Loading...
2001 09-20Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 The City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, September 20, 2001, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Bill Nary and Keven Shreeve. Members Absent: Jerry Centers Others Present: Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, Larry Moore, Dean Willis and Tara Green. Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to call to order again our regular -- our regular scheduled Planning and Zoning Meeting for the City of Meridian for Thursday, September 20th. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: __X__Sally Norton __O__ Jerry Centers __X__Bill Nary __X__ Keven Shreeve __X__Chairman Keith Borup Borup: We will begin with roll call of Commissioners in attendance. Commissioner Norton. Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of August 2, 2001 Planning and Zoning Regular Meeting: B. Approve minutes of August 16, 2001 Planning and Zoning Regular Meeting: Borup: The first item on the agenda is the minutes. Norton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: I'd like to -- before we adopt the agenda I'd like to -- if we could approve the minutes of August 16th and of August 2nd . They just have August 2nd here, but since we have the minutes of August 16th could we approve both of them tonight? Borup: Let's go ahead and add August 16th to the agenda, adding those minutes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 2 Norton: It's so nice to have the minutes done so quickly. Borup: Any comments or questions on the minutes from August 2nd and August 16th ? Do we have a motion? Norton: Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt the minutes of August the 2nd -- do you want both of them at the same time? Borup: I think that would be fine, since there are no questions. Norton: And August 16th . I move to adopt those minutes. Shreeve: I second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from August 16, 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: Thank you. The first Public Hearing item on the agenda is a Continued Public Hearing, request for Preliminary Plat approval for 30 building lots and two other lots on 16 acres, No. 1 PP 00-023, for Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2. I'd like to begin with the staff report and maybe since -- due to the length of time for when we first heard the initial application, maybe just a little bit of history on why it was continued. I don't know if Steve wants to do that or Bruce. Are there any staff -- any other staff report that you needed to add to -- it seems to me like it was mainly on a Sewer Easement issue -- I can't remember if it was easement or just a sewer -- are you just going to have the applicant fill us in? Siddoway: We can start and then -- Borup: Okay. Siddoway: -- Mr. Stanfield can fill in the blanks. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I might just add that this was presented initially before I was even put on the board -- on the Commission, so probably would even slightly brief -- additional information that you might share with me I would appreciate that as well. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 3 Siddoway: You bet. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, this project is Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2. It's a Preliminary Plat for 30 building lots and two common lots on 16 acres. The zoning is R-4 and I will first direct your attention to the map on the -- at the front. You can see where the arrow is -- get my arrow up here, too. Ustick and Black Cat are here. Meridian -- Trail End Golf Course, sorry, is in this location here. So this is across the street from that. This is the plat that the staff report was prepared for. You should have a staff report dated December 7, 2000 and that, to my knowledge, is still the most recent staff report that Planning and Zoning has prepared from Brad Hawkins-Clark. It's my understanding that Mr. Stanfield has come with a new plat tonight, so I would request that Planning and Zoning staff have a chance to review this new plat and comment on it before the Council -- or the Commission takes final action on it. My understanding is the main outstanding issue for it was sewer related and I will let Bruce make a few comments about that and then we could have a presentation from the applicant about the attributes of the plat itself. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, as you might recall, the project site falls south -- south and west of the Sky Pilot Drain that goes through there. The serviceability of sewer to the site by gravity was what was in question and the -- also the capacity of the current lift station in Ashford Greens, whether it had capacity to accept the flow from this development. There was a regional study that was done for the whole area. We have been working together with the applicant and we do have results on that now and it does appear that the subdivision can sewer -- be a lift station. There are a couple of items that I would just ask for when you get to the motion. I can address that now or I can address it a little later on if you would like. Norton: Excuse me. I have two staff comments, one December 7th , the other January 29th . Which staff comments are you concerned -- or are you commenting on? Freckleton: I believe that the January comments were just a refinement of the earlier comments, so they would be the most current. Norton: So the January 29th ? Freckleton: Yes. Norton: Okay. Thank you. Freckleton: The two items that we would ask for when you get to your motion would be that the developer would enter into a lift station operation and Maintenance Agreement with the City of Meridian, which would include the ability of the city to place a surcharge on the homeowners in the subdivision for that maintenance. And the second would be to make provision in the lift station design that it can be abandoned when the gravity sewer service is available from Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 4 the McDonald service area to the west. So that needs to be taken into consideration that this would be abandoned in the future. And I believe Brad Watson in our office has discussed these items with Mr. Stanfield, the Design Engineer, and he may be able to provide a little more information on that. Siddoway: I have one other issue that I'd like to address and that is the name. There was one item that -- this may confuse the Commissioners and so I would suggest that we may need to change the name a little bit to Autumn Faire Acres or something, you know. Here is why. There is already an approved Final Plat called Autumn Faire Sub No. 2. It was the second phase of the approved Preliminary Plat of Autumn Faire Sub No. 1. So the fact we have a new Preliminary Plat that is a different land area than the approved Final Plat for Autumn Faire Sub No. 2 is going to cause some confusion down the road. Borup: Can you change that to No. 3? Siddoway: Well, it isn't -- I don't know that it needs to be No. 3. I'll let Scott address that. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant representative like to come forward? Stanfield: Scott Stanfield, with Earl & Associates, 314 Badiola in Caldwell. I don't expect a whole lot tonight. I would be tickled if you approved it. I would recommend approval, obviously, but you need to be brought up to speed with what's happened, so I'm going to do that summary real quick, because there is a lot of people waiting behind me. Some of you may remember the original -- let me back up to Mr. Siddoway's comment. Autumn Faire Crossing was the name that was approved through Tom Fischer's office in the county, so Autumn Faire Crossing is the term I'll use tonight and from now on for this project that's before you. Autumn Faire was originally brought, about a year and a half ago in this configuration with the Sky Pilot Drain Line right here. At that time it was an annexation for the whole entire area you can see here on this ratty old map I have been carrying around. But, unfortunately, it didn't appear that there was enough sewer capacity beyond about the 248 lots which are up here. So this project was completely annexed, except for the Preliminary Plat terminated Sky Pilot Drain, and this was all vacant. During the process of the Preliminary Plat and the annexation the park issue came up and we worked out a negotiation with the city and the Parks Department and a park was provided. Well, as this park has moved forward in Autumn Faire through it's approval process the question was raised, well what do we do with all the land around the park. The city, the city staff, council members, some you folks were concerned about weeds growing around the park. So this one was approved and we immediately started looking at ways to get sewer to this area. We talked with the Engineering Department and it was determined that we could service approximately 30 more single-family residential lots. Then we put our pencil down on paper again and penciled out this, which you have before you tonight, which was originally Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 5 submitted in December. We ran out of ground right there, so we were limited by ground cover and by the approximate 30 lots that the Engineering Staff was comfortable with dumping into the Black Cat system. Staff was still concerned about weeds around this area, but at least halfway is better than nothing. We submitted this application and during that same process Gemstar Properties, who I represent to the project before you, had a Purchase Agreement for the Janicek property, which is south and west of here that goes all the way to McDermott. That was Springdale Subdivision. This body recommended approval to the Council and the Council denied it. That project would have provided sewer around here. So we would have completed the development around the park, thereby eliminating any of the, quote, weed patches. Since that was denied, obviously, we had to come back to this. So this started moving forward again. I called up Brad Watson prior to one of the hearings a couple months ago and it just happens that there was a major commercial development plan for the south and east of here near the Interstate and Ten Mile, I believe, and that developer was working with the city on a regional sewer study that Mr. Freckleton just hinted on. So then we were, okay, let's wait a couple more months, let the city complete that engineering study to see if we can spread the lots around here. Keep the count the same, but spread them out into 12,000, 14,000, 72,000 square-foot lots and drain it here to this corner and then pump it back to here. The issue was peek flow discharge to the Ashton -- Ashford Greens lift station. That was the big issue. So then we had delays and waiting for the Engineering Department to complete their study and just this morning it was complete. So Brad Watson called me and said he was going to be sending a letter, which I have, and I have copies if you would like, which says, you know, everything is okay -- and, obviously, I'm paraphrasing -- lists the requirements Mr. Freckleton mentioned. I quickly redrew it out another layout, which I have copies before me. If you want to a see them now, that's fine. Again, I don't know what I expect tonight, but at least that brings you up to speed. Again, the number of lots are the same, it's just that they are quite a bit bigger now. That's roughly it. Just been a rather long process working on the filing and getting ready to go. I have maps and letters if you want. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Stanfield? So the sewer study that we had you said was just finished this morning? Stanfield: Yes. Borup: The one that was supposed to be done in early August? Stanfield: Well, early August would have been the city's sub consultant completing it and then the study didn't quite provide the answer that Mr. Watson needed for this, so Mr. Watson had to go back to the study and pull the information out of it. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 6 Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Steve, realistically a month? Because I heard you say that you prefer to delay to have an opportunity to review the new plat. Siddoway: I think a month realistic. Nary: Maybe we can get it done before the end of this year. I mean is that going to be a problem? Probably it wouldn't -- Stanfield: No. Obviously not. It's been so long now that, you know, we understand the city's situation. Borup: But did I understand you to say the lot count stayed the same? Stanfield: Lot counts stayed at 30. There are some things that I will tell you now that are fixed for this project no matter if you recommend approval or recommend denial. The park as you see it there is established. That's set. That was a deed over to the city with the legal description. The southeasterly corner where that stub street is, that matches the stub street in Turnberry Crossing to the south, so that's fixed. Then the stub coming from Autumn Faire Preliminary Plat on the northern boundary, that's fixed also from that Preliminary Plat. So those are the -- those are the knowns. Borup: Any other questions from any other commissioners? Our October 18th meeting at this point has just some continued hearings and we are fairly light that evening, so I think that -- especially if staff needs that much time. I'm assuming that the 4th would be a little tight. Siddoway: Yes. Borup: Okay. Nary: Doesn't look like anybody else is here to -- Borup: That's what he was going to -- yeah. Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Any other -- any other comments, Scott? Stanfield: No. Borup: Okay. Any other discussion? Does that even sound like where we are heading -- continuing it to the 18th ? Nary: It just seems to me like the only option at this juncture. I guess, Mr. Chairman, I would move that we continue Item No. 4, PP 00-023, the request for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 7 Preliminary Plat approval of Autumn Faire Crossing, Gemstar Properties, east of North Black Cat and south of West Ustick Road, to our October 18th meeting. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes, Steve. Siddoway: In the pleadings from Legal Counsel if we could. My question if we are dealing with a new plat -- same area, new lotting pattern, do we need to send that out to all the various agencies again? That may be -- you know, the middle of October is fine for us, but I don't know if we have to give the other agencies 30 days to respond to any plat. Moore: Haven't we done that once? Siddoway: Yes. Moore: Then I don't see any reason we need to again. It's already gone through there. You're not changing anything as far as their concerns are, are you? Siddoway: Scott, can you think of anything that would affect the other, like the Drainage District anything? Stanfield: The one that comes to mind would be the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. We have been working with those folks quit heavily, both on Autumn Faire and the Springdale project. I can tell you that they have been notified of this and we have been meeting with them on the lot layout. ACHD's concerns are primarily the traffic. Our road patterns really haven't changed on this new layout, other than extending it around the other side of the park and we are less than a hundred lots, which is really the cutoff that ACHD has for traffic concerns. A hundred lots or greater you do a traffic study and we are holding the same number of lots. So, personally, I don't see an issue. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Stanfield, would it be possible to -- do you think that by the next -- by the October date to get a letter from those two agencies saying we have no other concerns? Stanfield: Yes I can -- I'll definitely try that. Nary: Because, obviously, we want to have a heads up by the Council, which is more of a hassle than it is here, but that might maybe put the staff at ease if you Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 8 simply just wrote a letter saying you've seen the new revised plat and there is no different issue than our earlier comments or -- Stanfield: I can do that. Moore: Chairman Nary, since there have been some changes made, that's the best way to do it. Borup: Okay. Stanfield: I would -- Borup: That would certainly be more comfortable. Okay. The next item -- no, we have -- trying to move things along. Did we have a motion? Nary: Yes. I move that we move it to October 18th . Borup: And second? Shreeve: Second. Borup: Any discussion? All favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from August 16, 2001: CUP 01-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a dual restaurant with drive-thru in a C-G zone for Kentucky Fried Chicken/A&W by G & H Enterprises II – 677 East First Street: Borup: Thank you. Item No. 5 is a Continued Public Hearing on a CUP 01-021, request for Conditional Use Permit for a dual restaurant with drive-thru in a C-G zone for Kentucky Fried Chicken. Let's go ahead continue this hearing and start with staff report. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this is the Kentucky Fried Chicken and A&W request for a Conditional Use Permit in an existing C-G zone. You should have an updated staff report, dated August 21st , from David McKinnon and Bruce Freckleton. I'll highlight the significant outstanding issues. One, the Ada County Highway District has required a change to the site plan that reduces the width of the drive aisles -- or driveways to a 35 feet wide maximum. This project requires a Conditional Use Permit because it has two buildings on a single lot. There is an existing Kentucky Fried Chicken and I believe Taco Bell on the same -- is it? No? Thank you. Kentucky Fried Chicken is on the same lot and this would be a development just to the south of it in the area that is Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 9 currently being used as an ACHD parking right. We have some minor issues with landscaping, the addition of three trees that are not shown on the plan. I would point out that they do not meet the letter of law of the ordinance for 35- foot setbacks on both East First and Meridian. You can see from the size of the lot that would be -- could be considered an excessive taking for those buffers. They are asking for consideration through the alternative compliance provision of the Landscape Ordinance and I will let them present those issues to you, showing how they attempted to max out their landscaping and still have a functioning lot. These are the -- some site photos as it exists today. I would point out in the staff report item number five under site specific requirements it talks about the sign, the existing large bucket is not in compliance with our Zoning Ordinance or new Sign Ordinance and shall be removed and replaced with a sign that is in conformance with the new sign code. I know the applicant does not wish to do this. They may wish to file a variance, in which case it should be filed to be able to run concurrently with this project through City Council Hearings, which would mean having it into our office at least a week -- no later than a week after this Commission makes a motion. One final issue is the five-foot sidewalks. You can see on the site plan that the sidewalks kind of come up to the edge and dead end. They do have to connect. It is our understanding that they didn't show that connecting when they did the site plan, because they were still working out the issues with ACHD as to how this area would be reconfigured when those streets are reconstructed in a couple of years. I would like to note for the record that those sidewalks will have to be continuous and connect around. That's all I have at this time. I'm going to turn this over to Bruce. Freckleton: The only specific item I would have would be site specific Item No. 11 and that is that the current site plan does not show water and sewer service locations to serve the building and we would need to get a new revised site plan for that. There is sewer and water in Meridian Road adjacent to the site and we just need to see how that's coming in. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant's representative here this evening? McKeegan: Thank you. My name is Patrick McKeegan, I am representing the applicant in this matter and also Phil Atteberry, who is the Franchisee for KFC would like to speak after I do to address the signage issue. Specifically I'm kind of at a loss on the landscaping, because I was relying on the site-specific requirements in the staff report outlining the modifications to the -- to the landscaping. I had a discussion yesterday with -- Borup: Was that a previous staff report or the August 21st ? McKeegan: August 21, 2001, is the one that I am referring to. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 10 McKeegan: We are certainly willing to comply with anything that needs to be done, I guess, but I thought that it said landscaping shall be installed as submitted on the site plan, with the exception of changing three trees -- or adding three trees to replace the junipers, which we certainly don't have a problem with on that, so -- Borup: Which part -- which part were you confused on? On the buffer? McKeegan: Yes. Borup: Okay. McKeegan: I don't have the benefit of being to the previous hearing or anything. I was hired after -- I was hired to construct the building and I guess the property owner, who is not here tonight, has been representing himself on the matter of the zoning issues and the landscaping issues and we submitted the plans and when I talked a couple of days ago I assumed that every -- that the only changes they were requesting to the landscaping would be the three new trees and getting rid of the skyrocket junipers, which I don't disagree with, I think it's probably a pretty good idea. Borup: Okay. And maybe we ought to clarify that right now. Steve, that is -- is that true what he said, that the other was a reduced setback -- Siddoway: Staff is not asking for any other changes, but I'm pointing out that this does not meet the letter of the Landscape Ordinance. It is a reduced landscape setback and the Commission should consider that. Borup: Did you understand that? McKeegan: Yes. I just wanted to make sure there weren’t additional requirements. Borup: No. He was saying they were recommending approval as is, other than those three things, and then he was just pointing out that it did not -- McKeegan: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. I thank you very much. As to the Highway District comments, we have no problem reducing the driveway to 35 feet. We just wanted to get it as -- the driveways on those busy streets as wide as possible, so that people would have the opportunity to pull into our property as soon as possible to minimize the opportunities for accidents. Borup: And I think that's why they recommend that, they don't want people to think there are three -- you know, room for three drives -- you know -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 11 McKeegan: Exactly. Borup: Three driveways. McKeegan: And as far as the connection of the sidewalks, the highway -- the staff indicated the Highway District at this point in time does not know what they are going to do with that -- with that intersection. I would assume that probably we will either be asked to put money into a trust fund to pay for those improvements or for the Highway District to do those improvements when they decide to rebuild that intersection or they will give us some further direction. But we certainly don't have a problem with the -- with the commitment to put the sidewalk in, the Highway District at this point in time just hasn't told us how they want that intersection to look. There may be a possibility that the street extensions as they come towards the V there might be offset between now and when we go into construction based on additional information they might provide. Borup: I think staff's only concern, probably, was that they would connect, so that would be the plan. McKeegan: Okay. Borup: That the sidewalks would connect. McKeegan: Yes. Borup: Did ACHD indicate to you in 2003? Was that the year they are redoing that intersection? McKeegan: Yes. They said in the next couple of years that it was -- Borup: I believe it's on the work plan, if I remember right. McKeegan: And if -- I'll tell you what, if the city desires sidewalks before then, we would be glad to put them in at some distance back out of the right of way and do that. It's certainly not a -- the initial expense for that little bit of sidewalk is not a deal breaker for us. Borup: Okay. McKeegan: At this time I -- Borup: Are those the only two issues? Everything else from staff comments -- McKeegan: Except for the signage and I'm going to have Mr. Atteberry address that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 12 Borup: Okay. I might mention on the signage, as mentioned, a variance would have to be applied for, which would need to be applied to the City Council, so we could listen to the testimony, but I don't believe we have any jurisdiction to act on it, other than I guess if we chose to make a recommendation, but -- McKeegan: I think all we are asking for is that if this -- assuming this application is approved by you tonight, that statement number five is not an absolute, that there is some opportunity to address that, because there is -- for one thing there is -- it says the existing sign. KFC actually has two signs on the property, so do we get to choose which one we remove or -- and we are actually allowed, you know, signage on -- Borup: Okay. McKeegan: So it's just a matter of -- we just want to make sure that -- that this isn't – Borup: I think what staff was attempting to really say there is that, you know, we have a Sign Ordinance now. McKeegan: Yes. Borup: And we are -- and any substantial redevelopment is to comply with the new Sign Ordinance and I think those statements is that's what it would take to comply with the Sign Ordinance and, as Steve mentioned, the option would be to apply for a variance, which could be processed concurrently with this application. McKeegan: Okay. I guess that's -- Borup: Is there anything else I misstated there? Is that correct? We wouldn't be able to act on a variance anyway. That needs to be -- Nary: We have on occasion I mean made recommendations -- Borup: Recommendations. Nary: -- along with whatever motion this is, whether or not the City Council should consider that. But, you're right, we can't approve it, but -- Borup: So then it may be pertinent to maybe hear some testimony from the applicant if he'd still like to. That would be -- McKeegan: Okay. Borup: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. McKeegan? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 13 McKeegan: Anymore questions for me? I'll yield the podium to Mr. Atteberry. Borup: Thank you. Atteberry: Phil Atteberry. I represent D & D Idaho Foods. We operate the Kentucky Fried Chickens here. I guess my only -- I would just be asking for consideration on our bucket sign. It's a freeway draw for us. To bring that down would substantially change our freeway visibility. That bucket you can see from the freeway. And there is some other -- I believe we have some food places across the street that has the same -- they have signs up in the sky, too. Borup: Like the arches? Atteberry: Yes. Those arches. Those would be the ones I'm referring to. The other existing sign, we have no -- we would be replacing that anyway and whatever the new code is, bringing that up to our new image, plus whatever new ordinances there are for signs. It's outdated for us, too. So I would be just asking for your recommendation that there be some consideration on that, leaving the bucket. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: How tall is that sign? Atteberry: I believe it's about 60 feet. Shreeve: What's the minimum height on the signage -- or maximum, I should say? Siddoway: There is no minimum. The maximum -- 35 is what I'm going to guess. Borup: Isn't it 35 or 40 -- Siddoway: I think it is 35. Borup: And doesn't the ordinance address freeway signage? Siddoway: Yes. It says that you can't have it unless you have the frontage on the freeway. Atteberry: We would need to be within 300 -- Siddoway: Three hundred feet. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 14 Atteberry: Three hundred feet. Siddoway: Right. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Steve, when we did the Sign Ordinance -- let's see, the Chevron sign went in before the Sign Ordinance is that right? Siddoway: That's correct. Norton: And they don't have freeway frontage. Siddoway: That's correct. Norton: And both Chevron and Texaco are 75 feet correct? Is that right? Siddoway: I think the Chevron is higher, but I'm not sure. I'd have to look that up. Norton: Okay. Thank you. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Steve, so currently, without a variance, McDonald's, Chevron, Texaco, all those signs couldn't be built under our current Sign Ordinance? Siddoway: That's correct. Nary: What I read in the staff report and what you're saying is that our other ordinance requires that once 25 percent of the property is being impacted with a new building or -- that's when the -- those particular rights are extinguished? Siddoway: When -- when there is a 25 percent change to the site plan or greater, nonconforming signs lose their nonconforming status and are expected to conform. Nary: Okay. The other question I have for Steve -- and I'm not sure Mr. Atteberry can address it or not. You said that the landscaping is not within the letter of the law. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 15 Siddoway: Yes. Nary: How much smaller than 35 foot on each side is it? It appears on the site map that I have it comes off at 28 feet. Siddoway: That could be. Nary: And would that -- if it's -- is there a requirement that a variance for that be done as well? Siddoway: There are provisions in the landscape ordinance for alternative compliance, is what it's called, without a variance, if certain criteria are met. One of those criteria is an odd-shaped lot, which I think this would qualify under. I believe -- Nary: So -- just a second. So any of the criteria -- not all the criteria in the Landscape Ordinance, if there was -- if it's an odd-shaped lot, then we can approve it? There is no trade off? Siddoway: It's supposed to meet the intent of the ordinance by providing landscape buffers, providing landscaping, getting as close as the Commission feels that they can possibly get. If they need -- if you feel that they meet the intent of the ordinance, it can be approved without a variance. If you feel that it's just short and doesn't even meet the intent of the ordinance, then it would be required to go through a variance. Nary: I noticed one other thing. I noticed, Mr. Atteberry, on this site plan it says existing tree, but I thought this existing tree isn't there anymore. Atteberry: No. It's a pine tree that's existing right there and there is also another tree that's existing -- Nary: So the existing trees that are marked on here, those are the current, and the one that was cut down was right between those. Atteberry: Right. Right. Nary: Okay. Borup: Okay. Any other questions or comments from anyone else? Nary: I guess one other thing. Mr. Atteberry, just so I'm clear, it appears to me on the site plan that the front door of this building faces predominately west is that correct? Atteberry: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 16 Nary: Predominately west. So there is no way that the drive-thru is going to cut across the entrance to this building is that correct? Atteberry: That's correct. Nary: At least the way it's drawn. Atteberry: That's correct. Nary: What's going to be the use of that other building? Atteberry: I don't know. It's owned by the property owner. He has no immediate plans for that. I imagine if he leases it to somebody else it's going to be bulldozed, just the condition it's in. We are in there now. I have no idea what he has planned for that. He's waiting to get us through and us open and going before he makes any plans for that. Of course, he would have to come and you guys beforehand. Nary: And the reason I ask, Mr. Atteberry, at the last hearing on this that the property owner that was here said that he would like to put a restaurant in that other building. Atteberry: That could be a possibility. Nary: And I did notice a comment in here from the staff that said they were simply concerned some about the number of vehicles on this particular lot and the traffic that it's going to cause. What do you have to say to that? I think -- I mean I would agree, I think there is a lot of traffic. The roadway is making a lot of traffic, but we are pushing a whole bunch of cars onto this lot and it's not very big. Atteberry: Well, the lot's pretty good size as far as we are concerned on it. Whether he puts another restaurant there -- you know, I just don't know how much space is going to be left for him to do that, especially if that building has to come down. And as far as it being a fast food restaurant whether there is -- I don't know how that he could design it to do that. I mean maybe there is a possibility, but it sure doesn't work now for us, because the way it is now the drive-thru, the way it backs up, it backs up and clogs all traffic going into the existing parking lot we have. That's why we are dying to get into a new building, so we can have the flow the way it needs to go. Which when we do have the added flow of the -- back up on the drive-up here, it will actually make traffic a lot easier in the lot, because people that aren't sitting down to eat in the restaurant will not be -- you know, there won't be this in and out with cars going inside to get meals to take home. Right now the way the drive-up is it gets clogged up pretty Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 17 fast and it's hard for us to take orders fast enough and so you end up having cars trying to park everywhere and walk inside and just walk right back out. Borup: I think we just need to take a look at that at the time the new application comes forward just to see what the use -- how extensive it would be. Atteberry: Yes. That's sort of what his feeling was. He wanted -- whatever it took to get us up and going and then if he was able to do anything with the other building that would be it. Borup: I heard it was going to be a Popeye’s. Atteberry: Well, since he holds both pieces of property that probably wouldn't be a good thing for him. We have had a property owner do that to us, though; leased the two chicken outfits on the same piece of property, believe it or not. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: If I could make a recommendation, it would be that because that existing drive-thru gets so backed up and it is so close to Meridian -- or East First and it's a bad design, would be that a condition of this application would be to abandon that drive-thru on the existing building. Borup: Is that part of the CUP, though? Nary: Can't we do that -- Siddoway: The CUP on the entire lot? Nary. Oh. Siddoway: For both buildings. Borup: Can that other existing building be put back into service without coming before a new Public Hearing, if it stayed -- if it stayed the same? Siddoway: I think you can have it either way with -- this is a CUP for two buildings on a lot. Borup: Right. Siddoway: You could make a condition that -- Borup: I mean if we did anything it -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 18 Siddoway: But even if one did come back I would say it's pretty clear that that drive-thru needs to be abandoned or reconfigured. Borup: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Atteberry? Thank you, sir. Atteberry: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Nary: Mr. Chairman, before we close the Public Hearing I had a question for Steve. We don't have any sort of gateway sort of ordinance or anything like that in the city, but I guess I always view that particular location as -- at least in the original Meridian that's kind of the door of this city. There was a beautiful -- there was an old tree there that's been cut down and got taken down, so when you get off the freeway in that location the first thing you see is that KFC building, which there is no landscaping of anything that provides some buffer or some -- anything. Anything nice that would a nice front, a gateway to the city. Was that of any discussion with the developers on this on that landscaping? I mean if we are going to consider that they are going to be able to have a smaller landscape buffer than is required, was there any thought or any discussion about making that more of a better entrance way, a better landscaped area, rather than just the two existing trees there and some grass? Siddoway: My only answer is that I don't know. All the discussion between staff and the applicant went through Dave McKinnon on this project. I don't know if the applicant has a response, but it is a very important lot in terms of visibility and it is a gateway. We do have -- it is considered an entryway corridor in the comprehensive plan. We do have a Landscape Ordinance which requires, you know, the 35 feet and landscaping along entryway corridors. So the question is if they are reducing the width, you know, a good -- a trade-off could be adding trees. That's certainly a fair trade-off, but – Nary: And I guess Mr. McKeegan could probably answer that, too, as well, I guess, but my thought is that if one of the findings that we are going to have to make in this recommendation, if we are going to allow it to be less than what is required by our Landscape Ordinance, I believe what you said is we have to show there is substantial compliance. Siddoway: Substantial compliance and meeting the intent. Yes. Nary: And certainly, at least as you can tell what I'm thinking, substantial compliance and meeting the intent is making that look a whole lot nicer than what it currently looks like. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 19 Borup: And just to maybe clarify that, is that correct that the plat shows two existing trees on the property, the one there at the point of the intersection and then the other one there along East First? Is that it? Are those the only two existing trees there now? Atteberry: Yes. Borup: So everything else on there is added in the landscaping, then. Did you have some additional comment, Mr. Atteberry? Atteberry: I just wanted to say that our intent would be, since we are getting the benefit of having that reduced width, that we would -- could provide the same amount of landscape material that you would normally see in that area and we would certainly be willing to do some enhancements to the point of the lot there along the sides to make up for that. I would like to point out that the one tree that is on the -- what is the bottom southeasterly side of that is in ACHD's right of way, so we don't have any guarantee as to what that -- what's going to happen with that. Also I believe along the point is an ACHD right of way so the existing trees we don't have any control. We can -- if you look at our plot plan, we have shown a drainage swale on those two trees or three trees on the front there within our property limits. We wouldn't have any problem landscaping the rest of the area until the Highway District takes over, but we don't have any jurisdiction over what they might do. And we haven't -- at this point in time we have just shown the larger tree elements. We would, obviously, be adding shrubs and bushes and other things to enhance that and, you know, my client wants to be a good citizen and we want something that's going to be a positive attribute to the neighborhood, we certainly don't want to -- don't want the citizens of Meridian thinking that we don't care about what's -- what the site or the entry to the city looks like either. We want to be good citizens and we will certainly, you know, work with staff to -- Borup: Was it your understanding that other than the site setback that the trees that are shown now are in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance? Is that correct, Steve? Siddoway: Yes. I would just point out that along this southeast side, there is one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight plants that look like trees, they are actually noted on the Landscape Plan as Skyrocket Junipers. That's what -- which are just what they sound like, they are very narrow and look like a little rocket, if that's the species that was planted. So through the staff report we would be replacing these eight junipers with three trees. Just looking at it, it seems like we might be able to do more than three. I don't have a scale, but certainly it could be enhanced. Borup: Were you envisioning an evergreen there at all or -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 20 Siddoway: No. We weren't proposing evergreens. I think actually -- well -- Borup: Whatever the applicant prefers. Siddoway: Yes. There is any number of things that could be used, but small flowering trees. Nary: Wouldn't it -- sorry. Borup: Back to your comment on -- it looks to me like maybe a couple more trees could be added on the point and maybe on the Meridian Road side and beyond that, you know, pretty soon you're going to be getting too crowded, but -- Nary: Right. And all I was thinking was is that if it would be appropriate and in site specific comment number one it says one of the requirements is that a revised-Landscape Plan reflects additional trees and reflects the actual size of the trees that's already there, that we want a Landscape Plan showing subsequent significant landscaping on especially the southern point -- obviously, I don't want them to put grass and trees in there and they get ripped out and that's -- I don't want to waste your money, but they already own it now and it's not a whole lot of vegetation there right now, so I appreciate what Mr. McKeegan said, but I'd rather -- I just want to make sure that the front door to our city looks a little nicer than what currently is there and that -- if we could simply add that site specific one, I think that would be appropriate, if you would agree. Borup: Are you saying that they should be able to do that within their property line? Nary: Yes. Within their property line. Obviously, I don't want them to try to build something that's going to get torn out and have a road on it, but at least within their property line in this area, I think what we want the staff to look at on the Landscaping Plan is that this particular area it looks, you know, grassed up nice with some trees and it's good, you know, it's looking -- I don't want to hide your building, I just want to make sure that it looks nice as you're driving in that very, very busy area. Borup: I would like two -- a couple trees, maybe three is all it would take to fill that area out. Okay. Any other discussion from the Commissioners? Nary: I just had one other comment and we can -- on the bucket sign. I guess what I was going to suggest that whatever language you want to use in number five, that we should probably make sure that we make it clear that we would say the existing 60-foot sign, so we are clear it's the one that's the bucket, is what's required under our ordinance. And I guess the only comment I have and what other Commissioners think, I do think KFC needs a bucket. I don't have a problem with that. And I lived here when it revolved and I thought it was -- I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 21 mean I do think it's kind of neat. But I also think we passed the sign ordinance for a reason and I think our intent when we passed the sign ordinance was to get away from 75 foot, 100-foot, or even 50-foot signs that you can see for four miles. And I think at least what we need to recommend to the City Council is to comply with the ordinance that we passed. If they want to vary it they obviously can, but we passed it and went through all of that for a reason and if we make an exception for KFC -- although I don't -- again, I don't have a particular problem with the KFC or the whole concept of what they want, but if we make an exception, then we are going to be doing that on every project that comes along that's within a mile of the freeway. They are all going to want a sign. We have seen it happen in Boise and we have seen it happen in Nampa and all along the freeway gets dotted with 75 foot high, tall, lighted signs that you can see from three miles. I know they need it for their business, I know it helps their business I know all of those things. I don't disagree with anything they said. But we passed that ordinance for a reason and we passed it, because we felt it was important for the look of our city that we didn't have that type of signage unless it was really close to the interstate. So I guess that's my feeling and whatever the other Commissioners think, but I just think we passed that for some reason, that I think we should abide by it. The Council has the discretion to do it differently, they have the right to make that variance, but I think that we had some intent and that we should stick to it. Borup: And I would be fine with the ordinance. I guess the only thing that's different here is that's pre-existing -- I mean it's an existing sign. You know, they are not asking to put up a new one. Nary: Sure. But the other part of the ordinance says once you start -- Borup: Right. No. Right. Yeah. I mean it's specific in what it says. But I mean I feel more favorably on this than someone coming and asking to put a new one up. Nary: Well, the ordinance wouldn't allow it. So -- I mean they haven't asked for it, but the ordinance wouldn't allow it. Borup: Yes. But I mean my -- I would have a whole different attitude between the two. Norton: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Norton. Norton: Actually, I think that we would be on the cutting edge if we left the bucket, because McDonald's is going back to their old design -- they are going back to their old design and it would show Meridian's foresight for keeping that old bucket. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 22 Borup: Landmark. Norton: It's a landmark. Nary: If they made it into a cell tower, then they probably could do that. Borup: There you go. Atteberry: Could it possibly be an historical monument? Borup: As Commissioner Nary said, maybe they could have one of the cell towers. Okay. Anything else? Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commission Shreeve. Shreeve: I guess just simply comments that I agree with the landscape issues that Commissioner Nary has just brought up and certainly would support some kind of revision or looking at the -- with the landscape. And in terms of the signage, I tend to agree to just keep -- allow them to keep that 60-foot sign. Borup: Okay. Are we ready to close the hearing? Shreeve: Yes. I will make a motion that we close the public -- close the Public Hearing on CUP 01-021, request for 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 1st Street. Borup: We have a motion. Nary: I'll second. Borup: And a second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone ready to make a motion on the application or do we need some more discussion? Nary: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to -- I guess I'll try. I think I made enough notes here. I'm going to move that we recommend approval to the City Council of CUP 01-021, request for 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 at 677 East 1st Street, to include all staff comments of the August 21st, 2001, memorandum, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 23 with the following additions and amendments: That on site specific requirement number one that we also add language that included with the revised landscape plan, that they include additional landscaping on the southern boundary property line of this property to be reflected in that landscape plan and I think that would be up to staff's discretion on that. And that also there be language -- I guess part of this motion that I do think with that additional landscaping along that southern boundary of their property line, that that would meet the requirement of our ordinance, that does not require a variance, that it would be substantial compliance with the city code and, therefore, variance would -- at least recommend it's not necessary with that particular landscaping; that item five be amended to read that the existing 60-foot sign -- so that we are clear as to which sign is applicable under the city ordinance -- and that as part of this recommendation we recommend the City Council to consider favorably the request for a variance based upon the length of time that sign has been in existence and that I think that that's not an unreasonable consideration for a variance, because it is a fairly long-term sign and I do think, next to the Watertower, is probably the next thing you can see Meridian. I don't think, according to Bruce's comments, that item eleven needs to be amended. I think it's clear that they are going to have to provide that. Borup: Thirteen? Nary: And that there be -- oh, yeah. That there needs to connectivity between the pedestrian sidewalks once they are required to be put in, if that's what the issue was. And that they probably amend 13 -- or to include on 13 that there needs to be connectivity with the sidewalks along -- I guess both sides of this property; is that correct, Steve? Siddoway: Yes. Shreeve: Can I just -- either the connectivity or put it into some kind of a trust fund. You know, you mentioned doing that as far as not potentially wasting their money if they do something. I mean are we going to require connectivity now or allow them to put that money -- Siddoway: I believe we will leave it to ACHD. They have situations like next to Walgreen’s there they did trust fund it and put it in. If they knew where the property lines are going to be and especially -- I don't know if they are going to detach it or not, but there are certain scenarios that I wish they could build it today. I would just leave it to ACHD. Nary: So the language would probably be that there be connectivity or as required by the ACHD? Is that adequate? Siddoway: I think the connectivity should be required. The timing can -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 24 Nary: At the discretion of Ada County Highway District. Siddoway: Yes. Nary: Okay. The last thing I guess would be number 14, is that there also be a condition that the existing building on the property, that the drive-thru allowed in the existing building on the property be extinguished and that at least at this time only one drive-thru be allowed on the property upon the new building. Borup: You say that the drive-thru be deleted or -- Nary: On the existing building. Borup: Right. Nary: That the drive-thru on the existing building be abandoned at this time. Borup: Or relocated. Nary: Well, I think at this point I think we should just abandon it. If they are going to want to build a new building or remodel that building, they can come back here and if they haven't -- they can always amend it then. Borup: And if they have a project before us, that -- anyway, once that -- Nary: I just want to make sure that it's clear to people that if someone else wants to lease that building that there is no drive-thru right now and that they are going to have to come up with something else. Borup: Okay. Nary: And I think that would be a 14. I think that would be all the -- Borup: Only four modifications. Staff comments, plus -- Norton: I second the motion. Borup: Any other discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 6. Public Hearing: AUP 01-012 Request for an Assessory Use Permit for the operation of a Family Day Care for five or fewer children in an R-8 zone for Mary C. Fowler by Mary C. Fowler – 962 East Cougar Street: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 25 Borup: Thank you. Item No. 6 is our next Public Hearing, request for Accessory Use Permit for the operation of a Family Day Care for five or fewer children in an R-8 zone for Mary Fowler at 962 East Cougar Street. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Member of the Commission, the property is before you on the vicinity map outlined in red in the center. East Cougar Street is here and the general location of this area is east of Locust Grove and south of Ustick. I'm sorry. West of Locust Grove -- got my directions mixed up there. This is the house of Mary Fowler at 962 East Cougar Street. They did apply for an Accessory Use Permit for five children or fewer and, as you know, those are usually a staff level approval, unless there is an objection and you -- I know there were several letters submitted. I don't know exactly how many, but you should have copies of those. And this is roughly the site plan with the driveway, the garage, and the areas in the house, the family room, dining, kitchen, that would be used for the day care. I think that's all I have. We do not have a staff report on this. It's just a Public Hearing for you to hear the testimony and make a decision as to whether or not this Accessory Use Permit should be granted for a day care. That's all I have. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to come forward? Go ahead and state your name and address for the record. Fowler: My name is Mary Fowler and, actually, I have no address at this time. Borup: Okay. Fowler: I have sold my home, I'm waiting to purchase this home if this passes tonight, and I have an offer on the home. If this passes, then I'll purchase it. If it doesn't, I've got to purchase another home. Norton: So you're living in an apartment or -- Fowler: I lived with a girlfriend for four weeks and I'm with my sister for another four weeks until the house can close. Moore: Why doesn't she give the address where she's at? Borup: Yes. Just where you are temporary is fine. Fowler: 480 Waltman Lane, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Borup: Okay. Then I assume that -- have you had an opportunity to read some of the letters that we have received? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 26 Fowler: Yes, I have. Borup: Okay. So this is your opportunity to go ahead and make a presentation to the Commission on anything you'd like to say. Fowler: Okay. I have my teaching degree I got about five years ago. I taught in public schools around the area, but I really want to own my own preschool and do it in my own home, so I can be home with my children, somewhat available to them. I have been looking for a home -- looking to do this for about a year and a half. I was at that time working at Eagle Hills Elementary teaching preschool for special ed in the afternoon and working for the YMCA in the morning, when one of the moms told me she did this out of her home. She told me what she was making and I thought, well, that's the job for me. So at that time, January a year and a half ago until May or June, I put my house up for sale, I couldn't sell it. Talked to my daughter's school teacher this year, she met us for breakfast and said -- she really told me to go for my dream, try it again. So I knew this was my friend's home, Karen and Gene Jones. I knew they were selling it. I approached them a year ago last summer, I approached them again this summer, I said are you for sure selling? Please don't sell with a realtor, please sell directly to me. So we wrote up an agreement and I think you have a copy of the agreement. I have a preschool schedule. I went around and talked to all the neighbors explaining what I would like to do and I talked to the neighbors who dispute it and I understand their concerns about traffic and noise and nap time. I want you to know that I have a preschool schedule. It's pretty set, except with children always you have to be real -- very flexible, but I have an outdoor time after our nap time also, so I'm hoping that the nap time isn't that big of an issue. I'm willing to work with that neighbor. I told the husband and wife that I would work with them on naptime, as we have naptime also. We have activity time for our large motor skills, outdoor play if the weather permits, from 3:30 to 5:00 everyday. And here is this if you need to see it. Who do I give it to? And then I have some letters from people I have done day care for before and one of the neighbors -- I have a letter from one of the neighbors. I haven't had time to go around and get the rest. At 862 Cougar there is a school teacher that lives there, she said she has a sister with a two year old and she's thrilled to see me in the neighborhood. She would be glad to tell her sister and her sister will tell her friends to come to me with their children. At 913 Cougar there is a couple living there and they are fine with me putting a preschool in my home. At 950 Cougar a male answered the door. There is -- was a husband and wife that live there. They said they had grandchildren with triplets and they were excited that they could -- they asked if I did drop-ins and I said, actually, I'm not doing children that young, but we will be glad -- my daughter and I will be glad to watch them at night if they want to go on a date. And at 949 Cougar, across the street from the home, I have made friends with those people. They helped me move my -- my things are right now are in the garage of this home and we are living out of suitcases, so they have made friends with and helped me move in. Traffic -- I have a map here. This is Locust Grove. This is Meridian Road. Locust. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 27 Meridian. This is Ustick Road right here. Fairview right here. And the said location is -- of the home that I'd like to purchase is right here in the middle -- pretty much in the middle of the whole block and I have one, two, three, four, five exits and entrances into this subdivision. There is heavy traffic, that's why it's zoned R-4. I thought another home in the R-6 area over behind Shopko. I didn't think I would be approved for a day care and I didn't make an offer on that home. They had a preschool and they had a dare care preschool already in the garage already set up and it was a lovely home and I wanted to purchase it, but I knew it probably wouldn't pass, so I came to this neighborhood, because I knew it was an R-4 and I thought that that would just be a good thing. Siddoway: It's an R-8. Just as a clarification it's an R-8 zone. Fowler: Okay. Is that one on the list? Siddoway: That's the one on the list that allows -- Fowler: I'm going backwards then. Okay. Siddoway: Right. R-8. Fowler: So the other one was R-6. Siddoway: R-4 and R-8. This one is R-8. Fowler: Does that mean high density? Siddoway: It's higher than R-4. Fowler: Okay. That's what I was trying to say. I'm sorry. Borup: Right. Day cares are one of uses for -- Fowler: There are several day cares in this neighborhood that are not zoned and licensed. Tara sent me some things on my fax machine. There doesn't seem to be that many licensed day cares in Meridian. I think it's a very difficult thing to obtain one. So I really wanted to do it legally. I called the office, they said there was a possible fine of 300 dollars a day and possible jail time if I didn't sign up and I come from a family where we live the law and so I'm going for the daycare. If I don't get one in Meridian I'll move the Boise and start one there. It might be a lot easier. So that's all I have to say. Do you have any questions for me? Borup: Any questions of Mrs. Fowler? Commissioner Norton. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 28 Norton: Mrs. Fowler, you say that you have scheduled time and that sort of thing. Are you operating a day care someplace else at this time? Fowler: No. Not right now. Norton: Okay. You have a schedule there. Is that what you have done in the past? Fowler: Yes. Norton: I see. And are you a member of the Treasure Valley Association for the Education of Young Children? Fowler: I have never heard of it. Norton: And how long have you been in Meridian? Fowler: I have never lived in Meridian. I've lived in Boise the last 14 years. Norton: And you have never heard of that organization? Fowler: No, I have -- I haven't heard of it in the public schools. No, I haven't. Sorry. Norton: Okay. Do you intend on having one to five or six to 12 children? Fowler: I intend on having six to 12. I applied for that July 22nd. They told me that my hearing would be moved out to October. I said I can't wait that long. My closing date on the house was August 31st. They said, well, why don't you pay another 80 dollars and go for this zoning for one to five. It should pass a lot quicker. Norton: Okay. And you do know that Meridian has no day care licensing law on the books? Fowler: No, I didn't know that. Norton: No, we don't. Fowler: So we don't have to be licensed is what you're telling me? Norton: You have to be licensed in Ada county, yes. And Ada county would be overseeing you. Fowler: Okay. And I have to go to Health and Welfare? I have already got my -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 29 Norton: Yeah. That's through Ada county. And now if you have 12 children do you plan on hiring employees then? Fowler: No. Norton: Do know what the ratio is that you need to -- Fowler: Yes. Norton: And what is that ratio? Fowler: It's one adult for ages three to five for 12 children. Norton: Are you sure about that? Fowler: Yes. Norton: I just have one other question. I notice that -- I'm familiar with where this house is and the person right behind you is very, very close to your back yard. Fowler: Yes. Norton: Have you talked to that person about when the children would be outside? Fowler: Yes. We talked about it. Norton: Okay. Fowler: And we are having -- Norton: How did that person feel? Fowler: Not very good about it. Norton: Okay. All right. Then I just have -- we have several letters from neighbors. You are -- you want a day care -- obviously, it's a day care, but it may be preschool between certain ages? Fowler: Yes. Norton: Three and five years? Fowler: Three and five years old. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 30 Norton: And approximately how much do you charge a person for full-time day care? Fowler: A hundred a week. Norton: A hundred a week? Fowler: Yes. Norton: Okay. Thank you. Fowler: Thank you. Any other questions? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Just so I understand, ma'am. This application is for one to five children, not six to 12? Fowler: Correct. I have to come back to finish my other one. Nary: Okay. So all we would be looking at tonight is whether or not you would be able to have one to five children, not -- Fowler: Exactly. Nary: Okay. And is that viable for you to have one to five children or are we wasting our time? Fowler: Well, we are wasting our time. I need six to 12. Nary: Okay. So you really want us to think on whether or not we want to have 12 children at this residence? Fowler: That would be nice. Yes. Nary: Okay. So if we really can't get there today, that we should deny it? Because this one to five is of no value to you at all. Fowler: I'd much rather you approve it, so I can purchase the home and then I can go for the six to 12. But I cannot afford my bills with one to five, because my self-employment insurance -- I mean taxes are one-third of what I make. Nary: Now my assumption, ma'am, is that what you're operating -- my recollection was -- and Commissioner Norton can correct me -- is that the state Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 31 required that you have a license if you have seven children or more. Do you know if that's true or not? Fowler: I've never applied for the state. I have only applied for Boise City before. This is my first time applying for one. Nary: Okay. You had a license in Boise City? Fowler: Yes. I had one. A couple of different times. Nary: And I think that's a requirement by the state that if you have more than seven children. So you don't know if you're going to be able to do this yet, because if you don't have a state license you can't have seven children or more. Mrs. Fowler: So you're saying not only do I need to pass tonight, I need to go to the state and apply for – Nary: I believe you do. I mean I don't know, but -- Fowler: Or Ada county? Nary: -- I believe you do. I believe you have to have a State License before you can have more than seven children. Fowler: Okay. I have never heard of that, so I'll check into -- Nary: And the only reason I know that is because we have had other testimony from other day care operations that said the same thing, that they were required to have a state license. Fowler: Was that for more than 12 children? Nary: For more than seven. Fowler: For more than seven. Okay. Nary: What type of -- how much traffic -- I mean -- let me back up. The kind of day care that you operate now -- is that right? Do you operate one in Boise now? Fowler: No. I have. I have in my last home. Nary: And how many children did you have at that? Fowler: You know it was a lot of drop-ins, so I don't know. Probably maybe eight at the most. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 32 Nary: And how much traffic did that generate? Fowler: Well, not more than 16 different drives every day. Double, you know. Nary: So you plan on living in this residence, I assume? Fowler: Yes. Nary: I heard you say that one of the neighbors had asked about night -- watching the kids. Are you talking about -- Fowler: No. Nary: -- doing it as a day-care function? Fowler: Actually, he was asking if I could watch his triplets, who are babies, and I let him know that I'm not doing babies, but we could watch them at night if he wants to go on a date or something. Not as a business. Just as a -- Nary: Just as a favor. Okay. So this business would only be operating 7:00 to 6:00? Something like that? Fowler: 7:00 to 6:00. Correct. Nary: Okay. Fowler: And the traffic would come anywhere between 7:00 and 9:00 in the morning and anytime between 4:00 and 6:00 in the evening. Nary: Okay. Fowler: It's certainly not all at once, but if there is there are 12 cars at once. The pad on my property had five parking spots in the front and then it's on a corner, so they can park around the corner if they need to. The two on the left where it says car, there is two that can fit deep on both of those and then that's -- so the driveway is kind of -- I didn't draw it good enough, but, anyway, there is about five that can fit around and then there is five that can fit in the driveway at any given time. Nary: Thank you. Fowler: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Any other -- okay. Okay. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? If you will come forward. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 33 Rigenhagen: Good evening, Council members. I'm Kim Rigenhagen and I live at 2613 North Caribou Way. It is the house right next door to where she is wanting to put this day care. I'd first like to state that my husband and I do not approve of the idea of a commercial business operating within our neighborhood, much less next door to our home. The application being considered is for a day care that is to host five or fewer children. If this passes, the applicant Mary Fowler has the intention of hosting six to 12 children as noted in her letter that she distributed to the immediate neighbors of the property. We submitted a letter of objection to the proposal after receiving application notice from the city. In addition to what we stated in that letter, we feel that such an operation is just not feasible within our neighborhood for the following reasons: No. 1 we have lived in our home for over six years and during that period of time we have seen the amount of traffic multiply greatly. Our street is a feeder street to the adjoining neighborhoods. We feel that the traffic levels as they are at present a condition as bordering intolerable. If this day care were allowed to begin operating it would generate at least over 20 more trips in and out of our neighborhood a day. Many drivers that travel our street do so at a rate of speed over the limit. We feel that this presents an unsafe condition to operate a day care with so many children nearby. Our neighbor that presently lives at 962 East Cougar has mentioned to us in the past that she has witnessed cars cutting the corner from Caribou to Cougar and traveling up onto the curb. There have been several policemen ticketing drivers in this area for speeding, running stop signs, etc. We are very concerned for the safety of the children that would be in this facility on a daily basis. No. 3 there is several recently retired couples -- there are several retired couples in our neighborhood and those individuals enjoy things as they are at the present time. The increase in traffic and noise would be bothersome to those who are at home during the day, including those who work nights and try to sleep during the day. No. 4 the close proximity between our houses would present increased noise levels during the day. We live close enough to a school and already have enough noise during the daytime hours. I have presented to you a signed petition, which you received that today. With 54 signatures of those who object to this application. The majority of the signatures are people that live very near to the proposed site, but all who signed are homeowners or reside within Hunter Point. And you will -- I just wanted to stay that I talked with 58 homes and out of 58 homes 54 people signed that -- this petition. If I were to go through the whole neighborhood I bet I would get a majority of those people to sign that. People just are really tired of the traffic. And, finally, we feel that a full-time preschool facility should be located within a commercially zoned area for all these reasons. I appreciate your time and hope that you consider your decision very carefully. It will make a great impact upon our neighborhood if you allow this to proceed any further. Thank you. Borup: Any questions for -- I guess not. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 34 Rigenhagen: Council members my name is Monte Rigenhagen. I also live at 2613 North Caribou. I apologize if I repeat any of the same points that are going to be brought up tonight. That having been said, please allow me to voice my sentiments of why I also stand opposed to this request. I'd like to place special emphasis on the petition that my wife just mentioned that's been signed by so many in our community. These people feel that it would affect their homes by both increased traffic and decreased property values. A comment made by one of these homeowners is that our detailed covenants even prohibit construction of a vinyl fence. Why, then, would it be okay to operate such a business in our neighborhood? Many of the people chose to reside in a neighborhood with covenants, as it insures that everyone living within the community adheres to pre-determined regulations. This helps to keep property values at their highest and presents fewer misunderstandings or disagreements between those living within the area. The proposed day care would detract from the spirit within our community since it's obvious that so many are in objection to this proposal. Mary didn't introduce herself to us and she introduced someone who she said was her realtor -- at least the person said she was, that's brokering this proposed sale of the home in question. Her response to my implication of decreased property values was to compare a day care to a swimming pool. Some people don't want one next door and some do. The logic behind this comparison still escapes me. And the short time it took to gather the names on the petition, my belief is that most people -- and certainly those that we talked to within Hunter Point, would not live next to an operating day care facility of this size if given a choice. When my wife and I sought out our home over six years ago, our vision was one of within a neighborhood of single-family homes with the normal amount of traffic, children, and noise. I was shocked to learn about this proposal, even more surprised to discover that such a business was not specifically prohibited by our covenants. Our homes are our single largest investment. This should be a place of tranquility, security, comfort, and reward for our labor. Many of my neighbors are of the same mind set. The actions of someone new to the neighborhood should not so drastically impact all those around them. I feel the positions of the existing homeowners regarding this matter should be given a great deal gravity in your consideration. The opinions I have mentioned are shared by all here tonight that stand against this proposal. Had the neighborhood been polled beforehand, the reaction would have been obvious and the accompanying aggravation could have been avoided. It's not a matter of whether or not we can lend the neighbors some patience and inconvenience for a day. The conditions would exist every day, every weekday, every week, all year long. Thank's for your time and consideration. Borup: Thank you. I do have a quick question. Your letter stated that you understood that there are at least two existing day cares in the neighborhood. Are you familiar with where those are located or is that just something you have heard? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 35 Rigenhagen: That's just something my wife had heard and I know they are not licensed or -- they had not gone through the procedures that Mary has tried to. Borup: So apparently they are -- Rigenhagen: They are not official. I mean but they are in existence, from what I understand on -- Borup: But they are off Cougar? Same street? Rigenhagen: Is that correct? Borup: I would just -- Rigenhagen: On Wolverine. Borup: And the reason I asked is it's -- apparently it's pretty inconspicuous in not even knowing where it's at. That's why. Rigenhagen: That's true. And from what I understand they are both smaller -- I'm sorry. From what I understand they are both smaller day cares. Borup: Okay. That's what I was -- Rigenhagen: Four or less children. I don't think I would be here tonight if that was the case. And up to 12 kids is an entirely different picture. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Rigenhagen: I would also like to say that we are not questioning her qualifications whatsoever, I'm sure she's more than capable of doing something like this. I do want to say that, you know, she requested that you consider the zero to five so she could move in. Well, she's already stated to you as well that she needs up to 12 to pay her bills. So once she's moved in it's going to be much more difficult for this to be denied, obviously. I did also want to comment the map that was on there with the cars that were drawn in, there is no stop sign when you turn off of Cougar onto Caribou. I think there really should be. If all the spots that are marked were filled up with cars it would even be harder to pull out onto that street and present an even more dangerous situation. Borup: For the cars to drive through? Rigenhagen: For the cars. Absolutely. Borup: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 36 Crandall: Good evening. My name is David Crandall and I live at 858 East Cougar Court, which is about three homes to the west of this proposal. Some of the comments I was going to make tonight I think I have heard reinforced tonight, but there is an intent here to do this in stages and first get permission for one to five and then go on to get 12 people -- 12 children in this home. Hunter's Point is an association of 290 homes that's governed by covenants. The covenants are vigorously enforced and I think the people that live in this association like the neighborhood, they like the covenants, they like the fact as it stands in the neighborhood and that it is residential purposes. This clearly goes against those intents, because it's clear from what she has said tonight that this is a business, that the only way that she can purchase this home is if she has up to 12 children in it that will pay the bills, and I don't think that a precedent should not set in our community of allowing a business like this to come in. I think it would degrade the value of the neighbor in general and I worry about the long-term impact to the neighborhood as far noise, unsightliness, and the traffic condition. I have also driven the road -- the access roads that she mentions tonight. She has indicated in her application that there would be minimum impact to the neighborhood. It's probably one of the worst locations that she could pick, because it's dead center of four other subdivisions. It's half a mile from Locust Grove, 7/10ths of a mile from Ustick, 8/10ths of a mile from Meridian Road, and it's over a mile to get down to Fairview. She would have to -- people who would access this home would either be coming in through Hunter's Point, Gem Park, Bedford Place, and it's Fartherton or -- it's not just impacting us, it's going to impact three surrounding neighborhood associations as well. It's virtually in the center of a large block. It would have impact in traffic on four subdivisions in total and I would hope that you would not approve this. Borup: Thank you. Any questions? Nary: Mr. Chairman? But if the people -- the children that stay there came from the surrounding neighbors it wouldn't impact it at all, would it? Crandall: If it were two or three. There is still the impact of the traffic at crossing roads without stop signs. As is indicated that intersection is -- and I want to make a comment, too, it is a very busy intersection. People that are going either up to Ustick or over to Meridian Road zoom through there. You don't have stop signs and you don't have crosswalks. If people in the neighborhood only use the home they would be crossing streets at busy times in the morning when people are going to work or busy times in the evening when people are coming home. I think there is a substantial danger, even if it's foot traffic. Nary: You do understand, though, sir, that that's the Highway District's -- Crandall: Yes. Nary: It's not ours. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 37 Crandall: But we are looking at it from a homeowner's safety issue and I think it's -- Nary: Safety of whom, sir? Crandall: Safety of the children who would be trying to walk the streets to get to that home. Nary: Aren't there children in that neighborhood now that walk on the sidewalk? Crandall: They go down to Chief Joseph Elementary and there is quite a bit of traffic going down there and it is quite a worry. Nary: But there are children walking around the neighborhood now? Crandall: Yes. Yes. Nary: I mean whether or not -- whether or not there is more children caused by this -- I mean there is no -- this doesn't raise the risk to children walking in the street; right? Crandall: We think it does if they are going to have foot traffic coming to that home. Nary: But these are small children, accompanied by adults. Crandall: They would have to be accompanied by adults. They-would-have to be accompanied by adults and you just said would they be walking to it? Nary: No, I didn't say that. I said if they came from the surrounding neighborhood. I didn't say they would necessarily all would walk there. Crandall: Okay. Nary: But I mean there is no greater foot traffic caused by this house, other than the volume of children that are going to be there. Crandall: Correct. Correct. Nary: And it is a fenced yard. I mean they are not going to be -- Crandall: Fenced backyard. Nary: But you're not going to have two-year-olds playing out in the front yard much, are you? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 38 Crandall: I hope not. Nary: But other people that live on that street may have two-year-olds playing in their front yard; correct? Crandall: Yes. Yes. Nary: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Deboer: Good evening, Council and Commissioners. I am James Eric Deboer. I live at 2499 North Lark Avenue. Would it be possible to get a picture of the map back up, please, the one that -- yes. Thank you. With your permission I'd like to walk away from the podium. I will speak loudly enough so you can hear me. This area here was North Caribou and East Meadowgrass, along with this small corridor here, all these streets have no painted stripes or anything like this, and it is obviously a residential area. The intended site where this -- Mary would like to place her child care has a relatively small backyard compared to some of the other houses in the district. There are also several people who live at -- or who work at Micron who live in this area, several people who have to work at night for their livelihood. Daytime it would create significant more noise for these people to try to sleep through. If you really -- the picture that they have in here doesn't give it justice, because the backyard is relatively small and pretty close to their neighbors. Also I do fear -- I have two children myself and we could use a day care, but there is available day care and it's within the City of Meridian and also I wouldn't want to put my children in this type of environment, because I believe that they would be in danger and I don't want to do that to the children, because I don't know how aware the parents are that when you use it, it would be that. So I personally am stating that I would not -- I'm asking you to disapprove her application for this particular day care at this location. Borup: Any other questions? Shreeve: Yes. Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: I have got a question. You indicated that you would like to -- or that you would use or like to use a day care. What type of a day care would you prefer? I should say expound a little bit further on -- Deboer: Personally for the homeowners, which of one I am one, I live right around the corner of Grouse there. I wouldn't want one -- I'm not looking for increased traffic in my neighborhood, the traffic right now is pretty bad, and it's Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 39 about four times normal now, even, because Locust Grove is all tore up. So it's very dangerous for the children. I don't let my children out of my sight in the front yard, because it's so bad there. But if I were to place my kids -- currently I don't plan it necessary to have to put them in there, but in the near future I probably will. I would take them to one of the places like the Pettit's on Franklin, because it is in a commercial zone, it is a more suitable location for children, they have the permits, they have the state requirements met and they are watched more closely than this particular place. Like I said, I don't want to add any increased traffic. Shreeve: Let me just ask you just a hypothetical question. Of course, this is on a corner, but if one of those lots were mid block, say on Caribou and down a few lots, would that pose -- would you still be against it, I should say? Deboer: Depending on where it's at, I may or may not be against it. I personally don't think it's a very good idea to have that. This is America, she can apply for it, and that's what we are all here for tonight, but particularly in this case that particular lot is -- as stated before, probably is one of the worst lots to put one at, due to the fact of the high traffic on Lark -- I'll speak again louder. The high traffic on Lark and Grouse, Caribou, Meadowgrass, plus you have traffic coming from -- which is Ustick down this way, Arrow Wood, and then Lark and then basically they do one of these -- most of the public will do one of these type of maneuvers and it takes them right passed that house. And that house has a lot of traffic by it. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Sir, would you say -- so just so I understand your position, if this was only a one to five day care you don't think it's even appropriate anyway? Is that what I understand you to -- Deboer: My personal opinion is, yes, I don't believe it's appropriate. I don't -- this -- like I stated, I believe that's probably -- out of the entire Hunter Point Subdivision the worst place you could put a day care. Nary: Well, unless you were taking your child there and it's a lot easier to get there than somebody -- Deboer: If that day care was there and it was available to me, convenience would be the best for that day care to be there. But I'm telling you if that day care was established and I were to use day care, I would not use that lot as a day care, just because of the increased traffic and the safety concerns. I don't believe that -- like the one hand drawn drawing shows cars here. I'm very familiar with this street. I visit friends on this street all the time. It's very, very Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 40 rarely is there ever any cars parked at these two locations right here. With cars parked here and cars parked here, if it were ever to occur -- and it would probably occur during a home care type environment, any cars that are coming down this traverse here where there is no stop sign, would have a blocked view of any traffic coming, which is a very busy street from Caribou here. So you're adding risk not only to the drivers, but also any children who want to cross the street here, especially children who might pop out from in front of a car or from behind a car. Nary: But, again, like the last gentleman here, you understand that's the Highway District that would deal with that. Deboer: I understand that. But in the interest of the safety of the personnel and the interest of the safety of the people in Hunter Point, which is all who we bought our homes for -- from, you know, the subdivision we belong to, that's why I'm stating my opinion. Nary: Okay. Deboer: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Chairman. I know we have some other people to hear from, but I was looking through the tables here and I was going to ask Steve a question. It would appear to me that this one to five day care that's the current application before us, under our accessory use definition of 11-2-2 and then what's defined in our code under child care facility, this would be a family child care home. That's in the definition section. That says provides for care of five or fewer children. Siddoway: That's correct. Nary: And then the next one, group child home, six to 12. And if I look at our tables under the land use section for 11-8-1, in a residential zone of R-8 for this group childcare home to be allowed when we get there, that requires a Conditional Use Permit. Siddoway: And we have one in now. Nary: And that's what's already been applied for? Siddoway: Yeah. Has it deemed complete? Fowler: No. Have one more -- Borup: She said that would take too long. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 41 Nary: Right. So -- Siddoway: We have an incomplete application at this point. Nary: Okay. Okay. Norton: Steve, I have a question. If she wants up to 12 kiddies, why did the staff say go for one to five and then go for six to 12? Because it's very apparent she wants 12. So why did staff recommend she does a two-step process? Siddoway: I don't know. I'd defer to Mary. She has had the conversation with staff. It wasn't with me. Norton: Okay. Thank you. Because it's obvious to anybody now she wants 12, so this -- I think we are wasting our time tonight. Shreeve: It's hard to decide on five, this application, when you know somewhere down the road it's going to be 12. So you really -- Nary: And, again, I -- you know, just so these folks understand, I mean I know there is a lot of people that want to talk, but I think that's the reason our ordinance is written this way, because a day care facility that has less than five children is what our Accessory Use Permit allows for, because even as some of the testimony was, most of those you can't even tell they are there. They don't have signage, you know, there is no tremendous impact on your neighborhood with that type of thing. But that's why the other requires a conditional use, but I guess I agree with Commissioner Norton, although I certainly want to hear the other people speak as well, but if -- as I think the applicant stated, if we aren't going to look forward and say 12 is probably going to work, we are wasting our time tonight. This is a waste of our time, as well as yours, because I wouldn't have a problem with one to five. I think that's reasonable. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I think that's exactly what neighborhoods can provide to people to have that type of facility. But six to 12 in the middle of a neighborhood, boy, that's not that -- you have got 54 people that have already said that's not a compatible use. That makes it awful tough. So I guess I'm in the same quandary as the other Commissioners, but I wouldn't have a problem with one to five, but I think I heard her say that if we aren't going to approve 12, then why bother. So I'm not sure what we should do with it tonight. I don't think this lady should be here. I think you should have waited until you had your conditional use application and made a decision then. But this doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Norton: I wondered if there is anybody else that wanted to come up and testify before we closed the Public Hearing Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 42 Borup: Just a second, please. Just a second, ma'am. We have got a couple more questions from staff. The reason for the hearing is just because there were written objections, is that -- Siddoway: The reason for the hearing is that there were written objections. Borup: Is that stated in the ordinance? If you look at the same chart that Commission Nary just talked about, it says it's permitted in an accessory use. Is that to say it's a conditional use for -- is there some clarification on that? That's on the -- that's on the one through five. Now on the -- up to 12 it says Conditional Use. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, 11-9-4 F. This is under accessory use provisions. If there is an objection to the proposed use filed within the time for response, a hearing, after notice, shall be held by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which may grant or deny the application after making findings of fact. Borup: Okay. That's why I just wanted clarification. Thank you. Now do we have anyone else that wants to come forward? Cox: My name is Gale Cox I live at 1223 East Hunter Drive. I have known Mary for three years and when she said she was going to purchase a home in our neighborhood and wanted to put a day care in it, I thought it was a good idea. My house backs up against Chief Joseph Elementary School. It is a family neighborhood. There are a lot of children in the neighborhood and I know there are several day cares in the neighborhood that are not licensed. As a mother I would much rather have a licensed day care that is regulated by the state in the neighborhood than children just going to homes that aren't licensed, for one. Two, she is targeting families in the neighborhood for day care and preschool and in that way there would not be a big increase in traffic, as I see it. I get a lot of traffic by my house, because my house is right on the corner and it's two doors down from the inlet to Chief Joseph Elementary School. There are probably 20 - - at least 20 cars every morning and every afternoon around the corner of my house and, to be honest, I have decided that that's okay, because I would much rather have responsible parents picking up their children than just letting them run loose in the neighborhood. I think that's a good location, because if children want to they can safely walk to Mary Fowler's house for day care after school. There are crosswalks and I just think it would -- I think it would be an asset to the neighborhood, the children that live in that neighborhood to have a safe, licensed day care that they could attend. On the noise level, I mean that's a larger house, who's not saying that somebody couldn't move in that house that had ten kids, a lot of them teenagers, and have a car each, six or seven cars, and they would park all over the place anyway. I would much rather have young preschool children, they are not -- they are not as loud, they are not going to be coming in and out late at night, they are going to be leaving and going to their own homes, you know, between 4:00 and 6:00. Also all those cars wouldn't be there at once. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 43 Not all parents bring their children exactly at the same time and leave exactly at the same time. So I would think very rarely that all those cars would be there. Most of the time they would just be able to pull up into Mary's driveway pick up their children, it would probably take five minutes to drop them off, if that, and five minutes to pick them up afterwards. And I really don't see a big impact in the neighborhood. She -- it's not just like she's baby-sitting and the children would be running around playing all over the neighborhood. She is doing preschool, which would be run like a school, and those children would be in a structured environment inside most of the day. The playtime that she has scheduled is after school when the elementary school kids are out anyway and playing. So I see it as an asset to our neighborhood and also with the traffic I think the people -- a lot of people are frustrated right now anyway with the traffic situation with Locust Grove all being torn up and so that's on their nerves a little bit and that won't be that way forever. Borup: Thank you. Norton: Mrs. Cox? Cox: Yes. Norton. We are not questioning Mary Fowler's experience as a teacher. Cox: I understand that. Norton: Back in 1986 when our first Day Care Licensing Law was put on the books I was co-chair of a 40 organizational coalition that worked with then State Senator Crapo and we got the first Day Care Licensing Law passed for the State of Idaho. The City of Boise has a day care licensing law. Meridian does not have a Day Care Licensing Law. What Mrs. Fowler is coming here for is a Conditional Use -- or if she wants the 12 she has to come before us for a Conditional Use Permit, not a license. Ada County has a license and the state has a license, so if she wants a day care she can be licensed. But when you say the City of Meridian licensing, it's on -- it's an ordinance that we need to pass. We did have a draft of a license, but we don't have one at this time. Cox: All right. I understand that. But she would be licensed by the state, too. She would have to be -- Norton: Yes. Cox: And I think that would be -- Norton: A necessity. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 44 Cox: I think that would be an asset instead of having just people baby-sit that really isn’t licensed. Norton: Thank you. Borup: Do we have someone else? Gore: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Margo Gore. I live at 2633 North Goldeneye Way in Hunter Point and I represent the architectural control committee for the Hunter Point Homeowners Association. Most of my comments will speak forward to the future should Mrs. Fowler apply or a permit for six to 12 children. If a requirement should ever come up or the need should arise for her to fence in her front yard, we specifically require only dog-eared cedar fences and since she is on a corner lot, that fence could not be more than three feet high. Furthermore, any fence that she wanted to install would have to go through our architectural control committee. Mostly my concern is that she is going to attempt to purchase this home based on watching five children and then be in a financial bind if she cannot get her Conditional Use Permit to accept six to 12. The board of directors for the Hunter Point Homeowners Association Board will fight any request for a Conditional Use Permit of this type. Do you have any questions? Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Hall: Good evening. My name is Denice Hall. My address is 2582 North Caribou, right across the street. Everyone's touched on everything that needs to be said. I just want to reinforce the fact that property values could and very well will go down if a day care is put in. Had we known that this could happen we would never have purchased our home in this subdivision across the street from a day care. Everyone keeps talking about the traffic situation being someone else's problem. That traffic situation is going to be her problem if those children are hurt. There is no stop sign at that intersection. So I want to make it very clear that my husband and I are very much opposed to this day care and we certainly hope that you vote it down. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Ramirez: My name is Jon Ramirez. I live at 892 East Cougar, which is, oh, about two houses down from the proposed site. And my only real concern -- everyone else has voiced their concerns on what's going to happen with traffic, all these kinds of things, and the one to five kids and the six to 12 kids. It seems me that one to five kids would be like a -- more of a day care situation and she peaks more of a school, a preschool type thing, which to me is more of a business. And in our subdivision we don't -- it's more of a family area, not a business type area, and I just feel that it has no place in our subdivision. That's about it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 45 Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that has anything new they'd like to add? Okay. Any final comments from the applicant? Mary, did you have any final comments you'd like to make? Fowler: No, I don't. Borup: Okay. Commissioners, any discussion? Norton: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close the Public Hearing. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Would you like some discussion first or does someone want to -- Shreeve: Well, I'd like to just make a comment. First of all, to tell Mrs. Fowler that her integrity from the standpoint of up front, saying this is where I'm headed, even though for whatever reasons you pursued a two-step process, but knowing what your final step and what needs to be, I think that that is very well commendable and appreciated, because we know that from the very beginning. But with that said, knowing that in the end I -- I just, I guess simply put, don't see that it's something that would fit in this neighborhood and I think I would look to decline this application based on the future. Now the application, I guess, in and of itself -- again, I guess I don't have a problem with that either, but, again, looking at the end, I certainly would hate to have you get into something and then be under a financial burden in the future. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Yes. I guess I'm going to probably just repeat myself. You know, if this is all we were looking at was an accessory use of one to five, I wouldn't have any problem with it and at least from what I hear from a lot of these folks, they probably wouldn't either. But that is what our ordinance contemplates for accessory use is something that doesn't change the character of the neighborhood. It's not a significant impact on the people that are there. And a one to five day care is not. That's fine. I think that's exactly what neighbors should be able to deal with. But a six to 12 is pretty significant and there is a reason it's a conditional use and the concerns I have in looking at the ordinance on the conditional uses, I can understand why the neighbors comments were that it's going to be harder to want to deny it, because this lady will have bought Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 46 this house and is living there. Honestly, it wouldn't be hard for me. There is nothing in this ordinance that says a financial hardship of the applicant is a reason to grant it. And so since that was what was placed on the table, that, really, all what your objective is, is a six to 12 day care and if one to five is only just a preliminary step, I can't see a reason to still persist with it. I think we would be wasting Mrs. Fowler's time, and just as well as the neighbors. Norton: Just one final comment is that perhaps Mrs. Fowler may want to buy a less expensive home and apply the money toward a commercial establishment and do your preschool there. You know, there are very fine preschools that people would love to go to in a commercial -- and that's a pretty spendy home. So if you need to make enough money -- I have been doing a lot of figures here how much you need to make in order to make your payment on your mortgage, plus your expenses, and you need 12 people, so with that I would like to make a motion. Shreeve: Before you do, just one quick comment, that we don't want to run you off to Boise, though, but -- Borup: We have closed the Public Hearing. Norton: Okay. I'd like to move to deny Public Hearing AUP 01-012, a proposed family day care, five or fewer children, by Mary Fowler. Shreeve: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you, everyone. Good luck, Mary. Commissioners are we -- would you like to proceed or would you like a short break? Okay. We'll take a short break at this time and reconvene for the -- our last two hearings. (Reconvene at 9:12 P.M.) Item 7. AZ 00-019 Request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development – northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: Item 8. PP 00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on 99.82 acres in an R-4 zone for Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development – northwest of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 47 Borup: We'd like to reconvene our Public Hearing this evening. Start with Item No. 7, AZ 00-019, request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 for the Revised Cedar Springs by Kevin Howell Development. And the adjoining application of this is PP 00-018, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 264 building lots and 31 other lots on the same property. I'd like to open both these Public Hearings and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This project has been before the Commission before. I don't know how many of you were here. It's been a little while going through the process. The project is located as outlined in red at the -- near the intersection of Ustick and Meridian Roads. Surrounding the property here, which is the City's 58-acre park. The surrounding zoning is pretty much all county, with the exception of the park. This is the proposed plat. It is a revised plat. I'll try and give you a little bit of history for those that may not be familiar with the project. The Commission recommended approval of this project originally on March 15th, 2001. On June 19th the City Council acted on these applications, remanding them back to the Commission. It is my understanding -- and Mr. Moore can verify this -- that since the Commission originally recommended approval and since a new application was not required, a Public Hearing is not necessary for this. So this has not been noticed as a Public Hearing. There have been no mailings. It's just been remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for four specific items and I will go over these items with you, because any testimony from the applicant should be limited to those issues that it was remanded for. In the City Council's letter, the decision and order, it says: One, that it has to supply access for John Kennedy's property, which I believe is the property to the west up in this area. Second, they needed to remove from the plat the limited office and multi-family references that were in this location right here and in this location right here, if they are not intended to be -- to do a planned development, which they are not proposing to do. Third, the applicant shall design a new single loaded street along the park. The park sits south of the property here. Council required a single loaded street to be constructed adjacent to that park. Fourth, they wanted the subdivision redesigned to include various lot sizes and I don't think anymore specificity was put to that word various, so it's kind of a subject call that the Commission will have to look at and see if they feel that it is -- has enough variety. They have a breakdown of lot sizes provided on the plat. And the fifth issue is Venable Lane, which is running north-south along the west side of the property. I don't fully understand this issue, so I'm going to rely on the applicant to clarify what this issue is, but my understanding is there is a right of way that continues up the west side of the plat, which would create lots with double frontage, which our zoning ordinances do not allow. They expect that right of way will be vacated. For those specific issues it has been remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further design review. There is a staff report -- I hope you have a copy. It was done today. Well, yesterday. Sorry. September 19, 2001. Brad Hawkins-Clark and Bruce Freckleton prepared it. On the second page of that there is a comparison between the previous plat and this Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 48 plat. For annexation and zoning we have -- they are -- we have no changes to the proposed original staff report in February 15, 2001, and those staff -- that staff report stands for annexation and zoning. There is -- there are some issues that need to be discussed regarding the single loaded street, specifically the Ada County Highway District has proposed a redesign and I'm not sure if everyone has a copy of that. I hope you do. But on page five of 14 in the ACHD report they show a proposed re-lotting structure. We as city staff don't like it, frankly, and we are proposing three other options for traffic calming, which is the basic issue that ACHD is trying to respond to. They are worried about high-speed traffic going down a straight through way. So we have talked about constructing bump outs in alignment with the stub streets and/or pavers or stamped concrete to provide crosswalks at those. All of these would be traffic calming devices that should slow traffic. The third is a three to four foot high open vision fence, like a split rail fence, along the north boundary of the park, which would open only in line with those stub streets and the crosswalks that would be provided. Frankly, I'm less excited personally about that option. I think, myself that it would be better left open, but the other two options seem like really good ones, the bump outs and the concrete crosswalks. The next issue specific to the plat itself is regarding the usable open space calculation. There is a requirement for a five percent common open space. The plat crosshatches the areas that are designated as usable open space that they have included street buffers and areas along Settler's irrigation easement, which would not be counted. We just ask that the applicant clarify if they have five percent excluding those areas that cannot be counted. We have already talked about vacating the right of way. Also there are no specific phase lines and phase lines would have to be approved with a Preliminary Plat. Fourth, there -- I'm on -- I'm reading from page four now of the staff report. There seems to be some errors in the density calculations that should be clarified. There is a note issue that can be taken care of and then an acreage, but that's fairly simple to correct. So those are the outstanding issues and I will stand for questions. Borup: Any questions? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Mr. Nary. Nary: Steve, I heard you say that the staff doesn't like the proposed revision that ACHD has, but why specifically don't you like it? What specific reason? It looks goofy, but I mean is there something more than it just looks goofy? Siddoway: The amount of -- City Council's requirement was for the street that fronts along that park, it decreases that I'm guessing by about a third. Let me look at that. Like half. About half of the street is now gone. The idea is to get the street adjacent to the park, people can have frontage along the street. That's part of it. In fact, I'd say that's the main issue. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 49 Nary: So it doesn't comply with the City Council's directive, I'm assuming. Siddoway: Yes. Nary: Okay. Fair enough. Oh, yes what's a bump out? I guess I don't know what that is. Siddoway: If you can picture right down here in Old Town at the corners where the -- at the intersections, the curbs bump out and constrict the street. Typically they are along street parking adjacent to that allowed, but it narrows the street so it's not as wide, you don't get the -- as high of speeds -- Nary: Harris Ranch kind of has the same sort of effect as well. Siddoway: Probably. Nary: Is that something ACHD has more -- I mean this revision -- staff recommendation -- I'm trying to talk as loud as I can. This staff recommendation from ACHD is simply a recommendation. Siddoway: Yes. Nary: So wouldn't those bump outs -- wouldn't they have a little bit more say in that, because they are going to -- they may restrict the flow of traffic or they narrow the lanes down and there is a lane width requirement, I mean is that going to end up being a problem, too? Siddoway: They would have something to say about that, yes, and that is our proposed alternative to what their recommendation is. Nary: Okay. What I guess I want to be clear for the record, though, what they are suggesting or what they are recommending, right, I would say we are free to ignore it; correct? They are not requiring that, they are not saying that their only approval is to do it this way, they are just recommending that because of their concerns about traffic. Siddoway: My understanding is this is a staff recommendation, not the Commission's final written report. Nary: Okay. But I guess I'm only concerned that they -- if they make -- if we add those other things that that might give them more fuel to deny it and I don't know, maybe it doesn't make any difference, you know. Siddoway: I do not know. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 50 Nary: Okay. Freckleton: Commission Nary, members of the Commission, I don't know if Brad Hawkins-Clark has had an opportunity to talk with Andrea at ACHD regarding this proposed alternative, the bump out alternative. Nary: Oh. Okay. Freckleton: They are scheduled to go before the Commission's -- or the staff's recommendations to the Commission are scheduled to go before their Commission on the 3rd of October. It would probably be appropriate for Brad to have dialogue with her and just, you know, put forth our recommendation for the bump out. The idea behind the bump out would kind of serve two fold, too. It would give a break in the parking along the park, so that you don't have just a row of cars, you have a row of cars, you would have some landscaping, bump out, then you would have some more cars. So Steve just said he thinks ACHD is saying no parking, so -- Nary: The other thing that is just you don't have a final approval from ACHD and we generally try to wait for that. Are we premature in making a decision on this particular project tonight? Siddoway: Could be. We've done it both ways. If there is a significant issue, we've held it up in the past. If there -- we have also sent them on subject to ACHD conditions before. So it's just a judgment call the Commission needs to make as to how significant this issue is and its likelihood of affecting the design of the project and getting it back again. Nary: Thank you. Borup: Any other -- okay. Back to -- or more, maybe, on the same question Commissioner Nary had on staff's opposition. Or maybe not -- opposition may be too strong, but not agreeing with the ACHD's alternative. It sounds like you said that were essentially you felt to more fully comply with the City Council? Siddoway: That's correct. Borup: And did you feel it was City Council's intent to have the entire subdivision as a single loaded street? I noticed their -- they didn't say how many lots or how many feet or anything to that extent. So is that your basis on that recommendation? Siddoway: It is, although I'm going to have to say that I don't have -- I didn't have the opportunity of hearing the Council testimony to know specifically how set they were for a -- you know, the full length of the street versus half the street. I'll defer to the applicant, because I wasn't at the hearing. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 51 Borup: Well, I notice it's tied in with that -- let me see, that -- with the same proposal to address any safety issues and it looks like the two are -- conflict with each other. That -- you know, that straight long shot on a single-loaded street to me is a safety issue and I assume from reading ACHD's report that was their main concern. Siddoway: That is the main concern. That's what we are trying to address is the bump outs and crosswalks. Borup: Yes. Okay. Why don't we let the applicant address some of that. Any other questions from the Commission? If the applicant's representative would like to come forward. Mr. Lee, I assume? Lee: Thank you. My name is Gary Lee I'm with J-U-B Engineers, 250 S. Beechwood, representing the applicant Howell Murdock Corporation. I think staff has presented the situation pretty clearly about the remand order and the five different conditions that we are required to meet. I did want to touch on a couple of those items a little bit more. During the Council's review of this project in talking about item 1.4 in the remand order, their statement was they wanted lot diversity and I spent some time trying to find out what they really intended, because they didn't explain that that evening. I finally got around to Mayor Corrie and his discussion with other Council members was that they wanted to see more of a lot size diversification on the project. So part of our redesign was to add some additional lots in there with more width. We have a few 80 foot wide, and we have a few 82's, a few 84's, and we have quite a mix on the percentage. I'm not sure if your reduced scale drawing clearly shows that in the lot area summary. I know I can't read it on mine. But I'll just briefly go through these numbers. The 8,082 square foot range, we have 23 percent. The 8,200 to 8,400 square feet we had 22 percent. 8,400 to 8,800 square feet had about 15 percent. 8,800 to 9,200 we had ten percent. 9,200 to 10,000, 12, on up to 15 percent -- or 15,000. Excuse me. So we got a pretty good mixture of lot sizing in there, which will afford quite a few diversified house plans as well. I think that's kind of what the Council was looking for. Venable Lane, I want to just briefly touch on that as well. Currently there is a recorded document that dates back to 1908 where an individual had granted a right of way to the county for a strip of land 29 feet wide along our western border. There was some question as to the validity of that document. There were some quiet title actions that were in process, although they were never completed. So there is a question as to whether or not there is really a right of way there or not. So our proposal is to go ahead and construct that portion of Venable Lane that you see along the west side there next to the school up to I believe it's Ashton Drive. And from that point north along what is Kennedy's property to our north boundary we will vacate whatever rights there are for a road. Obviously, there is no road there right now it's being farmed. So we will take care of that vacation at the time we prepare the plat on that western border. The safety issues that were discussed not only Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 52 at Council, but at various meetings we had with the staff, which included both fire and police, was primarily the issue of having access to the north side of that park and visibility. The police department wanted to be able to see into that park area while driving their cruisers by. They didn't want to have any backyards and fences to obscure their site. That was their main concern. The fire department was basically the same. They wanted to be able to have access directly into the park if there were emergencies and to get their EMT's in there and ambulance and whatever. It wasn't really an issue of traffic that was discussed with the safety items it was the two issues from the fire and the Police Department. The staff report that you have in front of you, dated 9/19 from Brad, I wrote a letter this afternoon and I apologize for not getting it in a little sooner, but I only had today, so I'll pass a copy around to each member. I will just go through this real quickly, so you won't have to read through that. Item one is concerning usable open space designations. The staff is correct, we -- when we prepared this revised Preliminary Plat when we were drafting all the revisions that we make to it, I didn't catch the fact that the cross-hatching went through those areas where it shouldn't have. And that is along the northern boundary, all that is cut off on your northwest corner there a little bit. There is a Settler's irrigation easement through there. That area shouldn't have been crosshatched. The area along Meridian Road, the 35-foot buffer, shouldn't have been crosshatched. And then a small area along Ustick shouldn't have been crosshatched. But the calculation for the usable space didn't change. It wasn't included in the calculation anyway and I attached a summary table to the back and you can go through that in your leisure, but we ended up with 5.16 percent usable open space over the entire 99.8 acres. If you were to evaluate the open space afforded by the school site, the area that's not covered by building or a parking lot, there is another seven percent of open space. It goes up to about 12.7. So we meet the minimum five percent. The second item discussed was the vacation of Venable Lane. I spoke about that previously and we'll go ahead and take care of that. The phasing, the developer Kevin Howell has expressed a desire to phase this project. He typically likes to do about 70 or 80 lots per phase. So we are thinking probably three phrases in here, maybe four, and he and I are going to work on those phase boundaries probably tomorrow or the first of the week. But our anticipation is that the first phase will start up on the northern end with that northern entry. And the reason I say that is that's the alignment for the proposed White Drain Sewer that's coming in the northern entry and go all the way over to the west boundary to Kennedy's parcel. So we want to develop along that sewer line first. I don't think we'll go entirely all to the west, but that will be the main focus would be up on that northeast corner of the site, is that first phase. So whatever it takes, then, about 80 lots or so, that's where we will start. But we will put together a phasing plan and get it to your staff. The density calculations that Brad mentioned in his letter, I went through those calculations again today and summarized all the lot areas and, again, it's on this table in the back. But if you look at the gross density, excluding the school -- well, including the school -- it's 2.64 dwelling units per acre gross, 3.49 dwelling units net, and that's taking the roads out. If you exclude the school site and just take the residential portion, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 53 gross is a shade under three and the net is about four. Again, the areas are summarized in the table. The fifth item in Brad's response is concerning a note - - and I thought I got that changed on this revision, but I missed it again -- to call that an old subdivision name and we will change that to the correct name in note three. The school acreage is the last item on his list. The gross acres actually are 11.41, instead of 12, like we have got shown on there. And the net is 9.47. So just some mathematics to kind of clean that up. I guess the other item is the ACHD issue and as you're all aware, this is just a staff recommendation to the Commission. I did have a conversation with Tom Kuntz today, parks department, and he said that he and some of the Council members are meeting with ACHD the first of next week, I believe, and they are going to discuss this item. If you read their recommendation and look at site-specific number eleven, talking about Ashby Street -- maybe that's not the one I was thinking of. There is one in here that talks to the fact that ACHD doesn't have a policy on lengths of street or alignment, except for curb and linear alignment. So their recommendation – Norton: Number 14. Lee: Is it number 14? Norton: Yes. 612. Lee: Yes. So although district staff does not have any specific policies prohibiting the length and configuration of a roadway, staff recommends the roadway be configured to eliminate straight-aways. You know, you talk about the straight-aways and you have all seen them, we have got straightaway streets all over the county, and there is one that came to my mind when I was reading that and that's that park that's on the corner of Eagle Road and McMillan that the City of Boise has and it has quarter mile straightaway on both sides and one of the streets is 55 miles an hour, Eagle Road. And then, of course, McMillan is -- I think it's probably 35 or 40 in there. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I'm going to stop you there, Mr. Lee. There is a pretty big buffer between where the park is and where those streets are, though, is there not, on both Eagle and McMillan at that park? Lee: Well, there is some landscaping there, yeah. Nary: There is not just landscaping, there is parking lots on both sides or adjacent to McMillan and Eagle Road, is there not? There is not grass four feet from the roadway -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 54 Lee: No, there is not. Nary: -- on those parks, are there? Lee: But there isn't a parking lot the whole way either. Borup: I mean the main difference is there no residential around that park, is there? Some residential housing? Lee: On two sides there are, but not across -- Borup: Not on Eagle and McMillan. Lee: There is a school on one side and something on the other. But I was talking about the straight street issues and -- but there are some solutions, I think, that can probably be worked out. Steve talked about the bump outs, painted crosswalks. In fact, Tom Kuntz mentioned a fence today, but it was shorter than three or four feet, he was talking two or three feet in a vinyl plastic fence, something that can be broken easy with a cruiser if they had to get in there for emergency purposes. I thought about maybe a stop sign midway to help slow some traffic. Reduction of speed limits. There wouldn't be any reason why we couldn't put a 20-mile an hour in there like a school district. The parking was kind of an interesting comment. One of the things that I thought that Mr. Kuntz and I agreed on is that there wasn't going to be any parking along that street for park use, because they have enough parking on site and that was always an issue as a development standpoint and it was agreed upon there wouldn't be any parking there. So we assume it's going to be signed and controlled that way. I think that probably concludes my presentation. If you have any questions I would be glad to -- Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Actually, I don't have a question for Mr. Lee at this juncture. What I do have a concern is in looking at our ordinance -- and Mr. Moore can offer his legal opinion, but I don't find any exception in our ordinance that revisiting a plat that - - especially when it's been redesigned, but revisiting a plat is an exception to the Public Hearing requirement. So to me if we are not -- if this isn't properly noticed as a Public Hearing, then no one can come and comment, Mr. Lee is going to have to come back and he's going to have to give that presentation all over again after he gives notice, but -- Moore: Chairman Borup, under 12-3-3 on Preliminary Plats it states that a Public Hearing held prior to a plat approval, a Public Hearing shall be held at the time of the presentation of the Preliminary Plat by the developer to the Commission for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 55 purpose of allowing public input on the proposed subdivision. If you go back to the 12-3-7 D-2, it says the administrator shall review the Final Plat for compliance with the approved or the conditionally approved Preliminary Plat. If the administrator determines that there is substantial difference in the Final Plat, then that which was approved as a Preliminary Plat or conditions which have not been met, the administrator may require that the Final Plat be submitted to the Commission in the same manner as required in the Preliminary Plat process, including a Public Hearing and notice thereof. Borup: So this is still a Preliminary Plat, not the final. Moore: But there is a substantial difference from the last one, is there not? Nary: My additional concern would be is that in setting the matter back it's one thing if the Council set it to this date. At their Public Hearing they said on September 20th the Planning and Zoning Commission is going to revisit this plat and you're going to bring back a new design plat. They didn't do that. So no person from the public would have any idea, unless they read this agenda that we were talking about this plat tonight. There is no posting, there is no mailing, there is no nothing, you know, and I guess my concern would be if we take any action on this it's invalid, because there hasn't been proper notice of this hearing for the public to be able to provide comment. And as you may recall the last time, we had a lot of people provide comment the last time. So I certainly -- and I asked Mr. Moore, I don't see any exception and when the Final Plat approval -- as that last part said, if it was substantially changed from the Final Plat we have to have a Public Hearing. Here it's just kind of a word quirk as we are reviewing the Preliminary Plat a second time, but it is substantially changed, there is no doubt. Moore: Yes and that's the point. Nary: So, Mr. Chairman, I don't know that we really need to continue with this hearing, because this needs to be a Public Hearing, it needs to be noticed. And I hate to waste Mr. Lee and Mr. Howell's time, but it should have been noticed before today for tonight. Borup: Any other comments from staff? Siddoway: I raised it, because I also had the same concern, but I would point out in Brad's memo dated August 17th regarding the Cedar Springs re-submittal process, it says that in accordance with the remand order, Bill Nichols, City Attorney, recommended the P&Z Commission review the revised Preliminary Plat. Since the Commission originally recommended approval of the plat and since a new application was not required to be submitted by the applicant, a Public Hearing is not necessary before the Commission. To fulfill due process, a Public Hearing will be held before City Council, but only after the Commission Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 56 makes a formal recommendation upon review of the revised Preliminary Plat. Your review should include both the annexation and zoning application, as well as the Preliminary Plat application. Based on this it's my understanding that Bill Nichols' opinion is that it doesn't need a hearing. Nary: A Preliminary Plat. Just Council? Siddoway: Just Council is what -- is what I read into this, but -- Borup: What you're saying is that Mr. Nichols indicated that there is no public hearing needed here, but when it goes back before the City Council there must be a Public Hearing. Siddoway: That is what I read. Nary: But just so the record is clear and I don't want to put Mr. Moore in an awkward position, but I don't care if I'm in an awkward position. Mr. Nichols -- in reading this ordinance it doesn't say that an application is the trigger to a Public Hearing it says the plat is the trigger to the Public Hearing. And this is a new plat, not an application. So to me I don't think the ordinance gives an out and I think Mr. Nichols is missing the fact that the plat is what is key here. And so I don't think -- I don't think it's responsible of us as a Commission to ignore what our own ordinance says. Attorneys can be wrong and I feel very comfortable in saying that. Attorneys can error. And I just don't think that that's really quite exactly what that ordinance says. I think it's our responsibility to the Commission to also interpret that ordinance as well. So I guess I still feel like that a Public Hearing is necessary and people should have the right to comment and if there isn't anybody, there isn't anybody, but I don't think it would be proper for us as the Commission to ignore what's pretty plain in this ordinance and that a plat -- a new plat, whether it's an application or not, requires a Public Hearing. Lee: Did they ever close that Public Hearing at Council? Siddoway: I don't know. Nary: They must have. They issued a final order that allowed them to appeal it. So they would have had to and that's what that order says, that that's an appealable order. Mr. Chairman, I'm willing to make a motion. I guess we'll see what happens, though. Norton: Wait. Let's have some discussion. Nary: Okay. Norton: I'm still back reading this memo, because it was cc'd to Bill Nichols. You know, sometimes the trouble is like this is dated August the 17th and we don't get Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 57 them until two days ago. So if maybe if our Commissioner Attorney Nary had seen this in August 17th , instead of just two days ago, you know, we wouldn't be sitting here pondering what to do. I notice a lot of these, you know, are submitted and we don't get our packets until Tuesday night and so we have two days to review these things. Borup: And this first letter from Mr. Park we should have got much earlier. Nary: And I also want to be clear. I mean I'm not blaming the staff or anybody. I mean I understand the reasons for following the advice that they get. I mean they should do that. But I can't read 12-3-3 B and say that anything but a Public Hearing is required to review a Preliminary Plat. Just because it's been revised is not an exception to the Public Hearing requirement. And, again, the staff may have directed when this was to appear on our agenda, but the Council didn't direct it as a public meeting. There is no way a member of the public would know to come. That's how they -- that's how they are supposed to know. If they made a direction to send this back at the very next meeting of this body and we set it over, again, the public has notice, they have the ability to know that, but they didn't have the ability to know this and they have the right to come and make comments to us before it gets to the Council. Mr. Nichols is right, everyone gets a Public Hearing at the Council level, but our ordinance requires that they can have one here. Borup: Further comment, Mr. Moore? Moore: I'm looking at 12-3-4 and it says Preliminary Development Plan. Upon receipt of the Commission's action concerning the Preliminary Development Plan or the receipt of an appeal of such action by the applicant or other agreed party, the administrator shall respond as follows: A, set the Public Hearing date for the Preliminary Development Plan and, B, review Public Hearing comments by concerned persons, public agencies, or city departments. It seems clear that when it comes back to you on an appeal you still have to have a Public Hearing. Borup: Okay. Well, that's the opinion from our attorney here sitting with us, what we have to go by, too. Nary: And my view would be that the term Public Hearing here doesn't mean that we are just having this hearing in public. That means that the public just has notice to be here and they haven't. That's what that means, so – Borup: Well, maybe before we proceed on, I would be -- I think just for the applicant's -- I appreciate the direction we are going, but for the applicant's benefit if there is anything on the plat that any of the Commissioners feel that input would be pertinent, maybe that would be helpful to do that this time, especially thinking that would -- any changes or additions or anything that -- that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 58 would like to be seen, I think it would be appropriate to do that tonight, rather than at the next meeting. Norton: I just had some comment. I voted no to pass -- I vote to deny this and so I'm the lone no vote when we sent it to City Council and I'm very pleased to see this revision. I see there is still a little walkway into the schoolyard. I don't see a problem with that street. You know, you can do 20 mile an hour school crossing signs. I was very happy to see that this is a single loaded street and I'm glad I wasn't in any of those meetings, because I bet they were pretty heated. But I think the final result looks very good. It's very good. Borup: Any other comments from -- Nary: Mr. Chairman, about the only comment -- I do like the change. I think it's - - I think the change is positive. I don't have as big of heartburn, maybe, with the ACHD's recommendation, but I do think that this is better with the suggestions that staff has made. I think those are things that are probably better looking, it's a little bit nicer looking down that drive there, it's going to look a lot better than this dead end that's going to stare at you as soon as you turn on that street. I think that's -- I live near Chateau's park, which isn't developed yet, but it has a long straight street -- or it has a little bend in it, but not much, that goes all the way to Ten Mile. So it concerns me some that it would be a race track, so I understand where the County Highway District is coming from, but I think that the staff suggestions are adequate to meet those same concerns, the pavers and the -- whatever those other things are called. Siddoway: The bump out things. Nary: The bump out things. I think all those things are adequate to address the same concerns without just making a 90 degree bend in the road, so I like that better, too. Borup: It sounds like the Commissioners are saying -- sounds like traffic calming would be -- Nary: Yes definitely. Borup: -- would be appropriate, not necessarily what ACHD said. Okay. Any other comments? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I'm going to move that we continue this public -- continue this hearing, and that it be a Public Hearing, onto our October 18th agenda. That should be Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 59 adequate time to provide public notice and we'd also at least have the final report from ACHD as well, but that we move items seven and eight, AZ 00-019 and PP 00-018, to our next meeting -- or our second meeting in the month of October, October 18th , to provide for public comment. Shreeve: I second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. Any questions from anybody? Thank you. All right. I think in the beginning Mr. Siddoway said he had some additional information for us on the comp plan. I think that would be real good, since we have that next week. I've still got a little bit of a conflict that night. Right now I anticipate I will probably be late. But I hope not too late. Steve, you wanted to talk about what? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, at the last Comp Plan Hearing it was requested by Mrs. Norton that staff prepare a map of all requested changes. It's done. And I'm handing it out to you tonight so you can have a week to look at it and I don't have to give it to you the night before. Norton: Thank you. So this is an overlay of all the different -- oh, I see what you have done. Excellent. Everybody had a complaint and wanted -- oh. Good for you, Steve. Thank you. Siddoway: You can see that the map is titled requested changes to the future land use map. All of the requested changes are in red with a note as to what it is and what they are requesting it be changed to. As -- we tried -- we went through the last two Public Hearing notes with the Commission, we went through all of the -- what we believe are all of the written comments to date, as well as the written comments from a year ago when the original draft went out, and we noted all of the requested changes from all of those various sources that have not yet been responded to. Everything that had a specific location is noted directly on the map. There are over on the right-hand side, titled unmapped land use issues, the outstanding land use issues that are, you know, more general in nature and not tied to a specific property. We tried to be comprehensive and just lay them all out. I would note that this is just an objective comprehensive list. Don't take it as a staff recommendation for changes. It's just all of the changes good and bad for your consideration. Also there are several issues outstanding that are not land use related that are related to air quality or bike lanes or other things that don't show up on this map and Brad is compiling those in memo format and we will have those for you as well. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 60 Nary: Steve, just so I can make sure we are oriented, since it's not marked, the far eastern boundary would be Eagle Road, the far northern -- the northern boundary is Ustick; is that correct? Siddoway: No. Nary: Or is that McMillan? Siddoway: Chinden is the northern. Nary: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Siddoway: Yes. It goes from Chinden down to just below Amity. You can see the freeway running through the middle. Eagle Road is here. The edge of our impact area -- I mean the dark line is our impact area. Nary: Oh. Okay. Siddoway: It is the impact area line. Underneath -- in black and white is the Comp Plan map, minus the land use designations, but all of the land use, all of the parks and the pathways and the well sites and the fire -- you know, the land use map is underneath there, but then I turned off the land use, put on the lots, so that you could -- because we were following lot lines for most of these issues and just noted those with all the call outs. So the -- it is the impact area. Chinden on the north, Amity on the south, McDermott on the west, and a quarter mile west of Cloverdale on the east. Nary: Thank you. Norton: Steve, do you have that -- what's that imaginary line called? Service use? Siddoway: Service Planning Area. Norton: Yes. Is that on here? Siddoway: Oh, yes. Norton: What line is that? Siddoway: Do you see the dashed line that we run here? That is on there? And you can see some red dashes that are proposed changes that were requested and noted, you know, to include property in the USPA. Also over on the right- hand side I have an entire section of items seven through ten that are in the Service Planning Area general issues and these are very much abbreviated, they Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 61 are intended to be bullet points just to jog your memories about what the issues are that you can take and use. Shreeve: Are we allowed to ask any questions or do we have to wait until next week? Borup: I don't know why you can't ask any questions. It's -- Siddoway: It's just staff for clarification. I don't see a problem with that. Nary: The Public Hearing part is over and this is just something -- Shreeve: Yes I don't have anything now, but -- Siddoway: Big build up here. Shreeve: Actually, I do have one. Remind me again why the USPA was even conceived, because I have had some questions about that presented to me and - - Siddoway: Sure. Shreeve: I know why -- I know why it's there, but tell me again. Siddoway: It's a mix. To control growth is the gist of the issue. Shreeve: Right. Siddoway: We have had several applications that are noncontiguous. Staff would refer to them as sprawl. Inadequate public facilities. And all the rest. The line is an attempt -- the line can be used a couple of different ways and I would very much refer you to the memo that I handed out at the last hearing that really kind of lays out, from staff's perspective, the options that you have in setting this line or not setting the line, what -- you know, what it would be used to do, what it would not be used to do. My opinion of what it is and what it should be -- in my opinion it's not -- it never should have been called the Urban Services Planning Area. The Urban Services Planning Area is the impact area. We are planning -- we already have sewer planning and well planning done for the entire impact area. Our Urban Services Planning Area is the impact area. Okay. But not all of it has urban services today. What I see that line is -- as, is a line that demarcates where urban services are – Shreeve: Which is your CUS line? Siddoway: Yes the Current Urban Services Area is what I would propose calling it, or something like that, to delineate the areas that either have urban services or Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 62 are fully committed. And I define fully committed in the memo as basically, you know, have to be dedicated -- you have to be sure. You know, the -- or some -- even that's maybe not – Shreeve: It's readily available for -- Siddoway: The White drain is a good example. It's not in place. We show the White drain service area in the USPA -- CUSA, whatever we are calling it. It's not built yet. It's not 100 percent guarantee, as Bruce can say, because all of the easements are not in place, but the funding is committed to that. If it's a funded project or already in place, you know, I think it should be in there. Some urban services are going to have a deficit within there, like parks is an obvious one to me, and I think that the city has to be committed within that line to make up the deficit. Beyond that line I think that -- and this needs some discussion, we need to define what urban services -- because there is police and fire and parks and schools and roads and not all of those the city has direct jurisdiction over, but which ones are we going to use to regulate growth and what are the standards by which we will say that the facilities are deemed adequate. I think that is something that we are missing. We have a provision in the annexation ordinance today that says -- one of the required findings is adequate public facilities, but it's very vague and the only thing people have paid attention to in the past is sewer -- is their water line. The other part of the facilities has got peripheral consideration. Borup: I think up until a year ago. Last year a lot of things have changed. Siddoway: A lot of things have changed and I think -- but there is a lot of frustration in the development community, because they don't know what the standards are. A lot of frustration from staff, because we seem to spin our wheels on projects that go nowhere. I think we need -- we need some defined standards for public facilities to determine adequacy and the line to me is nothing more than saying within that line we are saying that public -- all public facilities are either available or a deficit -- the city is committed to make up any deficit. To move beyond that line -- Borup: You're saying the city would be committed at their expense to make up the deficit? Siddoway: Yes. Like parks, for example. You can't -- if you establish a -- if you establish an impact fee for parks and you base that on a certain level of service, if that level of service is higher than the actual existing level of service, new growth can't be expected to make up the deficit that already exists in the city park system. The city has to be committed to making up the deficit for its existing residents and make future residents and developments pay their way. That's the idea is to get concurrent public services with development. That's the word that I would use. We have the criteria by which we determine the adequacy Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 63 of those public facilities and then it's a way in my mind to get away from the Tuscany Lakes and the Autumn Faires that are in continuous -- continued mode while the public facilities, like sewer issues, are worked out. It's frustrating to the public to have to come to hearing after hearing just to find out it's continued and continued and continued again and again and again, pretty soon they quit coming, whereas if up front we had the standards that said either you meet these standards or it will be deemed inadequate, I think it would help that. Borup: So that's a little different -- a little different approach than I had understood before, so that's interesting. But you say inside the boundary the city would be expected to bring the services and -- but so -- it seems like that's also saying, then, outside the boundary, if the developer provides those services, then in my mind it should be acceptable if – Siddoway: And that is another issue. I'm going to have to think on this a little bit, because there are some growth areas within that -- within that line and a growth area would be expected to pay its way. So I – Borup: Have to think about that a little bit. Siddoway: The existing built out -- the growth can't be expected to pay for deficits in the built out area is what I intended to say. Borup: Then the growth within that boundary -- Siddoway: Even growth within the boundary would -- Borup: Would pay its way. Siddoway: Yes so I misspoke. Freckleton: Could I ask a question on that? Steve, at one time we talked about setting up a primary urban service planning boundary and then a secondary. We talked about that at a workshop. Or maybe that wasn't the right words, primary and secondary, but it was the -- the one that we were going to give greater attention to is the one that's closer in and when you're talking about services, we have to talk about all services, not just sewer and water. It seems like everything in this development they hinge on sewer and water, but I think we have to look at all services, fire protection, schools, everything and there needs to be a level of service established as what's acceptable and if you're below that limit it's just -- you can't meet the level of service. Borup: I think that would be good. I think there has been a big change. I mean any major subdivisions have either a school site or a park site it seems like lately or that's been real close that it hasn't been necessary. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 64 Nary: Well, one thing that I thought of also is that one of the things the city can do -- not necessarily to fund those types of things, but at least to provide incentive for those types of things, even within the boundary, and that's something maybe in this process as we go through it we can look at that. For example, in Boise at times people can trade off development to be able to -- or the city would like a park, a neighborhood park of some sort, so they could take their green space and combine it into a park and with the trade off the city gives them this higher density different location to allow that exchange, so that now we get a park where we would like it and you give them higher density in sections that it's not going to be a tremendous impact on this new development and it's not next to already existing things. Those are the kinds of things to me that is kind of a give and take of how you try to use this plan and then get your ordinances and put it into place going forward, but looking at those types of things, you know, trading off some of those things, providing incentives, not necessarily built -- always having to have the city taxpayers build a park or build a fire station, but to get a developer to build a fire station or provide inexpensive property to build a Fire Station on as a trade off for something else, something else that's reasonable that the city also would like to have. But like the neighborhood center concept, to get someone to do that you may have to trade off density something or else that – Siddoway: We tried that by density incentives there, so -- Nary: And those are the kinds of things I'm thinking -- that's kind of where this blueprint has to go forward and make ordinances to do that. Siddoway: Yes the Commission can entertain one other purpose of the line. The other side of it can be used, you know, more like a growth boundary -- I don't really support that, because that's what I think the impact area is. But there is a lot of interest -- there is some interest, anyway, in curtailing development beyond it. Shreeve: But isn't there some agreement with the county that we are to provide services within, what, another seven years? Siddoway: I think so. Freckleton: And that's to the impact area. Shreeve: And if I understand right from -- or if I recall right from the reading to the USPA, we figure it's either there or at least within five years, is that -- am I recalling correctly? Siddoway. I don't understand. Borup: That service would be within five years. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 65 Shreeve: Five years for that matter. I guess what I'm questioning is, well, what's two more years to the impact line, if I recall that. Borup: And it doesn't state that we have to provide services, isn't it that the plan has to be in place and a way to provide services needs to be -- or what -- how is that -- Siddoway: I don't know the exact wording. I know the city has committed to be to providing services. Borup: And doesn't the sewer plan tell us how services will be provided? Siddoway: We have a -- Borup: Fire Station locations, you know, things like that. Siddoway: Yes. Borup: If we are going to have to provide services there, we are in a lot of trouble. It's not going to happen. Shreeve: To the impact line, is that what you're saying? Borup: Right. I mean -- and I don't think anybody expects that. I know we don't -- Nary: I think you're right. I think it's -- can you provide the service to that. Borup: That's what I was hoping. I mean that was what I understood. Nary: I don't know that you have to -- I mean I don't know. Borup: I think we would all be interested in knowing -- Freckleton: By virtue of our facility plans that we have developed we have proven that, but I don't know that that satisfies the agreement with Ada county. I didn't -- Borup: Could we get some clarification on that agreement? Shreeve: Because, you know, let me just ask you a hypothetical question. Say a guy comes between the lines, between the impact line and between the first USPA, somewhere in there. Simply put, can we just say no, we don't want to approve you, because you're between that line. Or do we need to say, hey -- I guess -- and if we can do that, if we could just, you know, simply say, well, you're Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 66 in there, no, because you're inside the USPA, and I'm thinking, well, if we have to serve them within a seven year time frame potentially anyway, you know, are we just developing another step of bureaucracy with this line. Nary: I think the intent is to try and get growth in the city to go from the core out and not out in, in different leapfrog fashion. Shreeve: But you can stop that by virtue of you just don't have the sewage -- for example, this subdivision tonight. You know, well, Kevin, we just don't have it out there, you can take your own risk, you can do whatever you want we just don't have it. So by virtue of that you're growing from inward out, so we are not committing ourselves that we have got to just run a line clear out in the middle of nowhere for no reason. I guess by virtue of that, I guess I still don't understand -- you know, because we still have that controlling function that just can't get out there, whether we wanted to or not, we just simply can't do it, so why have the line at all? Why make that designation? Borup: My other concern is if we have got seven -- we had ten years, you know, and we are back at someplace and they are turned down on an application, then can they go to the county and get their project approved there? It's outside of the city's control. You know, we are not going to have any say in what happens. And it's obvious that we are not going to have services in our whole impact area. That's why I'm interested in the definition, some way that we control what happens within those boundaries. Or in seven years is the whole thing wide open to anybody that wants to come along? Siddoway: Well, I think that's what we have seen happen. I mean you have seen all these developments that they come to us and they don't get a favorable recommendation, they go to the county and try and develop an urban density -- Borup: Well, it hasn't happened yet. They are trying, but -- Freckleton: We had one of them go before the County Commissioners. Siddoway: Well, we have had three, but they weren't approved. Freckleton: Right. Borup: That's what I was trying to say. Freckleton: One of them has been approved, but there has been several go before the County Commissioner. Borup: And why have they not been approved? Freckleton: Just simply put, out of respect from the city. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 67 Siddoway: Yes because they say -- at least one of them -- I know they said if this isn't -- if this isn't sprawl, I don't know what is, and this is in the impact area and it should be under the -- you know, the city's jurisdiction and develop it if the city would like it. Not all the Commissioners feel that way, but that's how the city feels and we were glad that one went that way. Nary: And that's always the debate is that issue of is that outside in versus inside out and the city's preference versus where to develop, because the land's cheaper further out than it is in and that's what the -- that's why they'd like to develop that way. That's why I said one of the things the city might want to look at is that offering incentives. You know, if there is going to be something -- if you want them to develop closer to you and pay higher prices for the land, you're going to have to give them something to make it worth their while to do that, otherwise, they are going to -- and eventually either the County Commission may change or if they see repeated after repeated denials of these projects, the developers will say we will build it -- we will build a sewer plant, if that's your concern, we'll do something on the sewer side, we'll pay for it, then the risk is that at some point the Commission might say Meridian doesn't seem to want to grow, maybe they need to readjust their impact boundary and we are going to improve those projects and now we are right on the edge of that and that's I think where the debate is on that particular issue and right now the north Meridian area is being considered with those committees and such, so that you don't end up with that kind of sprawl. That's the hope that -- if you're working together then you can find a way to get that incentive to get that built. Shreeve: No. I completely understand. I guess I just -- you know simply put, sewer, water, you're limiting the line, rather than actually having a line, you just -- another question. The sewer, what's the stand on those treatment facilities, individual -- it sounds like they are -- you're going to approve them and I don't -- you know, they have been talking, even when I lived here before, regionalization, get away from those things, and now that they are entertaining those things it is ridiculous. Freckleton: Brad Watson has had a lot of -- he's done a lot of research into this. I know there are neighboring states that will not approve them -- will not approve the Sewer District, package plant type concept. I guess I'll kind of defer that to him. Shreeve: You know, I -- my personal opinion is, is I'm against that. But, on the same token, you know, again, the argument, if Meridian is not willing to expand out and get those people and, you know, there should be private enterprise that potentially could step in. I mean it's a free market world, you know, so I guess, you know, I tend to want to have Meridian have that business, but on the same token, you know, it's a free market world and to hold people up from that, you know, it's a pretty good argument, in my opinion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 68 Freckleton: Yes. The point I was trying to make earlier is people get focused in on sewer and water. When you're trying to develop urban densities, you got to look at sewer -- or I mean, excuse me, schools, you got to look at police, fire, all the other services that are essential. Shreeve: Which goes back to this definition which may answer the question of sewer. Yes, you can get a treatment plant, but you don't have a school, you don't have which -- Freckleton: Yes and it takes 10 minutes for us to get there to respond to a fire or whatever, you know. Those things that would be items kind of get overlooked and I think they are very important. Shreeve: Sally's getting anxious. Norton: That's all right. I'm just ready to fall asleep. I do have some questions about who's going to handle the meeting next Thursday, Keith, if you're going to be late. Borup: Anybody have a preference? Nary: I can start it. I don't have a problem with that. Shreeve: I second that. Norton: I third it. Moore: Can I ask you a question? 6:30 or 7:00? Nary: It's noticed up at 6:30. Moore: 6:30? All right. Borup: I thought we had talked about 7:00. That would help a little bit, but -- Nary: I think we did, but I saw the notice and it says 6:30. Siddoway: Remember the motion. It was 6:30. Nary: It was. Shreeve: Right. Nary: Yes I've got it written down at 6:30. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 20, 2001 Pg. 69 Siddoway: Brad Hawkins-Clark will be the staff member from P & Z here. I might also mention that in the motion they requested three things from staff. One was this map, one was a summary of the testimony from that last meeting and Brad is working on that and third was the notice to the media and Brad is also taking charge of that. Shreeve: You want to make sure that Bill is on TV. Norton: Thank you, Steve. I appreciate that. Siddoway: Thank you. Nary: The map is great. Thank you. Shreeve: I make a motion to adjourn. Norton: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Meeting adjourned at 10:23 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK