Loading...
2001 06-21Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting June 21, 2001 The City of Meridian Planning and Zoning regularly scheduled meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Thursday, June 21, 2001, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Bill Nary and Jerry Centers. Members Absent: Sally Norton and Keven Shreeve. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, David Swartley and Will Berg. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: O__ Sally Norton __X__ Jerry Centers X _ Bill Nary __O__ Keven Shreeve __X__ Chairman Keith Borup Borup: The Planning and Zoning meeting for June 21st . We are getting started a little late. Commissioners in attendance are Commissioner Nary, Commissioner Centers. Commissioner Norton and Commissioner Shreeve are both absent. Commissioner Borup is here. Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of May 3, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Borup: The first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from our May 3rd Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Do we have any questions or comments from any of the Commissioners? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I would move that we approve the minutes of the May 3, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Centers: I would second that. Borup: Motion is second to approve the minutes of May 3rd meeting. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 2 4. Continued Public Hearing from May 17, 2001: PP 00-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 by Gemstar Properties, LLC – east of North Black Cat Road and south of West Ustick Road: Borup: Okay. Item No. 4 is a Continued Public Hearing from May 17th . It’s a request for Preliminary Plat approval of Autumn Faire No. 2. We do have in our packets a copy of a letter from Earl and Associates requesting a continuance due to the fact that there is a sewer study going on now that’ll effect their project. Mr. Freckleton, we did have a question for you on this. They stated that they anticipate that study would be completed in early August. Is that a realistic date do you feel and what does early August mean? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I’m sorry, I don’t have a good answer for you tonight. Brad Watson has been handling this project totally. I haven’t had any involvement in it at all. Borup: Our reason for asking is just to determine a reasonable date. Freckleton: I know Scott Stanfield, the Engineer for the applicant has worked closely with Brad on this and I guess I have to assume that the date that he’s got mentioned in his letter has probably been coordinated with Brad. Borup: Well, he didn’t mention a date. Freckleton: Early August? (Inaudible) thing would be to take your mid-month meeting in August. Borup: That’s what we – well, our first meeting’s August 2nd . I mean I think in realistic that would be – Freckleton: Probably the 2nd meeting. Borup: That’s what we wonder, if the second meeting is realistic. I guess the short answer is you have no idea. Freckleton: Short answer, the final short answer. Borup: Well, Commissioners? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: This is too far out. We don’t know what our agenda – how full it is. Centers: Do we need to set a date? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 3 Borup: Yes we do. We need to continue it to a date certain. Centers: Then I think we should continue it to the second meeting in August. Borup: August 16th . Nary: Is that a motion? Centers: I would make that motion. Nary: Second. Borup: (Inaudible) second to continue Autumn Faire to the August 16th agenda. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from May 17, 2001: CUP 01-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for expansion of the chamber office and visitor center in a C-G zone for Meridian Chamber of Commerce by Meridian Chamber of Commerce – 215 East Franklin Road: Borup: Item No. 5 is a Continued Public Hearing. A request for a Conditional Use Permit for expansion of the chamber office. We also have just received a letter also on this. They requested a continuance to August’s second meeting. If you remember their conflict was a conflict with easement with Nampa Meridian. Because of that they had to come up with a new design. They’re working on that but don’t have plans. They’re saying by then they will. Their request is August 2nd . Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I guess, we’ve had this continued once before. My preference would be that we put it on August 16th as well. We’ve tried to put continued projects on the second meeting. We don’t have anything (inaudible). Hopefully, maybe by then they’ll also have all of that resolved as well. I’d rather we kept the new projects on the first meeting and try to (inaudible). Centers: Is that a motion? Nary: Yes, move it to August 16th . Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 4 Centers: I would second that. Borup: Motion second. Any other discussion? I guess that probably does make sense. The only thing that would change my mind is if we knew how full our agenda was and we don’t. Okay did staff get any other input from the chamber? Freckleton: I talked with them – Borup: Is another two weeks going to make that much difference to them? (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Freckleton: I don’t know about that. I don’t know why it would. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: That’s what I was concerned about. Centers: Mr. Berg had just mentioned there that they are very anxious to try to get moving. Borup: Well that was a motion. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2001: AZ 01-008 Request for annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R1and RUT to C-G and R-40 zones for proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc – East Franklin Road west of South Locust Grove Road: Item 7. Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2001: PP 01-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 10 building lots and 3 other lots on 12.71 acres in proposed C-G and R-40 zones for proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc. – East Franklin Road west of South Locust Grove Road: Item 8. Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2001: CUP 01-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for mixed use Residential/Commercial in proposed C- G and R-40 zones for proposed Baltic Place Subdivision – East Franklin Road west of South Locust Grove Road: Borup: Items 6, 7 and 8. We’ll want to address all these at once. They are also Continued Public Hearings from the last two months. Item No. 6 is a request for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 5 annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from RUT to C-G and R-40 for Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development. Related to that is also the same project request for Preliminary Plat approval. Item No. 8 is a request for a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development. I would like to start with a staff report on these items. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. On the screen in front of you is an aerial photo of the area. The proposed location of Baltic Place is in within the red circle. This is Franklin Road and Stratford Drive coming down this way. You can see the landmark of the Meridian Speedway here. This would be the cemetery and Medimont Subdivision on its east boundary. North of it across Franklin Road is Meridian Business Park. This application is for 12.71 acres. There are two zones requested, C-G and R-40. The C-G portion would be along Franklin Road. You can see the existing surrounding zoning on this plan and the subject parcel is crosshatched. The existing zoning in Medimont is light industrial. Baltic Place also industrial, although the frontage was recently rezoned to commercial and that’s not yet showing up in our database. The cemetery is in the County and so is the parcel that’s just on its west boundary. I don’t know the name of it but it’s a juvenile – it’s not a detention center but it’s a home for juvenile kids on probation. This is a copy of the plat that’s on the screen. You can see there are several lots wrapping around the northern portion of the site that would be the commercial lots. Behind it would be the large R-40 portion which will be developed as apartments as you’ll see on the site plan shortly. It would be a 228 unit apartment complex. Here it is north is to the right. This is Franklin Road and north would be to the right, the commercial buildings in this location right along Franklin Road with parking and then the ring of apartments and their associated open space and parking south of them. There are 9 commercial lots, 4 common lots and 1 residential apartment R-40 lot. This is before you as a Conditional Use Permit and as a Planned Development. It is in the mixed Planned Use Development area of the Comprehensive Plan. So, it is a Planned Development as well as a Conditional Use Permit. That’s where I want to end. To take you through the staff comments briefly and just point out the issues that need to be discussed tonight. I’d just like to point out that annexation site specific requirement No.1 a Development Agreement will be required as a condition of annexation. Item No. 3 at the top of Page 3 is one that the applicant desires to discuss with the Commission tonight. That is the staff requirement that in these commercial areas only office and retail uses will be permitted outright. Other uses would have to be through a Conditional Use Permit. No problem with the annexation and zoning standard requirements. No problems with the plat site specific requirements or the general requirements. On the Conditional Use Permit requirements, go to Page 8, -- let’s see, I skipped over one didn’t I? Oh, I skipped over annexation and zoning standard requirement No. 1. That would be back on Page 3 where we just were. The first item under annexation and zoning standard requirements, the tiling of ditches. The applicant would like to discuss the need to tile the Hunter Lateral. Their desire is to keep it open. So, it would actually require a waiver from City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 6 although the Commission can certainly make a recommendation on that issue. The staff comment currently reads that it is to be tiled. The question is, is whether it may remain open. Okay back to the Conditional Use Permit site- specific requirements. On Page 8, Items 5, 6, 7 and 8 are wanting to be discussed. Five would be we are requesting that the applicant state the hours of operation for the uses. Item No. 6 is related to a 10-foot landscape buffer along Baltic Place. Item 7, this is dealing with the landscaping and the planter islands. The applicant actually has a color graphic that will help show you the landscape better than this plan does. The written comment on seven says that no more than 12 spaces in a row without an internal planter island. That’s straight out of the Ordinance. The applicant is proposing that, that be stretched in a couple of places to allow for 13 in a few places and I think 14 in one or two places. In the meetings that I’ve had with the applicant, from my perspective I don’t really see a big problem with that. This is a Planned Development and as such, those types of conditions can be altered without actually filing a variance. I would just have the applicant make the presentation to you and have you make that decision. Item No. 8 is dealing with fencing. I’m not really sure what the issue is there so I’ll let the applicant tackle that one. With that I will stand for any questions. Borup: Any questions? Centers: Mr. Chairman. Steve, without me going through and totaling it, what was the total amount of open space in the percentage? I didn’t read it. Siddoway: I don’t know that it was ever presented to us. It’s certainly more than the 10 percent. We’ll have the applicant address that. I don’t know. Borup: Anyone else? Okay, I’m sure we’ll have somemore staff questions. Would the applicant like to come forward and make their presentation? Nickel: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Nice to see you all again this evening. My name is Shawn Nickel. I’m with Land Consultants Incorporated, 52 North Second Street in Eagle. I’m representing L.C. Development this evening. Mr. Lee Centers is present and also I brought with me Matt Munger from Hubble Engineering, the Project Engineer. If any specific engineering questions do arise tonight he’ll be able to address them. Are we going to take all three applications at once? Borup: Yes. Nickel: Good – Borup: -- just go down through your – Nickel: I can do that. The staff did a good job explaining the merits of the project. We do want to thank staff for helping us because we had a lot more Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 7 issues that we did get to resolve before we came here this evening and we narrowed it down to 6 or 7. Some of them are just more or less questions than contentions. Item No. 3 on the annexation site specific requirements. Borup: I assume by that, that you do not want it limited to those two uses, office and retail? Is that the concern? Nickel: Yes I understand why the City likes to review those applications and there are some uses within the C-G zone that I believe that Planning and Zoning Commission and staff should review. In looking through the Zoning Ordinance in the C-G designation, you do require a Conditional Use Permit for a service station and the laundromats and convenience stores things like that. We would just like to maybe the principal permitted be principal permitted with the C-G zone. It’s very similar to what we did out at the Hubble Engineering plat a couple years ago where we actually put in our Development Agreement that we limited certain uses that were outright prohibited. You know service stations were one of them. The applicant would like to just have the flexibility. He doesn’t have any intentions of having those extreme uses in the commercial part of the subdivision. Those are Conditional Uses now and they would remain that way. So, we would just like to have the principal permitted uses be principal permitted within the C-G zone. Borup: Which includes service stations – Nickel: Service stations, I believe are Conditional Uses listed. If for some reason someone wanted to come in and do that it would have to go through a Conditional Use Permit and come back through you. Borup: Not on my chart. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nickel: Let me double check but if it’s not on your chart we would agree to make that a Conditional Use. Nary: The one I have. The 11-8-1 shows it as a permitted use. Borup: Okay I didn’t think those had changed. Nickel: Under the C-G zone? (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nary: Service stations and car washes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 8 Borup: The only reason I brought that up is because you specifically mentioned it. Nickel: Right, okay. Nary: Bus stations. Nickels: If there are specific uses that the Commission would like to put in the Development Agreement that they would remain a Conditional Use Permit that would be fine with us. Nary: Like a bus station? Nickels: Yes bus station, service station anything like that. If you want to go down the list we could do that, or you can just make a recommendation to the City Council and we would provide a list for them. However you would like us to handle that. Borup: Yes, Commissioner Nary. Nary: I guess, Mr. Nickel, what I’m curious on this point is that what they’re saying is retail. I don’t know whether or not what the planning staff’s preference to sort of define what it means when it says retail and residential, office and retail I’m sorry are the only ones allowed because there’s other things that I don’t know. Certainly sometimes certain types of car washes have a retail attachment to them or something like that. I’m not sure. It certain seems to me that office and retail is pretty broad. Nickels: Right. Nary: It would only eliminate certain things like probably a gas station. I’m not going to assume there’s going to be a bus station there anyway. Borup: But, isn’t a gas station retail? Nary: That’s what I’m saying is some of them do, most of them do anymore. I’m not sure but my assumption was that there would probably be some further discussion as to what that means once the actual agreement gets drafted. So, I think they are kind of giving you what you’re asking for. I don’t know how much more open ended you can make it. Nickel: One use, if I may, one use that does pop into my mind would be a day care center for example. That would be required to do a Conditional Use Permit under the Development Agreement that’s currently proposed. That would be one we would like to have remain a principal permitted use. Not subject to go back through the Conditional Use process again. We feel that right now, we’re going Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 9 through a Conditional Use Permit for the project, for the apartment complex and also for the commercial office buildings that were part of our design. Nary: Mr. Nickel, a childcare center is a Conditional Use in a C-G zone. Borup: Right. That’s what I was going to say too. Nary: You’re saying you wanted a permitted use? Nickel: I believe there are some day cares. Centers: Would it be easier to list the ones that you prefer, rather than the ones to delete? Borup: It’ll probably be easier to delete them. It depends on – maybe staff could give some input. Were there some specific uses that you were concerned about? I assume matter of fact, heavy manufacturing and anything else? Siddoway: Heavy Manufacturing would be prohibited in C-G anyway. Borup: Okay so what uses were you – I think maybe the question would be like Commissioner Nary mentioned. What’s the definition of retail? I mean there is no definition in our ordinance is there? Would that be up to staff’s interpretation, or whose? Siddoway: It does get a little airy in that. I’ll just pull an example off of here. Okay bakery stores, we do have retail listed. Retail stores, if they want to do a bakery and it’s not -- (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Siddoway: -- then does it have to go through a Conditional Use Permit? That could be a problem in my mind so I don’t think we would really have a problem with a bakery going in. I honestly don’t know where the requirement came from to give an exact response. A lot of the concern goes with convenience stores and things but they’re a conditional use in C-G. Nary: I don’t see day care as defined as separately than childcare. Siddoway: Day cares definitely require a Conditional Use Permit and I think it should. Nary: And a childcare center requires it already. Nickel: If it does require it I’m not going to sit up here and say bring it back down to principal permitted use. You can keep it as a Conditional Use Permit. I would Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 10 just like to stick with the principal permitted uses in the zone. What we find is that a potential business will look at the code, see that it’s principal permitted. Then they have to now go through the four-month process to get a Conditional Use Permit approved for what they feel is a principal permitted use. They might go over to Boise where a principal permitted use is just that permitted and they can get a Building Permit and go through design review. Then they’re off in a month. That’s kind of where the concern originated from. I do understand and appreciate the need for the Conditional Use approval process and I don’t want to get around that. Nary: So, if I understand you, Mr. Nickel, then there wouldn’t be a need for a Development Agreement if you could already have all the permitted uses in a C- G zone (inaudible). Nickel: I would ask that of the attorney. I guess not I don’t know what else we would be – Nary: So, if we think a Development Agreement is appropriate with some limitation, then you would just like us to not be too restrictive on those limitations? Nickel: And if you see some uses within the C-G zone that are principal that you feel uncomfortable with, then by all means we can discuss those and you can add that to the Development Agreement to go through the Conditional Use process. I think that’s kind of where we’re headed with that. Borup: I think maybe we could handle that in a couple of minutes. I just went through the list. I don’t know if these are necessarily -- the bus and rail, the sites not big enough to handle that anyway but I assume that’s not an anticipated use. That could be excluded. How about hotel? That could be -- those are the only two I saw other than maybe, there’s one under the industrial, where did it go? Heavy farm equipment sales and repair. I don’t know why that would necessarily be an objection either. Nary: I guess, Mr. Chairman – Borup: Not in this location. Nary: -- my only thought would be if there’s a specific concern that the planning staff has to what type of uses in this particular location. That’s probably what we would want to include. Those require a Conditional Use. The ones that already require it, that’s not an issue. So, it’s just the permitted ones that you have some concern that we need to. That’s fine. Certainly (inaudible) the ones that are fairly obvious and if there are some of the other ones that aren’t. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 11 Nickels: I think what I did is when I was reading over for day care, I skipped down a line and saw P instead of C. Siddoway: I did find the service station that is permitted. t is confusing because we do have service stations listed but before it -- under the A's we have Automobile Service Stations. Automobile Service Stations are permitted but service stations are a Conditional Use. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Siddoway: I don’t know what other kind of service stations there are. Borup: That’s what I was going to ask. Tell us the difference. Siddoway: I cannot. So, if we restricted Automobile Service Stations – Borup: That was a concern too, service stations? Siddoway: I think so. Borup: Okay that -- bus terminal and hotel. Do you see anything else on the list? Siddoway: I’m scanning. I haven’t – Borup: -- I went by them one at a time. Other than heavy equipment – I think we could use some logic here too. I mean there are certain things that are just not going to be accommodated there whether they are allowed or not. Siddoway: Maybe while Mr. Nickel has the rest of his stuff to speak to. We (inaudible). Borup: Yes because we’re approving the plat to have some of these other more intensive use they’d have to redesign the plat. Nickels: I apologize for -- I didn’t want to make it so – Borup: You’re saying the same thing other applicants have said in the past. Nickels: It’s just allowing that flexibility. I do really believe that if a potential owner does see that P on there for principal permitted if they’re required to go through a Conditional Use process, it could make or break the deal so to speak. We just want that flexibility. Whatever you’re comfortable with I believe we can agree to. Borup: Those three items, do you think that would cover things Steve? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 12 Siddoway: Just scanning through, I’m not seeing any others that are of concern to me. Borup: Anything else from any of the Commissioners? So that would be acceptable if we exempt those three items? Service station, bus and train terminals and hotel from the permitted use? Siddoway: Yes. Borup: That would it -- those three items? Nickel: Yes sir. Borup: Then that would leave – so then for the Commissioners that would -- Item No. 3 in the staff comments that would delete the necessity of the Development Agreement. Is that what we’re saying? We still need a Development Agreement? Nary: Right. Borup: But, it just won’t have the condition on the office and retail as only? Nary: Right. Borup: Rather than saying those would be the only uses, we’d be saying the other three are not allowed and would be deleted from the permitted uses or however. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nary: Talking about this, the permitted uses allowed. Wholesale facilities is that a retail outlet? Is that a concern as a permitted use it also indicates truck stops – Borup: Which item is that? Nary: In the C-G zone, wholesale facilities, truck stops are allowed as a permitted use. Siddoway: There you go. Nary: Storage facilities – Borup: We missed – what page was that on? Siddoway: It’s in the industrial section and it does list them under the C-G zone. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 13 Nary: (Inaudible) commercial and a C-G zone. Those types of things do sometimes get people, well truck stops certainly do. Wholesale facility, depends on the size of it and the storage facility. Again, it depends. There are certainly people that have some concerns about those types of things on occasion. Again another reason that may have been listed as (inaudible). (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Siddoway: You could simply exclude all industrial uses from the permitted list. Nary: Which is I think the reason that it was written more in the affirmative of let’s allow these uses rather than let’s exclude the others. So that we didn’t get into this laundry list of trying to use it. I could see that there would be some concerns about some of those types of uses, or could be at least in that particular location. Laundromats, I don’t know if people have a concern about those kinds of things there. That’s another listed permitted use. I don’t know if the City has a concern in allowing that outright at this juncture. I don’t know. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: It sounds like maybe we ought to pass on this for right now. While the meeting is going on is there someone who can compile a list that we can come back to? Nary: In the industrial section it lists, automobile wrecking yard. Not that you’re going to do that there but it’s just another thing – Siddoway: I’ll do the list. Borup: You’ll do it? Siddoway: I’ll write one up. Borup: I was going to say, Mr. Centers, would you want to look through this too while he’s doing that while we go on? Would that help you? Centers: I think it’s these two pages here so why don’t you take those (inaudible). Borup: Okay let’s go on to the next item. Nickel: Thank you. The next item was annexation and zoning standard requirement No. 1. That’s your standard requirement stating that all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to a parcel shall be tiled per City Ordinance. In our discussions with Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 14 staff early on, I thought we had come to the conclusion that we were going to be allowed to fence the Hunter Lateral which is on the south boundary of our property. It is completely off of our site. The easement is all that lies adjacent to our property. Borup: Adjacent or part of your property? Nickel: No, it’s adjacent. (Inaudible) the easement comes onto our property. The lateral itself is off of our property. Borup: Right because your plat shows – Centers: Part of the easement is on your property? Nickel: Part of the easement, correct. But the entire lateral is off of the property. Our intention was to provide a six-foot chainlink fence along the easement line of that canal but leave the canal open. For obvious safety reasons, it would be solid. There wouldn’t be any access points within the canal. Borup: Do you understand the reason that’s there is because that’s a City Ordinance? Nickel: Correct. I do know that we have been able to apply for waivers in the past on that and I guess that’s what we’d be asking for tonight. Borup: We’d be in a position where we could make a recommendation but City Council would be the one to grant the waiver. Nickel: Right and I would hope that –that’s what we would ask for tonight is that if you could make that recommendation. Borup: Now, can you tell us the status of that ditch on both sides of you and through other developments? Nickel: I believe there’s a proposed pathway along the south side of the ditch. Steve, could you verify that? (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nickel: The south side of the Hunter Lateral does have a designation for a future pathway I believe. Siddoway: I don’t believe there is a pathway along that Hunter. Pathways follow all the natural drains. Hold on one second let me go get the map. Nickel: Maybe it’s just something that’s used as a pathway – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 15 Borup: Maybe it is. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: What’s the reason you want to waive it? Nickel: Just to leave it natural. That’s one reason to have the chainlink fence as opposed to a solid cedar fence is to allow part of the apartments – Centers: It’s on the far left end of the drawing? Nickel: Right. Borup: Has there been any – (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nickel: Just more of a visual. Borup: Has there been any discussion with the Irrigation District? Nickel: The fence that we provide would be on the easement line. Borup: I mean, you haven’t talked to them about this then? Nickel: No, we haven’t. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman the City does not require a pathway along there according to the Comprehensive Plan. If they are proposing to leave it open, I would say at the least it should be improved somehow to become an amenity not just the fact that it’s being left open. I mean, you certainly could do a pathway along it as part of their development but the City is not requiring one that will connect to other places in the City. If it is left open, it would certainly at least be an amenity. Nickel: I guess our concern is that we don’t own the canal. It’s off our property. If it was on the property I could understand maybe requiring it to be tiled. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 16 Nary: I’m looking at the Ordinance here though, Mr. Nickel and it does require it if it’s adjacent to your property. It does require under the Ordinance to waive that requirement that you have to show public purpose. I think that’s what Mr. Siddoway is saying. The public purpose isn’t just to leave the ditch because you don’t want to tile it and then you can look at it. The public purpose of not tiling it is the amenity of having that visual accent to that property. Then I guess you would need to present that there’s some visual improvement by leaving it that way or improving the look of it so it’s not just a weed filled ditch. If it’s just s weed filled ditch you’re going to put a chainlink fence on, I think you should tile it. I can’t see a reason to leave it that way. Nickel: I guess if we could get permission by both the Irrigation District and the property owner to the south to go in there and rehabilitate it, I think that would be great. We would definitely do that. It’s up to them to give us access to it obviously. That’s something that we would work with them on. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: I have one suggestion. One thing the Council is going to be interested in, is they’re going to want to see some supporting information from the Irrigation District as to the size requirement of the tile that would go in there. That would help them make their decision on the waiver. So, you might get together with them, Shawn and find out what it would take. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Commissioner Nary pulled this out and brought it up. It states ditches or laterals touch each other both sides of the area shall be covered enclosed, (inaudible). I was reading if it were on the property, which it’s not lying adjacent and contiguous. (Inaudible). Both sides of the area being subdivided. Well, both sides aren’t being subdivided (inaudible). See what I mean? (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: Mr. Nickel. The cemetery, are they the property owner to the south? Nickel: No, to the west they’re the property owners. Borup: But not to the south? I mean, your map – Nickel: On the other side of the canal? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 17 Borup: Your submission looks like it’s the same parcel -- so, you’re not sure who the property owner is then? (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: There should have been a notice sent to them, whoever it is. Nickel: You guys sent the notices. The City would have sent the notice. There is a pathway along the cemetery side of the canal. I do know that. Borup: There is, so it would be on the north side. Nickel: I guess one reason that I thought that we were on the same page with staff as far as fencing the ditch is if you look at the Preliminary Plat requirement No. 2 which is actually No. 1. Again it states that all fencing located adjacent to the Hunter Lateral shall be built on the easement line. That’s where I thought that we were on the same page as staff as far as not having to tile the ditch. You do have to make that recommendation to the City Council. I would like to ask that if you could make a recommendation and if we could place on that recommendation that, that would be contingent upon getting with the Irrigation District, getting with the property owner along the south and seeing if we could get permission to rehabilitate that portion of the canal. Then we could have a chainlink fence along the easement line. Also I guess you would add what Bruce stated about finding out the flows and things like that for the canal so we could present that to the Council with your recommendation. Would you like me to continue this? Borup: Let’s go ahead. Nickel: We’re almost done here. Under Conditional Use Permit site specific No. 5, staff had asked for hours of operation for the retail commercial uses. At this time, the developer was not going to have any designated hours of operation considering where on Franklin Road this piece of property was at. Then the fact that he’s surrounded on three sides by industrial and commercial and the foster care would be on the west. That would be the only residential on those three sides and there’s question on whether that falls under the category of residential because of the type of care facility it is. Borup: I guess the applicant will be retaining ownership of the apartments? Nickel: Yes. Borup: Steve, could you clarify on Medimont, if you remember? It seems to me, like there were hours of operation on the east side but on the west side there were not. Or am I thinking of – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 18 (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: Maybe it was Conditional Use was on the east side and on the west side was any permitted use, or both perhaps? (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: No, the east had the restriction because it had the neighbors there. The west didn’t have -- Siddoway: Mr. Chairman my recollection is that it was a Conditional Use requirement like you said on the east – Borup: -- and the west was any permitted use with the zoning? Siddoway: Yes. Borup: Do you recall whether even any hours of operation were mentioned in that? Siddoway: Not that I recall. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Steve was there a concern about 24-hour operation on that location? Is that the concern? Siddoway: That obviously is the concern. I was thinking through you know, who it’s going to impact. It’ll impact their own project. Nary: Would it be reasonable to agree that the condition that there not be a 24- hour operation without a Conditional Use but other than that? That would give you a lot of flexibility but if you wanted to have an all night convenience store type of operation, then it will just have to have a Conditional Use Permit. Siddoway: Or even not more than 18 hours. Nickel: What I believe is that, Mr. Commissioner, in the case of the convenience store we’ve agreed that we’re going to do that as a Conditional Use Permit anyway. So, that would have to come back and the hours of operation could be discussed at that time and then placed on the conditions for that saying that the service station or even a bar would have to come back as a Conditional Use, as we already established. I remember that when Mr. Centers went through his Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 19 Locust Grove project that the concern you had for the hours of operation was because of the neighbors immediately to the, I believe it was the north. Borup: North and south. Nickel: North and south of that. Nary: These will have neighbors and I recognize that it’s a PUD but there will be neighbors to this project. I guess that’s still the same concern. I guess I don’t know why that would impact you in a negative way if we simply said that there wouldn’t be a 24-hour operation without a Conditional Use. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nickel: I don’t think it would be. That’s easy enough for me to put that on there. Let me jump down to the next one while we (inaudible). No. 6 was in regard to – (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nickel: We probably should wait for staff here. The question from the Commission was if we would agree to a Conditional Use Permit if we were going to have an establishment with a 24-hour operation such as a convenience store or something like that. Could you, Commissioner --? Nary: You couldn’t have a 24-hour operation without having a Conditional Use Permit because I don’t know what type of 24-hour operation that there may be. You’re not going to have an all night doughnut shop out there without at least having a Conditional Use so people have the opportunity to provide some input if they have any. I don't know I know there aren’t a lot of houses out that way. I know there aren’t very many. I don’t know exactly the kind of facility that’s next to it. It appears to be a residence of some sort and it appears to have people living there. I certainly would have some concern that they would have a concern about having a 24-hour operation whether it’s a 7-Eleven or something else, a coffee shop or whatever. I don’t know that that seems very limiting, to me, for your operation. Nickel: I don’t think it does. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: I think (inaudible) saying rather than you need to pronounce specific hours just a statement that there would be no 24-hour and not have to list specific hours – (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 20 Nickel: I’m not concerned. Like I stated, the uses that I’m thinking of are bars and convenience stores. They’re going to be a Conditional Use Permit anyway. I do agree that they need to be looked at on an individual basis. Unidentified: So, it’ll only be open 23 hours. Centers: That one was easier wasn’t it? Nickel: Then No. 7, unless Steve – I’m sorry 6. The commercial building on lot 3 block 1 shall provide the required 10-foot landscape buffer along south Baltic Place, when we went through ACHD. Their condition was that we turn Baltic Place into a private driveway rather than a public right-of-way. They do not want to maintain it. On our revisions I believe you received, we have turned that into a common driveway, private drive common driveway. I don’t believe that that landscape condition would apply. Siddoway: It doesn’t apply to driveways, just public streets. Nickel: So, I just ask that that one be modified through (inaudible) understanding that South Baltic Place is no longer a public right-of-way. Shall I continue? Borup: Yes. Nickel: Item No. 7 is the item that Steve had discussed regarding the linear grouping of the parking spaces. We have four areas within the – let’s put it this way, we have four areas within the development that have 13 spaces in a row. This area up here. These two rows right there. This area right here. We already added some. We worked with staff and we added some where we agreed that they were too long. I guess our contention is that, and I understand that it’s part of the code and we have to ask for the waiver on it, is that – ***End Of Side One*** Nickel: -- all the landscaping that he is providing along the entire subdivision, we have an excess of I believe 23,000 square-feet of additional open space above the 10 percent required. We believe that we provide enough landscaping along the parking area. I believe what the intent of the code was not to have a sea of asphalt. I believe that we have provided that. Once again I know its part of your code and we would have to ask for a waiver to that. We could come in here and add on to these islands, make these islands bigger and bring it down to 12 spaces. All that would do it would eliminate a needed parking space within the development. Parking spaces are kind of gold in apartment complexes these days. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 21 Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Are those areas you identified, Mr. Nickel, is that landscape sort of grass buffer right next to that? Nickel: Yes. Nary: Are those black dots trees? Nickel: Yes. Nary: Oh, okay. Borup: So, you have four areas with 13 each? Nickel: Right we’re over by one space. Siddoway: Shawn, excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I guess I should address you. Aren’t there a couple of spots in the commercial parking lot that are 14? Just to make sure its clear. Borup: In my mind, I mean, the Ordinance says that many – (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: The intention was being more of a visual thing. People driving down the street don’t see a big sea of asphalt. Siddoway: That’s exactly the intent. Borup: So, I don’t have as much concern back where the apartments are because you’re not going to see any of that. Nary: Right next to that there’s grass and trees. Borup: I think it’s the stuff up in the commercial area that to me would be more of a concern than back in the apartment area. Nickel: We’re okay on the commercial. We don’t have any that are over 12. Borup: So, there’s been a redesign for the one that we have then? Nickel: What is the date on yours? Borup: It was received June 8th . I’ve got the wrong one. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 22 (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nickel: I didn’t see any that were over 12 in there. If you just want to make that as a condition then the commercial portion of the project not exceed the 12, we will agree with that. That’s not a problem. It only gets easier from here. No. 8 just has to do with fencing. Basically, I just wanted to explain to the Commission what we plan to do for the fencing. We’re not in opposition to any of the conditions with the exception of the Hunter Lateral. Our intention is to have the 6-foot high chainlink fence along the south boundary on the easement line provided we get the waiver with your recommendation. Along the cemetery, we would provide a 6-foot chainlink fence to the point of the parcel that has the group care, the delinquent care, whatever its called. At that point, we have a 6- foot high cedar fence with the steel posts. There’s an existing fence along the eastern boundary of the project. Borup: Could you elaborate then on, is there any other landscaping? What have we got between the fence and the garages? Those are garages aren’t they, on the west? Nickel: Right. Borup: And the east? Nickel: That’s a 5-foot. That goes into the next one, which is the buffer issue. Borup: Okay. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nickel: Is that the only question on the fencing? Should I go to the next one? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Yes I had a question Mr. Nickel. Why is there chainlink fencing along the cemetery and just the cedar fencing along the rest of the house? Why is that? Nickel: I believe that zoning is still residential on that front parcel. It was just to act as a buffer to them. Nary: What I’m thinking is there are garages and there’s probably some activity in these apartments and common spaces something like that. There’s probably going to be some noise and light spillage and those types of things right onto that cemetery. Is there any reason why you can’t put cedar fencing, solid fencing all along the cemetery side? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 23 Nickel: We could. The only reason we didn’t is because we have the row of garages along the side of it. You know with the few gaps that you would have -- I mean we could put cedar along there. Borup: Commissioner Nary, are you concerned about disturbing the occupants? Nary: I’m concerned with disturbing the people that go to see the occupants. I mean there are people that go there. You know, if you’re sitting there seeing your loved one and there’s a volleyball game over there and all the noise and the stereo and everything else. I know it’s not all going to be shut out by the cedar fence but I guess I didn’t see any reason why you would put chainlink there and not just have a solid fence. Nickel: I actually wasn’t even considering the cemetery. That’s a good idea. We would have no problem with that. I was – Borup: The other thing to consider then with a solid fence, you’ve got an enclosed area that’s out of view. With some potential problems kids getting back in there. Nary: Which part? Between the – Borup: Yes, between the garages and the fence. Nary: Which is why they have a 20-foot landscape buffer. Borup: Well, they don’t there. Nary: They don’t but then wasn’t that part of the concern is they were supposed to have a 20-foot landscape buffer? Borup: No I think that’s on the commercial part of it. Nickel: Actually, I’m going to address that next. n the next one, we are going to talk about the buffer waiver that we’re asking for. Nary: Okay. Nickel: Can Mr. Centers address the issue regarding the fence -- Borup: On the fence? Sure. L. Centers: Lee Centers, 325 Meridian Street. We’ll do whatever you want. I just thought with the metal fence you could see it. Right now there are no headstones right in that area. They’re farther over. It’s all green grass. It just Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 24 seems more open. With the garages there, there’s your buffer. We can certainly landscape between the garages that would help buffer sound, light. But, whatever you want to do, we’ll do. Nary: My only concern Mr. Centers, like I said you know people using the cemetery, going there to see them. There’s activity in this apartment complex which I think you know just may be a disturbance. You know I just see conflict. A fence certainly may help avoid some of that conflict but I think Chairman Borup is right. The only other concern would then be sort of creating a sort of dead zone that’s a good hiding place. Borup: The reason I said that. We’ve had a lot o f testimony on that with these access paths with the fences. We’re not allowing that anymore for that reason. Nary: There are ways to do that. I mean you can fence off the edges of the garages so that they aren’t accessible for people to walk through. I mean there are ways to curb that as well if you’re going to have it that close. I was just concerned about -- it is going to be a place -- you know there may be a lot of younger people. I don’t know what type of folks are going to be living there. It just seems like a place that may have some incompatibility or at least some conflict that could probably be avoided. Borup: I don’t think you’ve got a lot of evening conflicts. People just don’t go there that late. Nary: But in the summer and on the weekends. Borup: It’s light pretty late. L. Centers: Excuse me. I think you’re making a mountain out of a molehill because if you have the cedar fence, they’re going to look at a cedar fence. If you have a chainlink they’re going to look at the back of a garage, Commissioner Nary. What is more aesthetic? I don’t know. They’re not going to be able to see out anyway. Those people going into grieve for their loved one aren’t going to be able to see out, they’ll be looking at the back of a garage. Nary: I think the distance from the property line to the apartment buildings themselves is a pretty good distance. You’ve got the garages, you’ve got the row, and you’ve got the parking lot. You’re going to be able to see the cars and that other stuff but probably not much as far as people. The way the layout is. Nickel: Commissioners one thing that I could suggest that was just kind of whispered to me in the back. Since we are asking on the next one for a waiver on the setback for those garages we could, if the code will allow it, place the garages on the property and then have a solid fence in between the garage Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 25 building. Then you wouldn’t have that, pardon the pun, dead zone back there. It would be one solid wall and fence next to the cemetery. Nary: Then we would need to simply recommend a zero lot line for that side. Then the Council could approve that. Nickel: I believe that we could do that through the PUD process. We’re asking for a 5-foot right now. I guess we could modify that just to ask for a zero lot line on that. Borup: How do you get back there and maintain the -- Nickel: There wouldn’t be anything to maintain back there. Borup: Oh, so, it’s going to be vinyl? If it’s painted you’ve got to get back there and paint. I mean, I’m saying the building itself. Nickel: Right. Borup: If you’ve got an overhang, you’re not going to be able to be right on the property line but real close, you’re saying? Nickel: Yes within that 5-foot – Borup: Well, you can get it down to one foot or two feet. Then there’s still going to be some maintenance there for weed control and that kind of stuff unless it’s paved. I guess that’s the other option, yeah. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: Shawn, as he mentioned, that could be another option. You could go ahead and plant grass in there and let the cemetery mow it. Nickel: Yes what we could do is we could stick with the 5-foot setback, have the fence setback 5-foot as well and then do as you stated have the grass back there and have it maintained by the cemetery. I don’t think they would mind. Borup: (Inaudible) Nickel: (Inaudible) in No. 9 why we’re asking for the waiver on that. It’s very similar to the Locust Grove where you’re going to have a visual and noise buffer with those garages from the cemetery and also from the commercial to the east. I will leave it up to your recommendation how you’d like to see it. If you want to do a 5-foot, we can get with the cemetery and agree to work out that strip. I think that would be a lot better than having us try to maintain something back there having to get back there. You’re going to have some weeds back there and that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 26 gets back to Commissioner Nary’s statement about people that are coming to the cemetery having to do that. Borup: I mean, a little narrow strip. It’s a problem to maintain everything else. I don’t know if the Commission then has any concern about which way you go. It’s probably what you’d work out with the cemetery. Nary: It appears there’s enough flexibility Mr. Chairman, (inaudible). We can recommend in the lot line variance that the way eight is written that its really pretty much between you and the city to work out where the fencing is or how the fencing has to be. Nickel: Okay. Nary: It can certainly include some of our thoughts and recommendations but really the way its written it says its for you and the city to decide. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: That’s about a good a buffer to do it, Is a long row of garage buildings. Nary: Sure. Nickel: I guess what your recommendation would be then would just be the waiver from the 20 to the five for the garages on that portion? Borup: I don’t even know if we’ve discussed that yet so let’s go into that. Nickel: That was No. 9 and that was the last one. The Landscape Ordinance does require a 20-foot landscape buffer between different land uses. That being, we’ll just call it residential for right now, on the west and the commercial on the east and the cemetery. Proposing the 5-foot setback for the garage structures because we believe that’s a good visual and noise buffer between the uses and also the office setbacks up front. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Nickel, on the area that’s next to that house right there, you want that to be a 5-foot buffer as well? Nickel: That is correct. Nary: Have you spoken with those people? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 27 Borup: No. 9 talks about a reduction just in the commercial area. That’s why I was getting a little confused on why you were talking about reduction in the apartment complex. What is the zoning for the cemetery? (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: Oh, it’s in the County? Meridian Cemetery is in the County? Nickel: Yes it’s an RUT zoning. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nary: I guess, Mr. Nickel, just so you know my concern would be again I don’t know that we all know very clearly what use that property is but it certainly looks like a house and it looks like people live in it. Borup: You mean the one up there on the -- Nary: Right. Borup: Isn’t that the one that he said was a youth care facility? Nary: Steve said the same thing. I don’t know that any of us know exactly what it is. I’m just concerned with putting a building 5 feet from these people’s property line. Unidentified: I am too. Nickel: Let me correct something. The waiver that we’re asking for actually on those is a 10-foot waiver rather than a 5-foot. I apologize for that. From the 20 to 10. Let me just read what the staff analysis says regarding that use. The applicant has proposed a 10-foot buffer between the single-family home and the undeveloped (inaudible) County-zoned property based on the fact that the home is not being utilized as a typical residential home. The existing home is being utilized as a group foster home otherwise known as a transitional treatment center for juveniles who are on probation. Up to 10 juveniles ages 13 to 16 are allowed in the house along with house staff. Your staff does recommend approval of that waiver. It would be 10 feet, not 5. Kind of a side note, my client does have a letter from the center. He didn’t bring it. I would ask that if you want to put it in your recommendation for the waiver that we present that to the City Council. He’s got a letter from the owner of the property who reviewed this plat and was fine with the 10-foot setback. I’m sorry we don’t have it. If you were to make a recommendation with that waiver, we would agree to present that to the City Council. Borup: So, you’re saying that neighbor is okay with the 10-foot? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 28 Nary: Where was the section that you were reading from? Nickel: I’m sorry, Page 7, oh I’m sorry again page – Nary: Oh, it is Page 7, I see the first full paragraph? Nickel: Yes. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nary: Mr. Chairman I guess I’d ask the staff, if we agree to that I certainly think we should amend that. I don’t think we want to base a waiver on the fact that it’s not a typical family home environment. I mean if people sleep there, I don’t think we need to make that judgement as to whether or not that’s typical and therefore it’s okay, its not typical therefor it is okay. I guess that would be my concern is how that’s drafted. If you’re saying that you can submit a letter that shows that they have no objection to it, then that’s fine. I’d hate to base the reason we did is because you don’t fit the criteria of what’s typical therefor it’s okay if we waive the requirement. Nickel: I agree I don’t think that’s fair to – I was just trying to define what the use actually was. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: I think that would be good. Nickel: Then the second part of that waiver, Mr. Chairman is regarding the front setbacks on the commercial lots. I believe we were asking for – let me find it here. Do you see that requirement, or that staff analysis Steve? (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Siddoway: Of which? I’m sorry I was amending the wording. Borup: Is that what you’re referring to is lot 3? Nickel: Part of our waiver is that the front setback on the commercial lots. Borup: You’re saying setbacks from Franklin? Nickel: No each of the lots in the subdivision that are platted would be required to have a, I believe it’s a 20-foot front yard setback. Typically you’d have a front setback on something like Franklin Road. In our situation, we’re fronting onto our parking lot, so within our waiver we’re asking for a reduction in the front yard Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 29 setback through the PUD process to expand that building envelope of those structures. Borup: To 10 feet? Nickel: To 10 feet. That is correct. As I stated in my letter in my packet, all the lots with the exception of lot 11 front on a parking lot. If we had a scale the building on lot 11 and the building on lot 12 would have a 20-foot buffer between the buildings, which would be appropriate for fire protection. Nary: It’s on Page 5 in Sub B, third full paragraph in the staff (inaudible). Nickel: Right, we’re asking from a 15 to a 5. Borup: I thought you said 10. Nickel: I did I’m getting confused with our own waivers. Borup: The site plans are drawn at what setback? Nickel: What scale? Borup: Yes that does not look like 5 feet. It looks closer to 10 to me, on the one I have anyway. Nickel: It’s a 50 scale I believe it is. Borup: Our site plan doesn’t have any dimensions but it’s definitely not 5 feet. I don’t know. I shouldn’t say that. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: These setbacks here? This one may be either way, it doesn’t matter what it is. I guess the question is you’re requesting to be reduced to 5 feet? Nickel: To within 5 feet of the front yard setback. Borup: Any discussion on that from the Commissioners? The one, maybe I would have concern on is on lot 3. I mean that was kind of already addressed. It’s not a public street but it still has the appearance of a public street and having those two buildings to me is probably a little bit close to that street. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: The rest are more interior type buildings. I don’t know that it would matter. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 30 Nickel: I guess it would depend, on lot 3 on what you would consider to be the front property line and the side. Borup: I’m looking at the side property line is what I’m really looking at, not the front. Okay, so that would be 10 feet on the side. Oh, you mean all of it would be 10 feet together? (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: You mean the gutter on Baltic Place? Is that the gutter you’re referring to? Nickel: (Inaudible) might be able to explain that a little clearer. Borup: Okay. Munger: Matt Munger with Hubble Engineering 71 Allen Street. What we’re looking at there is the setbacks that we’re asking for are from the property line. That’s where I think some of that’s coming in. There’s a curb and gutter along the side of south Baltic Place there and then a 5-foot sidewalk. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Munger: From the roadway itself, we would have more than 10 feet. It’s from the side lot line that we are requesting the 5-foot setback. That’s the same on the other ones where the parking lots are. You can see where the lot line is it runs along the back of the sidewalk on the parking lot. Borup: Yes. Munger: That’s a 5-foot sidewalk. I believe the buildings right now are drawn at 60 from that. That’s the reason for the request for the 5-foot. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Are we talking about condition No. 6 on the Conditional Use Permit site specific? Is that the one? The lot 3 block one 10-foot landscape buffer? Borup: Yes. Nary: Along south Baltic Place? Borup: Well, which page is that on? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 31 Nary: Page 8. Nickel: No we’re actually talking about No. 9. No. 6 doesn’t really apply anymore because Baltic’s no longer a public right-of-way. Nary: It’s a private street. Nickel: It’s No. 9 that we’re trying to handle the setback. I think Steve just scaled off the plan and it shows a 10-foot --. Siddoway: In almost every case, the setback on the plan, if you look at those building footprints, they are 10-foot setbacks from the property line. On some of these lots like lot 2 and lot 3 it’s unclear which would be the front. You know, it has parking lots on both sides, which one is the front? Can the other one go to zero, which is what the C-G actually allows in the C-G zone? We would just looking at this I propose just requiring a 10-foot setback on all sides. Which would give you the 20 feet between buildings which is what t he fire department wants for fire suppression and fire protection. I’ll let the applicant respond to that but that would be my recommendation is just to say 10-foot setback on all sides. That gives you 10 foot from the front, 10 foot from the parking lot in the rear and 20 feet between buildings. It just seems to make sense on all sides. Borup: So, did staff just overlook that in their comments then? Siddoway: Yes. Nickel: I apologize again for having this be so convoluted. Steve’s right. There are a couple on lots 9, 10 and 11 on the north side of those, those only scale out at 7 and a half between the building and the (inaudible). Siddoway: So, you’ve got a big back yard. Nickel: The other ones that aren’t, are over on Baltic over there. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: Some of them have more than that though. Did you comment on the Fire Department’s request to have 20 feet between the buildings? So, you’re saying you’re asking for a waiver of that? Nickel: No what I was just pointing out was that if you did grant the waiver for the front yard setbacks, I was just pointing out that lot 11 is the only one that does not front onto a parking lot. Therefore – Borup: The 5 feet is just for the front, not for the sides? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 32 Nickel: That’s correct. Borup: The sides stay at 10? Siddoway: The Ordinance allows, I’ll look this up to be sure, but I believe it allows it to go down to zero. Borup: On the sides in the front or where? Which side is zero? Siddoway: 15-foot front, zero rear, zero interior side, zero street side. Borup: So, what’s this thing about the Fire Department and their 20 foot between buildings? That’s separate from the Ordinance? Siddoway: Yes that’s just their personal desire. Unidentified: That’s uniform fire code. Siddoway: It’s uniform fire code. Borup: So, the fire code and the allowance don’t jive? (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Siddoway: If they go less than that they have to do more fire suppression, longer hour walls, things like that. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: So, would that come into play when the Building Permit’s applied for then? Would that automatically take care of itself? Siddoway: If you just make it 10 feet on all sides, it’s taken care of because you’d have a 20-foot separation. You’d have 10 feet from this building and 10 feet from that building. Borup: Mr. Nickel. Nickel: Could we just simplify it by stating that what the Fire Department or the fire – Siddoway: Uniform fire code. Nickel: -- dictate what the setbacks would be on those structures I guess? That way we would have the – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 33 Borup: Well, they’re saying the setbacks can be reduced if you construct your building in different methods. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: With fire suppression or whatever – (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Siddoway: It allows you to go less than that. Borup: That might be an appropriate statement, comply with uniform fire code? Nickel: I just want to try to simplify it. I think we all understand it. It’s not a bad idea to do it, it’s just how do we word it and not make it a problem later to interpret. Borup: I still have a little bit of concern with lot No. 3 with the building right up to Baltic Place. Yes, it depends on the type of building and what it looks like. You could have a big blank ugly wall there right up against the street almost. The way it’s designed. The way it potentially could be. Perhaps maybe lot 5 too. Nary: Mr. Chairman, if we do the recommendation of the 10-foot buffer then this will be 10 feet from the street. Borup: But the 10 feet is around everywhere. My concern is just on Baltic Place, not the parking lot setback. Nary: It would be 10 feet from the street which isn’t a lot different than (inaudible). Some offices, the front faces the street on the side of it or a drive or a circle. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)) Borup: I would like to add that in there 10 feet from Baltic Street. 10 feet from the property line on Baltic. Nickel: That would be up to you Chairman but, just so you know that lot 3 and 5 currently meet the code considering that Baltic Place is not a right-of-way. Borup: That’s the only reason that it does is because it’s a private street. Nickel: It’s at your preference. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 34 Borup: No matter what you call it, it still serves the same purpose. It’s still the entrance in there. I would think you’d want that just for a nice entrance into your project. Okay, are we -- Nickel: That’s all I have. Borup: Mr. Siddoway, does the idea of stating to comply with uniform fire code, is that appropriate? Siddoway: Uniform fire code will let them go to zero with firewalls. If you’re fine with that, then – Borup: I don’t think that’s the intent of the applicant on this project. To have a large – Siddoway: The applicant said they would be fine with the 10-foot all the way around. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nickel: Let’s just do the 10 feet all around. That would take care of Baltic Place - - let’s just simplify it and say 10 feet. J. Centers: Well, not all the way around, three sides on some of them. You’re not going to go 10 feet on the back are you? Siddoway: Yes 10 feet all sides. Nary: I thought it was five on the front? Siddoway: We’re saying 10 all the way around. J. Centers: All four sides? Borup: That’s not a fire concern though. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Siddoway: It eliminates it. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: Right I mean between buildings it does. I guess that parking lot it has no effect on that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 35 Nary: I guess, I thought what we had discussed was a 5-foot front on the parking lot in the front of the building and 10 feet on the other 3 sides (inaudible) ensure they weren’t closer than 20 feet to each other but 5 feet from the parking lot. Nickel: That was the original intention, -- Borup: That was the original intention? Nickel: To have the 5-foot in the front – Borup: And 10 everywhere else. Nary: I don’t think we ever understood that. Nickel: (Inaudible) it looks like there’s a problem with the site plan because in some places it’s 7-foot, 7 and a half feet. There are some 10. Nary: Mr. Siddoway what I think I heard you say earlier is because of the way the plan is drawn it’s not clear where the front of the building is. Siddoway: That’s (inaudible). Nary: So, if the front of the building is facing the parking lot, the 5-foot isn’t a problem but if the front of the building is facing another building, the 5-foot would be a probelm. Right so, if we said that, we’d be fine. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nary: It would be clear that the intent was that the buildings be no closer than 20 feet apart, no matter where the front of the building is as long as the buildings aren’t closer than 20 feet that should be okay. Borup: This plat is showing an entrance into what I think we would consider the side of the building. On 9, 10 and 11. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nary: If we felt that was appropriate and said of the front of the building faces the parking lot, then a 5-foot buffer would be allowed. That there be a 10-foot buffer on the remaining three sides of the building and no building shall be closer than (inaudible). (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Siddoway: I like that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 36 Nary: It seems to cover all of the concerns – Nickel: That’s kind of what we were originally asking for. If you look at lot 11 and 12, you’d have the 20-foot gap between the buildings. Borup: Okay back to -- did that get – do you want to go back to the items to remove from the permitted list? I don’t know if Mr. Centers met with Steve on this list. Is this a list that you have already reviewed? (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nickel: This list is fine. There was one, restaurants was put on it but then it was crossed off. We would agree that these uses right here are Conditional Uses within the C-G zone. We would like them to remain as Conditional Uses within the C-G zone. Then everything else that is principal permitted now would remain principal permitted without a Conditional Use Permit. Borup: Those you said we switched from permitted to conditional? Nickel: I think I confused myself when I said that. Borup: I think Mr. Swartley had, do you have a copy of that? Swartley: I do. Borup: He’s got a copy. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: Okay any final comments from staff? Any discussion from the Commission before we -- okay. Thank you. We have three separate applications. Do we need any discussion or anything? Or are we ready too close? Nary: I would move that we close the Public Hearing. J. Centers: Yes, I second. Borup: Motion second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT Borup: Was that motion for all three? Nary: Yes, I’m sorry. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 37 Borup: Item No. 6 is a request for annexation and zoning. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: There were two items on that. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I would move that we recommend the approval of AZ 01-008 the request for annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R-1 and RUT to C-G and R-40 zones for proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development Incorporated, East Franklin Road west of South Locust Grove to include all staff comments from the June 18, 2001 memo. With the following amendments, on the annexation site-specific requirement No.3 that the Development Agreement shall be required as a condition of annexation. That the following uses that are permitted in a C-G zone will only be allowed with approval through a conditional use process. They would be Automobile Service Stations, automobile washing facilities, bus and rail stations, greenhouses and nursery, hotels, motels, storage facilities, service stations, truck stops, wholesale facilities, equipment sales and repair. On the annexation and zoning standard requirements No. 1 that the staff comment as written would be adopted but we would recommend that the applicant could request the City Council to waive the requirement of 12-4-13 to not tile the Hunter Lateral that runs adjacent to the property if they can either rehabilitate the ditch, or as long as they can gain access to the ditch to tile it or if they have the ability and the approval of the Irrigation District to rehabilitate the ditch. Then not have to tile it. That they would be allowed to put a chainlink fence along the (inaudible). I think that was all that we had on the annexation and zoning. Is that right? Borup: Yes. Those are the only two items. J. Centers: Do we need to clarify that the only items that they would need a Conditional Use Permit on would be the items that you just read? Nary: Any others that are already required by C-G zone. Borup: The ones he just read were changed from permitted to conditional. J. Centers: Okay. Borup: Everything else would stay per Ordinance. J. Centers: I would second that motion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 38 Borup: Motion second. Any discussion? So, in your motion you did make a recommendation on Item No. 9 on the tiling of the ditch, I mean Item No. 1. Nary: What the recommendation is, is that stays as it’s written unless they can show – Borup: Okay. Nary: -- the Ordinance requires a public purpose. That is a legitimate public purpose if they can rehabilitate the ditch and then chainlink fence and leave it open. That’s fine. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT Borup: That’s something that I just recommended, you might want to talk to the property owner on the other side. We’re assuming it’s the cemetery. See what their future plans are or work something together. I guess in my mind with an apartment complex there, I would be a little concerned about liability with an open ditch too. I don’t know if you’ve thought of that. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: Item No. 7 is a request for Preliminary Plat approval for 10 building lots and 3 other lots. Nary: I guess one question before we make a motion on that one. It’s just a clarification because we haven’t talked about it. If we need to re-open the Public Hearing then we can. No. 4 Commissioner Centers has made note to me too that it indicates that there’s a potential that water is not available for this site. No. 4 is contingent upon that. Is there any more information that we need to put on the record about that? Siddoway: Just let the comment stand. Nary: Okay. Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I move the approval of Preliminary Plat 01-009 request for the Preliminary Plat approval of 10 building lots and 3 other lots on 12.71 acres in the proposed C-G and R-40 zones for the proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development East Franklin Road, west of South Locust Grove to include all staff comments from the June 18, 2001 memo. I don’t think there was anything on the Preliminary Plat. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 39 Centers: I don’t either. Borup: They were in agreement with all staff comments. Centers: I would second that motion. Borup: Motion is second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT Borup: Item No. 8 is – (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: -- a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I’d move the approval of CUP 01-015 request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for the mixed use residential commercial in a proposed C-G and R-40 zones for the proposed Baltic Place Subdivision at East Franklin Road west of South Locust Grove to include all staff comments from the June 18, 2001 memorandum. To include the following amendment. The standards for Conditional Uses I guess we would recommend to the City Council. They’ve requested a waiver of the Zoning Ordinance for the setbacks from 15 feet to 5 feet for all 9 of the commercial building lots on the frontage that face the common parking lots. We recommend that the City Council grant that waiver. That there be a 10-foot buffer setback on the other remaining three sides of the buildings and that no building would be built closer than 20 feet from another building in the commercial portion. There is a request for a waiver in regards to the 5-foot, a 5-foot buffer between the properties on the west, which is the Meridian Cemetery. We would recommend that approval of that and that there and that between the City and the applicant here they determine whether fencing between the buildings would be necessary. Whether it be chainlink or wood fencing. That with that 5-foot buffer that they work with the western property owner the cemetery in making sure it’s maintained in that area. They can fence between the buildings if they’re that close to the property line. That the Page 7, I guess it’s beginning on Page 6, Subsection D that the 10-foot buffer between the existing home to the west in the R-6 County Zone property a waiver from a 20-foot to a 10-foot be approved. That we amend the comments in the staff report to delete the phrase that the home is not being utilized as a typical residential home and delete all the reference of what the character of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 40 home is because I don’t think it matters. That the applicant will provide a letter from the property owner indicating agreement with the waiver down to 10 feet. That in the site specific requirements No. 5, that it will state that there shall not be any 24-hour operation in the commercial portion of this property without a Conditional Use Permit. That I guess would we delete No. 6? Siddoway: Correct. Nary: Since it’s a private street? Borup: Well, I think we’ve answered that same concern because we added in the previous portion, we added 10 feet on the side anyway. Nary: Okay. That we also recommend that in Item 7 that the City Council grant a waiver to allow the extension of the parking area to 13 spaces without an internal planter island – Nickel: In four areas. Nary: -- in four areas. Borup: Okay, do you want to just say in the apartment area? Nary: In the apartment, in the R-40 area. Borup: Right but not in the commercial. Nary: No. 8 I think it does pretty much just give some pretty good flexibility. I don’t think we need to amend that. It just says they have to work it out and provide a plan and approve it by the City. I don’t know that we really need to do anything more with that. In No. 9, I think this is still just the same thing we talked about before. That would include that we would recommend an approval of a 5- foot buffer for building frontage on the parking lot in the commercial area. That there be 10-foot buffers on all the remaining sides of the building and no building is closer than 20 feet together. I think that covers it. Borup: No. 9 I think is talking about different land uses so it would be talking about adjoining properties. We already addressed that. Nary: We talked about the 10-foot in regards to the (inaudible). I think we’ve covered all of that. Does that sound right, Mr. (inaudible)? (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nary: Did we miss anything? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 41 Borup: We didn’t miss anything? Oh, we already closed the Public Hearing. I was just looking for a nod. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: Did it look like there was anything else Steve? Okay. Siddoway: The only thing buzzing in my head and I don’t want to belabor this but the whole 5-foot setback. You defined the front as the (inaudible) facing the parking lot. Some of them have parking lots on two sides. The plan has actually the 5-foot setback along Baltic and not on the parking lot. I don’t know if you want to define it as pre the plan or if you really mean the parking lot – Borup: Can we add in there that anything on Baltic would be 10-foot? (Inaudible) Nary: Well, because I think (inaudible) I didn’t look but isn’t the front yard setback defined? I mean, (inaudible) the front of the building? Borup: The front entrance. Nary: The front entrance of the building or something? If we say the front setback, that’s already defined. If it fronts the parking lot it has to be 5 feet every other side of the building will then have to be 10. It could be closer than 20, wouldn’t that cover that? Siddoway: (Inaudible) really will have two fronts from the plan – ***End Of Side Two*** Borup: -- (Inaudible) on each half. Nary: Okay. Borup: Doesn’t that still cover it? Now, we’re talking 5 feet from the parking lots and 10 feet between buildings. Nary: Then it wouldn’t matter if the front -- if they split the building in half and one front door is on one side that doesn’t front the parking, they’d have 5 feet on either side if it’s on a parking lot. If their parking lot’s on both sides and they split the building in half east to west – Borup: Still have 5 feet. Nary: It wouldn’t matter that it was 5 feet on either side. It wouldn’t matter to us does that make sense? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 42 Borup: I guess I can’t understand where your concern was. Siddoway: Do you have a plan? Can I approach? Borup: Yes. Siddoway: I’ll show you. Nary: If it’s building three, split it this way, here’s the front door and here’s a front door, it doesn’t matter to me that the 5 feet is here and the 5 feet is here if it’s split that way. Just because they could do it that way. If they only have one front door, then there’s only one front setback (inaudible) because your Ordinance says what (inaudible). (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Siddoway: If it does have two fronts, it doesn’t matter (inaudible). Borup: Yes. Nary: Yes. Borup: Because it’ll be 10 everywhere else. Nary: Right because it’ll be 10 on the remaining sides. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nary: We can add to that there that there will not be a front on Baltic Place. That there will be a 10-foot buffer on Baltic Place. Nickel: If it’s a front. If it’s the front of the building. Borup: I don’t care if it’s the front or the side – (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Nary: There will be a 10-foot buffer on Baltic Place. Siddoway: That is how Conditional Use Permit requirement No. 6 is written. So you’re basically just keeping that as written? Nary: Yes. Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 21, 2001 Page 43 (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: So, No. 6 stayed? Nary: Yes. Borup: Do we have a motion? Wait for a second? Centers: I second that, I think. Borup: Any other discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT Borup: Was there any question on that Mr. Swartley? Swartley: No. Borup: That was a long motion. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Borup: Do we have a motion to adjourn? Nary: I move we adjourn. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT Borup: That was seconded by Commissioner Centers. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:54 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK