Loading...
2002 04-18Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 18, 2002 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, April 18, 2002, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, Leslie Mathes, Keven Shreeve. Members Absent: David Zaremba Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Larry Moore, Joe Silva, Tom Kuntz, Dean Willis, and Sharon Smith. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: O David Zaremba X Jerry Centers X Leslie Mathes X Keven Shreeve X Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to open and begin our regularly scheduled meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, April 18th and start with roll call of those Commissioners in attendance. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Borup: The next item is the Adoption of the Agenda. Does anyone have any changes they'd like to make? Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I have a question. I would request that we move Items 6, 7, and 8 to be acted upon after the Consent Agenda and then Items 4 and 5 would be immediately after. Borup: Okay. I think that's consistent from our last meeting. We talked about doing that. Shreeve: I second that motion. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 3: Consent Agenda: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 2 A. Approve minutes of April 4, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Borup: The next Item, Adoption of the Minutes from April 4th . Do we have any comments or changes from our minutes? Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve the minutes of April 4, 2002, for our regular meeting. Mathes: I will second it. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor. Any Opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from April 4, 2002: ZA 02-001 Request for amendment to Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Jim Jewett and B & A Engineers: Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from April 4, 2002: AZ 02-003 Request for annexation and zoning of 3.84 acres from R-1 to R-8 zones for proposed Amberstone Subdivision by Jim Jewett – south of West Cherry Lane and south of North Summertree Way: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from April 4, 2002: PP 02-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots and 2 other lots on 3.84 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Amberstone Subdivision by Jim Jewett – south of West Cherry Lane and south of North Summertree Way: Borup: Okay. Items 6, 7, and 8 are a Continued Public Hearing from our April 4th meeting. I'd like to -- well, these items are open, but -- I don't know if -- have we got any additional staff report, Steve? We have the changes that were requested to the ordinances. Siddoway: Yes. Mr. Chairman, at the last hearing the Zoning Ordinance Amendment got quite a bit of discussion. There were some requested changes both from the Commission and from staff. Dave McKinnon did go through the ordinance as requested and prepared a revised draft showing all of the changes. I don't know that I need to go through each of them one by one, but I would point out maybe some of the bigger ones, like the 10-by-20 foot garage for a one bedroom dwelling and a 20-by-20 garage for two or more bedroom dwellings. Also I believe Bruce got the language he needed to have in there for the zero lot lines and drainage issues. I don't know -- do you have anything else to add about that? I can go through the changes in more detail if you'd like, but you should have a red lined copy showing everything that's proposed to be added and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 3 struck through. With that, we recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment as shown. Borup: Okay. Do any of the Commissioners -- Centers: Mr. Chairman. Steve, you said a red line copy -- there was an additional copy that came from Dave McKinnon, dated April 17th , that supercedes the red line copies. Siddoway: Okay. Centers: I'm wondering if you got that or -- I guess you really don't need it. He states that he had to make a few more clerical changes to the ordinance. Siddoway: Okay. That is what I have. The clerical changes -- one is the one that I have. He said that he sent it over for you also. It's little things like he didn't have the words side-by-side hyphenated, small things like that. Those types of clerical errors have been taken care of in the final version. Borup: Okay. Anything else from the Commissioners? Centers: I have read it, it appears to be what we were talking about that evening, and it looks good. I would like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman. Borup: We still have the Public Hearing open. Centers: Excuse me. I'm sorry. Borup: Do we have any comment from the applicant? Powell: Anna Powell, B&A Engineers, 5505 West Franklin. Commissioners, thank you again for looking that over and, yes, Commissioner Centers, thank you for pointing out that it is those changes that are noted on the April 17th e-mail. If you -- I don't know if you need to reference that in the motion or not. The only other thing I wanted to ask was that you remember to include in the motion that the 25 foot landscape buffer in the front, if you're still inclined to go that way, you were the other night, but -- Borup: That would be on the Preliminary Plat right? Powell: Yes. I'm sorry. I'll be quiet. That's all. Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Do we have a motion? Commissioner Centers? Centers: Yes. I move that we close the Public Hearing. Shreeve: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 4 Borup: On Item 6? Centers: Correct. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT. Borup: Do we need any discussion before we have a motion? I guess we pretty much got through the discussion part last time. Centers: And then some. Borup: Yes. Centers: So I would like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman, that we approve Item 6, the Continued Public Hearing from April 4th . ZA 02-001, request for amendment to zoning and subdivision ordinance by Jim Jewett and B&A Engineers based on the amended changes submitted by Dave McKinnon in his memo dated April 17th . Mathes: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. We will have Item Numbers 7 and 8 open. Number 7 was a request for annexation and zoning and 8 was the Preliminary Plat. I don't know if -- is there any other staff comments on 7 and 8? I think we covered everything last time. Siddoway: Only one. That is that Dave prepared a memo, which hopefully was copied to you. It's titled regarding Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision and Amberstone Subdivision. The comments about Amberstone simply state there was discussion last time about deleting the required Development Agreement. He states that on Page 5 of annexation and zoning comment Number 5 to delete the sentence, a Development Agreement will be required as part of this annexation request. That's it. Borup: I had that over with the -- yes. It was -- I had mine over with the other project, because that was what it was labeled up at the top. It's the bottom paragraph. Okay. Any questions from the Commission on that? We just need to incorporate that in the motion then. Was there any other comment -- no other comment from the applicant or any other -- any testimony from the public? Commissioners? Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing for Items Number 7 and 8. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 5 Centers: The applicant wasn't going to address the landscape buffer situation or -- Borup: Well, we did last time, unless we'd like to address it again. Centers: She wanted to -- maybe you don't want to, but -- Borup: Ms. Powell, go ahead. Powell: Anna Powell, B&A Engineers, 5505 West Franklin. I just didn't want to waste your valuable time, but, yes, we are interested in the 25-foot landscape buffer. You did seem to be headed that way. It's a determination of alternative compliance is how it's worded for the -- in the Landscape Ordinance. Borup: I believe the testimony last time there was several down the street that had less -- Centers: Yes. That's coming back. We had the graph there in red where you had some 10-foot buffers. You had some 25 and you had one 35. Powell: Right and the 35 was the one that was immediately adjacent to it. It was a very short segment and pretty much that whole section is developed out at less. To further jog your memory, in the Comprehensive Plan, in the upcoming one, it will only be 25 feet and -- Centers: Yes. Powell: Okay. Centers: Thanks for the memory. Powell: Any other questions? Borup: Anyone else have any other questions? Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearings for Items Number 7 and 8, AZ 02-003 and PP 02-002. Mathes: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? All right. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Any discussion on the -- okay. The one comment from the staff was on this -- on the annexation and zoning, Item Number 7. That they are asking this amendment Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 6 be adjusted as they have stated. That should be included in the motion. Shreeve: Say that again. Centers: Well, we are just simply lining out Item 5, aren't we? On Page 5, the last page? Borup: Right. Right. Shreeve: I think, as I recall, there was nothing else, other than that, and then the 25 foot the landscape buffer. Borup: Which would be in the next one. Shreeve: Right. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve AZ 02-003, request for annexation and zoning of 3.84 acres from R-1 to R-8 zones for proposed Amberstone Subdivision by Jim Jewett, with all staff comments on the memorandum dated March 11, 2002, excluding Item Number 5 on Page 5. Centers: I would second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you. Item Number 8. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I propose that we approve PP 02-002, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots, and 2 other lots on 3.84 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Amberstone Subdivision by Jim Jewett. With all staff comments and specifically indicating that, a 25-foot landscape buffer would be allowed on the front. Centers: I would second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from March 7, 2002: AZ 01-015 Request for annexation and zoning of 34.60 acres from RUT to I-L zones for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC – 3365 North Ten Mile Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from March 7, 2002: PP 01-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 building lots on 34.60 acres in a proposed Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 7 I-L zone for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC – 3365 North Ten Mile Road: Borup: Thank you. Items Number 4 and 5 are both Continued Public Hearings from our March 7th meeting. AZ 01-015 is a request for annexation and zoning of 34.6 acres for the proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek. Item Number 5 is a Continued Public Hearing PP 01-017, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on the same 34.6 acres. I'd like to start on these two hearings with the staff report and comments. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You can see the site photo on the screen. The site view. This is at the intersection of Ustick and Ten Mile. I'm sure you're very familiar with it by now. It is the site just south of the Sewer Treatment Plant, which you can see at the top portion of the photo in here. It does include the land that's crosshatched in this vicinity map. We have some existing site photos. Looking south on the northeast property line into the project first and then looking southeast into the residential subdivision across the street you can see the general character of the adjacent properties and nearby residential subdivisions across the street. This is the Preliminary Plat and you can see the three areas of the plat in the different crosshatched patterns. They are proposing one lot up here in this corner as a park. They are proposing this area with the dot pattern as an area where Conditional Use Permits would not be required and then the area below it where they will be required. You should have a revised staff report for this, dated April 12th . I'm not going to belabor it too much, because the applicant's presentation I believe will request being continued and submitting a revised plat. I would just point out that the plat that's before us tonight did increase the number of available lots from seven to 12. It did remove the bus facility use, and it reduced the landscape buffers from 35 feet to 25 feet. Since the last hearing on February 19th , the City Council approved a text amendment to the current Comprehensive Plan that states limited light industrial development may be considered immediately adjacent to the City's Waste Treatment Plant. The map was not amended. They have a list of proposed permitted and prohibited uses. That's on Page 2. They do have a cul-de-sac that's in excess of 450 feet. On Page 7, there is a series of things called additional considerations. The first one does mention the text amendment that was just stated. It stated that therefore, staff recommends that only those lots immediately adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant, which are lots one, two, and 12, have a possibility of being zoned light industrial. We would support less intense zoning, such as L-O or C-N for the other lots, three through 11, in addition to the requiring of Conditional Use Permit for future development. City Council did discuss this area last night in relation to the Comprehensive Plan. The direction that discussion is headed currently is that they would like to create a new mixed-use category. It will be specific to the area directly surrounding the Wastewater Treatment Plant and specify uses that would be allowed there. They did not like the idea of allowing retail. They did like the idea of allowing professional office, warehousing, what we sometimes call flex space, which is office, warehouse, things that are not intensively trafficked or not a lot of people, a lot of storage and office and those types of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 8 uses. That's still in the process of being worked out, but that is the current direction of that discussion. Therefore, I would probably amend our statement in here that C-N would probably not be appropriate and perhaps L-O would be with Development Agreement to specify uses that Council have been discussing. The recommendation for the annexation and zoning just below that at the bottom of Page 7 would be that the Commission and Council should determine what uses they find appropriate for the subject property and then zone it accordingly. That if more than one zoning designation is appropriate we will need new legal descriptions. For the plat, I would take you to Page 9 under the additional considerations there. Lot 12, Block 1, is a parcel of land that's designated for a park. I believe Tom Kuntz is here and he will probably want to talk about this a little bit. It's at the far northwest corner of the property and it has currently no vehicular access or a pathway access proposed, so will not be easy to maintain. It's kind of hidden from public view. We have some concerns about that. The cul-de-sac -- we would not support a Variance for the cul-de-sac as shown. It either should be shortened or extended through as a through street and connect down to Ustick Road. Lot 8, Block 1 -- it's difficult to see in this diagram, but it's a u-shaped one that wraps around another lot. We recommended eliminating the lots or combining them so that you don't have funny, unbuildable u-shaped lots that surround another lot. I believe the applicant is prepared to address that as well. In summary, if you go to Page 12 for the final recommendation. I'm going to let Tom address the park and pathways. There is a pathway in the Comprehensive Plan shown that's not being addressed currently by the project and Lot 8, which I just mentioned, the cul-de-sac, and the zoning. With that, I'll turn it over to Tom. Kuntz: Thank you, Commission Members. You should have in your packets our comments. There should be an attachment there from the parks strategic plan, action plan. I can certainly summarize those or just stand for questions. Borup: Any questions from any Commissioners of Mr. Kuntz? Kuntz: I will add one item at the bottom page on the action plan, the criteria for a mini park, which this would be considered a mini park, is 400 feet of minimum frontage on a road. Centers: Is that five acres? Kuntz: The size -- the minimum size that we would accept is five, but at the bottom of that, the design standards, you will notice that for a mini park, which the city does not want to own or maintain, our recommendation is for minimum of 100 feet of street frontage for any mini park. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? One I have on the park. I thought in some earlier design we were talking about a pathway to this area. Any comments on that? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 9 Kuntz: Item Number B on my comments. Borup: Okay. Kuntz: Staff comments from the original plat regarding the need for pathways along the two drain ditches still pertain to the revised plat. To summarize those comments, the developer should be responsible to provide a 10-foot wide hard surface pathway with a 30-foot easement along Five Mile and Nine Mile Drain. The pathway should be built to Parks Department standards. The developer should be responsible to provide surety in the form of a letter of credit or some other form for one half of the construction cost of the future pedestrian bridge over Nine Mile Drain. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anything -- any other comments from staff? Okay. Does the applicant have some comments they'd like to make? Forrey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Commission. My name is Wayne Forrey with Hubble Engineering, 701 South Allen Street in Meridian. I'm here tonight working and representing Falcon Creek, LLC, the developer of the proposed Utility Business Park Subdivision. Let me introduce briefly Ed McNelis right here, who is a partner in Falcon Creek, and then Steve Sedlacek, the owner of Sanitary Services Company, who is here tonight, and also their architect Lynn Brown. They are available for question and answer. Let me start by saying thank you for giving us the flexibility to have the hearing in mid April tonight, on the 18th of April, because we knew that the City Council was going through some planning discussions and future land use. We were able to attend the meeting last night with the Meridian City Council and they specifically discussed this area. We have felt -- the developer, my client, has felt definitely, and I have, too, there has been kind of a bouncing ball, like a super ball, that just keeps bouncing and bouncing about the policy on this area and what is appropriate or not appropriate for the area surrounding the Meridian Waste Treatment Plant. Last night, boy, the Council grabbed that ball, it stopped bouncing, and they gave the property owners and us in that area some public policy direction. Because of that we now want to make some changes to this approach to reflect two things, what the Council directives were last night and also the neighborhood input that we have received. I want to present those changes to the Planning and Zoning Commission and I've got a handout for you. I'd like to hand that out. It summarizes all of that. Okay. You will notice on the cover it says developer requested changes to the Utility Business Park property as a result of last night's City Council Work Session on the comprehensive land use changes. Now if you go to the first page inside, let's go through these notes. This is what the Council discussed as a body last night. Number 1, Meridian City Council recognizes that this property needs a special land use destination due to proximity to the Meridian Waste Treatment Plant. That was confirmed. Then they went on to note Number 2. Meridian City Council directed city staff to prepare a new land use classification of Mixed Use Waste Treatment Plant. They are going to call that MUWTP, for the Utility Business Park property. Now that planning designation would certainly apply to other properties around the Treatment Plant, but it would definitely apply as they directed to this specific property. The Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 10 then in note Number 3 as a body discussed the types of uses that they felt would be appropriate in that new mixed-use classification. They said no new residential uses, but they understood that there were some existing homes in the area and they would remain if they chose to. They talked about professional offices and warehousing uses, flex space uses, office warehouse type uses. They mentioned casually or informally like business park type uses, which needs some further definition, and mini storage. Those were the uses that the Council said last night is what they envisioned for this property. Then in note Number 4, unless otherwise permitted by city adopted incentives, all developments proposed in this new mixed-use area would require approval through Planned Development or through the Conditional Use Permit process. They were very directive on that, that they wanted this area to have Conditional Use Permit processing. Then note Number 5. There was discussion about buffering. The City Council indicated that limited office zoning was an appropriate transition buffer between industrial zoning and residential subdivisions. Okay. Now that we have that set of notes, we have made and we are proposing to make some changes to this property. If you will look at the map on the next page, I have got a larger map that I can set up on the counter right here that the audience can see -- what about on the overhead projector? Okay. Thank you. The area in pink we are proposing that it would be zoned light industrial. The area in green would be zoned L-O, Limited Office. That top pink part, about 13 acres, is about 21 acres on the balance or about 60 percent of the site would be limited office. The entire development would be subject to Conditional Use Permit requirement, but this, as you can see, is a change here, because now we have some direction in terms of public policy. This definitely fits with what the Council discussed last night. Now if you turn the page and if you can put up the next page there, Bruce. Let's talk about that corner just one moment. We received quite a bit of neighborhood input that where the two creeks come together, Five Mile Creek and Nine Mile Creek, is a very nice natural area. It could be a very unique park site here in the City of Meridian. Our thinking was that the City of Meridian already owns land on the north side of the Five Mile Creek. If you look at this yellow area, on the north side of the drain the city owns that, it has access to that. In fact, we had a meeting there last night and there is a nice parking lot there and a nice meeting room. It's part of the City's Waste Treatment Facility, so there is access to that area. As other properties develop on the west side of the Nine Mile in the future, maybe there is a way, then, that that developer could provide some land to the city. If Falcon Creek provides one acre here and that's the blue portion here, we can start a land banking process for some future option for the Parks and Recreation Department. That yellow and green combination you see is five and a half acres. That's the minimum size that the Parks Department wants for a neighborhood park. With some footbridges in the future and land banking or at least leaving that option open, there is a nice area here for a future park. Falcon Creek is willing to provide that one-acre as a land bank to start the process. It's definitely thinking about the future not a mini park concept, but holding some land in reserve, thinking about future options, thinking about using the waste treatment plant site for access and parking and footbridges to access that area. That's the thinking behind that one-acre. Now let's go to the next page. We have proposed a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 11 Development Agreement to the city and we are proposing an Exhibit B, an amended Exhibit B. There are three important elements. Element 1 is it would state in writing that all of the land use on Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 -- and that's in the green area on the map -- all of that would require Conditional Use. Element Number 2 says all of that area would be zoned L-O and Element Number 3 says that the City of Meridian shall establish a future land use designation to further define the types of land uses that can be developed in this property. That reflects last night's discussion with the City Council. Now if you will turn the page, there is some background information that I want to share with the Commission and the public about Sanitary Services and the type operation that they have. They are a company that by contract, regulated by the city, are to pick up household waste, but they are not in control of the land fill, they have to take that to Seaman's Gulch. Ada County is currently evaluating options that may include closing Seaman's Gulch Landfill. They may expand it, they may close it, and they are looking at alternate landfill sites in Ada County and some even outside of Ada County for future options. Sanitary Services is in a position that as long as Seaman's Gulch Landfill remains open and accessible to Meridian. They are within an easy driving distance of taking their trucks and driving up to the current landfill. That's the plan they have right now. If Ada County was to close Seaman's Gulch or develop a new landfill and require Meridian to go to that new landfill, it conceivably could be many miles and miles and miles away from Meridian. In order to efficiently transfer they would need a transfer station. If you look at the bottom of this example here in quotes, what we are proposing is a modified Conditional Use Permit approach for Lot 2 of Block 1, which is this 10-acre Sanitary Services site. Here is what we would recommend that the city include in this project. Lot 2 of Block 1 in Utility Business Park Subdivision shall be owned and occupied by Sanitary Services, Inc. If Sanitary Services, Inc., determines that a solid waste transfer station is needed to provide efficient public services, then a Conditional Use Permit for this facility will be required only if the Seaman's Gulch Landfill is open and available to Meridian residents. The trigger here -- in the current system in this community if Seaman's Gulch is open, Sanitary Services has no problem with a Conditional Use Permit for a waste transfer facility. Here is the other opposite side of that trigger. If Seaman's Gulch Landfill is closed or not available to Meridian residents, then Sanitary Services will not be required to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for a solid waste transfer station facility. The reason for that is it would become a critical, essential element. They would have to have a Waste Treatment, because they are a public -- semi-public agency. They have -- by contract they have to pick up the trash. If they were told that they had to go to Elmore County -- and there is a regional waste facility in Elmore County. If Ada County said to Meridian your trash has to go to Elmore County, you would have to have a waste transfer facility. DEQ would require that. It's not something that Sanitary Services could optionally do or not do they would have to have one. Their position is if we have to have one and DEQ mandates that, then we shouldn't have to go through a Conditional Use Permit process. As long as Seaman's Gulch is open and viable, they may not ever need a waste transfer station and then they are totally agreeable to the Conditional Use Permit process. That's what I would call a modified approach for that specific lot for that specific user. Now if Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 12 you turn the page, we would propose, then, Exhibit C amended and it would have five elements. Element 1, that the Lots 1 and 2 and 12 are subject to Conditional Use Permit requirements and that's the pink area. Element Number 2 is the zoning on Lots 1, 2, and 12 would be light industrial. Element Number 3, that Lot 12 of Block 1 would be provided to the city for public use as a pathway and park space and that this area would be credited towards open space and/or impact fee requirements as negotiated with the City of Meridian. You require developers to provide open space and you have ordinances that provide land in lieu of impact fees, so we'd like that same opportunity here. Element Number 4 Falcon Creek would develop Lot 1, Block 1, for Western Recycling Company as a Conditional Use in the I-L zone. Element Number 5 says that Lot 2, Block 1, would be for Sanitary Services as a modified Conditional Use in the industrial zone, subject to the following language. Then I repeated again right there the language that we hope that you could put on this project and that, again, is tied to the landfill situation, which is not controlled and out of the control of the City of Meridian and Sanitary Services. Then if you will turn to the next page, here is a summary of what we are asking your Commission to do tonight. Number 1, we are asking you to accept public testimony on our application, our own testimony, and the public's. Then Item Number 2 we are asking that you would continue our application to your next available meeting date. We want to submit plat revisions to the city staff. We want to submit zoning descriptions to city staff. We want to submit legal descriptions and some amended Development Agreement language and actually start putting that Development Agreement together. That's because we learned quite a bit last night from the Meridian City Council and so in response to that we'd like the opportunity to amend this and continue it to another date. Then the third thing is really important. We are hoping you would direct city staff to accept that material and prepare a revised staff report, now that we have some direction from the City Council and from Falcon Creek. Then that I think will help further define this project and start to nail down some of these loose ends, so we can stop this ball from bouncing. Now I hope that that has helped -- helped you understand that we have made changes to the project. We have listened to the neighbors, we have listened to City Council, we have listened to staff, we are willing to make these changes and continue to work on this. We hope you will give us a chance to do that. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Then, of course, Steve Sedlacek is here for questions about Sanitary Services and his architect Lynn Brown is here. The last few pages are some of the preliminary layouts of Sanitary Services and, you know, the site -- the siting and those types of things that you might have questions on. Borup: Questions from the Commission of Mr. Forrey? Centers: Oh, yes. Mr. Forrey. Forrey: Yes. Centers: How are you tonight? You heard Mr. Siddoway read the City Code defining light industrial zoning district. Basically, it says establishments, which are clean, quiet, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 13 and free of hazardous or objectable elements, such as noise, dirt, dust, smoke, glare, etc. Forrey: Yes. Centers: Then you, yourself, read the items that the City Council discussed last night. No residential and etc. Forrey: Right. Centers: How do you feel that SSI or the recycling fits into those recommended uses as Council discussed last night? Forrey: Well, they didn't discuss the -- Centers: Do those uses fit in with what they discussed? Forrey: Well, I feel they do with this new mixed-use designation that they have asked staff to prepare. Centers: How can you say that? The Meridian City Council discussed the following types of uses -- Forrey: Yes. Centers: -- that would be appropriate. This is your writing. A new mixed-use classification that they want to set up just for that parcel, which I think was a great idea, then you read the uses that they discussed and SSI or recycling doesn't fit. I can't see that it fits. Do you really think it does? Forrey: Well, let me -- Centers: Sure. Go ahead. Forrey: -- clarify for you. What I understand the Council is talking about was the area between the industrial zone that we are proposing and the subdivisions to the south and east. They said that they wanted office to buffer the industrial to the subdivision, so they talked about having industrial and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that they authorized that they felt there could be industrial use next to the Waste Treatment Plant, but between that use and the subdivisions that had to be limited office. Centers: Okay. Then I understand maybe that rationale, but you know I will flip back to the definition of light industrial zoning. I can't see that SSI or recycling fits in that. Forrey: What zone do you think they should fit in? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 14 Centers: Well, maybe heavy industrial. Forrey: There is no heavy industrial in Meridian. Centers: There wasn't a MUWTP before last night either. Forrey: That's true but today there exists no heavy industrial zones. Centers: But the way the light industrial zoning district read, I mean you just got to admit it doesn't fit. The way I read it. You know, we could argue that all night, I guess. Forrey: Well, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Centers, we are not proposing Sanitary Services within this area of the office area. They recognize that there would be a tier of industrial -- that there should be tier of offices -- Centers: And the top tier would be light industrial. Forrey: That is correct. Centers: And the definition of light industrial, in my mind, doesn't fit SSI or the recycling. In my mind. Forrey: Okay. Centers: What you -- I had a little confusion following you. You're agreeable to a CUP for all the lots except 1, 2 and 12? Forrey: No. Just Lot No. 2 and it's tied to Seaman's Gulch. Centers: No. I said for all lots, except 1, 2 and 12. Forrey: One and 12 Conditional Use Permit and even Lot 2 subject to Conditional Use Permit. That is a -- that is a prior -- we have changed -- I'm submitting to you now, based on last night's information, new amended Development Agreement sections. Centers: So what you're saying is that you're fine with industrial -- light industrial zone for the top half and L-O for the bottom and a CUP on everything except -- Forrey: A waste transfer facility if the landfill closes. Centers: Which is on Lot 2. That's SSI. Forrey: Correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 15 Centers: I thought they were on a bigger one? Forrey: No. Lot Number 2. Centers: Yes that is the bigger one. Forrey: Ten-acre parcel. Centers: So, in effect, what you're saying is you want a -- just common sense. You're wanting a CUP on that in combination with the approval of the zoning. Forrey: Yes. Correct. Centers: One other question. I was just by there about a month ago. There is a -- I think the house sits somewhere in this area, an existing home. Forrey: Right there on Ten Mile, just -- Centers: Okay. Forrey: Down from the -- Centers: Okay. I noticed numerous SSI trash containers sitting and scattered all over. I wondered does SSI the person live there now or -- Forrey: You'd have to ask Steve Sedlacek. I don't know. Centers: I mean they were scattered all over the land. Forrey: I'm sorry I don't -- Centers: I would like that addressed, because if that's the way they keep their property, then how will they keep their property in the future if they are going to be the user there? I think that could be addressed. Forrey: One other point I should make, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, let me tell you why this has been difficult, because your Zoning Ordinance has one symbol and it just says I. In the text description it has an L and I and it says all these things you're talking about, Commissioner Centers. About should be this type of development or that type of development. Okay. In the Zoning Ordinance in the control of land use table we have an I and you go down that list and it says things like waste transfer station permitted. In other words, some very definitive exact things that are bankable. In other words, if you have that zoning, you can go to the bank and you can borrow money, because it's a permitted use and you can finance those types of land use decisions. It's very difficult for any business person to take the kind of risk when you have zoning and it's permitted. They are saying to you. but I will submit myself to a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 16 Conditional Use Permit. The Council asked for that and I'm saying tonight we are agreeable to that, as long we can understand to modify it if the landfill closes, because that's outside the control of Sanitary Services or the City of Meridian. That's that County Commissioner Landfill Commission issue and if they decide that they have to manage that landfill and say everyone west of this particular street -- west of Eagle Road has to go to this other landfill, that's out of our control. That may dictate a waste transfer facility. That's a public urgent need that we would have in this community. If that doesn't happen, then it's totally a Conditional Use Permit scenario, even though it's a permitted use in an industrial zone. You know, Meridian, you don't have any other zone where this could go, but yet we all need this service. Centers: Well, you know, sometimes cities that grow fast like the City of Meridian has, has to, you know, take some baby steps and get some experience and you heard us pass the Zoning Ordinance change tonight prior to your application and specifically for zero lot lines. Never had it. You know, Meridian has grown by leaps and bounds. They are gaining knowledge and I think they are gaining a lot of ground, but the zone of that land presently is RUT correct? Forrey: That is correct. Centers: So, you know, you're not coming to a for use on an exiting zone, you're coming to us for a zone change and want us to feel that your use fits our light industrial. Forrey: That is true. Centers: And in my opinion it doesn't fit -- Forrey: Okay. Centers: -- the way it's defined in the City Code. Forrey: Frankly, we have no other place to go. Kuntz: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I apologize, but I have an 8:00 o'clock meeting that I have to move on to. Just a couple of quick comments. One, we certainly support the developer in wanting to provide a one acre open space park, but the city would not be interested acquiring that. We would support the developer developing it and maintaining it. As far as combining with additional land on the other side of the drain ditches, I know for a fact that the Wastewater Treatment Plant would not support us putting public on the grounds of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. We are certainly not interested in exchanging impact fees for a one-acre parcel. Then three, again, we just - - if the developer is asking us to go back and revise our comments and he's going to revise the plat, we'd like to see those revisions contain our comments that are included in tonight's hearing as far as the two pathways and the surety for the half of the bridge. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 17 Borup: Thank you. Do you know why the -- did the Wastewater Treatment elaborate on why they wouldn't be interested in any park ground on their property? Kuntz: Mr. Chairman, they don't want the public on the grounds of the Wastewater Treatment Plant for liability reasons. A small child wanders off and ends up in a place they shouldn't be. Borup: Okay. Kuntz: Thank you. Borup: Did you have some other questions, Commissioner Centers? Centers: No. I'm fine. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, two comments one about the public policy discussions of the City Council last night. What Mr. Forrey is explaining is the direction in terms of the uses that they were discussing, but I think it's important for the public here to know that it's not set public policy yet, because it was just a hearing, it was workshop where it was discussed. Those proposed policy -- proposed policies are up for Public Hearing on May 1st to be discussed with City Council. While it's not written in stone, that's certainly the direction they are headed at this point, would be a fair statement. Those discussions were generalized to the area around the Wastewater Treatment Plant on all sides and not just focused on this one property. I don't think there was any discussion, unfortunately, or acknowledgement of the -- of separating this proposed industrial section from those requirements. I don't know that they would be opposed to it, but it was not discussed separately, so -- Borup: Did they talk about how that discussion would tie in to their previous changes, the recommendation on the text change to the Comprehensive Plan? Siddoway: It was not. It was just -- the discussion came up to talk about, well, maybe we should do a charrette with local landowners and figure this out in the future. Just make it rural residential today and they didn't like that, they said we need to make a decision. We need to give some direction, we need to move forward and, you know, make a decision on what we want and go. They discussed this new mixed-use area and low impact, light industrial, office, office warehouse type uses that they would envision. Staff is to prepare a list and have that ready for them at the next hearing. Borup: Were they back-pedaling on their previous statement that immediately adjacent would be the light industrial? Siddoway: It did not receive specific discussion last night. That's all we are saying. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 18 Borup: Okay. Well, when I read it -- I guess I kind of assumed the same thing Mr. Forrey said, that they were still -- that was still their policy but then they were talking about all the other property that wasn't immediately adjacent. Siddoway: That may be. I'm just saying that it wasn't discussed. Borup: Okay. Were you finished, Commissioner Centers? Centers: Yes. Borup: Anyone else have any -- Shreeve: I have got a question. Just -- of course, this is a proposed light industrial section that we are showing. Of course, we have read the definition that Commissioner Centers has brought up, but in the -- of course, in the zoning regulations subdivision development manual, you know, you show under the industrial what would be allowable or what would be permitted uses. Of course, solid waste is listed there. There are several other items in there that by virtue of the definition you could probably have a similar argument, whether or not those uses really are -- fit the definition of what's written. I guess my question is if the zoning was approved and -- what governs? The definition as we may interpret it or that there is actually specific uses listed for an industrial type -- Siddoway: In the case of specific uses listed in the schedule of use control we would go with that. If there is, a use listed under industrial in the schedule of use control and it's listed as either permitted, conditional, or prohibited, that is what we would regulate by. If there is a conflict between the definition and the schedule, you know, it needs to be cleaned up, but we would go with the schedule of use control, because that should be adopted in conjunction with that definition. Shreeve: And I guess I should, of course, put in that that is under I, industrial, it doesn't designate light or heavy, it's just simply industrial, so we get into a whole other definition by virtue of that, too, but -- okay, thanks, Steve. Centers: Well, to follow up to that, if I might, Steve. Schools are allowed in a residential zone. Siddoway: That's correct. Centers: And this Commission turned one down six, eight months ago for an alternative school at the corner of Pine and 9th . Siddoway: A standard public school is permitted. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 19 Centers: Yes. Your comment to Commissioner Shreeve isn't entirely correct, then. Siddoway: Yes, it is. The alternative school that was proposed is not a listed use in the schedule of use control and all unlisted uses are determined to be a Conditional Use Permit. Centers: Okay. Siddoway: Cell towers fall into the same category. They are not listed on there, so if someone proposes a cell tower it's automatically a Conditional Use Permit. Centers: So what you're saying to Commissioner Shreeve is if it states permitted for a solid waste transfer station in the industrial zone, you would go with that, rather than the Meridian City Code that defines a light industrial zone? Siddoway: It's a conflict but yes. Centers: Wasn't your question for Mr. Shreeve based on -- Siddoway: We could ask the City Attorney his opinion, but if it's adopted ordinance that says that those uses are permitted in industrial, we would go with that, with property that already had the zoning. If it's in conflict, we would need to change it but if it's an adopted ordinance that says it's permitted industrial, we would go with it. Borup: That's also, why the city has that protection, because of the discussion, than it is with the -- with the Conditional Use Permit. Centers: Not for the -- Borup: Well, except for that one -- Shreeve: On a conditional basis. Borup: Modified. Forrey: And we are proposing a Development Agreement and that's the Exhibits A, B and C, that put that in writing. Centers: On the contract. Forrey: Right. For their clarification and protection. That's what the Council asked us to do last night and we are doing it. Borup: Any questions from Commissioner Mathes? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 20 Mathes: No. Borup: Anything else you want to say, Mr. Forrey? Forrey: Thank you very much. Borup: Probably have you back up probably to answer some questions. Okay. We'd like to proceed with the Public Hearing portion and -- you can come up when you're called upon, sir. Mr. Booth, do you still want to testify? Booth: Yes, I do. David Booth, 3744 West Niemann Drive in Meridian. That's in the Dakota Ridge Subdivision. I kind of want to make my comments in two parts. One as the political action committee chair for the Dakota Subdivision and so as a representative of that subdivision, I have a couple comments. I also want to make comments -- personal comments. First, I think as that subdivision I'd like to commend the city, both the Council and the Planning and Zoning, as well as the developer and his representatives on -- just think of the public and taking our comments and concerns into account. On a personal note, the two drains that run through or near -- adjacent to this block of land. I don't know how many of you have been out there and looked at it, but currently the banks are pretty steep. I foresee with a future path along that, that could be a potential hazard to small children that may fall down the slopes and into the water, it may be hard for them to get out. I'm not an expert on that, but I see that as a potential. Therefore, I propose that we increase the landscaping buffer from 25 feet to at least 35 feet and include in that flattening out the banks of those areas to make it a little bit safer. Also I think it improves the visual aspects of that. With regard to the Development Agreement on Exhibit C, I don't think that just because the landfill closes that should relieve SSI of the responsibilities that come with the CUP. I think it's important to have the CUP in place, so that the public has a way of making sure that that facility is built and maintained in an appropriate manner, not that I necessarily approve of it in the first place, but -- and then also with regards to the industrial versus industrial light, that is a major conflict. The text change did say light industrial immediately adjacent. I don't know how the city process works, but I think it might be in everybody's interest if we, as a city, went ahead and created a new zoning called light industrial with a list of permitted uses. I think that's all I want to say. Any questions? Borup: Any questions for Mr. Booth? Booth: Thank you. Borup: Mr. Cody, did you still wish to testify? Cody: Yes. My name is Charles Cody and I live at 3691 West Niemann. Good evening. What brings us here tonight is the concern of the homeowners that have invested time and money into their homes. Now they feel the pressure of an undesirable business trying to move into the neighborhood. I have witnessed what happens to properties of this kind when this kind of operation is put into effect. It Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 21 doesn't matter what they do to run a clean dump or a recycling plant, without saying that it is devastating to the property owners who have to live here after the gates have closed for the day. We still have to face the residue on our streets and yards, although we all agree that services such as necessary for the health and welfare of our city, we feel that this is not a proper location. I think Falcon Creek is making a bed that they want the homeowners to sleep in. I think there is other places for this kind of operation. Thank you. Borup: Thank you, sir. Karen Lyman? Can't quite -- Angie Hroma? Is that -- I don't think I pronounced that right. Hroma: That's actually -- Angie is my wife. Borup: Okay. Hroma: I'm Paul Hroma. I live at 3136 North Burley, which is just right across Ustick from this. One thing I wanted to clarify just -- and maybe I just misheard, but now the Sanitary Services, is that in the green area or the purple area? Borup: Purple. Hroma: Okay. I misheard that. I just want to -- you know, just state again -- Borup: Actually, they are in the middle lot in the purple area. Just in that area. Hroma: Yes. I guess I misheard something and I just wanted to make sure I got that right. For some reason I was thinking it was the green but I mean in general I mean I agree with Mr. Centers, you know, it's just a huge conflict. It just seems like, you know, we are trying to, you know, justify this. I understand his argument of, you know, it's something that's required, if Seaman's Gulch closes down, and then we have to do something. I just don't think this is the location that we have to do this at. I mean there are -- I see land all over the place that's for sale that doesn't have anything around it and, you know, whether that's in the future or not of what's proposed around it in the future or not, right now there are homes and residents that are right there in the heart of this thing. If this thing passes, you know, -- there was one lady that made a comment a couple of meetings ago about how she did live next to a Waste Treatment Plant or a transfer at one point. She said, if you lived anywhere, you know, anywhere within nine blocks or something within this thing, you smelled it. You know, I don't want to live in a neighborhood where that's going to be a constant thing that we are going to have to worry and have to deal with. I mean just talking about depreciation and everything else and I think those are basically the only comments I would make and just kind of reiterate my stance on that, that I just think there is other alternatives, that even though it is a necessity I think there is other alternatives as far as location goes. Borup: Thank you. Charles Crane. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 22 Crane: My name is Charles Crane. I live at 3610 West Ustick Road. I'm the neighbor to the west of the property, the little triangle. One thing I'd like to address, the idea of industrial and light industrial, heavy industrial. Meridian has a character to it and I don't think it's required that we have some things in Meridian. There are nuclear power plants. Does Meridian have to make an allowance for that? Do we have to allow everything in this town? I think a 10-acre garbage dump in the center of Meridian is not going to fit in with Meridian's character. I think you will damage the character of the city immensely. Borup: I would agree with that, but I haven't heard anyone proposing that. Crane: If Seaman's Gulch is gone and they have got to not -- originally they talked about the neighbors that would rake their leaves and put it in the transfer station temporarily. Now we are talking about absolutely every kind of garbage in a big pile that is going to go out in giant semis to some far off county if Seaman's Gulch is closed. We are talking difference in the original proposed little transfer station of some yard rakings, we are talking big, giant 10-acre garbage dump. I think the public has spoken at many of these meetings against this. There has been a petition with over 300 signatures against industrial in this area. There was another petition before that with 100 signatures. We have had -- you guys have seen yourself I think over 100 people at the Planning and Zoning meeting opposed to this. The City Council has seen over 100 people at the meeting opposed to this. If the city represents public policy, I think the public has spoken that this is not the right place for heavy industrial. I think most of the public would classify a large garbage dump, front-end loaders and semis, as heavy industrial. I would hope that any use in this area would require a Conditional Use Permit and not just a Development Agreement that says when Seaman's Gulch closes that there will be dump here, because we know there is a limit to any dump. All dumps get full. Seaman's Gulch will be closed some day and if that's in the agreement, then there will be a dump there it's just a matter of time. One thing I'd like to point out, the original 1993 Comprehensive Plan does have residential designations along Ustick Road. I would like to hand this out to – Borup: We have got a copy. Go ahead and your time is up. Crane: This second page is the meeting minutes from my development when I split my land into two pieces a couple years ago. The Findings of Fact and the legal decision was that the edge of Ustick Road on the original 1993 plan is residential for a short distance into the property. Since the other three sides are residential, that would be a good match with the neighborhood. That's something I would like to make known, if you consider along the edge of Ustick Road as a possible use. Thank you. Shreeve: Mr. Crane. Just one comment, Mr. Crane. Of course, what they are proposing is that the industrial would not be up against Ustick Road. Basically you would have offices, you would have some kind of transition, theoretically, would be the idea. My question is, is not what about the industrial, but -- with this comment, but what Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 23 is your opinion of having office spaces? Is that anything that's of a concern to you right there in that area? Crane: Yes. The L-O designation is one that at the neighborhood meetings that we had with the developer. At the meetings we have had with ourselves, that just about everybody agrees would be a usable item for that if it's done with landscaping. Also, one of the concerns is the entrance from Ten Mile. It would be nice to have internal access to those businesses, instead of having five of six entrances on Ten Mile and Ustick, but to have the traffic coming into Utility Subdivision to service the L-O area. Shreeve: So basically your only complaint as I'm hearing it, then, is the Sanitary Services correct? Which would be in the proposed industrial zoning. Crane: I believe so, except for the fact that a Conditional Use Permit should be required on this entire sensitive area. Shreeve: Right and for the whole thing that's what's proposed anyway, that there be a Conditional Use Permit on all the office spaces, the whole thing. Crane: Right but especially within the area -- Shreeve: Okay. Centers: Mr. Crane, I think your term dump is out of place and, of course, the applicant will address that. When I was out there, a month or so ago I noticed your house for sale. Have you been successful? Crane: No. I even dropped the price 7,000 dollars and I haven't had an offer. Centers: How long have you had it for sale? Crane: With a realtor I have had it for I think 40 days now. Centers: That's all I have. Thanks. Borup: Mr. Crane, just -- do you have a comment? The minutes that you presented to us -- I guess -- and I realize you were rushed a little bit, but my reading of these and recollection of the meeting, the point that Commissioner Nary was making when he talked about compatibility and such and the way the current Comprehensive Plan was reading, that this would necessitate a change in the Comprehensive Plan. Crane: Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 24 Borup: And that's what did take place with that text change with the City Council. Their statement was the way it was worded at that time he didn't feel it would be compatible and that's why with the text change it would have been necessary to make it. Crane: And the question I have is what does immediately adjacent mean. Are we talking that this whole property is immediately adjacent? The original text change request was a lot broader. It just said adjacent to and the City Council made a big point of it being immediately adjacent. They restricted that so if that restriction is just on the edge up at the top, then that leaves the rest of the property trying to be industrial would be totally against the Comprehensive Plan. Borup: And I think that's the way the -- that interpretation eventually evolved to. In other words, the purple area would be the area immediately adjacent. I'm not sure -- I think there was some confusion exactly on what they meant by that, what's immediate -- what's adjacent and what's immediately adjacent. It's my understanding, then, that any lots or parcels that were adjacent -- I think is what is involved and what they meant, which in this case means the purple area only. Is that your understanding, too? Crane: Or maybe even a smaller purple area. Maybe a little closer to the plant might be immediately adjacent. I think 10 acres might be a little excessive for being immediately adjacent. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Janet Wilder. Wilder: My name is Janet Wilder and I live at 3340 North Ten Mile Road. Last night the City Council held a special meeting to discuss the new Comp Plan. This was a meeting that the public could attend, but they couldn't speak and there were several in attendance just to listen. When the property on the corner of Ten Mile and Ustick was discussed, one of the Councilmen made the statement you don't buffer industrial with industrial. This was very interesting to me, because I recall hearing the same thing in the '93 Comp Plan and they did designate that property as a park. The idea of locating the trash trucks and recycling next to the Wastewater Treatment Center may make sense to anyone that doesn't live close by, but would it make as much sense if it was being planned in your neighborhood? We already have one objectionable problem or neighbor in the Wastewater Treatment Center and how does it make any sense to add to the existing problem? If you zoned industrial for the trash trucks, you will be giving the go ahead for a waste transfer station, which absolutely has no place in the neighborhood. To summarize, I would encourage you to listen to former and present Council Members and don't buffer industrial with industrial. Another comment I had is I have read in the '93 Comp Plan that there was a certain area that was planned for light industrial, which was Eagle Road, and a certain area that was planned for heavy industrial, which was west of Ten Mile along the railroad tracks. I don't know if that makes a difference to what we have been talking about or not, but I have read that in there. I can't tell you exactly where, but it's there. Thank you. Borup: Ma'am, I think -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 25 Shreeve: Yes. Mrs. Wilder, just one comment. Looking at the '93 Comprehensive Plan -- and this was brought up before, but to -- the Ex-Commissioner Nary did make a similar comment. The park that was shown there on even this map I'm looking at now, that is -- they show dots. Wilder: I know. Shreeve: And that doesn't necessarily mean that that's specifically the exact spot -- Wilder: I know. Shreeve: -- the exact spot it's supposed to be, it was just basically a target area is what that represents. Wilder: I know it was but it was -- that's what they thought it might be at that time. Shreeve: And that certainly could be a safe assumption for those who -- absolutely. Nevertheless, that -- it's probably poorly written and I hope we are specific like that. We talked about this before on our -- on the next Comprehensive Plan, but, nevertheless that was some kind of a general idea where parks might be. Wilder: Well, I think if you go around the valley, you will see parks next to most of the Wastewater Treatment Plants, so -- Centers: Yes. What I was saying was in the '93 Plan -- correct me if I'm wrong, Steve - - those dots -- it wasn't defined that this is a general area. In our new Comprehensive Plan, we are very particular about that to let the public know that these aren't set in concrete, they could float up to two, three miles, or what have you. Wilder: Well, as you have heard so many testify, their realtors have told them there is going to be a park there. Centers: Yes. I can believe that, but I don't think everyone in that neighbor thought there was going to be a park there. I don't think everyone in that neighbor bought their home because they thought there was going to be a park there. Wilder: You would be surprised how many did, though. Centers: There may be some. I don't doubt that. I think everyone in the room now knows about that park, because they went and researched it and I don't blame them. Wilder: Okay. Any other questions? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 26 Borup: I just want to mention once the regional park purchased that land, then after that point I don't think there was any anticipation at all. Wilder: I don't know, you know. I haven't -- Borup: Which was five or -- five years ago. Wilder: Some of the people in that Turtle Creek were told that and that's pretty new. Borup: Turtle Creek does have a park across from it. Wilder: Turtle Creek -- that's, what, on Ustick? Borup: No. That's on Linder. Wilder: No. It's the park that's off of Ustick. No. It is Turtle Creek, but -- Siddoway: It would be Tumble Creek. Wilder: And some of the people in there said they were told that it was a park on Ten Mile and Ustick. Centers: One other comment in defense of the Council -- and you couldn't speak last night? Wilder: Yes. Centers: I believe they had at least four or five Public Hearings and they do have to close those at some point. Wilder: And we were aware of that. Centers: And we've experienced that. Wilder: We were aware of it. You know, they told us we could come and listen, so we knew that. Centers: Good. Wilder: And there is another public meeting May 1st . Okay. Thank you. Centers: Are you going to be there? Wilder: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 27 Borup: Maybe just a note on that, I have just been given a note by the clerk that said it's her understanding that the May 1st Public Hearing, testimony will be taken, but it may only be written testimony. Is that correct, Steve, or -- Siddoway: That's not correct. They said the written testimony would be taken up until April 25th and that was the cutoff for new written testimony, but that they would be taking verbal testimony at the May 1st hearing. Borup: Okay. I was wondering about that. Smith: Thank you, I will double-check the notice with the City Clerk. My apologies. I thought that was how it was written. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Next, I think is Ken Beckwith, is that -- Beckwith: I'm Ken Beckwith, at 2866 West Park Stone Street. That's in the Candlelight Subdivision, which is caddy-corner from the area we are discussing. I attended that meeting last night also and had to be quiet like everybody else did. A lot of the things there are being proposed here tonight by Mr. Forrey was discussed at that workshop and I really feel that until the new Comprehensive Plan is approved and in place, that any action should be suspended or at least continued until after the new Comprehensive Plan is in place. That’s all the and's, if's, and but's are out and we have a clean mark in the sand to go from. That's all. Borup: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Beckwith? Thank you, sir. Dana Borquist, do you still wish to come forward? Borquist: My name is Dana Borquist. I don't have an address yet. I'm considering -- well, I have broken ground in the Hartford Subdivision. This is all kind of new to me. It kind of hit me like a ton of bricks when I saw it in the paper. I didn't do my research before choosing an address to build my home that I'm going to be for the next, you know, 15 to 20 years, I hope, get my family growing. I would just like to thank you for the time that you have given us to speak. I would just like to remind you to think about when you make these decisions how it would impact your life and your family and your home. I don't have a problem with businesses going in, I know that's necessary. I would like to have businesses. I just don't want them open all night or if they are going to be near a housing development, I definitely don't want large trucks and smelly services. I know that the treatment center is over there, but that kind of comes and goes, I guess, with the wind. If there was a recycling place and the transfer site, there is always going to be something going on. The last and final note, it's great that they are thinking about putting in a park, but I don't know how many people would actually take their children to a park that's located right there. It's out of the way from everything. You have to walk, if they do build these things, you have to walk right through the middle of them to get to it. Then you have the Treatment Center, the Water Treatment Place that won't even allow people to be there for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 28 liability, so thank you for your time and please remember everyone and put yourself in their shoes. Thank you. Borup: Thank you, sir. That concludes those who had signed up. Did we have anyone else who wished to come forward? Newcomb: My name is Paul Newcomb. I reside at 3837 West Harbor Point Drive. I would like to make a couple of comments. Commissioner Centers, you said you didn't believe that everyone in the area had been told by their real estate agents that a park was going to be built that on site. The thing I find quite ironic is Hubble Homes, which is one of Mr. Forrey's employers, one of the sales agents over there happened to inform me that to the best of her knowledge a park was going to be built on that site and that was within the last several months. I think it's kind of a widely spread rumor that at one point there was a park being planned there. A couple of other points that I think you need to take into consideration. The Nine Mile Drain and the Five Mile Creek there, if you have a waste transfer facility you're going to have blowing and drifting trash, you're going to have runoff. If any of you were -- happened to be out here yesterday or the day before yesterday when we had our quarter inch in 15 minute shower, when you have a large paved area like this you're going to have runoff. Where is all the runoff going to end up? Pardon me. All the runoff is going to end up in one of those two -- one of those two ditches and then where is it going to end up? I know what you're hinting at, Mr. Borup, but I have yet to see a sewer drain that will drain 100 percent of the water in the storm sewer system and have it treated. You are going to see -- you are going to see trash from this transfer facility and any other source of runoff end up in those two ditches. You cannot control 100 percent of the contents of this place, because nature is going to -- nature is going to take over at the worse possible moment when you're untarping a truck or when you're dumping a load or something. This stuff is going to end up in one of the two ditches and then not only are we dealing with -- Borup: You're talking about with wind, not with the amount of rain? Newcomb: I'm talking with both. I'm talking with both. You're going to have the wind blow the trash and you're going to have the rain leach out whatever -- or it tends to leach out and carrying it into the drainage -- the drainages. Then at that point with the -- once you introduce trash into these two drainages, then it's gone from a municipal violation to a federal violation. I believe one of these two creeks, I believe the Five Mile Creek, actually runs year around and it is, therefore, subject to the EPA Clean Water Act, is it not? Am I incorrect in saying that? I believe from my research that is true. This doesn't make sense to me. This is going to become the heart of Meridian in the next 20 years. We have the North Meridian Planning Area that's going to be building along the 12-mile corridor between Ustick Road and Chinden Boulevard. This is going to become the dead center of Meridian 20 to 25 years from now. Does it make sense to really put a trash transfer facility there when we already have a heavy industrial area over on Pine at Locust Grove? It seems to me that there are better places to put this. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 29 Borup: Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else? Staudenraus: Ron Staudenraus, 3967 West Moon Lake Street. Anyway, the point I'd like to make is the like planning -- the planner here, the developer, I don't know what you think about industrial -- light industrial, but I'll put it this way -- now if you know anything about light industrial -- in other words, if you went and wanted to bring in light industrial, you bring is a stabbing machine. Now I'll put it this way, you can hear that for a half a mile. I've seen light industrial going with building equipment, equipment coming in and as far as these trucks with the storage for the garbage trucks and that coming in. They have got to wash those down and that's going to -- like I say, you got the drainage, but that doesn't get it, because the standing -- you go around to any of these places that handle any refuge at all, no matter where it is, you smell it. I live quite a ways from that, but I hate to see the whole -- that whole Ten Mile shot, because once they get in the door, as far as Hubble -- as far as he cares, he doesn't care, because he's out the door tomorrow. As soon as he makes the deal he really doesn't care, because the developers -- I have lived in California, I have lived in Washington, Wisconsin, Seattle, Petaluma, California -- I have been all over. I did commercial sheet metal work, so I have seen what happens to a lot of these areas. Once they get in the door, then they keep just prodding a little further and as far as the developers they really don't care what they leave when they walk out the door, except a contract is done. Anyway, I just can't believe you would go this way, because there is so many areas around here, even the other side of the highway down there, you know. There is so many areas that can be developed into that and kind of keep this -- you know, like it's basically a residential area. I'll give you a good example. You know where the Golden Gate Bridge is, Petaluma, California. They wanted to build an overpass between Petaluma Boulevard and McDowell. They stated with that, a developer again, and when the interest -- they tried to develop that -- that bridge would have been longer than the Golden Gate and that's a fact. I mean that's just kind of what my opinion is. I can't believe anybody letting them come in something like that, because they really don't care, as long as they make their contract. Thank you. Borup: Thank you, sir. Hennings: My name is Cheryl Hennings and I live at 2696 North Morello here in Meridian. I have been involved in this adventure, if we can call it that, since I was made aware of the impact that it was going to have in the neighborhood that I had just recently moved into. I had my heart so set on that being open space and it's taken me several months to realize that that possibility is still a little flicker in my own mind, but probably isn't going to happen. As more meetings and more hearings began to take place I realized that I still knew inside me, inside my heart, that I felt that the type of proposed industry in terms of a waste transfer station and also recycling, I just didn't think it was appropriate for that area. I realized that there wasn't anything more I could say, because I testified, I have gone to the facts and tried to present myself hopefully semi-intelligently with some research that I have done. In my frustration I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 30 decided to go about some research in a completely different way and it really struck me in one of the early meetings when they said that they wanted to -- and it's going to sound a little bit like what you just heard, that they wanted to buffer the Waste Treatment Plant area with industrial. That always didn't make sense to me. In the past month, I have been researching trees and shrubs that are fragrance givers and it's been so interesting, because I have taken quite a bit of time to walk that proposed path. Being an avid greenbelt user in Boise, I had to remind myself that there are certain requirements for safety -- or, in other words, I'm sure that they can't have trees and bushes close to the path for fear that, you know, someone would hide and maybe use that to an unseeming advantage. It struck me that no matter how this path is developed, which is seriously going to be bordered on the north by the Waste Treatment Plant. My whole idea was to somehow provide a buffer of fragrance that would make whatever happens on the other side more pleasant and environmentally pleasing to the people that are going to be utilizing that property. Now that's all shot, because if we do put in something as -- oh, can we go just a little longer? Okay. As something as intense as the waste transfer site and the Western Recycling, I just don't think that there is any amount of visual barrier that can make that pleasant. The places along the greenbelt you do have office buildings, but they have buffered it with lawn and trees far enough away from the path that it's a truly wonderful experience and this path is going to be connecting neighborhoods. I just really worry that if we create an environment there that they are going to be walking through beautiful areas of Meridian and then for this treacherous, you know, section of this property is going to be just such an unpleasant experience before they break free again and get into the next residential area. I would like to envision something that -- that is not going to be a blight to what it is that Meridian is trying to do with projects like that greenbelt idea. I think we are really setting ourselves up for a fail situation if we don't try. I can give you my list of trees and shrubs I have been gathering and also I just have a vision for that, I guess, that will be something that Meridian can be proud of. Thanks for giving me a little extra time. If you have any questions I will stay here, but if not I will go away. Borup: Any questions? Centers: You did live in the neighborhood, didn't you? Hennings: I live in the neighborhood? Centers: Right. Hennings: Oh, yes. Centers: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Mr. Forrey, did you have any final comments? Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask one question of Steve? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 31 Borup: Yes. Shreeve: Steve, the planning organization out there, what is it called again? Siddoway: Compass? Borup: The North Meridian Planning? Shreeve: What are the dimensions, what are the limits of that? Siddoway: It does include this area. It is from Ustick to Chinden and from beyond Black Cat to McDermott, I think, over to Locust Grove. Borup: Okay. Forrey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, again, Wayne Forrey with Hubble Engineering. Let me give a few comments to some of the testimony you received. To Mr. Booth, thank you, of course, for your supportive comments and I do agree with the re-grading of those banks. That would be something we would want to propose in our Landscape Plan for that pathway portion. To Mr. Cody's comments, I have personally looked at Sanitary Services, I have looked at -- Falcon Creek has looked, neighbors have looked, they have called me and said, Mr. Forrey, what do you think about this parcel, what do you think about parcel? I have gone out, I have measured, I have paced, I have walked, I have got out GIS maps, I put a scale -- we cannot find any industrial land that is as far away from subdivisions as this particular 10 acre parcel. Every other piece that we have identified that's zoned industrial right now or has the potential to be zoned industrial is closer to a subdivision than this particular parcel. I've been out a several, you're within two, 300 feet of a subdivision, and here we are six, seven, 800 feet. We have got that much more distance. That's why we can focus on this site so much. Also early, early on when Sanitary Services were in contracting discussions with the City of Meridian the discussion was, well, we need to add this type service, an oversight plan. We need to buy some more trucks and things like that. The Council said what is your future plans, we are a growing city, and Sanitary Services said, well, you know, we are looking for a site. We are having a hard time finding it and one of the Councilmen said, well, you ought to be out next to the Waste Treatment Plant, that's a good location. We have been steered certain directions here and we have looking high and low scouring this community to try to find a place to put an essential public service that we all use everyday -- or at least once a week individually, collectively everyday as a community. Mr. Hroma's comment, land is the problem and even though it's zoned I, I understand there are conflicts in the zoning codes. We can't rewrite the code, we have to live with what's in front of us today, and because the trash is generated everyday, they have got to pick it up. They are pinched -- they are pinched for land. They have literally no place to expand their current operation, but the city is growing. To Mr. Crane's comments, he's using the term dump and that's inappropriate. It's not. It's a well-designed, well-engineered 10,000 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 32 square foot waste transfer facility all indoors. It's a 100-by-100 cinder block steel building, very nice looking. The architect is here tonight, Mr. Lynn Brown. I'd like him to come up and give the Commission just a quick overview of what that is. They need 10 acres, because they are also in the business of parking some trucks and the contractor bins that you see around the community. They have to have a place to put those and a staging area will pick them up, wash them, and clean them and those things. They are thinking about the future, just like the city is when you went through the police station analysis in buying land and parks. There is probably only one and a half to two acres of that site that will be used in the near term, but as Meridian grows Sanitary Services has to grow. They have a long-term contract with the city. I think -- I think there is 17 years left on their contract and we could get Steve Sedlacek to clarify that. It's not just a today issue, they have got a long period of time here where they have to plan and implement waste management in this community. Borup: Mr. Forrey, while you're on that, could you have a little more detail on how the transfer station operates? You had mentioned it's in an enclosed 100-by-100 building. Can you go through a little bit on the process of how it could be? Forrey: Can we get either Lynn Brown or Steve Sedlacek? They are experts on that. Borup: Okay. Maybe we'll wait until -- we'll let them come up after you're through. Forrey: Yes, please. At one of the neighborhood meetings Mr. Crane said -- he says, well, I can see industrial next to the treatment plant, but we want something like office or residential to buffer the industrial area next to the treatment plant for the neighbors. In fact, he was quoted in the newspaper on the 16th of April saying that. Here is exactly what was said in the newspaper. Although Crane said he believes it's okay to allow industrial uses directly next to the treatment plant, he said the rest of the land should be used for office and residential space to better transition into nearby neighbors. That's exactly what we have done. The Council said no residential, so we have made that transition with office. All is subject to Conditional Use Permit. To Mrs. Wilder's comments, we are buffering that industrial with limited office. We think that's appropriate and Council felt it was appropriate. Many neighbors have said please do that and we are doing it. To Mr. Beckwith's comments, we currently have in this community an amendment to the current Comprehensive Plan and so we feel this complies with that, because we have got industrial right next to the treatment plant and then we are buffering to the neighbors. We do feel it's compliant with the current Comprehensive Plan, which the City Council amended two months ago. Centers: May 7th . Forrey: That's correct. Centers: May 6th . Let's don't be misleading. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 33 Forrey: Okay. No. You are correct. May and we are hoping that that will happen, obviously. To Mr. Borquist's comments, the Conditional Use process is the best opportunity, being a new neighbor there, to get involved and all these uses will be subject to that. There is going to be a lot of hearings to decide on the intensity of these uses, the shape, the scale, the context, the color, the landscaping, all of those, hours of operation he mentioned, all of that will happen. You know, I'm thinking now that we need to remove that park designation, the one acre, Lot Number 12. Neighbors in direct communication to us said why don't you try this idea we'd like a little park out there? We knew that you had a five-acre minimum for a neighbor park and so we thought, well, maybe Falcon Creek will provide of one acre of that. Plus you have got all the land along the drain that's in the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and we have got the city and any other property owners, so that was a seed, you might say, to try that idea. It sounds like it's not going to work, so we can definitely take that off the table and make a change there. To Mr. Newcomb's comment, yes, those are all subject to the Clean Water Act. Those are live drains, year around drains, and so there a lot -- boy, a list as long as your arm of requirements for Sanitary Services to go and develop right there, just like there are for the city for your Waste Treatment Plant. Same DEQ and EPA requirements. An exhaustive list. To Mr. Staudenraus' comments, we do care. We have made significant changes. We started with -- remember the buses and the neighbors didn't like that, we took that out and we are now to, I think, a much better plan with some public policy direction here. We are trying to make this work and I think the transfer facility -- sometimes it may be misperceived, because we don't know what it is exactly, because we don't have one in Meridian. Now would be a good time, if we can, to hear a little bit from either Steve Sedlacek or Lynn Brown to tell the Commission about this facility. It's not very large. It's something that is needed in the future if the landfill closes. Borup: Before that I just -- one other comment being listed on -- one of the staff comments was on the cul-de-sac length. They were talking about either shortening that or have access to Ustick. Have you looked at the access to Ustick? Forrey: We have. The Highway District preferred this concept and so did neighbors, because they didn't traffic going into Niemann Drive, I think it is. We would revise this plat given last night's direction from the City Council and resubmit some changes to the city staff. That was the third item on my list, to direct staff to prepare a new staff report and we would make those changes to the plat. Borup: This is what ACHD preferred? Forrey: Yes. Yes. That's correct. The cul-de-sac, rather than a through street for traffic management. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Forrey? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 34 Centers: Yes. Mr. Forrey, I think staff said to shorten the cul-de-sac. Can you live with that? Forrey: We can do that. Yes, we can. Centers: Yes. I think that was one of their comments, too. You're really wanting to come back to us within 30 days with a revised plat? Forrey: Yes and a legal description, zoning designation, Development Agreement. Centers: I don't think we have to direct the staff to do comments, I think they will do that. I think that is excellent, because it would give -- at least I can speak for myself, after I hear from Mr. Sedlacek, but time to think about it. I would like to hear from Mr. Sedlacek. Forrey: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Thank you, Mr. Forrey. Would you like to come forward? I guess you're welcome to say anything else if you'd like to, but specifically about the operation of the transfer station, I think. Sedlacek: Thank you very much. My name is Steve Sedlacek. I'm the Business Manager of Sanitary Service, one of the owners of the company. We are at 722 West Franklin. First of all, I guess one comment I'd like to make to Commissioner Centers regarding all of the toter carts that are sitting on Harry Peterson's property. He is an employee of ours. He has a number of horses on his property right now. He takes broken toter carts and I'm not sure exactly what he does with them. He fills them full of grain and he feeds his horses, and maybe even barrel races around them. I don't know. Centers: I didn't know either. Sedlacek: If you'd like them removed, I can -- Centers: No, it's not my -- you're on the County right now. Sedlacek: It is in the County. That's true. One other comment if I could, before I talk about how a transfer station works. We have been looking for property for a number of years. We have looked at every -- I think every industrial zoned property in the city that I know of. Maybe there is something I haven't seen. First of all, when you read through the Zoning Ordinance we try to match what we do with the zones and we end up in an industrial zone. There is no heavy industrial that I know of and I can read in the zoning manual or the Comprehensive Plan that transfer stations are allowed in industrial zones, so I'm thinking I'm an industrial zone kind of business. I'm looking for that kind of property. This isn't the only industrially zoned property, but it's one of the very few that's 10 acres or larger. There are some heavier industrially zoned properties on the railroad tracks, they are either already built on -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 35 Centers: Excuse me. It's not zoned industrial. Never was. Sedlacek: This property? Centers: Right. Sedlacek: That's correct but when I look at the past Comprehensive Plan -- I apologize, I'm not trying to misspeak, but when I looked at how that was called out in the older -- in the current Comprehensive Plan -- Centers: '93. Sedlacek: '93. There was an industrial strip there. There was a green dot, too. I'm not trying to take away anybody's park I'm just trying to pursue industrially zoned property. Centers: Right. Right. Sedlacek: Okay. Whether or not we are light industrial, heavy industrial, I don't know. All I know is I'm going after industrial property. How that works out, I can't tell you. Anyway, I guess I'm in a bit of a quandary in that we are contracted to the city and we serve -- probably everybody here in the room is our customer. We are not here to upset anybody, but I'm just -- I do have an obligation to serve the city for the next 16 years. We take that obligation very seriously. There is 100 tons of waste generated every day and 16 years from now how many tons will there be there? Well, I have to plan for that and we have been telling the City Council for a number of years that this is coming. We are going to have to move into a larger piece of property, a transfer station will occur somewhere in this area. It has to. Let's talk about how a transfer station works. It's basically a 100-by-100 square foot building. It might be, when we finally design it, 80-by-120 or some slight change from 100-by-100. The trucks come into the property, they drive into the building, they dump their load onto a concrete floor, and then drive out when they are empty and all the waste is contained within the building. There is no rainwater or storm water hitting that material. What we will then do in the building is we put it into a compactor. Now most of the transfer stations that you see around in Idaho don't have a compactor. We intend to install one. It keeps the litter down, it keeps the waste, -- we get maximum payloads on our truck, that sort of thing. It's an excellent way to contain your waste. Basically what we are doing is we are making it into a brick, a very large brick, and it gets -- when the chamber is full we extrude it into a truck and the truck drives away. There is no dumping of waste, this isn't a dump, and there is no storage of waste. It's not allowed. This is a means of transferring waste from a smaller truck to a bigger truck. That's all it is. You know, we might want to try to segregate grass clippings from lawn care companies that come in, something like that, and then get that to a dairy farmer for reuse, you know. There might be some source separation issues that we might want to try to address, but that's how a transfer station works. It's -- we are not allowed to store waste at all. I guess one other comment I'd like to make, we have been working with the Idaho Department Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 36 of Environmental Quality to develop rules for transfer facilities across the state. The DEQ is proposing some temporary emergency rules to address C&D landfills. That's not what we want to do, but within that rule -- contained within that rule are new transfer stations rules and regulations. I can't just decide to build one of these things, whether I had a Conditional Use Permit with you or not, these are state regulated and Health Department controlled facilities. They inspect us constantly, routinely -- or they will. For example, there are three steps you have got to develop the facility. The first step is we have to have a siting application. We have to show a proximity to flood planes. We have to not take out any habitat that supports endangered or threatened species. There are surface water restrictions. You have to have a surface water management plan, which was mentioned before. We will have to have that. You also cannot be too close to a park, scenic, or natural use area. That's basically saying you can't too close to a national park. Now the second step we have to do is we have to submit design requirements. We have to show that we have an impermeable tipping floor. This is the concrete floor in the building. We have to have leach-aid storage and management systems. Some of the waste that comes into the building will have liquid in it. Just naturally occurring. Well, that's going to be contained on the slab in the building somewhere, it's going to flow into a drain that's contained in a tank. That material has to be pumped into the sewer system when it's full. We can't -- it doesn't get discharged outside the building. It's absolutely controlled. We also have to send in the building and construction design blueprints and we have to show a waste capacity calculation to prove that the building is properly sized. You know, you don't want to have 1,000 ton per day operation in a 100 ton per day building or the waste is going to pile up outside. You have to show how you are going to manage your waste. You have to have the throughput capacity to handle it. Then beyond that you have to get an operating plan and it has 13 different sections. The first one discusses speculative accumulation. That's not allowed. For example, I can't go out and try to pull out all the iron from the waste that comes into the building and pile it outside to try to resell it. That's not allowed, hoping that the iron market goes up and I can make five dollars. There are signs required, so there is a section there about where your signs are going to be, how do you direct traffic. You will have to state what type of waste types will come into the building. You're not allowed to take radioactive waste, car bodies, you know, think of some odd types of waste -- you know, you can't take dead animals, that kind of thing. You'll have to state that in your operating plan and live up to it. You also have waste monitoring measurement requirements. Every truck or car that goes in there will have to be weighed or somehow measured and you have to keep records of that. You will have to have a communication plan of how to -- how do the people on site communicate with each other in case there is a problem. There is a fire prevention plan, sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, and dust suppression devices, that sort of thing. There is a scavenging, salvaging section. That's not allowed. If somebody is in the building and they happen to see something sitting around that they might want to take home, it can't happen. It's not allowed. One of the more important ones is a nuisance control section where you have to discuss how you control vectors, odor, and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 37 litter. You have to have a litter management plan and you have to have an odor management plan. You have to live up to those things. There is a bird hazard to aircraft section. That doesn't apply here, because we are not near an airport. Open burning fires are addressed. You can't have any of that. Storm water runoff and runoff controls there is a plan for that. You have to address how you manage those storm water events that occur on your property. Whether or not they can -- or hit the garbage, you still have to have the, you know, 25 year storm year control system on the property, a pond, an infiltration bed, something to deal with that. The second to the last section is a cleaning procedure for the tipping floor. It has to be cleaned on a routine basis. I'm not talking about mops and some guy scrubbing it, but, you know, it's got to be broom cleaned on a nightly basis and we will have equipment to do that. Then you have to have a leach storage and management plan, which we talked about before, you have a system to manage that. There are all of the things that go into a transfer station design and construction. I got this as a handout if you'd like to read it. Centers: You don't intend to build that unless Seaman's Gulch is closed is that correct? Or it's still possible? Sedlacek: It's still possible. What we do every year is we run an economic model and we try to figure out the cheapest way to handle waste. That's our business. What we are seeing is as the city grows there is more and more waste coming to us. That's great. We have to have more and more trucks. Well, at some point it's cheaper to build a building and then buy less trucks, because the trucks can be more efficient. Centers: They don't have to make a trip. Sedlacek: Right. They don't have to make that hour-long trip to the landfill. They will make a, you know, 20 minute trip to the transfer facility, so we can get more production out of each truck. Here is my problem. I understand -- I understand what everyone said here tonight. I guess what I'm struggling with is the obligation that I don't know where the landfill will be operating. I talked to the County Commissioners, they are pursuing expanding the existing landfill, and that's great. They may not succeed. There is a new subdivision right next to the landfill. I can't remember the name of it. It's Hidden Springs or Spring Valley Ranch or something like that. I don't know but they face their own siting and Public Hearing problems, as do we. They have the power. Of course, they own all the land and they can build their own landfill there, probably even if there is public opposition. They have also talked about maybe obtaining a piece of property in southern Ada County, which will be much farther away from Meridian. I don't have the trucks to drive out there, you know, a two hour round trip, and come back and pick up enough waste on the trucks to complete my task within a days time. That's why you have transfer facilities. With this uncertainty out there, I have the certainty of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 38 contract, but the uncertainly of where I can go, and so that's all we are trying to do. That's all we are trying to address here is how do we -- how do we resolve this tension. Centers: How many trucks do you have now and how many do you anticipate to have in 10 years? Sedlacek: Right now we have -- we probably -- let's see. We operate, depending on the roll off, you know, the number of roll off boxes for the day, we have 12 to 13 trucks that leave the yard in the morning. Centers: And that would probably double in 10 years, wouldn't it? Sedlacek: I would imagine. It's a linear function to the city's population. If the city's population doubles in 10 years, we will double the fleet. Centers: And it probably in the -- in my packet -- maybe not -- it talked about fencing. Sedlacek: Around the property? Centers: Yes. Sedlacek: I'd have to ask Wayne. Centers: There is nothing -- okay. I didn't see it but, of course, that wouldn't be objectionable, would it? I mean fencing would be -- you were planning to fence it, I would imagine. Sedlacek: Absolutely. We would -- you don't -- Centers: That's a screening fence? Sedlacek: Absolutely. Just as you don't want kids wandering around the Wastewater Treatment Plant right across from a City Park, you don't them wandering around, you know, our facilities. Centers: And each one of those trucks, before you get the transfer station, makes one trip out and one trip back per day. That's it right? Sedlacek: It depends on the type of -- Centers: In between the time they are going in the building. Sedlacek: Typically they make two trips to the dump a year -- a day. I'm sorry. Now a roll off truck makes six trips a day to the landfill, because it takes a box from a construction site, takes it to the dump, brings it back and goes and gets another one. That's where you see -- that's where the analysis comes in where if you build a transfer Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 39 facility. Rather than having an hour-long trip, I have got a 20-minute trip. I can get more trash on the trucks and reduce my costs and that's where we start trying to evaluate where it becomes economic to build a facility. Borup: Wouldn't that also reduce the amount of trucks as the population grows? You're talking about -- if you had the transfer -- Sedlacek: Absolutely. Yes. Centers: Would this be a possibility, too, Mr. Sedlacek, for the trucks that were stored in some type of facility that was shielded to the human eye? I'm not talking an expensive, enclosed facility, but something that was -- you know what I'm saying? I think that's part of the problem is those green trucks sitting out there. Sedlacek: I mean it's my understanding of the way the property is going to be laid out it there will be a berm all the way around it, on top of that berm is going to be a fence on the north side. Siddoway: South side. Sedlacek: Our intention is to not be seen by anybody. We've put ourselves in the farthest back corner there, because we don't want to be seen by anybody. Centers: That wasn't conveyed to us. That wasn't conveyed to us, to me. Anyone else miss that? Sedlacek: What's that? Centers: That they were going to have berms -- Borup: Oh. Well, the berms they are talking about were on Ustick. Centers: Shielding, yes, the whole thing. Borup: Yes. On Ustick they were talking about the berms. Centers: So are we still talking about Ustick? Mr. Forrey will address that. Sedlacek: Okay. Shreeve: I have one question. Now let me get a picture. See, you have got this enclosed facility. When a truck backs in or whatever, does the truck, then, before it makes the dump, is it completely enclosed within this building? I mean is it a large building or is it just -- Sedlacek: It's sitting inside the building on the floor. It drives in headfirst and turns. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 40 Shreeve: Okay. Sedlacek: Typically. Shreeve: So at one point in the process the truck is completely out of sight, it's enclosed in the building and it -- Sedlacek: The opening of the building will face north, northwest, toward the Treatment Plant. Any noise generated in that building is going to be projected to the north. That's the way it will be laid out. Shreeve: And what is the noise? I mean is it loud? I know it's all relative, but is it a -- just mechanical? Sedlacek: The truck will be running. You will hear the diesel engine. When the truck unloads, the hydraulic pumps turn on and you will hear a -- you might hear a small pump noise. I don't know that you will hear it over the engine. Shreeve: Well, what about odors? Are you going to have -- is there a generation of odors there that would need to have some kind of a filter system or -- Sedlacek: Typically there are no filter systems on transfer stations. Again, the waste is sitting there for a few hours and it's gone. You know, it's not sitting there rotting for days. I'm not going to say we don't bring in a stinky load now and then, I mean -- what was I going to say? I mean there is some -- there is an odor management plan we have to comply with. I think, quite frankly, you know, and DEQ is talking about this, is my thought, then is how are you going to distinguish between us and the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The anaerobic digesters from the Treatment Plant are going to put out a lot more odors than we will -- we ever will. If we have odors I'll say this, I think they are seasonal. They tend to occur more in the summer. Someone will cut their grass on Monday with a Friday collection and it sat there on the curb for a week, it starts to smell and it goes in a truck. Now, again, once we put in the transfer facility it's going to come back, extruded into a truck, and driven off. We are just trying to be efficient and we are trying to meet our contract obligations. Centers: And it sounds like you're kind of making plans for that transfer facility. Sedlacek: We are. Yes. Centers: Whether Seaman's Gulch stays open. Sedlacek: There will be an economic time, it won't be within two years, but it won't be 10 years from now, where the economics will justify the construction of the facility and we will pursue it. If this isn't the place for it, tell me. I will go somewhere else and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 41 look for an I-L zone or an I zone, I guess. You know, I have got to have something, so - - I guess we will be back to talk to you about another place. We -- one thing we talked about -- again, I pursued this, because I thought in the past that the city was interested in an industrial buffer around the treatment plant. Maybe I was mistaken. Now we have got this MU zone -- I'm not sure where I am now. Although that's not official yet, so -- thank you for your time. Borup: Any other questions? Thank you, sir. I think that was good information. Did you have something concluding, Mr. Forrey? I might say just for -- Commissioner Centers had asked a little about the buffering. I was looking at one of the submittals that you did that showed some landscape buffering around. I don't know if you had any additional comments on that. Forrey: That's what I wanted to talk about, Mr. Chairman, and for the Commission, we wanted to take this in kind of three steps. Step one tonight was to present the land use changes to the Commission and get a reading from the discussion of -- if this was -- if we are on the right track or not. Then our second objective was to update the plat and all of the design criteria, submit that to the staff. The third step would be a new staff report -- an amended and updated staff report to come back to the Commission at a future date. If your discussion says these fellows are on the wrong railroad track and this isn't going to work, then there is no need to go to step two and three. We really felt let's focus on land use, if we are on the right track, and, if so, then all those development details will be submitted to the city right away and generate a new staff report from the city to address all the site development criteria. Yes, we do envision significant buffering around that industrial zone. Centers: The height of the berms, say, you know, two, three feet in height all around? Forrey: No. Higher a four or five foot berms and then on top of that -- Centers: You have a fence on top of that. Forrey: Yes. We want to screen that entire facility. Centers: Well -- which makes sense if you are going to have offices in here you're not going to want to look at garbage trucks. Forrey: That's correct. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Forrey, just for clarification, were you talking about the buffers being at the separation line between the I-L and L-O or just as street buffers around the perimeter? Forrey: No. I'm talking about internal between the I-L and L-O. Siddoway: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 42 Forrey: Which would be in addition to the perimeter landscaping per the City Landscape Ordinance. Centers: It makes a lot of difference, as far as I'm concerned. Borup: So you're saying the buffering would be between the zonings, the buildings themselves that would go in, and then the buffering on the street. Forrey: Perimeter. Borup: The perimeter streets. Forrey: Correct. Borup: That's almost a three-phrase buffer. Forrey: I would just repeat. I guess you heard Mr. Sedlacek say let him know. We need to know. Appreciate your help and the time you take on this. Borup: Do you have -- and we will -- I think we will have an opportunity to do some discussion here, but preference as far as timing. You had mentioned to continue it to -- Forrey: At a convenient time for the Commission. Borup: Well, the first available will probably be May 16th , which would mean the staff would need the information back by May 1st . Does that work with your time frame? Forrey: That's fine. Yes. It does. Borup: Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you. Forrey: Thank you. Borup: Well, Commissioners, it sounds like they are asking for at least our feelings at this point. Centers: Yes. Do we want to leave the Public Hearing open to continue this or do we want to close it? We have heard testimony on this at three different -- Borup: I think more than that. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman -- Borup: The problem we have is if they are going to be submitting changes, then we do need to continue -- is that what you were going to say? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 43 Siddoway: That is what I was going to say. Yes. In order for them to submit new plats, new information, we have to leave it open. Centers: So then we would leave it open and I guess, as I mentioned earlier, that it would give time to mull it over and a lot of new information was obtained tonight. Mr. Sedlacek's information was very interesting and I never heard anything about a five-foot high berm with a fence on top of it. That's interesting. I think the 30 days would be -- would work for me. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a couple issues -- Number 1, of course, we brought up the litter on the canals and all kinds of different things. I think certainly it was mentioned that the DEQ, Department of Health, all those folks are going to be very much a part of this process. I don't know what the fines or whatever would necessarily be from something like this, but I think that certainly they would have the environment in the best interest and be watching these folks. I guess I would just offer my initial opinion would be that I think they are on the right track. I think that berm to me as well makes a big difference and so, thereafter, I guess I would say that they are on the right track and proceed. Centers: One thing I wanted to add was in the benefit of the group, we won't have the buses, you know, regardless of what happens. That was a plus as far as I'm concerned. Shreeve: Well -- and that's another comment, is there are very few testimonies on the office space, so I think the L-O zone, -- I didn't hear any testimony against that. I think that's pretty well -- it appears to be agreeable with everybody and so it just sounds like it's this industrial -- proposed industrial zone. I think that this applicant's made some attempts to try to alleviate and provided some excellent information that certainly answered a lot of my questions. Borup: Commissioner Centers reminded me of comments from a lot of the neighbors on the first meeting. A lot of them said they could live with the Sanitary Services if the school buses were gone. Centers: Most of the testimony was regarding the -- not most, but a good share of it was regarding the school busses. That's right. Borup: And all of them didn't say that, but there was a good number that said they could live with the trucks -- Sanitary Service trucks if the other -- the school buses were gone. I kind of forgot about that. Commissioner Mathes? Mathes: It just sounds like the -- we have state regulations, so I think where they were worried about the water runoff and that type of thing. I think they are regulated pretty well. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 44 Centers: Yes. One thought. Don't leave -- I mean don't take that park away. The city doesn't want it deeded to them, because they are smart. They want to pay taxes on it -- or not receive taxes on it, so you keep it in the plan when you come back in 30 days as a designated park that won't be necessarily improved. At some future stage, 10, 20 years down the road, then the city may be interested, who in the heck knows. Shreeve: Take a look at those fragrant plants. Centers: Yes. Exactly. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, is there any direction from the Commission about pathways that Mr. Kuntz mentioned before he left? Mathes: How does that berm work along the pathway? Siddoway: I don't know. I haven't seen the cross-section, but there is land, I believe, available for the pathway outside of the property line within the land that's owned by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District that it could be built within. I haven't looked at that closely. Borup: So it sounds like we are saying that they'd like to know the Commission's opinion on the pathways? Siddoway: Yes. If you look at the map that's up there, the edge of the color down there, I believe, represents the actual property line. The line that you see through here is the Five Mile Creek and on this side, we have the Nine Mile Creek. The white space between the two is where I believe that pathway would be built. Same along here. I would just like to hear from the Commission whether we are directing the applicant to show that pathway and construct it as condition of the application. Shreeve: On the north side who owns the property? Is that just part of the -- Borup: That's the treatment plant property. Shreeve: That's the treatment plant. Centers: Well, I think the city's intent is to have the connectivity, you know, and the one individual stated here tonight he didn't think the pathway would be worth a darn, because you're going to be walking along and there you have the green trucks, rather than -- I think it was Mrs. Hennings and -- I don't know. At this point, I think it should be left in. If they had a berm along here that's five feet high and the pathway is below it, and then that berm is landscaped, that might not be so bad. Right, Mrs. Hennings? Borup: But the berm wouldn't be along the canal or that would make that bank even steeper. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 45 Siddoway: The berm would be on their property and the pathway would be between the berm and the canal. Centers: Right. Siddoway: So it would be buffered by that berm and the fence, so I see it potentially as a -- Shreeve: And if it is landscaped with nice fragrant trees -- you know they certainly wouldn't be seeing the facility with a five-foot berm, plus a six-foot fence. Centers: And depending on how fast they jog, too. Shreeve: I would say, yes, leave the path in, do something with the path. Borup: I have always been a strong advocate of the pathways. My only concern here is there has been a lot of testimony where people said they wouldn't use it and saw no use in it and I think -- Centers: There was only one. Mrs. Hennings -- Borup: Well, there was someone else -- two others that said that, too. Centers: Maybe previously. Borup: But if it's done nicely, I think it would get some use. Centers: Can I make a motion? Borup: Yes, please do. Centers: That we continue Public Hearing AZ 01-015 and Public Hearing PP 01-017, continue these Public Hearings to our second meeting in May, which would be Thursday, May 16th . Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 46 Borup: Thank you. Commissioners, I think we'll take time for a short break and then we will proceed with Heritage Commons. Centers: Staff needs to meet in the back room. I have something for you. RECONVENED AT 9:45 P.M. Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 02-006 Request for annexation and zoning of 76.16 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Heritage Commons by Brighton Corporation – west side of North Locust Grove Road between East McMillan Road and East Ustick Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 02-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 273 building lots and 12 other lots on 75.39 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Heritage Commons by Brighton Corporation – west side of North Locust Grove Road between East McMillan Road and East Ustick Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 02-007 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential dwellings, private open space with club house, gazebo, parks and neighborhood scaled commercial site for proposed Heritage Commons by Brighton Corporation – west side of North Locust Grove Road between East McMillan Road and East Ustick Road: Borup: We'd like to reconvene our Planning and Zoning Commission meeting this evening and proceed on Items 9, 10, and 11. Item 9 is a Public Hearing AZ 02-006, request for annexation and zoning of 76.16 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for the proposed Heritage Commons by Brighton Corporation. Hearing PP 02-007, request for Preliminary Plat on the same property, and, finally, CUP 02-007, request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for single family residential dwellings, open space, club house, gazebo, parks, and a neighborhood scaled commercial site for the same proposed Heritage Commons by Brighton Corporation. We'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this point and begin with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. You can see on the screen the vicinity map for the proposed Heritage Commons project. It is on the west side of Locust Grove between Ustick and McMillan. The property just across Locust Grove. On this side is the Charter High School. These are some site photos of the property today. It's a field. The first photo is taken looking directly into the site from Locust Grove at the northeast corner of the project. Just turning a little bit south from that same point you can see Locust Grove on the left side, neighboring existing residents in the distance to the south. Turning and looking east you can see the north property line where there is currently existing a private road and the site here is looking north into the site in the distance from Ustick Road at a location where staff is Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 47 recommending a stub street, which I will get into later. This is the proposed Preliminary Plat for Heritage Commons and before I get into specifics I want to give you a little bit of background why this is before you tonight. You will note it's a little unusual for a new project to be in front of the Commission on the second meeting. As the Comprehensive Plan was before the Commission and the discussion ensued around neighborhood centers, there was a motion by this body that included some incentives for someone proposing a neighborhood center development at one of the locations proposed on that map. We are actually quite pleased that this has come through as our first neighborhood center at one of the locations shown on the map that it isn't formally adopted yet, but that is what we are trying to do. In response to that, we have tried to expedite the process, as was made in the motion for the -- regarding the Comprehensive Plan and get them before this body as soon as possible. What we are seeing tonight is perhaps our first stab at one of these neighbor centers. You should have a lengthy staff report that is dated April 16th and I'd just like to go through that and hit some of the high points. The site is about 75 acres in size. It proposes 273 single-family building lots, 28 of which are alley loaded. It has six office commercial lots, five large common areas, and six other lots that include landscaping and common driveways, things like that. On Page 2 of the staff report, you do have a table that sets forth their proposed development standards regarding setbacks, buffers, lot sizes, frontage, and house sizes. They are proposing some modifications to the current ordinance, but staff is in support of these modifications as proposed. I'd point out that the Fire Department and P&Z staff has met with the applicant. When I'm done, I'll turn some time over to Joe Silva from the Fire Department who is here tonight to address Fire Department's comments related to this project. I'd also like to point out that the commercial area is being developed under the Planned Development Ordinance that allows for a 20 percent use exception. They are actually only using 5.1 percent of the project in the excepted area so that it's in compliance with that standard. The only thing I'd like to point out on the annexation and zoning comments is that we would like to require a Development Agreement based on the conditions of approval. On the Preliminary Plat on Page 7 of the staff report under initial considerations, I just have a few comments. One is on block length. You can see that the applicant does a very good job responding to our desire for smaller blocks in these neighborhood center areas. They have gone with a small block pattern through much of the project, especially close to the commercial area and those lots and blocks get somewhat larger as you extend towards the back of the project. The one block length that we expressed some concern about is along the south side here and it's about 1,200 feet, which is in excess of the thousand-foot block length. It could be approved without a Variance tonight as part of the Planned Development -- or Planned Development process if the Commission wishes to do so. The staff recommendation was -- seeing that the properties to the south could -- are large -- I don't think I have an air photo on this. Let me just check. I don't but if they were to redevelop a stub street -- an additional stub street in this location would line up with the street that I was showing here in the future and could provide for access out to Ustick. That would be our only concern related to the block length issues. It's not a do or die issue for us. It's an additional consideration we'd like to have discussed. East Herons Crossing Drive, which is the northern most -- let me just read something for a second. Yes. We had some concerns about the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 48 design of the road not meeting ACHD's requirement for half plus 12. We just had some discussions here at the table right before the hearing started with the applicant saying that they have revised their plan to meet that, so I will just ask that they address that to the Commission. Alleyways are a feature we don't often see, but we are very much in support of. If the Commission does have questions or concerns, I believe the applicant is prepared tonight to discuss those. On Page 8, site specific comment Number 5 is related to a curb cut that we would like to see at this location -- see the arrow -- to give secondary access to the property that's just to the south. That could some day redevelop similar to what we see and become part of this, but -- or maybe something else. It would be -- we'd like to have the opportunity for access and getting -- being able to use the street for access. The applicant has some concerns, I will let him address that to the Commission, but that was one thing I wanted to point out. Whether we require the access to the built today or not is not particularly important to staff, as long as the opportunity for that access is preserved for future development. Item Number 6 right below that talks about a common driveway that exists right at this point in the plat. There is a small linear lot you can see that is a common driveway that will serve these five parcels. The Planned Development Ordinance does have minimum standards set which are wider than what is shown and so we ask that that lot be widened by four feet. Minor issue. Just pointing it out, because it is something that should be cleaned up. There are some things in here that we have asked the applicants to respond to or submit prior to the next hearing, so I will just try and point those out. One is Item 10 on Page 9 where we would like to have the landscape buffer within a common lot and not just an easement. I'd point out Item 13, simply because I think there is going to be some discussion from the public tonight regarding fencing and concern about -- we are requiring in here a solid six foot high perimeter fence. There is some concern that that may not be the right answer so if -- we may need to -- may or may not need to modify this. At any rate, we will need some kind of at least temporary construction fencing to keep in debris during construction from blowing onto adjacent properties. That's enough on that. Item 15 we asked the applicant to submit a conceptual floor plan showing how a dwelling unit can be built on the proposed 32 foot wide lots. They actually came with that tonight, so I think we can project that up and let them talk about that. It is a floor plan that they have built before. One item that is missing from the plat is a phasing plan. Item 17 requests that they submit a revised - - on the revised plat to show phase lines. Under the Conditional Use on Page 15, we talk about the commercial area. Before I dig into that I'm going to show some of these other illustrations that have been provided. This would be a concept of what you might see as the street scene within the project in the -- notice the lack of garages along the street. These would be alley loaded, narrower lots, and street trees. They are also proposing a community center, which would be in one of the large open spaces. They are also proposing a gazebo. That would be in the large central green right as you drive into the project. This was the elevation submitted of the -- of a commercial building for the commercial area out along Locust Grove. One concern we had was that the six commercial lots that were shown on the plat -- I'll have to go back. Keep this building in mind. You can see up along Locust Grove six offices commercial lots and they have submitted a Conceptual Site Plan of how that might lay out with Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 49 building pads and parking. That didn't seem to jive and so we asked the applicant to address that tonight in terms of their design of this commercial area. We feel that that is an important component to look at the project. First, it's right at the entrance and I think they feel the same way. We would just like some clarification on that. If you then look at Page 15 of your staff report, you can see a little diagram where we say discouraged and encouraged, simply trying to illustrate. Perhaps not -- didn't do such a good job of it, but we are trying to illustrate the concepts that can see in the boxes down below. We do support the elevation that they have submitted, a road tied multi-tenant structure that's pedestrian oriented, looks good -- we would like to have the parking lots in the rear of the building as much as possible, simply to create areas that are for pedestrians. I think we can just come to some agreement on the general concept tonight. They are submitting this commercial area only as a conceptual approval. We would just simply state that the commercial area should come back to us in the future for a site specific Conditional Use Permit when it is ready to develop. It won't be built right off it will be later in the phasing plan after many of the houses are built. On Page 16 the applicant has submitted a list of proposed uses for this, so the staff report simply asked them to provide more information on their -- the last bullet item in their request, which was services related to the neighborhood. Site specific comment Number 5 we asked the applicant to submit an open space calculation showing how it's broken down. It certainly appears that they have ample open space to meet the requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance, but we need a calculation that shows the internal open space broken out from the proposed buffers. With that, I will just skip to the recommendation at the end on Page 18. We want you to know that we strongly support the mixed-use and compact principles of this development. It is -- we have been trying to support through the comprehensive planning process over the last couple of years. We do support the narrow street sections. Actually, the Wardle’s have submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department and the Fire Department a booklet which I have here of street standards that show planning literature related to these reduced street standards. I would just state that from a planning perspective, the Planning Department supports the reduced standards with parking on both sides. I know that Mr. Silva has a concern about parking on both sides and wishes to have that restricted to just one side to make sure that there is at least 20 feet free and clear. I will let him address that, but just so you know, we feel that we can support the reduced street sections as proposed with two-sided parking. As long as we can reach agreement on these matters, we hope that we can continue expediting the process. We know there are some issues that need to be worked out here, we are not trying to rush it unnecessarily, but we recommend approval of the project with the conditions noted in the staff report. With that, I will turn the time over to Joe. Silva: Joe Silva, Meridian Fire Department. I just wanted to provide our thanks to the developer and planner for their hard work on this project. They have done a very thorough job in preparing the project for review. A couple things that come into play. One of the primary issues the Fire Department is concerned about is the street with the -- just to kind of give you an idea of we are talking about is that the Fire Code has traditionally for many years required a 20 foot street width. To give you an idea how this impacts fire operations is that our assumption -- and, frankly, so on this research that's Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 50 been provided by the planner, is that parking will take up about seven feet -- each vehicle width is seven feet off the curb. That leaves us in -- the assumptions are seven foot wide. Obviously, trailers and motor homes would be larger than that. Then that middle street width -- yes, just very briefly, it kind of shows you what the Fire Department is concerned about. It's not only the street width, but if we go down, but also is the fact we have setup room once we pull up in front of the structure that's involved in the event that we have a fire. Obviously, we want to acknowledge the fact that currently probably two-thirds -- you know, two-thirds to 78 -- 75 percent of our business currently is emergency medical services. We want to acknowledge that up front. However, given our level of staffing we have to, off one platform, that being a fire engine, provide basic life support services and also fire suppression, in addition to rescue when called for, for vehicle extradition and so forth. Part of the research that the planner provided us on this project was also based on some experience that had been done in similar projects done in Boise where staffing levels are, obviously, quite -- the number of personnel available to service a given area is quite high versus the Meridian Fire Department with only six firefighters on duty at all times can provide. Part of the experience or part of the research that was provided was also with the Portland Fire Department and they did some turning radius analysis to determine what a fire engine really needed to come down the street. As you can see as this typical apparatus makes this turn it sets up between these two vehicles and then attempts to deploy, there is not much room actually around the vehicle, which when those doors open on the side of the apparatus, you know, you have got another three feet -- two to three feet on each side. Then the people -- the personnel have to be able to move around that apparatus once those doors open and remove the equipment and deploy hose lines as needed on the incident. Then that brings us to the point, well, what other similar size agencies have had experience. One of the agencies that were cited in the research was the Gresham Fire Department. To give you an idea as to the staffing levels, at least the expenditures for that Fire Department, being a similar size agency, the Meridian Fire Department costs per capital for the Fire Department currently is at roughly 27.53 dollars. By comparison, the Gresham Fire Department spends 89.28 dollars per capital for fire protection. In other words, they have a much smaller response area. Also part of the research that was provided by the developer indicated that there had been some experiments done in the City of Longmont, Colorado. Longmont with a population 60,000, as compared to 49,000 in the city in the rural district of Meridian Fire Department with 49. Longmont covers an estimated 19.2 square miles versus the 67 square miles that is serviced by the Meridian Fire Department by our two fire stations. Simply this is a function of time and distance, that being a response to provide a basic life support unit in front of a given location within five minutes as preparatory for advanced life support as a service delivered by the Ada County Paramedics to provide advanced life service -- advanced life support services for successful outcomes in EMS calls. One of the things also cite in the Longmont experience that is a similar size agency is that, quote, unquote, fire and EMS response times were not part of their evaluation of their research. They are, however, in the process of evaluating several towns and agencies in the Denver metropolitan area to see if there is any correlation in the older neighbors for response times. They acknowledge the fact that they need to do more research on analysis of response times Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 51 by Fire Departments given more narrow streets. Tied with that I will cite the fact that the Fire Code has had an existing fire lane width of 20 feet. It is also included in the new international code, which is being considered for adoption -- will be put in front of Council for consideration of adoption within the next year, but still that standard remains 20 feet. With that we will stand -- I will stand for any questions if there should be any. Borup: Questions for Mr. Silva? Centers: Yes. Mr. Silva, your comment is dated April 16th ? Silva: Correct. Centers: Number 7 I think that's what we are talking about. You state all 29-foot wide streets shall have restricted parking to one side. Then you state all 33 foot wide street sections shall also be posted. You mean to say that both of those should be posted, don't you? Silva: Correct. I'm sorry for that. The intent is that we get 20-foot clear width. Centers: Right. Silva: And there would be restricted parking. Also, on that 30 -- just so we get a 20 clear width. I apologize for that -- Centers: But are you saying you want signs posted no parking here? Silva: Correct. Centers: On the 29-foot streets and the 33-foot streets? Silva: Correct. On one side in the -- Centers: On one side. Silva: To get the 20 foot clear width. Centers: How far apart would the signs be? Silva: We could provide more detailed information on that -- on that spacing of the signs. Centers: Okay. Borup: Mr. Silva, you're saying to meet your standards the streets need to be 34 feet? Silva: That's what we would request from the developer or -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 52 Borup: Without restrictive parking. Silva: Correct. Centers: Because 34 feet leaves 17 feet for cars to -- Silva: That's correct. Centers: And 20 feet in the middle. How about the radius turn on -- or what is the width of that street that goes around? Silva: Here? Centers: Yes. Correct. Borup: That's at 33 right now. Centers: Is that 33? That would be posted no parking on one side, according to Mr. Silva's request. I can see a fire truck not making that turn too well if there is -- Silva: There is a comment, Item 5, addressed turning radii maintained throughout the project. Centers: Right. It's 33 so that -- Silva: Transitions from 36 to 33. Borup: To the east are 36. Centers: Is it? Yes and on the curve -- Borup: Correct. Centers: -- it's 33. Okay. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions? Commissioner Centers? Any other comments from anyone on the staff? All right. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward at this time? Turnbull: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is David Turnbull. I'm the president of Brighton Corporation, the applicant on this project. My office address is 12426 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I'd like to start out by talking a little bit about the concept of this project. We began the planning process with the idea that the Meridian development market needed to have some new identity. If you recall back to the early to mid '90s Meridian City started requiring virtually all new Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 53 development comply with the lower density R-4 zone. What we have seen since then is a repetition of the minimums, 80-by-100 foot lots. I think that that kind of becomes the rule in Boise and that such amenities were sacrificed to keep affordability. The Planned Development process was not widely enforced, because the standards were vague, time consuming and kind of the laborious nature of the process. I think as we have gone through our North Meridian Planning effort we have discussed at great length the need for the city to provide incentives to use the Planned Development process, such as expedited approval processes and so forth. With that in mind we began contemplating this land plan for Heritage Commons. We were encouraged by the new way of thinking that I think has been introduced in the thinking of the Planning Department that's led by Shari Stiles. It's been bolstered by Brad Hawkins-Clark and Steve Siddoway's determination to provide a new direction in Meridian's development pattern. Heritage Commons' applications before you this evening is a result of consultation with the Planning Department and has presented some concepts that were approved by this Commission in the action on the Comprehensive Plan update. We think that Heritage Commons breaks the pattern of the cookie cutter, unimaginative subdivisions. Instead of broad expenses of poorly connected and -- poorly connected streets, Heritage Commons provides a street network that's still on a neighborhood scale. The discussion on street width becomes very important to the concept. The pavement width is minimized to provide a more intimate and even a safer neighborhood. I think Mr. Wardle will discuss that a little further. Then the concept of smaller homes sizes, as property develops they can provide homeowners with privacy of an outdoor living space and yet fewer -- you know, without devoting all their time to yard work, are community common areas. As you notice here a large common park, up here is community center and swimming pool and those common areas are meant to provide them with recreational opportunities that will be professionally maintained and managed. The homeowner in this kind of an environment enjoys the best of all worlds. He gets some parallel amenities, private outdoor living space, and the freedom of a carefree lifestyle. We also will couple that with homes that have distinctive and classic architecture -- architectural styles that will complete this community. All these things have to come together in a Planned Development to really make this neighborhood. Just a little bit of technical detail on the community, which you probably have in your staff report and I think Steve, will get into it. There are 273 home sites. The carriage lanes that -- we don't refer to them as alleys, because most people when they think of alleys think about the dirt alleys in the old towns that are bordered by broken down fences. We call these carriage lanes and the carriage lane homes will front this commons park that we have here. There is also a section right up here that faces this collector road so that we don't have any direction street access for cars onto this collector portion of the road. You know, the Highway District and the city have been encouraging collector streets at the mid section points and that's what we have provided here. Then in addition, the carriage home sites we have -- the carriage home sites, we have 245 home sites with a conventional garage fronting the street. This common area park here is 2.4 acres. We also have in this community center here meeting rooms. We have a sizeable swimming pool that will service the whole project. We have two smaller pocket parks in this area and then in Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 54 this area here is kind of left over space. We decided to provide that in a common lot by adding some additional buffering to this home right here. We felt was the best use for that property, given the layout. I'm here to request some specific action by this Commission tonight. As I have previously stated, I think that this is kind of development breaks the mold of the monotonous development we have been seeing, but in doing so we are going to need your assistance. Sometimes I think I kind of get tired of trying to be innovative, because every time you do you feel like you're knocking your head against the wall, you know. You come up against -- and no offense -- the Fire department, you come up against their standards, which has competing interests here and you have to weigh those competing interests in order to be able to develop a community that has the kind of character that we are talking about here. There are a few points in the staff report that we had disagreement on, but they are very few points. I'm going to let John Wardle discuss those a little bit. I think the point that I'd like to make here is that we didn't come into this project submitting what we thought would be the minimum requirements and then knowing that we'd get, you know, boosted up along the way by requirements. We came in with what think is an excellent, excellent development plan. We have gone far over the -- what we think are the required elements of a Planned Development. Anyway, I'll turn the time over now to John Wardle and Mike Wardle to discuss some of the technical issues. I can stand for questions now or I can wait until after their presentation. Borup: Any questions? Go ahead. We'll wait. J. Wardle: For the record, Mike Wardle is going to begin and then I'll just follow that up. M. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mike Wardle of Wardle and Associates, 50 Broadway Avenue in Boise. I'm going to speak just a little bit about our experience both in terms of research, visits, and implementation on a terminology. That is called TNV or Traditional Neighborhood Design or the new urbanism concept, which basically takes us back to elements of neighborhood living that we have gone away from in recent decades because we have focused, really, on a different type of living and a lot more emphasis on the automobiles. One of the challenges of this Commission and City Councils always face when any new development comes along and usually where it's connecting into existing development and this particular one, of course, has the frontage directly on an arterial road. There is always been expressed concern for traffic impacts. Usually the traffic impact concerns relate more to not so much the volume, but the speed with which vehicles pass through our neighborhoods. If, in fact, the speeds of the vehicles going through neighborhood were reduced, the volumes really would not be that noticed. In a particular case like this we are talking about strictly internal issues and the volumes on these streets and maybe if this magic machine over here will work, I'd like to -- John, can you go see if we can get that on the machine to illustrate the volumes of traffic that are going to be on these streets? These are the – okay very good. This is the result of a totally gridded and connected roadway system. Actually, I made one mistake in putting a light green and the yellow on there, you probably can't distinguish between the two. Essentially all of the street volumes, for everything -- all these internal streets, until you get to this point on this Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 55 street coming out and this point on this street, are all less than 500 trips per day. You can see with some of them, because of the nature of these, are going to be in the 50 trips per day range, depending on which way they split. Some of these have extremely low volumes and that's the purpose for a gridded system is to reduce the volume, but also we also try to reduce the speed. Because what happens now, we have a new term in the vernacular called traffic calming. Traffic calming is simply the result of streets that are wider than they need to be and people with that wide open vision, because there is very little in new subdivisions with very little on-street parking, hence you have got unobstructed views that encourage speed. Well, in this new urbanism movement nationally -- and Mr. Silva has cited a few examples, but those examples primarily are from older communities. When we talk, for instance, about Portland and showed that picture of the fire truck, that was on the old neighborhood streets that are 24 feet wide that allow parking on both sides. It was a question of how that functioned. We are not talking about that we are talking about 29 foot wide streets that actually, in the case of these new neighborhoods, we don't see the on-street parking, because the older areas have very little off-street parking. The alleys don't function, they are narrow, the old garages have typically not been replaced and updated, so like in the north end of Boise and even some of the older areas of Meridian you have a lot of on-street parking. That doesn't happen in new subdivisions where you've got two and three car garages. You've got not only the garage space you have got the parking pads. The reality is in this project, even with 29-foot streets and parking on both sides, you will have too little parking on the street. I say that guardedly, because the reality is that we base our designs on livability of the neighborhoods, not necessarily to strictly accommodate the vehicle. We have been through this process for the last five years, traveled extensively looking at projects throughout the country, and looked -- we have a library that's probably the largest in the State of Idaho in trying to determine what makes neighborhoods livable. Frankly, it's a combination and this combination is exemplified by what we have done in Heritage Commons. This is a totally gridded, totally connected subdivision. ACHD during the process of our efforts to do something innovative in another major project in Boise that I won't name went through the process while we were actually designing and developing those roadways, to come up with new standards for narrower streets. In those new standards, which this fully complies with, and it was done with Fire Department input. I'm suggesting your department, but Fire Departments in the valley assisted them in that effort came up with two basic criteria -- actually, three. If the volumes are less than 500 trips per day, if the blocks are less than 500 feet, and if they are totally connected with at least two or more -- and each of these has a minimum of four access points when you take all segments, with those three criteria you can park on both sides of those streets. Now they also defer and say, however, Fire Department discretion is still the final arbiter. Well, when that condition or that situation was actually placed -- Borup: You're talking about 29 foot -- M. Wardle: Twenty-nine foot streets, but from the perspective of the way that the system functions with the fire -- excuse me -- the Highway District indicates that this system that we have here complies wholly with all of the standards that would allow Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 56 parking on both sides of the street from a traffic and Highway District perspective. Now there is discretion, believe it or not, in what a Fire Department can do or has to do. When it boils down, the decision is made by a City Council. That's precisely what was done in Boise with the input and discussion by the Fire Department. Unanimous support of the Planning Commission and City Council said we want to test the opportunity to see if, in fact, we can avoid the fallback, traffic calming solutions that every neighborhood suffers. They approved the streets in the project with a qualification and that qualification was based on an operational review, if it was determined that the streets did not function, then they could be signed for parking on one side only. We worked with the Highway District for two years, because they had a different opinion. That opinion was based on old standards, not these standards, but based on those old standards the Highway District said, okay, we will do an operational review. They did it and they found that there was one instance where there were two cars parked across the street from each other that left -- on a 29 foot wide street, that left a 13 foot area. It was a fully looped street and as a result, the director wrote a letter saying that 95 percent of all examples of parking on the streets during these operational review random checks were fully compliant with the standards, but because there may be a problem, they went ahead and signed the streets. However, we decided as a result of that particular experience we went to 33-foot streets in the balance of the project. The issue has never come up again by any -- by either the Fire Department or the Highway District and that's a shame, because you can go out there today, which I did -- took some photographs even today, there was one car parked on those fully finished, contractors out of the way, streets. It was -- so, anyway, it's a challenge to balance the livability aspect of a neighborhood with the public safety and the fact that we have actually complied with all of the connectivity issues, the dimensional standards for the blocks and diffused the traffic to the point that the build up is kept to a minimum and spread out across this grid. We actually are asking this Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that parking be allowed on both sides of the streets on the 29 foot streets, qualified by the operational review condition and absolutely, without any question, on the 33 foot streets regardless. Boise City in it's approval, again, found that the operational issue was the key and that operational review found that there was not a parking problem but it was still overturned by the transportation folks. We simply ask for the opportunity to -- let's take the step together with the opportunity to take a step a back if it proves that there is any reason that it ought not to be allowed to have parking on both sides but if we don't take the step now we never will. We will never test it. Our streets will be essentially the same as they are in every other subdivision where they are a little bit too wide and too open. The 29 foot street is desirable in that it creates the slower traffic -- and let me just cite one statement from the Highway District staff when they were doing the original analysis on the project in Boise. They indicated that the reason for supporting narrower streets were reduced accident rates, lower speeds, lower development costs, less paved area resulting in less surface drainage and runoff. The staff went on to say that they were generally supportive of the narrower street concept. The issue was discussed extensively in the literature of the engineering planning and architectural professions, each of these professional groups are supportive of the concept as well, and with the caveat, however, the providers of emergency services have not yet supported the concept with the same enthusiasm. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 57 They went on to say that they were in the process at that point, then, of developing new standards that would address the issues, both the balance of public safety and the narrower street system. That's what this project development is based upon. Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to answer questions, but there is an opportunity to step into the more traditional neighborhood elements. One key factor in that is a street system that provides a safer and more livable environment for the residents in that project. I would be happy to answer questions and if not we will just turn it over to John who will talk about some of the technical aspects of the project. Borup: Questions for Mr. Wardle? Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. You know I have questions. Is your main objection to the signs the esthetics, the appearance of them? Because you state that people aren't using the streets to park anyway, so what is the main objection to the signs? M. Wardle: To the sign or the size? Centers: Signs. M. Wardle: Well -- Centers: Posted no parking. M. Wardle: I think if you follow the absolute letter of the law in that regard there may be one every 75 feet. I think that's what the Fire Department and the City of Boise suggested on their streets. You get a lot of visual clutter. You know, I would love to see more parking on these streets simply to help create a safer environment, but you're not going to have enough parking on those streets make the issue a particular problem. Now it's not to say that there won't be an occasion, but you also have driveways and the driveways create a de facto 20-foot wide area. At least on every -- where you have the front-on housing with the driveways on those size lots, probably on that whole total streetscape on every -- either side you're going to have at least a third of that total frontage that will not have any parking on it on either side. Then you balance it off against the other side, it means that you have literally almost de facto passing pockets the way the ACHD would phrase it, or staging areas for the fire department. Every driveway under combination typically you try to get those garage-to-garage kinds of units, so you could end up with a 40 or 50-foot wide strip virtually every other lot that is a no parking zone. That combination creates an opportunity for them to pass through and from a pedestrian perspective you have a separated sidewalk, but from the vehicles you might have a hesitation move if there are some vehicles parked like you find in the older parts of town. Somebody may have to hesitate for a moment while they -- somebody else passes through and that, again, is a speed reduction, a traffic-calming device that's built into them inherently. Sorry to be so liberalized with my answers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 58 J. Wardle: Good evening. For the record, my name is John Wardle. My address is 50 Broadway Avenue in Boise. I passed out in front of you this evening three things. One was a reduced site plan. Another one was a street scene of what you would look at from across the street if you were standing in the community park in the middle. Could you put up that other frontage for me? This street scene. I'll get into that in just a little bit more in depth. Also, I have gone through number-by-number, condition-by-condition and annotated that in front of you this evening, so you know specifically what concerns we have. There is a lot of -- it's 10 pages long, most of it's common, but we wanted to emphasize a few points. For the record, ACHD did hear this matter they approved it on their Consent Agenda yesterday. We can address all the concerns and issues that they have in that staff report. Neither staff nor ourselves have received a final stamped copy, but the draft that was provided is -- reflects what they adopted at their meeting yesterday. In terms of the annexation and zoning, which is file number AZ 02-006, on staff analysis the only item I want to address is Item H, which I believe is on Page 5, and this relates to East Herons Crossing. There will be some disruption on that street. Currently it is a private lane. It's unimproved. It's gravel. We are going to build a roadway there. We spent a lot of time with those neighbors that are directly north and they, obviously, will have some concerns. We just want to let you know that we will be good neighbors. There will be some disruption, but we are willing to work with them so we minimize the impacts as construction occurs on that road. There is an ingress and egress easement across that area. They travel across our property to access their property. It's non-exclusive. We will continue to provide them access to their properties, but we do retain the right to improve it and dedicate that in the future to ACHD. On the Preliminary Plat, the first comment I have is on Page 7, which is bullet Item Number 1 under additional considerations. This relates to the 1,000-foot block length. Let me give another item to staff. This is the project site outlined here and it shows all the adjacent properties. It's a little hard to see here, but on the north of our property adjacent to the properties on the north, we are continuing to provide them access. As you move to the back, we are building a roadway -- we are going to build this roadway and provide a stub street to the north, as well as another street there. We are going to connect to what is I guess Sundance Number 2 at that point. There is Menlo Park over here. We are providing a stub street there. We are showing a stub street to this parcel right here, as well as this parcel. Just want to go on record that we feel that we have gone probably the extra mile in terms of access to adjacent properties. The issue that was brought up here is there is a block length here, which is maybe about 1,200 feet and we -- staff has put here in their additional considerations, they are requesting another stub street be provided in this location. The justification was, you know, those properties are going to develop at some point in the future. Our concern is we are providing stub streets to one of those properties currently, they have access to Ustick Road, so if they do develop they are going to need us to provided access to their adjacent properties. We don't feel that it's necessary to provide a stub street at that location. We know this is just an additional consideration, but we request that the block length of 1,000 feet be exceeded in this location and that we are not required to provide an additional connection. Bullet point Number 2, which addresses East Herons Crossing, staff had asked how we are going to address the issue of a 36 foot street. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 59 The way it works with ACHD is we go half plus 12. We revised our plan. The plan showed originally a 20-foot street. We have revised the plan to show a 29-foot street with curb and gutter on both sides of the street and sidewalk on the southern portion only. We want that street to look improved from the beginning and it will function long term. It's unlikely that it would need to be expanded if we control some parking on that street. We are intending to develop this road right here as a 29 foot street section with curb gutter on both sides and sidewalk on the south side only. At the point that those properties develop in the future, if ACHD feels there needs to be additional roadway, that roadway can be dedicated on their property, as well as a future sidewalk if and when that's required. Centers: Let me ask again. Didn't you have a stub on the north -- oh, here it is. Okay. Yes, right here, right? J. Wardle: Yeah. Centers: Here. Here. Here. Here. You have five right now. J. Wardle: Plus we are building this roadway here, which is adjacent to a property that will develop in the future. Obviously, we are improving this roadway here and I know in speaking with the two property owners they don't have any plans to develop at this point. At some point in the future the will, they will have a road that potentially you wouldn't have to make any improvements to in the future, with the exception of a sidewalk, perhaps. Borup: Now I'm still a little confused on the half plus 12. You said that is complying and -- normal 50 foot right of way is 37 feet curb to curb? J. Wardle: Thirty-six back to back. Borup: In Meridian? J. Wardle: ACHD's requirement. Borup: ACHD. Okay. That would be -- that would be a total of 30 feet if you have half plus 12. J. Wardle: Correct. In this case with the sidewalk improved on the north side and if -- if parking restrictions -- for example, we don't have any front-on housing in this location, we have -- these houses front on. They don't take their access from that roadway. These two properties here will likely access from this street and this street. This house will access here and this commercial site is all internal. None of these properties would use that roadway as their primary point of access to their homes or those businesses. We are building a 29-foot street, really we can take the parking off of our side of the road, and that road would function the same as a 36 foot street. It satisfies ACHD's requirement. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 60 Borup: So you are proposing no parking on that side? J. Wardle: We can if we need to. Bullet point Number 3, which is alleyways, in our experience on -- the right of way is 20 feet width, 12 feet of pavement. There were four points that staff wanted us to address -- was traffic direction moving in the alleyways, will it be one way or two way. They function two way very easily. This is our experience in Harris Ranch. We haven't had any issues with on street parking, anybody blocking those. The way that the garages are set back from the alleys as well, there are no -- when a car is parked in front of the garage they are not obstructing the alley. The 12 drive through there two ways functions very well. There was a question about garbage trucks. Somehow, you would get back to garbage tonight, but this is hopefully a little more positive issue. Garbage trucks can service these homes with alleys in the rear. There is enough room for them to maneuver. It's usually one-way into them, they come right through, and they connect to the next street and then continue their loop. It functions very well. It's been our experience at Harris Ranch and what we have seen around the country as well that we have garbage service in the alleyways. They are able to do that. We haven't had any problems with garbage trucks accessing these from the 29-foot streets. The turning radius is sufficient and the lesson learned from alleys and streets at Harris Ranch was the last question there. The 12-foot alleyway easily accommodates the residents and the public service providers. If they are low traffic, low volume, and what it really does, it really cleans up the front of these homes with the street scene as we presented to you and makes for a very nice, livable neighborhood. You can take some of those things off the front of the street -- in fact, utilities -- we are not talking sewer, water, power, cable TV, phone, are all appropriately placed in the alleyways and there is no problem, so -- Borup: So you're saying Harris did 12-foot alleys? J. Wardle: They have 12 feet within a 20-foot right of way. Borup: Okay. That's the same as being proposed here? J. Wardle: Correct. Site specific comments for the Preliminary Plat. The first one I have is Item Number 4, which I think is Page 8 or 9 of your staff report. There was a water line shown incorrectly on the site plan that you received, the Preliminary Plat. It was shown about 10 feet on the property to the north. That was incorrectly placed there. The water line will go on our property and will be in the public roadway in the future. It was just a mistake brought to my attention by one of the neighbors to the north and we -- as I say, it was incorrectly placed there. On that Number 4, the requested action we have is site specific -- if you delete the first sentence -- first two sentences and then just leave the last sentence that would read, applicant shall be required to install connecting main at East Heritage Street, South Locust Grove -- between South Locust Grove and North Heritage Commons Avenue. That was an issue that staff brought up, which is the main street coming into the project. They wanted to see a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 61 water main out to Locust Grove. Number 5, which is the curb cut to the property south of East Heritage Street. For your information it's this right here. We are not showing a curb cut currently on that property. Very simple. We are providing the stubs throughout our property for projects that are -- will provide connectivity. In this case, this property has access to a public road. Our concern is if we are providing them with access, it's at our cost. First off, East Heritage Street is a local road. We are not reimbursed for that cost. We are making improvements of curb, gutter, sidewalks, street, landscaping. We feel that if that access is required, that property owner needs to make arrangements, and they need to be -- they also need to pay their proportionate share. It's a cost that we are bearing. It's a local street, we are not reimbursed for that street, and they have access currently on Locust Grove. We just ask that the requirement that we provide a curb cut and access to the property to the south be deleted. They have access currently -- if they want to come, work with us and figure out a way to provide access from our street and we can work on compensation, we are more willing to do that. To have it as an outright condition is not fair to us, because we are bearing the cost of that roadway currently. Borup: Have you met with those property owners? J. Wardle: We have. Borup: Are they desiring a curb cut? J. Wardle: It's my understanding that they have spoken with staff about that and are desirous of one. Borup: But they haven't told you that they wanted one? J. Wardle: No. We have spoken about that. I met with that property owner -- it was earlier this week. They told us their desire for a curb cut there. We told them that we would be willing to work on access with them, but we didn't want to do it at our expense. Borup: Okay. J. Wardle: Item Number 6. This is in regards to a common driveway, which is located right here. We had a lot of discussion on this issue. There are a number of common driveways that are currently in the City of Meridian. There are others that are proposed. This is a common driveway and not a private street. We believe that staff has incorrectly interpreted the Planned Development Ordinance. The ordinance states the driveways to one and two family dwellings shall not be less than nine feet in width. Service driveways, drive-thru lanes, and escape lanes shall have a minimum width of 10 feet per lane without parking on either side. I have been before you before on this issue very recently. There was a determination made on another project that they were private driveways and not private streets. We request that this condition as written by staff to build a private street be stricken and replaced with the shared driveway is a driveway and not a private street. Therefore, it is not required to meet the private Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 62 street construction specifications. That comes directly from another development that this body addressed for earlier this year. Item Number 8. This is just clarification on the cross-access -- or the access easement on East Herons. It's a non-exclusive easement. We will continue to provide access to the property. We are not going to take away their access. We have spoken with them quite a bit about this and we are going to be good neighbors, but we do reserve the right to build that road, improve it, and dedicate it in the future to ACHD. Number 10 this is in regards to a common lot requirement adjacent to Locust Grove. This is a commercial site. It's a little bit different than a residential site. These will be developed over time. We intend that all the improvements on that site would be maintained by an owners association, but it's more appropriate for these uses and this landscape buffer to be in an easement and not a common lot. In the City of Meridian, you have also approved easements in projects such as Silverstone and -- I think Silverstone and -- Silverstone and El Dorado out on Overland and Eagle Road. It's very typical to have easements for commercial properties. If this was a residential development adjacent to Locust Grove we wouldn't have an issue with doing the common lot there, but in the case of this, it's appropriate for it to be an easement. We requested also -- we show a bus stop there and this is kind of our -- another amenity that -- yes, sir. Centers: Of course, even though it was an easement, you would require homeowner association maintenance? J. Wardle: Most definitely. Centers: Right. Okay. Excuse me. J. Wardle: Not a problem. We are proposing a bus stop at this location and this could serve a couple of purposes. This could be a public school bus stop or it could be a transit bus stop in the future if and when that occurs on this roadway. It's not a requirement. We felt that this was an appropriate location for this to occur. We also feel that it's probably appropriate for us to dedicate that to a public right of way when we develop that. It shouldn't be a common lot, it shouldn't within an easement, but it can very well function out here and very likely will be dedicated to the public when that occurs. Item Number 11 addresses these two common lots back here. Staff has requested that we provide them with micropath plans. We are not intending to build any sidewalks or micropaths in here. These are -- this is open space, green space, and we are not intending to put in a sidewalk in this area. It would be maintained by the association, but it really creates a visual effect for the properties that are adjacent to it. We are not proposing a micro path and we request that we not be required to put in micropaths into those areas. We ask that site specific condition Number 11 be deleted from the conditions. Number 12 is in regards to the trees planted in the development within planter strips. We do show in a few locations trees, but as it relates to these individual lots, it is not a requirement of the City of Meridian that trees be planted in the planter strips. We will state for the record that we will very likely do trees in the planter strips, but we object to it being a requirement that the developer do that. We ask that that condition in Number 12 be deleted from this approval. Number 13 is a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 63 clarification. It relates to fencing adjacent to pathways or common areas. In the Landscape Ordinance, it's very specific that fencing adjacent to pathways and common areas -- or at least specifically pathways should not be higher than four feet if they are sight obscuring. We don't have a problem with that, but the way this was written it says that they couldn't be any higher than three feet. That's inconsistent with the Landscape Ordinance. We ask that this action or this condition be modified to read, fencing detail shall be submitted with each Final Plat application. Fencing adjacent to pathways or the common area lots shall not be over four feet in height if constructed of a solid material. There is a follow on to that. There is a lot of perimeter on our property here and we are working with a lot of different properties owners in fencing. There are some areas that it would be appropriate to fence and there are other areas that it may not be appropriate to fence. We request the opportunity to have some flexibility in working with the adjacent neighbors, as well as the Planning Director. There may be some different sizes of fencing as well. So instead of the sentence where it starts with a solid six foot high perimeter fencing installed, we ask that that sentence be stricken and a new sentence be added, a perimeter fencing plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for future implementation. We just want some flexibility, because there are a lot of interests here and I think it would show fencing that would meet everybody's needs. We have worked very closely with the neighbors to the north and the neighbors to the east that bound our property. We feel that we can work with them on fencing. Item Number 15 relates to how does a 22-foot -- how does a home function on a 32 wide lot? In front of you, I have provided you with this rendering. These are all 32 foot wide home sites with 22-foot wide homes. All these homes access from the alley and function very well. It's been our experience that in homes like this we need to provide side yard use minimums so they can use the adjacent property, so they have a little more space, instead of two narrow five foot setbacks, but these function very well. As a matter of fact, the site plan that was submitted to staff is of this rendering here, the end one, and it's a Parade of Homes in the Parade of Homes this year, which begins this weekend at Harris Ranch. If you have an opportunity to go look at those, if you have any questions about that, all those homes on that street are all 32-foot wide and 22 home sites. Centers: So you have 20 feet between the homes? J. Wardle: No. You have 10 feet between homes. There is no additional setback. Centers: Okay. J. Wardle: Ten feet of separate between structures. Centers: Yes. Okay. J. Wardle: One last issue is, for example, this home that's shown on the end, excluding the garage -- and staff can correct me if I'm wrong -- I looked at this afternoon. That is a 1,500 square foot home. The drive is in addition to that. These are very sizeable Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 64 homes and they are very well done. Item Number 18. It's our interpretation of this condition that the commercial site is not subject to the phasing plan as it relates to the residential properties. We are in agreement with that. There are market conditions that drive commercial and we need to be able to accelerate or may lag a little bit, but we understand this to mean that it's not subject to the residential phasing plan and can occur at a time when it is appropriate. Item Number 19. In relation to the common lot clarification, the actual number of common lots in this project is 11. In the report, it was stated as 12. I think correctly it's 11. There are six other lots, which relate to the commercial site, for a total of 17 lots that are not residential. The minimum lot size clarification -- the minimum house size for the alleyway homes should be 1,101 square feet and all other homes should be 1,501 as stated in the Subdivision Ordinance or the Zoning Ordinance. Item Number 22, just a clarification on the pressure irrigation system. It's proposed to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The general conditions on the Preliminary Plat. On Page 11, just a clarification on item number four. At the entrance, there will be the opportunity for us to do historical lighting. A little different than just the shoebox. We just want some flexibility and I think we can work with staff on this to come up with a lighting plan for that. Just moving on to Conditional Uses, which is the last item here, on finding -- on Pages 11 through 13, the first clarification is Item 4-C. Staff has made mention of a pedestrian bikeway connection -- let me put the other up, Bruce. Thank you. The staff has asked -- or has just mentioned that possibly a pathway or bikeway connection could occur here. It's not required. This block length here is 500 feet. Most of the internal access, you know, will be coming off here. There are a few homes here, but it's that far of a distance to go around there. We don't feel that a pathway should be required at that location. Item four we disagree with, which relates to the commercial site plan. We feel that we have put together a good site plan for this development for the commercial sites. I can discuss a little bit farther down specifically how that flows together, but we disagree on interpretation there on what the site plan should be. Standards for Conditional Use, Item C. Clarification. Once again, we just incorrectly depicted a water line. We intended it to be within the roadway and -- which will be a public road in the future. Special considerations, Pages 15 through 16, Item Number 1. There was some confusion and we could have done a better job explaining to staff what our intent was for the commercial site. There is a rendering, which is this rendering right there that we provided staff. They saw that and said, you know, it doesn't appear like it would fit on -- that it would fit on one of these lots. Right there. We showed here a six-lot layout. Ultimately that could develop as four lots, it could develop as five lots, it could develop as six lots. If it developed with the four lot or five lot subdivision, commercial subdivision, this rendering here would fit very well on one of those lots -- one of those larger lots. This rendering that I just put in front of you right there, that building we worked on this afternoon that would fit on one of the lots as proposed. The architectural style would be very similar. We are making a highly visual effect here in this development. We just -- we showed a six-lot subdivision, but we just wanted some flexibility, just depending on what the end user would be on that site on what we need to do. We know that to state in the Final Plat on that project. We don't agree that the site should be reconfigured. We feel that it has a strong visual relationship with Locust Grove, as well as the neighborhood. These buildings on Locust Grove will back up to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 65 Locust Grove and you won't see any parking -- you'll see some parking, but it will be tucked between buildings. There will be a driveway between buildings as well. The parking is disbursed on the site, so it's not a mass of parking here. We feel that the site plan is a good site plan and we feel that we can work with stuff on that issue. Bullet point Number 2 -- Borup: John, while you're still on that, you said it could be a possibility of being a four lot, but at this point, you're proposing six platted lots, though? How would you propose making those -- the change if it did move to a four lot or a -- I mean are you looking at vacating -- J. Wardle: I'll let David Turnbull -- Turnbull: Mr. Chairman, David Turnbull. This is typical for any kind of quasi-retail or professional office space development. Often you will plat more lots than you actually use and then you assemble lots or you do density reductions, do a lot line adjustment when you get your final determination of the pad sites. What we are saying here is we have got the capability of either doing four buildings with a similar scope to that or possibly two buildings like that on the back, with three of the smaller buildings up front, so just to give us some flexibility to what the market is demanding at the time. Borup: Were you still intending to run services in -- Turnbull: Absolutely. Borup: -- to this area so you may have sewer stubs and such? Turnbull: We have that. Yes. Borup: Okay. J. Wardle: Bullet point Number 2 on uses. Staff doesn't want -- or has asked that childcare centers not be allowed without a CUP. We are fine with that. We feel that a childcare center in this location, if approved with the CUP, is an appropriate use for the neighborhood, but we understand staff's concerns and we are agreeable to that. They have also recommended that no drive-thru facility be permitted in this area. If we are talking fast food, I agree, it's an inappropriate use for this location, but let's take for example, a bank. A bank would be appropriate in this location, as well as a neighborhood service, which could be dry cleaners. These hours of operation are fixed and they are low impact. We are willing to say that no drive-thru should be allowed for any food service in this location, but we feel that in a specific case like a bank or another type of use that it could be appropriate. Borup: So you're saying you'd like just to comply with the existing ordinance that any drive-thru requires a CUP? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 66 J. Wardle: That's fine. Borup: I believe that's the way -- that's the way it's stated now. J. Wardle: That's fine. Bullet point Number 3 also addresses the commercial site and the three lots that back up to this residential property here. The uses that we have outlined in this Conditional Use Permit would all be appropriate neighbors to back up to this residential property. There is going to be a landscape easement back there, it will be buffered. There is very likely going to be fencing there as well, and these buildings will be designed in a way that they are not going to impact negatively on these properties. We don't feel that there should be an additional restriction requirement for any Conditional Use Permit on these properties here. We request that you stick to the site plan where proposed uses are appropriate for the site and no other Conditional Use Permit be required for development of those Lots, 3 through 6, of Block 3. Site specific comments of the Conditional Use Permit are Pages 16 through 17. Item Number 2 for clarification. Like I stated before, we agree that a Conditional Use Permit for a childcare center is fine. As also stated, all drive-thrus should go through the CUP process, so it's a little bit different than what's there, but we are fine with that as well. We modified site -- we ask that we modify site specific condition number to read, the following uses are permitted in Heritage Commons commercial site plan development and this is as it was in our application. I have added one thing here and that's just to clarify. Health care facilities, which may include clinic, medical, dental, doctor's office, pharmacy, optical shop, office professional use, retail, bank -- I put with a drive-up there, but we would, obviously, have to get a Conditional Use Permit on that, dining and other food, beverage related uses, personal services, retail store, restaurant. The clarification that staff asked for was what is another neighborhood service. We tried to get the most do inclusive uses of that related to the neighborhood, but there might be something that's not specifically stated in here. It can be shown to be related to the neighborhood and I think it can be shown to the Planning Director that it is a neighborhood use. That's why we put that language in there, service related to the neighborhood, and I just stated there, service related to the neighborhood not identified above, but determined by the Planning Director to be of appropriate size and scale for this location. The following uses require a Conditional Use Permit in Heritage Commons, childcare facilities -- we could also put in there all other uses that have a drive-up window. If we want to put a condition, there we could say use as drive-thru windows for fast-food restaurants, or other food-related services at this location are prohibited, we are fine with that. Clarification on Item Number 3. We agree with the phasing plan, we will provide a phasing plan and this relates to the community center and the gazebo. We just ask that an additional sentence be after that condition which states, in the event of weather restriction, the applicant shall be allowed to bond for all required common area improvements, including landscaping, the community center, and gazebo prior to final occupancy of any unit. In that case, improvement shall be made as weather permits. In our experience when you're building a community center it takes a little more time than just building a home, there are a lot of aspects that go into it and weather plays a big condition. We just need some flexibility there that as we get into these community facilities, as we developed them, we need to be able to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 67 get Occupancy Permits prior to completion of these, because weather may cause a burden. Item Number 5. The actual open space calculation for Heritage Commons, excluding the landscape buffer, which is the 25-foot buffer along Locust Grove, is 6.34 acres. Staff asked for a clarification on that and we are providing that clarification here. The last item is on a sales trailer. We had asked for a sales trailer to be approved with this project. The staff report was silent on the issue. I have pulled language from the other sales trailer information center. We did a Conditional Use Permit specifically on another project and pulled that language from there. I modified it just a little bit as it relates to this project, but these were the conditions that were approved previously. We ask these conditions, with the staff's concurrence, be adopted. I just -- it's late and I apologize for taking so much time, but we ask that you seriously consider this project. This is breaking the mold for the City of Meridian. We are doing a lot of innovative things here with requesting narrower streets, the amenities, the alleyways, these homes, as well as integrating the neighborhood commercial out on Locust Grove. We ask for your approval. I spent a lot of time working and talking with the neighbors adjacent to the property. I haven't got to everybody. I have tried to get to as many as I could. I feel that we have a good rapport with them and I just want to let them know that we will work with them on these issues. We will be good neighbors, we are willing to listen to their concerns, and ask that we be given an opportunity to at least address some of those concerns that were brought up this evening. Thank you. Borup: Questions for Mr. Wardle? Okay. We have about six people that have signed up to testify. We'd like to get those that have signed up this evening. Becky Young? Dan Young? I don't know if both of you want come up or -- Young: Could I use one of the -- Borup: Yes. You need to go ahead and state your name and address for the -- Young: I'm Becky Young and I'm at 4053 North Locust Grove. Could I go to the first picture where there is a truck on Herons Crossing? It's the actual photo. Just so, you guys will know where we are and what our main concern is. We have talked with Mr. Wardle and have talked about some fencing the actual photograph. This is our home right here. This is the north property line to their development. This road will be the main entrance now. If you could switch to the other picture now where he has the traffic flow, the traffic flow on that one. Centers: Could you point out your home on that location? Young: Yes. We are right here. Centers: Okay. Young: And on the traffic flow on -- once he gets that up there. You will note that that is in the purple, which means that's in excess of 1,000 cars a day. We have talked about Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 68 berming or fencing and they have come back and talked to us about fencing right -- I'll try to move along with you here on that. Right up there and I think that in most situations the developer has to carry the burden of berming on their property line. We are willing to have them come onto our property line if they will build the berm with the fence on top of that. A five-foot fence, as a neighborhood fence, is not conducive with our lifestyle there, because we have livestock. We have horses, an arena, a barn, and we farm alfalfa, so we have tractors and the farmer coming in and farming that property for us. Now as I understand it, we are going to lose that excessive water runoff area on our property line is that correct? Because the curbing side of the road will be on our side, which also I'd like to clarify and make sure that that will not be parking on that curbing side, that they will carry the brunt of that parking on their sidewalk side. Borup: Okay. I think a sign could be put up there saying no parking on your side. Young: That would help it. I know we only have three minutes here and it's late and everybody is tired. Our main concern is we want berming and then the livestock style fencing on top of that berming. If you're talking about 1,000 cars -- also, their main entrances into their business here and into the subdivision, we have to carry the brunt of the business section on our property as well. Those two entryways come out onto Herons Crossing. As our house sits now, those headlights will shine directly into our family room, just from the residential part. Now if you check the business park, that will go to the front of our house and I'm worried about -- you know, we are all want to be good neighbors, but they don't know who are neighbors are going to be, so 300 families, are they going to have complaints about our livestock? Are they going to have complaints about the dust when they cut the hay, are they going to complain about the hours the farmer is there cutting? These are all issues that we would like to address tonight, but -- as you're taking these conditions for approval, with the number one thing being the berm with a livestock style fencing on the top of that, meaning round pole or plank fencing. That's all we ask for. Borup: So the driveway to your property is about in this location? Young: Yes. That is our driveway right there. We sit off a little deeper than my sister's property. We are the whole 10 acres on this purple. That is all us right there and where these exits go out and shine right into our home. If you want to show the picture of our home again, we are a two-story ranch style. It's a brand new home, four years old, and so it's going to be very much right on the outline of the road, where the traffic is flowing. Right up in here. Not only business wise, but residential wise. We want a break from the foot traffic, the car traffic and keep our livestock and our farming facility separate from this. We think that the Turnbulls have done a good, good job with what they are trying to propose. It is different than what most subdivisions are going through, but I think that we are really bending over backwards to allow the berm on our property as it is. That's our -- that's all we have for our section. Borup: To clarify, you're talking what size berm? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 69 Young: I guess about four or five feet berming and a fence on -- Borup: And then a six-foot fence? Young: No. Probably like a -- I don't know, a five foot fence, four foot fence. I don't know. I'd have to probably see some samples of some things, but something that would give us a rise up from the curb and then the fence, so that the livestock are down in the property, in the alfalfa that's down into the property a little more. Borup: I was just trying to get an idea of what you're -- I mean if you're talking four foot -- you're talking about a four-foot berm and a four-foot fence that would give you eight feet total. Go ahead and repeat what he's saying. Young: A three to four feet berm and then a four-foot fence -- four to five foot fence. Centers: How long? Young: Pardon me? Centers: How long? Young: Well, ours is five acres, 5.2 acres, so we would want it down the full length of the property. We have -- the horses are in the front and in the back and we farm the alfalfa on the front of it, too. We alternate -- in the winter, we turn it into pasture, and in the summer, we cut it. Centers: The main objective is the headlights, that you want it the full length of the property? Young: Yes, because they have an exit here for businesses as well and the residential here. There are two exits here and we carry the brunt of all of that traffic. Borup: So you're saying about eight feet total, from what I'm -- Young: Yes. Eight foot, including the fence on -- Borup: So any combination would be fine with you to get those eight feet? Young: As long as it was -- I mean they have discussed fencing with us. I know that they use what they call a neighborhood friendly fencing. It doesn't fit our landscape style, meaning a ranch style, but to do that you would need a pole or planking and that doesn't provide us with the privacy part that we need for the animals and the dust and all the debris and all the -- we are trying to have -- were are co-existing here with two different types of environmentals. Borup: So what kind of a fence are you wanting? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 70 Young: We want either round pole or plank, wood fencing. We don't want -- you know, if you talk to -- Borup: So you're not talking about a sight-obstructing fence? Young: No. We don't want that, we want the berm to do the sight obstruction part and then the livestock fencing. Borup: So what's the purpose of the fence? Young: For the livestock. Borup: Oh, you don't have a fence there now? Young: Yes, we do. Borup: Okay. Young: We have an electric safety fence there, which is virtually see through and these homes that will be adjacent to that property there, not even talking about the businesses, their backyards will face our property. They are not required to fence if they don't want, from what I understand. They can fence within certain restrictions, but they are not required to. You may have a hodgepodge of homes here, some with fences, some without, some three-foot, some five-foot. We would like a barrier from all of that. Borup: Okay. Any other questions for Mrs. Young? Young: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Is it Mrs. Klaus, is that -- Klaus: Yes. I'm Vanessa Klaus at 4055 North Locust Grove and Becky is my sister. I came to live out here back in '93, because Boise was getting a little too big for me and our property, that north property to the development -- first of all, I think Mr. Turnbull and Brighton have done a very nice job putting something together, we just need a little bit of buffer. The reason why we came out here was because we wanted to do our horse thing and I'm not going to provide too much of a sob story, because I know you all are getting tired. It has been a life-long dream of my sister and I to do the horses and we put a lot of money into it. We really thought about it and I knew development was coming to Meridian. I knew that within 10 or 12 years or so there would be development coming in, but I just would like to say that we really need that buffer between the types of properties. Crestwood Subdivision is a minimum five-acre parcel and so we are part of Crestwood Subdivision. We don't plan to go anywhere and we plan to stay there for a long, long time. Our primary objective is cohabitation, nice Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 71 neighborhood to the south, but let us do our thing with our farming and really close scrutiny in terms of the width of the ingress and egress from our property. We have tractors, we have 10 wheeler dump trucks, we have horse trailers, we need to get in and out and that's what we want, we want in and out okay and we want a little bit of privacy. That's what we are looking for. Borup: Mrs. Klaus, you're located -- are you on the lot to the west of -- Klaus: I had the 10 acres and I sold the east most five acres that -- adjacent to North Locust Grove to my sister and her husband. I am the east -- or the west most five acres on that Crestwood property. Borup: Where is your driveway at? Is this your driveway about right here? Klaus: My driveway is right here and currently I back out of my garage right into this portion right here. Mr. Wardle has been working with me on doing some negotiation in terms of how convenient that's going to be for me. One of the main points I had to make with him was let's make sure that I can get access to the west most line of my property. Because with this business about, what, 867 trips a day coming down this road, I'm thinking I might have to do some kind of a -- you know, in this, out here, kind of a circular drive to avoid conflict with incoming, outgoing traffic. Placement of this is a little precarious, you know, traffic coming this way, you know, is a little bit difficult for them. We could plan in terms of putting a barn here or something, so that it's not quite so obtrusive, but the bottom line is we, as well as the rest of Crestwood Subdivision, would like to preserve our little private Idaho. That's all. Borup: Donahue’s. Still here? Donahue: My name is Mike Donahue and I live at 3775 North Locust Grove. Okay. Our concerns -- I kind of listed them out here. I guess I'll pass them out. I presented one to them already. Okay. Some of these things have already really been answered. Number 1, requesting the main construction entrance being on East Herons Drive -- or Crossing Drive. We learned tonight that this is going to be a four-phrase project, so that's not going to be in the first phase. Apparently, we'll just have to hang tough on that thing. Then, Number 2, we are requesting a new curb cut be added to the south side of East Heritage Street, the main entrance to the subdivision. It will line up with the curb cut and we just kind of feel this would be of benefit to both to us and to the future development, you know, concerning our property and, you know, also the flow of traffic on and off of Locust Grove. Centers: Excuse me, Mr. Donahue, do you own this property here? Donahue: We own the first parcel, which is directly -- Centers: Okay. Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 72 Donahue: -- around that. You know -- and we just feel that, you know, the amount of good neighbor policy and all that stuff that's going around, that. I don't think it's an out-of-line request in a way. We are still negotiating that, but I still think it's a good thing for the development overall. Borup: Are you thinking of the access point for your own personal use? Donahue: Yes, sir. Borup: You have got some concern on -- Donahue: Because now we have a lot more road use on Locust Grove and when you come to get out of my property, just like today, I mean it's crazy the amount of traffic now. With this new development, it's going to be increase it more. This way I just have another out -- an easier out of my property and, like I say, that will be a benefit to the future development. Centers: Do you have to back out of your property onto Locust Grove? Donahue: Sometimes we do, yes. Centers: Yes but you don't have to. Donahue: Ninety percent of time it's back out, yes. Centers: On the street. Donahue: Because our driveway, you know, directly -- goes directly to Locust Grove. When you pull in you have to back out. Then Item 3, we learned that there could be an issue with the future sewer on that site. They informed us at the Planning and Zoning that that property's possible slope both directions, one way towards Locust Grove and then the other way back towards the west. That could be an issue, because the sewer -- it's only five -- I think five or six feet on Locust Grove. We are kind of under the -- you know, the assumption that, you know, if we don't get this it could become a big issue later on. Now would be the time to supply that cut up to the property. The water rights issue, we'd just like to leave them as they sit right now until we see a workable plan as the pressure irrigation. I don't really see a big issue with it, but for right now I think our only choice is to stay with what's there right now on the -- as far as the ditches and stuff, until we see their plan. Borup: So you're saying you would be open to tying into their pressurized irrigation? Donahue: Oh, yes. Borup: And abandoning the -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 73 Donahue: If the land is suitable to our -- the way we irrigate on our property right now, we have no issue with that at all and we have talked to them about that and made them aware of that. Borup: I think that's something, yes, to be worked out with them, so -- Donahue: Oh, yes. Borup: The way it would be right now, your water service would have to be maintained. Donahue: Yes. Borup: Can't be disrupted. Donahue: Right. I understand that. Then -- and, like I say, I fully suspect some kind of plan to be worked out between us. Let's see, Item 5 would be the fence with a wall around the property. Sound would be a big issue on that road, because there is going to be a high traffic load on that entrance. We would like to leave that open for discussion with possibly -- we need some kind of sound barrier, because we -- that's our side of the house that all the bedrooms are on. We basically are going to be, you know, taking the full brunt of that road usage on that side of the house. The questions on the commercial property, basically they kind of basically answered those in earlier testimony. Then, you know, Number 7, same thing, you know, they pretty much, you know, handled that type of thing on the -- you know, the contractors maintaining all their debris and all the heavy dust and stuff like that. You know, how they handle that that would be -- you know, just as long as they do a good neighbor policy, we are fine with that. I think they will be, you know, pretty vigilant about that. I think that about covers it. The main issue that we are interested in is, like I say, water rights and that curb cut and the possible sewer, because we could be limited -- that sewer is kind of an issue the way we have been -- Borup: Could you elaborate on the sewer? I'm not sure I understand what you -- Donahue: We were told that our property has a split where it could have to be drained - - in other words, to split our property in half. One side could drain to Locust Grove, but the whole property might not be able to be done that way. If we can come up with a workable plan and that can be shown, otherwise, I imagine that will be fine, but until that point -- Borup: So your concern is where your -- if you hook to city sewer where would the sewer line be connected to -- Donahue: Yes. It can be hooked up -- you know, if we had a sewer hookup in the very back of our property would it reach Locust Grove, you know, the proper -- or would we have enough fall to do that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 74 Borup: Well, why don't we just -- if the sewer is on Locust Grove why would you do it on the back of your property? Donahue: Well, see, if we develop that property where we had to have some use -- Borup: Okay. You're saying -- talking about abandoning the residence. Donahue: Because when they widen Locust Grove our house is going to basically be almost on the road. At that point in time, whether we are there or not, you know, there will be an issue to have ability to that house. Borup: Do you know what the distance from your house to the road is now? Donahue: Not right offhand. Borup: Okay. Donahue: But it's darn close. Borup: You have about an acre? Donahue: A little over an acre, yes. I think that's pretty much it. We just -- like I say, we would like to leave that -- those three main issues, the irrigation -- until we see a plan, everything is up in the air. The curb cut and the sewers, as long as we take those into consideration I think we are pretty much fine. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Herb Lee. Lee: My name is Herb Lee. I live at 3665 North Locust Grove. We have four and a half, 4.3 acres on -- Borup: You're to the south of Donahue’s? Lee: And his and my houses are about the same distance from the road. It's approximately 30 feet from the center of the road where our house is. When they widen it we are in trouble. Borup: Thirty feet from the center? Lee: If you -- no. From the edge the road to the front of our house. Borup: Okay. Lee: The issue I have is one of the things is the noise from the trucks that will be working there on weekends or they will be working late nights, early mornings. If we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 75 would limited it to time when the subcontractors are working in there for -- when you go to work and when you get home and also on the weekends when that's the only time we have at home. One of the other things is they just put in a deaf sign, deaf child signs on Locust Grove on the side of our house, because I have a deaf grandson. He's a little behind because of the disabilities, they don't slow down as it is and I'd like to see -- maybe something could happen there to at least maybe enforce it or at least let all the subcontractors know that that is 35 mile an hour, not a 50 mile an hour street right in there. Another thing is the water rights. We'd like to maintain what we have and as we see a violation they might come up there and -- I flood irrigate, so that's the only way that I have to irrigate my property. I don't have a pressurized irrigation. I have my own well. Borup: Where do you access your water from? Lee: Right now the ditch comes across Locust Grove, hits the corner of North Heron and comes down across the front of -- down this way and comes down this way and that's all of ours -- Borup: Okay. Lee: And we want to make sure that we can still use the wastewater ditch areas, okay. What they are going to do with those as far as when I do irrigate the water has got to go somewhere. The fence that they propose I have livestock, poultry and wild game birds. Okay. I know if they bring that wooden fence up next to my property line, horses and wood fences don't get along very well. If we put a buffer in there I don't think I should have to take my ground and move the fence back. They need to look at maybe moving theirs over and then who maintains that buffer between us. The mud and stuff that accumulates on the street, I know that Boise has an ordinance where the subcontractor is liable for mud coming from the trucks, keeping the streets clean, because when they did Summerfield across the street, that road was a total mess, no matter when I washed my car I had to wash it the next day. All the dust that is created from the trucks going in and out of the subdivision, no matter how well we keep our doors closed we get a lot of dust inside our house. Look at that end of it, the trashed up roads. It's hard to get out of my driveway. Yes, I do have a circular driveway, but I get everybody turning around there when they decide they need to go the other direction. It's a little easier for me to get out than my neighbor. I think that's it on my end of it. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Lee? Thank you. Do either of the Wardle’s have any final comments? Turnbull: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. David Turnbull again. I guess we have had the -- primarily through John Wardle had some fairly good discussions with the four neighbors here that have testified. There are a few things that have come up here that haven't been discussed before and we probably just -- I don't know that there is anything here Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 76 we can't work out. A lot of these things are probably things you have heard on every application you have dealt with. We don't pretend that there won't be, you know, some disruption from construction activity. That's the nature of development. Mr. Donahue and Mr. Lee referenced the irrigation plans. Obviously, that's the condition of any Final Plat. We are used to dealing with this. There is not a piece of property in Ada County that you don't have to deal with irrigation ditches, so we do this day in and day out. We will take care of the irrigation and they won't be impacted from that. I believe we can work with Mrs. Young and Mrs. Klaus on the fencing issue on their property line. I think they brought up something new here tonight, which was a berm. I think earlier today they had discussed putting up a five-foot fence and so this is something new, but I think we can work it out with them. The curb cut for Mr. Donahue is provided -- asked for on these curbs. I guess my biggest concern about the whole thing is oftentimes I go into an area and spend a lot of money improving the project and then somebody else -- you know, if I were buying their property and developing it I wouldn't have a problem with it. When some other developer comes in, buys the property and accesses off of a road that I paid for and landscaping, you can see -- we have proposed actually quite extensive landscaping across this area and somebody else comes in and takes access off that. They don't pay for the landscaping, they don't pay for the street access, they don't pay for the utilities to be put in there and then, you know, to add insult to injury, they wouldn't pay for maintaining the landscaping that's bordering their development. That's my biggest concern. You know, if we were going to work together and we -- you know, as long as he stays there and lives as he is I'm fine, but when he moves out, if we have the opportunity to develop his property, that would be great. If somebody else wanted to develop it, much like the sewer and water latecomers fees we get, they generally pay for those when we install to their benefit. That's my big issue there. Other than that, I don't have any further comments. I think they have all been very nice neighbors to work with and we are pleased with the attitude that they come to this meeting with tonight. Borup: Any comments on Mr. Lee's concern on the fence and the horses, if that additional five-foot space may be needed? Turnbull: Yes. On the fence I -- we have always done six foot -- we don't do just a six foot dog-eared fence, we do a nice six foot fence and that's what we proposed to do on that property line. Borup: You don't have any concerns with the horses? Turnbull: No. I've had horses and cows and I have them on my neighboring property where I live right now, so -- Borup: I have got a four-by-four post that's three-quarters of an inch thick in spots from horses. Turnbull: You need to feed your horse. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 77 Borup: It's not my horse it's my neighbor's horse. That's what I meant, my neighbor's horses. Centers: Mr. Turnbull, what about the block wall that Mr. Donahue was talking about? Turnbull: And then, my fear is that we get a block wall in this location and a split rail fence on another location and pretty soon we are going to have a hodgepodge of fencing types that are going to be totally out of character for the overall neighborhood. I would like to keep some consistency on the fencing. Borup: I do need to maybe make one comment. I apologize. I had three sign-up sheets here. I went through two of them and I didn't notice the third. There were three other people that signed up for the -- did you have some -- Turnbull: I'm just addressing their comments -- Borup: Right. If I may, that's -- they may not have a chance to address these others, so if that will -- unless the questions have already been answered for these other -- Steven Kolstad and -- okay. Paul Spirk and R.W. -- R.W. would be next. I apologize for missing that. That was -- got through on the other sheets. Kolstad: My name is Steven Kolstad. I live at 3540 Kirk Drive, which is in the Weaver Acres II, which is on the southwest corner of this development. We are one an acre sub and we are in a rural area. We have animals, we have water, all those things, and we have ditches and everything like everyone else. This really is an urban development, especially in the middle of it, and I'd like some kind of buffer between my rural lifestyle and the urban development. The lots -- the lot sizes on me -- I will have three -- I'll have four new neighbors, each of them with 50 or 60 foot lots, 10 foot apart houses, two stories high, and he will be gone -- of course, I expect that. If the lots were larger, the houses might be bigger, might be better clientele that would match to my lifestyle, where the lots are 50 foot, I'd like to see them 100 foot. There are fewer neighbors and there is space between the houses. The other thing was there is a ditch that goes all along that south side there. It's -- currently my property line is in the middle of that ditch and there is also a three foot drop between the ditch bank and the ground there and we are up above that. We have quite a drop and these lots are pretty short. If you put some kind of pipe in there and a berm or a fence, the lots are going to be even smaller. I'm wondering -- they have to pipe in it, I understand, from I have read. Now the question is the fence. We have got horses, too, that are going to chew on wood fences like everyone else. Is the fence going to be down below the berm, is it going to be on top of the berm, is it -- you know, what -- we have got to keep the horses from chewing on the fence. I'd like to have at least here on that. I really would like to see a few less lots along me, maybe make them larger, but the concentration be in the middle around the really nice areas. Let's get some buffer with smaller -- I mean some larger lots along our whole border there on that long block. That's all I have to say, unless there is any questions. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 78 Borup: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Spirk. Spirk: My name is Paul Spirk. I live at 3534 Kirk Drive. I'm a neighbor of Steve's. A good neighbor, by the way and one of the things I would like to see and what I would like to mention is, first of all, I bought my property back in 1982. I bought in the County, because I wanted to live in a country setting, with a buffer between city and country and the way that's proposed right now, there is no buffer. That area behind -- let me show you where my property is. I don't even live even on this property. My property starts right here. I know that Meridian is going to -- so what I was saying was my property adjoins this point right here and at that point I know they are going to be subdividing here. I would like to see the same thing that Steve was talking about and that is to have these lots at least larger than the rest of them, so there is a buffer between country and city living. Because if I chose to live in the city I would have bought my property in the city. I don't want to live in the city I want to live in the country. I know I have no control over what you guys do. Every time I have seen R-8's go in it's never been changed to something smaller and less property. Thank you. Centers: Mr. Spirk, I have one question. The previous neighbor was Kolstad? I think he mentioned he'd like to see 100-foot lots. Spirk: I would like to see the same thing. Centers: You have lots along there that are 50, 60 -- one 68 -- so you're going to add -- Spirk: There are four houses -- Centers: So you're going to add 30 to 40 feet per lot and it's going to make a buffer? Spirk: There are going to be four houses -- if that continues it's going to be four houses bordering my property. Four houses. All of their balls, all of their debris, is going to end up in yard on my side of the fence. Centers: The one lot closest to you is 80 feet wide. If you enlarge all of those lots to 100 feet, my pretty close quesstimate is you're going to just remove probably three to four lots at the most. I mean it wouldn't provide a buffer. I can't see the word buffer coming into play. Spirk: Let me see the plan. Centers: There is your house right there and 80-foot lots right there. Anyway, that's my comment. Spirk: Okay. Well, three houses behind my place are better than four. Thank you. Borup: R.W., do you still want to come up? I guess not. Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 79 E. Kolstad: Elaine Kolstad. 3540 North Kirk. The reason to have larger lots is the kind people you're going to have. They are going to be the kind of people that enjoy free, open ground like we have. Borup: Thank you. Would you like to finish your comment? Turnbull: I'll just respond to those last two neighbors that testified. You know, I understand. I think we all understand that this is urbanizing and, you know, there are people that are going to be living on one acres, the neighborhoods to the north here that have already testified live on five acre lots. As your staff I think has pointed out, this city has recognized residential to residential as compatible, regardless of lot size. This is an urban area. I'm not even going to pretend to be able to put in large lots where they are requesting it. I think that our plan stands on its own. It will be a quality neighborhood. This is not an entry-level type of a neighborhood. I think that the amenities and the things that we are providing are going to dictate that this is really an upscale, but an urban neighborhood. I hope that the Commission appreciates this project for what it is and we get its approval. There have been a lot of things discussed here tonight. I guess that's the nature of a Planned Development when you try and provide these kinds of amenities, but we'd ask for a favorable consideration tonight and I'll stand for any questions. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Okay. Thank you. Commissioners? I might just mention that the time is getting close to our normal ending time, but we do have also two other hearings, one of them the applicant has been here all night, so I -- Centers: We have been here, too. Borup: But I guess if -- is anyone here for Item Number 13? That was just a staff approval? Okay. I guess the reason I had asked is if we would let that applicant know that we are going to be hearing their project. Is the rest of the Commission okay with that? Centers: Oh, yes. Yes. Borup: Okay. We'll take you up tonight. Centers: We are not going to run out on your now. Suggs: I will be quick. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I heard earlier in the evening that they were wanting consideration and someone mentioned postponement, but I don't see any need for postponement. Borup: Was that this one or the earlier one? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 80 Centers: No. It was this one. Siddoway: That was Utility Subdivision. Centers: Yes. Shreeve: May I ask a question just on that last subject? I'm trying to find where -- I found it, but it came up, of course, last meeting and, of course, has relevance here. Can't find it, but where we talked about the transition of these larger lots to, you know, other size lots and then, you know, you make some kind of a transition there. I guess I expressed an opinion a couple weeks ago about that, but I guess I'm -- I don't know what that transition definition means. Borup: I don't -- and I may be wrong, but I don't believe there is -- the term transition is used, but -- Shreeve: It is. Borup: Transition or like kinds or compatible. Shreeve: Transition is actually used. I can't find it right now, but transition is used. Borup: Don't have compatible uses -- Centers: Well, it was used earlier this evening, industrial to light office or limited office. Shreeve: Right and so I guess I'm just trying to get a feel for myself, quite frankly, what that means. I will find that, so that we can verify that, but, you know, you go from one acre lots to -- for example, in this case, what, almost a fifth acre. I don't know. Is that transitioning? I think I pose that as a question. Like I say, I expressed an opinion a couple weeks ago, but I don't know if that's -- what's meant by that. Borup: That's less of a transition from a one-acre to a 10-acre. Shreeve: That's true but you could go from a one acre to a half acre, then on into something. You know, into your fifth acre or fourth acre lots. Centers: I guess it depends on who you talk to and their opinion. My feeling is that it might be a smooth transition if you have enough acreage to have animals. Then you have smaller acreage where you could have animals and yet smaller where you could have animals, but I don't see a transition or a buffer on 100 foot wide lots next to a five, 10 acre parcel. I just don't see that being a transition. Shreeve: You know -- and I would probably agree with you on the width side of it, but I think it's just the size side of it. You know, you can increase those to 100 feet, for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 81 example, that would probably start getting up close to, you know, a quarter acre, as opposed to a fifth acre. I don't know. I'm just -- like I say, I guess I have got an opinion, obviously, because I voiced it a couple weeks ago. Let me find that, hold that thought, but we will come back to that, because I'd like to have some resolution on that. Borup: Well, I think the other thing that probably in this case has -- and the others that weighs heavier is this an exact site this Commission approved for a neighborhood center a few months ago. If we didn't agree with that, maybe we should have said so then. Centers: A general location was the idea. I think we need to close the Public Hearing, don't we? I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing. Mathes: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Centers: What do you think, Commissioner Mathes? Mathes: Could a buffer -- a landscape buffer help or not? Centers: It will be totally fenced. I don't know how that would help. Mathes: A type of fence that the horses won't chew on. Centers: There is a certain kind of paint you can put on that fence that the horses won't chew on. On the owner's side. Borup: My observation of subdivisions and connectivity between them and one subdivision affecting the other depends a lot on the connectivity. If you have, got two neighborhoods side by side with a road adjoining them, then those -- that's one thing. If you have got two neighborhoods backing backyard to backyard, I haven't notice where it really has an effect. Centers: Well, you know, we face it twice a month, the growth of Meridian, and projects like this -- and this is a phenomenal project and it fits the Comprehensive Plan -- they have to go someplace and they generally don't go next to another project like them, you know. As I said at a previous meeting, the R-8 is next to R-4. R-4 backs up to acreage and so forth and so on. It's just -- and then comes the in-fill. These folks that have testified here tonight in 10, 12, 15 years they will be the in-fill when they sell to the developer that comes along and wants to develop their property, you know if I'm around to see it. I like the project, obviously, it fits the plan, and I think it's got a lot of thought and very well done, I think. As far as the neighbors and the people that came up tonight, I have -- I guess we could put it in any kind of motion. I have Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 82 empathy for the neighbors and I think it's evident that Mr. Turnbull is going to work with the Youngs and the Young's sister. I think we can put that in a motion that -- and they have even agreed to have the berm on their property, using part of their dirt. I don't see that as a major expense. As far as Mr. Lee's comments, we can't sit up here and tell the contractors that they can only work 8:00 to 5:00. Most of them don't work weekends, generally but in the summer I know they work later, because it's cooler in the -- or they start earlier. That's my comments. As far as Mr. Donahue, I guess we would just, you know, request that the developer work with him as best you can. I'm in total agreement on that curb cut on the south side. I don't feel that the developer should have to put it in for the possible development of someone else. I have always agreed with that. I'm somewhat that way on stub streets for the possibility of the guy that lives next door. Shreeve: I will second that. I don't think that to benefit another property without them contributing towards it, a developer should have to do that, so I will simply echo that comment. Otherwise, I think that -- just looking back at some of my notes, I think everything is pretty well -- I guess I don't see anything with what the developer has proposed with his written summary to the staff comments, I did not mark anything that I disagreed with, with their comments on. Centers: I concur, Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: I think that everything looks good to me. For example, micropaths, I don't think -- to have them grass I think would be a nice amenity. Anyway, I think -- unless there are other comments, but I agree with their comments. Of course, with one change being the CUP required for all drive-thru facilities and -- Borup: And that's already City Ordinance. It's already ordinance. Shreeve: Yes. I was just making clarification on their comments. Centers: How did you feel, Mr. Chairman, about this applicant's comments on the staff comments as he went through the ones that -- Borup: I think the only one had -- and it's more of a technical item and that's on the private drive, private street comment. Centers: Which page? Borup: Number 6 on Page 4 of the applicant's -- we just earlier passed an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing four on a private drive is that correct? Centers: This would have five. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 83 Borup: Right and so I -- so it looks like that would not be in compliance with the amended ordinance we just voted on. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. I don't think it is in compliance with that -- with the Planned Ordinance as it is written. It doesn't comply with the definition of being just a driveway to one and two family dwellings as they are suggesting. Borup: Well, didn't we just pass one that allowed up to four? I mean I realize it hasn't gone to City Council yet, but that was our -- Siddoway: Yes. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment that was up tonight. Borup: Yes. Siddoway: Yes. Borup: That would allow for four dwellings. Centers: But wasn't that specific to a zero lot line project? I think it was. Siddoway: No. It dealt with zero lot lines in that Ordinance Amendment, but the shared driveways is just a shared driveway, regardless of whether it's a zero lot line, I do believe. Borup: So the way the project is now they need to -- the five -- the five lots would be an exception to the proposed amended ordinance, would that -- Siddoway: I personally wouldn't have a problem with what they are proposing. The issue is this -- the ordinance and may we get -- if you agree that maybe that should be able to do what they are trying to do, allow them to vary from the ordinance as part of the Planned Development. I do believe that the Planned Development Ordinance clearly says what staff's report says. Borup: That's the existing ordinance. Siddoway: Existing Planned Development Ordinance. Borup: What it looks to me like they -- if what we propose is approved, we are approving four lots and they are talking five, so we are talking one lot difference is probably the issue. Centers: Probably the what? Borup: One lot more than what the amendment we just approved is all we are talking about here. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 84 Centers: Yes and Larry had it handy. Well, I think -- I think the applicant would live with that. I mean if we are all in agreement with the applicant's -- let's call them adjustments -- call it a private driveway to serve a maximum of four lots and their final plat isn't done, I can see an adjustment possibility. Anyway and, you know, let them work it out. Borup: You mean if you want to adjust it or if they want to bring it up at City Council? Centers: Right. Exactly. Exactly. Siddoway: I actually have several comments when there is the chance, but I have one on -- Centers: Go right ahead. Siddoway: Are you saying that they need to lose a lot to make it four or are you saying that they just need to comply with the staff report? I wasn't sure what you were saying. Centers: No. If we approved it as a private driveway to service a maximum of four lots, then they would have to adjust their lot in the plat prior to the Final Plat or appeal to City Council. Siddoway: Or if you think it's just as fine to serve five as four, since we do have a Planned Development before you -- no? Moore: If I could make a comment here, Mr. Chairman? Borup: Please do. Moore: You have approved 12.4.14, which says common driveways shall serve a maximum of four dwelling units. Any private driveway or roadway serving more than four dwellings can only be approved as a private street. Centers: Then it would have to be wider. Siddoway: And all I'm saying is we have approved Variances to ordinances before -- with a Planned Development before us without requiring a formal Variance. If they agreed that it could do five with this Planned Development scenario, you could recommend that. Centers: Then that would be a City Council Appeal. Borup: Would that be an Appeal or would that be a recommendation from us to City Council to take that under advisement? Which would be the proper way to handle that? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 85 Siddoway: It would just be a recommendation to approve it as part of the Planned Development, I think. Borup: So you're saying because it is a Planned Development that that would be an option? Siddoway: Well, I think it's an option. If Mr. Moore disagrees with me, I'll back off, but -- Borup: Okay. Mr. Moore do you -- Moore: I already disagreed with you. Borup: Okay. So you're saying you don't think that is an option as far as -- Moore: No, I do not. The way the Statute is written it says it's a private street and has to comply with private street restrictions. Borup: Whether it's part of a Planned Development or not. Moore: Whether it's part of a Planned Development or not. I mean, obviously, when you wrote the -- or when it was written and approved it was for a part of a development, which had a lot -- a number of places. At one point, they had six and when you wrote this statute -- losing my voice -- you required them to only service four. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, if that's the case, then the private street standards that would apply are the ones that are mentioned in the staff report. They can be provided -- it can be accommodated with five lots just by widening the street into the lots that are on the east side of the private drive. Centers: Yes. He could do either or. I mean -- and we could approve it that way, either as a private drive or for four lots or a street at the width that would satisfy the -- Borup: Which would be 20 feet? Is that what the staff is saying, 10 per lane, 20 foot? Siddoway: No. Borup: No? Well, the staff report says a minimum of 10 feet per lane. Centers: It's 20 feet right now. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman in the staff report on -- it's Item 6 on Page 8, it says that they are providing 20 feet, but that they have to do a minimum of 24 feet with five foot sidewalks. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 86 Centers: So we will give them a choice. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman -- Borup: The only other maybe question I have -- and Bruce probably answered that and that was on the comment of Mr. Donahue on his sewer availability. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the facility plan with the City of Meridian recently completed, our consultant has determined that the parcel is in two different drainages. There is a line that separates the frontages here. The front portion of the property is designated to sewer towards Locust Grove. The back portion is designated to sewer to the White Drain. When I spoke with the Donahue’s and also with Jonathan, these lines that have been put on the map by our consultant -- you know, they are not set in stone. It may be possible to sewer the whole thing to Locust Grove and it may not. It's going to take some surveying, maybe some preliminary design work to determine that, but it is quite possible that the only way to sewer the back portion of these properties is through this development. Borup: Is this going to the new White Trunk line? Freckleton: Yes. Borup: Which comes in south? Freckleton: Comes in through this stub street and I believe -- I can't remember whether it goes up north and then back down and winds out through here -- yes, I think that is the route. Currently the applicant has dedicated an easement to the City of Meridian across the northern boundary of the subdivision and, or course, that's not a real desirable route but they didn't have their plan at the time. Since this plan has been developed, of course, the preferred route is to take it through the public streets and we have been working with their design consultant on that. That existing easement will have to be vacated prior to the Final Plat. Borup: Well, there is not a grade break at that point. Freckleton: No, there is not a grade break it's just that you physically run out of depth. The sewer in Locust Grove is only, like Mr. Donahue mentioned, it's five to six feet deep and when you start running line that -- Borup: That's the pressurized line? Freckleton: No. That's a gravity line. We have a gravity line -- the last manhole on the gravity line is roughly the north boundary. It's the north boundary of the Charter School of the -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 87 Borup: Okay because the Charter School took it to the end of their property then? Freckleton: Well, the Charter School brought it up a portion of the way. Skyline actually built the section of the gravity line that's part of the Vienna Woods project. Borup: Okay. Then they pressurized it? Freckleton: They pressurized to that last manhole right. Basically, you're running out of depth and when you start running back on minimum grades and depths, our minimum depth of cover on a sewer is three feet. If you're already at five out here in the road, you're going to run out of depth pretty quick. Borup: So how do you propose sewering those two properties? Freckleton: I think the option needs to be left open to get sewer out to the main road through this back edge of this property for the possibility of getting the sewer to these properties. Otherwise, I think we are going to have some properties that potentially could have problems sewering in the future. We know we are going to have plenty of depth on the White Drain. It's 20 something feet deep up in this edge. Borup: So to avoid a street cut there would need to be a sewer stub? Freckleton: Stub. Correct. I think the way that they are planning on sewering their commercial area, currently I think they were planning on running a line up the middle of the block. I think that could be accomplished by running it this way as well, which then it could be stubbed here. Borup: Okay. Mr. Siddoway, you said you had some comments? Siddoway: Yes. I'll boil it down to four. One, regarding the on-street parking issue, I would propose a compromise that would worded this way, that we allow the parking on both sides of the street, but that the city reserves the right to require additional on-street parking restrictions if emergency services are, in fact, jeopardized and run into problems with it. I might let Joe respond to that, but I would maybe -- we have heard the testimony that it's not -- usually not a problem, curb cuts provide pockets to go in and out. There is not a lot of on-street parking, why don't we try it, allow it, but put in there the caveat that we can restrict it if it becomes a problem. Centers: I got back just in time. The way I had intended to handle that -- and I understand Mr. Silva's problem. I totally concur with him that a fire truck has got to have room to get around. However, I see the applicant's presentation and understand that there probably won't be any cars parked here and there. I was going to let the applicant address the City Council and do his thing there. I was going to make the motion to approve it without the sign restrictions and let the Council do their thing. Pass the buck again. Once in awhile we have to do that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 88 Borup: That's essentially what Steve was saying with this -- maybe if there is a problem, that -- Centers: And then maybe Legal or Council would want to get involved with the correct wording Mr. Wardle mentioned earlier with the highway -- you know, ACHD coming in with their study after a year or two. Is that -- you don't have a problem with that either? Siddoway: No, I don't. Borup: Mr. Silva? Silva: Again, the term that's been used in association with this project is the term urban. This department is equipped and provides services in a suburban rural level, so you have to take that into consideration. Everything that we build into a project in this case has some compliance with parking problems and associated downstream problems with -- struggling with whether or not we are going to accept 19 this time, 17 and a half, or 18 and a half next time. It becomes just -- it just pushes the problem downstream. I'm not -- you know, they have done an excellent job in putting this project together and, however, it just opens up something that's a fairly black and white issue for the fire service in this case. Again, with the department equipped to provide with staffing that's a rural -- a rural suburban staffing level when we are going to have urban densities that will present some problems in terms of proximity to structures one to the other. I have had some experience with the alley -- the alley issue with the garages. Obviously, our primary access would be on the streets that are provided and that would be the primary point of attack whenever you -- when you think of it in terms of realistic terms. Where is the fuel load at, the garage, the vehicles and the fuel in those vehicles that, in fact, is where your problem is? You have got that narrow 12 foot wide alley that goes down in there we will be challenged with. I mean this project is not without some associated problems, so -- I mean if that project is deferred for a decision by Council, you know, that's -- that's perfectly appropriate and we can certainly discuss it with them and provide input at that point. Borup: Mr. Silva, you had earlier stated that the majority of the runs were -- Silva: Emergency medical services are not requiring deployment of hose lines and so forth. Borup: And then I thought you had also said something about the other factor was the distance from the station to -- what was -- Silva: Right. Part of our problem is that we are serving an area of 57 square miles, 49,000 populations, from two stations. We -- the difficulty in providing reduced street lengths with -- excuse me. It's late. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 89 Borup: And that's what I was kind of getting at. Don't you have a site just a quarter mile down the street? Silva: That's correct. That's correct. However, when we set the precedent of accepting something less than a 20 foot wide, we could have this problem again on the peripheral of a response area within a given response zone for a give station. It hampers the very tail end of a response that has to -- or at least ideally tries to meet a five-minute response goal. Borup: So your concern was more of the precedence than necessarily this project? Silva: Precisely. Centers: You know what hit me, Mr. Silva, was the phasing of the project. That's what I just asked Mr. Wardle and which they intend to present to the City Council. Maybe this study could be made after phase one is complete, something like that. I don't know. I mean that's for the Council to consider, because you're not going to see this project built out totally for four years, you know, so -- Shreeve: Of course, you could end up back to the same situation of this development that was done in Boise where one time and they said let's put signs up. Hopefully there be some appropriate and good judgment in that regard, but that's certainly the safe way to do it. Silva: And my closing comment, as I go back, these projects have been proposed and built in areas that have a much closer ratio of the number of staff available per thousand. Your density of fire stations, you know, that you would looking at per thousand, for the number of people that you're serving, is much closer to the mark, versus -- for example. In the west -- in the west a typical average staffing on the staff would present itself at a level 23 firefighters per 24 operation -- per 24 hour operational period, as opposed to our six. We are about one quarter of the staffing that would be experienced in the west, the west being areas that are not densely populated and have some of the things that are present in this particular project. In other words, you know, the proximity of one structure to the other and that feel of an urban setting. You know, if you go back east you see more of these types of approaches to the housing. I mean that was the traditional way things were done. We have evolved away from that and particularly in the west. We are kind of referring you back to that type of setting, which does have some unique firefighting problems. Centers: Having more manpower per capita is what you're saying right? Silva: In a lot more -- Centers: More firemen per capita. How does that relate to a fire truck getting through on a 20-foot wide street? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 90 Silva: That's a very good point. I'm glad you asked that question, because if we get an obstruction, whether it's a vehicle, a bush, or anything else, vehicles being the primary obstruction you're going to run into in this subdivision, we have more personnel to overcome getting hoses deployed around obstructions up to the front door of these structures. Centers: Okay. Silva: With our limited manpower it just hampers that process in getting the line in place at a strategic location to prevent the fire from spreading or prevent a life from being lost in the structure. I hate to play that card, but it's the reality of trying to, you know, provide fire protection in settings like this. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Borup: Thank you. Did you complete your comments, Steve? Siddoway: That was Number 1. Number 2, I would just say that the commercial area we believe does need a separate site specific Conditional Use Permit. The Planned Development Ordinance clearly states that if a conceptual approval is given to a Planned Development, that it is required to come back for a separate CUP. Shreeve: What item, Steve? Just -- Centers: Yes. Shreeve: -- kind of help when we make these motions. Siddoway: Okay. It is bullet Number 3 under special considerations on Pages 15 and 16. It says staff does not support any uses be permitted outright. Lots 3 through 6, Block 3 -- are those the ones that -- I think somewhere else, too. That's just three of the lots. Anyway, the commercial area is conceptual. They don't know what goes there yet. We are still working out design issues. We would just like to have the commercial area come back. I'm fairly convinced they would do a fine job with it even if it didn't, but I believe that the Planned Development Ordinance requires that it does if it's only given a conceptual approval at this time. If we had a site specific development approval for the commercial area, they wouldn't have to come back, but if it's conceptual, the ordinance says that they do. Enough said on that one. Regarding the curb cut to the property just south of the commercial area, I would just ask the question as to whether you would entertain an access easement and instead of providing the access, give an easement so that that property owner can build his own access in the future. Borup: And the easement would be necessary because of the landscape buffer along the -- Siddoway: It may also be necessary to cross it with sewer. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 91 Shreeve: Wouldn't the landscape be in the right of way, though? Or maybe not, I guess. Siddoway: No. Borup: So that, then, is a separate landscaping lot that's there? That would be the purpose of the easement? Centers: What page was that on, Steve? Borup: That was Mr. Donahue's request, I believe. Centers: No. No. The -- Siddoway: It's also -- Borup: Okay. Right. It was. Siddoway: Site specific comment Number 5 on the Preliminary Plat. My last item was related to the street trees and this Item 12 under site specific comments. We think that it's a Planned Development. The applicant has currently stated that the street trees in the planters are not required by the Landscape Ordinance. That's true but it's a Planned Development, it's in the Concept Plans that we have that we are approving the project based on, I would make them a condition of approval. Borup: Steve, are you talking about the trees right here or are you talking about the trees over here where the houses are? Siddoway: The street trees in the parkways throughout the project that are shown. Borup: Well, the only ones I see are these right here. Siddoway: Right. Borup: These and all of these are on their Landscape Plan already. Siddoway: There is more than that -- Borup: Well, these are not on their Landscape Plan or these along here. I believe that's -- Siddoway: You know, this isn't do or die for me -- Borup: No. I'm just trying to understand which ones you're talking about is all. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 92 Siddoway: Street trees that are in the parkways between the road and the detached sidewalk throughout the project. Borup: Okay. That's everywhere. Siddoway: Yes. They stated the intent to do it anyway. They are shown on the Concept Plans. I would make it a condition. I think they are going to do it, so I don't think it's do or die, but I -- if they intend to do it, I would just make it a condition. Centers: Did you say Number 11 on Page 9? Siddoway: Number 12. Centers: Oh. Number 12. Borup: We must not have that Concept Plan. I don't think we -- you say there was a plan submitted that showed them? Siddoway: Yes. I have to go through the file, but -- yes. Shreeve: I have got that. Borup: Yes. That's what -- yes. That's what he was looking at. That's the Landscape Plan unless there was another -- Shreeve: So they don't plan on planting the streets down -- Borup: No. There is a separated sidewalk and there is an area there for planting trees. Your subdivision has that. Shreeve: Right. Yes. Trees between the road and the sidewalk. Borup: Yes. Shreeve: And that is not required by -- Borup: No. The applicant stated that they are planning on doing it, but they didn't want to make it as a requirement. As I see it -- I mean at this point it can be required, but how are you going to show it on their Landscape Plan. That was part of their submittal, the other they didn't submit, unless there is something that I didn't see. Shreeve: So that's what I say, so those trees between the road and the sidewalk don't have to be put in. Borup: No. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 93 Shreeve: It's just a -- Borup: Well, staff was saying they would like to see it. Shreeve: Right. Right. Borup: And in my mind, I think it -- that's something to do with the development and how he wants to market his project. Shreeve: I think they are crazy not to put it in, but I think -- Borup: And there are several ways that can be done. That can be a requirement of each builder on each land owner or can be done by the developer or -- Shreeve: Yes. Borup: It can be handled several ways. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Siddoway: The note -- note Number 3 on the proposed Landscape Plan says that the five foot landscape strip adjacent to all streets shall be planted with shade trees. We are just -- all we are asking for in our staff report for Item Number 12 is a detailed Landscape Plan with each Final Plat that shows those trees. Centers: In Item Number 12? You don't say that. The developer shall be required to install all parkway trees within each phase of the development prior any -- Siddoway: Okay. Yes. I was looking at Number 11. Yes. I guess their issue may be whether we should be holding up occupancies based on that. Centers: Well -- and they are not required by ordinance, are they the parkway trees? Siddoway: They are not by a Landscape Ordinance. Centers: And he's saying that while they intend to, they feel the requirement is restrictive and I guess I tend to agree. Siddoway: The worst-case scenario would be if we didn't require it and for some reason they didn't do any and I guess if that's okay with you -- Centers: Yes. It is. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 94 Shreeve: Otherwise, we need to put that in an ordinance than just randomly make them do it. Borup: Well, it can be done as part of a Planned Unit Development. Shreeve: It sounds like they are going to do it anyway within their Landscape Plan. That's good enough for me. Centers: Well, I think what -- I think what got the applicant was the fact that prior to the issuance of a C of O that those would be in. I think that's what upset the applicant. I don't even have to look at it to know that. You know, that was real restrictive, Steve, when it's not required by ordinance. Anyway, where are we at? Borup: Weather plays a factor there, too. Centers: Steve, did you have anything else? Siddoway: No. Borup: Steve had four things he had mentioned, the street -- you know, the street parking, separate applications, commercial, curb cut easement on the entrance property to the south and then the final street landscape and trees. Centers: Well, I'll make a stab at it. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I'm not done. Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: If I might. I'll try to make it brief. Site specific comment Number 4, our staff comments Page 11. I think on that one I'd just like to kind of clarify where I was coming from on this issue. I think with my discussions I had with the applicant prior to the meeting I think we can work through this, but -- Borup: You're talking about the location of the water line? Freckleton: Correct. Shreeve: What number? Freckleton: Item Number 4, site specific, on Page Number 8. Shreeve: Oh, 8. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 95 Freckleton: Basically, the ultimate design section of that section of road is a 50-foot right of way with a 36-foot back-to-back section. As they are propose doing it now, it's going to be a half plus 12, which would give you a 29 foot section, curb on the north, curb, gutter, sidewalk on the south. Ultimately, in the future someday, maybe, it would be developed out as a 36-foot back-to-back section. When we place utilities in the roads we have specific corridors that we try and place those utilities, sewer and water, gas, telephone, cable TV, everything falls within specific corridors. The applicant has stated in his rebuttal that it will place in the standard location for the roadway sections. I just want to clarify that it's not in the proper location for the ultimate build-out section. I think it will work. What I would like to see is their proposal for the berm that was brought up tonight along that northern edge. I'd like to see where that berm is located. We got to get that water main as far north as we can and understanding that we are not going to be able to get it in the full design section, unless we get an easement across the tail end of the properties to the north. I just -- their proposal on their requested action was to delete the first two sentences of that comment. I guess I would like to just maybe suggest that we add something that Public Works Department staff will work together with their designers to try and place this waterline. Borup: It sounds like you're saying the design standards you prefer is to have the waterline on the north side of the street -- on the north half? Freckleton: Correct. That is the typical placement. Borup: Always on the north? Okay. Freckleton: But with this proposal in a half plus 12 sections, 29 feet, it will not be in its proper location for a full build out section. As they are proposing it now we would be encroaching within a storm drain corridor, which is going to require that their designer is going to have to go the ACHD and get a waiver of Variance for us to put the water main in that corridor. I'd prefer not to have to do that, if at all possible. Like I say, we can work it out with them. Borup: Is the reason for that just so you are consistent? Freckleton: Correct. Borup: And that you always know it's going to be on the north side of the street and the east and west have the same criteria? Freckleton: Correct. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: That's that item. We touched on the Item Number 5 on site specific about possibility of needing to get sewer through. I would like for you to consider the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 96 easement issue from that street to those southern properties. That would be a minimum of 20-foot width. Borup: Now you're recommending just the easement or the easement and a stub? Freckleton: Well, unless the applicant would like to have his brand new road tore up in the event that they want to get to the sewer. Borup: But isn't this something that ACHD -- Freckleton: It is. Borup: So it would be five years. Freckleton: It would be a shame to tear up a brand new road. It would be better to have the stub. Centers: Which item is that? Freckleton: Item Number 5. Centers: Yes. Okay. Freckleton: The applicant raised a point under general comments, Number 4, wanting clarification on his street lighting. Talking about going to possibly some historical lighting and that's something we deal with all the time. The one thing that we do require is that a Street Light Agreement be entered into between city and the applicant. That agreement specifies that the city will not own these lights, nor maintain them. We will pay the power bill, but that's the extent it. The lights that they do put in would have to meet or exceed our minimum lighting standards for the area that they are wanting to light and we can work together with the designer on that. Borup: So, in other words, they will be able to have historic lights and comply with that without any problem? Freckleton: Yes. The last item I had is under site specific comments for the Conditional Use Permit. Item Number 8, which was a new condition that they suggested for their sales trailer. I realize Jonathan pulled these out of some old comments and I just wanted to clarify Item B under his suggested comment or conditions, where it talks about requesting an Assessment Agreement. We no longer do Assessment Agreements so all references to an Assessment Agreement should be stricken from that. Typically, the way these would work is they would locate a sales trailer on a lot in a subdivision and basically, we would have them pay sewer and water assessment fees for that lot to hook up the trailer. Once the trailer moves off those assessments remain with that lot, so when the house is built they wouldn't be charged additional assessments. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 97 Borup: Just be a normal residential assessment? Freckleton: Correct. Correct. Borup: So no sense in going through a whole -- Freckleton: That's all I have. Borup: Do we -- Mr. Centers, are you the one that's going to be doing these? Would you like some help in getting -- Centers: Jump in, though. Don't hesitate to jump in if you feel I'm missing something. That goes for the staff, too, and Bruce. I would like to make a motion to approve -- recommend approval to the City Council Item Number 9, AZ 02-006, request for annexation and zoning of 76.16 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Heritage Commons by Brighton Corporation on the west side of North Locust Grove Road between East McMillan Road and East Ustick Road. Including all staff comments and the one clarification provided by the applicant, Item H of the staff analysis. Shreeve: Dated April 18th ? Centers: Correct. That's it. Shreeve: I second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Centers: I would like to make a motion to recommend approval to City Council for Item 10 on our Agenda. PP 02-007, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 273 building lots and 12 other lots on 75.39 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Heritage Commons by Brighton Corp on the west side of North Locust Grove Road between East McMillan and East Ustick Road. Applicant to comply with the Meridian Fire Department letter dated April 16th , with the exception of Item 7. This motion is recommending to the Council that they considered waiving Item 7, at least until the first phase is completed and at such time, they may want to enlist the help of the ACHD with some type of study, which was recommended by the applicant. All staff comments to be included, but amended per applicant's memorandum dated April 18th , which would be incorporated and, in particular, Page 3 of the applicant's memo, under site specific comments, applicant's Number 4, states clarification. Include the clarification, but amend the second sentence and the next to the last sentence to read easement may be required at the direction of the Public Works staff. Borup: Which item is that you were -- Number 4 under site specific? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 98 Centers: At the discretion of the Public Works staff. Freckleton: How about applicant shall work with Public Works staff on the location of the water line, just something as simple as that? Centers: So included. Got that, Larry? Strike the easement may be required and include those comments that the applicant shall work with the Public Works staff at the direction of the Public Works Department. Continuing with the applicant's memorandum, Page 4, Number 5, who wrote the curb cut, as they had recommended no curb cut. Applicant to provide an access easement. Highly recommend a sewer stub at that point. Borup: You're saying in your motion to highly recommend, not require? Centers: Don't require it, but, as staff stated, if we don't put it in they are going to tear up the street later. Borup: One problem with that, ACHD won't allow it later. Centers: Well, I didn't require it, I said highly recommended anyway, so I guess that's -- Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, at this point in time, as I stated, it's undetermined whether it's absolutely necessary for it to be there. Certainly I think it's probably the -- if it was there, there would be no doubt that the sewer -- or the property could sewer. If was not there, therein lies the question, whether they can sewer it all to Locust Grove. If the stub is there, it's going to be deep enough that the entire property can drain. It can be designed such as that -- so I guess I would recommend that you require it, require the stub, and require the easement at this juncture. Centers: So be it. Access easement with sewer stub required. Same page, Page 4 of the applicant's memo, Item 6, the applicant would have two choices, to call the private driveway referred to, if it only serves four lots, or comply with the staff report, Item 6, page eight of the staff report. Page 6 of the applicant's memo, Item 4, regarding the lighting referred to in the staff report, staff report Number 4 of that section shall be included as written. To clarify, didn't agree with the applicant's clarification there, we wanted to include the staff report's comments on lighting. Borup: Before you leave that area, Item Number 19, I think just a clarification. That's on building size. Centers: Page what? Borup: Page 10 of the staff report, Page 5 of the applicant's -- Centers: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 99 Borup: And the applicant clarify that the 1,100 square feet was just on the alley loaded lots, 13 is on the balance of the subdivision, 1301 minimum. Centers: Yes and I'm including all of the applicant's -- Borup: Okay. Centers: That will be -- Borup: They were including their comments unless -- Centers: And that would be at the end. Borup: -- you change that. Okay. Centers: Right. Freckleton: Commissioner Centers, if we could revisit the street light issue just a little bit. If we could add a portion of what they have written, strike the portion that says at the entrances and just put -- Centers: Where is Number 4? On page what of the staff report? Freckleton: Page 11. Centers: Okay. Freckleton: I believe your motion was to leave staff comment as written. Centers: Exactly. Freckleton: Okay. I guess I would suggest that we add a portion of his clarification and that being the section where he says historical lighting may be appropriated. We request flexibility on appropriate street light locations for selections for the entrances. We could simply say that historical street lighting may be acceptable. A Street Lighting Agreement would have to be entered into. Shreeve: So long as it meets or exceeds -- Freckleton: Minimum standards. Shreeve: -- minimum standards. Centers: So -- did you get that, Larry? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 100 Moore: I already had that part written down. Centers: Okay. We are at the end of the Preliminary Plat. Then in addition to, all of the applicant's requests and conditions would be included, unless otherwise noted. I'm done. Part of the motion on the Preliminary Plat should also include the testimony of all the people that were here tonight, all people, and that I would lay it back to the applicant that they have another meeting, discuss their desires, and be prepared to tell the City Council what you ended up with, what you will and won't do. I know some of the things you won't do and I don't blame you. I guess be prepared to tell the City Council exactly what you're going to do for Youngs, for example, for Mr. Donahue. That would be part of my motion and that you understand cooperation and etc. I can't get more specific than that. At the City Council, which is a Public Hearing again, you should hear what Brighton Corporation will do for you. Okay. Is that satisfactory? It should be. Okay. Shreeve: I second. Borup: Steve's comment on the commercial application -- the commercial project on the separate -- that was on the conditional use anyway. Centers: Yes. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Centers: Okay. Item 11, Conditional Use Permit. Yes. I would like to recommend approval of CUP 02-007, request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential dwellings, private open space with clubhouse, gazebo, parks and neighborhoods, scales, parcel sites for proposed Heritage Commons by Brighton Corp. On the west side of North Locust Grove between East McMillan and East Ustick, including all staff comments and then as amended by the applicant's memo, dated April 18th , all-inclusive, with the exception of Page 8 of applicant's comments. The commercial area would require individual CUP's. Page 8 of the applicant's comments, the commercial usage area would require individual CUP. Then on Page 9 where the applicant has requested a trailer permit, all reference to Assessment Agreements would be stricken and they are not applicable any longer in the City of Meridian. The applicant's recommendation, Page 9, regarding the use of the trailer, strike all reference to Assessment Agreement. They are no longer applicable in the City of Meridian. All other -- the drive-thrus -- yes. Any drive-thru facility would require a CUP in the commercial zone. Well, we have a CUP on all of it, so that covers it. All other comments or requests by the applicant in their memo would be included, other than what was just referred to, and all other staff comments, unless amended by the applicant's memo dated April 18th . End of motion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 101 Shreeve: I second. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 12: Public Hearing: PFP 02-001 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 4 building lots on 6 acres in a C-G zone for Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision by Hubble Engineering, Inc. – 1375 East Fairview Avenue: Borup: I want to thank everyone for sticking with us tonight. Commissioners, we have at least one other item we promised the applicant we would handle, Public Hearing PFP 02-001, request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of four building lots on six acres in a C-G zone for Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision by Hubble Engineering. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I need just a second to switch files. Borup: Okay. Siddoway: Okay. Mr. Chairman, this is for the site of the existing Intermountain Outdoor Sports. It's for a requested Preliminary/Final Plat combination with four building lots on six acres in an existing C-G zone. These are some existing site photos that were taken today. You can see the frontage and the landscaping, lack of sidewalk, etc., that currently exists along Fairview. Internal to the site there is this gravel area that's being used for parking. That actually delineates the line on the plat, I believe, where the other lots begin heading to the west. The photo on the right is the street buffer long Danbury Fair Subdivision. When this lot was originally developed, it was developed under the old Landscape Ordinance, which was one three-inch caliper tree per 1,500 square feet of asphalt. They were counting the trees in this street buffer towards their required landscaping. The plat takes the lot out of compliance with the previous ordinance, as well as the current ordinance and we have some issues related to that. There is an existing Quonset hut that has not been approved that's set up on the site. There is a photo of the existing parking lot and another shot along Fairview looking from the northeast corner of Stonehenge, which is where the applicant is requesting a Variance from Council on the required street buffer. This is the proposed plat and you should have a memorandum dated today from David McKinnon. It's the same one that we referenced earlier. It has both Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision and Amberstone on it. The staff report incorrectly states that the coffee kiosk was placed in its current location without approval from the city. It actually does have a Conditional Use Permit. I have a copy of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law here, so we just strike the references noted in his memorandum. You should have a staff report dated April 12th . Like I mentioned earlier, they have requested a Variance from the Landscape Ordinance. They currently have just a six-foot wide landscape buffer out along Fairview. They are required by ordinance to have a 35-foot wide landscape buffer. If I can just direct your attention to some items on Page 3 under Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 102 additional considerations, we would state that we do not support the Variance request to allow the existing six-foot buffer in lieu of the required 35-foot buffer. However, we do recognize that 35 feet would alter the circulation and the layout of the parking lot significantly. Thereafter, we recommend a compromise, which would be to remove the northern most row of parking immediately adjacent to the existing buffer, replace that with landscaping. The resulting buffer would be about 26 to 26 feet, which is less than the required 35, but would be a dramatic improvement. We do not support reducing the street buffers on any other lot. The new lots that are being created currently have no parking interfering with it, we would request that that not be reduced there. I mentioned the fact that the applicant counted the trees planted within the street buffers along Stonehenge when it was originally developed. Therefore, it's significantly short on trees now. Under replatting conditions we would, as part of that compromise on the Variance request, require installation of landscape islands in the existing parking lot per the current Landscape Ordinance. That would increase the number of trees on lots one by 14 or 15 trees and we -- they have submitted also in their Variance a request to allow the street buffers to be on an easement, rather than a common lot. We would support that. There are several illegal temporary signs that need to be removed and the reference to the coffee kiosk can be deleted. Okay. Realize that the Commission doesn't formally hear the Variance request, but it's going to be difficult for you to consider the plat as proposed without at least knowing what is being proposed and making recommendation based on that. We would -- I would point out site specific comment Number 4, which just simply states as a backup for this body that landscaping shall be installed required by the Landscape Ordinance, unless it's approved by the City Council at Public Hearing per the applicant's Variance request. I'd like to point out Item 3 on Page 5, which is constructing a five-foot sidewalk on Fairview Avenue. That was a condition of approval on their applicant, which was never done. Then I will just skip to the recommendation, which we recommend the compromise that I just presented on the Variance request and upon resolution of that, those issues, we recommend approval of the Preliminary/Final Plat with staff comments as noted. Thanks. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to come forward? I guess you already notice that staff did recommend approval, but any other comments on their report? Suggs: For the record, Jane Suggs, Hubble Engineering, 701 South Allen Street in Meridian. First, thank you very much for putting up with me this late. I also want to recognize a neighbor that's going to speak, because he was stuck here just like everybody else is. This is a similar project that you had seen earlier tonight. We are subdividing a parcel that has an existing building on it, a viable business that's been serving Meridian for several years. We are also -- we are also working on a simpler process, since this is a Preliminary and Final Plat. As noted by the staff we will be going to the City Council and discussing the Variances. The only things I guess I would like to point out is you probably received a copy of the staff comments with some additional responses by me for the applicant. On Number 2 I just wanted to note that the applicant -- there is a pressurized irrigation system on the site. It's not serviced by city water it's served by a well that's on the site. It's not served by the Irrigation Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 103 Company. In conversation with the Irrigation District for that, that will all be resolved before the signature on the Final Plat. As the staff requested, we will confirm that we have adequate capacity and as part of the Development Plan review for each of the lots as they are developed, since we are just subdividing those now, we will have review plans and specifications. I believe the neighbors would have a comment about the irrigation system and how Danbury Faire may still be a part of the irrigation. That would certainly be worked out. The applicant agrees that that would be worked out prior to the occupancy of any other buildings on the new lots. Item 3 in the site specific conditions we have already addressed with the coffee kiosk. Item Number 4 is very specific to this and this is getting to the final recommendation. The applicant in this case agrees that we will install the landscaping as directed by City Council after discussion of the Variances and that we will submit a plan reflecting that design that will be discussed at Public Hearing. We will take that design and submit it to the staff and that would be reviewed prior to the signature on the Final Plat. Specifically on Item Number 9, under site specific conditions, there was requirement that the buffers and irrigation lines be installed prior to occupancy of any of the new construction. We agree that that should be the case. I want to point out under general comments, Item Number 3, stating that a letter of credit or a cash surety in the amount of 110 percent would be required for fencing, landscaping, and pressurized irrigation prior to signature on the Final Plat, which would come prior to the Certificate of Occupancy. We are asking that in that particular case that as noted in site specific condition Number 9 that the applicant will install these things prior to Certificate of Occupancy. In conclusion, we certainly appreciate the staff's work on this and your staying here tonight on this. We do accept the staff's recommendation. However, we would like to revise that, that the landscaping, since you don't rule on the Variances, that you would agree that the applicant will obtain approval from you. Then go onto the City Council, and upon the resolution of the Variances with City Council, with the comments and conditions from the staff and the responses from us, we request that approval. I'll stand for questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman. The way I see it, you agree with everything that staff has said, other than you don't want to provide the letter of credit, because you are going to put the landscaping in prior to the C of O. Suggs: C of O's. Right. I just wanted to point out that I am -- Borup: Go ahead. Suggs: Okay. Borup: No. You. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 104 Suggs: I am asking that the irrigation and the landscaping be put in prior to the C of O, not according to the -- what seems to be implied by Number 3, which would mean that those things would have to be installed or bonded for prior to the signature. Centers: Right. That's my point. Suggs: Yes. Centers: That is the only thing that you're really asking an exception of. Suggs: No, sir. I'm overall asking for that -- the recommendation from the staff that said we install the landscaping per the requirements for the City Council approval. I would just like to say upon City Council approval of the variance request, which is part of that. Yes. Centers: Yes. They have said that. Borup: You didn't really make any comments on the staff's compromise solution. You're still proposing your six -- six-foot landscape buffer? Suggs: That would be one of the things that we would work out with the City Council. Borup: Okay. No comment on that, then? Suggs: No and it's not a specific condition of approval for this Preliminary and Final Plat at this point. That's just generally a -- this is just a situation that we are in, since the City Council reviewed those items. Borup: But you agree that the ordinance does require the 35-foot landscape. Suggs: I agree that the ordinance does require that and we have filed a Variance so that we would not have to meet the ordinance. Borup: Okay. Siddoway: Just a point of clarification. Just to clear up the confusion about the bonding to be required prior to signature on the Final Plat versus the requirement to having it installed prior to occupancy. That is exactly what we do always require and should not be amended. Number 3 on general comments is not implying that it would need to be installed prior to the signature on the Final Plat. It is simply saying that bonding, surety is required for all those and that's typical for any subdivision, to provide a bond or letter of credit for those improvements before the city will sign off on a Final Plat. You get the Final Plat, you go through, start a Building Permit process, you start buildings Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 105 and then they don't -- they cannot get a Certificate of Occupancy until we verify that all those required improvements are actually constructed. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. You wanted to testify also. McNitt: My name is Steve McNitt. I live at 1472 North Penrith Avenue, Meridian. I'm the Danbury Faire Homeowners Association President. Basically we are not opposed or for the project. There are some problems with the Ada County Highway report that we have a problem with. One of them being where Ada County under conclusion of law you can only -- or ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use development will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. One of the problems that we have here is that you will notice the center island on Stonehenge, the ingress on that is supposed to be 20 feet by Ada County Highway specs. That currently is only 14 feet wide. It wouldn't even pass the Fire Department's guidelines for being able to put a truck through there and that was measured today. I went out and measured that myself. It is wider on the egress coming out of there, but the ingress is only 14 feet from curb to curb and that curb being the center island. I'm assuming that's what ACHD is referring to when they say curb to curb. The other problem that I see with the proposed development is you currently have a concrete block that goes down the center of Fairview that does not allow a west -- or a turn to the left going west on Fairview out of the first driveway out of Intermountain Outdoor Sports -- yes, on that section there. Meaning that the only way to turn left coming out of Intermountain Outdoor Sports right now would be the western drive through, which also runs into a problem with the left-hand turn into Idaho Athletic Club center lane. Then 20 feet passed that is the left-hand turn lane off of Fairview to go into Stonehenge off there. We basically have right now one turnout, if you just use what's existing right there, out of that parking lot to go left on Fairview for all the traffic that's coming out of here. Now they are talking about bringing commercial traffic out onto Stonehenge, which ACHD lists as a commercial roadway, but was originally put in as an artery for a residential subdivision. I don't know -- and I don't propose to know what they are talking about when they change that and say that it is a commercial driveway. What their plans are is they are saying it's okay for the city to go ahead and dump the commercial traffic out onto Stonehenge and try to use another left-hand turn coming out of Stonehenge onto Fairview. I think there is a safety issue that needs to be addressed, especially with the traffic study that the applicant provided saying that we are pretty close to maximum levels on Fairview anyways. Shreeve: Have you gone to the ACHD Public Hearing? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 106 McNitt: I was never notified there was an ACHD Public Hearing. The only thing that I got notified on was Planning and Zoning to be here. Shreeve: At a staff level review -- staff level approval? Centers: Yes. Let me read this comment. Excuse me. The applicant should provide district with a copy of the recorded access easement among the parcels for use at the previously approved driveways to the public streets prior to Final Plat approval. Other than that, I didn't see any other condition that ACHD pinned on those, so we are going with their recommendation. McNitt: And all I did was call ACHD and ask them what they provided the City of Meridian and this is what she gave me was this report. Centers: Yes. We have their report. I just read that. Shreeve: Yes. They are the street folks. McNitt: But I guess my question to you would be, if a street does not meet the specs that even ACHD says they should meet, then you still go with their recommendation? I mean 14 feet wide seems to me to be awfully -- especially if we are going to turn this into a commercial, you can almost assume, depending on what takes place in there, that there is going to be trucks delivering. There is no way that a semi truck is going to be able to make a left-hand turn. Borup: What are ACHD’s specifications, then? McNitt: They told me on the phone 20 feet was what the minimum specs for an ingress to a subdivision should be. Borup: So that's evenly divided -- that's with a divided -- McNitt: Yes. They said it would have to accommodate whatever the Fire Code said that it needs to -- Centers: I didn't see it in the report. Did you see it? Point out that access. McNitt: If you move your line up along -- that's the center island -- just to your left just slightly. That's the center island. That ingress would be the one to the left of that. Centers: Oh, yes. McNitt: And that's the one that's only 14 feet wide. Shreeve: Is ACHD aware of that? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 107 McNitt: I told them I didn't think it was 20 feet on the phone and they said they checked it out. Like I said, I went down and put a -- now, again, I may be wrong in assuming what they say curb to curb. I simply went from the curb on the outer side -- Centers: To that center. McNitt: -- to the curb -- or the curb of the center island. Shreeve: Well, you'd only be six feet off. McNitt: Yes. Well, no, the island itself isn't even six feet wide. Centers: Yes. They may have misunderstood you. This side over here is 20 some feet. McNitt: Yes. It's plenty on that. They told me that they often make the egress larger out of a subdivision. Why that is I don't know. Siddoway: This is only a guess, but I have a feeling I know what -- where the disconnect is here. Fourteen feet as a travel lane for a single lane of travel is plenty. For a curb cut into a project that's a two-way drive aisle, they would require at least 20 feet. We would actually require at least 25 feet. Borup: That's for a two way. Siddoway: Yes. Yes but I think a -- I think the curb cut that is the 20 foot minimum would be a curb cut off the street into the project, into the parking lot, not the street coming off of Fairview. Borup: So this would be down here. Siddoway: Correct. Borup: Well, that's what makes more sense to me. Fourteen feet is more than a normal roadway -- for a single lane, I mean. McNitt: And, like I say, I was going by what -- it seemed small to me and that's why I called ACHD to point out what that was. The only other thing that I have to discuss -- and Jane has been real good about getting with me earlier tonight, is in the Preliminary Plat application. It says that the irrigation is being done by municipal on Stonehenge and that is installed and everything. The problem with that is it's not being fed by municipal, it's being fed by Danbury Faire's pressurized irrigation system and Dan Sweet, brother of the applicant Jerry, has been told several times that that was supposed to have come off when they took possession of the property there on the east side of Stonehenge. We have kept it up and we have kept this system on, because it's Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 108 all in our control and stuff like that, but that is all coming off of Danbury Faire's pressurized irrigation system. What we would ask is that rather than grant the Variance for the irrigation system based on, you know, them saying that it's already there, is we would like them to have their own irrigation system, since no financial help is being given to -- Borup: So right now you're irrigating and maintaining that -- McNitt: -- that end of it and have been for quite a period. Borup: Okay. McNitt: I believe that's everything that we wanted to cover. Centers: Would you have a problem with them utilizing yours if they paid you? McNitt: I guess somebody is going to have to tell me how that works. I mean we pay -- each resident pays X amount a year for their homeowner’s dues. I guess if that would work it would have to go before the board. Borup: Is that the only common area Danbury is maintaining? Do you have other common areas? McNitt: Oh, yes. Yes but all of the left-hand side of the road is all common area. Borup: Okay. McNitt: We have two parks and other areas. Borup: So it would be hard to separate it out. McNitt: Well, Dan Sweet in the previous conversations with him has said that they have access to water from Settlers Canal that's there. He has told me that he has access to put pressurized irrigation in and I just assumed that's the way that they were going to go with it. Borup: Well, I think you would have control of it eventually. I mean if it's tied into your system and you have pipes and -- McNitt: Yes. I can definitely turn the controller off, but I'd rather work with them and -- Borup: Sure. McNitt: -- figure out a way to do it, because we still have to have -- there is a signage issue that's there that, again, Jane has said that we will sit and work out, because our subdivision sign sits on that property. When it was sold by Dennis Baker to Jerry Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 109 Sweet, there was a provision put in there that the sign would always have a right of way access and maintenance and so it's not like, you know, we are trying to get special treatment or anything. In fact, we want to work with them and do what has to be done. I just don't want to have to continue to water three more businesses there and they draw off of our system, so that's what we are looking at. Borup: Makes sense. McNitt: That's all I have. Borup: Thank you. Jane, do you have a final comment on that? Suggs: Yes, I do, and we do very much intend to work with the neighborhood about the irrigation system. I don't think there is any reason why we can't take over that portion. In fact, on one of the site specific conditions is that we will add a note to the Final Plat requiring that the business owners association will be required to maintain the street buffers. We would have a business owners association that would be responsible for that and it would be to take over that system. We will work with the neighborhood on that. I just wanted to add something, too. I hope this doesn't get me in trouble, but this is an ACHD street. They are not asking for right of way, but I am currently designing a street with medians and ACHD has been lately requiring 20 feet on either side of a median, between the median and the curb, so -- and it's for fire protection. If a car is parked in the lane, a fire truck can get around them without having to go up on the curb. I don't know if that actually applies to medians that don't have landscaping. If they are just concrete medians, it might not be as important, because they can roll over those. I just wanted to throw that out but that could be some of the concern that maybe this is a more recent ACHD requirement than -- Borup: But there is not parking along this road, is there? Suggs: No but for some reason in an emergency cars were stopped and a fire truck had to get around, so -- but, once again, I appreciate your indulgence at late hour and ask for your approval of the Preliminary/Final Plat according to the staff's comments, except recommended by my responses, except as amended by the staff on those. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions for -- we are fine. Mathes: I make a motion to close Public Hearing PFP 02-001, request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 4 building lots on 6 acres in a C-G zone for Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision by Hubble Engineering, 1375 East Fairview Avenue. Centers: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 110 Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? I have got some concerns on the size of the buffer, leaving it at six feet. I really like the staff's compromise on going to the 25.6, but still nine or 10 feet under the City Ordinance. Centers: My motion would include all staff comments verbatim, with the addition that the applicant would provide their own pressurized irrigation or work out an agreement with Danbury Faire. That would be the only exception that I would have. I'm in total agreement with that. Borup: Okay. Shreeve: We have a Public Hearing closure. All in favor. Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. All in favor say -- all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Mathes: I'd make a motion to approve the Public Hearing with all staff comments and for the applicant to provide their own pressurized irrigation. Borup: She was just clarifying what she was going to say, I think. Mathes: So -- Borup: Well, I thought you were just clarifying what you were going to make a motion on. Centers: Yes. That's what she said. Mathes: I recommend approval of Public Hearing PFP 02-001, request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 4 building lots on 6 acres in a C-G zone for Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision by Hubble Engineering, 1375 East Fairview Avenue. Including all staff comments, and in addition that the applicant provide their own pressurized irrigation system or work out an agreement with Danbury Subdivision. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 13: VAC 02-002 Request for a Vacation for unopened future streets within lots 5 and 6, block 1 of Timothy Subdivision for Pack It Up Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – west of South Locust Grove Road and north of East Overland Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 111 Centers: Oh, we have one more. Item 13. Borup: Do we postpone this or is this a two-minute thing? I'd like to open VAC 02-002, request for Vacation for unopened future streets within lots 5 and 6, Timothy Subdivision. Siddoway: Okay. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the city approved a plat for this property and as they went to Ada County to get it recorded the county is requiring them to vacate some existing references to future right of ways that were on a previous plat. This is simply a clean-up item to vacate those rights of way that were shown on a prior plat and we recommend approval of the Vacation. Borup: Any questions, comments from -- Centers: Yes. Where is the staff report? Siddoway: You just heard it. Borup: Do I hear a motion to close this hearing? Centers: So moved. Recommend that we close Public Hearing VAC 02-002. Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Mathes: I move that we approve VAC 02-002, request for a Vacation for unopened future streets within Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, of Timothy Subdivision for Pack It Up Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, west of South Locust Grove and north of East Overland Road with Steve's comments. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you. One more motion. Mathes: I make a motion we adjourn. Centers: Second. Borup: All in favor? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 18, 2002 Page 112 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:40 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK