudness of the doors, the type of rollers that are used because we don’t want the noise. When its open until 10:00 at night, you’re in a family environment. Granted that’s much better than 24 hours. We would never wan that, but its still, if you’re a family, that’s past bedtime. We’re concerned about some of the noise that way. Borup: So, that may be why they sound like they’re proposing the buildings along your subdivision, no doors? Lauer: At the end of the building, the little short building in the middle, there will be doors on that. Borup: Right. I meant that, there was a buffer along your project – Lauer: There is a buffer. Borup: That was an RV type storage so it would not even have any doors on there, is the way I understood that. Lauer: Oh. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 45 Borup: Its just open storage so it sounds like that would help some of your concern too. Lauer: Okay. I didn’t understand that that was open. (inaudible discussion) Lauer: Is that open? Borup: Yes. It’s a drive in so a big vehicle can drive in with a covered roof. Lauer: Okay. Borup: I mean the others would still – Nary: Its solid wall facing you. Lauer: Right. Nary: (inaudible) Borup: Okay. I thought maybe that might have been some of your input because of the noise. Lauer: No. Borup: Okay. Lauer: WE are concerned a little bit about the noise, but 10:00 is much better than 24 hours. We would like it less than that but I don’t know if that’s really (inaudible). Borup: Okay. Thank you very much. Lauer: Thank you. Borup: That was all that we had that had signed up. Is there anyone else that – Sittal: My name is John Siddell 13267 DeChambeau Way in Boise. I’m a builder in Woodbridge and if we could go back to the --. Obviously as a builder that’s part of our job. We build things. We need development to happen. I guess my concern is that the proper use for that. As you had asked before what do you tell people? Well, this is what the comp plan says. It’s a pasture now. It’s not going to be a pasture forever. If you get to look at the green grass and the horses, that’s a bonus for you as long as that lasts. But we don’t know, but here’s what might Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 46 happen there. What’s the appropriate use form our standpoint? I would much rather see houses go in there. Of course and I’m a homebuilder I might get a chance to build one also. But we know that there is going to be development there but we would also like to have some input on what type of development it is. How does the second half of that storage unit transfer into the residential area. We have a wonderful park. We have incredible amenities at Woodbridge. If you all have been out there. The amount of money that was spent on that pool, and on the pathways and on our homes frankly. Our section is closest to where the proposed mini storage is going to be and we have some of the most expensive homes in the subdivision right now. We have a house that just under where the arrow is and the master bedroom looks out over that pasture and onto the common area. I would like to make sure that there is some input. That the Five Mile Creek, that the transition from plays fields and creek into a storage area, maybe that becomes a pocket park. A mini area that adds to that development. We’re worried bout the valuation of our property if we’re looking at something that does not look residential. Can these units be constructed in a way that it looks like there’s a decent transition between our homes and the other homes that abut the property? I don’t think I would want to look into open RV storage. If anybody has been by and looked at that they know what it looks like. Its not very pretty to look at. But if there were you know kind of a block wall, if the buildings were constructed in such a way that they did look residential, that they were a little bit higher end and that the doors faced in so that people weren’t looking into storage units, I think that would help. We just wan to see the quality of the project improved a little bit. I think everyone that builds in Woodbridge would like to have some input into the project. If we could do that, if we could be part of this process then we certainly would be happy to see it go forward. As I said we would like to see that transition a little bit more clear into our residential area. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners for Mr. Sittal? Thank you. Yes sir. Cooley: My name is Keith Cooley. I live at 2586 Autumn Way which is part of Green Hill Estates. I had mainly just a couple of questions. I don’t think there’s any question in my mind that this development, whatever happens there will impact the property values in this surrounding area. I think that’s a given. There are a couple of questions I had. I’ve been in storage units where some of the units have been used as mechanics shops and carpenter and cabinet shops and various things. I wonder if there’s any way to control that if this development were approved? Another thing, I got a copy of the notice that came out and frankly I do not understand what was happening until I got here tonight and got a little bit more clarification because of the wording and the way its written. I think for people that aren’t here that still would like to have an input, I think a delay in this application should be approved, a delay should be initiated. One other question, or one other comment I had and its somebody asked why would doctor’s offices be better? I think in general the way they’re making doctor’s offices now days, it would look better. They are more attractive. They landscape. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 47 Construction is a different type of material. That would just look better. Basically, I just wanted to make those comments that I --. Oh, I had one other question. The security of the unit, if phase 1 is built and phase 2 is held until later, I assume the fencing goes all the way around but there was talk about access from the Osborne’s. If that is left open, does that provide security? In other words, how they going to – it isn’t detailed enough to know how that would be handled. In other words, does the fence go all the way or does that still leave it open? How is that handled? That’s the only comments I have. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Cooley? Thank you sir. Okay. Mr. Brown do you have some final --? Okay, Mr. Osborne. Osborne: Ron Osborne, 373 Thornwood Drive. Its number 15 on the diagram (inaudible). That’s my house. The gentleman that was just talking about the master bedroom looking out, my master bedroom looks into theirs. (Inaudible). Theirs is empty. A couple things I’d like to address if I could briefly, Mr. Chairman Commissioners. One that seemed to be a little confusing was about the meeting that took place in mid April with O’Neill. Since Mr. O’Neill wasn’t there I was fascinated at his version of it. Mr. Beecham and I were there. It was in my office and it was on or about the time we were ready to submit application for this project. I invited him in. We had a fairly lengthy discussion about what I was going forward with. Some of the highlights of that included that my plans were to include (inaudible) storage units. That was the primary purpose of the application, that I had retained Briggs Engineering as the consulting engineers for the project and Kent Brown would be working on that. He thought that was a real positive. I told him that there’s a possibility that ultimately I could pull the plug on the project since you had already approved at that time, the commercial development across the street to the north there, Sparrowhawk I believe. They were considering at that point, looking at storage units as part of their development. We also told him that we would keep him informed. The next time a conversation took place I believe was at the time of notification when he called Kent Brown. The reason being nothing transpired between the submission of that application and that time. During that conversation we also talked about a couple of his concerns. He indicated he would not, and I went back and checked my notes. He indicated that he would not oppose it, or O’Neill Development, the project over there would not oppose it just for the sake of opposing it but they did have some concerns. One was that we didn’t have bright orange or bright blue doors or some obnoxious type thing over there that was not very attractive. I assured him that I intended, I had already invested a lot of money and I intended to do so in the future to make this a very attractive type plan. That my intent at that time was probably to do something in metal and in white. Primarily to match the out buildings that already exist at my house. There’s been much said about the concern for property values. I believe they will increase since my property is one of the 7 that really are immediately against that and one of the 6 on the east side of that property. Also probably about the second highest property value placed in the entire Green Hill neighborhood, so it’s a concern to me too. Also I Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 48 have a family there with children and they’re neighbors. I’ll be living there for a while and I want it to be a nice project. The other part of it I mentioned in that discussion too, was phase 2 would be sometime in the future. Phase 1, although I plan on having these storage units up there very attractive type units but phase 2 in order to maintain my 20 year marriage and have it another 20 years was going to be left to the current situation which are horses. In the last few months, we’ve constructed a fairly expensive horse barn out there. I think that’s also evident, right in the middle of phase 2. So, I don’t have plans of going and tearing that done several months later. So, we discussed that from that standpoint. They’ve been more than aware of this for some period of time. Also, over the last number of weeks and months prior to notification as the opportunity arose with a number of my neighbors I spoke with them personally about my plans to develop that into storage units. When I purchased that property a couple years ago, nearly 2 years ago, the time the purpose was to buffer my p[lace from the O’Neill Development. That property was available to purchase at that time. Apparently they obviously didn’t pursue it or choose to do it. Also during this whole process, nobody has ever offered to purchase any of this property, either the O’Neill conglomerate or any of my individual neighbors. The front half is for sale and nobody has come down with an offer. Our intent is to have a very friendly neighborhood attractive storage unit. I think too if you’ve been along the front where the home is which I purchased earlier this year. The home was not part of my original purchase. That became available at the end of negotiating last year and I purchased that home for the specific intent of remodeling that outside and inside to be the caretaker’s residents and the office. If you’ve been by there, any remodel I could do would be a significant improvement to that whole area. I think it would (inaudible). With that Mr. Chairman, I stand for questions. Borup: Any questions for Mr. (inaudible) Nary: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Osborne, it sounds to me like its your interest to have a good project that could be real compatible with the neighbors both from Green Hill and from Woodbridge. Would that be correct? Osborne: It is. What we found through the process though is they both have significantly different things that they want to achieve. Some want chainlink fence, some don’t. Nary: I don’t mean by compatibility that everybody’s going to agree. Osborne: Right. Nary: I just simply mean that everybody’s going to have an opportunity to have some input. Being that as the case then, both Mr. O’Neill from Woodbridge and Mr. Paulsen from your homeowner’s association both have asked us to delay this to allow those associations to have the opportunity to gather some time and have some input and be able to meet with your project manager Mr. Brown and Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 49 yourself to address those concerns. They don’t feel like they’ve had that adequate opportunity either. Would that be a problem? Osborne: I respectfully disagree that they haven’t had time to do that. Nary: Would that be a problem? Osborne: It would be a concern. Nary: Why? Osborne: The project, the delay of the project just for the sake of delay would be a concern to me. If I felt that it would achieve satisfactorily the ultimate goal for this that would be fine. If that’s what the Commissioners choose to do I’ll certainly – Nary: I guess because al the comments that we’ve heard, they haven’t had – They’ve had some notice but they haven’t had the opportunity for real input. The only person I heard that had input is the one lady that lives in the same row of homes that you live in. Nobody else had real input except you had one meeting with Mr. Beecham and there’s other property owners in that development, are there not? Osborne: They are and I would assume that that’s why they’re not here because we’ve had those discussions. Nary: You had discussions with the other property owners in Woodbridge? Mr. Lemoine was one of the property owners. Osborne: I didn’t know Mr. Lemoine existed. Our meeting has been with O’Neill’s. Nary: There are other property owners in that Woodbridge that you haven’t met with then? Osborne: That’s correct. I don’t know who all those are. Nary: Did you meet with every one of your neighbors on that same road? Osborne: We offered, everybody on the west side, we sent out a flyer to offer them to come down to our home for a meeting there a while back. From that, some of the neighbors passed that around to most of the neighborhood. People were offered to or allowed to come down. Nary: I also heard some testimony that the Green Hill Estates subdivision homeowner’s association has a meeting 6 times a year. So, approximately every 2 months? Is that correct? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 50 Osborne: IT could be. I don’t know. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nary: Well, they’re having one this month so they had one within the last 3 months. Is that right? Osborne: I don’t know that. Nary: Okay. Within the last 3 months did you go to the homeowner’s association and ask to be on their agenda or ask to speak with them? Osborne: I did not. Nary: Okay. So, their opportunity to provide input as an association, they really haven’t been given any opportunity to this point? Osborne: I have not personally contacted them and ask for their input. Nary; Did Mr. Brown at your request? Osborne: No, he did not. Nary: Okay. I have nothing further. Borup: Anyone else? Go ahead Commissioner Norton. Norton: Mr. Osborne, there were some concerns about the clarification about the fence, that you wanted to keep an open area in order to get to your horses. Osborne: Yes. Norton: How will the fence situation be – Would you clarify where you’re going to put the fence and where you’re not going to put the fence? Osborne: I’d have a gate there. I have a drive access through my backyard ot our pasture. Norton: So, the fence would surround the entire property and you would have a gate that you could open to get to your horses? Osborne: Yes, that’s what I was anticipating. Norton: Are you going to charge rent for people to look at those horses? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 51 Osborne: For people to look at them? Well, you know after tonight, it’s a good consideration. They are beautiful horses and the colt is particularly attractive. Those are my wife’s project by the way. Borup: Mr. Osborne I would be interested in any additional comments on the Five Mile Creek area. The plan we have does indicate a chainlink fence along the southern boundary. Was that the entire intent? I thought I heard Mr. Brown say that the fence would be on your side of the drain. Osborne: He could have. We don’t really care what side its on frankly. For the most part, we’re not too concerned about what kind of fence unless its something outrageous in terms of cost. Our concern initially was purely for security basis for the facility. I’m not too concerned. If I had it my way it would look like a horse pasture, a 3 rail like fence. I’m not too concerned which side of the creek that’s on. Borup: So, the fence could be fairly close to your buildings or inside your project? Osborne: Yes. I’m not concerned at all about it. Borup: How about maintenance of that area? Osborne : I assume I get the deed. I don’t know anybody else who might mow my lawn so I assume I’d have to take care of my storage facility (inaudible). Borup: So, was your initial --? Osborne: Unless you’re volunteering. Borup: No, I’m not. Your initial intent was essentially the same as a plan you submitted with the landscaping ? Osborne: Yes. We’re not too concerned again about what types of trees and to a degree the fencing the same. We’re pretty flexible there. Borup : So, with the fence on your side it looks like the access, the public access to that area would be entirely open and accessible as the Woodbridge project? Osborne: Yes. We assume we would need a fence between that public access of that path and our facilities, chainlink seemed logical but again we’re not out to make the chainlink fence industry happy. We don’t care. Just something that’s appropriate, that’s (inaudible). Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 52 Nary; Mr. Chairman. Mr. Osborne I have 2 other things. One of the issues that’s been brought up by some of the testimony is that under our current comprehensive plan, if we were to annex this property, it’s listed as a mixed plan development and I don’t see any mixed use here. I see one. What’s the mixed use? Osborne: My horses on the back half is the only other mixed use there is today. The commercial lot up there No. 1. Nary: The commercial lot for some sort of office type of facility? Osborne: That’s been the only discussion we’ve had. Frankly I have no concrete plans for that at this point other than to probably use it as, pave it and use it as open storage. Nary: And you see that as a different use than a commercial storage facility? Osborne: I would anticipate that. Obviously would have to come back for approval on that when we decide that. But, there’s nothing that I planned out to use that for. Nary: Has there been any thought Mr. Osborne as to why you need to have a Conditional Use Permit for the entire property at this time since you have already stated you really have no intention of developing that back half for a number of years since you just built a building? I guess what I see is that if you were only asking for half this property to be developed at this time, I don’t know that these neighbors would have these same concerns. The buffering would be more significant than what there is. Osborne: Triple this many people in 10 years or whenever that comes about that might be concerned. Nary: So, your concern is that you want to have it zoned commercial now so that you can build storage units or something else in the future before all those people move there? Osborne: that’s correct. The O’Neil’s expressed a concern about you know will it be like California pretty quick and I’ll come in and mow those down and you know put in a nuclear waste plant or whatever. I’ve indicated that I have no problem with that as the sole reason at this point and then if I want to do something else with it then I come back and ask for it. Its no problem. There’s no ulterior motive to this. I do find it interesting that my submission apparently coincided with some change in the plan. I didn’t know that a kit from Heyburn had so much influence on such things like that. But I guess it can happen. Stranger things. Any other questions? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 53 Borup: Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Osborne: Thank you very much. Brown: Kent Brown, Briggs Engineering again. I guess I should apologize to the room. When I spoke neighbors, these people in Green Hill are also my neighbors. I live in that neighborhood. Borup: When you said neighbors, you meant the neighbors directly to the east? Brown: Correct. Borup: That was the way I interpreted your statement. Brown: The neighbors that were notified were the neighbors on the east. The other uses, with Mr. Morgan and those other landowners on the west were further away with their individual residence, separated by the Five Mile a great distance. No, you don’t really have a neighborhood meeting requirement. We felt we were going above and beyond by doing that. When Ron contacted us and talked to us, he then contacted me again. He said he met with Scott Beecham and he had some concerns and he wanted me to talk to Scott. I went in with a similar drawing that we had, that we’re proposing currently. My effort in meeting with them was I thought that I would meet with all the O’Neil’s. I met with Mr. Beecham and they talked about the things that they were interested in. They were concerned about open storage closer to their development. They were concerned about orange doors. Those seemed to be a concern. When we initially submitted our application to the city, no I didn’t go back to the O’Neil’s at that point. The – ***End of Side Three*** Brown: -- was not far enough along at that point that they didn’t even have their common area dressed up at that time. We anticipated that their pathway was going to be on the other side, the south side of the ditch. So, we showed it there. When I met with staff just recently, they told us that the Woodbridge path was on the other side so we moved that. Realistically the only landscaping there along that path is for that pathway. It really doesn’t benefit the storage unit other than creating a buffer. I received – Borup: The Woodbridge path is on the north side of Five Mile then? Is that what you’re saying? Brown: Its probably on the east side – Borup: Well, northeast side. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 54 Brown: It’s the north side. Borup: Which is opposite your – Brown: The drawing we submitted (inaudible) shows it on the north. Borup: Okay. I’m looking at both of them up here. Brown: You’re trying to confuse me. Borup: Throw this one away? Okay. Brown: We knew that the hearing was coming up. We made an effort for those neighbors on the east. I received a phone call form the O’Neil’s and they said that they weren’t, actually from Scott Beecham. He said that they had asked for this to be tabled. They weren’t real happy with the meeting time. You probably have that in your file. I asked for them to have a meeting. They were pretty specific that there wouldn’t be any compromises that it would be a statement of what we were doing and what they were doing. I said fine but I would like to work this out. Then we did meet recently with Derrick and Scott Beecham, Ron Osborne and myself. The O’Neil’s are the only ones, O’Neill Development is the only one that we’ve contacted in the Woodbridge development. Borup: You say recently. What type of time frame is that or do you know the date, approximate date of when that was? Brown: It was (inaudible). No, Wednesday the 27th . We met with them in their clubhouse and presented our project. They stated that at that time they hadn’t made up their minds as to an opinion as to whether one way or another. We really didn’t get a lot of feedback from them at that point. We got more feedback from the Green Hill Estates neighbors. So, we made those changes. We had implemented the changes that initially, I mean you look at storage units and you go around. They have open storage everywhere. If you’ve got a 30-foot travel way at the end of the building, they put a pop up trailer, a camp trailer. In my meeting with Scott, he says they didn’t want to see any open storage. That’s why we proposed them as covered along our easterly side and putting for a temporary use of open storage up along Franklin. We have made an effort to try to deal with those issues. When I spoke about ironwood that has to go with some of the comments made about home values. We did one project right adjacent to that and then one project across the street. You know the builders that built in there, its my understanding that they were similar priced homes. It really didn’t effect their development and this one shares the entrance to that development. I don’t know that it’s proven if it damages your home values. Obviously there’s some uses that, whether it was a McDonald’s or something like that that has high volume would be a different. When we looked at mixed uses on my pre- application meeting with Steve, we had storage units as one use and an office Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 55 commercial use as the other. That’s the mixed uses that we thought. We would like to fence our property line on the entire east and west side of our project. We understand that the pathway has to be opened up. Therefore as you look at that, the way that our landscaping is in there. We have little asphalt places so that they can maintain their sewer. We would have a fence at this point right here along the asphalt along our southerly boundary. The landscaping and basically Mr. Osborne’s property that’s on the other side, he’s basically giving away so that the City of Meridian can continue their pathway. There’s no real benefit to this project or anything else. It benefits the community and yet he’s going to maintain it. Borup: How does he get access to that? Would that be through Woodbridge? Brown: You could go through the gate where we would have the sewer manholes. He could access it, getting on the other side would be – Borup: That’s what I was referring to. Brown: Currently they cross through there, cross through the Five Mile. I think he’s got a fort or something over there on that side. He’s got a fort. His kids made a fort that’s on the other side on that, if you will, that little island that’s over there. Borup: Is there a bridge? Brown: NO, they just cross through. (inaudible discussion from audience) Borup: I was just wondering, I mean you’re going to have to get a lawn mower over there or something to maintain it. Brown: I stand corrected. Were there any other issues that I didn’t address to the Commissioner? Borup: Maybe just one of clarification Mr. Cooley had some concern on. On usage in the units and probably that would depend on power. Would there be any electrical power to any of these? Brown: No, and we don’t want to encourage any of those kind of uses in there. From my discussions with Ron, he didn’t want any power in there, lights or otherwise. Borup: Which would also discourage anybody coming after dark, I would say if they need to do much inside their building then? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 56 Brown: Correct. Borup: Is there, and I realize this is from testimony. 5 to 10 years down on phase 2, have you had any discussion with the applicant on maybe some transitional building materials on those building adjoining Woodbridge? Brown: As lat e as today we were conversing back and forth with the O’Neil development again. Ron told me and I also asked Scott that we want to have a meeting with their builder team and discuss those building materials. I don’t know that that really changes the location of the building that we’re currently doing. In my phone conversation with Scott in the past few days, I think in the second, he suggested maybe that this building here. The one the very furthest south, that we not have any openings on that side. If we did that we would probably move that back. We’re really not opposed to doing that. That would be the only significant change that I could see coming out of meeting with their building team. If what we’re talking about is the building materials on this, Mr. Osborne is committed to having a nice project and we’re not opposed to meeting with them. My phone conversation with Mr. Beecham and he says there’s no compromises, I don’t know that that’s how you develop. I have to be able to listen to some concerns and some specifics about the plan. I got a few from him on the phone today but that’s the first time since my first meeting with him. I’ve tried to address all of those prior to that. Borup: I guess my impression of different materials and I may be wrong but the 2 buildings on the south was the impression I had. Was that the discussion or was that even mentioned? Brown: That wasn’t. I don’t know if the builders made it clear. If you look at the overview of the whole site, and how Woodbridge buts up to it. (Inaudible). The vicinity map, if you look at the vicinity map, the discussions that I had was that the homes further to the west of our site along this area would have the ability to look back into our site. And also the discussion about the view from their common area here. They have a swimming pool and a meeting place and the view of looking to the north at our site. Borup: I guess the other option could be more intensive landscape buffers? Brown: That would be one. That’s kind of how we’ve chose to approach it because that area is an area that from the standpoint of a planning standpoint of having that be an open area and a pathway. Basically we’re proposing trees on both sides where we own both sides to make that part nice and something that’s useable. Its kind of a bad deal to be required to do something and then have it not really work. We’re not trying to be that cog and I guess the short piece of the Five Mile that we own could be a stumbling block. But we’re trying to make it so that it really continues the concept that they have even though it’s a different use. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 57 Borup: Any other questions from any of the commissioners? Norton: Kent, would it be a stumbling block for you if this was delayed so that the homeowners association can meet and so that you can continue discussion with the O’Neil’s and Scott Beecham? Brown: We would like to go forward but if that’s what we need to do. We’ve always been committed to meet with the neighbors and to meet with the O’Neil’s and their builder team. (Inaudible) Norton: You would do it? Okay. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Commissioners, any discussion? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: This is a pretty hard one. I think there’s some real good work that’s been done by Briggs and Mr. Osborne (inaudible) this project. I guess one comment I hear all the time is that they always want a nice project. I don’t think anybody gets up here and says we want to build a really crummy project that everybody’s going to hate. I appreciate that but it really is pretty much the same that everyone says. My problem that I have I guess in looking at this is I am some what concerned on the mixed use that’s really being proposed here. I don’t see a significant difference between a commercial office building and a commercial storage unit. I’m not saying its incompatible. I’m just saying I have a problem with considering that to be a mixed use. You’re asking to zone this as a commercial property. Although there is a development agreement, I don’t know. Its not very clear in here and it hasn’t been discussed in length as to what specific uses that are going to be excluded from that commercial zone besides what’s being allowed here in these storage units. Compatibility, in reading the staff’s report and I commend the makers of the report and I agree with what they say. I think the folks that have to make the most significant comment on compatibility are the neighbors that are the most effected. Both parties, which is Woodbridge and Green Hill Estates both say we haven’t had the opportunity to really provide fair adequate comment. So, I don’t know how we, at least myself as a commissioner can say we can make a finding that this is compatible because I don’t think we’ve heard any testimony that says its compatible. Most of the testimony has been that we don’t know if it will be or not. We haven’t had the opportunity to do that to this point. I think there are some real good things that Mr. Osborne is proposing and I do believe that (inaudible) half this project and half this property. It may not have the same impact today on Woodbridge and it may or may not have a concern if that’s what we were talking about. But, we’re not. He wants the entire property zoned commercial and because of that it does impact Woodbridge and Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 58 at least form what I’ve heard they truly have not had adequate and I don mean just the O’Neil’s. I mean the other folks as well. They’re not the only property owners there. They may own a majority of it but they aren’t the only ones. They don’t appear to have had adequate time to make a comment. I guess what I would be looking for, and I guess we’ll have to see what the other commissioners want but I think this project needs a little more time to speak to these other associations and allow them the opportunity for input. I don’t think they may all agree. I don’t think going to the table with the attitude that there is no compromise is going to please anybody sitting up here including myself. But I realize that there is some need in these and we don’t have a neighborhood association meeting requirement as other jurisdictions do, but this certainly is a project that calls out for that. That’s really what should be done and it has been attempted to some degree by Mr. Brown and Mr. Osborne, I just don’t think its been completed. I think it needs a little more time with this. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I would concur with Mr. Nary’s scenario here but however I would like to limit. If we decide to continue that, I would like to limit the public hearing for only 2 purposes. For one to hear a report from a representative from the homeowner’s association. Number 2 to hear a report from O’Neil Enterprises and then also the applicant. So, essentially only 3 people reporting back. That’s all. Borup: Okay. So, you’re talking specific (inaudible) a representative from the homeowner’s association. Norton: Yes. A report from the homeowner’s association. Borup: Okay. We’ve heard from the direct neighbors today. Norton: Right. We’ve heard from them. Also a report form O’Neil Enterprises. Now if O’Neill wanted to include as many homebuilders as they want to that’s fine. I think its up to them to include the homeowners, or homebuilders. I’m sorry. Borup: Include as separate testimony? Norton: No. Borup: Or include in --? Norton: Just one report from O’Neill Enterprises. Borup: With everyone’s input? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 59 Norton: Right. Nary: Or maybe simply a representative from Woodbridge? Norton: That would be fine. Borup: (inaudible) (Inaudible discussion amongst commission members) Norton: That’s fine. Shreeve: And, I’d like to reiterate that I think it’s the O’Neil’s that need to contact all the players. I mean for Mr. Brown to know who all the players are, that’s very difficult. I think the O’Neil’s need to contact all the players, whoever they may be within their development. Borup: Okay. Does everyone understand what, at this point it’s a discussion. So, we’ve not made a motion yet. Any other input from anyone? Shreeve: I would just like to probably go on record as saying to the same effect as what the other 2 have said. I think we need some additional time and probably contrary to what may be good for either party. I think this deserves some additional thought. Borup: Okay. (inaudible discussion amongst commissioners) Norton: With that Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I’d like to move that items 7 and 8, public hearing on AZ 01-011 and CUP 01-024 be continued to August 16th for 3 purposes only. One to hear a report from a representative from the homeowner’s association and I’m not sure who. What’s the name of the homeowner’s? Green Hills homeowner’s association. Thank you . Also to hear a report from the Woodbridge people and then applicant to respond. Borup: That’s a motion? Norton: That was my motion. Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion is second. All in favor? Any discussion? All in favor? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 60 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: IS there someone here that can get that information to the homeowner’s association? You are the president? Nary: Was the president here? I don’t think the resident was here. Item 13. Public Hearing: AUP 01-004 Request for an Assessory Use Permit for the operation of a Hair Styling Salon for Susan Guzman by Susan Guzman – 4000 West Blue Creek: Borup: Okay. The 2 members that are here will get that to him (inaudible). All right. I’d like to thank everyone for being here. We’re going to take a short break before we do so, We’d like to address item No. 13. Is there anyone here to testify on this item? In opposition, anyone here in opposition? I should clarify that. Okay. I’d like to go ahead and open that public hearing. Do we have anyone here to testify? Let me clarify – Nary: Mr. Chairman. I was going to say, maybe to make the record clear if you’d like I would move that we move up item 13 on the agenda. Borup: Okay. Very good. Nary: To take it up at this time. Borup: Motion to move up item 13. Norton: I second. Borup: And a second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. We’d like to open public hearing AUP 01-004 and ask if there is any opposition to – Nary: (inaudible) Borup: okay. Seeing none, commissioners, the only reason this was on the application, on the hearing was because of an oppositional hearing. I think at this point we – Nary: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we close the public hearing. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 61 Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion is second to close the public hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Maybe we should wait for Mrs. Guzman. That was all we needed to do. It will be handled on a staff level which I think is probably pretty much taken care of. The purpose of the meeting was for any possible opposition. Seeing none, that’s all you need to worry about with us. If you have any other questions you can talk to – Guzman: (inaudible) Borup: Yes. You can talk, if you’ve got any questions talk to staff about that. We’re going into a break. So, if they’ve got time they’d be glad to meet with you. Were you going to say something else Commissioner? Otherwise we’ll have a short break at this time. Then continue with our hearings. Reconvened At 10:09 P.M. Borup: Okay. We’d like to reconvene. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Okay. Commissioner Nary. Nary: Maybe we could clarify for our record on item 13 that we already took up. I would just like to make note for the record that you did open the public hearing. There was no opposition that was presented or proposed by anyone in the audience at the time. The applicant was present. She was in agreement with the staff comments so we then closed the public hearing at that time. What I would move is that we recommend to the City Council AUP 01-004 request for accessory use permit – Borup: That would not go to City Council. Nary: Oh. Okay. Siddoway: The Chairman is correct. It doesn’t go to City Council. The Commission has final say. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 62 Nary: We just would recommend approval of the request for an accessory use permit for the operation of a hairstyling salon for Susan Guzman by Susan Guzman at 4000 West Blue Creek and that’s based upon the staff comments as reported. There was one previous letter submitted by the homeowners association of Park side Creek in opposition of that request. They’ve also submitted a subsequent letter dated July 5,, 2001 withdrawing their objections to that application. So based upon their withdrawal of their opposition and no other opposition being stated, I’d move that we recommend that approval to the planning department. Shreeve: I’ll second. Borup: Motion is second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 01-023 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a metal warehouse with an office in an I-L zone for High Bridge Office by Robnett Construction, Inc. – 1380 East Commercial Avenue: Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: On that same note I was wondering if perhaps we could hear the High bridge Office, the item No. 12. It’s just a flood plain issue. There’s no opposition to it. Borup: Do we have anyone here in opposition to item No, 12? Are the other commissioners? Shreeve: I’ll agree with that. Borup: Okay. Lets open item No. 12 public hearing CUP 01-023. Request for a Conditional Use Permit for construction of a metal warehouse in office I-L zone for High Bridge. I understand the only reason it is even before us because it’s in the flood plain, or flood – McKinnon: The only reason why it’s in front of you tonight is that it is in the flood plain. The Meridian City code requires that any structure built the flood plain that’s of commercial use or residential use requires a Conditional Use Permit. The requested use is a permitted use according to the schedule of uses in our city code. The reason why its in front of you tonight is just for approval for the building to be placed partially within the flood plain. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 63 Borup: Okay. Does that conclude the staff report Mr. McKinnon? McKinnon: That’s about it. Borup: Any additional comment from the applicant? The applicant has no testimony. Commissioners? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: I’m assuming the applicant agrees with all aspects of the staff report? Nary: He seems to be nodding to me. Borup: He nodded that the does. Nary: Mr. chairman I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 01-023. Shreeve: Second. Borup: motion is second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Nary: Mr. Chairman. I move that we recommend approval to the City Council of CUP 01-023 request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a metal warehouse with an office in an I-L zone for High Bridge office by Robnett Construction, Inc. 1380 East Commercial Avenue and to include all staff comments from the report prepared July 2, 2001. Norton: Second. Borup: Motion is second. All in favor? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 9. Public Hearing: AZ 01-010 Request for annexation and zoning of .99 acres from R1 to C-G zones for Podiatry Building by Smith Brighton, LLC – 1065 East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Okay. Item No. 9 public hearing AZ 01-10 request for annexation and zoning of .99 acres from R-1 to C-G zone for the existing Podiatry building by Smith Brighton LLC. I’d like to open that public hearing and start with staff report. McKinnon: Chairman, Commissioners. (Inaudible) similar to the last report. I’ll keep it really short. It’s a .99-acre parcel. As you can see its depicted on the site plan there. It’s an existing building. It’s the podiatry building. Its currently vacant, was recently used as an office for a medical facility for a doctor. Right now as I Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 64 said its currently vacant. It’s zoned R-1 in county. In order to develop that in the future it would have to be annexed by the city and given a separate zoning. The comprehensive plan shows that piece of property would be in the mixed planned use area and they’ve requested a C-G zoning which would be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. They have not proposed any specific use for the property at this time. Any use that would be permitted on this site would be so only through a Conditional Use Permit process in the planned development. With that I turn it back over to the Commission. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Did the staff report address sewer and water service to that area? I mean the only comment I saw just said essential services would be available. So, I’m assuming at this point it is not connected to city sewer and water? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe the building is currently connected. We do have a water main that runs Fairview Avenue. I believe it runs right across the frontage of the property. We have sewer service in Danbury Fair Subdivision. There was, I believe there was some provisions made through Danbury for service to that site of sewer. I’m a little foggy on that but I believe that that was the way that that was to be served. Borup: Maybe the applicant will have some information. I mean, isn’t that correct that upon annexation that they need to connect with sewer and water? McKinnon: The ordinance does require that if the proposed site is within 300 feet of existing mainlines that they do connect. That is correct. Borup: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: I’m sorry, Commissioner Nary. Nary: Dave, in No.1 of the general requirements it says that the legal description has to show that the property is contiguous. We don’t know that at this point, that its contiguous? (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nary: I mean I know it has to be, but it isn’t currently? McKinnon: It currently is. Nary: It currently is? Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 65 McKinnon: Bruce and I had some discussion concerning the legal description. Bruce is going to need some additional language with the legal description and I’ll let Bruce address that. Nary: This is the property the building used to have a foot on the sign Right? That’s the one that’s right on Fairview? That’s where we’re talking about? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The legal description that was submitted with the annexation was not a meets and bounds legal description as required by our resolution. It does need to be a meets and bounds legal description that is tied to government corners. It ahs to be certified by a licensed land surveyor for the state of Idaho. That’s what we were lacking. Nary: I just didn’t want to go through all this rigamorough and then it’s not contiguous. Freckleton: It is contiguous. You can see up there on the map the southwest corner of the property is adjacent to the, I think that’s the Roundtree Chevrolet parcel. Nary: Dave what you’re proposing here is that the development agreement would require any development of any kind --? There would be no allowed use son that property without a Conditional Use Permit is that correct? McKinnon: That would be correct and the reason for that is under the existing code that we’ve adopted in Meridian that anything that is developed in the planned development area of our comprehensive plan has to be developed as a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development. Nary: All right. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Does the applicant have a presentation they would like to make? Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Matthew Smith. Office is at 12426 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I don’t have any additional comments I just wanted to concur with the staff reports. I also had one question. It is my understanding that we do not have to connect to sewer and water until an actual building permit is applied for. Is that correct? Borup: Can you clarify that --? Is your intention to remove the existing building, it sounds like then, or remodel it? Smith: Currently we don’t know exactly what we’re going to do. Ideally that’s what we will do, is remove that and put some type of development on that. But, as of now we don’t know exactly what --. Just because we are possibly Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 66 purchasing that we are redoing the rezone to come into correction of the proper use zone. Borup: Okay. Does staff have any --? It looks like they’re discussing --. Any other question, comments you had? Smith: None. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Have you looked into location of existing sewer lines? Smith: I did ask about that. It was my understanding that both of them were in the road, Fairview. But that sounds like that’s not correct. Borup: I don’t think so in the sewer. Did you have a – McKinnon: I don’t have anything here that I can confirm that with. Borup: No, but on his question on when connection needed to be made. McKinnon: With the plan. I would rather that the connections be made as part of a plan for the property. Borup: So, that could be done at the time of the CUP? McKinnon: Correct. I think that would be the most appropriate time to do it. Borup: I don’t know how you do otherwise? McKinnon: Whatever you do today won’t be right tomorrow. So, I would propose that you just make that a condition that they would connect. Borup: The condition be that upon Building Permit or any use at all of the property? McKinnon: Probably any use on the property. I mean if they were going to go in and remodel – Borup: That would be consistent with – McKinnon: If they were to remodel the house and put somebody in there I think the time would be then. Borup: That would be consistent I think with past city policy is that – Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 67 Smith: It’s my understanding you can’t condition an annexation but you condition the conditional use permit. Is that correct? Borup: That would be through a development agreement. Smith: Okay, I concur with that. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? So, have we decided what we’re -- The staff report said that it would be under Conditional Use Permit. I guess the condition that we would be adding is that prior to any use on the property that connection would need to be made to city water and sewer. Smith: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I move we close the Public Hearing. Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion is second to close the public hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I would recommend that we recommend approval to the City Council of AZ 01-010. The request for annexation and zoning of .99 acres from an R-1 to a C- G zone for the Podiatry building by Smith Brighton LLC 1065 East Fairview Avenue to include all staff comments of the report prepared July 2, 2001 with just one additional condition that upon use of this property that the applicant shall hook up to essential city services including sewer and water. Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion is second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 68 Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 01-020 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to develop a 2, 500 square-foot sales building for a recreational vehicle sales lot in an I-L zone for Bodily RV by Gary Bodily – northeast corner of East Overland Road and South Linder Road: Borup: Item No. 10 is a Public Hearing. CUP 01-020, a request for Conditional Use Permit to develop a 2500 square foot sales building for a recreational vehicle sales lot, I-L zone for Bodily RV by Gary Bodily, northwest corner of Overland, close to Linder. I would like to open this public hearing and start with the staff report. This is in an I-L zone? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Bodily RV as you said has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for the full 15.95 acres. However at this time they are not requesting the use of all the acres. They are requesting just to use the area that’s north adjacent to the I-84 corridor. The recreational vehicle sales lot is 2500 square feet. In the future they would like to be able to use that additional property for more buildings for service and for the representation of their vehicles for sale. Adjacent most directly to the I-84 corridor, they would prefer to place some storage of their RVs and have that to be their storage lot. Then back from the storage and sales lot, they would have the office. Currently the property does not have water or sewer service available on the site. The water line the most close to that would be from the Treasure Valley Tech Center which is just right there on Overland about 800 feet to the east of the property. The sewer service would be through the Black Cat Trunk. It would come down, catch up with I-84 then run directly east south. That would not be available for some time. They have proposed to put in at this time for sewer service and wastewater service a septic system, a new septic system on site. Currently on site there is one domestic well that they would be using for the irrigation and possibly to utilize for fire suppression. There are a couple different options that they have available for fire suppression for water on site. I’ve had some discussions with Brad Watson and Bruce Freckleton this morning concerning the availability of taking the water main down Overland and whether or not there would be the available water volume. Until we know what’s going on with pump No. 22 which is not on line yet, which isn’t scheduled to go on line until this fall, we don’t know what the volume will be for that, the amount of water that would be able to go through that water main. So, there’s a couple different option and I’ll leave it up to the applicant to tell you different options for bringing water for fire suppression there. Some options include tanks and a storage pond for that water. As I stated earlier, the entire property is not being developed at this time. Staff feels that the piece of property should not be utilized the other areas of the property should not be utilized for vehicle storage or vehicle parking. It should be barricaded off. As it currently exists Linder Road extends from Overland north bound until I-84. It’s a gravel improved road and there should be some manner of blocking that road so that vehicles are not being stored or utilized back in that location. I’ll let Bruce address the sewer service and the water service a little bit more from what I’ve Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 69 already done. Landscaping shall be submitted as drawn on the site plan. Interesting to note is that in the future Linder will be going over I-84. There will be a widening of Linder towards the north side of the property. So, they’ve made arrangements to do that. The gravel parking lots that have been proposed for the storage and sales lot, staff believes that they should be required to have those asphalted or otherwise hard surfaced improved other than gravel. Meridian City code requires that those areas used for parking or circulation should be hard surfaced with asphalt. With that I would turn it back over to the Commission for any comments. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Did Mr. Freckleton have any other comments on sewer and water? I think that was mentioned. Freckleton: I think we could – I could stand for questions after the applicant presents his project. Borup: Would the applicant representative like to come forward? Powell: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission. My name is Ana Powell. I work for B&A Engineers. We’re representing Gary Bodily. Our office is at 5505 West Franklin in Boise. I just wanted to thank Dave for the presentation. I think he tried to emphasize that we do have some options available. I wanted to go over a little bit more about he actual site layout. Hey, there it -- that one cool. It was a former gravel pit. If you’ve driven out there, you’ll see there’s extensive scarring. You can see it on the aerial as well, all those white areas where the scarred areas. I do want to emphasize that Mr. Bodily will be basically reclaiming the area and getting rid of the scarred areas and planting everything with vegetation and keeping that maintained. Another positive aspect is that he will be taking the property out of weed production which its currently in significantly. He will be providing significant amounts of right-of-way to Ada County Highway District, not only on Overland but as you see that dashed line to the top there which is the west. There’s a lot of land there going for the Linder Road extension. Those are the three main positive ones about the site development. Its pretty simple layout. Just a driveway going into the property, a RV storage and display area, which we don’t have any problem making that asphalt instead of, portions of them were noted as gravel. But, that’s not a problem. We have tried to landscape it to provide some relief to just seeing the RVs there. Then there’s a small sales office and then landscaping around the office. You’ll notice the kind of irregular shaped area to the south, there we go. No, go up a little bit. That’s a drainage swell area. We could turn that into a fire suppression pond if that’s the way that the fire department wants to go. The way we see it right now is we’ve got 3 main options or any combination thereof. To provide tanks or a pond with a pump and then also perhaps sprinkle the building or use some sort of suppressant within the building to meet that need. We do, in general, we agree with staff’s analysis and the staff report didn’t have any problem with it except of course the recommendation for denial based on the non-availability of City Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 70 services. We recognize that there are some constraints to that right now. It is already annexed to the City so it is a City property. We’re not asking for annexation. We are happy to connect to those services when they become reasonably available. They’re quite a way off. Regarding sewer, we’d be happy to put in a dry line. We’ll get the easements that the city is asking for on the northern end of the property and then we’ll send a dry line that way to connect when that main goes through there. Regarding water, we’re happy to extend the water main on the south side of the property and we will hook up to that for the office. We are hooking up to it, it just doesn’t have sufficient flow for the fire suppression at this time. That’s what we need to supplement. We think that there’s ways that we can work with staff to meet those problems. The way that the conditions of approval are currently worded gives enough leeway that we can make those arrangements with staff. We don’t have any problem with them. There were just a couple conditions of approval I wanted to go over, Quite literally just two. One was Item No, 2 which asks for within one year of the start of construction of the Linder Road extension to install the landscape buffer. We would ask that it be held off a little bit so that its after the extension is completed just because the way construction happens, that landscape buffer is likely to be lost when the construction is going on. We’d be happy to submit the landscape plan and get that approved at this time and then just hold off on the construction until that extension is finished. Borup: So, you’re proposing to say that completion of the Linder Road extension? Powell: Right. Borup: Any type of time frame on that? Powell: Six months to a year would be fine or upon completion. Give us a little time to get the plan in. Sometimes you cant put the landscape in, depending on what time of year they’re done. Just give us – Borup: That was the only thing I can think of that would effect it that would be weather. Powell: I’m sure Steve knows plants much better than I do. So, I’m sure he can suggest something. All we ask is that it’s after the completion of the extension. The other one would be item No. 15. Really, we don’t have a problem with it. Just on the last sentence there it says please provide the public works department with information on the anticipated fire flow and domestic water requirements for the proposed site. We don’t have any problem with that. We weren’t able to do it before this hearing. We got it on Tuesday. Our Engineer is on vacation so we don’t have those right away but we are happy to work with them on that. Those were the only issues I had. I would stand for questions or I could go over the site design more if that what you would like. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 71 Borup: (Inaudible) see what the Commissioners feel. Any questions from any Commissioners? In my mind it looks like probably the main concern would be the fire suppression. Powell: It does appear that way. Borup: Staff said they’re open for suggestions – ***End Of Side Four*** Powell: He’s kind of open to all three options. It’s just a matter of sitting down and deciding which one to go with. If you can leave enough leeway in that condition of approval which it seems like there is. Some sprinklers on the buildings, ponds or storage tanks would seem to be the three. There is a domestic well there that we can supplement a pond with if we need to for fire emergency purposes only. Borup: Sprinklers on the building would take care of it? Did the Fire Chief – the building sprinklers would be, the source of the water would be what? Powell: Would be your City wells. Borup: Okay. I thought that was the concern, there’s not enough in the – Powell: There’s not enough in the hydrants. There’s enough for a sprinkler system. Borup: Maybe. Powell: Yes Bruce was really unsure if they were going to have a trickle of water coming through this I think at this point. The other thing is that – Borup: Wouldn’t it depend on the sprinkler design would help to determine that, how much water is necessary? Powell: Another option is that you don’t use water and you use a chemical suppressant as well. I’m sure there are options, something we can come up with. Borup: Did the fire chief have any concern on I mean that takes care of fire in the building? How about on the stored vehicles outside? Is there any discussion on that? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 72 Powell: I had not heard that there was. There is another fellow from our office that may be able to answer that better and I can have him come up. He’s the one – Borup: On whether there was any discussion, you mean, or concern? So, you’re saying a pond would provide a water source that would have a pump, sprinkler system to the building and what was your third? Powell: Storage tanks. Borup: Okay. Powell: They would basically serve the same purpose. Chairman Borup, if I may, it sounds like the issue regarding water in this area. There’s a huge incentive to get it resolved by Bear Creek and I would imagine that by the time the site development, the grading and everything is done on this, there very well may be another well in place that will provide that capacity. Borup: That was my understanding, yes, well 22 which would service this area. The test well has been dug and drilled and the other one is coming shortly. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: At this point they don’t know what the capacity of that well is going to be. Freckleton: At this time we anticipate that that well will be operational this fall. As afar as the volumes go you know until we get her drilled and test pumps, we have some ideas and goals that we’re shooting for but until we flip switch its just kind of an unknown. Borup: If that well did not have the flow then I’m assuming you would need another well for another development in this whole service then? If you can’t handle this, it wouldn’t handle any other size of a project then. So, another well would be necessary. Freckleton: I don’t anticipate that it’s going to be a problem once the well is operational. I just hate to commit too much without that assurance. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: Our nearest well is a mile and a half a to two miles away from this site. That’s a long way to be pumping water. Borup: Does the applicant have any type of time frame in mind on what they’re looking at developing this? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 73 Powell: Well, he has lost his lease in Meridian so he has moved his vehicles to Nampa at this time. We still have to go through doing (inaudible). Borup: They (inaudible) or planning on it? Freckleton: Their storage lot. Powell: Their storage lot, they’ve moved. This would serve both their sales and their storage lot. They’ve moved their storage lot. Borup: But their sales lot is still there? Powell: It will take us some time to get the site grading and drainage studies done and actually the improvements to the site. It could coincide with their new well or close to it. Again, that’s just left us an option. I mean we know we need to get public works approval of this project before we can get permission to place the structure and sell the units. We feel comfortable with that if staff does and if you do. Borup: You would feel comfortable with the requirement that well 22 would need to be on line with adequate water flowing you mean? Powell: Or that we have some other approved means of fire suppression. As approved by staff and Meridian fire department. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Okay Commissioner Norton. Norton: I have one question. I think you kind of answered it because Bodily RV has a whole lot of RVs. I’m thinking are you, is Bodily RV doing another lot with all these RVs? Powell: My understanding is that he would relocate to this facility completely. Norton: Totally? Borup: So, the ones from Meridian or Nampa? Powell: From Meridian and then he would bring his units back from Nampa. Norton: These would be new units that he would be selling or new and used units? (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Powell: Maybe at this time it would be helpful if Chad came up. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 74 Borup: Any other questions for Mrs. Powell while she’s here? Okay why don’t you come on up? Jones: Chad Jones. I’m from B&A Engineers, 5505 West Franklin Road in Boise. In response to that, apparently now Gary is selling and some used as part of this business. I’m not quite sure exactly to what extent, but he does have both. Now, at this point he has lost his lease on his storage lot behind his existing sales. He’s moved his new and used RVs to his lot in Nampa until this facility has been constructed tot the point where he can store them on it. From what I understand. Borup: That’s just a gravel area there, is the storage lot? (Inaudible) to the south? Jones: The area to the, I guess it would be, -- Borup: The paved area is still packed with – Jones: Yes the area to the west and south is the area I’m talking about. You’ll notice its empty now. He used to have that whole thing packed with RVs. I don’t know what transpired to make that move happen but I understand it wasn’t friendly. Norton: Regardless, so he’ll still have the sales part on Meridian and this is just for storage? No, everything will be moved? Jones: Right correct. Norton: Okay will there be any repair of RVs? Jones: In the future we have future facilities noted on the map for sales, display and repair. Additional structures that will happen in the future. At what time, we don’t know. Norton: So, the repair would have to wait until we definitely got fire suppression? Jones: Oh, most definitely. Norton: Okay thank you. Jones: That would not be a part of this application, those facilities. They would have to get their own conditional use. Norton: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 75 Borup: Any other questions? Do we have anyone else who would like to testify on this application? If so, come forward. Johnson: My name is Denny Johnson 1335 West Overland. My property and residence roughly 100 yards to the east and across the road south of this property. There are basically two points of concern that history doesn’t repeat itself on this property. We were here approximately 5 to 6 years ago when the last previous owner applied for a Conditional Use Permit. Over a period of several years we were left with the property totally being trashed. The neighborhood, I mean the site that was left is an eyesore to the neighborhood and to all those that traveled up and down Overland Road there. There was absolutely no follow up from the commission or control. Borup: Did you submit any written complaints? Johnson: No sir. Borup: Okay. I’m not sure how this is pertinent but I’m don’t know how the City would follow up if there was no complaints to follow up on. Proceed. Johnson: Okay. I would just like to request that in the process of this Conditional Use Permit that the landscape along Overland Road be considered. That a site obscuring landscape plan be submitted. Borup: Steve could you get that on the screen? Johnson: For those of you who haven’t visited this site. 10 years ago or prior to the last occupant it was a horse pasture. The last occupant came in and had a mining operation there, an open pit gravel situation that as I believe according to the last commission they were not aware that that was going to happen. That happened. They shut him down but he left a tremendous scar on that property. As a result of that, the land values across the street were devastated. I mean there’s been a property there for sale for a number of years. It hasn’t sold. There’s another property there that has been for sale for a number of months now that has not sold. I guess my concern is that that this consideration this landscape and beautification along Overland Road be considered by the commission. Borup: Mr. Johnson, this is what they’re proposing here along, all this landscaping area is on Overland Road. Johnson: Okay there is a berm there that has just a bunch of river rock dumped on it. Borup: No, I don’t mean now. This is what they’re proposing to put in. My question is what do you feel about the plan that they’re proposing? Do you have Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 76 any concerns with -- they’re showing landscaping along here, along here. Then they have also stated though its not on the plan that they would be landscaping here along Linder Road at the time that that went in. Johnson: I certainly like what I’m hearing about the repairing and effort that they’re going to do with the gravel pit and the landscaping. I was concerned that there is going to be a setback and landscaping along Overland Road. I assumed that that was going to be along Linder Road. Borup: No, this is Overland here. Johnson: All right. Borup: This is Linder Road. Am I looking at this correct? Yes this is Linder along here. This is Overland Road. So, you’re property is down across the street over in this area? Johnson: Correct. Borup: This is part of their plan. They’ve stated that they would be putting that in even thought this other would be (inaudible). Johnson: Is there any elevation to this landscape here? Is it built up? Borup: Whether there’s going to be a berm along there? You can both even come up here at the same a little bit. We don’t want to dwell on this a long time. Jones: The relevant elevation of that berm – Borup: Just say your name again, just real quick. Jones: Chad Jones of B&A Engineers. Just to kind of respond to the height of that berm. We’re looking at right now that berm is approximately 10 feet in height. I’m guessing 8 to 10 feet. It’s going to be relatively the same. The difference is it’s going to be sawed, grass and trees rather than rock and weeds. The trash that’s imbedded and sticking out, I’ve been out there a number of times. I know what you’re talking about. That’s in there now is actually going to be moved. The berm as it stands is actually going to move approximately 20 feet to the north to get it outside of the additional right-of-way that’s going to be happening along Overland Road. Johnson: Okay. Borup: Does that answer your question? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 77 Johnson: It certainly did. I have another question, two questions. The stream that runs through there have been dry for the last few years but since we’ve been there, we’ve seen that to be a live stream. In good water years that could very well be a live stream there. I would like to hear from the developers of this property what they plan for that as well as they we’re going to take this out. They proposed to take this out of weed production, could they expand on that just a little bit? Any questions? Borup: Okay thank you. Mr. Jones, two part question there. I’m not sure if – Jones: Part one, on the Hardin Drain. We are proposing to keep that Hardin Drain open. I have been in specific discussion with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District over the whole 6 to 8 months time as this project has developed from one extreme to the other so to speak. It would be their wish to keep it open as would ours. Borup: The Hardin Drain is this it through this area? Jones: It would be – Borup: Right here? Jones: Yes. Borup: Okay. So that would be in the undeveloped portion anyway at this time? Jones: Correct. As far as getting it out of weed production. I don’t know that much about grasses. I have met with the licensed architect here in town. He’s given me several options on different types of grasses that would be most appropriate. One of those would be more of a zero landscape. It’s an excuse me if I’m not saying this correctly. It’s a drought resistant type of grass. It’s not a cheek grass. It doesn’t require a lot of water but still maintains its green appearance. I don’t know the species name or type. Borup: I don’t either but I see what you’re talking about. Jones: Right that’s what we’re proposing. That or some sort of a buffalo type of grass that keeps the erosion and the weed control in check. Borup: Okay thank you. Any other questions from the Commission. Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to testify on this application? Seeing none -- yes, quickly. Johnson: Denny Johnson again, 1335 West Overland. Do we have a picture that can show a view of that property from ground level? I guess I don’t see anything that really shows the effect of the gravel pit that was there. That will require a Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 78 real extensive, if not expensive repairing effort there. I would just like to hear from the landowners that they are committed to bringing that back to its natural sight. Or you know run a grader over it a couple times and call it good. The topsoil is totally gone. Its just gravel scraped clean and dug out, gouged out to the, out of the natural hill that was sitting there. I guess I’d like to hear a little more about that plan. Borup: If we could get some clarification. I think he has already testified that they’re going to be repairing that and planting grass which would necessitate topsoil. Anything in addition to that Mr. Jones? Okay that was part of their previous testimony that that would be repaired. I assume when you say back to natural, you’re not skiing them to replace all the gravel that’s been hauled out of there. It would be leveled off. That’s what they stated their intention is. That they would – (Inaudible discussion form Commission members) Borup: That would be part of -- go ahead Mr. Jones. Jones: As part of the repairing, you’re absolutely correct it is very expensive. Part of that requires the employment of a Geotropically Engineer specializing in this type of thing. We would have inspections and compaction testing as that is repaired and built back up to level this ground. So, as future development that land can be developed so things are stable. There are several parts. There is preparing and stabilization (inaudible) testing, on and on and on. I mean there are a lot of different parts to it. As far as bringing back the topsoil, that’s kind of an impossibility, its gone. There will be a certain amount of import of topsoil to bring this project on line. How much? I don’t know but there will be some brought on. Borup: Okay thank you. Mr. Johnson, I guess it behooves any business to make their property look the best it can. It’s going to reflect on their business, people driving in there obviously if it stays like it is. I’m sure it’s in their best interest for them to come across with it. Any other questions from Commissioners? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I just had one for Mr. Jones. I don’t know if there’s any way to anticipate that but it sounded like there was fairly extensive engineering that was going on to get this property back to its usable condition. Do you have any idea how long that will take and what type of heavy equipment that might take and how much noise that might generate for those people that live across the street? Jones: It’s going to take big equipment. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 79 Nary: It does? Jones: As far as dust, we’re going to have to follow the dust abatement rules, keep it watered. As they move dirt it’s going to be of a benefit to use water. As I’m sure you know, water and compaction go hand and hand. There’s going to be a lot of things involved in I guess repairing this big hole. Noise, yes, there’s going to be some noise. Exactly how much, I’m not quite sure. Nary: Do you have any idea how long? Jones: I’m guessing it’s going to take a good 6 to 8 weeks of just moving dirt, pretty easily. I’ve developed a preliminary grading plan and just looking at -- I don’t know if you’ve been out there but we have a 15-foot drop that we’re going to have to – Nary: I’ve only ever seen the ugly river rock wall as I drove by it. Jones: Yes, its pretty extensive work. We’re going to actually be moving dirt from the north side and pushing that to fill the hole and as we’re doing it compacting and building that back up. Most of the, to address your question. Most of the initial movement is going to be on the north side by the freeway. I don’t anticipate he decibel levels increasing much more than what the freeway already exists. Nary: Is there anticipation on operating that in the dark? Between – Jones: No. Nary: -- 10 at night and 6 in the morning? Jones: No there is not. In fact I’ve discouraged that. Nary: I’m sure these folks would discourage that too. A lot of times people do that for a lot of economic reasons. I didn’t know if that was something – Jones: Well, it doesn’t make sense to do it. Not only that there has to be an inspecting agent on site and I’m sure they done want us to be out there at night. Borup: Thank you. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Norton: I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 80 Norton: I have a question for staff. They had made a comment that they did not approve of this. After this discussion, has staff changed their opinion? Borup: Maybe staff would like to -- could you expand on your reason for requesting denial? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Norton with the discussions that we’ve had about alternate fire suppression systems, the water situation was my main issue. Until we get that well 22 on line, there were just a lot of unknowns. If they are able to come up with some alternate systems that would be approved by the fire department, I think it’s workable. We’re anticipating that that well will be on line this fall. So, this is kind of a temporary thing. Yes, I don’t think that we would have a problem with it, with working with them to try to come up with an alternate source. Norton: So, if this project was moved forward, you would not have a problem with working with them with their alternate fire suppression ideas? Freckleton: No it’s going to take work with the Fire Department as well. Borup: That’s what I say, that requires full written approval from the fire department? Freckleton: Correct. Norton: Okay thanks Bruce. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Bruce, and there’s not a concern on the sewer, just the fire suppression? Freckleton: Fire suppression was the main issue, yes. Sewer, they’ve got a temporary septic system that they’re proposing and we can live with that. Borup: And the applicant understood they would be doing the sewer line along their property so it could connect into the trunk line when it became available? So, it would be to and through your property, I mean it would be through your property to the other. Is that correct? Freckleton: Yes the way the comments are written, I think I gave them six months from the date that sewer is brought to their property they would have six months to complete it across their property. Borup: To the property to their east. Did the applicant understand that? Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 81 Freckleton: I would just propose that all of our other staff comments would just remain in tact. Borup: Would we like to have any discussion before we close this hearing? I asked that once. Is there anyone else that wants to come forward? You need to hurry. Johnson: My name is Dwight Johnson. I live at 1435 West Overland, just across the street from this. Just about anything would be an improvement over what’s there. We fought it. I almost got in a fistfight sitting at that table over there with one of the prior owners when I called him a (inaudible) liar. He said he gave away half a million dollars worth of gravel just to get the place level. It isn’t level. He didn’t give the gravel away either. I would encourage you to (inaudible) to get something moving on this project. That’s all I have to say. Borup: Thank you Mr. Johnson. Norton: I tend to agree with Mr. Johnson. I think anything would be an improvement at what the property is. I would tend to want to push this forward with the addition of the language of No. 2 upon completion of the Linder Road extension to do the landscape buffer so they don’t have to do it twice. My thoughts. Nary: Mr. Chairman I would concur. I drive by this site all the time. I didn’t realize how ugly it was but it really is pretty bad. Not only is anything an improvement, I think this is a significant improvement because I do think having a commercial type of operation is all the more reason to maintain it. I think that’s exactly what Mr. Johnson’s concerns are, is that someone has to maintain this. Certainly having a sales lot eventually, you’re not going to get a lot of people to want to buy RVs if they have to drive down a gravel road that is full of weeds and just looks terrible. You’re not going to get a lot of people that want to go there. I think this is a tremendous improvement over what is there. I just think there are more positives than any negatives (inaudible). Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: I propose that we close the Public Hearing. Norton: I second. Borup: Motion is second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 82 Shreeve: Mr. Chairman I propose to approve CUP 01-020 request for Conditional Use Permit to develop a 2,500 square-foot sales building for a recreational vehicle sales lot in an I-L zone for Bodily RV by Gary Bodily northeast corner of Overland Road and South Linder Road taking into account all staff comments with the correction on site specific requirement No. 2 which is on Page No. 4 that it be within one year of the completion of construction of the Linder Road extension that the landscape buffer be placed. I believe that’s it, isn’t it? Nary: I was going to suggest to the maker of the motion if we wanted to include in another Condition 17 that prior to the issuance of a Building Permit that they must have an approved fire suppression system source on site so, it can be any system as long as it’s approved by the City. Borup: By the staff and fire department, which I think staff would require before they would give their approval anyway. Nary: Right. Borup: I guess maybe the other would suffice. Shreeve: Make it part of the motion. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion is second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 11. Public Hearing: CUP 01-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a dual restaurant with drive-thru in a C-G zone for Kentucky Fried Chicken/A & W by G & H Enterprises II – 677 East First Street: Borup: Okay, we’ve got one item left Commissioners. Do we want to, I assume we’d like to go ahead? Norton: Sure, lets do it. Only if we can – Borup: Our policy has been we try not to start new applications after 11. We’re real close but it also will be done by 12. If we’re not done, we would probably be continuing it but lets open Public Hearing No. 11 CUP 01-021 request for Conditional Use Permit for dual restaurant drive-thru in a C-G zone for Kentucky Fried Chicken and A&W. I’d like to open this Public Hearing and start with staff comments, staff report. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 83 McKinnon: Mr. Commissioner, Commissioners. At this point we would like to recommend continuance of this public hearing. The reason for that is the applicant and ACHD haven’t come to an agreement yet concerning the right-of- way acquisition on Meridian and the closing of the second driveway along Meridian Road. They have a meeting again on July 25th with the ACHD Commissioners. They met with the Commissioners initially last month and they’ve moved that to July 25th at this time, until we know exactly the site layout. Without the right-of-way acquisition and whether or not the second driveway is going to be required to be closed by ACHD, we would recommend continuance at this time, until the next public hearing, until after the 25th of July. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? So, the concern, the possible concern with ACHD was adding this -- are they adding a second entrance? McKinnon: Well, there’s an existing entrance as you see on the top of the project right there. It currently sits 160 feet just to the north of the intersection. They are proposing to move it to 190 feet north of the intersection. Borup: So, they’re proposing to move it further away from the intersection? McKinnon: To move it further away. Even with the move ACHD has said that it does not meet their minimum requirements for the secondary egress right there for right in right out and that that should be closed. Secondary to that ACHD has requested 48 feet of right-of-way from centerline on Meridian and that’s being contested by the applicant at this time. Those issues will be resolved on the 25th of July at the ACHD Commission meeting. Borup: Okay Commissioners, since we’ve opened it and have the applicant here, I would like to maybe hear a few short comments from them maybe without going into the whole detail but specifically on those two items. Norton: As long as they’ve sat here for three hours, yes. Borup: Okay is the applicant or their representative here this evening? Gibbs: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Jonathon Gibbs 9502 Scorpio Boise Idaho. First of all, I would like to say that we have been in that location now for about 25 years as a Kentucky Fried Chicken. We’ve been received good, had good reception by Meridian. We want to upgrade the facility and make it a better restaurant with some new innovations. We have a problem with the drive thru on it right now that pushes cars out into First Street when they come in and blocks access through the lot which was our main concern in the facility. Of course this new facility will solve that problem concerning the two items by the ACHD that we are meeting with them. It is on the 18th instead of the 25th . That was an error on the letter that went to you. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 84 48-foot right-of-way which is currently now a 30-foot right-of-way. It’s my understanding that road, Meridian Road will be, and the right-of-way will go from a 60-foot road to a 96-foot road. Therefore they will take another 18 feet of right- of-way off of our property. We would like that not to happen as it narrows down the end of that lot on the west side, however even if they do we will lose probably three or four parking lot, parking spots on the -- yes, those three right there, we’d probably end up losing but we can add more parking spots over where you’re at in that area there. There are parking spots that go clear out to the road from the existing KFC now that we can go clear out there so we can recover those. Borup: Mr. Gibbs, the dotted line that’s there now. That is your existing property line or the current road right-of-way? Is that what – this along here is that your current property line? Gibbs: I can’t read that very well. Borup: This was the plat that you submitted so it should b eon yours too. I mean ours says property line. Gibbs: Okay if it says property line that’s what it is. Borup: That’s based on a 60-foot right-of-way? Gibbs: Yes so we would be coming 18 feet further east for the right-of-way on that. Borup: Are you saying you’re opposed to Meridian Road being widened then? Gibbs: We don’t think it’s necessary to make it a 96-foot right-of-way. In fact we would rather see a one-way road going south there on Meridian Road and one way going north on First Street. Then you wouldn’t need a five lane road there I don’t believe. There are other ways to address it. Borup: I don’t know if we’re going to handle that here but that’s the same thing ACHD proposed and the merchants of Meridian Road were opposed to it. I don’t know how you handle it. I don’t know how you get around that. Gibbs: I attended all those meetings. Borup: Okay so you know what they went through. Gibbs: Yes I still think it’s the best solution. Anyway, when they built Commercial Drive there, they took a half-acre of our property. We only had three acres. They also widened Meridian Road and took additional property there. We think they ought to take some property from the other side of the street instead of Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 85 ours. We’re going to propose that. We’re going to build -- we want to build the restaurant regardless and we will work around the lot. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman if we reduce the buffer right there, we’re going to completely destroy the landscape buffer. They would be proposing to put the parking right adjacent to the actual right-of-way. If there’s an additional 18-foot take there. So it’s going to more than just eliminate the three parking spaces. It’s going to eliminate the entire landscape buffer on that site. Borup: A variance would need to be requested to do that, right? McKinnon: Yes it’s more than just changing the site plan a little bit. There’s going to be quite a bit of change. Borup: What are you proposing with the existing building? Gibbs: At this point it is possible that it could be remodeled into another restaurant or it could be torn down. We don’t know at this point. Of course KFC wants to operate in there until they get their new store so they can switch over. We have two restaurants that are interested in the site. Most chain restaurants today, if they were going to go into a site want a new restaurant. They don’t wan to remodel. So, I would guess the chances are at least 50 percent that restaurant building will be torn down and we may have to move this restaurant further north, the new one to configure it on the lot and get our adequate parking and landscaping and so forth. As far as the other issue there was the other exit onto Meridian, entrance exit. The one that’s 160 feet from the corner. We proposed it 190. When they gave us a draft they approved it. When I went to the ACH meeting the staff had rejected it. So, we didn’t get a chance to argue that point. So, that when we requested an additional meeting because if we have to we will even move it further to the north because to have a good transition on that lot and flow I think it behooves us to have that other exit. The exit, which is north of that between the Taco Bell and KFC, is only 100 feet from Commercial Drive. If they’re requirement – Borup: Are you talking about Corporate Drive? Gibbs: What? Borup: Our plat says Corporate Drive. Is that the street you’re talking about, not Commercial? Gibbs: Did I say Commercial? I’m sorry, Corporate Drive. Borup: Didn’t you say when they put Corporate Drive in they took some of your property? Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 86 Gibbs: They bought one half acre of our property. Most of Commercial Drive – Borup: That was the property over near to Taco Bell, or Bolo’s? Gibbs: Bolo’s, yes. Borup: Oh, you’ve got property al along there? Gibbs: They normally split, when they put a new road in they generally split it by both sides – Borup: Okay. I was just confused. I was looking at the project that’s before us and you said some was taken when that drive went in. That’s what I wasn’t understanding. Gibbs: Well, they took a good portion of our property, more than anybody else’s so that they could line it up with across the street so we lost a good portion of our property. So, we’re going to try to see if we can ask them not to take as much on Meridian. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Gibbs, what do you think about what the staff’s proposed about setting this matter over until ACHD makes a final decision because it looks to me like the way your building is designed currently, if they do widen it and take 18 more feet of your property, there’s no way you can have a building anywhere close to where you have it now. You’re going to have to move it entirely. It may take up where that existing building is but I don’t know any of those things. What do you think about the idea of setting this over? I don’t know what ACHD is going to do and I know you’ve got some proposals for them. What do you think of that? Gibbs: I guess you know we’re at your mercy. We would like to move as quickly as possible. We’re not going to get any decision from ACHD until the 18th on theirs. We want to put a new KFC building on it if it’s the only thing that’s left on the lot when we get through. Nary: Do you understand the staff’s concern that depending on what ACHD does may really change what your plan might be because if they do take 18 more feet off that west side of your property and you have a landscape buffer you’re required to have, you cant put the building in the same place you’re proposing. Gibbs: I understand that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 87 Nary: So, do you understand, at least their concern is that we need to set this over and see what ACHD will do first before we can give you any fair decision. Gibbs: I guess if you have to do that, then you’ll have to do that. Nary: I just wondered what your thought was. Gibbs: We’re like everybody that comes in here we want it done as quick as we can. Borup: This Commission tries to do that to the best of our ability, to accommodate people and move things along. Our past position pretty much -- if ACHD is not decided, we’ve always pretty much needed a report from them on the property. Gibbs: I wish staff had addressed that to me or made a recommendation of that you know before we sat here four hours tonight and been the last one on the agenda. I don’t think that was too fair but I mean we have to live with that. Borup: Well, someone’s got to be last. Gibbs: I know but if they were going to recommend postponing it they should have just – Borup: They did. Did you get a copy of the staff report? Gibbs: I got nothing except a cover letter, but I went and got my stuff I got this and nothing from the staff report. I got all the other reports from everybody – McKinnon: Mr. Chairman Mr. Gibbs, we talked on the phone concerning this. You were going to call ACHD and you were going to get back to me after you talked to ACHD concerning the date of the meeting and concerning the confusion that you had with ACHD concerning the closure of the existing 160 foot intersection ingress egress right in right out. Gibbs: ACHD – McKinnon: So, I was waiting – Gibbs: They don’t give me anything – McKinnon: We as staff were waiting for your response back to us concerning whether or not you wanted to go forward with this. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 88 Borup: I think we still got some information. I don’t know if there’s any other input the Commission would like to give Mr. Gibbs that may help on this point. It sounds like from the Commission the main thing is going to be work something out with ACHD and then – Gibbs: We want a nice store. We want it to work for us and for the customer and of course it has to work for traffic flow. We want to address those problems. If we wait until next month, I guess we’ll have to wait until next month. Borup: Okay any other questions for Mr. Gibbs? Thank you. Thank you sir. We opened a hearing but in mind that it appears that we’ll be continuing this to a later date I don’t know if anyone else had any other testimony they felt was (inaudible) this evening that would not wait until next time? Redlin: I’m Curt Redlin. I have Redlin Photography and I am right across the road. I’m going to b impacted pretty severely by this whole thing like I have been since I opened my business 10 years ago. I’m not sure where it’s going to go. I wrote a letter to the Commission opposing the plan based on its current configuration for the same reasons that planning staff opposed it. Just simply because of the site location close to the intersection of East First and Meridian Road which I have had to contend with since I opened my business. It has changed considerably as we all know. Exactly where ACHD is going to be on the issue I don’t know either. I called them today and talked to them – ***End Of Side Five*** Redlin: -- office. I talked to right-of-way people. The right-of-way had no knowledge of a 96-foot right-of-way proposal which surprised me and surprised the woman that I talked who was in charge of it. So I think there needs to be a little more communication between agencies as to where this road is going and what it’s going to do the City of Meridian. Those are the kind of things that I’m looking at in my business and that concern me greatly. I’ve been a neighbor of KFC for 10 years and they’ve been a very good neighbor. I’m certainly not opposed to their new restaurant. My concerns are the traffic flow issues which are going to concern every person in this room not just myself. Borup: Is your concern on traffic into the project or coming out of the project? Redlin: Actually the Meridian Road exit is the, the proximity to my business as well as to the intersection. Borup: Is your business, which direction from, isn’t it to the south of – (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 89 Borup: Right. Okay, that’s what I thought. I mean that’s what I knew. So, their proposal, the right in. That’s why I’m not sure that at this point – Redlin: They would take all of my parking basically. They’ve already taken 30 feet of my property. Borup: You mean the 96-foot would do that? Redlin: Yes. Borup: Okay that’s a different matter. (Inaudible) if that stayed there it would be a right in right out. So, anybody coming out of this project would go north and not go past your property. Redlin: Yes, if that’s what they were proposing to do. Borup: That’s what they have submitted to us at this point. Redlin: I wasn’t aware of that. I figure they probably would have to do that. Borup: In fact that may help traffic – (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: If people followed what they were suppose to. Redlin: Right. The biggest issue is traffic coming from the north feeding in at 3:00 until 6:00. That’s the (inaudible). Borup: Okay thank you. Redlin: Thank you. Borup: Quickly. Gibbs: I just wanted to say that he does have a serious problem there because his parking buts right up against Meridian Road. When they park there then they have to back out into Meridian Road to go out. As that traffic increases during any peak time, he has a serious problem whether it’s a KFC restaurant on either end of that property. His parking in the long run just is not going to work on that road whether they take it all away from him or whether its just higher traffic with the same size of road. When you get that all that traffic it’s tough to back into a high traffic road to get out of a parking situation. That’s, he’s kind of stuck right there I think. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 90 Borup: Mr. Gibbs, was there any discussion on a divider at that exit with ACHD at all that would prevent someone form turning left? Gibbs: No there wasn’t. Borup: Okay often times they will do that. Gibbs: When we did the other property 5 or 6 years ago, they were going to put a divider on First Street so they would only go one way into that property. Then they decided not to do that and have allowed it both ways. Nary: The only other thing Mr. Gibbs that I think what Mr. Redlin is saying. I agree with what you’re saying that that intersection is pretty congested as it is but according to the ACHD traffic study in here, they anticipate 300 more vehicles caused by your project. Your project at that corner I think is what Mr. Redlin was concerned with, recognizing that other traffic is certainly a problem as well. Gibbs: We don’t know where they get their numbers. They’re doing less than 400 customers a day in the present KFC and its one of the highest in the state if not the highest in the State of Idaho right now. They’re showing big numbers which don’t even make sense to the KFC people or myself. So, I have no idea where they are getting their numbers form. We don’t agree with those. Nary: So, you’re saying this traffic count’s too high? Gibbs: Their traffic counts for our restaurant are four times what they are, four to five times. Wish they were that high. That would be great but they’re not any where near that. Borup: Okay, Commissioners we would like to do what? Shreeve: I would like to make a motion that we continue this. Borup: Okay. Shreeve: Probably the August 16th meeting as well. Borup: The 18th is when ACHD is meeting. I don’t know that we’d have a report – Shreeve: That’s July 18th . Nary: I thought it said July 25th ? (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 91 McKinnon: Mr. Chairman might I suggest that we move that to the August meeting? Borup: That’s what we were – McKinnon: The second meeting in August that we have a chance to review ACHD’s staff report. In addition to that, Mr. Gibbs may have to redesign the application so we may have to resubmit actually through all the other jurisdictions as well if it is a major sight change. Borup: Even with them meeting on the 18th we would not have the report by the 19th anyway. We would not have the ACHD report until the August meeting. Shreeve: Yes, just go to August 16th . Borup: Okay your motion was to – did you make a motion? Shreeve: I did. I make the motion to postpone this until the August 16th meeting, -- Borup: We opened it. Shreeve: -- or continue it, sorry. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: Motion and we have a second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Shreeve: I move we adjourn. Norton: Second. Borup: Motion is second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:25 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5, 2001 Page 92 KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK