Loading...
2002 08-15Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 15, 2002 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Thursday, August 15, 2002, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, David Zaremba, Keven Shreeve, and Leslie Mathes. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Dave McKinnon, Nicholas Wollen, Will Berg, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: X David Zaremba X Jerry Centers X Leslie Mathes X Keven Shreeve X Chairman Keith Borup Borup: We'd like to welcome everyone to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting for August 15th . We would like to begin with roll call of the Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Borup: The first item on the agenda would be the adoption of the agenda. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we revise the order of the agenda to handle Item 10 before Item 4. Centers: I would second that. Borup: Okay. I think that's reasonable in light of the agenda. All those in favor? Any Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of August 1, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Borup: Okay. The next item is approval of minutes of our August 1st meeting. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 2 of 112 Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I have one revision to make. This would be on Page 3 of those minutes, about the 12th line down. I'm credited with moving to close the Public Hearing, Commissioner Mathes seconded that, and then the vote on it was actually taken by you, not me, so that the 14th line should read Borup. Borup: That is true. Anyone else any questions or comments on the minutes? Zaremba: I move we approve the minutes of the August 1st meeting as amended. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 10: Public Hearing: MI 02-006 Request for an Amendment to the Area of Impact for Bristol Heights 21 by Capital Development – southeast corner of Chinden Boulevard and North Locust Grove Road: Borup: Thank you. The first item is Public Hearing MI 02-006, request for an Amendment to the Area of Impact for Bristol Heights 21 by Capital Development. I'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. On the overhead in front of you tonight you can see the area that's been highlighted in our area of impact. It's a piece of property that lies immediately adjacent to Bristol Heights Subdivision in Boise City, the piece of property you can make out just right there, the hash-marked area. It's off of Chinden Boulevard, up in the northeast corner of the City of Meridian's area of impact. I believe you have the application and the staff report in front of you tonight, so I won't belabor the issue. Staff does support the request by the applicant to remove this property from the city's area of impact due to the fact that it would require three to four feet of additional fill to service this property with gravity sewer. The removal of this would put it into the City of Boise's area of impact. The City of Boise should be able to service this property according to the applicant's engineer. The City of Boise has a lift station that's within eight feet of the property -- within eight feet of the subject property. With that I would ask if there is any questions? Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Is there anything the applicant wanted to add? Seeing none, do we have anyone here who will testify on this application? Come forward. Newbern: My name is Bobbie Newbern and my husband is with me and another member of the little subdivision. I live right next door. If you look up there, I am on Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 3 of 112 Chinden directly west of the property. We moved from Boise so that we would not be in a subdivision. Maybe I should say a suburban subdivision. We are considered to be in a subdivision, but it is very rural. We like our rural area and I -- at what point is Meridian going to put a stop to Boise taking Meridian land? Borup: That happened a couple years ago when the boundaries were established but in this case we have got -- you know, this parcel is being separated from the area that's being sewered by Meridian by quite a distance. We were just not able to bring sewer lines there. Other than that, this is the first -- this is the first one that's been before us that I can remember in six years. Newbern: We see the next stop would be Shandee and then the next stop would Locust Grove. Before you know it Meridian is going to lose more and more. I do want to say that most of us in the Fuller Ranchettes are against this. We like our very rural living and we don't really want -- in my property right there, according to the plans that I had seen, where I have open pasture to the east of me, I will have four houses abutting up on that 180 feet of property. I'm against it and most of us are. Just thought I would - - I figured if I didn't come and say that we don't like it and we don't want it, then I can't -- I have no recourse. I must voice our opinions. Borup: And that's why we have Public Hearings. Thank you. Newbern: Thank you. Berg: I just need to make an announcement. Someone that owns a gray Cadillac that's parked in the handicapped area right here in the parking lot to the east, somebody just backed into it and he's out there waiting, if you would like to get out there. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Centers: Well, I think it's kind of a formality issue and I have some empathy for the lady, but I'd like to see us move forward. Borup: And, actually, I might mention we are not dealing with a subdivision all we are talking about is an adjustment of our boundaries. Zaremba: It's a separate issue and if it stayed in Meridian's impact area there would at sometime be a hearing about the subdivision. If it moves to Boise, they will have to have a hearing about the subdivision and notify everybody within 300 feet or yards -- I forget. Three hundred yards? McKinnon: Feet. Zaremba: Feet? Thank you. Three hundred feet. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 4 of 112 Newbern: They already have and we know that it's money in Boise's pocket, why would they say no. Borup: Well, there will be a Public Hearing at the Boise Planning and Zoning and the City Council. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we close Public Hearing MI 02-006, request for an Amendment to the Area of Impact for Bristol Heights 21 by Capital Development. Mathes: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Do we have a motion on the hearing? Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve MI 02-006, request for an Amendment to the Area of Impact for Bristol Heights 21 by Capital Development. Mathes: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from July 11, 2002: AZ 02-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 24.89 acres from R-T to C-G and R-40 zones for proposed Fairview Lakes by Hopkins Financial Services, Inc. – 824 East Fairview Avenue: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from July 11, 2002: CUP 02-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for a commercial building site in a proposed C-G zone and a 192 unit residential apartment complex in a proposed R-40 zone for the proposed Fairview Lakes by Hopkins Financial Services, Inc. – 824 East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Thank you. Okay. There will be another hearing before the City Council on this on the 20th . The next item is a Continued Public Hearing -- actually, the next two items, AZ 02-011, Request for Annexation and Zoning of 24.89 acres from RT to C-G and C-M and R-40 zones for proposed Fairview Lakes by Hopkins Financial. Also CUP 02-014, Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for the same property. We'd like to open both the continued hearings and start with the staff report at this time. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 5 of 112 McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you just stated, this is a Continued Public Hearing, so I will just go over briefly the application summary and the things that have changed from the last time you heard this and the modifications that have been made to the plat. Again, the project itself is located, for those that are in the audience tonight, the project is located on the north side of Fairview Avenue, approximately a half a mile from Locust Grove to the west or a half a mile to the east from Meridian Road. Quickly go through some of the site photos. These have been viewed before by this Commission, so I will continue to move through those rapidly. It's not quite as bright on the overhead. Go over just briefly some of the major changes that have been made since the last time you have seen this project. Again, this is a project for a 192-unit apartment complex on the northern portion of the property. The applicant has made application to the Ada County to split the property where the property would be two pieces of property when we annex it. The property would be split where the apartment complex starts and where the commercial project is below on the south. The additions that the applicant has made to the project -- I'll start from the south and move to the north. Along the southern boundary, they have added four -- well, actually, three ponds. I assume those are the Fairview Lakes, as mentioned by the subdivision's name. There are three small ponds. There is a fourth pond up by the office building to the north that's just below the apartment building. As you follow up the street that's proposed to go north into the apartment complex, they have widened the pathway system so that it would be a 10-foot wide path that's detached from the sidewalk that would meander through the landscape buffer up to the apartment complex. As it hits the apartment complex it would run east of the apartment complex, continue up north along the east boundary line, and then cross through the apartment complex's parking lot at 10 feet wide. It meanders through the backside of the Jackson Drain, which would be relocated in this location, and continue through to match up with the existing pathway system that's to the northwest. Among other changes that you will notice from the last application you have seen, there have been some arrangements -- there have been some modifications to the arrangement of parking in the southwest corner. They have added some additional parking spaces to this location and moved the apartment complex to the -- well, a little bit to the northwest. Staff agrees that this is a better change to the project. Those are the major changes. We will discuss at length just a little bit about why they have relocated the cul-de-sac. There are some issues concerning the public street access, as I go through the body of the report, but I will go ahead and continue on at this time. You should have in front of you, just so I don't forget, you should have a copy of some notes from Tom Kuntz, the planning -- the Parks Director, and he's requested a couple things that I have mentioned. He's asked for a pathway area along this area, the commercial street, to be 20 feet in width. I just received this tonight. I want to make sure we highlight it, though. He's requested this buffer with the pathway be at least 20 feet wide, instead of 15 feet as shown. The second item from the Parks Department is with the northern boundary of the Jackson Drain is to be moved north. That's in this location. The apartments here need to be moved north so that they can allow a 20 foot buffer for the pathway to remain in and we at Planning and Zoning staff have no problem with that. The third item that the Parks Department wanted noted for you tonight is that the parking lot adjacent to the pathway system in this location in the northwest corner of the pathway, they have requested that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 6 of 112 those nine spaces be removed and that that area be reserved just for pathway and landscaping. That would reduce the number of parking spaces within this project -- within the apartment project by nine spaces. They had 16 spaces above and beyond the minimum required spaces, but now they will have seven with the reduction of that, and staff would support the reduction, because it does not reduce the number of parking spaces below the required minimum. You should also have a note from the Fire Department that's been revised with their conditions. A special note of Item Number 10, which is the reason it's been revised. The Fire Department has requested that the installation of the traffic light on Fairview Avenue adjacent to Teare should include the Opticon sensors. Those are the sensors that the Fire Department and the EMS uses to change the light to green, so that they can proceed through the intersection at a rate faster than having to wait for lights to go. It's an increased safety item and the Fire Department has asked that the developer pay this fee for the Opticoms, because this is a development driven traffic signal. Back to the changes. Just one final thing before I turn it back over to you. The applicant has modified the street system in the project, so that there would be no right of way that would be dedicated as part of the apartment complex. The reason for the lot split is because this project, the apartments, would be allowed to have access to a public street from Teare, so they do not isolate this as a land-locked parcel. We do have access off of Clarene Street on the north. The applicant has proposed that that be only emergency access -- emergency access area. However, ACHD and Ada County believe that this is still an access and they will approve the proposed lot split with that being the access. However, we, as staff, can't support commercial vehicles coming in through a residential subdivision, large commercial vehicles for the pad work site up here. Rather than allow the development of the apartment complex and allow the vehicles to come through this -- the residential subdivision on the east -- on the east side of this project, we would require that they build and construct the roadway system that's this north-south Teare Street all the way so that everything is done -- all the construction vehicles use this part of the project. We note that's on page -- all these conditions are located on Page 6 -- actually, they are located on Page 10. Be Site Condition Number 4, the construction vehicles shall be prohibited from using Clarene Street during construct of the apartment complex. Item Number 2 also addresses that we would require all of Fairview Avenue to be improved prior to any occupancy of the apartment complex. Item Number 5, which no Occupancy Permits shall be issued to the apartment portion of the development until Final Plat has been recorded, dedicated a right of way on Teare. Among the other changes is the staff has added some comments concerning the ponds and making sure they provide circulation. Just to give you just some background -- the people in the audience some background, the City of Meridian will require that the streets within this project be dedicated for public use and the only way you can dedicate streets for public use in the City of Meridian is through a subdivision process. The applicant has requested approval of the apartment complex area without requiring dedication of the street ways at this time. Before they would be allowed to have occupancy, as a condition of this approval, before they would be allowed to have occupancy of the apartment complex, they would have to construct and dedicate those public streets through the subdivision process. That means that their Final Plat will have to be recorded and ACHD will have to accept the right of way dedication prior to any occupancy of any apartment building in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 7 of 112 this complex. You, as the Commission, have the ability to say that you can require that the applicant Final Plat and subdivide this entire subdivision before allowing any development to take place on the northern parcel of property. That would be apartments, or you can allow them to build that street as a private street now and then dedicate it in the future as part of the plat. With that, I will ask if there are any questions. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Yes, Dave. Page 7 of the report and right above in bold, the annexation and zoning requirement, the last sentence says would be in addition to Condition Number 4, Page 9, of the CUP. Is that condition above that very important? I couldn't find what you were referring to. You see what I'm talking about? McKinnon: Yes, I do. It looks like when I revised this staff report it looks like I missed that sentence. Centers: I was trying to refer to that, so where was it? McKinnon: That's actually Item Number 5 now on Page 10. Centers: Got you. McKinnon: Thanks for that correction. Centers: On Page 10. Borup: Any other questions from any other Commissioners? Zaremba: Yes. This, I guess, is kind of a general question. On Page 4, the very last paragraph, I understand the first part of it, due to the size of the landscape area they will not be permitted to hook up to the city's main water. The last sentence -- I think this was the second time I have seen that sentence, that a pressurized system -- pressurized irrigation system is required to be supplied by a year around source of water. That's surprises me, since usually people blow them out and shut them off during the winter. Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, the purpose of this comment is for the shoulder season when surface irrigation water is out of the ditches. There might be a period of time of one or two months in the spring and one or two months in the fall that there is no water available. We do require that the systems be supplied with an alternate source of water for those periods of time. That's what that refers to. Zaremba: And that would be a well, since they can't hook up to the city main? Freckleton: Primary connection to the city main will not be allowed. Secondary connection to the city main would be allowed. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 8 of 112 McKinnon: For those shoulder seasons. Freckleton: For the shoulder season only. Correct. Zaremba: Thank you. Freckleton: Now if they have got a well, we'd rather that they use their well. I'd rather the domestic water be the absolute last considered source. Zaremba: Okay. Dave, probably this is a question for you. On Page 10, which you referred to earlier, this Item 4, construction vehicles shall be prohibited from using Clarene Street. The objective here is to have the main street built before construction is -- McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: -- started, not just before occupancy, would be my opinion. Should we also on Item 4 say not just Clarene Street, but also the existing portion of Teare should not have construction traffic on it either? Could we add that to -- because they may come in the street that starts with a J and come around that way, just not going to Carlene? I think we should say Teare as well. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, I think that's a great addition to that. When you make your motion tonight, whoever makes the motion, be sure to include that. I will make a note so that when you make the motion I will remember that as well. Centers: I agree. Zaremba: That's all of my questions. Borup: Okay. Good addition. Any other questions from any other Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Tamura: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Doug Tamura. I'm representing the applicant Hopkins Financial in this project. My address is 499 Main Street in Boise, Idaho. Again, I'd like to recommend staff on the help they have been on this. We concur with all the findings -- Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law. A couple of clarifications, though, of what we have done since the last hearing. I met with Andrea Tuning with the Highway District and talked to them about the potential of trying to put bollards on Teare Avenue as a temporary solution to the neighborhood. I believe that the Highway District looks at the connection of Teare to the neighborhood as much benefit to the neighborhood circulating onto Fairview, as much as the stop light is for our -- the benefit of our commercial property. They think it will help the circulation of Jericho and existing to the north by having these -- more connections to Fairview and so they'd like to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 9 of 112 Borup: We need to have you -- Tamura: So that was kind of the Highway District's point. I didn't pursue that any further, but that's kind of, where they left that at. As far as the landscaping, I have included in your packet one of the other things that we did was we went and revised the tree canopy on both the north side and the east side, so that at maturity we will have a full canopy on those two sides of the property as requested. The recommendations from the Parks Department, we can revise our plan to widen that main entrance on the east side of the driveway from 15 feet to 20 feet to accommodate that. I think we have got a potential compromise that we have proposed on that little parking that's on the end of Jackson Drain. I think we can shove our building south and at least provide a five-foot landscape buffer in between that existing parking and that future pathway. I think the concern that Tom had on that was that he'd like to see a little landscape buffer, so instead of eliminating the parking, I think we'd like to leave the parking there at the 400 spaces, but provide at least a minimum of a five foot landscape space. The other thing that we also did was we shifted the street, the extension of Teare Avenue, we shifted that whole thing 10 feet south to provide for an additional 10 foot buffer to that property on the corner there. As part of our Landscape Plan, we will go ahead and provide that. We will meet with the neighbors and provide whatever kind of landscaping buffers he wants in there, but you can see that there is kind of an additional little strip through there. As far as the Irrigation Plan, is one of the uses of the ponds is to go ahead and pump directly out of the ponds. We will use the ponds as holding and so we will use all private water for our landscaping. We have got two options that we are going to consider on year around is that we'd like to have the ponds, so that they are part of our amenity year around. You know, one option is to apply to water resources for a private non-domestic well. The other one is we will probably work with Nampa- Meridian first and see if we can go ahead and get access to Jackson Drain. Jackson Drain is a year around waterway. Between the two, I think we can go ahead and be able to handle our irrigation in those kind of off months without requiring city water. I think at this time, until, you know, I hear some comments from the neighborhood, I think that's it. Again, appreciate the city's help on resolving all these issues and ask for your support on our project. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Tamura? Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman. Item 2 on Tom Kuntz's letter, maybe you skipped over that or I didn't hear you address it. The building adjacent to the -- Tamura: Oh. We can shift our -- I was looking at the design of our building. One of the things we haven't done is exactly -- and I told Tom -- again, exactly determine the elevation of both the waterway and the banks, but we can accommodate that. Whether we need to shift it to drain south or move our buildings north, we can go ahead and get that engineered, so that will work. Centers: And I think he means the building needs to be moved to the south, doesn't he? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 10 of 112 Tamura: No. Centers: Or have I got my -- Tamura: What he's talking about is that building on the north side of the drain that runs parallel with the drain, he'd like to move that north, so that they have got a flat area for that pedestrian path. I told him that we could accommodate that. Centers: And you don't have a problem with that? Tamura: No. Centers: Item 3, though, you don't want to remove the nine parking spaces, you want to move them and then put five feet of -- Tamura: We can relocate that and just move that whole parking lot south and accommodate them. What we originally looked we thought, well, maybe what makes the most sense is treat the pedestrian path like a sidewalk, we could just park against the sidewalk and then you would have a hard surface that we can go ahead and park against. After talking to Tom, he'd like to have some kind of landscape buffer there. Another thing that we had agreed with staff is the 10-foot pedestrian path from Fairview all the way up to the cul-de-sac will be concrete. We will treat that more as a sidewalk and then from there it will be a hard surface path, you know, probably asphalt like the Parks wants it, from that -- from the cul-de-sac all the way to the northwest corner of our property where it stubs into the neighbors. Centers: Well, I think -- I think the -- Mr. Kuntz is referring to the 20 foot buffer from Fairview all the way in to the cul-de-sac. Borup: In Item Number 1. Centers: Yes in Item Number 1. Tamura: I think what he's talking about there is -- Centers: Now he has a -- right here. It's -- that goes all the way in with a meandering pathway? Tamura: Yes. We would be willing to do that. Centers: Okay. Tamura: To the cul-de-sac and then from there it just runs to our landscape. Centers: It's nice to get things clear, though. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 11 of 112 Tamura: Yes. Right. Borup: The question I had on that -- those are tying into sidewalks is that correct? Tamura: What -- Borup: So you have got a 10-foot pathway tying into a five-foot sidewalk. I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference that that needs to be 10 feet, is what I was wondering, but -- Tamura: Mr. Chairman, I think what we discussed with Tom was in lieu of two sidewalks, which we thought was redundant. We were just going to do one 10 foot sidewalk in a -- you know, so it's five feet of Highway District right of way, plus 15 feet of our property. Then we just do one meandering sidewalk -- we do a License Agreement with the Highway District to go ahead and do that in lieu of -- Borup: Okay. Centers: But I agree with Chairman Borup, 10 feet is -- you know, five feet is plenty for two people to walk, unless you're five abreast. Borup: You're saying the sidewalk that would have been on the other side, essentially putting it -- combining it with this side and up to 10 foot -- Tamura: No. The intent is on the west side of the driveway we will go ahead and put a five foot attached sidewalk. Borup: Oh, so you will still have two. Tamura: Yes so we will have a five foot on the west side and a 10 foot meandering on the east side. Borup: I really agree with the 10-foot pathways, but this is just such a short stretch. I don't know if it accomplishes anything but if it -- Tamura: You know, we would -- I think our preference is that we want to overdo our landscaping so it looks real nice. I think, you know, if we can talk -- if we can go back to the Highway District and see if we can get a waiver on that if we can. You know, I don't know if there is a way we can condition that, but it's more of a Highway District issue than it is a Planning and Zoning, I think. Borup: On the width of the sidewalk? Tamura: No on having sidewalks on both sides of that street. Borup: Oh. Well, it's still good to have them on both sides. I was just wondering if the 10-foot was necessary in this location. On the Jackson Drain it makes a lot of sense. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 12 of 112 Tamura: I think what Tom's goal is, is that this pedestrian pathway, once it's completed, is going to be both pedestrian and bicycles and so his thought was to have adequate bicycle transportation on there that needs to be 10 feet. Centers: One last question. I guess you heard the reaction. How do you feel about the -- this being prohibited for access -- construction access? Tamura: You know we don't have a problem with that at all. I think our goal would be probably just construct the north-south road and not even do the -- Centers: And not open this up until -- Tamura: Until our project is done and then we will go ahead and open that part up. Centers: When does ACHD require that to be opened up? I mean maybe it's not required until the commercial and business property. Tamura: Yes. That's something that we could talk to the Highway District about doing in some kind of phase deal. I think from the activity that we had on the commercial end of it, I think our goal is to fall within probably -- you know, we'd like to start the apartments this fall and we'd like to start the commercial next spring. You know, even though if we, you know, phase it, it would be a relatively short phase. I think the condition as far as not requiring access on either street, I think it's a good one and that was never our intent was to use the neighborhood to access our property. Borup: Any other questions? Centers: That's all I have. Borup: Doug, could you explain a little bit more on -- back on the same Teare Street on ACHD's attitude on having the bollards there? How much was that discussed? Tamura: You know, I just spoke to the staff member that had reviewed our project and she was saying it was the Highway District's feelings that because all the potential traffic north of Fairview, that they felt like the better ties they had to Fairview the better off the neighborhood would be. They look at it more of a neighborhood benefit than, you know, benefit to our -- Borup: Well, I think they are probably saying that from past history and past experience. That's probably true, but you know, bollards can be removed if it looks like it's a benefit in the future. Tamura: You know, I think that maybe one of the things, you know, for us we had it designed without that access in there. It became apparent from the Highway District that that was going to be a requirement, I don't know if it's a possibility of the city could sit down with them, you know, work out a situation -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 13 of 112 Borup: So this wasn't discussed at the Public Hearing at ACHD? Tamura: You mean where we get the stoplight? Borup: No. No. The closing it off. Tamura: Oh, closing it off? No, I just went ahead and met with staff on that. Borup: Okay. This did not have a Public Hearing, then? Tamura: No but I'm almost thinking there that if we had the support of the city on something like that, maybe we could go ahead and revisit that issue. The staff was pretty strong that it was to benefit to the neighborhood, as well as for our project. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Do we have anyone here that would like to testify on this application? If so, you need to come on up. Who would like to, come on up? Grigg: My name is Dana Grigg and I live at 1015 Clarene Street. I built that home on Clarene Street and I have seen many changes. When I saw the proposal on my door from Hopkins, I thought that's really nice, I'm glad they are going to do something with that property. I apologize right now if I don't understand most of the facts as far as what's going through ACHD and when streets can be opened. One of my -- I have several concerns and one of them is I hope you understand that Jericho, which leads to Clarene Street, is already a thoroughfare for a lot of school buses that go to Chief Joseph. My concern is we are also -- we are kind of squaring out our neighborhood from Clarene Street to Tammy Street and also Teare as we are just going to be a busy little square as far as with the school traffic and the school buses. The other thing that concerns me is I know some of the neighbors are concerned about the buffer between their properties as far as their backyards are concerned. Those -- I know there is several residents here who will address that. I don't understand why it's not standard practice, as it has been in other developments, such as when Ware-Mart went in over on Milwaukee and Fairview, to have that type of buffer there. I suppose that's some kind of law that we have to change. That's another thing I object to. I feel in the original proposal they should keep with that buffer that they proposed, not only for privacy, but also to have that type of division between the commercial property and the residential property. Borup: What size buffer are you referring to? Grigg: The one that originally -- and this may have changed, because I'm not up to date on the fact. This is the one between -- Borup: Right and what size did you want it to be? Grigg: Well, the neighbors who live there probably have a better idea, but it seems like what was proposed in this -- on our doorstep was okay by me, but I don't live on that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 14 of 112 street and my backyard doesn't go that way. As kind of a lighter note, I found a lot of humor in this statement that says HFS would like your input to see if you would like vehicle access through our development. Well, if we don't want you to have vehicle access through our subdivision, then we really don't want vehicle access into your development. I don't understand the traffic patterns that are going on the right there. The other thing is I heard the proposals and I don't know -- like I said, I'm not up to date on the facts. One of the big problems I have living in Meridian for 18 years is water pressure. I know you talked earlier about where the water was going to come from for the ponds, for the sprinkling, for even the commercial and the residential areas. I hope that's something -- I'm not technical, but that can be addressed. Even though ponds in the front of the entrance is esthetic, I wish that Meridian would set the example and start having more drought resistant type landscaping. I know that's a minor issue compared to what's going on now as far as the streets and the traffic and everything like that, but knowing how bad the water pressure has been off and on for 18 years. I'd like to know how that's going to be addressed, especially with the apartment complex. Is this where I ask a question or -- Borup: Irrigation water is through the -- the sprinkling is through the irrigation water system it's not tied into the city. That's what we were discussing earlier. Grigg: Okay. I guess I think that that's not going to be something that's going to last forever, because -- but that's something else that needs to be addressed and that's all I have to say. Zaremba: What pressure are you saying is low, your house water or -- Grigg: House water pressure is low. Zaremba: Inside your house? Grigg: Yes. Off and on. It's better than it was ten years ago, but I have noticed lately there is a lot of -- it's poor water pressure and I have to do the -- I have to water my lawn at night to have any pressure at all to reach my whole lawn. Borup: And that's one of the reasons the city has been requiring the sprinkling system to be separate, so you don't have that problem. Grigg: Okay. Centers: Well -- and just so you know, ma'am, you touched on the neighbors that border the property and part of what the staff looks at -- and I will read it for you. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses? The staff said the Commission and Council should rely on public testimony to determine whether or not the proposed use will be disturbing or hazardous to the neighboring uses. Staff does not anticipate that the proposed uses will be hazardous to future or existing neighbors. The Planning and Zoning Commission and Council may Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 15 of 112 wish to restrict certain uses outright and require buffering to lessen the impact on adjacent residential properties. The applicant has revised the landscaping plans to include additional landscaping adjacent to the existing single-family properties. When you talk different uses is when you talk more buffering and landscaping. Grigg: Okay. The last comment I think I wanted to make was about the traffic light. For 18 years I have tried off and on to turn left -- I mean I have been successful and I have not had an accident turning left off Jericho onto Fairview. Not knowing how the road system was going to go -- are you saying that people are going to go through the neighborhood, go through Teare Street, go through Tammy Street, and then turn right? There is going to be more traffic using that non-lighted turn? Borup: The traffic for this project will have a traffic light. Grigg: Then they can go that way. Borup: Yes. If they want to take more time, I guess. Grigg: Well, personally, the busy time of the day, I have to turn to left on Jericho and go to Chateau to get the light at Locust Grove, which affects the other neighbors who live to the north of me. That's going to increase traffic, too. Okay. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Hansen: Yes. My name is Fritz Hansen and live on Jericho. I have two issues that I would like to address. One is the original plan that I saw called for two-story apartments and it's my understanding now that they want to change those to a three level. Now that might not be true, but if it is, I'm against it, because it's going to add more congestion to what's going to be there. The second issue is the original plat called for a 30-foot berm on the east side of the development with a cement wall. The last I saw called for a 20-foot berm without a wall and I don't think that's right. Those are my two concerns. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Centers: Mr. -- Borup: Hansen. Centers: Hansen. Excuse me. Yes. As a notation, though, I think the applicant, if I'm not mistaken, but at the last meeting -- 65 percent of the apartments were going to be one bedroom. Hansen: But I'm talking about stories. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 16 of 112 Centers: Yes I know. The one bedroom apartments lowers the occupants and the traffic, et cetera, et cetera, as compared to a complex that had two and three bedroom apartments primarily. Hansen: Okay. Centers: See, so the applicant will address that. Hansen: I understand that. Now -- Borup: Well, it's a combination of two-story and three-story as proposed now. Hansen: Yes. That was the original proposal -- Borup: That's the only one we have received. Hansen: My understanding is the original proposal was for two stories, but that's all the information that I have here. Centers: The original proposal may have been hearsay. Hansen: I'm going by the little thing that they left on my doorstep way back last spring. Centers: Well, the applicant will address it and we will ask them to address it. Hansen: Yes. Okay. Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Roslin: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Doug Roslin and I live at 801 East Willowbrook Drive. I am on the north side of the development. I wasn't at the first hearing, simply because I called Hopkins Development and they answered my questions concerning buffering, so I was satisfied with those answers and didn't attend the first hearing. My mistake. They told me -- my big concern was the fence part of the buffering between my property and theirs on the north side. I told them that, you know, what kind of fence were they going to put in, because they said there would be a fence. I explained that I needed to repair mine and they said, gee, you get a free fence. I understand now that they are not going to put in a fence. I had a contractor ready to do that work and, consequently, I dismissed him. Come to find out I need now to discuss something about a fence. They promised a fence, now it's up in the air. My question is, they told me that the Planning and Zoning Commission wasn't requiring a fence as part of the buffering. Where do we stand on the fence issue? Borup: Planning and Zoning has not made a recommendation yet. That's why we are still holding the hearing. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 17 of 112 Roslin: Then that's my only concern, because I was told in the beginning that we would, gee, get a free fence. Thank you very much. Centers: Excuse me. You live right up here? Roslin: Yes. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Howell: I'm Lynn Howell. I live at 789 East Willowbrook. I just want to know how come we want the apartment buildings back 10 feet, why don't they just move the ditch 10 feet the other way. Then that would put the three stories right on my kitchen table. Most of the houses there, like ours, we are talking 20, 30 feet from the house to the back fence. You put a three-story building within 20 feet of that I mean that's like somebody building a high rise house in your front yard. Borup: Well, we may need to get a clarification. My understanding is these buildings right here were the ones that needed moved, not these up here. Howell: First they said it was going to be a 30-foot buffer, now they are saying it's going to be a 20-foot buffer back there. Borup: That's what you're referring to? Howell: Yes. If we are going to have parking behind the building, then they will put the buildings right up against the fence. Borup: No. There is parking along there. All this up here is parking. Howell: And in the morning when it's about 25 degrees outside and a guy gets up and rods his pickup three times in the morning it's going to shoot right back to your house. That's why we need a buffer and fence and stuff in there, so you don't get the exhaust, wham, wham, wham, that I'm talking about. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Delgato: My name is Max Delgato, 885 East Willowbrook Drive. I'd just like to elaborate on the last two gentlemen. I did a little bit of homework. These are some pictures here. I believe we have them on CD, if we can bring those up. Basically, my -- I'll make it brief, as brief as I can within the three minutes. My main concern is the buffer. The fence -- mainly, my main concern is the security issue and we will see -- I will try to show you if we can get those images up. Basically, you can see these are pictures of the fence at the back of -- that would actually be the buffer between this development and the residences, if it is. I just want to show how the condition -- basically the condition of the existing fence itself. Basically what I wanted to say is that you will see the pictures in a moment, basically the condition of the fence is probably Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 18 of 112 very bad at the moment and the latest proposal being that there would not be the fence, it's just the reduced landscape buffer. I just find that to be kind of hard to take, especially me having a two year old -- a two month old son that's going to be playing in the backyard a couple years from now. Borup: Is one of these fences yours, then, that's falling down? Delgato: Yes. Borup: So you want them to fix your fence? Delgato: No, I don't. What I want to say is this -- and I want to make it clear. I did not want -- and most of us are young families, 20s, and 30s. It takes quite a bit of money to fix those fences and I'm talking up to maybe 1,000 dollars. Why should I put a brand new fence, knowing this huge development is going in my backyard and have to -- out of my own pocket fix the wear and tear that goes on as this being the only main effective barrier between my home and this development. That's what I'm trying to get at and if we can see these pictures, I'd like to explain a little bit to you. Centers: Well, normally, when you move into a subdivision, say a new subdivision and you're going to put in a fence, you share the fence with the neighbor. That's the norm. That's the norm and I guess -- Delgato: I just want to show you the pictures and then I want to just explain. Now you see some of these pictures right here, you see the condition of the fence. Like I said earlier, I'm not saying that they should make the fence, the only thing is, is that I don't think -- I don't feel that we as homeowners -- homeowners, excuse me, should have to foot the bill for the wear and tear. Now we are talking about 192 units potentially, what would you say, up to 400 residents in this area? There is going to be kids, there is going to be people walking along, you realize that most of the framing is facing outside and easy to scale, easy to push over. You notice that a lot of them are propped up. You can see the condition. The face is sagging makes it easy to scale, just like I said. That's a security issue. You can just see the condition. Missing planks. Some just a half -- you can see there. Some don't have any fence -- now I didn't mean to embarrass anybody at all by taking these pictures, I just want to give people an idea of what we are looking at here. This is a view of my home from 100 feet out, which is the latest approach said they were going to start building. Now as you can, you can see my dining room window at eye level at 100 feet, roughly. These are the other areas that they have done something really nice and classy, it looks really nice, and nice, clean, and very secure. Basically, that's my concern. A lot of us are young families, we have got kids that -- playing in the backyards, and we have got to secure -- someplace secure. Now I'm not totally against development, I'm not against these gentlemen making a living, I'm just saying this, that we want something secure and we are willing to make compromises. We are not here saying they should do everything, that's not my intent. I'm just saying this is a security issue. They said that there would not be any security involved in this huge development, which basically is going to put 400 people, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 19 of 112 approximately, at my estimation, at least, in this small area. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Delgato? Sir did -- Mr. Roslin mentioned he had talked to them earlier and talked about a larger buffer and the fence. Was that your understanding also? Delgato: Yes. Their main plan was -- and I think this is what fooled a lot of people and I'm not sure if this is what their intent -- I'm not saying that. It looked pretty good from the get go and when we saw a 30 foot buffer, plus a fence, we thought that was great, that would work. We are willing to compromise. I'm just saying I need something secure. Of course, we are not going to go spend 1,000 dollars to replace a fence when we are going to have these guys come down with a development. I'm not saying I'm not willing to foot my bill. Centers: Okay. I didn't accuse you of that. I just told you what the norm is when two neighbors are side by side in a residential -- wait a minute. Now, anyway, I wasn't accusing you of being -- or trying to get your fence for nothing or what have you, but at the previous meeting, I had notes of you being here. You really didn't dwell on the wall or fence, you talked about the buffer, and you talked about security issues, et cetera, et cetera. What I really wanted to ask was the 30-foot buffer and the fence, was this brought up at a community neighborhood meeting with the developer? Delgato: No. This was the paper that was circulating through our neighborhood about their original plan from Hopkins Financial. Borup: We need one person talking at a time, please, and that would be this gentleman. Centers: So they just dropped something off on your doorknob and said this is what we are planning. Delgato: And that was great. I was happy with that. Centers: Okay and within that, they talked about a 30-foot buffer and a fence that would go up in the back? Delgato: Yes. Centers: And that's Willowbrook Drive in the back? Delgato: Yes. Centers: Thank you. Delgato: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 20 of 112 Borup: Do we have anyone else? Wingate: Hello, I'm Diane Wingate, I live at 905 East Willowbrook. My home is right in the corner where this -- in the north corner where this -- or this apartment complex is going to go in. Yes. Right there. What my issue is, again, the buffer zone. When we got this in the first place -- this is also on record. When we got this, this first notice from Hopkins Financial it stated that we had a 30 foot buffer that would come around, which isn't bad, if that's landscaped to where we have it there so that we don't have -- the people who are living in the two and three story apartments aren't looking down on our homes. I guarantee you, you could look right down into our yard and I don't particularly like that. I have lived there for 18 years and I like to have my privacy. I know a lot of other people along the line would, too. Personally, I would like to have the 30-foot buffer. That's what I'd like to have. As far as the fence goes, I put my new -- I replaced my fence this year before this thing came out so I have 1,000 invested in my fence. I'd like to know if we are going to get a fence, which I really believe we should have, because of the same things that Mr. Delgato said, from the backside. It's happened on my property, so I know this, the kids will jump that fence. This is why I had to replace my fence because they come across that field going from Jackson's or where ever, they come through my field and they kick through my slates. They jump over the top, and the fence is like this. I'm sure that the other neighborhoods have had the same problem. I don't want to have new people coming in, seeing this wooden fence with the structure on the back, to hold the pickets up so it's all on the outside here. They can climb it and do the same thing. When we have got that many people, I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how many kids are going to be there. I'd just as soon not have them come sailing through my yard, because I like to have my dogs in my yard and if one of my dogs happens to be out and happens to not bark so they come in the yard, then I'm liable for somebody getting bitten and I don't think that's fair either. This is where I'm at. Centers: I missed your last name. Wingate: Wingate. Centers: Wingate. Thank you. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, the handout that was delivered, do we have a copy of that in our -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we received a copy of that the last meeting. Borup: That's the one that we don't have in our packet. McKinnon: It's not in your packets. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 21 of 112 Borup: We had one of the homeowners give one to us, but it was not in our packet. Yes. At the last meeting. You want to see if that's in your file. Go ahead, ma'am. Presley: My name is Dawn Presley and I live at 723 Willowbrook, second to the last on the left at the top there. It's been said, but I want to say it again, because I just can't stress the importance of this guy is why I'm here. Privacy is my biggest issue. Two or three story buildings, like he showed in the photo, you can see into our back windows at eye level. If we are at two or three stories, there is not going to be any privacy. My biggest concern is the landscaping buffer that there are trees tall enough, shrubs tall enough to block out the noise, to keep people from looking into my backyard, not to be paranoid about child snatching. I don't even want someone looking at my kids or watching me in my privacy. I mean none of us -- you don't. I feel very strongly about that. I also, in hearing what was said earlier, it would be -- it would be I think a very good idea to have a stoplight put in at Jericho and Fairview, because there is going to be -- the way that it's planned out now, there is going to be more traffic on Jericho there. They will use that other side street there and it's just -- we are already backed up there. Borup: Why will there be more traffic on Jericho? Presley: Because -- I could be wrong, but as I understood it, they are going to come in through -- is it Teare Street? Borup: No. They will come in from Fairview. Presley: They are only going to -- the only entrance is Fairview. Borup: No. There will be a secondary entrance from -- Presley: So that's -- they will use it. Borup: To get out? Presley: Yes. Borup: Okay. I thought Jericho was a hard street to get onto Fairview on. Presley: Well, it is. Borup: Wouldn't they rather go where a light is where they don't have a problem? Presley: I think they or may not. Borup: We need to have some order here or we will just close down the meeting for a while. Go ahead, ma'am. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 22 of 112 Presley: I don't think that there is not going to add to traffic at Fairview and Jericho because they have that light there, no. I think they will still add and it's already backed up there. Borup: Okay. Do you -- have you thought -- I'm just back to your question or comment on privacy. Presley: Yes. Borup: If that was a residential subdivision going in there, there could be a two-story house within 15 feet of your fence. Presley: And I would be concerned about that, but -- Borup: But that would meet all the codes and ordinances. Presley: Sure and I'll bet you they would probably want some landscaping or whatnot between them and myself as well. If there is two to three stories and you have got more than one family or non-family type of people living there and their windows -- bedroom windows or whatnot, it bothers me, it's a concern of mine. Borup: I understand. Centers: We can't require traffic lights, so -- ACHD. Presley: But you have heard my concern. Centers: Sure. Presley: Thank you. Shreeve: David, do we have an overall map where this Jericho Road is? Anything -- Borup: Weren't you already up, sir? We need to let the others have a chance first. Do we have anyone else? Come on, ma'am. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shreeve, Jericho is in this location right here. Borup: Okay. Ewing: My name is Glenrose Ewing. I live on the corner of Tammy and Teare. That's the second house in on Teare. I'm really concerned about not only the traffic that this may occur, but I don't fully understand it. I will go on and touch, first off, on the buffer. We have a -- the buffer that goes through there and we were talking about a 20 foot buffer with no wall. When this was originally discussed -- and I wasn't available on the 11th of July to come, but when this was originally discussed in the other -- when we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 23 of 112 were in here before, this was supposed have been a 30 foot with a concrete or some kind of -- you know, a block wall or something like that to give us more security. The only security that we will have now living in this neighborhood from the commercial area coming over and people, you know, it's going to be very attractive from the sound of things, very attractive. This landscape area coming down through there, and that's going to draw people to walk along there and so on and so forth. We have children that play in the park that's right next to my home. These children can be enticed over and are going to have to -- you know, somebody continuously with them to watch them, because of the continued increase of people in this, you know, commercial area and also from the apartments. The apartments look like they will create an awful lot of people and if -- particularly with -- I understand the parking over at the apartments is very limited. If I -- correct me if I've got this wrong, but I understand there are only two parking areas to each apartment. If this is the case, you know, when people have friends in and so on and so forth, and you have got all these units there, where are those people going to park? They are going to come back around probably into our Settler's Subdivision. Now I'm not even sure on Teare -- would you help me clarify this? You're talking about coming in from across -- from Philips -- where the Philips -- oh, gas station is there and yet take Teare -- is it going to go just up to where the Settler's Subdivision starts. Then it will jog over about a block or two and then it jogs over again? Borup: Yes. Just like this, ma'am. Here is -- this is your house right there? Ewing: Yes. Right here. Borup: So they will turn over here and then to the main entrance. Ewing: Okay. Now is that going to be a complete open thoroughfare there that anybody can use it anytime they want to or anything like that? Borup: At this point that's what ACHD has requested. Centers: I think they required it. Borup: Well -- Ewing: It was so strong, I mean if you go down and you're going to make that turn, then you're going to make a sharp turn and go up one block and then all of that is going to shuttle down Tammy or they are going to go clear up do Clarene and shuttle over. Borup: To where? Where are they going to go? Ewing: Well, they are going to get back over on Jericho. Borup: To go where? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 24 of 112 Ewing: Well, people are going to use that exit, I almost bet you. They will use that as an exit, as well as an access as they do they will use it like a shortcut to speed them up so that, you know, they can go up that way. Not only that, you know, since Joseph School is up there and we have a lot children that are in school buses and things like this that go up to, you know, the school area, a lot of children on the road over there. This is going to channel so many -- I know that we have to have progress, but we need to protect them a little bit here, particularly to -- just like myself. I do have a fence, but like a lot of neighbors, my fence has the boards on the outside of the fence, so anybody could scale that and come over. I'm not saying everybody is going to do that, but the security for me is -- you know, I'm concerned with it, to be honest. I'm really concerned, because my home is going to hit a lot of traffic there. Just -- I think we need a buffer -- a good buffer, good wall to keep people from coming over into that park from the commercial area, because that's meant for our children. Centers: The commercial areas will be addressed as they develop it one project at a time. A Conditional Use Permit each time and you can come back at that time. Ewing: Well, I'm sure. Centers: All we are really allowing or would allow would be the apartment complex at this time. Ewing: Oh, at this -- Centers: And then the concept of the commercial properties -- and they have to come back for each individual project that they want to develop. Let me finish. The street -- I don't think the developer necessarily wanted that to go in. Ewing: Well, what it originally said -- Centers: But I think they could care less. The Ada County Highway District required it, that it be cut through in this way. I can't see these people coming out, going out this way, and then going down to Jericho. I can see them doing this and bam. I don't think, personally, you're going to have a lot more traffic. In fact, the ACHD was thinking of all of these people that they come out this way. Ewing: Well, and – yes and that still shuttles that all down into this -- they are seeking a shorter way out on Jericho. Shreeve: Just to get them off of Jericho. Ewing: Yes but what I'm saying is you are not going to get them off of Jericho, because there is too many people that were back in there in those other subdivisions. The school is back there. The parents are taking their children in, they are going in and picking them up, bringing them out and they are going to take this straight shot, and that's Jericho. I'm just bringing these things -- hope you will do something. In other Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 25 of 112 words, you're saying that this buffer that I'm talking about, the concrete wall, stuff, we have to discuss that again when the commercial stuff comes in. Centers: That's right. Ewing: Thank you. Centers: That's right. Smith: Jack Smith, 1751 North Teare. I was here -- Centers: What was your last name? Smith: Smith. Jack Smith. Centers: Okay. Smith: And I'm on the corner where they are going to turn Teare and -- I was here last time. Centers: Yes. Smith: And I can't -- right there. I can't object more to having Teare go through. Is there -- can somebody explain to me why Ada County Highway District wants it that way? Centers: Maybe the developer can address it. We are going to get the developer back up and maybe he can address it. Shreeve: Did you attend the Public Hearing at ACHD? Smith: I had no idea that they had one. If had I known it I would have been there and I was -- Centers: Let me interrupt. Smith: Yes, sir. Centers: I was here on July 11th -- was our first hearing, was that correct? When we were all here before. Yes. I mean we met then, did we not Mr. Smith and we talked about that Teare and ACHD. If you have any clout there -- there was one lady that knew somebody on the Commission, go after it and go to the meeting. Smith: And she was told that there was nothing to be -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 26 of 112 Centers: So I'm going to contradict your comment that you didn't know it was coming up. Smith: Didn't know that there was a -- you or somebody asked me at the July 11th if that was the date, if I had attended the ACHD meeting. I said, no, I didn't know that it occurred. Has there been another one since then? Centers: After they had another meeting -- Borup: Well, I think it was on July 10th. Centers: Was it? Borup: We had not -- they had their meeting on the 10th , we did not receive their report yet was the problem. Centers: Okay. I apologize. I thought it was after. Smith: No. I didn't -- I had no idea that it -- but anyway. I can't object any stronger. Is there -- can anybody tell me why they want to go through? Centers: Anything I hear is convenience for the neighborhoods and on the other areas. That's what I heard. Shreeve: Is the intent. Whether it happens or not may be a point of -- Smith: Yes. Mrs. Ewing was talking about that. It's my thought that the people in the subdivisions in back of us, north of us, will probably end up coming down Teare so they can get on and off at that light and that's just going to increase the traffic. The people that bought homes originally over on Jericho, they knew they were on a through street, that's the way it was laid out. I bought that lot, because I knew I was on a dead end street and now -- Borup: Well, sir, just to clarify that, that never was intended to be a dead end street, that always -- it's always been designed to continue on. Smith: Well, and -- Borup: Or the street would have gone to the property line or stopped at a house. Smith: There is another -- there is another thing I wanted to mention. From what I understand the -- that would be the east-west street is going to be right on my property line. No buffer -- is there a sidewalk there or -- I -- my fence was falling down last spring. I put up a chain link fence and -- on that south side of my property. Is there anything that anyone could do, could you advise us of how we can -- how we can keep Teare a one way -- or a dead end street? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 27 of 112 Zaremba: If I heard the applicant right, the connecting street is already moved south to add a buffer between that street and your house. Smith: How wide? Zaremba: He will come up and say -- Smith: Is there going to be a sidewalk there? Zaremba: He will have to answer that. Smith: There will be people walking by, my dogs barking at them all the time, and so on. Zaremba: One thing that ACHD does, they clearly intended this to be a stub street that led somewhere, otherwise, they would have had it be wide enough for a turnaround. They are kind of big foot. We don't get to choose where they put roads and where they tell us roads and, actually, the developers don't either. Smith: Well, I realize that. Zaremba: They come and say this is where the road is going to go and there was a stub street there, you're going to connect to it. Just referring to -- we have finally all gotten a copy of what was handed out to all of you, apparently. This is the developer's letter dated April 17th that you all got. Their drawing shows their intent not to connect to that street, so they are responding to big foot telling them they have to. Smith: Is ACHD just like the king, they wave their magic wand and -- Zaremba: On roads, yes. Centers: The only thing that I would ask if staff has any recollection of City Council and Planning and Zoning overriding a demand by them. Has there ever been that occasion? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there has been. If the city requests something -- Centers: Something similar to this? McKinnon: Sure. If you can refer back to Sutherland Farms where you guys requested them to put in bollards, where ACHD did not request them to put in bollards. Centers: Yes but that's a little different then having a through street. Borup: There is still connection between two subdivisions. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 28 of 112 McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, further note to that -- make those two notes. One's a sub note to the speaker and I will address that first. Your property, if I got it right, is just right down on the corner? Smith: Yes. Right there. McKinnon: You asked about the buffer. There is 10-foot buffer, plus a sidewalk, and three trees adjacent to your property, according to the Landscape Plan. It would be required -- yes. I have got it right here. You're more than welcome to come over to my table and take a look at the -- Smith: I was just looking at this and it shows no trees there. Borup: That was the original, I think, before it was revised. Centers: And, Mr. Smith, I think the developer, you know, would much prefer that that street didn't go through. They would have more developable land. Smith: That's two of us. Centers: They would have more land to put buildings on. Smith: That's two of us. I think you will find a few more people here tonight that have that same concern. I want to be a good neighbor to these people. They are going to be there and, you know, I can't go off with a baseball bat and stop them. I'm not sure that I want to, but they are going to be there and I want to get along with them and be friends. I guess ACHD is the enemy and what can we do? Thank you very much. Borup: Thank you. Centers: Thank you, Mr. Smith. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just one more note and I never got quite through that. When we went through a subdivision off of Eagle Road, it was a road that was proposed to be private. ACHD said we want this to remain private, the City Council requested that that road become public and ACHD had to bend to the request of the city to make that a public road. Yes, we can override ACHD. Borup: Yes, sir. Miller: My name is Gene Miller and I live at 1855 North Teare. It would be the second lot north from Tammy Street coming in. When we -- no. Next one up. There you go. When we first read the letter on our door, the one that you have there, I was impressed with their intentions. I was here -- I guess it's been two years ago when we had other people that were planning on developing in there and we had major concerns, the traffic on Teare. They wanted to have it all the way through to Fairview and some of the other Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 29 of 112 items that they were going to -- or had proposed and we took issue with. These people, according to their letter, answered all of our objections to that one prior before. I was very impressed with it. I'm here today now, because I'm a little bit concerned, because things have been changed and been brought up moving from a two-story apartment complex, which I didn't have a problem with in my backyard, to a three-story. That I thought was a bit much and would deal, then, with privacy as a neighbor. The reduction of a berm, privacy berm, the elimination of a wall or a fence on the top of a berm, this also I have a problem with. If that was reinstated and across the back of my property and my house, a sensible security berm, well landscaped, didn't have to have a fence or a wall, but shrubs enough to block noise and to give privacy, I think would be acceptable. I would like to hear if they would be willing to do that. That's my concern. Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Mr. Miller, a couple -- this question is back on the -- on the buffering. The letter that originally went to you was 30-foot and from what I read it didn't really specify, it just said fencing, berms, trees, et cetera. It could be a mixture, I guess but would you rather see a 30-foot buffer or perhaps a 20-foot buffer with a berm and a fence on top? Miller: That would be nice. I'm not asking for a mountain or a cliff. Borup: Well, they can't do that they can't maintain them. Miller: Sure. Borup: Yes. They need to be something they can mow or whatever. I just wanted to see which way you're leaning. What would be your preference? Miller: I could have an option of both, either way. What I'm after is a certain amount of privacy and security. If it requires a fence on the top of the berm, that accomplishes that, then that would be great. If that's not acceptable, then a reasonable amount of shrubbery, landscaping, trees, at the top of the berm to give privacy and maybe a little bit of deterrent, then that would be good. Just to have a bare berm 20-foot or whatever just as a kind of token is not acceptable to me. Borup: One of the concerns of other projects is a fence on top of a berm and then you have got the space between that and the existing neighbor's fence as kind of a hidden area in there and I don't know if that's a good solution. Miller: I could see where that would be a maintenance problem. Borup: Well, not necessarily maintenance, but kids getting in there and doing things. It was more of a security safety thing. Miller: I can see that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 30 of 112 Borup: Probably but -- okay. Thank you. Centers: Mr. Willard. Miller: Miller. Centers: Miller. Excuse me. You mentioned reference to three-story buildings being referenced earlier. I don't see it in the letter. Miller: No. I didn't either. I said two story. Centers: I don't see that either. Maybe I'm -- I really looking for it. I don't see any reference to the height of the buildings or how many stories or -- Miller: It was my wish, then, when I saw that. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Miller: Somewhere a lot of us were what we had heard and I believe another neighbor said that he had gotten a phone call and was told that it was going to be that. I was almost positive that I had read it. Like I said, maybe it was wishful thinking. Three stories I have got a problem with it. Centers: Thank you. Miller: You bet. Borup: Does anyone else have anything new? Kitston: My name is Cheryl Kitston, 1016 Clarene, and I have never gotten an opportunity to a Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting before, so this is my first opportunity that I have gotten. This has been interesting to me. I do have a question. I have been in this neighborhood for a little over 21 years and when I moved in and built the house -- this is more directed at the water issue. I was told that one of the reasons they couldn't sink my foundation farther was because of the artificially high water table in the area and so I was just curious about the ponds, you know, going in, in that area and how is the water table these days for, you know, our subdivision. I know that some of the homes that were put at the front of the subdivision also had to have like some sumps put in them, because they had water in the crawl space. I would be, just from an engineering standpoint, curious, you know, about -- if you add water that's always standing and always in ponds, what would that mean to our surrounding area. I was told it was artificially high because of the irrigation in the area. Then I concur with Dana on some of the issues with the pressure of the water. It seems strange that you would have both things occur, but I know that I get like frost in the wintertime or I was told that was partly because of that high water. I dug a low patio that's not that deep and I hit water. I would be a little concerned about ponds in that area. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 31 of 112 Centers: You mean mosquitoes and the like? Kitston: No. I'm talking about what it does to the water level for those surrounding homes. I mean mosquitoes, yes, and you said you wanted it in motion. Centers: Yes and that's addressed. Kitston: Yes. Borup: And the ponds are tied into the existing ditches that are already there. Kitston: But the ditches are pretty low and the water isn't that high in there, but to me, that is more of a lower drainage and they are not that deep. What I would envision with ponds is that we are talking about higher water levels. Zaremba: And if I interpret your question, you're wondering if the seepage out of the ponds would raise your water level. Kitston: Right. Right. Zaremba: Your underground water level. Kitston: My underground water level. I just -- Zaremba: We'll see if somebody can answer that. Centers: And in some developments the ponds are fed from the high water table. Kitston: I thought about that. Centers: Especially near the river, but I'm not an engineer. Kitston: Okay. I wanted to make sure that that was just addressed. Then I just wanted to say that I concur with a lot of the comments going in here. I'm just going to say it again about the thoroughfare, because I knew when I moved in there, yes, there was -- you know, there was potentially an opening there in the future. On the other hand, I don't know how many of you have visited that area, but if that was a subdivision, that's one thing, you get to know your neighbors a little bit more. We are talking about constant transition and change within the apartment complex. You know how fast people are already coming down Jericho -- and I know that personally when I have trouble getting out on Jericho to Fairview, I take a cut over to Chateau to right there to go out, especially in the wintertime when I can't see and it's slippery. I have a concern about not so much people coming from Fairview in, but I see people really funneling the other direction through there and coming down both Clarene and -- Borup: Some of the existing neighbors in the subdivision? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 32 of 112 Kitston: Well, not just existing neighbors, when you get people who just cut across from the Chateau light on Locust Grove, but also I don't know -- how many of you have gone over there and just -- I mean look at the layout? Borup: I have been through there a lot, but it's faster to go down the other way than cut across the subdivision. Kitston: Okay. Well, it's not always the fast way. I mean I do it sometimes because of safety, especially in the wintertime when I'm looking for a light. Especially if we get snow around here and you can't see to get out on, you know, the middle lane and stuff. So I find myself funneling through areas that are safer, which means lights. That's just my two cents worth. Thanks. Borup: Is there anyone else? Vaught: My name is Steve Vaught from Hopkins Financial Services. I'm the author of the letter that you're looking at there. Borup: Good. Vaught: First of all, I'd like to apologize to the Commission and to the people here at the Public Hearing about the mistrust that has been perceived or anything of that nature. When we first started this project, as you can see when I sent out the letter in April, what we were doing is we took some standards of what we thought it would take to make a good development. We wanted to find out what opposition would be out there, to see if this project would be feasible. The thing we wanted to do was we always wanted to be open and work with the neighbors, incorporate things within the plan that would make them happy and to make the project successful. We also wanted to create an image for Meridian and raise the bar on the level of the type of commercial development that would go in with extra landscaping, water amenities, and things of that nature. To address the issue with ACHD, we went to the ACHD hearing, nobody was there. It was quite shocking to me that ACHD does not have to notify the neighbors of the Public Hearings. We did not know that. If we would have known that, I would have been more than happy to canvass the neighborhood again to let you guys know to be there to say, hey, you know, we'd like the emergency access only through our subdivision. That is one thing that we have no control over. Yes, we are in support of what you would like to do in bollarding off the road, not allowing our traffic into your neighborhood and vice-versa. Secondly, we wanted to create an image with the subdivision. I don't think I ever addressed a two-story or a three-story building. I think some of them may be confusing maybe what Leroy Atwood presented years ago within the project to the development. What we wanted to do was we wanted to create landscaping -- a nice landscaping buffer in the project to create separation between the neighbors and such to create the privacy in that. When we first put out 30 feet, we didn't know if it would be 30 feet or anything like that. As development -- as we all know, development is constantly changing. When we first looked at the plan, we proposed 196 units. We have decreased that size. We think we have a great plan, we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 33 of 112 want to work with the neighbors. We have incorporated changes, and I just wanted to let you know, that, you know, the mistrust -- I think ACHD was a huge issue and that is something that we had no control over. Centers: Excuse me. You don't offer up a Rembrandt and then deliver paint by numbers. Especially put it in writing and deliver it to the neighbors. You don't paint a beautiful picture and then start pulling things away. I had to say that. Vaught: No. Point well taken. Borup: I think some of the Commissioners may have some question, too. If not, I have a list of them. I don't know if you or Doug would best answer them or not, but – that, too, why would you put a 30-foot buffer in your letter and then change that design when it comes to us? Vaught: Because we hadn't consulted with The Land Group that had done the landscaping architecture on the project. We thought it would take a 30-foot buffer and it only took a 20-foot buffer for what we were trying to accomplish within what the parking and everything would work with within our subdivision. Borup: Wouldn't it have been more reasonable to say a 20 to 30-foot or something and give yourself some leeway in your written letter? How about the fencing? Your letter mentioned fencing. At this point, it looks like it's -- Tamura: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can kind of kind of address all the issues that were brought up first and then take some questions. Borup: Yes. Why don't you go through one -- can you also specify which of the buildings are two stories and which are three stories? Is that A, B and C? Tamura: Mr. Chairman, my name is Doug Tamura, 499 Main Street. The first issue was on the water pressure. One of the requirements that we have been working with the Public Works on is that we are going to go ahead and extend and loop the water system from Teare down to Fairview and so it will be a loop system. Hopefully that will help the domestic water supply. Borup: I was going to mention that and maybe Bruce would have some comment, but normally as development increases in an area, the water pressure improves. Tamura: Yes. I think just by looping it through it should help the system. As far as the irrigation and the water table, we have done water -- we have done a soils test out there. The water table is relatively high, six feet, but one of the things that we hope will happen is even though we will have these open ponds, that probably 85 percent of Settler's will go from open to ditch to pipe. Hopefully it should help some of that and I think the sedimentation of the ponds will help seal the ponds off. I don't know if there Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 34 of 112 will be a substantial change, but I think that whole area of Meridian, because of the caliche underneath, is -- maintains a relatively high water table. Borup: Doesn't the water in this area flow to the northwest? Tamura: Yes. Everything flows northwest now. Zaremba: Now you're using some terms that the general audience may not be up to speed with, piping and caliche and that sort of thing. Tamura: Hardpan. Yes. I think it's got such a hard layer of hardpan underneath that it keeps the water up above. I think one of the things that are we looking at design wise in our drainage is that it requires that we penetrate through that hardpan level and try to get as much the water down below if we can. On the traffic issues, you know, beyond the extension of Teare Avenue, one of the policies that the Highway District has is their recommendation that they only allow stoplights at half-mile increments. The western edge of our property is exactly one half mile between Locust Grove and Meridian Road, which are section line roads. We are at a half section lines at that point. The problem with Jericho is Jericho is too close to Locust Grove to allow -- policy wise to allow a stoplight at Jericho and so that's why they recommended the stoplight on our property versus Jericho. On the design issues, all of our buildings are what's called -- considered a two and a half story buildings. They are basically a three-story building, but the first floor is a bermed area, which, by Fire Department and UBC, is considered a basement. In regards to the people to the north, we only have two buildings that are up, you know, on the northern portion. Everything else is designed around these courtyards. The two buildings that are up there are 100 feet plus from that fence line and, like I stated in the previous hearing, that the only thing that we have on the backside are bedrooms and so there is no daily public space that will face the neighborhood. As far as the lady that was on Clarene on the corner, we don't have any buildings that will be -- that will face her property. The end walls of all of these buildings do not have windows on them, unless it's required by design review, but typically, all these end units will be blanked off. In dealing with the area down here, the gentleman that spoke about his house, again, we will have no windows against that -- that property down there. Again, we have only got one other building, again, 100 feet plus away from the neighborhood as far as the design of our project. The landscape issues that we talked about is -- I think what we'd like to propose to the Planning and Zoning Commission is essentially a compromise that I think since we have got this fence issue that it seems like it's a big thing. That we would at least be willing to go ahead and install a new six foot high cedar fence with metal posts. I think the problem that happens with fencing in the posts all rot out after a five or six year period. It's not so much the pickets, but the posts, and so I think that what we would be willing to do is include an additional condition that we would go ahead and fence both the north and east property lines of our apartment complex with a six foot high cedar fence with metal posts. I think our thought was is that we will put it as close to our property line as possible, so that if they wanted to reuse the existing fence to put on the backside of our fence to make a double fence. If they just want to -- or at their option we could go Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 35 of 112 ahead, remove their fence, and just live with our fence. We can give all the neighbors pretty much that option. In lieu of that, what we'd like to do is be able to maintain our 20-foot setback and do the trees that we showed in our revised Landscape Plan. Then as far as Mr. Smith on the corner of Teare Avenue, what we will do with him is we will sit down and work out a landscape buffer on our 10 feet that will work for him. I think that when we come in for the commercial development we will go ahead and come in with a detailed Landscape Plan that will buffer his house above and beyond what got shown on our Master Plan. Zaremba: His corner is part of your future development, not your immediate development? Borup: We need get it on the testimony, unless you want to talk with him separate, but we need to get you on the microphone. Let's let Mr. Tamura finish first and then -- Tamura: Were there any questions? Borup: Commissioners? Shreeve: Yes I have got just one question, just -- I guess preferably, back to the extension of Teare Road. You would prefer not to have that, if you could wave a magic wand, or have you kind of gotten used to the idea or -- Tamura: There are two things of the criteria that were important to us. One is the stoplight was probably number one priority for us on the success of our project and circulation of having the parking. I think part of it is how the Highway District weighs out where there are traffic lights is merited on traffic flow and overall function of what it does to the arterial. They felt like the enhancement of the neighborhood, traffic circulation, you know, Jericho and Teare, you know, and plus the accommodation of our traffic was what merits that light. Now whether that changes because it's bollard off, you know, that's something I don't -- I can't answer. Our preference, like you see in the original concept, was if we could accomplish the light without the road extension that was by far our best avenue. One is, you know, we do a lot of development and we knew that traffic is always probably number one and number two concerns of the neighborhood. We thought if we could eliminate the traffic issue from the neighborhood and protect them, that we would have a lot better at being able to have the control to develop the project like we thought. Again, the Highway District has their ideas about what's highest and best. I think that potentially in the future, as -- you know, if it's Fairview, it's going to keep getting busier as time goes on and typically knowing how many homes are going to be built north of Fairview that they see this light as a fairly important element of that whole traffic circulation of how neighborhoods get onto Fairview. You know, yes, we support, you know, to close it off if at all possible, but in the long term future I think we at least need a dedicated right of way and that potential is always there, you know, as Meridian grows. Yes, we support the bollards, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 36 of 112 Zaremba: Do I understand that is was your impression from the Highway District that you may not have qualified for a signal light if you did not include traffic that came from the neighborhood? Tamura: I think the only way I can answer that, I think it enhanced our situation. Our project is large enough, you know, with the out pads, the commercial development, and the size of our apartment complex that it warranted it, you know, on its own. It definitely enhanced it by knowing that it took some pressure off the neighborhood. I think one of the things the Highway District looks at is overall enhancement with the light and so it's a combination of traffic control on Fairview and potential helping out neighborhoods. It's a combination of that. Zaremba: Just a thought that occurs to me and I will throw this out and I can get shot down if necessary. Would there be any value in making the extension of Teare that makes the curve a one-way street out of the subdivision, but not into the subdivision? Not your subdivision, the existing neighborhood -- one-way out of the existing neighborhood? Tamura: Yes. That's an interesting concept. Yes. Zaremba: Just a thought. Tamura: No, I think that's -- Zaremba: I don't know what ACHD would do with that. Meridian has fought one-way streets for some time and so I don't know if that's a good idea or not. Tamura: One of the things that the Highway District looks at on this light -- and, you know, one of the neighbors had mentioned it as far as the Jericho location, is that it will enhance the Jericho circulation, because it will create traffic breaks. Right now, you have got a whole mile that by the time the light changes at either 1st or Locust Grove, that traffic, you know, can close those gaps. You know, once you have a traffic light that's only, you know, less than a mile away from Jericho, you will have enough break in the traffic that traffic heading south on Jericho trying to make a left on Fairview will be able to make that access a lot easier, you know, without having a light. You know, that's some additional things that will happen in the neighborhood. Now as that time span gets longer for people to make that left hand on Jericho, then what's going to happen is they will start moving on down and start to come down here and use the light? When that happens I'm not sure. Centers: If you could, you have a staff report, and, you know, maybe take a couple minutes starting on Page 10, Conditional Use Permit site specific. If you could just review each one and tell us if you agree or -- because we hope to -- Borup: I'd rather hear -- we should discuss the ones that he disagrees with. The ones he agrees with we don't -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 37 of 112 Centers: The ones you have a problem with. Exactly. Tamura: You know, we pretty much concurred with staff's conditions and the only thing I would request is that we just go ahead and add a -- you know, whether it's Condition 15 that the applicant fence the northeast and east property line with a six foot fence. Centers: Yes so that -- but the above 14, you agree with all of those? Tamura: Yes. We can pretty much live with those. Centers: Okay. Borup: Did you have some more? Centers: No. Borup: I'd like to get back on the buffering a little bit. Nothing has been mentioned on berms and I don't know if you want my feeling on that or if you'd like to comment on it. Tamura: Mr. Chairman, I think the one -- the one thought that I had on the berm is, one, it becomes a maintenance issue and particularly where you're trying to go up and back down to the ground level. Typically berms don't work where you have a fence sitting on the top of a berm, because all of a sudden you're berming the neighbors -- you have to get some kind of easement to berm the neighbors property to bring it back down to ground. The other thing that happens is we have got this public pedestrian way and I think that as the berm gets higher that all of a sudden we have, you know, people looking in your backyard on this pedestrian pathway. To me it seems like by having a six-foot fence on your property line, it provides a lot more privacy than potentially having a berm on our side that's going to have a pedestrian path on the top. Borup: I agree with the fence location. It doesn't really make sense on top of a berm with the other aspects it's got, but I also feel that a small berm with some nice dense landscaping on top handles the buffering issue. As far as the safety and the security, a fence on the property line I feel is the best way to go. As far as a good buffer and a berm with landscaping is going do the most -- I mean, you know, a three-foot berm is going to take care of car headlights, any other landscaping on top of that is going to take care of noise and screening. I don't think -- I mean it may be a little bit of an issue. I don't think having the dirt available is probably an issue, not with all the roads you have got to scrape and -- Tamura: Yes. I think at least from the southeast corner of our project up to where the Jackson Drain is going to go, I'm assuming that we'd like to leave that level, because of the pedestrian path that's going to fall inside that 20 foot area. We could have some -- you know, some berming on the backside, if that's a preference of the Commission. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 38 of 112 Borup: You're thinking you don't have enough room on the east side to do some berming? Tamura: Well, we could do some small berming, but, again, it's more the maintenance issue. I think our goal on this overall project, you know, both on Fairview and a willingness to go ahead and enhance that main entrance coming into it, is that we want to do a first class job of landscaping, both on the apartment complex and the street frontages. Borup: And is that pathway 10 feet also? Tamura: Yes so it's 10 feet from Teare all the way up to the northwest corner. Borup: It's kind of hard to get a 10-foot path and a 20-foot buffer and have a berm. Tamura: Typically what we tell our clients is that the best bang for our buck, especially long term, is overuse of trees. I think what our thought is with all the tree canopies and stuff. One is -- you know, we are potentially going to create areas that are going to be difficult to do a lot of landscaping. We'd like to do a real nice job with the tree canopy all the way around both the north and the east property to create that long-term buffer. Borup: What's a reasonable berms that could accommodate a pathway and maybe with meandering height also. Two feet? Tamura: Yes. We could live with two feet. Zaremba: So you just -- to clarify, Mr. Chairman, what you're thinking of is that the fence would be on top of the two feet berm or the meandering pathway would be on top of the two feet berm? Borup: I'd rather see the pathway on the west side of the berm, at least on the east of the project. I mean that's -- and try to get the landscaping between the pathway and the residences. A 10 foot wide path is -- doesn't leave a lot of room, unless you had a meandering pathway. Tamura: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I think the goal of Tom Kuntz was for the pathway to follow the Jackson Drain as close as possible, to use the bank of the drain as part of the amenity. That's why it's going up the east side, you know, and then starting on the Jackson Drain and then -- Borup: Once it hits the Jackson Drain that's still open right? Tamura: Yes. Borup: But the pathway that runs north and south was the one I was really referring to. Or the buffer between the neighborhoods. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 39 of 112 Zaremba: If I'm interpreting your Landscape Plan, you have that pathway surrounded by a lot of trees. Tamura: Yes. That's the plan to meander through the trees. With the amount of trees we are going to put in here, I don't know if there is going to be a lot of room for additional landscaping. Borup: Well, no, you have got solid -- you couldn't get any more trees in than what the plan is showing, so you will have a pretty solid screen. Still it might seem a little bit tight there. On the north -- on the north a three-foot berm would not be a problem, as you stated. Tamura: No. Zaremba: My thinking is on the east side, the issue that he raises that if you raise the pathway, then, essentially, a person walking on the pathway only has a four foot fence between them and the property, because where you're walking is two feet taller. The meandering pathway with trees appeals to me more than having a berm there. Borup: I think you're right. That would screen it more, because doing a pathway and doing a berm doesn't probably accomplish anything there. At least not as far as privacy. Zaremba: Just on the east section. Borup: Right. Just on the east. Zaremba: Yes. Centers: And then maybe it jumped over me, but item two on Tom Kuntz's letter, the buffer that he was wanting -- excuse me, the landscape buffer along the pathway there in the Jackson Drain area. Did we address that where -- we talked about it earlier. You're in agreement with that? Tamura: Yes. We can work that out. Centers: You wanted a compromise on item three. You wanted five feet in between the nine parking spaces, leave those nine parking spaces, and do a five-foot buffer there. Tamura: What we will do is we will -- our proposal is we will go ahead and shift the parking lot and the building south to accommodate our landscape buffer between the proposed path and the buildings. Between the proposed paths and the parking lot. Centers: Right. Tamura: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 40 of 112 Centers: Okay. Borup: And you will be able to get with Mr. Smith and talk about -- Tamura: Yes. Borup: -- some denser buffering? Tamura: My thought on Mr. Smith is since that will be kind of Phase 2 of our commercial, that when we come in with that we can sit down with him prior to bringing in the final detailed Conditional Use on our commercial and show exactly what we are planning on doing for him. Borup: Any other questions from any Commissioner? Thank you. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff. On Item 1 under site specific Page 10 couldn't that be addressed when the commercial is developed one at a time? Does that have to be addressed tonight? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the reason why this is included in this report is because they are requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a specific project, which is the apartment and a conceptual approval of the project to the south. We wanted to make sure in no uncertain terms that we are not giving any approval for the project to the south. Centers: Okay so that's all you're saying? McKinnon: Correct. Centers: I got you. Borup: T he second sentence there. Centers: Yes. Well, they recommend significant changes to the concept shown, including more pedestrian walkways, et cetera, and I think that would be addressed when they come back, correct? McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: Okay. You're just going on record tonight. McKinnon: Absolutely. Grigg: I'm sorry. May I ask a question? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 41 of 112 Borup: You need to state your name again. Grigg: Dana Grigg, 2013 Clarene Street. Borup: Yes. Grigg: You seem to be reading something that's unavailable to the rest of us and I'm wondering how we can have that available as far as the proposals or if what's discussed in this meeting will -- we can have access to it, because I know we were looking through our agendas going I can't find that page. That would be helpful to us, so that we won't come up here speaking like -- you know, from up here instead of facts. Is that something we can get from the city or -- Borup: Yes. That's available at the City Clerk's Office. Grigg: And how -- Borup: A lot of it is -- a lot of it is reiterating things that are in the Development Ordinances -- Grigg: Thank you. Borup: -- and et cetera. I think pretty much everything that's pertinent we have brought up. Grigg: Okay because I'd to like review the -- Borup: I mean there were 14 staff items. Grigg: Okay. Borup: Some of them -- like it says all developments must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. I don't know if that's a concern to the neighborhood. Grigg: Well, I can't walk straight sometimes, so it would help. Borup: Some of it's construction -- anyway, a lot of it -- some of it is things along that line. I think the others that -- Grigg: That would be very helpful. The second thing is -- and I'm not -- even though my training is as a teacher, I don't mean to chew out Hopkins for their letter, but I would like to know of anything else under that -- that said facts for the proposal aren't really facts now. I mean we have gone through a lot of them and we have changed them, but my concern now is on the commercial. I know that that has to take another step, but from my understanding, what you said that the apartment complex is going to go in first. Now that means the commercial complex is going to go in second and I'd like to live Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 42 of 112 next to a Barnes & Noble, but now I'm not sure if it's going to be like a discount bookstore that sells comics or something. Borup: That was what Commissioner Centers was referring to is the commercial will be under a Conditional Use process and so those will come in -- Grigg: So what was the -- Centers: Well, it was stated -- in their defense they used the word the intention -- Grigg: The intention. Okay. Centers: -- is to have a bank and two restaurants and -- such as a Barnes & Noble. They just used that for -- that's all speculation. Grigg: But that's why I -- I don't want to use the word lies, but it was a little deceitful. Centers: That isn't. Grigg: Well, I mean what was before as far as the facts and the way it was -- the way you said it was Rembrandt and then it was paint by the numbers. Borup: I think that was probably referring to the 30-foot buffer and -- Grigg: Okay. Centers: Exactly. Grigg: The other thing was -- what's the time table for this as far as -- they said 2004. I mean what's going to happen to the front of this property when you have the back being developed first? As far as commercial. I mean are you going to have to clear the fields and make the roads first? Centers: We'll have them address that. Grigg: Okay. That's one concern I have. Centers: Okay. Grigg: Well, I have many, but thank you. Borup: I might clarify some of that. Fairview Avenue will be fully improved before the apartments will be occupied. How much of the entrance street is improved -- that would just be Fairview at this point? McKinnon: The entrance would have to be improved to ACHD standards. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 43 of 112 Borup: The street itself, but as far as landscaping -- McKinnon: Correct. Borup: -- is what I was -- the landscaping comes with the development of that phase. McKinnon: That's correct. Borup: The fully developed street with Fairview fully developed with landscaping. Did you have a -- Zaremba: Well, there is a standing requirement of any project, if a portion of it remains undeveloped for any time it at least has to be cleared of any weeds and -- Borup: Right. Zaremba: -- it can't just grow into a wild field. Borup: Another quick question, sir? Howell: I was wondering -- Borup: You need to state your name for the record. Howell: Lynn Howell, 789 East Willowbrook. I was wondering if we could go to an eight-foot fence, instead of a six-foot fence. The six-foot fence -- a 10 year old could hop over it -- climb it and over the top of it and an eight-foot fence, nobody is going to be hopping over the fence. Borup: The city ordinary has a height restriction on fence to six feet. Howell: So can we make it so that a 10 year old can't just walk up and hop over it? I mean -- Borup: That's a pretty good 10 year old that can jump a six-foot fence. Howell: Well, come to our neighborhood and you can watch it. You can watch the kids get out of Chief Joseph and -- Borup: Yes. I wanted to mention that, that you can stand on the bracing you can get over it, but if you have got the smooth side -- Howell: Seventy-two inches is -- I mean a six year old is 40 inches tall. I know my granddaughter is six foot. She went to Roaring Springs and she made it. The deal is a five-foot kid can hop a six-foot fence and go right over the top of it just like it's -- that's Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 44 of 112 why -- that's why I wondering why the restriction on the six-foot fence to an eight-foot fence? Borup: That's the City Ordinance. Howell: Well, why is that? What's the reasoning? Borup: We are not going into that question, but I -- as far as more children coming from this -- from your neighborhood and going to be coming here to these buildings, the people in the apartments have no reason to jump over the fence. Where are they going to go? They have got nowhere to go to. Howell: If your kid is with my kid at his house and he is supposed to be home at 4:30, it is 4:25, and he's supposed to be home at 4:30, believe me, he will go over the top of that fence. Borup: Okay. That's something that would have to be applied for a Fence Variance. Do you have something new, sir? Roslin: I just have one clarification if I could. Borup: Okay. Roslin: Doug Roslin, 801 East Willowbrook Drive. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have addressed the berm on the east side of this subdivision development. I'm concerned about a berm on the north side. Borup: The north side is one we addressed. They said there would be a three-foot berm on the north side. Roslin: But, again, a six-foot fence and a three-foot berm, when they walk along the top of that they are looking right down into -- Borup: Well, there is no pathway there so you'd rather not have a berm? Roslin: I'd just soon not have a berm. No berm and a six-foot fence would be acceptable to me. Borup: How many of the people on Willowbrook would not -- would rather not have a berm? Anybody on Willowbrook wants a berm? Okay. I think that's what the developers would rather do anyway. I thought there was a lot of concern on the privacy issue. Zaremba: Well, addressing that with a fence and the trees would make it pretty solid. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 45 of 112 Kinney: Dennis Kinney, 1835 North Teare Avenue. We were talking about berms and talking about fence and then we talked about distance. The 30-foot easement would be by far better with the berm, make walkways, you know, far enough out. We want the privacy. If you have a car coming in, park, you got the lights shining through the fence, car doors shutting, so the further distance, berms, would block the light out, take some of the noise. Borup: So you want a berm? Kinney: Yes, I do and I'm not -- Borup: None of your neighbors do. Kinney: We are on the east side. Centers: You're right along here? Borup: That's where the pathway is. Kinney: I'm the fourth house -- Borup: That's the east side, so they would be up on top of that berm walking along. Kinney: Well, you know, just like Mr. Centers said, they dangle the carrot, now they pull it back. Thirty feet -- if they want a walk path, keep them on the west side, get it away far enough, and get it away from the berm. Still have the fence and still have the berm. Privacy, you know, noise, lights, that's all we want. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Are we done with the -- I think we are done with the public testimony, so give Mr. Tamura a chance for final comments. Tamura: Mr. Chairman, maybe -- Doug Tamura, 499 Main Street. Maybe one other thing that we would be willing to do would be on the -- on the landscape buffer on the side we have got that 10 foot pedestrian pathway -- Centers: East side? Tamura: On the east side of the apartment complex, why don't we go ahead and just plan on going the 30 feet and then that way it will give us plenty of room to meander the path. What we'd like to do is keep it flat, though, so there is no berm, so it just increases to a wider width and they will give plenty of room to buffer the neighborhood. We have got plenty of room to go ahead and shuffle our buildings and -- Borup: If you have a wider path, maybe you should be able to put the trees between the path and the subdivision then? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 46 of 112 Tamura: Yes. Right. Borup: But now you have got them on both sides because of the meandering, but you said you could get them all on the -- Tamura: Well, I think we'd still like to kind of meander through trees, but I think we can deal with that affecting our parking and stuff, so -- Centers: And why don't you just go ahead and do the 30 feet on the north side? Tamura: What happens is as the setbacks on the outside increase and what it does is it decreases the amount of green space that we have for the common areas for the apartments. Our thought is -- the design of our project is to create as much open space for the tenants that live inside of it, so as these things shrink this direction, then all this interior stuff starts to shrink up, so -- Centers: Boy, that's a good point, because we are thinking of the neighbors here, primarily, and if it shrinks the open space within and still holds it above our minimum, then I think everybody is happy. You know, I think you would still have a good project if you decreased that 10 by whatever and -- you know. Borup: I mean from past projects a good, dense, landscaped area -- I mean another 10 feet really doesn't make a lot of difference. Zaremba: Well, along the north border -- Borup: On the north there is no pathway, so those trees could be in there -- Zaremba: Pretty thick. Borup: Yes. Centers: Well, then I think everybody is happy totally. We give them 30 feet on each side -- well, not totally. Zaremba: No, not 30 feet -- 20 feet along the north, but it's not a pathway, so it's fully landscaped. Centers: Well, I mean if they do 30 feet along the north, too, and to the east. Zaremba: I believe he's declining to do 30 feet along the north. Centers: Well, he doesn't want to. Tamura: Where kind of our critical area is, again, where we are fighting this pathway that comes through the middle of our project, so we have to maintain as much space Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 47 of 112 this direction, we can live with shrinking our project, you know, east-west this way, but if it shrinks this way, then it starts to -- Zaremba: Have to come up with a pathway along the -- Tamura: Yes. Well, we are trying to put these buildings north to accommodate as much space for the pathway, you know, it's difficult for us to accommodate the additional ten feet on the north side. Our preference, if it's possible, would be to, you know, widen the 30 feet on just the east side only. Borup: Maybe just let the audience see that Landscape Plan. That might help a little bit, too. Tamura: So what I'm talking about is this orange dotted line that come up here, the City Parks Department has a policy that they'd like to create a -- Zaremba: Mr. Tamura, would you grab that mike over there. Thank you. Tamura: The City Parks Department has a policy that they'd like to create a pedestrian path through the whole city and the main -- one of the main pedestrian pathways is along the Jackson Drain. The Jackson Drain crosses Fairview down here and it daylights back out here. One of the discussions that we had with Tom Kuntz is to try to get the pedestrians to cross Fairview Avenue. What seemed like made the most sense would be to bring pedestrians down by the Lithia dealer, have them cross across Fairview, and follow this orange dotted line that would bring us up to the main entrance through here, along this pedestrian corridor here, along the north side of the Jackson Drain. Then here there is a vacant field that falls north of the mobile home park and that this pedestrian path would stay on the north side of the Jackson Drain. That's the long-term goal of what we are trying to do with the City of Meridian. Borup: No, we can't. I'm sorry. The comments need to be addressed to the Commission. I didn't hear that whole question. Would you repeat it? Mr. Hopkins, could you just repeat it? Would that just handle it? Or did you understand the question? Okay. Mr. Smith. Smith: I was just curious as to -- Borup: State your name. Smith: Jack Smith, 1751 North Teare Avenue. What are the approximate dimensions of the ponds going to be? Borup: Okay. Hopkins: Well, as the name says Fairview Lakes, we want to make the pond as big as possible and I don't know whether that's 30 feet by 50 feet or what. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 48 of 112 Centers: You need to state your name and address. Hopkins: I'm Randy Hopkins, president of Hopkins Financial, the developer. I wanted to mention -- so the pond is probably 30 by 50 feet or something and we have to get with, you know, the final design on those things, as we are not -- that's not part of this specific request. I did want to mention, though, Commissioner Centers stated about the 20 feet on the north side, because there is no pathway there, is that the reality is -- one reason to create enough common area inside is so that people focus their activities inside. That is one reason not only of people not walking along that north side fence, but you want enough -- as much common area as you possibly can inside. I just want to say as a developer I am very excited about the project. Steve has apologized for the 30-foot statement that was made. In general, our intent is to do the security and privacy for the neighborhood and do a very nice development that Meridian can be proud of. In fact, my intent, and God willing and the bankers agreeing, in general even Hopkins Financial has to have a banker, is that the -- we plan to probably move our office to that office area there. I will probably be a neighbor. That is my intent right now. In general, we want to do a nice development. I think the privacy and security issue with the fence we will do a lot of nice landscaping. I know somebody by the name of Kendall Hopkins that owns Hopkins Evergreens, so plan to do pine trees and spruce trees and he might charge me twice as much, because I'm his brother, but we will do it very nicely. Thank you. Centers: Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Smith brought up an excellent point and you touched on it. That pond right now is conceptual. Hopkins: Yes. Centers: And that's what the staff is referring to in the Conditional Use Permit for the business part of it, but the concept of the Conditional Use Permit. You're saying on record that you will have a pond there approximately 30 by 50 feet? Hopkins: Yes. Absolutely. Centers: All right. Hopkins: Absolutely. We are going to create as much of that as we can to create visually and esthetically Fairview Lakes, as much as we can. With cooperation of the Irrigation District nicely, that we can accomplish more than that. We do plan to drill I would assume the non-domestic well to supplement that water supply. It will look very nice. That is our intent. Centers: I want to ask also, engineers or anyone been consulted about the high water table and the usage of the water table as a flow to the pond, as some subdivisions utilize? I mean I -- that fills the pond. Is that the plan? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 49 of 112 Hopkins: I would say as much as possible, but the water table is probably not high enough to really materially affect that. It's going to have to be supplemented, because I think that that -- I don't know. Hydrologically I could not answer that. Centers: Depends on how deep you dig the pond. Hopkins: Yes. Centers: But it sure can help and whether it's concrete lined or -- Tamura: Commissioner Centers, to answer your question, the state water quality has a policy that when we have water tables as high as we have in this area that we can't really do underground french drains. We will take advantage of these ponds as much as possible, but typically, what we do is we design surface grass drainage swales that will accommodate most of the drainage. The overflow will probably be designed that will fill this grass drain and then dump into these ponds. We are looking at the ponds as both holding tanks and as irrigation holding tanks, so they will double besides as an amenity. Borup: Commissioners, how would you like to proceed? Centers: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close the Public Hearing and then have some discussion. I move that we close the Public Hearing. Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Maybe we want to talk about things we want to add to the staff requirements? Centers: Well, I guess the applicant saw some concerns. I think the applicant has an excellent project. I think they have approached the neighbors in the wrong way and they -- I think they would admit that. However, that doesn't deter from the nice project and I think if we can meet the neighbors' concerns, we should do so. He's agreed to a fence on the north and east side. I guess I don't disagree with the 20-foot buffer on the north side. He agreed to a 30-foot on the east side and we also want to make sure that their construction entrance is the Fairview entrance. Borup: The staff report mentions that. Centers: Right. We want -- well, they didn't mention Teare or -- Borup: Oh. Right. Zaremba: Item 4 on Page 10 add Teare. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 50 of 112 Centers: And I guess the applicant addressed -- and we could go on -- put it on record that he will address Mr. Smith's concerns with a landscape buffer when it comes time to develop that street. We can't require it at this time, because that isn't being addressed. It’s just a concept for -- Borup: And they will be back before us. Centers: It will be back here and the applicant stated -- and we are stating that they were going to take care of Mr. Smith with a landscape buffer. Borup: And I'm sure you're going to remember that one. Centers: I will never forget Mr. Smith. I think they addressed the size of the buildings. I don't know if they were like a daylight basement, but they are sunk in the ground to be two and a half stories? Borup: No. They are bermed up. Centers: Bermed up. Okay. Those are my only notations that I can think of. He agreed to all the conditions of the staff report totally and we have added. Borup: And I would -- just one comment on the buffer to the north. If they get too large, then people are going to want to start using that as a play area and a picnic area and not stay around -- Centers: Yes and I guess I agree with that. Yes. The 20-foot I agree with. Zaremba: Well, I agree. I would not want to trade spaces in the middle of the project for attractive space on the outside. As long as -- Borup: As long as they are going to have people there. Zaremba: Yes. As long as it's big enough to have trees that are a visual screen, I think the 20 is plenty. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, probably the only additional comment that I would make is the potential of putting on bollards on Teare Street. Borup: That's the other thing I had written down. Shreeve: Yes and, you know, constructing the road, putting it as is, but putting bollards there to prevent traffic. I think that's been a big issue that's been voiced here. Centers: The construction road. Maybe not but just allow for the road right of way in their property in the future and put bollards at the end of Teare. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 51 of 112 Shreeve: I would support that and I guess let the developer either construct it, I guess, if they wanted to, or just simply provide the right of way. Borup: Well, the other aspect is one of safety also. Fire access. I mean if Jericho -- you know, if Jericho has got a problem and one of these neighbors needs a fire truck in there, this is an alternate access. Centers: I think they feel secure fire wise now and they would have adequate fire protection -- or they feel they have adequate now. Borup: Well, there is an access on Jericho, but that's what -- the bollards handle that situation for emergency vehicles. Centers: Moveables, not permanent. Borup: Well, they are either movable or breakaway. Centers: Breakaway and I think that would satisfy most of the people, if it gets through the Council and gets through the ACHD. Borup: But we can still make that a recommendation from this body. Centers: I would support it. Mathes: Would this have to go back through ACHD? Borup: This is going to go to City Council and then there will be negotiation -- is that correct, there is negotiation with ACHD? McKinnon: If there are changes to the ACHD staff report, it will go back to ACHD. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I've got a couple more comments that you guys have talked about briefly that if you could address really quick. There is discussion about the Parks Plan, the Parks comments, Item Number 3, whether or not they should be allowed to have the five foot buffer, other than eliminate the nine. You guys are okay with that. The east side we talked about the buffer, requiring them to go to a 30-foot buffer along the east side of the property with the pathway, an additional 10 feet. Borup: The applicant volunteered that. Centers: Yes. Number 1 he agreed to. McKinnon: The reason why I bring it up is if you could make specific requirements, it makes it easier to write findings for us. Then the addition of the fence requiring metal posts, as the applicant suggested. I think that needs to be part of the motion as well. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 52 of 112 That's on the northwest and east side if I'm correct and proposed on the west side a fence already. They are also proposing new fence on the -- Centers: North, east, and west? McKinnon: North, east, and west. Is that correct? Zaremba: I didn't hear west, I heard north and east. McKinnon: The west as proposed on the site plan that you have in front of you, it says a new fence. It's not required underneath our conditions of approval, because it's something that is shown on the site plan. I think for clarification sense, it was like Item Number 15 and a new fence with metal posts, under 16 provides the plat to comply with the Parks Department request. Items 1 and 2, something along the lines of Item Number 17, providing a five-foot landscape buffer along the north side of the pathway adjacent to the Jackson Drain. That's Item Number 3 on the Parks. Just something along those lines that would help the attorney -- Centers: So you are saying north, east, and west on the fence? McKinnon: That's correct. Borup: Well, that's an interesting point. The plat already shows that. McKinnon: Yes. The site plan shows that. Borup: Well, it shows it existing -- Centers: Existing on the north and east. Borup: And west shows the -- Centers: Right. Okay. Borup: So that applicant already proposed on the west. Centers: And no one lives on the west and that's the reason we didn't hear about it. McKinnon: There is a mobile home park, actually. Centers: Is there? McKinnon: It's adjacent to that. Centers: Yes. Good point, Dave. Are we ready for a motion, Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 53 of 112 Zaremba: I would like to make one comment before the motion is made. Just back on the applicant and developer's letter of April 17th . I would like to commend them for making the effort to put out this letter. I think the lesson we learned is that you shouldn't speak in such absolutes, that you should provide more generalities and make it clear that it's in the planning stage when you ask for discussion. I certainly applaud the effort to contact the community, give your phone numbers, and tell them to call you if they have any questions. The tone and the intent of the letter is to be applauded and hopefully repeated in other projects, just use more generalities. Thank you for doing it. Borup: Appreciate that and good comment. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I would like to make a motion that we recommend approval to the City Council for AZ 02-011, request for annexation and zoning of 24.89 acres of land from RUT to R- 40, C-N, and C-G zone for proposed Fairview Lakes by Hopkins Financial Services, including all staff comments, in addition to site specific -- excuse me. Two comments under annex and zone. All staff comments. Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Now the one that requires a little more effort and please jump in if I miss anything. I would like to make a motion and recommend approval to the City Council for CUP 02-014, request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for a commercial building site in a proposed C-G zone and shouldn't we say C-N zone? McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: And a 192 unit residential apartment complex in a proposed R-40 zone for the proposed Fairview Lakes by Hopkins Financial Services, including all staff comments and under site specific requirements. Item 4 should read construction vehicles will enter only from the Fairview access and no other streets allowed. We would add Item 15 under site specific, a fence shall be provided by developer -- I think it was stated six- foot cedar with metal posts on the north, east, and west sides. Item 16 in reference to Tom Kuntz's request regarding the landscape and reference his memo dated August 15th , Number 1, applicant has agreed to and so required. Number 2, applicant has agreed to and so required. Number 3, application proposes a five-foot buffer between nine parking places and that would be part of my motion, the five foot buffer. End of motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 54 of 112 McKinnon: Commissioner Centers, Mr. Chairman, we probably need to revise the east side of the landscape buffer from 20 feet to 30 feet. Was that included in your motion? Centers: Thank you. Oh, yes. The applicant had proposed a 30-foot landscape buffer on the east side of the apartment complex. That would be part of the motion. We would also require bollards at the end of Teare Street, which would be the south end -- north end where it dead-ends presently. Zaremba: South end? Borup: North end of the project, south end of Teare. Centers: Correct. South end of Teare. Breakaway bollards to allow for emergency access, with no requirement for the street to be extended through the proposed C-N, C- G zone. End of motion. I think. Borup: Did you include the non-construction access on Teare already? Centers : Just said Fairview only. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I would only clarify that all staff comments refers to the memorandum of August 1st , which is a revision of an earlier one. Centers: Good. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, in the motion do you want to include the comments that you made earlier concerning Mr. Smith's buffer? Centers: Thank you, Dave. As I said, jump in and I appreciate it. As part of the motion, Mr. Smith's property on Teare, the applicant has promised to address a buffering around his property if and when that street goes in and the commercial goes in. McKinnon: And, Commissioner Centers, one more item. This is item -- this is the last sentence on Page 14 of the staff report discussing the miscellaneous application. Centers: Page 14? McKinnon: Page 14, the recommendation for Planning and Zoning staff. If you could, please, add this to your recommendation. The applicant shall be required to submit for a miscellaneous application for the approval of a private street. That's the street running north south. That will not be a public street until it's dedicated by the recordation of the final plate. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 55 of 112 Centers: What are you saying? McKinnon: What I'm saying is the street that we are requiring will have to be approved as a private street. That street -- it's going to run north-south, is not going to be a public street until that street has been recorded as part of the Final Plat for this entire project. The applicant is unable to dedicate that through ACHD until a Final Plat is recorded. If you can, please, make it a condition of the applicant to apply for a miscellaneous application for the approval of a private street prior to their approval of the Final Plat. Centers: And I will just read it that way as part of the motion. With the development of the apartment complex prior to dedicating the new public right of way for Teare Street, which we are trying to eliminate, the Planning and Zoning -- this Commission and staff feel that applicant should submit a miscellaneous application prior to the City Council hearing for the approval of the private street and receive approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Part of motion. McKinnon: Thank you. Borup: The only other comment I had, a very minor -- you had mentioned on the bollards, breakaway. They could be breakaway or removable. I think that would be up to the Fire Department on probably what type they want. Centers: As part of the bollard part of the motion, that could be decided by the City of Meridian Fire Department, whether they be breakaway or permanent. Thank you. Borup: Does that sound like a good motion to everybody? Shreeve: It's so good I'll second it. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you. Thank everyone for being here. Would this be a good time for a short break? (Recess.) RECONVENED AT 9:37 P.M. Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from July 18, 2002: AZ 02-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 354.38 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest LLC and Daniel Gibson – south of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 56 of 112 Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from July 18, 2002: PP 02-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 856 building lots and 59 other lots on 354.38 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest LLC and Daniel Gibson -- south of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from July 18, 2002: CUP 02-012 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a PUD for 862 single family dwellings, 171 multi-family dwellings, 11 office buildings, one commercial building, one fire station lot, one city park and one private park for the proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest LLC and Daniel Gibson – south of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening and continue with Items Numbers 6, 7, and 8, Continued Public Hearing AZ 02-010, request for annexation and zoning of 354 acres RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest and Daniel Gibson. Joining those is Public Hearing PP 02-009 for a Preliminary Plat and CUP 02-012, request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development, all three on the same project. Those are continued hearings and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the third time I think we have seen this, so I will just cover the items that have changed since the last time. These items are included in the application summary, which I will just go ahead and briefly read to you. The revised report that you have in front of you reflects the changes made by the applicant in the original plan, which include, but not limited to the addition of a water feature at the entryway of the subdivision on West McMillan. If you remember, Mr. Moss was adamant about wanting a water feature down in that area. The applicant has agreed to do that and have shown that on the site plan. The relocation of drainage and open space adjacent to the Moss property, I'll let the applicant address that. On the map you have in front of you, the Moss property, if you remember, is this piece of property north of McMillan. They had added a drainage lot adjacent to his property. It's not as big as Mr. Moss has requested, but it has been a change to the site plan where there wasn't one before and the applicant has done that on the site plan. They have added the temporary turnarounds as requested on the private streets. As you remember, the temporary turnarounds included the temporary turnaround south of the apartment project and to the west side and on the northern portion of the property adjacent to the commercial lots off of Chinden Boulevard and included the temporary turnarounds for that. They have included the pathway on Lot 10, Block 2, and I believe that is -- I'll go forward to that. That was the pathway that you requested that would run through at this point. They have included a 30-foot wide pathway that would be for emergency vehicle access and for pedestrian and bicycle access. They have made the requested changes that you required at the last meeting. We were able to eliminate a number of -- a number of site specific comments. One of the issues that still remains is the need for a collector off of Ten Mile and we had a discussion amongst the Commission as to where that collector should be, if there Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 57 of 112 should be a collector at that location. The applicant attended the Parks Department meeting last night -- the Parks Committee meeting last night where the Parks Committee discussed this issue. I'll let Mrs. Bowcutt address those issues concerning the park's comments, Elroy Huff is here, and I'll have him address the park's comments that you received today. You should have a memo from Tom Kuntz dated today. I'll let Elroy address those issues. Staff feels that the Ten Mile collector that would come in at this location -- and you'll notice it's in the staff report as well, make sure you note it. We feel the best location for that would still be to line up with Anatole at some location across Mr. Bews' property. That would allow the city to have more additional land for the park. However, we cannot require that as part of this application that off-site improvements are made. We can't force Mr. Bews in providing land and so we do feel that some sort of connection should be made through this. I wrote in the staff report that staff could support a half plus 12 collectors along the south side of the park. We prefer not to see that happen if at all possible, because that takes away from the parkland. We would have a collector that would be in that place. Mr. Bews would be required in the future to finish the roadway and it would only be a half plus 12. What I mean by a half plus 12, basically half of the roadway, plus an additional 12 feet for a travel lane. Then the rest of the approval -- the rest of the construction that would be the vertical curb, sidewalk and landscaping adjacent to that on the south side would have to be put in by the developer that's adjacent to that. The majority of the construction cost would land on the developer tonight for that and the land would be from the park area, essentially. It would be just along the south side and Mrs. Bowcutt can address some alternatives to that, but staff would prefer to see something eventually come through at this location on Anatole and connect with Anatole. With that, I'd ask if there are any questions. They really have made most of the corrective requests that -- most of the requests that you made at the last meeting. The only thing that we saw as a staff as we were revising this that needed to continually discussed was the Ten Mile collector and I know that -- I saw Mr. Moss here tonight, I'm sure he still has some issues as well. I'm sure that he will bring those issues up so I'd turn the time over to you for questions and let you go with your Public Hearing. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I have a question. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, as -- Zaremba: Actually, it's a suggestion in the form of a question. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: Whether it's even possible or not. Since the applicant intends to phase this entire project from east to west -- McKinnon: Correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 58 of 112 Zaremba: Couldn't we put a condition on that they not develop this area, for instance, until there has been a connection made? I assume the Bews property is going to come up for development at some time and if the phasing on this property were such that they were not to do the west end until Bews had been through the system -- I'm just throwing out ideas not fully developed. McKinnon: This is an annexation, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is an annexation and as part of the annexation you could make a requirement, a Non- Development Agreement -- require a Non-Development Agreement as part of the Development Agreement, saying that that cannot be developed until such time. It seemed to handcuff the developer, if such a condition were in that manner saying you can't develop it until somebody else does it. That means -- Zaremba: Well, I'm assuming this would be like their fourth or fifth phase, so it's not where they are starting even. McKinnon: Phasing could go rapidly or it could go slowly. You can get into a fourth and fifth phase -- you know, Bear Creek doesn't have Phase 1 completely done, but, you know, they are into phase five and six in Final Plat. Centers: The problem with that, Commissioner Zaremba, would be the fact that Mr. Bews would have blackmail, you might say, over the developer and you can't develop that until you come through my property and now it's going to -- the price is going up. So, you know, I think that would be unrealistic. Zaremba: I can see that side, too. Borup: And we'd also like to see -- you know, just doing this area -- yes, I agree with Commissioner Centers on that. I did want to -- I forgot to mention -- I did mention that Elroy Huff is here to address the Parks Commission memo. I'll turn some time over to him before you -- Borup: I was just going to ask you that. Huff: Mr. President, Members of the Commission, I just want to say that I just saw this document this afternoon and I'm not very up to speed on anything out there at this point. If you will go over those documents, I know they had a meeting at the Parks Commission last night and went over quite a bit of this stuff and I think got some of that ironed out. I'll let Mrs. Bowcutt talk about that a little bit, I guess. I'm not going to bother to read it to you, but just go through it. Those are things that Tom had concerns on and, like I say, I know they were addressed last night. Centers: Well, I had one question, Item 3 on his letter. When the property to the south of the park is developed, we strongly recommend a single loaded street. That would apply to Mr. Bews. I mean why do we even have that on there? I guess when Mr. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 59 of 112 Bews develops that property then we can talk about single loaded streets at that time correct? Okay. Thank you. Borup: I really thought he was just alerting us to be aware of that in the future. No additional comments on the park itself? Huff: I don't have any other ones right now than what's listed right there. Borup: Was there a reason we had these comparisons on the Bear Creek Park? Huff: I have seen those before. No. I think he put that in there just for your information to kind of see what -- on those joint developments kind of what that looks like. Borup: Well, it looks like this is indicating on that particular park, the park impact fee refunds were -- exceeded 100 -- close to 156,000 -- the developer put in another 156,000 of his own money into that park? Is that what that's indicating? Huff: Yes. I think that's just for your information. I'm sure the next development is going to be a little bit different than that. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Is the applicant ready for their presentation? Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 1100 East Valli-Hi, Eagle. I'm representing the applicant. As Dave indicated, this is our third visit before you. I will keep my comments focused on the issues from the last meeting that was included in my memo. As Dave indicated, we added the two turnarounds at the end of -- we added the two turnarounds at the end of each one of these private drives and we added a private drive there. We went and added the 30-foot pedestrian outlet here and these are -- they are not reflected on this drawing, but on the -- on the white drawing. We were asked to delineate a pathway and we delineated our pathway how it works and interconnects and heads over to the park, along with the sidewalk. We reviewed the property to the east of Mr. Moss. This particular lot located directly east of Mr. Moss has been turned into a common lot. Centers: Open space now? Bowcutt: Open space. Yes, sir. We were also provided -- we went to our Landscape Architect and the Commission kind of had a hard time at the last hearing visualizing the park. You know, is there adequate frontage on Ten Mile, how could it develop based on its configuration. This is the -- this is just a concept that our Landscape Architect and our engineering firm kind of came up with. As you can see, it shows access coming off of Ten Mile, then you would have tennis courts, parking lots, basketball courts, tot lot, soccer, baseball fields. I talked last time about the fact that since we are single loading this street and those lots that they eliminated here, we have the opportunity to create parallel parking and also have a parking area, which I delineated here. As you can see, the park does have adequate size and frontage to be developed as an extremely nice facility. I will go ahead and put that up here. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 60 of 112 Centers: Could I interrupt just a minute? Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Centers: Did you determine how much of the land is lost for parking? The single loaded area, too. Bowcutt: As far as how much land is lost for parking -- Centers: Yes to parking. Bowcutt: To parking. Oh, calculated. No, sir, we did not calculate. This parking here would be within the right of way. Centers: Okay. Bowcutt: So they would not lose anything there. Centers: Is that parallel or -- Bowcutt: That would be parallel parking, yes, sir. Because there would be no driveway conflicts, so we could have a whole strip of parallel. This encroaches into the site, as does this parking area. As far as configuration of a parking ratio, we use Boise City Parks Department standards for area and number of fields, to determine number of spaces needed. Centers: And you have a -- Bowcutt: And that's what you see here. Centers: That's what you have? Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Centers: Okay. Bowcutt: When we went before the Parks Commission last night, the original -- the memo submitted to you from Mr. Kuntz dated July 18th was discussed item by item. The Parks Commission reviewed our pedestrian linkage and they determined that what we were providing was adequate. What I showed them is this particular drawing here, which, as you can see, there is a 10-foot pathway delineated going in a westerly fashion. As it comes across each intersection there will be stamped concrete. I recommended they like put some color into it to make it look like masonry work. It tends to slow traffic down. It also is pedestrian friendly. That would take place bringing pedestrians across from the north and then along this south side. As they come around the circle here, the rotary where we have the same crossings and then as we get to this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 61 of 112 point at Tines Avenue and North Goddard Creek they would transition to a detached sidewalk, which would be located within the interior of this loop. As you can see -- as you can see, the 10-foot path, asphalt path, would terminate there. I did go to ACHD staff, I worked with them, they did determine that 10 foot is what they want, and they will allow asphalt. As it comes here, it would go into a five foot detached sidewalk. We proposed four foot. The Parks Commission last night -- we offered to go up to five foot and they liked that idea. So this five foot detached sidewalk would lead right into the park. This is also -- there is a pathway coming out of that loop. The Park's Department -- or the Parks Commission agreed if we signed that pathway with directional signs stating this way to whatever community Meridian Park, that they thought our pathway network was acceptable. The second item on Tom's list was, obviously, the elimination of the lots adjoining on the east side of park, which we did. And then the third issue was the collector roadway. There was quite a discussion about should they have a collector or shouldn't they. As Dave McKinnon indicated, if a collector roadway ran across here, it's going to eat into the park site. The park site is about 25, a half acres, and the minimum size for the community park in the Parks plan is 25 and a maximum of around 30. Let me show you -- too many drawings. One thing I wanted to demonstrate is how this property to the south could potentially develop. I did meet with Mr. Varialle. I asked him point blank are you willing at this time to grant an easement for sewer, water, or any other utility to come across your property in a pseudo proposed street alignment for the Lochsa property. Mr. Varialle stated that I could go on the record to indicate that he is reluctant to provide any easements, because he does not, one, have a completely designed project on that remaining 65 acres, nor has he submitted anything for review by any agencies. He said I would not take that risk. Most developers will not, because if conditions -- market conditions change, if ordinances change or Council's change, there are many -- projects may develop differently in five years than they are today. He stated we have enough property south of McMillan in the Bridgetower project to last us anywhere seven to ten years. I don't have any intentions of submitting something on this property right now. I told him what the Parks Commission had indicated to me. They did not get on the bandwagon of extending the collector through there. There was a lot of discussion, but my take on it was we preferred to see it to the south. It would be nice if we could put some conditions on this project, but then it wouldn't -- it wouldn't do any good, because it wouldn't affect this project. We can only impose conditions on the project before us. They stated we are going on the record for information purposes to let this property owner know we will accept some type of either local or collector roadway coming in, giving us frontage along that southern boundary. I asked Mr. Varialle about potential for adding to the park site. He said, you know, I just don't want to make any commitments at this time. I have got 56 acres of open space, private open space in the Bridgetower project that we will be developing here shortly. As you can see, this is West Anatole stub street. This is the stub street to the south. All I did was pencil in extension of those connections to and how a roadway could be extended. This in no way is, you know, approved by the client who owns the 65 acres, but it just kind of gives you a visual idea of what could take place. What I told the Parks Commission last night, I would not be doing my job properly if when I laid this out I recommended that they back out from it. The Parks Commission has made it quite clear, so has the Council, we do not want lots backing Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 62 of 112 up. If they do not want lots backing up, I have no choice but either provide a single loaded local street, such as this roadway, or to come in with a collector roadway. Since you will have some traffic coming out to the west, a collector would probably be the most desirable. Borup: So are you saying Mr. Varialle would not want to give a sewer easement, because he's worried about how he might develop that 125 feet? Bowcutt: He said that he was not -- Borup: Isn't that what you have got? You have got 125 feet between that street alignment and park property? Bowcutt: One hundred twenty-five feet in width -- you mean as I go through there? Borup: No. Well, you know, width or depth from the street. Bowcutt: He would -- he said I would make no commitments at this time. He didn't even want to discuss it. Borup: I might note that he has an application coming before us here in the future. Bowcutt: Not the same property. Borup: I know. Same developer. Bowcutt: The Parks Commission -- the notes I took, the Parks Commission said that they would like to see single loaded streets on two or three sides next to the parks. They want notice given to the developer to the south that the city will extract some type of roadway vehicular access. The fourth item was the issue of reimbursement. In our application we had that five acres would be donated to the Parks Department, the remainder would be sold at the raw ground cost. We did provide a closing statement to Mr. Kuntz quite a while ago that showed the price of the property and paid by the applicant. We also ask that they look at creating kind of a park impact area for like a C- 1, a C-2, and a C-3 park. In the new Parks Plan, it talks about being able to receive some type of credits or reimbursement beyond your project if your particular park is serving a greater area. Mr. Kuntz and the Parks Commission were in agreement on item four, that reimbursement would be limited only to what funds were generated for parks from this project only. In Mr. Kuntz’s, letter -- new memo to you -- Centers: Let me interrupt again. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 63 of 112 Centers: The way I look at his new memo dated August 15th , I look at it just that way. The one you have been referring to, Mrs. Bowcutt, in my opinion, should be tossed and we refer to August 15th only. Bowcutt: Okay. Yes, sir. I just want to update you on what the -- because this is what the Parks Department reviewed last night. Centers: Okay. Well, I didn't want any confusion on that. Bowcutt: Sure. Sure. Centers: Okay. Bowcutt: I guess our only concern and that is a concern that we need to take up with the Council, not this body, is Mr. Kuntz has put a set dollar amount -- in fact, these -- they are trying to get an impact fee increase, plus our calculations don't match here. We will be reluctant to put any dollar amount but, like I said, that's an issue for the Council. Borup: Well, it could be stated that the fees, which are within the Lochsa development only, and the fees would be determined by whatever standard fees are. Bowcutt: Those were the only issues besides the water modeling that Bruce still had to work on that you asked us to either, one, revise the plan, meet with Mr. Moss, meet with Mr. Varialle and return back to you and give you an update. I feel that we have narrowed our issues way, way down. We have made concessions. We have been working with staff, Parks, and the Planning Department and Public Works and our neighbor to try to come up with a plan that meets them midway and would also benefit the community as a whole. I'd like to just submit this into the record, so it's in there. This is what I did discuss with Mr. Moss as far as what we will be doing. I just want that in the record in writing, so there is more than just verbal. Do you have any questions? Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman. Let's refer back to the August 15th memo from Tom Kuntz. I think I know where you're coming from on Item 1. First of all, I find it interesting that he doesn't mention the collector street. Not at all. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Centers: Number 2, sometimes I'm a little dense here. You refer to that -- you don't have any problem with that? Bowcutt: It's a requirement, sir, that we put I believe -- Bruce may correct me – 15-foot hard surface across -- Centers: It says 10 foot. Bowcutt: This says 10, but Public Works says 15. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 64 of 112 Freckleton: That's correct. Borup: Across where? Bowcutt: Anytime we construct sewer outside of a public right of way and we go and we have to put a 15-foot hard surface over the top and can be gravel for maintenance of that facility. Now that could be eliminated if a collector road came in here, then, you know, you could put sidewalk over the top of that, we just could not construct any structure, right, Bruce? I mean we could put a pathway over it or it could be turf or -- Freckleton: That's correct. We wouldn't want any trees or structures, anything like that. Centers: That's what he's referring to in item -- Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Centers: And then the last item, which is not numbered, the last paragraph, I think you referred to that when you were showing the pathway correct? Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Centers: So he's agreeing with what you proposed here. The last paragraph? Bowcutt: The Parks Commission agreed with us. Centers: Is he saying that? Bowcutt: Tom says he still supports the ten foot wide pedestrian pathway be extended from Horse Circle to the eastern boundary of the park. So, no, Tom is not agreeing with the Parks Commission, he is still stating that he wants a 10 foot pathway extended from here to the park. His recommendation to the Parks Commission was go behind the rear of some of these lots. He said he wanted a 10-foot path around the circle and then bring it into the development in some fashion. Then -- like this and run behind lots and the Commission said that's problematic, how do we light it, how do we maintain it, we think an off-set sidewalk five feet in width will be adequate if you have directional signs. The majority of that is going to be 10 foot wide. Centers: Well, then it goes on to say the Parks Commission would support the attached sidewalk if it were five feet in width. Bowcutt: That's correct. Borup: But you're saying you're doing a five-foot detached? Bowcutt: Five foot detached. Yes, sir. Which would be better. It keeps pedestrians away from the roadway. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 65 of 112 Centers: That's all I had. Thank you. Zaremba: I'm still not clear if the sewer cannot go on the adjoining property, which is not part of your project, where are you now anticipating it to be located? Bowcutt: It would go along the most southerly boundary of the park site. Zaremba: Within the park? Bowcutt: Yes sir. We will try to keep it as far south as staff would allow it. Centers: Which Item 2 refers to. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Zaremba: If at some time there was a road similar to your drawing here on the neighboring property -- Bowcutt: Yes. Zaremba: -- would you then reconfigure this to eliminate that driveway and have it connect to the road here maybe? Bowcutt: So would you like to abandon the hard -- the gravel road? Is that what you're saying? Zaremba: Well, is that what this is now, a gravel road? Bowcutt: This is showing like a paved driveway here. Zaremba: As a driveway into the park. Bowcutt: Right so this -- if this were to, obviously, develop prior to this community park, then, yes, this would slide down to here and then come into the park. You're correct. Zaremba: So I'm just saying if Anatole becomes a collector on this other property and runs along the south of the park, you wouldn't necessarily need a parallel driveway to it. You could connect here. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Zaremba: But then the sewer would still be under where the driveway was. Bowcutt: The sewer would still be along the southern boundary coming into the site here. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 66 of 112 Zaremba: With some kind of a surface over it? Bowcutt: Yes and you could put something that resembled a pathway and we done those for Nampa Meridian for like ditch access, where we pave them 12 to 15 feet wide, give them a little bit of a meander, but not much, because vehicles need to drive on them. They look like a ped path, but they also can carry a vehicle. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? I've got a couple points I'd like to interject if I could. One, this plan that's on the board is purely conceptual. The client -- or, excuse me, the applicant in no way wants to get pinned down to this. This is something that they put together just to give you guys an idea of what this park will -- Borup: Oh, the park. Right. Freckleton: The second item is in regards to the sewer coming into this project and also the water. We have done modeling. Modeling indicates that this development is going to require another 12-inch main coming in from the Ten Mile side into this development. It's quite possible that there will be a 10-inch -- or, excuse me, a 12-inch diameter water main that's going to parallel this sewer main that we are talking about. The timing of when that goes in is going to depend on many factors. Timing of their first phase coming in the door, timing of Baldwin Park Development and everything else that's going on out in that area. As the demand comes up, we are going to have to have that other loop line. I just wanted to bring that up, that we are not only talking about sewer through this meandering pathway, but we are going to be talking about water as well. We want to make sure that it is a hard surface, paved pathway that we can drive on and get to. Zaremba: Is it okay to share it with pets, walkers, and bicyclers when you're not using it for -- Freckleton: Absolutely. Zaremba: It connects to a path that leads the rest of the way through the park? Freckleton: Certainly. My first choice is that it's under a public right of way, but it's not going to happen it doesn't appear, so, you know, next best thing is to get it into a combined pathway system and try to work it out and make the best of it. Centers: Well, if it's a dedicated easement it's fine, too, isn't it? A sewer and water easement. Freckleton: Definitely. Borup: Did you have anymore? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 67 of 112 Bowcutt: Just lastly in the staff report -- I guess Dave's correct, the only thing that we really disagree on is staff's contention that we need some type of a collector out to Ten Mile. I just want to reaffirm that the traffic analysis by the traffic engineers and ACHD determined that a connection to Ten Mile was not necessary based on the trips. This project has a mile and a half collectors already proposed in it, which is about 75 percent of the collectors -- continuous collectors that would be required for this section, where it only constitutes about 55 percent of that section of 640 acres. We feel we are -- by providing that connector -- that collector system we are minimizing the trips out on the arterials as much as possible by good interconnection. There are other properties adjoining us that have size to them also that we feel could pick up the slack and have some non-continuous collectors to feed out in other directions. This project does not warrant it. The trips don't warrant it, that was the opinion of ACHD staff, and that is our opinion. Centers: Well -- and just what hit me and I don't know if staff thought about it. A collector means traffic right next to a park and maybe speeding traffic at times. It increases the chance of possible accidents with children playing -- I mean the way you have it planned, which we know is not -- I mean it's just a concept, people have to come in and then park and they are driving through the park and that's my view. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman Commissioner Centers, Members of the Commission, just a point of clarification. We have discussed the idea of the collector being adjacent to the city park and according to the Master City Parks Plan a community park is required to have a collector street adjacent to it and so that's the reason that the Parks Department -- Borup: Is that an arterial or collector or greater? McKinnon: Yes. I have a copy of the plan if you -- Borup: Doesn't Ten Mile -- McKinnon: Ten Mile is the arterial. Bowcutt: I believe it reads collector or arterial, but also for the record the Parks Plan has not been officially adopted. Borup: That's correct. Freckleton: For the record, the property has not been annexed either. Borup: When was that plan before us? How many months ago has that been? I thought they were in a hurry. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Okay. Do we have anyone else here that would like to testify on this application? If so, come forward. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 68 of 112 Moss: Tony Moss, 2400 West McMillan. I guess I'm here for the same reason I was the last time. I didn't get much support from the developer -- the developers and I don't really understand what the relation is between the one developer and the other one. It seems that Mr. Goldsmith wanted to work with me a little bit, but Mr. Gibson doesn't want to do much of anything at all. I've proposed different size lots on the west and the south -- the southwest area of my property to no avail. Nothing's changed there. I want to see if I can get something a little more along the lines of, excuse me, what's on the north side of my property, which is 90 foot frontage, but couldn't get much help on that particular issue. I asked for a water feature on the front at the entranceway coming in from McMillan Road. I don't know if that's going to be the same as the other ones or is it -- it might be something a little different. I guess the consistency would be great and that's what I was getting at also. The -- it was a real big issue with me and my location there because of my lack of support with other people in that particular section. There aren't many people that live there that -- that live there as full-time residents or -- it's in a situation now where I'm on the spot by myself. The park situation and the common lot on the north -- or, excuse me, the east side of the property, that's a good idea, but I was looking for something a little bit more than that, given the value of the property and the times that I -- the time that I have lived there. The lots -- these lots right here are on this side, this side, I requested they be larger and less houses, meaning two large lots, instead of four lots here to here, thereby kind of matching some of the lots that are larger in size on the entrance way. I didn't get much support on that either. The -- but the thing that's the real issue with me is the park situation. I don't have a difficulty with the need to relocate one of these park drain situations and also the way it's drawn up in this configuration right now. I just can't imagine it's going to take that much out of the whole estate value of the area to relocate that for someone that has an investment to size that I have in this particular lot right here. They are looking for an easement from here to the road to my property, but not much cooperation as far as changes that are affecting these 80 acres that are owned by Dan Gibson. Over here, a little bit of help, but not all that I wanted. I don't think I'm being -- I don't think I'm being too demanding here, but the things that I outlined in my last presentation I didn't really get all the cooperation from the developers that I thought I was going to get. I didn't have until yesterday any contact with them all -- after the last meeting and I still can't imagine that Linder Road, Ten Mile Road, and McMillan Road are going to survive under the configuration that they are right now when you start moving dirt on a project like this, being two lanes in all directions. That includes Chinden, too. The worst thing for this development is these roads with this huge -- huge subdivision. I don't know. Times are kind of tough right now and I wonder about that. I'm still against the project and I still have a working relationship with the developer, but I didn't really come away with what I -- what I was asking for. That's all I have. Shreeve: So just let me ask you a question. The open space, for example, to the east, you wanted a park there, not necessarily -- Moss: A park was a possibility that put in front of you guys or in front of the developer, because there was one farther down and I thought a possible relocation would have been a nice -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 69 of 112 Shreeve: And I recall talking about that, but, again, I also recall that the gist was really just to get a house away from your property. Whether it be a park, whether it be a drainage lot, I remember the park being talk, but I also remember a drainage lot also being discussed. It looks like they have met the intent of what I recall being just a beautiful lot not adjacent to your eastern border anyway. I don't know if I was specifically asking for a park, specifically asking for a larger area, larger common area. My suggestion to the developer or to the Council here was if they are located where they are in this conceptual drawing that we are looking at right now, what's the possibility of moving one farther down to that area next to my house? The development of the Fulfer property right here, I don't know what the hell that's going to go, but if there is a park there or if there is a common area or something that splits up the corner piece right there, it's a more workable situation to me. Whatever happens in this development is coming up when they decide to develop this piece of property on McMillan Road. Centers: Mr. Moss, have you seen this list of items that Mrs. Bowcutt gave to us? Moss: No, I have not. Centers: I think you're entitled to a copy. Borup: These are the items that they said they were items accommodating you with. Moss: No, I haven't seen a copy of that. Centers: I guess my point, since our last meeting, it appears that they have made some pretty heavy concessions here and she offered -- Mrs. Bowcutt offered to put them on record, which means that they must go forward. Moss: We discussed outside here before the meeting some of these issues, but I have not seen this list. Centers: Okay and I guess you would agree since our last meeting they have come forward with some real concessions here. Moss: Well, the only ones that was -- Centers: In writing. Moss: Yes, we have. Right. This is a different agenda that we started out with the other day. Centers: Good. Moss: My only problem was possibly -- some of the other issues that I brought up, besides the lots down in here on the southwest corner. Also the size of lots around my Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 70 of 112 particular property instead of the number of four on each side, the number of two and possibly larger common area or park arrangement that could be adjacent to the -- to this corner right here. Centers: Well, I guess, you know, we could go on six months of negotiating and not accomplish much. I think we have accomplished a lot since our last meeting. I have a question for staff, if they can find Lot 1 in Block 6. Borup: I was trying to find that, too. Centers: Excuse me, Mr. Moss, for putting you on hold for a minute, but I'm referring to what she referred to on her letter there. They are going to need the lot 1 -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Lot 1 is the very small lot adjacent to Lot 2. It's the 25-foot wide one. Centers: 25 foot. Okay. Okay. Zaremba: It connects to the first paved street. Centers: Yes. Freckleton: The purpose of that dedication would be to do away with the easement and that would become Mr. Moss's access to his lot. Centers: And then, a follow-up question to that -- excuse me, Mr. Moss -- is if the easement is not relinquished, what was -- I was trying to find it in my comments. What was the other option? McKinnon: The other option was to create it as a common lot within the subdivision. Centers: The applicant would -- yes. That's right. I remember that. Which could be done, Mr. Moss? I mean I think they have made a lot of concessions, because they could just go right around you and dedicate that easement as a common lot. Moss: Well, I realize that. Under the circumstances I'm just -- I'm up here presenting my proposal. I had not seen this. Centers: That's too bad. Moss: But the specific things that have changed -- oh, we did have some discussion about it before the meeting tonight. I'm still -- looking at -- on the record as saying I do not want as many lots around my property as there are there right now. That's on the north side and the south side. If I could get a larger common area, that would be great. I think it would sit just as solid for this development as is put together right now, but since it hasn't been started yet, I'm just wondering why it couldn't have been this way Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 71 of 112 with the size of the park area and the cohesiveness of the development. Why was something like that such a strong -- or such a large change? I'm not saying that this is a situation that's going to make or break this development and I don't think it possibly could. Since I'm the only one out there, basically, in the middle of this whole thing, I think I have somewhat of a stake in how the whole thing comes together in whatever phase or whatever changes that happen in the future. I mean it's a unique situation, as you Council Members agree, that I'm kind of an island out there. I want to make sure that I protect the sharks around me from -- protect myself from the sharks around me when things change. Borup: And I was thinking about the same thing. When you bought a land-locked piece of land what did you think was going to happen around you? If you were looking for protection, maybe you should have looked at that when you originally bought the thing, but isn't that why you bought a landlocked piece of land? Moss: Yes. Eleven years ago I moved over here and bought a piece of property, I didn't really consider that it was going to -- the entire city of -- or if Ada County was going to go that direction, but these things happen and I understand that's the situation. I'm just trying to protect what I have got now, but I have it and I own it, so under the circumstances this is the best I can do to protect my value. If I were trying to get the Council or the developer to do something really unusual as far as just protecting my property values, by view or anything else, I wouldn't be here. That's not fair but I am in such a unique position out here with the size of lot and the size of this development. Centers: You are but there are two sides to the coin. I mean the people that own that property that surrounds you have an interest in obtaining as many dollars as they can, so I -- just as you have an interest in retaining your values. When you ask them to give up two or three or four or whatever number of lots around you, that that's digging into their pocket, you know, so -- Moss: I look at it, Commissioner Centers, as I was there before they were. In most cases, I think that I deserve a little bit more consideration. Centers: But, no, you weren't necessarily there before they were. The people that own that land were there when you bought it. Moss: I'm talking about the developer right now. Centers: But you know what I'm saying. Moss: I do. I do. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. I know that you just got this list, but having been able to probably just quickly scan through it, are those -- do you agree that those have been done for the record? Those those are things that they have -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 72 of 112 Moss: I can wait on that. I'm not really sure we can accomplish -- we had just a slight discussion out front of the building tonight about what the changes were and what changes were going to be. Shreeve: Because I guess the point being is just -- you know, just I guess interpreting that those have or have not been done, whatever it may be, but I would assume that they had been done. In either case, does that fulfill everything that you wanted -- you know, obviously not, but, again, there needs to be a middle ground and not just a one way street here. There are -- there is your land, as Commissioner Centers mentioned, there is your land, there is the surrounding land and it's just sort of trying to work at something that is beneficial and mutually beneficial for both of you. I think at least as we see it, it has come a long ways. Perfectly to your satisfaction, no but certainly they have accomplished something. Centers: Well, Mr. Moss, these aren't proposals, she's offered these for the record. They are going to be done. When she says -- and I keep referring to she -- Mrs. Bowcutt refers to -- where is it? Move the parking lot east -- it's on the plat. It's on the revised plat. Open space. Right here. See? These things will be done or she wouldn't have given them to us for the record. Moss: Well, I didn't realize that -- when we had the discussion about front I didn't realize that this was for the record and has been presented that way, but is it going to happen specifically as this list, like I said, I would have to see. Centers: The only caveat is the next to the last item. Moss: If I agree to the easement. Centers: That's the only caveat. Moss: I think I'm going to have to digest this, because I didn't know it was going to come at me quite like this, but I just want to reiterate for the record that this is what my direction is or was with this development, so if things can get accomplished, such as these, good things happen. Borup: It sounds like your intention is not to have any compromise, so -- Moss: No, I don't think that was my intention. Borup: That's what you expressed to us it sounds like to me. Moss: I didn't really mean it that hardcore. I think that this -- one of the big issues with me was the size of the lots to the southwest area to match the size of the lots to the north. Borup: You're worried about the five feet? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 73 of 112 Moss: Actually, I was worried about the 90-foot lots -- Borup: Eighty-five. Moss: It was 60. Borup: Sixty? Moss: Isn't the yellow 60 on my map here? Borup: No. The ones I see are 85, 86. Moss: This area right down here? Borup: Oh, those. I thought you said adjoining your property. You said to the south of your property. Moss: The south of the property. To the southwest of the property. Borup: Well, that's straight west. Moss: Well, southwest. Borup: Okay. I thought you meant -- you were talking about the lots to your south. I misunderstood that. Shreeve: I guess as a question of Mrs. Bowcutt, but I believe -- at least when I compared the plat now and the plat that was done a few weeks ago, it looked like that that land -- that the lot right to the east was just simply given up or was there some other -- I guess that's a question for the future. If there was some other piece of land, but I couldn't see where it appeared that that lot was just given, up to be open space and that may or may not be true. In either case I think what I would recommend is make sure that you got the key issues, because I don't know if certainly I would agree with handing everything -- all of your demands with what you have been saying. I think you need to make sure that really the key important issues -- let's bring those forward and address those, as opposed to just a lot of the want list and I have got my opinions that I think a lot to the east -- I think that's a great concession, personally. At least they have opened it up. Now it may not be as large, it may not be as fancy or whatever the case may be, but there is not going to be a home looking in your backyard anyway from that direction. Moss: Oh, and I understand compromise is part of the issue, as part of the development, as a part of everything else. I'm just, for the record, putting out the ideas that I originally came in with and I'm reiterating, but I would still like to see something in those areas. Maybe not completely like the list I have right here, it's the list I made the last time -- the last meeting, but maybe something that touched on some of the other Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 74 of 112 ones, other than the park and the water feature out front. I mean -- I mean this is the forum for -- Centers: Well, I think you have been successful. Moss: I'm not -- I've got plenty to say. This is a big development, I just happen to be a big part of it and it is a big part of the City of Meridian. I look at some of the other issues and I'm not -- I'm not trying to be all for myself here, but there is road issues and there is all kinds of things that have been discussed with a project like this and -- Centers: Yes. I think -- you know, I don't mind a requirement that that entryway waterfall or whatever be similar to the other entrance. I agree with that and I'm sure the developer thinks that way, too. It should be very similar. Moss: Well -- and the upshot of the whole thing is that I think that the one developer, I think he's pretty serious about the design of that and the project is going ahead with it. I think the other developer, if it looks good to him, he might go with it and then, again, he might just be a turf farmer in the future. I don't know how -- I just want to make sure that -- if it comes down to something like that, where they would split the development up in some way, shape or form, that my issues are on record that this is what I would like to see in the future. Centers: And the whole project is like a ten to 12 year build out, you know. Moss: Yes. Yes. Zaremba: Just for mulling over, I would comment you actually have received quite a few concessions it appears to me, that they are offering quite a few. Just as an opinion, you mentioned that this is a big project and, yes, it is, and it’s one of the biggest that's come before us as a whole unit. This could very well have been developed -- I guess it was originally six or seven totally separate owners, they could have each developed their properties separately. I don't think you would have gotten anywhere near these concessions if somebody were not doing it as this big of a project. If you were having to deal with six or seven different people developing around you individually, I'm just saying for your own thought I think you have gotten quite a bit. Centers: That's a good point. I didn't think about that. Moss: Yes. It is a big development and the ironic thing is that this is why I'm being as demanding as I am, is I look in the room here and there is about maybe four or five people that are going to say anything about this for or against. It's one of the biggest develops in Meridian. That's a little weird so that's why I think I'm trying to get as -- to give you people the idea that I have a strong feeling about this and I want to make sure it goes right. I don't want to stop the development, developers have a right to do what they do to make money in the same manner that everybody else does, but when I'm the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 75 of 112 only one in a room full of people for a large development, I think that my position should be as strong as possible. Borup: Thank you, Mr. Moss. Centers: Thanks, Mr. Moss. Borup: Bill Caskey, do you still want to come forward? Caskey: My name is Bill Caskey and I live at 2075 West Balata in Meridian. I had three issues I wanted to put on the table. First, I'd like to -- Borup: Where is that? Is that located out here? Balata? Caskey: Balata Court is across Chinden north of the development. Borup: Okay. Caskey: And Mr. McKinnon brought up at the last meeting that that's not part of the Meridian City, so I looked at my tax bill, I pay 9,804 dollars in taxes -- property taxes on my home. I note that the School District, Meridian School District, gets 4,893 dollars and change, the Meridian library gets 435 dollars and change, and the Meridian Fire Department gets 1,309 dollars in change. While I may not be able to vote in Meridian, I certainly pay to Meridian. Borup: But not as a city. That's not -- none of that is going to the City of Meridian. Would you clarify that? Berg: The Meridian Rural Fire District, which is a joint cooperation with the City of Meridian to provide fire protection, but yet that is not in the city limits that you're in, so, actually, tax dollars from the city do not go to any of your protection, your protection is dealt with at the rural district. The Meridian Library District is a separate district, which encompasses the citizens of Meridian, as well as the rural district, and the Meridian School District, if I'm not mistaken, incorporates Star, Eagle, Boise, and Meridian. Centers: Right. I was going to mention that. Berg: So even though they say Meridian on them, they are not really just the City of Meridian. Citizens of Meridian I hope, you know, pay for some of those things, too. I mean just to keep it straight. Caskey: Oh, I understand and I know I'm not funding it all. I realize that. Berg: The community of Meridian, yes, gets the benefit, but it's not just simply the citizens of Meridian or the municipality of Meridian. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 76 of 112 Caskey: Well, the issue that -- I understand what you're saying. Thank you. The issues that I raised last time continue to be the issues and that's the density of this development is just mammoth. It's more than the roads can handle, it's more than the schools can handle, and I share those roads. The entrance to this development right here -- the exit from my subdivision is right there. It's 300 yards. I share Chinden Boulevard, Ten Mile, Linder, and the traffic that will go with it, the overcrowding in the schools that go with it. I think we need to look at -- my suggestion -- let me rephrase that. My suggestion to the Council would be that you look at the density. I'm not trying to impact your yield, it's a rabbit worn the way it's developed right now at four houses to the acre. If you pay 35,000 dollars an acre and you sell them for 35,000 dollars a lot, you get four lots, if you sell a lot two to the acre at 70,000 dollars a lot, you have got the same yield. If you go to a little bit bigger house, your yield is identical. So bigger houses, less of them, would reduce the number of students going in, reduce the number of cars going in, reduce the impact. It would play into what Mr. Moss was saying where he wanted bigger lots around his development -- I'm just thinking of the density. When you look that there is going to be another one across the road and if you go down Linder there is another develop where they have already started cutting in the road for that development, it's going to be impossible to get around. The other feature that I think we ought to -- I would encourage you all to look at is the commercial side. They have got a number of commercial developments that they are listing on the north side there abutting Chinden and their words from the last meeting were residential friendly. I would submit that there isn't commercial development that's residential friendly. That while they say they are going to put doctors' offices and accountants' offices and, you know, consulting offices in those one story buildings, it's still a commercial development. You're taking what is essentially a residential and agricultural development all the way out Chinden and you're going to put commercial development in there. It's not a big leap to then go to the corner of Ten Mile and Chinden and say, well, it's commercial, so, what the heck, let's put a Stinker Station in there or a bank. Now you have destroyed the character of the residential area and you can still have residential development without putting the commercial in. It might improve their yield if they had houses going up there where you have those gray buildings and you put houses there, you get more houses on your lots. If I could borrow, some words from Commissioner Centers early tonight, disturbing or hazardous to neighboring uses. That was a quote from the regulations. I find the density and the commercial development to both be disturbing and hazardous to neighboring uses. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Caskey: Questions? Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? No one else is signed up. Okay. Mrs. Bowcutt, did you have any final comments? Bowcutt: About two minutes. The question was asked by Commissioner Shreeve, did we give up that lot to the east of Mr. Moss, or did we trade a lot. For the record, we traded a lot. I just want to make sure that the Commission understands that so there is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 77 of 112 no confusion. Mr. Moss's property is located here. Lot 13, Block 6, has been made an open space lot. In exchange for that, Lot 17, Block 23, was added. This was a completely open area. We slid an 80 by 115 lot there. We still have 41 feet here that will accommodate a pathway with turf and so forth on each side. We traded, just for the record. The question was asked a project of this magnitude and size why aren't there more people here. One thing we did do was we had a neighborhood meeting. We notified everyone within 300 feet of the property and invited them over to one of the motels here downtown. We had a pretty good showing and it was probably one of the best neighborhood meetings I have ever had, because we had a lot of people say this is a neat project. The area is changing, we realize this, it's going to impact us, but it is a nice project. Centers: How many people? Bowcutt: We probably had 10? Ten probably 10. Centers: Of course, there are not a lot of people -- Zaremba: For that rural area that's a pretty good percentage of neighbors. Bowcutt: Yes. Mr. Caskey had some concerns about density. He keeps talking about four dwelling units per acre. The gross density in this where you take just the residential streets, the residential common lots is 2.92. If we want to get particular and go to net density where you take just residential and common lots and take out all of the rest of it, we are at 3.84. That 2.92 are the standard that we use. We usually look at gross density from a planning perspective. That excludes, you know, park, office, commercial, et cetera. Mr. Caskey says that there is no such thing as residential compatible commercial. Well, the whole idea behind the North Meridian Plan is trying to get a mix, so that we provide some services out of the suburbs, so we do not overload the arterials that lead into the city core. There is such a thing as residential compatible office and commercial. I have done them in The Legends Subdivision. I have done them next to Bristol Heights along the Eagle Road corridor. Each one of those applications will be coming before this body as a Conditional Use. If there are any in there that would be determined to be not residential compatible, I would expect this Commission to recommend denial of them. We need a mix and this project is going to be a lot of people here 10 years from now and if there is a dentist or a doctor or an accountant or whomever located in one of those buildings along those arterials, that's -- it will cut our trips. Also, we don't want to put homes up against Chinden. We don't. Banbury did it and it has been a fight ever since. It's tough when you go out into an area, you have real low density, and then that area grows up around you and they want to make the roads five lanes. They want to put a Target there and they want to put Renaissance Apartments there, you get a lot of resistance, but these are major arteries and we have to remind ourselves that that's going to be five lanes. I don't want to put single-family dwellings backing up against a five-lane highway. Thank you. Borup: Any questions for Mrs. Bowcutt? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 78 of 112 Centers: No but Mr. Chairman? Borup: Other than I wonder why you didn't give Mr. Moss a copy of the thing earlier. It would have probably -- Bowcutt: I apologize for that. I went through it verbally so many times and I did not provide a copy. I do apologize. Borup: Commissioner Centers? Centers: Yes. For staff, just a follow up to our previous conversation on collector streets. Page 7 -- and I highlighted it and then the italic type, one of your reasoning’s for the connecting street was the lack of access to the proposed city park from within the sub. They have that with the single loaded street and the parking lot. In my opinion, they have it. To continue, whether it's the Park's Comp Plan or a city's impact area, or City's Comprehensive Plan, they are subject to change when you have exceptions or good compensating factors to offset the requirement to have them. The example of that was earlier tonight, the first item on the agenda, of an exception to our impact area. That's my rationale, where if you have good compensating factors or something that offsets the reasoning to not require it. I think it makes sense, because I think it ties into having an open mind. If you have rules and regulations and are not prepared to bend them if you have a good, offsetting, compensating factor, I don't think that makes sense. Thank you. McKinnon: Do you want me to respond? Centers: I don't care. McKinnon: Okay. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, specifically Commissioner Centers, I don't disagree with you. We, as staff -- and you will note it in the report, that we think the most appropriate location for that collector street would not be within that park property. This is a large subdivision, 856 single-family homes. That's a lot of homes to throw in. You know, Becky threw out the number, 55 percent, it's 350 acres of the 640 acres of the square mile being developed for this project. That's a lot of people. If you take 2.9 people for every one of those single households, then you can take that number and add it to the number of 171 apartments, plus the people that live in there. It's a lot of people; it's a lot of traffic that's being generated. He pointed out very -- that this is an exception. This is the biggest one -- the biggest project the City of Meridian has seen. This is, you know, just a little bit less than a third the size of the Harris Ranch. This is a big project and there has been exceptions made for this project. Things have gone through that -- the applicant has made a lot of -- they have worked very well with staff and they have made some changes that we have requested. We have been able to eliminate a whole lot of requirements from this project, because the applicant has met those requirements prior to you moving this on. The number of vehicles in this subdivision and the connection to Ten Mile, the majority Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 79 of 112 of the people that are going to use the connection to Ten Mile will probably be coming from that subdivision and out of that subdivision whenever there is a connection made. When the connection is made to Ten Mile, whether it's across Mr. Bew’s property to the south of the park or at any other location, the majority of those users of that road will be for this project and that's the reason why we felt that it would be warranted. However, we agree with your assumption that it may be best to put it someplace else and it should not necessarily fall on the park, but -- Centers: And this land is going to be developed -- McKinnon: Eventually it will be developed. Centers: Yes. Probably by the time, this is built out, 10 to 12 years. Who knows? McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: This is a stub street. McKinnon: Correct. It's a stub street, but -- Centers: And we have got another stub street down here. McKinnon: Okay. I was just -- we do have these stub streets, we have the stub streets that are put in and we are going to have a similar situation where seven years from now someone has been living there for eight years -- seven years from now someone has been living there for five years. They say when we bought this house we thought it was a dead end street. We never wanted it to connect. I mean we have had that with Sutherland Farms, we have had that with Fairview Lakes, nobody -- and we have had that with Fairview Lakes. No one wants these stub streets to connect. They don't want their subdivision to be next to the other subdivision. Borup: I think that's why ACHD requires postings. McKinnon: Oh, ACHD requires the stub streets to -- Borup: But there is signs posted on the streets now saying that this street will connect, which there has not been in the past, that's -- McKinnon: Chairman Borup, I agree with that, but it doesn't change the opinion of the people living next door to those signs. Borup: Right. It may not, but they have got no excuse. Centers: Well, they shouldn't if they know how to read. Borup: Right. No excuse at all. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 80 of 112 McKinnon: I agree. Yes. I don't know if -- Borup: They still may not like it, but -- McKinnon: We would prefer to see a connection now. If -- you guys as the Commission have the ability to move this forward tonight and say a connection is required at Ten Mile and you can move forward the connection saying the pathway over the sewer easement that runs through the park should be in an appropriate location. That is your decision and we, as staff, are just to put the information in front of you and we feel that there is warrant for a connection to Ten Mile at this time, but it's your decision. Zaremba: I thoroughly agree with the need for the connection to Ten Mile and that it probably should be an extension of the currently existing Anatole. Our difficulty is we end up canceling or tabling this entire project until the next parcel is developed and I don't feel that's fair. Even if we don't make that a requirement, my feeling is the phasing of this project from east to west is going to resolve that problem by the time it is a problem. Borup: I think that one factor here is that that parcel is owned by one individual, it's not multiple landowners; isn't that correct? Zaremba: The other parcel that is not included in this? Borup: Right. It's under the control of one individual. Or -- yes. Or one entity so we are not talking multiple parcels, which a lot of times bring new problems, but there is more if someone doesn't have to -- Centers: Or we could require the connector from here and then lose part of the parkland. Zaremba: But that ruins the park. Centers: And then, I come back to the safety feature. People driving on the street with people -- kids playing in the park -- you know, I'd rather see the connection made when this is developed. Borup: I agree. Do we want to close the Public Hearing, unless there is more information you want from the developer? Okay. Centers: Yes. I would move that we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 81 of 112 Zaremba: I would just like to comment that I attended some of the meetings of the North Meridian Area Plan -- I get that name wrong sometimes. While it's not official as is the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning and Zoning Ordinances, it's a thrust and a plan that, actually, I think the impetus was actually from the developers to put this idea together in concert with ACHD and the City of Meridian to see far into the future. I think we have a tremendous benefit here that this is not impact being developed by six or seven separate things. I feel it does comply with the Comprehensive Plan. To me, yes, there are a few kinks here and there, but I think it's a good project. I think there are a few of them that we are just going to have to work out when the next property is developed, but I don't see holding this up for it. I agree with having the mixed use and I agree that we should not back houses up to Chinden. Banbury being a very good example of that. My wife and I drive through there every once in awhile and, boy, we sure wouldn't want to see those houses backing up the Chinden. Part of the Comprehensive Plan, we talk about neighborhood centers, and that means that you have facilities nearby where people don't have to travel. You don't cluster all of the businesses in the middle of town and all the residences out, you tend to mix them up, and this is a plan that does that. Yes, there are a couple of kinks here and there, but I'm fully in support of this plan. That's my comments. Borup: Anyone else have any comment? Mathes: I have a question for Dave. On this lot and block list? McKinnon: Yes. Mathes: That is the same lot and block? McKinnon: I have got the specifics for you. Mathes: Okay. McKinnon: It's going to be Lots 11, 12, and 14 of Block 6. Mathes: Okay. Centers: What was it? McKinnon: 11, 12, and 14 of Block 6. The reason why I skipped Number 13 is because that's the new park lot. Centers: That was Item 2 on the list? McKinnon: That was Item 2 on the list. Mathes: But it says one of the three will now be an open lot. Does that include 13? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 82 of 112 McKinnon: Becky? I could check with Becky since the Public Hearing -- could you come here for a second? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I checked with the applicant and the applicant has corrected me and stated it's Lots 11 and 12 and not 14. Lot Number 13 would be the open space lot. Mathes: Okay and the plumb tree lot, is that six and six? Or do you not care? McKinnon: That's part of this common open space and I believe you're correct that it's lot six of six. Correct. Mathes: Okay. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, for further clarification, on the piping of the item -- I think it's Bullet Point Number 5, they agree to pipe in the irrigation ditches contiguous to the Lochsa Falls property. The piping of those irrigation ditches would need to be required at the Final Plat of that phase. That's when that would be required. It wouldn't be required at the time of the approval of this project it would be at the Final Plat for that phase or for the phase contiguous to those areas. For further clarification, the final bullet point, they further agree to coordinate boundary fencing with Mr. Moss. That would be to construct the fence for Mr. Moss of the variety that the applicant is showing before you tonight in the packet, would be the Lochsa Falls book here and they have the open vision fencing, which is a wrought iron with wood posts. This type of fencing. Mathes: And then, it would border on his property? McKinnon: That's correct. That's what they have agreed to. Moss: I just saw this and I don't really know. I don't want to comment on it, because I'm not really sure. McKinnon: Okay. That's really the intent of the paper that was handed to you by the developer, whether or not there is an agreement that seems to be at issue, but that's what the applicant has agreed to do. Centers: Well -- and I think the word coordinate was at this -- you know, at an appropriate time coordinate construction, that's what the intent was. McKinnon: I just need clarification from the applicant. Borup: So it sounds like if Mr. Moss would rather have solid cedar fencing, that would probably be okay with the applicant, too. McKinnon: That's fine but the construction of that fence would be borne by the developer. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 83 of 112 Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Anything that needs to be brought up for discussion? Centers: Well, are we clear on what the applicant has agreed to with the Parks Department? Are we? Borup: Well, all we have got is what's here in the memo and I guess maybe we didn't clarify that with the applicant. Mrs. Bowcutt, was -- Centers: The pathway was the big thing, because you made the note that if we were to forward the pathway approved by Parks Department on August 14th and to be confirmed in writing prior to City Council, that was a note I made to myself. Borup: Okay. Centers: She inferred that they agreed on it last night, but we don't have anything in writing on that. Borup: Well, we -- she stated it on record, we can -- Centers: But if we worded it that way for it to be in writing prior to the City Council? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we actually do have it in writing. It's at the bottom page of that memo that the Parks Commission did agree to that and that's per Tom Kuntz's memo. Centers: No. That was -- yes. He wanted the path -- I guess we closed the Public Hearing, but -- Borup: Just the way I read it, it says -- this is from Tom. The Parks Commission would support the attached sidewalk that was five feet in width. That's per Tom Kuntz's memo. Borup: Well, he said attached -- McKinnon: He wants it to be detached. Borup: The developer is proposing a detached, which I mean in my thinking that's even better. McKinnon: Detached is and I'll bet you that that's the way it is, based on the fact that the Parks Commission and the Parks staff has always requested that they -- Borup: So you think that would be a typo? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 84 of 112 McKinnon: I believe it is. Centers: Well, in the first part of that paragraph, the first sentence, the applicant didn't agree with it. McKinnon: Tom disagrees with the Parks Commission. He would like to see it be a 10- foot -- and it's your decision. You can make it a five-foot detached if you'd like at this time, you don't need to have something from the Parks Commission saying that that's approved. Centers: Well, I think the big thing was extending it from Horse Circle to the east boundary of the park and the applicant did not want to do that and I guess I didn't disagree with that. Borup: Well, they did. McKinnon: They did want to -- they did want that forward and then connect it. They didn't want to connect with a 10-foot they wanted to be connected with a five-foot. Centers: Okay. Borup: And the original proposal just showed a four-foot detached sidewalk, now they said let's go to a five-foot that provides additional width. Borup: And go clear to the east boundary connecting to the park. Centers: Right. Borup: And the five-foot just starts where it crosses the main entranceway, whatever street that is, the main entrance road, that's -- it goes from 10-foot to five-foot at that point. McKinnon: As it crosses the north-south collector from the Horse Circle to the common lot. Borup: So it's 10-foot all the way through the subdivision until it hits that collector and then as it crosses and goes along the street -- McKinnon: Right here. Borup: -- then it goes to a five-foot detached. Shreeve: And she indicated something about putting signs -- Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 85 of 112 Shreeve: -- to direct people? Borup: In case they don't know which direction the park is. Shreeve: I was going to say, if people can't find the park. Borup: There are some people that have challenges that way. Shreeve: Just get a four year old, they will find it for you. Borup: Any other concerns? Besides the staff comments, we have the -- Clark's memo and then the Tony Moss -- Zaremba: Well, in combination with -- Borup: Yes. Centers: I guess on the staff -- on Page 8, Paragraph B, the last sentence in italics, I guess this is for Bruce. We had an agreement on that with the applicant, didn't we? Yes, I'm sure we did. Freckleton: Commissioner Centers, what we discussed was a hard surface and it would be -- the Parks Department's memo and our staff comments were in conflict. I think Tom wrote 10-foot and we need it to be 14-foot hard surface. Centers: Not gravel? Freckleton: I'm fully open to the idea of a multi-use pathway, sewer, and water access road. Shreeve: And when you talk about hard is that gravel? Freckleton: No. I'd rather it be asphalt. Centers: So you want to cross out gravel and put asphalt? Shreeve: So on their sketch -- Bruce, so on their sketch that they have of the park, really, they did not show that and there would be some kind of a road extending the full length on the south side. Freckleton: Correct. Centers: Well, some of it. That's to cover the sewer easement. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I would just propose that Site Specific Item Number 1 on the Preliminary Plat, that we just make correction to a 14-foot wide paved access. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 86 of 112 Centers: What page? Shreeve: What page? Freckleton: Page 11. Through the park area. Centers: What item? Freckleton: Item Number 1, Site Specific, Page 11, top of the page underlined. Centers: Change that to hard surface? Freckleton: Paved through the park. What we are going to have to have through the undeveloped portions, since the phase one is over on Linder Road. From the park over to Phase 1 is going to have to be an all-weather gravel access road that as they are phasing, you know, development from east to west that gravel road is going to disappear, because it will be under paved roads. Public right of way. McKinnon: Are you saying that needs to be a gravel road? Freckleton: Out through the boondocks. Borup: At the first phase? Freckleton: Well, the first phase is on Linder Road. Borup: Because that's where the sewer line is coming, from Ten Mile? Freckleton: Sewer and water is going to have to come from Ten Mile Road all the way through there. We are going to have to have access to it 24-7. Through the park, area would be a paved multi-use borne by the developer. Centers: While we are on that -- Borup: Do you want to do that before you have a park design? Freckleton: It would be a permanent location. Borup: Well, I guess it wouldn't have to be, because they would be tearing it up if it weren’t but you mean a permanent location of the sewer lines? Freckleton: Right. Permanent location for the sewer and water. Centers: While we are on that page, Bruce, Page 11, Item 3, you say see Page 2, CUP act. Is it actually E on Page 10? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 87 of 112 Freckleton: Give us just a second and we will look that up. Give us just a second. Centers: Yes. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that's actually shown on the site plan, the 10-foot wide pathway along the south side of west Cuyuse Street Drive. The reference to see Page 2 of the CUP application I believe is a reference just to the summary on the page at the very bottom of the page, referring to the various micropaths and the proposed pathway system consisting of seven to 10-foot wide asphalt path on the south side of the east-west collector. Centers: So we are covered then? McKinnon: We are covered. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve AZ 02-010, request for annexation and zoning of 354.38 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest, LLC, and Daniel Gibson, taking into account all staff comments, as indicated in their August 2nd memorandum. Centers: Well, Page 7 -- Shreeve: Except for not requiring a collector roadway be constructed at this time, excluding that out of staff comments. Borup: The collector road to Ten Mile. Shreeve: Right Ten Mile, which is specifically listed on Page 7 of the staff comments. McKinnon: In the findings? Centers: Yes. It was actually -- McKinnon: It's not actually on -- Shreeve: The annexation and zoning analysis. Centers: It's in the findings analysis, but referred to under annexation. McKinnon: Okay. Centers: I would second that motion. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 88 of 112 Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve PP 02-009, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 856 building lots and 59 other lots -- is that correct with their new additional of their lot? McKinnon: Those single-family lots, it hasn't changed. Shreeve: And 59 other lots on 354.38 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest, LLC, and Daniel Gibson. Including all comments from the staff report dated August 2nd , with the following revisions. On Site Specific Comment Number 1, that the applicant will also be required to construct a -- this would be a permanent -- permanent, all-weather permanent 14-foot wide paved multi-use path, roadway. Of course, that would be for the water and the sewer. Centers: And then Page 8, change that gravel to asphalt. Shreeve: Which also looks like there is the same comment on Page 8 of the staff report, Preliminary Plat findings and requirements, Item B, at the end, that the applicant will also be required to construct a 14-foot wide paved access road over the off-site segments in this project, which could be meandering as well. Borup: The original staff comments mentions four-foot sidewalk detached. Shreeve: Oh. Correct. Borup: On Page 10. Shreeve: Yes. Yes. That the sidewalk be -- Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. Before we go on, Mr. Shreeve, it needs to be pointed out that that is only in the park area. Centers: Good point. Shreeve: Paved only within the park area. Then that a four-foot wide sidewalk be constructed to a five-foot sidewalk -- where was that again? Borup: Page 10, Number E. Shreeve: On Page 10, Item E that it be a five-foot wide sidewalk detached. With signage per Parks Department recommendations. Also, a part of that is the Parks Department memo, dated August 15th . I guess that's including Item Number 1, as well as Item Number 2, although a correction on Item Number 2 would be to 14-foot wide paved pathway, as indicated earlier. Item Number 3 is not pertinent to this project, so to exclude that and we addressed the five-foot -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 89 of 112 McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commission Shreeve, could you, please, make that a site specific comment to go to the four-foot to five-foot detached path as one of the site specific comments. Shreeve: Okay. What number would that be? Borup: Just make that number eight. Shreeve: Number 8. Yes. Number 8 says that the sidewalk be five-foot detached as part of the path system. Also, finally, I believe, including the comments received tonight from the Farwest, LLC, dated August 15th to Tony Moss, indicating the corrections or the revisions that were made to the plat, but clarifying Bullet Number 2, that the lots are Lots 11 and 12 of Block 6. Also, of course, including the open lot and Bullet Number 4 is Lot 6 of Block 6 that is being referred to there. I believe that's all the clarifications. Bullet Number 5, that the irrigation ditches, what, be constructed before Final Plat? Centers: At final plat. Shreeve: At final plat. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shreeve, one item to add to -- I believe it was bullet item number two from the Moss memorandum. It refers to single story -- I think we need to put a height limitation on that, whether that's 25 feet to peak. Shreeve: And that's what we have used in the past. McKinnon: So let's make it very specific, so we don't have to interpret. If we could go to 25 to peak on that. Shreeve: Twenty-five feet to peak. And I believe that's it. Centers: I overheard Commissioner Mathes and, I agree, I guess these items included in the motion for Tony Moss I guess would be subject to his acceptance and if he didn't accept them, then the applicant wouldn't have to do it and they could revise their preliminary plat accordingly and -- right? That would be my suggestion. Zaremba: Make them all -- Borup: And if that's not understood, it could be added to the motion. Centers: No. I don't think you want to require that if he doesn't relinquish the easement he doesn't get these. That's up to him and them. Shreeve: That's a good point. Then I revise that to basically say be on the conditions of Mr. Moss's acceptance of the items listed. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 90 of 112 Centers: And then we also have to say that if he doesn't relinquish the easement, that we are okay with that being a dedicated lot all the way in, in lieu of an easement. Shreeve: So stated. Centers: Yeah. Shreeve: Good point. Centers: I guess I second that motion. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Shreeve: Mr. Mayor, I recommend approval of CUP 02-012, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a PUD for 862 single-family dwellings, 171 multi-family dwellings, and 11 office buildings, one commercial building, one fire station lot, one city park, one private park for the proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest, LLC, and Daniel Gibson. I don't recall if there was anything that -- Borup: I don't think so. Shreeve: With all staff comments in their August 2nd memorandum, 2002. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from August 1, 2002: CUP 02-019 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an office and shop for transmission service and repair in a C-G zone for Bobby’s Transmission by Treasure Valley Engineers – south of 835 East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Okay. One more and before midnight, so I guess we are okay. Item Number 9, Continued Public Hearing, CUP 02-109, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an office and shop transmission service and repair for Bobby's Transmission. Open this Continued Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, like you stated, this is a continued hearing, so I won't belabor the point and give you the full background, but go through the staff report and touch on the things that were added to the staff report and explain just a little bit about the location of the property. You'll notice on the overhead in front of you the property is located just to the south of Fairview. It's right behind the car Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 91 of 112 wash that's just to the south of the Fairview Lakes application that we heard earlier tonight. Site photos. I'll go through those rather rapidly and we have got a site plan. At the last meeting there were a few things that need to change and they have made accommodations for those changes. They have increased the parking from 20 to 44 spaces proposed. If you will turn to Page 3 and 4, you can see the part that is underlined. I'll make a few comments. You can see that the applicant will need to work with the Parks and Rec Department to determine if there is any future pathway. That would be the same pathway that we talked about with Fairview Lakes tonight. One of the major comments that he makes and has bolded is that they still do not comply with the one section of the Landscape Ordinance and that's found on Page 4. He says the applicant needs to revise his site plan to add 25 feet of buffer, a landscape buffer along the south boundary, and 20 feet of buffer to the west and from the south line approximately 130 feet. There still is a requirement for that. On Page 5, Brad has underlined that the applicant needs to submit a written statement regarding the hours of operation. However, when I was reading through this, I found that in the site specific comments the applicant has stated on page seven the hours of operation being 8:00 to 6:00 P.M. for the operation of the transmission shop on page -- I guess we can skip straight through to Page 6. Brad wanted me to let you know tonight that the same conditions on Page 6 under conditional considerations, the fact that no development agreement has ever been signed or completed for this property as part of the annexation. It's still a condition of approval for this project. That still needs to be taken care of before we can finalize this project. If they can do that prior to -- if you will notice down below that Brad used it in site specific comments number one -- oh, boy. Borup: C? McKinnon: C. Thank you. Under Development Agreement Item Number 2 below stating, that it has to be done prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. They can have this approved by you prior -- and the City Council prior to the Development Agreement being in place. However, they can't get Building Permits from the Building Department until they have a Certificate of Zoning Compliance through the Planning and Zoning Department, which are us. Item Number 4, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends a portion of the existing sewer access road be permitted to include the 25-foot buffer. Brad has added that per your request at the last Planning and Zoning Meeting. Item Number 15 is a new comment stating that a minimum two inch caliper tree be planted in the parking lot I don't show on the west side of the building. Essentially, we still have in front of us to complete this project tonight is to talk about the landscaping buffer on the south side of the project and the landscaping buffer on the -- go back to my notes here -- on the south and on the west. Those are the only two things that are left and they were discussed the last time. The applicant is here tonight and he can address those issues. You know as much about the project as I do at this point, probably more, and I would ask if there are any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to come forward? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 92 of 112 Zaremba: Yes. I did have one question while he's coming forward. Clarifying the parking stall count. One of the issues -- and maybe the applicant can address this as well -- there are now 44 spaces. There are actually 21 required by this project. There are 15 more that have been -- some agreement between the previous owner of the property and the car wash to the north to use, so that's 36 spaces. That means there are eight spaces available to put cars for sale in? McKinnon: The required number is 21 for the site. Zaremba: Twenty-one. McKinnon: Anything beyond the 21 -- Zaremba: Would be in addition to that. McKinnon: Yes. Zaremba: So by the math there are eight spaces available for the sale of cars. McKinnon: That's correct. Per State Code you're required to only have five stalls for a car lot, designated directly for -- Zaremba: So all of that is okay? McKinnon: They have got three parking stalls that we count as gravy. Zaremba: Okay. Centers: And one additional thing -- one additional thing that I think needs to be addressed before the applicant starts here. Your concerns start at the bottom of Page 2 about the storage of abandoned vehicles. The vehicles in disrepair proposed within 100 feet of Five Mile Creek and then you quote all of the items that are applicable to that, so I guess -- McKinnon: That was the reason that we asked for some increased buffer along that. Centers: Okay. McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: Okay. Schultz: Good evening. I'm Art Schultz, Treasure Valley Engineers, 1117 Caldwell Boulevard in Nampa. I appreciate you guys staying up late and letting us have this Public Hearing on this date. Just to let you know, we have gone through all the comments and so on and if I could, I'd like to just simple address them as they are listed here on these papers. I think it might be the simplest. I think in the first place that as Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 93 of 112 we some along here that we want to make sure that we have a clear understanding and that is about the vehicle storage area. It is not intended that that vehicle storage area be a junk yard, not going to be storing abandoned vehicles or vehicles in disrepair. The intent of the owner is to be able to park cars there for his customers, who he works on them and he parks them there and he wanted to keep them locked up so that somebody can't come in and steal stereos and those kinds of things. Also he'd like to be able to store some of his own equipment on there. I understand he has his own snow removal outfit and would like to be able to park some of these rigs on there. Again, he has no intention on storing junk cars, but he does have cars that people have not paid their bills and he either sells them or has them hauled off. As far as the floodway issue, as was mentioned the last time we were here, that we would gladly raise the elevation of the vehicle storage area to the flood plane level or above, so that would deter any possible issues from 100 year storm. We would like to not have to pave this with asphalt. It is not considered in our opinion, a circulation type of area where you have traffic going through. Although that is our preference, if we cannot get that through, we will move forward with the asphalt. I believe that we really don't have to worry about all these issues concerning the 100-year flood plane, because I think that we have worked through those as a matter of -- that I don't think this is a junkyard. Next on the list was -- going down to the bottom of Page 3, it talks about the required buffer, the 20 feet and the 25 feet. As we had talked about last time we were here -- we were hoping that you would not require 45 feet taken out of the southern portion of this property. Unfortunately, Mr. Brad Hawkins-Clark did not attend that last meeting and although he has made comments about it again, so I kind of feel like he didn't understand that we had at least some concessions that perhaps we could reduce that spacing. We'd like to see -- we had hoped that you would go ahead and accept the way we have it shown on this drawing. We have given additional footage there, up to 30 feet now. We have 14 feet of landscape area and 16 feet of area where you can access the sewer line along the southern boundary. The other issues on here, C and D, I don't think that we have issues there, unless somebody from the public has an issue with them. I guess the next place that we come down is Item G. As far as I know, the owner does not believe that it will be an issue for how he operates his property, so doesn't feel like this is an applicable comment. He can work that out with the city as far as operations. He works his work inside the building and if the doors are open, the noise will go to the west. I won't be moving towards the area of -- the residential areas. As far as the site specific conditions, I believe that, as was mentioned earlier, that the owner will work that out as far as getting the Development Agreement signed off and so I think that -- we hopefully would move forward with that. Again, item, -- on Page 7, Item 4, we discussed that as far as storm water, we will comply. Item 6, again, we would not like to have to asphalt that area if we could avoid it and that we would raise it above the flood plane. Item 7, we would comply. Item 8 we will. Nine and 10 go away. Eleven we will comply. Item 12. We did get comments back from Mr. Kuntz regarding the landscape requirements and so on and his only concern, at least on the list there, was to have asphalt along that -- it would be a pathway along Five Mile. Although the owner doesn't have a problem with doing that, it just seems kind of strange to have asphalt along there when there is no other improvements along there and his feelings are he will be willing to comply, but perhaps at a later time when that is all being Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 94 of 112 developed along there. It just doesn't make sense to have just some asphalt lying out there. Item 13, 14 and 15 we will comply and general comments, all of that we will comply. I do want to say that from the last time we were here we did add some additional landscaping along the western portion of the improved areas, five-foot landscape buffer that we feel needs some criteria for separation for adjoining property. Then also you will see that we did increase the landscape area there on the -- along the private road. They did increase their parking count. We did add upright arbor vitae and we feel that that would be best when we consider the neighborhood property to the south not wanting to have the back of this property, the chain link fence and so on. That's pretty tight spacing right at four-foot on center. That will give you a pretty good screen. Those grow relatively tall, so that whole entire area is well obscured from neighboring property. What we did in talking with Brad, it's also -- he felt that as we work our way around that pod there, he felt that he wanted to see three trees in that area, something that would provide a little more of a screen that has a canopy type appearance to it, because you do still have the residential on the southwest corner that still view that property and so that he's trying to just look with -- how it might reflect upon the residential area on the south and southwest. Again, we went ahead and put some additional bushes there along that landscaped area just on the access road with the intent of not having trees that would lean over the access road and make it difficult for vehicles to get through. I believe that takes care of all the concerns that we had. Any questions? Borup: Questions for the applicant? Zaremba: On the vehicle storage area, you're proposing that it be compacted gravel. Assuming that we don't ever want it to be mud, what would be the sub surface underneath the gravel? Schultz: Well, you would want to see somewhere around 6 to 10 inches of three quarter, impact of about 95 percent. That way you could store some vehicles in there that you don't have to worry about them sinking down into there. Also, the advantage of having the gravel back there is that, again, you will have vehicles that could drip oil a little bit and you don't want to have to have just puddles of oil around. It's not like you have these big old, you know, bunches of oil dribble through the groundwater. It's not really that big of an issue, but we think at the surface that you will have some oil patches and so on that probably would be advantageous to have gravel, as opposed to asphalt and that's the main reason that we'd like to avoid the asphalt. Zaremba: I'm trying to remember the name of it. We had one several months ago, the car repair shop that -- Freckleton: Meridian Auto. Zaremba: Right at the railroad track. McKinnon: Meridian Automotive. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 95 of 112 Zaremba: They had a storage area. Also what was the material we suggested for their surface? McKinnon: That was recycled asphalt that was discussed at the City Council meeting, which I attended, the City Council required they use hot batch asphalt or concrete asphalt. They overturned the Commission to use recycled asphalt and required -- Zaremba: Didn't go with a good idea. McKinnon: You know there is a couple issues that come into play on that and we'll get the applicant up here to address them. I think if you will look at your revised site plan, really the only thing the revised site plan that's included was the one tree, you guys have shown as Brad requested in the 14 foot buffer. So that -- if you guys can show that tree, I think we have hashed out everything we need to on the landscape side of things, according to everything that was discussed last time on the site plan. In regards to then compacted gravel, just this last Tuesday night we had a meeting with City Council, it was one of their work sessions that encompasses the Meridian Planning Association and the transportation planning for the region gave a presentation to the Council concerning air quality -- one of the major issues was air quality with vehicles driving on unimproved surfaces or surfaces that have gravel. The lane of gravel or driving over surface gravel for parking and driving causes two problems. One is the contamination of surface water, which you have already addressed, and the other issue is no -- you don't have a subsurface scrubber beneath that typically. The other issue is air quality and that's the reason why they wouldn't let the recycled asphalt -- they went with the hot batch asphalt, because it won't turn up any dirt and dust into the air. The PM, particular matter, into the air. That's a great concern for Ada County and Canyon County is encompassed as well is that the air shed quality in the valley is not good and so that's why you have seen a change in the past seven or eight years to everybody going to asphalt, no more oiling of roads and no more compacted gravel. Borup: Except for 8th Street. McKinnon: Except for 8th Street but they are using soil cement for that. That's a dust prohibitive. It's out of Wisconsin. Borup: The only other thing that was different on there on this project was that storage area where the drive-thru area had two entrances and exits. McKinnon: That's correct. Borup: I guess it depends on how much speed you can get up in an area this size to raise a lot of dust. McKinnon: It's real easy to spin tires. You can bark your tires on gravel really quick and turn up dust. It's not necessarily a speed, but an acceleration. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 96 of 112 Borup: Okay. McKinnon: Did you have anything you wanted to add, Bruce? Freckleton: The only thing I wanted to add was the -- we had in our staff comments that the -- it's a 20-foot wide easement for that sewer down there. We didn't have a problem with coming into that easement a little bit for that landscaping. I just want to make sure that the large trees are beyond the -- what would be the 20-foot line. I don't think that -- I don't see a problem accommodating that with those trees. Borup: I mean the plan shows bushes that would be -- Freckleton: The arbor vitae. Borup: Well, no, but those others aren't trees, those were bushes. The arbor vitae are next to the fence. Freckleton: Oh. Right. Right. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that the big ones are beyond the four-foot and I don't see that being a problem, but for the record. Borup: Okay. The only question, maybe, I -- you had mentioned on a pathway desiring -- not to maybe do it now, but do it later. Are you talking about putting that money in trust? Schultz: That would be up to you. Borup: Has the city ever -- has the city done that before? I mean the Highway District does on their road improvements. Is the city even able to accommodate that? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I don't know. Have you done that in the past, Bruce that you know of? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if specifically for pathways, but we have had money set aside in an account for other improvements. I have had several water main types of improvements that we have had money stuck away for, we just carried on the books, it can be used, and then that money is utilized at that time. Borup: Is there any -- any idea on when this pathway could be extended? Centers: I was going to ask the nearest connection to it right now. How far away is the nearest connection? McKinnon: The nearest -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mr. Applicant, the nearest connection is actually through Parkside Creek in Danbury Faire, which is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 97 of 112 adjacent to this existing apartment complex. It -- that pathway actually runs through the apartment complex. Borup: So it runs through this property line? I mean so this pathway connects to something? Centers: The apartment complex is right next-door. McKinnon: Well, it actually connects south into Danbury and runs -- let me refer to the map really quick. I will be right back. Borup: I think we should -- we should probably have some information on that. Maybe -- we have got to have those for it anyway. Do you have anything else that you -- Schultz: I don't. Borup: Okay. We may have you come up at the end anyway. Do you want to come on up, Mrs. Lavelle? Lavelle: My name is Nancy Lavelle and I live at 2720 South Varialle Lane, Meridian, Idaho. However, I am here speaking as a property owner of the adjoining property to the west. Borup: Your property is to the west? Lavelle: To the west. On the south -- southern part -- I didn't bring my own pictures. Mr. Delgato earlier referred to our complex in his pictures as an example of what could be done nicely. Borup: That was your cement fence? Lavelle: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Lavelle: However, that cement fence was not on our ease side, which this project adjoins. Because of the Five Mile Creek area we were not permitted to put up a stone fence or a cement fence on that side. I would like to point out that we have two-story townhouses that face this project -- or that have a side facing with windows. I have never seen an automotive shop, a brake shop, or a transmission shop whose backyards were attractive to look into. That's exactly where our tenants will be doing. I don't believe that this is residential compatible and I don't think a row of arbor vitae make it that way. I do think it's very disturbing and being on the west side I was very disturbed by this comment that sound will be directed to the east and west to protect the homeowners on the south, because it will be on the west. To start with, I am opposed to the project as such. I think that you have a fine corridor of land behind these existing Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 98 of 112 commercial development on Fairview and between the existing development and the residential areas to the south you will be making decisions on a number of pieces there no doubt in the near future. I would really appeal to you to make those properties residential friendly or even residential compatible. I don't believe -- I just feel that we have put a lot of money developing some very nice areas in there and I hate to see automotive repair of any kind come in with the accompanying storage. I think it would be an extreme detriment to our property and would be disturbing also to the homeowners to the south of the property. Borup: Could you clarify the pathway? Do you have a pathway through your project? Lavelle: No, sir. McKinnon: If I remember correctly -- I have been out to the project a couple times, you just had a phase -- Lavelle: Phase 2. McKinnon: Phase 2 and you actually had a pathway that connected to Danbury Faire at Inez and there is a path that actually -- Lavelle: Not from Danbury Faire. Sterling Creek. McKinnon: Sterling Creek? Actually, the pathway is chain linked through the back of your property to their fence and it doesn't actually continue through their wooden fence is that correct? Lavelle: That's correct. Borup: That is the pathway, is it not? Lavelle: That is a pathway that we were required to put in, but it connects to what they had stubbed as Badley Street. McKinnon: That's correct and then it continued on through your project and you have actually the painted lines throughout. Lavelle: Yes, we do have painted lines to go through -- that go down two and a half streets. McKinnon: Okay so there is no other pathway within your project? Borup: There is no pathway along Five Mile Creek. Lavelle: No. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 99 of 112 McKinnon: That's the pathway I was referring to. There is no other pathway in your -- Lavelle: No. I thought you were referring to the one along Five Mile. McKinnon: I'm sorry. I was confused. Borup: Do you own both sides of the File Mile Creek or just the one side? Lavelle: No. Just the one side and, actually, our property line on top of that is a few feet outside of Five Mile Creek itself, but within the -- Borup: The rezone? Lavelle: -- right of way. Borup: Right of way? So you're on the south, essentially? Lavelle: Yes. Our property angles -- we have an area -- well, this little area map that we were given with the notification shows that quite well. We have a street area here and then it angles this way. We have built two-story buildings all along here with windows facing this way and this way that are town homes. The town homes in those buildings are 1,200 square feet with direct access attached garages and rent during our current time at 825 dollars or at 775 per month and we are very alarmed at the idea of our tenants having to look out and look next to an automotive repair shop of any kind. Centers: How many units -- how many apartments there is -- Lavelle: We have 108 altogether. Centers: And that's the maximum? Do you still have more to build or -- Lavelle: We have two more acres on the west side. Again, I can show you on this. On our west side there are two properties shown, one has a little strip mall in it, and the second one back is also ours. We will be approaching you before too long wanting to build some apartments in that area. Centers: How long have you owned the property and -- Lavelle: We purchased the original property -- this section of the original property in 1992 or '91. I could -- I'm not sure of the exact day. Centers: Okay. Lavelle: We purchased the remaining property here adjoining this in '93 and we purchased these two acres on the west into 2000. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 100 of 112 Centers: Well -- and I guess you realize that that parcel -- the subject parcel was zoned that would be applicable to this type of business? Did you check that out when you bought your land for your apartment? Borup: You're saying this was a C-G zone? Centers: Right. Lavelle: There is a C-G zone. I'm not sure if it was in '93 or not. Borup: I doubt that it was. Zaremba: The annex in '96. Annexed and zoned -- it was annexed and zoned in '96, because -- the discussion was about not having the Development Agreement. I remember that date, August of '96. Centers: You weren't at the last hearing? Lavelle: I was not able to attend. Centers: We even had some of the homeowners on the south side at the last hearings that aren’t here tonight. I usually have my notes. How many did we have at the last hearing? Two or three homeowners to the south? Borup: I had Mrs. Schultz is the only one I had. Zaremba: Yes. I don't think we had any. Borup: Oh. Let me look again. Maybe we didn't have any then. Zaremba: I was just looking again at what a C-G zone is. Most of us have probably looked at this at one time or another. General retail and service commercial district. The purpose of the C-G district is to provide for commercial uses, which are customarily operated entirely or mostly entirely within a building, to provide for review of the impact of proposed commercial uses, which are auto and service, related. I'm sorry. Auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to a major highway or arterial streets. Borup: And that's what I asked before. It says automobile repair shop is a Conditional Use. Zaremba: Auto and service oriented is within a C-G. Borup: But it does require a Conditional Use. Centers: That's why we are here tonight. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 101 of 112 Borup: And a service station, a straight service station, is a permitted use, as is a washing facility, which is right next-door. Lavelle: And a straight service station is allowed? Borup: Yes. Yes. A straight service station is permitted. Lavelle: And repair facilities tend to have more storage of parts and vehicles. They tend to not have as well cared for area, because not all areas are considered public. Zaremba: Well, that part of the operation is not contained within a building. Lavelle: And certainly machine storage is not, which he indicated he would like to use it for. Centers: Did you understand their business hours committed to were 8:00 to 6:00 Monday through Friday? Lavelle: Yes, but that doesn't help the looks of the place. Centers: Well, I guess -- Lavelle: But it might help -- it might help as far as disturbing people. Centers: Yes and you could have weekend business there, you know, and evening, a variety of other type of uses could go in there that would be maybe more disturbing. I don't know. I don't know. But understand where you're coming from. I do. Lavelle: Well, certainly I think this is something that we have to live with, which, of course, is not our first choice by any means. I would ask you to very carefully require screening on the west side, as well as on the south. Borup: Are you concerned about -- I mean the west side does show -- at least for the vehicle storage area it shows arbor vitae along there also, clear down that whole trim. Are you talking additional trees to that or -- or just clarification on -- Lavelle: I'm not -- I'm not a horticulturist, I don't know how long it takes arbor vitae -- I doubt if it's ever going to match the second story windows. Borup: Well, no. How far away is your -- are those windows? Lavelle: Well, they are some distance. I don't know how many feet. I don't know how many feet, but I do know that looks right down into that property. Centers: Is there any fencing along there now? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 102 of 112 Lavelle: There is chain link. That's all we were allowed because of Five Mile Creek. Centers: Thank you. Zaremba: Not that I want to reengineer the project, but I'm just looking to see if there is a way to reorient the building. Borup: There is about 140 feet from the vehicle storage area to the property line. I don't know if that gives any perspective or not. I have seen arbor vitae get 20 feet tall, but I don't know how many years it took for them to get that tall. Zaremba: Was there also some discussion in this area that's marked as a storm pond of putting some trees in that storm pond? Borup: Not on the plat there isn't. McKinnon: It's not included on the site plan. Borup: That was undeveloped area. Zaremba: Yes. I don't see them shown here. Borup: Clarification, sir? Go ahead. Palmer: My name is Larry Palmer. I own Bobby's Transmission. Basically this is going to be a really nice facility, much better than what I'm used to today. We will be spending lots of money not to make a junk pile. Put my whole life savings in there, you know, and it's a pretty big thing to me, but after watching the big zoning thing there, you know, I mean I'm just surprised there, but to me it's all I have. Our building, just from the edge of the building to the west side property line is 225 feet. That's not where the storage compartment -- Borup: Right. That's why -- Palmer: Then it goes across the canal, then it goes through their fence, and then it goes through their building. It's -- in most cases, it's a ways away from that building. I don't think noise will be any kind of a factor. We do 99 percent of our work inside the building on hoists. In the winters, the doors are closed anyway and in the summer they will probably be open, but just a working day, it's not like we are out there with jackhammers, vibration, and anything like that. I just don't see where -- you know, where we would be a bad neighbor, only if we made a junkyard out of it. That's just not the intent here. We intend to have a really nice facility. Centers: You intend to comply with those 8:00 to 6:00 hours? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 103 of 112 Palmer: There might be some times when we have somebody out of state that says, you know, that we got to get them on the road and we may have to work a couple of hours late or something, but we -- I have owned it 14 years and we have never worked a Saturday as a regular day. Never. We may go in and work on our own personal things, you know, if I want to just work on my own pickup or something like that, maybe during snow season, if one of the plows has a problem, we'll run it into the shop and work on it, because we have to get the snow out, something like that, but it's not something that we do on a regular basis. We never work weekends and we haven't. Never intend to. That's when most of the neighbors would probably be home anyway is on the weekends and most of them probably have an 8:00 to 5:00 job anyway. I mean - - and I think as long as we keep the place looking good -- it can't look worse than it does today. That's a fact. It's just a weed pile, I mowed it down once, and it's already back up this high. It looks really terrible now and it will look so much better once we get it built and zoned and that there wouldn't be any comparison to the eyesore that it is today. Borup: Could you elaborate on your outside storage? Palmer: I have 10 snowplows. I don't have to put them there. I have them out at my house now. It would just be more convenient, so when we got them ready to go in the winter and we -- it would just be more convenient to run them into the shop and work on them and store them there. It's not a mandatory thing, because it's not -- I don't store them down here now. Borup: What about in addition to the snowplows? Palmer: Sometimes we get people that just don't have the money. They tell us to fix their vehicle and then they say they don't have the money and they will come and pick it up. They may have nice interior, nice tires and wheels, you can look at the police reports, they steal stuff from me three, four, five, six times a year I have to make a report. They steal tires and wheels and batteries and stereos. That's what the intent of a lot of that was for is to -- when we got that vehicle and they were out of town on vacation for a week, we take it out, lock it up, so the kids don't come by and steal stuff of the customer's rig, because it really does irritate them. I'm the one that has to pay for it and that was the intent of the storage lot, not -- Borup: But for how long? This is storage for vehicles that you have worked on? Palmer: Yes. Borup: Or someone didn't pay you for? Palmer: Yes. Borup: And how long does that usually take? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 104 of 112 Palmer: I have had some over 30 days, but I don't like them over 30 days. There are people that -- you know, that something happened in their family and they just don't have the money. I can't send the car down to the junk yard, it's still somebody's car, and -- Borup: So this isn't intended for like racks of old transmissions that -- Palmer: No. I'm going to do all that inside the building. It's really a lot bigger than I need for what I have right now and I'm going to do all my old part storages inside the building. Borup: So the storage area is going to be for vehicles, either snowplows or other vehicles? Palmer: Yes, vehicles that are licensed. You know, useable vehicles. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Theoretically they would all be operational? Palmer: Pretty much. Zaremba: Licensed. Palmer: You know, I have 10 plows and there is one of them that I don't use, but it runs. I mean I might -- they are all licensed, you know. Borup: So not much different than a parking lot? Palmer: No. If we didn't have the fence there it would be no different than just having a parking lot, basically. Borup: Okay and how about that arbor vitae size. The site -- landscaping plan doesn't give a gallon size or a height size or anything. Palmer: I bought some for my house the other day and they are nine feet high and you can buy them -- Centers: Already nine feet tall? Borup: What did you have intentions for here? Palmer: Whatever it takes. Borup: Nine feet is pretty tall and transplanted I would think. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 105 of 112 Palmer: Some of them die but I mean they do have them, you know, in various heights and they do get tall. I don't know if you have been out on South Meridian Road where that horse arena is there on Lake Hazel and Meridian Road. They put a whole row of those, just so when people go by and honk at the horses and -- when they are out roping and whatever and you can't even watch them do anything in that arena now. They have put them just three or four feet apart and they have grown together and made a nice wall and it blocked the whole highway there. The people to the south of us, none of them showed up. I was talking to them when I was working out there and they were just tickled to death that we were getting rid of the weed pile, that the kids go out, play, hide, and do their drugs in. When I cleaned that up it had mattresses and all kinds of stuff out there, you know, and the little forts that they built and there is no doubt that it would be an improvement to what it is today. Borup: Is the plant count accurate on the Landscaping Plan? Palmer: The number of plants? Borup: Yes. Palmer: We revised this and I'm not sure that -- Borup: On the new one it shows 45 on the south and at least 18 on the west. Palmer: And we were talking every four feet along the south side there by the storage. Then on the west side of the storage it continues on along that part of it. Then on the -- Borup: Okay. Palmer: And then on the complete west side, then they weren't -- they were just the bushes on the five foot -- Borup: And then the parking spot where -- Palmer: Yes and then the parking area. Borup: Is that four feet apart, is that what -- Palmer: Yes. That's our intent on the south and the west of the parking -- or of the storage lot. Borup: Questions from any of the other Commissioners? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the applicant. Just a simple question for you. We have limited the hours of operation for the transmission shop. You stated in your application that you'd like to use part of the parcel for sales of automotives and typically the days that the high auto sales are -- I know a little bit about automotive sales Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 106 of 112 -- are Saturdays and Sundays. Is it your intent to operate the sales portion of this site on Saturdays and Sundays? Palmer: Actually, why I use the Dealer's License now, I do a lot of work for automobile dealers and we rebuild them. They bring them down and they have no license plates. I have a Dealer's License so I can use my own plates to test drive, do all the things I do, I go to the auction, and I buy one. My son owns a car lot down on Fairview, Express Auto, and all the cars that I own, except for maybe I took one out, are down there for sale. Even if it sat out in front, there wouldn't be anybody there to sell it on the weekends. I mean, no, we are not going to operate a car lot on the weekends. Borup: So it's not a real high traffic area back there anyway? Palmer: Yes. It's not a car lot situation, but -- Borup: Not that much exposure. Palmer: But I do need the Dealer License to get the plates to operate the vehicles that we worked on. That's why I wanted to just get it legal so we didn't have a problem there. Centers: Occasionally sell one where the customer didn't pay you? Palmer: Yes. I'll buy them and -- or if they don't want to fix it, I'll buy it and fix it and sell it. Centers: Right. Zaremba: Well, I'm becoming known for my off-the-wall suggestions, so me let run one by you. What are the approximate size or dimensions, length and width of the vehicle storage area? It looks to me like it's, what, 60 feet by 150 or something like that? McKinnon: I have got a scale. McKinnon: Fifty-five by 175. That's excluding all the landscaped area. Zaremba: Okay. I have just one where -- what I'm getting at is thinking of a structure that would be something like a carport over it, but covered, so that second story neighbors wouldn't be seeing anything. Is that permitted? Palmer: It sounds expensive. Zaremba: It's a pretty good size area to cover. Borup: My concern originally was parts storage out there. We were talking about another automotive place earlier and they -- I don't know if they still do it -- previously they had big storage racks and storing all kinds of stuff outside. Here we are talking not Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 107 of 112 much different than a parking lot, if it's strictly vehicles. If we are not looking at transmissions lying out there or other kinds of parts, it makes a big difference. Center: I think when you say that, aren't they restrictive in the requirements. Zaremba: Operational vehicles only. Shreeve: Isn't there some kind of garbage ordinance anyway? What do you call that? Or does that need to be spelled out? I guess probably in this case it would be. McKinnon: If you want to include it you should include it as specific as possible, that way it's not open for any interpretation. Shreeve: Okay. Borup: Vehicles only? Is that a short way of saying it? Zaremba: Operational vehicles only. Palmer: But would you consider somebody that -- well, I still have one down there for three days now and they dropped it off in front of our door with no license plates, left the key in it, if you start it up it won't move, but we don't even know whose it is. I still don't know whose it is, but -- Borup: Well, something like maybe over 30 days. Palmer: Yes. You know, my intent is not to store other people's vehicles there, but when it costs me thousands of dollars every year in theft alone -- and this was mainly my idea. We had the room for it, to enclose it, not to use it for somebody -- a wrecker service and charge storage -- I don't even charge storage even if they are there 90 days, I wouldn't charge them anything. I just don't want anybody -- there are a lot of kids -- if you go down there and from her apartments and the places on -- you go down and look at the creek and they have worn a path across that canal there where they come and jump over JJ's fence and steal his gas and steel the tools out of his trailers, his snowmobile trailers. There is a path going across the creek where they come out of this beautiful subdivision with apartments, all these nice little kids, but they do it and I just don't want to put myself or my customers through that if it's avoidable. That's the whole thing. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Any other information from anyone? Centers: I guess I would move that we close the Public Hearing, Mr. Chairman. Shreeve: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 108 of 112 Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Centers: I guess I would say this business owner, entrepreneur, deserves a chance, but I would like to see all staff comments adhered to right down the line, the paving, the buffering, the landscaping. That's my opinion. Borup: Okay. Were there any concerns on anything other than paving with the new site plan? Centers: The landscape of 20 and 30 feet. I mean that was their comment that the applicant wanted some leeway on that. Borup: And we agreed to that last time. Centers: Agreed to what? Borup: Well, they increased -- well, actually, staff wanted 25. We have got 30 now if -- Centers: And 20 on one side. Borup: Oh, you're talking about on the south side or -- Centers: I don't know. I can't find it now. McKinnon: It's Item Number 4 on Page 7. Zaremba: My understanding or my participation in the conversation was that -- to have a 20-foot easement, plus the 25 feet of landscape buffer for 45 feet is excessive. If we - - if the compromise is 14 feet of the easement needs to be accessible as a roadway and then another 16 feet is landscape, for a total of 30. Borup: I thought it was the other way around. Zaremba: I'm sorry. Anyhow, back to -- Centers: That's fine. Borup: That's 30 feet. Zaremba: That's a total of 30 along their south property line. I don't have a problem with that. Again, assuming that the trees aren't too close to the sewers and they have to be outside of the 16 feet -- outside of -- okay. If they need to be outside of 20 feet. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 109 of 112 Borup: They would be. If they are outside 20 feet, that's 10 feet over right against the fence line, which -- the only thing that's within that would be the bushes. I assume if they had to be dug up they can be replaced easily. Shreeve: Then, of course, the limitation on the equipment in the yard or any type of hardware. Borup: Okay and that is part of the staff's comments. They did revise their comments to reflect our Item Number 4, Page 7. I guess Commissioner Centers comment to include all staff comments is -- Centers: Would be okay. Borup: Yes. Unless we need to clarify that 16 feet was the sewer access road area. Centers: Where is that? Borup: It's on the plat. I think that's -- I don't think we want to complicate it that much. Centers: Item Number 9 on Page 7, submit 10 copies of the south elevation? McKinnon: They have done that and Brad's removed that from the staff report. Centers: I'm looking at the old one. Thank you. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I'd make a motion. Borup: Yes. Do we need any discussion or -- we talked about items in the storage be restricted to vehicles and I would say a four-foot height on the arbor vitae? Minimum four feet? Is that -- Shreeve: Okay. Borup: And the pathway was the other thing that was kind of up in the air. Centers: And the asphalt on the -- Shreeve: Well, I think that's part of staff comments is asphalt. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, as far as the pathway, a comment that could be added it could be that they shall coordinate with the Parks Department and that way if the Parks Department wants to take the money and approve it later or they could do it now, it's up to them, but they should coordinate it with the Parks Department. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 110 of 112 Borup: I'm a strong advocate of pathways, but if it doesn't go anywhere. Well, there is a possibility of the pathway being on the north side of Five Mile and that property isn't developed yet, so -- McKinnon: Eventually they will go to Fairview Lakes. Borup: Pardon? McKinnon: Eventually they will go to Fairview Lakes, the other pathway that we talked about tonight. Borup: Oh. Okay. So right now there is just one parcel between here and Fairview Lakes. McKinnon: That's correct. Borup: And that's undeveloped right now. McKinnon: That's right. Borup: Well, we can take care of these neighbors. Okay so I don't see them as so far off as I thought it might be. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve CUP 02-019, request for Conditional Use Permit for an office and shop for a transmission service and repair in a C-G zone for Bobby's Transmission by Treasure Valley Engineers, including all staff comments, dated August 12, 2002, with the addition of -- that the landscape trees be a minimum of four feet tall. Do we need to indicate what kind of trees? Borup: Well, no, that was arbor vitae that were around the storage area. Shreeve: Oh. Right. Okay. That there be no storage of, what, hardware? Borup: Well, it might be easiest to say the only storage allowed would be -- Shreeve: The only storage -- yes. Storage limited to functioning, operating vehicles, with a 30-day limitation. Borup: On non-operating? Shreeve: On non-operating vehicles. Well, on all vehicles, operating or not. Borup: Well, he's got his snowplows. Centers: Do they work? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 111 of 112 Borup: That's what I'm saying. Shreeve: Non-operational vehicles. Borup: Okay. Shreeve: And the pathway that they simply coordinate with the Parks Department on whether to take -- getting late. McKinnon: Just revise Item Number 10 to read that the pathway shall be placement and -- or construction of the pathway shall be coordinated with the Parks Department. Shreeve: Okay. So noted. I believe that's it. Centers: I second. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. We have one final motion. Mathes: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to close this Public Hearing. Borup: Adjourn. Mathes: Adjourn the Public Hearing. Zaremba: I will second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Meeting adjourned at 12:22. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:22 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 112 of 112 ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK