Loading...
2002 02-21Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting February 21, 2002 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. on February 21, 2002, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, David Zaremba, Jerry Centers, Keven Shreeve, and Leslie Mathes. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, David Swartley, Sharon Smith 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: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to call to order our regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for February 21st . I'd like to begin with roll-call attendance. Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of February 7, 2002 Planning and Zoning Special Meeting: B. Approve minutes of February 7, 2002 Planning and Zoning Regular Meeting: Borup: The first item is the Consent Agenda, which consists of minutes of February 7th Special Meeting and our Regular Meeting on the same date. Any comments or corrections? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes, Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: On the minutes of the meeting -- the Special Planning Meeting on the planning -- on the Parks on Page 9, the first full paragraph. It's a discussion by Mr. Kuntz, the last question in that paragraph. Anyone else, I believe was spoken by Chairman Borup, not Mr. Kuntz. That's the only change I have. Borup: Both on the same page? Zaremba: This was on Page 9, the first paragraph of Director Kuntz. Borup: You're talking that last large paragraph from the middle of the page down? Zaremba: No. It's on page nine. Commissioner Kuntz starts, Commissioner David, eventually we computed -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 2 Borup: Right. Zaremba: It ends, so that $1,500 per lot is based upon brand new people moving in tomorrow? Period. I think that the anyone else was spoken by our Chairman. You. Borup: Oh. Yes. That's correct. Zaremba: On the tape it may have been difficult to distinguish the voice, but I believe that was you and more appropriate if it were you. Borup: Yes. No. Yes. Zaremba: That's it. Borup: Okay. All right. Do we have a motion? Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve the minutes of February 7, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Special Meeting and the minutes of the February 7, 2002, Planning and Zoning Regular Meeting with the change so noted. Centers: I would second that. Zaremba: I'm sorry. I did have a comment on the regular meeting one. I thought you were going them one at a time. Borup: No. Shreeve: I will withdraw the motion then. Borup: Well, any discussion on the motion? Shreeve: There you go. Zaremba: Okay. On the Regular Meeting minutes on Page 10, the statement by me one, two -- about the fourth one down, the paragraph starts -- I do have two, actually. The second sentence, Number 2, all corners have a 28 foot inside radius and it should read 48 foot outside radius. That's my only comment on that one. Borup: Okay. Thank you. All in favor of the motion? Shreeve: Wait, I -- Zaremba: The two of them. Borup: Those two. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 3 Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from January 17, 2002: AZ 01-018 Request for annexation and zoning of 85.36 acres from RUT to C-C and C-G zones for proposed El Dorado Subdivision by W.H. Moore Company - southwest corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from January 17, 2002: PP 01-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 32 building lots and 17 other lots +/- on 85.36 acres in a proposed C-C and C-G zone for proposed El Dorado Business Campus by W.H. Moore Company - southwest corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from January 17, 2002: CUP 01-037 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for mixed use with office, retail, restaurant and hotel/motel for proposed El Dorado Business Campus by W.H. Moore Company - southwest corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to continue, really, with Items 4, 5, and 6. They are all Continued Public Hearings from our January 17th meeting. AZ 01-018, PP 01-020, and CUP 01-037, all pertain to the El Dorado Business Campus by W.H. Moore. I'd like to reopen these Public Hearings and start with the staff report and comments. Siddoway: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. You can see a site photo on the wall beside you of the project site for El Dorado. Overland Road is at the top and Eagle Road is on the right. It encompasses 85 acres. You can see undeveloped land to the west and Thousand Springs Subdivision south of it. Just to hit the highlights, they are requesting two zones. This depicts the two zones, the upper one being C-C designation, the lower one being C-G designation. Here are some site photos. You can see the character of the area. This is the ditch that runs -- it's the Ridenbaugh Canal that runs along the south property line separating proposed El Dorado Subdivision with Thousand Springs. The photo on the left is a picture of the micropath connection that currently exists in Thousand Springs Subdivision looking north into the El Dorado project site. The picture on the right is just turning around and looking back into Thousand Springs from the end of that pathway. This is the revised plat that has been submitted to conform with the discussion from the last hearing when this was continued from January 17th . You should have a copy of the new plat, hopefully, and their proposed site plan with the one stub street going to the west. You can see the Ridenbaugh Canal down at the bottom. Eagle Road, again, is on the right and Overland Road up at the top. I also just point out they are asking for specific Conditional Use Approval for building Number 11 as their first building site as part of this application. They are asking for conceptual approval of the entire project, site-specific approval on this one site in particular, and then we also have some illustrations of entry features going into the project and that's it. You should have a staff report dated two days ago, February 19th . It says final amendment in capital letters on it. Brad Hawkins- Clark went through the original staff report, made corrections, additions, and deletions, based on the discussion at that meeting. I won't belabor every point, but I would just like to hit a couple of highlights. On Page 2, you can see a table that compares the original plat with the revised plat. You can see that while the number of buildable lots per block shifted around, the total number of buildable lots is two lots higher in the new Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 4 plat than in the original plat. In the middle of that page Brad writes what he called a point of consideration, just something we want to bring up, make sure the Commission and Council consider this. The concern here is just the amount of commercial office space that are being approved between Silverstone and El Dorado, 1.5 million square feet between the two of them, which has the potential to draw commercial development away from the Central Valley Corporate Park area, which is being used as a resource area for redeveloping downtown through the urban renewal actions that the City Council have taken. So we are not necessarily recommending denial based on that, but it doesn't show up in the recommendation anywhere. He just wanted to make sure it was a point of consideration for the Commission to consider. On Page 3, Item Number 4, the very last sentence talks about office or flex uses and there has been some -- Centers: What page, Steve? Siddoway: Page 3, Item Number 4. It's right up near the top. At the bottom of that item, the bottom of that paragraph, it talks about unless office or flex uses are proposed and there has been quite a bit of question about what are flex uses. So I handed out right before this meeting a one-page memo, dated today, from David McKinnon where he tries to put some thought into what does flex uses mean and it's not defined in the Subdivision Ordinance, it's not defined in the subdivision -- or the Zoning Ordinance either. If you look at the next to the last paragraph -- I will just point this out. It says for the purposes of the staff report and your recommendation to Council, you may want to define flex uses as uses that are permitted uses in the L-O zone per the schedule of use control in the Zoning Ordinance. Those uses include things like clinics, laboratories, banks, professional offices, and by making that your recommendation you would create a list of specific uses that would be permitted without a CUP and eliminate any ambiguity of what flex use actually means. So any questions on this before I move on? Okay. You should also have a letter dated today from Jonathan Seel and I won't belabor this either, because he's going to talk about this. He is proposing some wording changes. They basically have to do with the language as written that talks about the 30-foot wide Pedestrian Easement and the location of the pathway in relation to it. I think he is going to pass those out now and I don't know that we have any particular problem with this proposed language. I will let him go over it in more detail with you. He talks about amending Condition 18 under the Preliminary Plat and Conditions 1-C and 1-G under the Conditional Use Permit, all dealing with that – the pathway and the easement. The last thing I have is at the bottom of Page 7, Item Number 8 it talks about the 10 percent open space requirement. That item should actually just be stricken, omitted, because they are already proposing two other amenities. The jogging path and the plaza, and we do need to confirm if the plaza will actually have improvements to qualify as an amenity as you would like to see it, but as long as they have two other amenities, the ten percent open space requirement does not apply. That is all I have. I will stand for any questions. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Centers: Yes. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 5 Centers: Steve, you did say you didn't have a problem with these minor amendments? Siddoway: No. I will -- I need read through them in more detail. I haven't done it yet. Why don't we have Jonathan present them, but I'm not anticipating any problems. Centers: Then I noted that on the original staff report of December 4th -- Siddoway: Yes. Centers: -- Brad had recommended the staff supports the annexation and rezone, CUP, and Preliminary Plat of this property. Siddoway: Yes. Centers: I don't see a similar recommendation on his restructured staff report, but I'm assuming that he still supports -- Siddoway: Yes. Our recommendation hasn't changed. Centers: Okay. That's what I wanted to hear. Borup: Any other questions or comments? Zaremba: Yes. Steve, I have a couple questions. On Page 2 -- I'm sorry. Page 3. Siddoway: Okay. Zaremba: Under Preliminary Plat Site Specific Comments, Paragraph Number 2. Siddoway: Okay. Zaremba: The last sentence, the five foot wide sidewalk, should that be specified as a detached or does it not matter? Siddoway: I don't think they are required to be a detached on the interior. Zaremba: Within the subdivision. Okay. Siddoway: Along Eagle Road and Overland they are required to be detached. Zaremba: I noticed that. Okay. Thank you. Siddoway: If the road going through it is a collector -- I got to think now. I need to go get a copy of the ordinance, but I believe the detached sidewalks are required on a collector as well. That may be an issue that we haven't thought about, but I think the intent of this was that out on Overland and Eagle Road detached required and internal just requiring five-foot sidewalks. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 6 Zaremba: Thank you. On Page 7 you have incorporated some comments from Director of Parks and Recreation Kuntz and he has a separate page wanting to add an Item H. Siddoway: Oh. Zaremba: I don't know if you know what that is. It says the pathway construction shall include a stop sign at Eagle Road, non-motorized vehicle signs, and vehicle restriction bollards at both ends of the path. Any other access points that the vehicles could enter 33-gallon garbage receptacles should be installed on small concrete slabs every 300 to 400 feet. Siddoway: I believe that needs to be added. Zaremba: Is that an acceptable addition? Siddoway: It certainly is to me. Zaremba: Item D? Siddoway: Yes. It sounds to me like it was just an oversight. Zaremba: Okay. Well, it was a separate page. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: Then just a question on the same page, Item 7, which is an added item for this. The end of the last sentence says the applicant shall inform the City of Meridian of Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District's denial. I don't know whether this was necessary or not, but could that be changed to, shall forward to the city a copy of an NMID written denial? That way it actually comes from NMID, instead of coming from the applicant. Siddoway: Yes. That would be better. Zaremba: Okay. So strike out the word inform and insert the word forward to. Strike out the word in writing of and insert the word, a copy of and before the word denial add the word written. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: Thank you. Siddoway: So it would read the applicant shall submit or -- Zaremba: Or forward to the city -- Siddoway: Forward to the city -- Zaremba: -- a copy of NMID's written denial. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 7 Siddoway: Thank you. Yes. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: Steve? Siddoway: Yes. Shreeve: I understand that the developer has agreed to limit the building height to 35 feet, as opposed to the 40, which they could. Where is that? I couldn't find that. Siddoway: I think it's Item Number 3 on Page 7, specifically the property adjacent to Thousand Springs, as opposed to the entire project. Shreeve: Okay. I didn't get this. Is there a -- probably still in my box. Borup: It came yesterday. I think we will have a chance for the applicant to address this. I think one of the important things I think that we had continued this for was the design of -- the roadway design on the stub street to the west. Zaremba: I actually have two questions on that. Borup: All right. Okay. Zaremba: One, which just occurred when you reminded us of their two zoning sections. With their original submission of those -- the proposed plat, I think the two zoning sections followed one of the roadways, now they don't appear to follow any roadway. Should the zoning sections be changed or is that a question for the applicant? Then the other -- and perhaps -- Mr. Van Auker may be here, but Ron Van Auker's problem, is he going to be able to develop his property without having block lengths over the allowable -- I think it's 1,000 feet with only one stub street into his property? Is he going to be okay? Siddoway: The property owner to the west? Zaremba: This is the property owner to the west. Borup: I think that was part of adjusting that stub street. Zaremba: Moving the stub street -- Borup: If I remember, that was what Mr. Van Auker wanted was to see it moved further north. Zaremba: More central. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 8 Centers: Well, he -- excuse me. He does have a letter where he is requesting two. Siddoway: Right. That's not a requirement. Shreeve: In your packet. Centers: But it's not a requirement and I don't think Mr. Van Auker is here. Siddoway: Well, it is an ordinance requirement, but they are asking for that to be waived as part of their Planned Development and that's up to this board to make a recommendation on. Centers: Okay. Zaremba: I'm just trying to make sure it doesn't make his property impossible to develop. Siddoway: It will not make it impossible. If this project is approved with one stub street, we won't require the adjacent property to stub back to it with a road that goes nowhere, so the precedent will be set by whatever is approved on this project. Freckleton: On your point of the description for annexation, we would need to get new descriptions for annexation that follow the revised road line. I don't think that was done. The legal descriptions that we had for annexation were based on the original Preliminary Plat and if there is modifications, roadways have moved, we would need to look at that. Borup: You're talking about the zoning designation of the annexation? Freckleton: Yes. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, since we are talking about the zoning designations and needing a new description anyway, I'd like to just raise the question as to why we are doing two zones anyway? They are asking for the same uses in each, is my understanding. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I believe they are asking the same uses in each zone and I don't really understand the two zone split, but -- Zaremba: We noticed your question in the previous package and I actually asked the applicant that and I believe -- he can give his response again, but I believe it was they are anticipating a future desire to make some changes in one of the zones and to have it already zoned differently makes that process smoother later. Siddoway: Okay. Borup: Anybody else have any questions before we have the applicant's -- would the applicant's representative like to come forward at this time? Seel: Good evening. My name is Jonathan Seel with W.H. Moore Company, 600 North Steelhead, Boise, Idaho. As Steve has indicated and as you recall we came in front of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 9 you approximately a month ago. At that time, you requested that we submit a revised preliminary site plan that would reflect what we were showing at that time was the map - - Cornell does and I'm going to do it. We put the stub road here, which Cornell did just kind of show here where he would anticipate it might go. There is no -- that's not part of our project. The other thing we have done is we have altered this road to address the homeowners. They had concerns down in this area that the building would be fairly large and they had concerns about the size of those in relationship to their homes. As a result of that, we brought this road down like this, making these lots smaller, so I think we give them the comfort that the project down there will be of a small scale. It won't be, for example a 100,000 square foot building or something. Again, as was mentioned -- a question was asked as to the height here is 35 feet. That's correct. We are putting restrictions on that for either office or flex. We have looked through the description, which has been provided to us tonight. We don't see any problems with that. Our only question on that is where it says banks and professional sales offices, we would just simply put professional offices, if that's acceptable. I think as far as the quality of the project we have gone -- Zaremba: Were you referring to the extra page? Seel: Yes, sir. Zaremba: Okay. Explain flex -- Seel: This page right here. Borup: And that was referring back to the other statement that offices already are approved. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: So this was just trying to define beyond the term office? Seel: Well, what it says, Mr. Chairman is also flex space and at least my understanding in this process is that there is some questions about the definition of flex space. Borup: Right. Seel: So I am interpreting that this has been provided to clarify that, so what we are simply saying here is that we are in agreement with that, other than we would like to have the sales taken out of office, just have professional offices. Borup. Okay but this professional sales office -- and Steve may want to correct me -- I believe that's in addition to the -- just the term office. Seel: Yes. Well, what these -- Borup: So that these are additional things that's beyond office, so that's -- isn't that correct, the -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 10 Siddoway: I don't know that there is a distinction. Professional office is fine. Borup: Well, no, but it's already -- office is already included. Seel: Right. Borup: And this is beyond that. So you're changing that to professional office and that would be dependent on -- you're saying professional office where now it says office and sales office. Seel: Okay. That can work. Okay. I think if we talked about in the past -- we talked about the quality of the project and unless there are any particular questions on that, I won't go into that again. I think you are probably well aware of what Mr. Moore plans as far as the project, the type of landscaping and the quality of design. We have read through the staff report and in the staff report, as I mentioned, you are in agreement with those modifications, which we submitted in this memo, which is distributed to you tonight. The One thing -- and I think the way maybe to make this I think fairly clear, if you are looking at that, on your right-hand side you will see the maintenance road. All we are simply saying -- and there seemed to be some conflict within the staff report and with regard to that, where we can -- on what would be the north side of the maintenance road, we would simply utilize that portion of the easement, if there is any, for part of our pathway. That's no different than what has been done in the past. It's done on the south side in Thousand Springs. It's done in many other developments that we have used where you can utilize it through Nampa-Meridian with a License Agreement. We have talked to the district and they are in agreement with that. That's all we are trying to simply clarify. There appears to be between the top of Page 6 -- if you look at Page 6 of your staff report, if you look at Item 18 and then you look at Item 1-C, you will see that it appears to be a little bit of a conflict between the two as far as the language goes. So what we are simply trying to do is clean that up and I think in the language that we have provided today that's all that's address and we have talked to staff about it and at least my understanding we talked to Steve and there doesn't appear to be any objections to that, so we would ask that that be included in the staff report, that language. Zaremba: I understand the easement boundary, but help me understand -- I think the major question that keeps coming up is how close will the first building wall be to the centerline of the canal? Is that 50 feet? Seel: No. No. What you're going to probably have is approximately 65 feet from the centerline of the canal to the edge of the building. In other words, you have 50 feet -- let's take this one. If you had this, you got 15 feet of easement here for Nampa- Meridian for a 35-foot easement, let's assume. You take another additional 15 feet on top of that, which would be part of the pathway, and then there will be another five feet on top of that before you get to the edge of the building. It will go potentially from 65 feet onward, upward. I think that's fairly substantial and again, I think the thing -- we are not asking -- Mr. Moore owns this land. I think that's the thing that I'd to emphasize here. We are not talking about taking something that's not ours. When he purchased this land -- he owns this right now. He's simply given -- or Nampa-Meridian has an easement and it's very common within projects to encroach where the district does not Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 11 need that. The maintenance road they do need, but the area to the north of that they don't need and we can do license agreements in there and they are certainly agreeable to that. Again, I think all we are attempting to do is clarify that particular thing, because we think the language is a little bit confusing within the staff report. Hopefully with a picture -- a picture is worth a thousand words -- that will clarify that. Zaremba: Mr. Seel, can I ask you -- Seel: Yes. Zaremba: -- a question on a different subject? If you're looking at the staff report, on Page 5, Item 15 -- Seel: All right. Zaremba: -- staff is recommending that the outdoor plaza, which you have indicated on your site plan -- Seel: Which number? I'm sorry. Zaremba: Number 15. Seel: Okay. Zaremba: The first one in bold on that page. That the outdoor plaza be made into a separate common lot owned and maintained by the business owners association. As I look at your site plan, that appears to be adjacent to building 8, which appears like it's intended to be a fast food restaurant, probably a drive-thru. Seel: The one right there, that's the outdoor plaza. Zaremba: Yes. The building just above that -- although I didn't see there was more than one outdoor plaza. Okay. The only one I saw was the one by eight and I was -- my question was whether you're comfortable with making separate property out of that or were you intending to lease that to the fast food restaurant in Number 8 and have them maintain it? Seel: Well, I guess my comment to that is we don't know what's going to be utilized there. I don't see a problem making that as a common lot, so we don't have any objection to that. I think it's -- Zaremba: If we make that a requirement, instead of a suggestion, that's okay? Seel: Yes. That would be fine. Zaremba: That's all I have. Borup: Did you have -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 12 Seel: I would just like to -- another thing I'd like to comment, because I know Mr. Van Auker's representative is going to get up and talk about this stub road. We have gotten staff's approval -- City of Meridian staff approval for the stub road. Originally we had it up here. It was what we felt was a good compromise between a stub road down here and a stub road up here, to put one simply in the center. We had -- we went in front of the ACHD Commissioners that has been approved. I believe you should have a copy of the minutes and if you don't I can provide that to you. So ACHD has approved that. The City of Meridian staff is approving that. ACHD did not feel that there is a need for a road down there. Typically there is one on the half mile mark, but the fact is that it doesn't go anywhere in this one and they have said very clearly that there is no need for it. Again, I think we are -- I think we are addressing needs of interconnectivity between this project over here and exactly what they do over there, I think this road will blend itself well to it. So, again, I think we would strongly emphasize that we feel there is not any need for two stub roads within this project. Like I say, I think ACHD also supports that. With that, unless you have any other questions, I'm through. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Thank you. Seel: Thank you very much. Borup: This is a Continued Public Hearing. We had an opportunity at our last meeting to I think get some comments, so the applicant has come back in and revised their plan and tried to incorporate the comments and staff suggestions. If there is anyone from the audience that would like to come up, anything new that they would like to add, you're welcome to come up at this time. Hornbaker: My name is Loren Hornbaker, 2918 East Green Canyon Drive. I had a question on what flex use was, which we still don't have a copy. Evidently it's strictly just office and light enough that it shouldn't affect us too much, like forklifts unloading trucks in the middle of the night or anything like that. Borup: The staff suggestion would be things that would be permitted in a limited office zone. Hornbaker: Right. Borup: So things like banks and -- Hornbaker: I would still like to have input on the buildings that go in there. One of the concerns I have -- and my understanding is that the 35 foot height -- building height would pertain like to a flat roof or semi-flat roof building with a parapet wall. That would be to the height of the parapet wall. I also understand that if it was to be put in with a hip roof or a gable roof, it only goes to the roofline or the top of the vertical structure. Therefore, you could add another five, six feet for a gabled building or -- so I would like to see Conditional Use Permits on those lots. Borup: Maybe we can get a clarification on that. The 35-foot suggestion here was made because that's the same height in a residential subdivision. I think in a residential Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 13 on a gable end the height is calculated one half the gable height is that correct? Are you familiar with that, Steve? Siddoway: That's true. By Building Code -- the Building Inspector typically looks at building height from the mid point of the roof line, but the gentleman that's testifying correctly states the definition that's in our Zoning Ordinance and it's to the top of the bearing wall and doesn't include the roof. Borup: It does not? Siddoway: Does not. The definition in the Zoning Ordinance is worded that way. Hornbaker: Could it be put in that it's 35 feet to the very top of the building? I mean can that -- let's not -- Borup: That would be more restrictive than a residential requirement and maybe we can have some discussion on that. I guess to me it doesn't make sense to have it more restrictive than maybe a residential house could be, but maybe restricted to the same might make sense. Hornbaker: Well, let's just -- Borup: Right. No. It sounds there needs to be some clarification, because there is some different definitions on building heights between commercial and residential. Hornbaker: Well, I would still like to have public input on each one of the lots and I think I could speak for the other people that are concerned in the -- that way we can see the exact plots, the exact building and everything, how close it does come to the walkway and the whole thing. I know it will take a little bit more of the builder's time and that, but that's the only thing that I have. Plus I think Mr. Seel said 15 feet. My understanding is it's supposed to be five feet for the green area on each side of the walkway and a 10- foot walk way. Am I correct or -- Borup: Was that with the -- it is a 10 foot, yes. Hornbaker: Okay. Borup: And maybe we can get some clarification. The applicant, I believe, said that the area would vary -- could vary from 20 to 30 feet. Well, is that correct? Well, we'll get a chance to answer some of that other and we will clarify that, but that was my understanding, that that total area could vary from 20 to 30 feet and the path would be ten, so that would be to the five feet and up. Hornbaker: Okay. All right. That's all I have, so -- Borup: Okay. Thank you, sir. Did we have anyone else? Miller: My name is Brad Miller, 3084 East Lanark in Meridian. I represent Ronald Van Auker. Mr. Van Auker owns the 40 acres directly to the west of this property and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 14 previously we stated that we wanted two stub roads coming out there. I'm not so sure that's best or if this is best. I think it would -- I would suggest considering if there is going to be 3,000, 3,500 employees working at Mr. Moore's center. I think it would make sense for us to get together with Mr. Moore, discuss our project, which we don't have any plans for right now, and also the Keeneye Properties project, which is to the west of ours. There is a total of 160 acres there between them, Mr. Moore's, Mr. Van Auker's, and Keeneye’s and it would be make sense to look at an overall view of the whole project to see if one road makes sense or if two roads make sense. ACHD has agreed to put -- on the western boundary of our property they have agreed to a traffic signal there and it seems to me that there ought to be access -- that the people in Mr. Moore's project should have access to a traffic signal through more than one way. I think that with -- basically you have got a half a mile there, one stub road probably isn't enough and I think we would be better served with two, but I'm not here to stay that that's absolutely correct. I think we need to look at it in more detail and I think that the three parties ought to get together and discuss it. Borup: I believe the Commission made that suggestion last month to you. Miller: I was not here last -- Borup: Okay. Miller: But we have not been approached by Mr. Moore or his group and I don't believe that Keeneye has and I think it would make sense for the three parties to sit down. Another point is -- Borup: I might just -- I think our recommendation was for your company to approach them, rather than the other way around. Miller: We are more than happy to do that. Another point is in my discussions with ACHD they did not say that two stub roads were unnecessary, unwarranted, or unneeded. They did not have an opinion on it is what they told me. So they have not stated, yes, it's needed, or, no, it's not needed. They have not taken a position on it, to the best of my knowledge. Borup: Okay. Any questions for the Commission? Thank you. Aaron: My name is Frank Aaron and I live at 2896 East Green Canyon, adjacent to the canal and adjacent to the property being developed. What I'd like to talk about, basically, that little wavy line that goes on the other side of the canal, because I guess I'm a -- I'm really happy to be a citizen of Meridian. I look at Meridian and I'm very proud of that name, because it's a standard and a good reference and that's what you base your things -- the good standard in Meridian, your data point, and to me that represents all that's been discussed here. We speak of development and whatnot as being neighbor friendly, the area compatible, suitable for the area and all them good words that say they are neighbors. I also believe that a picture is worth a thousand words. I sit in my living room and get an equivalent distance to what they are talking about putting them buildings, and if you want a good picture of what that is, you cannot see the noonday sun. So that's what the view is -- the blocking of the view being Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 15 incompatible with the area. I also kind of looked to see what is the standard for Meridian. Basically, I looked at the Silverstone and looked at the areas basically on the borders of the road up in this area on both sides. They sit back with a nice sidewalk and detached back. There is a berm set there to beautify it, vegetation stuck on there and a nice level fence and it looks very nice and very pretty. If that represents the general public and what they view for the general public, then I would not call what they are doing there user friendly. I would much prefer not to be user friendly and have the same interface that they have between us. Therefore, I'm very much opposed to what they call compatibility and using the easements that they call to have a multi-purpose, which basically it seems to me if you eliminate them, that multi-purpose, that means they serve two people and stack one on top of the other. Therefore, they just are just cramming them closer and closer and eliminating all that back about 55 feet. Could be up to 65 feet to a building to the center of the canal. That's right up adjacent to the edge of the dirt, as far as I can see, and very, very close to what it would be. I would like to see them personally, if they feel that way, and that's neighborhood compatible. I would like to see them put a squiggly line up Eagle Road and the other access road, maybe do away with the sidewalk and have that multiple purpose. Do away with that and put them 50 feet from the center of Eagle Road and Overland Road, or at least be compatible with the roadways that they have through the center. There is much more space for the traffic going through there and to the easements that there are with the neighbors at Thousand Springs. They also like to talk about -- although it's not been mentioned tonight, but -- don't have a plot here, but basically they talk about these being lower down in here. That's only partially true for about halfway through here. That land is perfectly flat with the canal, so with all -- now this area up in here there is a little bit of drop to give you a little bit of view looking north over top of this building. I like most of the other people, I would like to see a height restriction to a single story or lower, no more than what we can get away with. I think lower it to 35 feet to put them single story and I'd like to have the ability to review what building is going in there, so that they are more compatible, more user friendly and more in line with what is considered suitable for the area. Compatible with the thing and be more neighbor friendly and I kind of leave that in your hands, because we have no control over anything for the permits. I personally feel that once the permits are signed all bets are off, whatever they want, according to the legal bounds that they have within the permit. Thank you. Borup: Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else? McElroy: I'm Kevin McElroy, I live at 3022 Green Canyon and I live right there on the canal. We purchased our home so we could have a nice place to raise our children and I'd like to ask the Commissioners would you like to buy my house, because I will be looking at the back of a business park. My view will be gone. Initially when they brought their map to us, they showed in their initial plan -- Borup: You need to get on the microphone. McElroy: -- that there would be parking lots between the canal and the buildings and we talked about that and they said that they'd like to be good neighbors to us. Well, the parking lots are gone now and there is a building shoved up against that -- thank you. You know, there was supposed to be parking lots that were on the initial plan, they are Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 16 gone, and they are being a little vague about how close that building is really going to be. You know, my three year old can stand on my property and hit that building with a rock and how would you like to live there? Isn't that a nice impact on our residential way of life? This is a subdivision of people living to the south of there. This isn't a building, this isn't about -- about just a business park, there is a subdivision, a nice subdivision right there, guys. Eagle Road is running on one side, you see that, you see Overland. There is no real mention of the quality of life living in there. You could put 3,500 people working right there, there doesn't seem to be any talk about how they are going to change Eagle Road to accommodate this traffic. How they are going to change Overland, how much noise there is going to bring into our subdivision, how much light pollution this is going to bring into our buildings -- into our subdivision or think about the buildings, jammed up against that -- that's a great place for someone to hide. That canal is dry five to six months out of the year. A person can hide next to those buildings, come across the dry canal, they will have a lot of cover. As it is right now it's fairly open. Sure, it's dark, but our lights do illuminate it. I'm concerned about the public safety of the children that live in those houses and the subdivision. There is no mention of how they are going to protect us, because that provides a very nice hiding place for people to come across. It's a dry canal. It's a pathway and all we have got is a little fence to stop it. You know, are you going to give me an easement to build a 20-foot concrete wall so I can protect myself against my new neighbor? Considering they changed their initial plan, which would have allowed a little more space between buildings, that was manageable. They wanted to be good neighbors, so they, what, shoved everything down up against us and changed the roads. They seem to add two more buildings to their plan. That's really not much for a quality of life. Most importantly, this may be Meridian, but I thought it was Meridian where we are standing. This is the City of Meridian. I mean we are all shoving everything down on Eagle Road. We are going to impact the traffic patterns down there. Will the City of Meridian as you stand in it right now going to be a shell? Where are the businesses going to go? Where they can get the right space? Are you encouraging people to be here in the City of Meridian or is that the City of Meridian? Is City Hall going to move down there, because you're not helping this part of the City of Meridian at all with it? I just think it's ridiculous. The safety is going to be impacted, the value of my property is going to be impacted, and the value of the property of everything in that subdivision and I know why there is not 500 people sitting out here saying we live here. They may own that property, but they are damaging my property. They are damaging my way of life, my view, and my safety and I really find it objectionable that this Commission sits here and just talks about little variances of the lots. It seems very ridiculous. Thirty-five foot concrete is what we will be looking at. I don't even mind if it's somebody's house sitting there, that's a family, that's somebody else I get to know. I'm looking at a cold, heartless backside of a building that's cutting up my view and providing a poor – Borup: You need to wrap up. I – McElroy: Well, I'm not finished. Borup: Well, you may be. Your three minutes are way passed, but you're repeating yourself an awful lot here. You're spending a lot of time talking about a view -- this Commission, nor the City, never has had an obligation to protect a person's view . Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 17 McElroy: Well, if all you have heard was the view, then you haven't -- Borup: Well, that's because that's about half of what you said. If you have got some other points you'd like to make, I'd advise you to go ahead and continue. McElroy: No. I've said my peace. Borup: Okay. I thought you said you had more to say. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I've got a question for Mr. McElroy. What would you -- if you owned this land and you had your wish, what would you do with this land? Keep it vacant for the next 50 years? McElroy: No. That's not reasonable but when you have -- why can't they use -- we have business parks in the City of Meridian that are, you know, looking for tenants. There is space all already set aside for businesses, it's already been laid aside, and yet they are going way out here in Meridian or out in Eagle Road area and putting out huge business parks. 1.5 million square feet? Shreeve: But what would you do with the land? Don't worry about what businesses there are what would you do with it? McElroy: What I would try to be is what they said that they were going to be as a good neighbor, you know. I would try to set enough setbacks so that it was still a reasonable place to live. Shreeve: And what is enough setback? McElroy: Well, originally I thought that they proposed 65 feet from the edge of the canal and that there was going to be some green space, there was going to be parking -- some parking in there. Well, you know, parking space is dead space. That puts your building back away from us a little bit. When you say 65 feet from the center of the canal, that's awful close. Shreeve: So if they provided the green space, but they actually have office space here, that's -- so it sounds like that that's not necessarily the issue, if I'm understanding you correctly, it's just that you want to have a buffer. McElroy: I would hope that they would have had -- done what they would initially propose to us in that room over there and talked about their plan. How could they enhance this plan? They changed it radically. They changed how they laid the building out -- if they would have left the parking lots as they were, they would have it lit and hopefully have motion detectors on the lights and we wouldn't be staring at lights. Centers: There is going to be lights. McElroy: There will be lights going on all night long. Centers: We don't know that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 18 McElroy: Well, we should know that, shouldn't we? Because we live there and we will be staring at someone's industrial lighting all night long. Shreeve: So your argument as far as -- just make sure I understand you correctly -- is not so much that they are a business complex -- McElroy: No. Shreeve: But you have got an opinion as to where that needs to be located, but it's really the buffer, the -- McElroy: There is no buffer here. Shreeve: But that's what I'm saying, that's what you're after. McElroy: I thought there was supposed to be a park that was down a way a little bit from this and how they provide access for the people being encouraged to use the park? I thought that down here -- over here there was supposed to be some sort of park planned and this was going to be some way to allow the people to traverse across this business and stop at the business park to get there. I don't see any mention of this anywhere. That changed along the way and that's really -- Borup: That's an off-site -- you're referring to an off-site piece of property. McElroy: True, and they proposed access to the south end of their property, they would allow that, and yet there is no intention to bring that up. I mean since we live in this area we would like to see it developed so that it improves our quality of life. We'd like access to a park. We have a school down there we'd like to get to. You know, we'd like our kids to be able to walk across. It's a shame if they are not allowing that bridge to go across, because we could walk out of our neighborhood and walk onto that park and go down to the high school, walk down -- you know, that doesn't sound too bad. Borup: You'd like the bridge there? McElroy: Well, of course. That would allow -- that would allow our children to go to the school. You know, if it was lit appropriately, if it was set up appropriately, wouldn't that be a good thing if you lived in that neighborhood? How would you feel? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would just point out that that is part of the project and is part of the requirement. The access you're requiring is the dark line along the bottom. Borup: I was just going to mention that. Siddoway: There is a pathway along the north side and we, too, would like to see it connected to your subdivision so you have access to the park. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 19 McElroy: I'd think to see access, but I'd also like to see it sit back far enough that we are not looking at the back of a building. Sure, there is going to be a business park there. That's fine but set it back far enough away from us that we are not still encroached on. That's all I'm saying. Borup: I might mention one of the changes -- you referred to the parking lot. That was against an 80,000 square foot, 40 foot high building, was the one that had the parking lot behind it. McElroy: That may have been what you were told. When we were talking -- Borup: Well, that was the first plat that was submitted. McElroy: That's not what the homeowners were told. Borup: You didn't see a site plan? McElroy: We saw the original site plan and we were told -- Borup: Okay. That's what I'm saying. That's what the original site plan had and so they have since changed that to 20, 23, 30,000 square foot buildings, rather than that 80,000. So they reduced the size of the buildings and reduced the height. So that was part of the change that did take place. McElroy: I don't know why the size of the building was ever a concern of any of the homeowners. The height of the building and the distance to it was -- Borup: Well, that -- I thought that's what you had spent a long time talking about, the size of this big building. McElroy: If you listen to what I said, I never mentioned the size of the big building. Borup: You said a big concrete wall. McElroy: I said the height of the building and the distance to the canal. Borup: Right and a big concrete wall facing your -- McElroy: The concrete -- you know, that's part of the building. It doesn't have to be that close, nor that high, for that matter. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I think Mr. McElroy has made his point. I mean you definitely have with me and I think we should hear from other interested parties. McElroy: Thank you very much. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 20 Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? Waters: Good evening. I'm Joe Waters. I live at 3000 East Green Canyon. I live next to Mr. McElroy. Yes, his kid has an arm that will hit the buildings. Actually, my biggest concern is that height of the buildings. If we could get the lot set off if Mr. Seel could somehow get one to us or I could get to him and tell us how tall the buildings are and that crossed a lot of our thoughts. Although the 65 feet, that's from the center of the canal, Mr. Seel says, it's the back of the building. That was another part of my field of dreams. Well, the field of dreams is there. Actually, I think it's one thing for Mr. Moore. We just want to try to get along as good neighbors. We talked about the two different zones and that it might change, that gave me kind of a concern. How would it change? I mean would the one part to the -- I guess it would be the northeast, the smaller section, would that be just, you know, like businesses and stuff and then the parts on back side, would that change? That's my only concern. Centers: Mr. Waters? Waters: Sir. Centers: We want the applicant to address your concerns, too. They are going to come back up and address your concerns and Mr. McElroy's and hopefully we will get it clear. Waters: Good deal. I just wanted to go over them again, because I signed up to talk and I thought I better. Okay. Thank you very much. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Okay. We didn't have anybody else that signed up. Is there anyone else that wanted to come forward? Seeing none, Mr. Seel, I think we have got a few questions for you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes, Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I would only note for the record that we also have a letter from Thomas and Nancy Connolly, who were not able to make it tonight, and they voiced similar things that we have already heard. Borup: Thank you. I only had a couple of -- have you got -- Seel: Well, I -- yes, Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore Company. You know, I guess I must have -- I have a little bit different take, I think, of some of our meetings. I think Mr. Moore -- you know Winston Moore, you know what he's developed within this city and within Boise and you know that it's quality projects. You know that his word means everything to him. I don't think there is anybody that's more honest than Mr. Moore. When we originally met with the homeowners -- yes, our intent is to be a good neighbor. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 21 Now there is a real dilemma here. I mean we have got a piece of land that we need to develop -- or not need to develop, but we want to develop it. It would be ideal for it to stay as farmland. We would all love that with our houses backing up to farmland and seeing horses, but we know that that's not going to be reality. So we try to be as sensitive as we can in terms what we offer, understanding that we also have some facts that we have to consider. When we first met with the homeowners -- and I have got the site plan here -- one of the things -- this is the original site plan and this was actually at the first meeting. We had a table and there was a group of neighbors here. We had these buildings in here and there was a great deal of concern about these buildings and the size of them. We understood that and we said, you know, maybe what we need to do is go back and revise it and we will try to put smaller buildings down in that area. We can appreciate your concerns. As a result of that -- I'll try to not -- we came in with this project, which as you see the road has now come down this way, we made these lots smaller to purposely avoid someone coming in and saying, you know, I want to put a 120 thousand square foot building right here. So we felt that that would address it. The other thing that we talked about is we appreciate the fact that they are concerned with height. The height within these zones is 40 feet. We said we would reduce it to 35. We didn't argue that. We also said that anything other than office or flex, which is defined here, we would come back for a Conditional Use. I can't think of anything less intrusive than an office use back here. I don't know what else it would be. So, again, everyone would have the opportunity to come back for a second bite of the apple. We are trying to be sensitive to these things. The other thing that -- I think there is a couple things that we should keep in mind here. If we did not have this canal here, we wouldn't be talking about a 65-foot setback, I don't believe. Okay. We gain something from the canal and I think we have lost that perspective. If you look at the plat map for Thousand Springs, which -- and I have copies of it here, they are encroaching within the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation Easement. Their backyards are in there so they are benefiting from it, too. You know, again, we are only asking for what I think is reasonable with our path rates. I think there will be a distance there. We are trying to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors in terms of height. We are putting restrictions on the type of buildings we can put back there and I think from our perspective it's not the perfect world for them. We can appreciate that, it's going to impact their view, but I think as Chairman Borup said, you don't buy a view, you buy a lot. So we are trying to be as sensitive as we can. So excuse me if I get on my soapbox, but I really think that we are doing everything we can in this process. Centers: Mr. Seel? Seel: Yes. Centers: Page 3 Paragraph 4. If we were to insert professional office as you had originally talked about in your first presentation, that would be acceptable, if I heard you correctly, so that -- Seel: Yes. Centers: -- you would have to come back to us with anything other than professional office in this area correct? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 22 Seel: Yes. Centers: So you would buy off on that? Okay. Seel: Yes. Centers: Then we would -- I think we would address the concerns of a couple people that they would want to be here if something else were going in, other than a professional office. This question isn't for you it would address one of the comments for staff. In the '93 Comprehensive Plan in the impact area, what was this designation? Siddoway: It was -- it's designated as mixed planned use development. Centers: So it wasn't designated -- to address this to Mr. McElroy and the rest of them, it wasn't designated as single-family residences. When you bought in Thousand Springs you weren't misled with a dot on the map where there was going to be a park there, as some people in other areas have been. I have a lot of empathy for those people. This was not going to be residential and I think it's very obvious when you purchased your home in Thousand Springs you were hoping for a good neighbor, but you knew darn well -- or you should have known that it wasn't going to be residential. I think -- I think the applicant -- I can't say bent over backwards, because you can't -- you can only bend so far. I think the 35 feet height limit was a good concession. I think the buffer of the 65 feet -- thank God for the canal. Thank God you bought there where you had a canal. I personally think -- and I live in an adjoining subdivision -- fairly adjoining -- off Overland Road, Sportsman Point. I had no misconceptions about all of the property across Overland when I bought there. Nothing was developed. I knew it was going to be industrial or commercial, et cetera, et cetera. I knew I was going to have traffic. I go to Eagle Road and Overland -- or Overland to Eagle Road every morning and every night. I'm going to have a lot of traffic but that's progress and I knew that and Overland is going to be a five-lane road within three years, is my understanding, hopefully. Seel: Going to start next year. Centers: Anyway, that's my take on it and I think some of the people here tonight got some of their concerns addressed am I right? Good. Seel: Thank you. The other thing I would just like to say to Mr. Van Auker's representative, ACHD approved one stub road to the west. The Ada County Commissioners unanimously approved that. Again, I have a copy of the minutes. I believe you do, too, but that -- Borup: Again, that's all that was shown to them, though correct? Seel: Yes but I guess my comment is if that's not an opinion, I'm not sure what is. To me that opinion is that they feel only one road is necessary. Yes, we did not talk about variations of that, Mr. Chairman, but I think it was very clear to them and also staff that they were fully in support of that. Again, we feel that's all that's necessary. If you look beyond these two projects at the high school -- the high school is not going to connect Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 23 to this. In fact, I've got the high school plan here, I will be glad to show it to you, it's going to go directly north. So you're talking about approximately 800 feet of land, roughly, in there and that can be addressed. There is going to be a signal up there and that's where most of that business and those people will go. Again, I really want to emphasize that we have spent a great deal of time with ACHD and the City of Meridian on this one stub road. We strongly believe that that's all we need and that's really what we want to see approved. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: There was one other item I wanted to address. I would like to see you get together with Mr. Van Auker -- Mr. Van Auker and we have approved in the past a revised or amended Preliminary Plat to provide for a second stub, but any recommendation from me would be at your will. Seel: Okay. Centers: If you wanted to come back -- because Mr. Van Auker maybe wanted to participate with you -- let's just get right to the point -- monetarily, then that would be up to you. I think the one stub street, if approved by the ACHD, is fine, but if you want to come back and we can amend it correct? We have done that for Silverstone recently, because you had a good conversation with Mr. Van Auker and you thought two would be better for both, then, fine, come back. I think it's fine with one as is, but have your discussions and then if you want to amend it, come back. Seel: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I think Mr. Moore would certainly consider talking. Again, we are here tonight to approve the Preliminary Plat and we'd like to move on. If down the road there are some circumstances that justified it, we might take a look at that. I think that's where we'd like to leave it but right now we don't feel there is -- obviously, Mr. Moore is a reasonable person and he would sit down with anyone, but, you know, we are requesting that it be approved tonight as it's being submitted. Borup: I think it makes a lot sense for adjoining property owners to talk and discuss. I think that's why that recommendation was made last time, but I also feel that it's incumbent upon the adjoining neighbor to put forth the effort. I don't think the person going into the project is obligated to contact his neighbors. It should be the other way around. Seel: Yes. We have not contacted any -- Borup: And then, likewise, not ignore them when they do. I did have a couple other things I wanted to discuss. One gives me the opportunity to talk a little bit about the two zones, but the other one is, again, is back to the building heights. Apparently we have a little bit of conflict between the definition on building height -- between the building department -- at least on a residential zone and in the commercial and -- See: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 24 Borup: -- if I understand it right, the building height in a residential zone would be -- on a gable roof would be calculated one half -- one half that gable height. Would you have any problem with those same restrictions on these buildings? Seel: If you don't mind, what I'm going to do on this one is take the chicken's way out and I'm going to have Cornell maybe talk. He's the architect. I know enough about that to be dangerous, so -- Borup: Then you can go ahead and cover that other question and then turn it over to Cornell. Seel: I'll let him respond, if you don't mind. Borup: Did you want to hit the zoning – Seel: Yes and I think Cornell could speak to you on both of them. I'll let him go ahead and -- all right. Thank you very much. Borup: Thank you. Larsen: Members of the Commission, my name is Cornell Larsen. My address is 210 Murray in Garden City. As far as the height of the buildings, we have -- it's typically been a little different usually for commercial buildings and residential buildings and the35 foot limitation on a commercial building has typically been to the top of the parapet wall. Borup: The top, not to the -- not to the building wall? Larsen: Yes. Usually most of the commercial buildings have typically had a flat roof, so it was to the top of the wall. Some cities that we have worked in have had it to the top of the highest element of the building, so if there was a rooftop unit or something like that that would be the limitation, but typically they have been to the top of the wall. Borup: When you say the parapet, do you mean an extension of the living wall -- the extension of the occupied space? Larsen: For example, if you were doing a multi-story building and you had one floor that was 15 foot and the next floor that was 15 foot and you had above the roofline another five feet that would be the top of the parapet. Centers: Decorative. Larsen: Decorative. Borup: So that's your intention? That would be the maximum 35 at that -- Larsen: That would be our intention. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 25 Borup: Okay. So that is lower than what a residential would be. Larsen: Yes and then I wanted to speak -- I believe it was Mr. McElroy's comment regarding the parking. We actually moved the parking out from behind those buildings to eliminate lights, traffic movement, noise of car doors and things like that along this back boundary. We had several of the neighbors that were concerned about that in relation to that 60,000 foot building that was there, so that was -- the intent was to move the parking out of there from a noise standpoint of coming and going of traffic and things like that. So I wanted to speak to that briefly. And then I wanted to speak -- Zaremba: Actually, you were doing that in response to request to people you met with? Larsen: Yes and then in addition I wanted to speak a little bit about a comment that was made about the roadways on the Silverstone side of the Eagle Road and Overland Road, as well as the roadways on the El Dorado site. The intent on Eagle Road is to have the two projects mirror themselves. They may not have the same fencing details or things like that, but they would have the same 35-foot setback meandering sidewalk. There would be a system moving of people or pedestrians along that sidewalk and going in and out of the park as well, so -- we have also had numerous discussions with the Highway District about improving Eagle Road, which we talked about last time. We have had no cooperation from the Highway District in helping that situation. They have indicated to us that they plan to use their impact fees on other projects in Meridian and not on Eagle Road. Eagle Road is five years out type of thing, but we are still going to pressure them a little bit to see if we can get them to allow that schedule to move up, because we would like to have that finished. And I think you had another question on the zoning. I'm sorry. Initially when we did the Development Agreement on Silverstone we had asked for two zones over there. We had asked for multiple uses in those zones, but as you know, from time to time definitions of zones change and it becomes more advantageous to use the zones in the C-C or the C-G zone -- or the uses, excuse me, in those zones. We would like that option and the Development Ordinance gives us that option. If they become detrimental, we can't use -- we couldn't go down -- in other words, we couldn't put a warehouse in where there is currently office. So the intent was to have two zones for a reason of being able to define the areas that we might want particular uses in. Yes, the two zones blend -- the way they are put together in the proposal they just blend the uses into both zones. But it's nice to be able to have two zones from the standpoint if you're working with sales and people can understand if you fax them the zoning ordinance, as opposed to faxing them the development agreement. They can verify out of the zoning ordinance that those uses are compatible. Borup: Any other questions? Zaremba: Just a question that sort of relates to how long it's going to take ACHD to bring the road up to what's going to be necessary. In your own phasing what's your guesstimate as to full build out? Five years? Eight years? Larsen: I would probably defer to Mr. Moore, but I think it's probably a seven to 10 year build out on that project. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 26 Borup: I think that's what they said last time is 10 years. Zaremba: Thank you. Larsen: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Thank you. Any final comments from staff? Siddoway: Only one point that was brought up earlier. Excuse me. It was on the plaza and whether or not it needs to be common space. I would just -- I believe that it was stated that they didn't really feel that it needed to be common, but our position at least is that it should be common if it's to be counted as an amenity for the overall project. It shouldn't belong to just one lot. It should belong to the project as a whole. Zaremba: I thought they agreed to that. Larsen: Yes, we do. Zaremba: They had no problem making that a requirement. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I had a couple questions of staff, if I could and Bruce, we initially touched on the possible problems in the annexation without a definitive line for those zones. Do we still have that problem or have you thought about it? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, we do still have that problem and I guess what I would propose is that in your motion you could motion that new legal descriptions be drafted and submitted prior to Council, giving adequate time to check them before it goes to Council and that would be -- Centers: Well, and then the other question on the memo that the applicant submitted, did you have time to check and look at this, Steve? Why don't you take a few minutes to do that and then we will -- it didn't seem that severe to me, but I'm not the planner. Borup: Any other Commissioners have any comments they'd like to make at this time while we are waiting? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: One thing that I was just thinking of -- and just for the public's benefit, is if -- maybe Cornell could address where he would envision that line of those two zones going, so that the public knows where -- you know, what they could expect for the two zones. Borup: We had it drawn on the previous one before the road moved, but -- Centers: You had it up there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 27 Siddoway: We had the old one up there. Centers: Okay, the old one yes. Freckleton: Yes. The old one was shown. Larsen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Cornell Larsen, 210 Murray, Garden City, again. I believe this was the -- this was the original map that we had and what we would simply do is these areas would continue to be the C-C zone and the new alignment would follow this -- what is the name of that street? Centers: Is that the new -- that's the new plat? Larsen: Excuse me. This is the old one. Centers: Oh. Okay. Larsen: And what I was going to do is make reference -- this area right here on Overland and Eagle was shown as the C-C and the rest of this area was for C-G. Borup: Let's take a look on the map up here. You're saying this area and this area would be the C-C? Larsen: Correct. Centers: The rest C-G. Larsen: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. This piece right here I'm not clear which zone that goes into. Larsen: That falls in the C-G zone. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: And then essentially all this along this southern boundary would be an L-O permitted use, so it's going to be office space? Larsen: It would be -- Borup: Or a Conditional Use. Larsen: It was restricted to office C-G zone with the L-O use as I think that we were restricted to. Borup: Right or it could be a Conditional Use. Larsen: Or it could be a Conditional Use. Yes. Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 28 Centers: Well, if you spell that out then, you know -- Larsen: This would be -- this would be part of the C-G zone, which is equivalent to that area on the new map. Borup: Okay. Really what they are saying is this area up here and this area here are C-C, everything else is C-G? Larsen: Correct. Borup: The area on the south would be office -- limited to office space only? Larsen: Without a conditional -- Borup: Right. Right. Anything other than that it would need to come back for a CUP. Zaremba: Just for my own clarification, it would be zoned C-G, but if they want any use that is not an L-O use, they come back for -- Borup: Right. Larsen: Yes. We would like to have the list of permitted uses that we submitted, only if the Conditional Use is approved yourself and the City Council, other than office, other than -- if it's an office, we'd like to be able to move forward with the zoning certificate. Borup: Right. Okay. Thank you. Did you have a comment on that -- did you have a comment on that letter on the -- Siddoway: No problem with the clarifying wording in the letter. Centers: And, Mr. Chairman, I have one last comment. I had made a note to mention this. I made a note the last meeting and a lot of the concern by the neighbors is lighting. I would like to see the developer take a look at Dennis Baker's Development -- if you're familiar with where it's at. In Eagle where -- his tenant ConAgra and I think it's just -- I wished we had them. The in-ground lighting, you will be impressed. I think the neighbors would be impressed. You know you don't have the overhead lights zooming down, but the in-ground lighting that is very decorative to bushes and trees, it's just -- it's beautiful. So take a look at it. That was the only comment I wanted to throw out for you. Moore: We will do that. Borup: And on their lighting, that is one of the things staff always takes a look at is light pollution and how the lighting needs to be and down lighting. I know that's always something commented to. Okay. Commissioners, what would be your pleasure at this point? Do we need any more discussion? We still have the Public Hearing open. We have three of them open, actually. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 29 Zaremba: Would it be appropriate to close the Public Hearings? Borup: If someone would make a motion it would be. Centers: Yes. You can make the motion. Zaremba: I move that we close the Public Hearings on Items 4, 5, and 6 of tonight's agenda, which are AZ 01-018 and PP 01-020 and CUP 01-037. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Now that we have closed the hearing, I -- Borup: The first one would be Item Number 4, then, annexation and zoning. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I note that we never really discussed Item 6, the CUP. This was a typical building and it's not at the bottom of the property, so I'm sure we don't have much to discuss about that. I just thought we'd mention we haven't talked about it. Borup: The CUP was for the mixed-use aspect. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, the pathway standard that we discussed, and the amenities are also part of the Conditional Use comments. Shreeve: What building and lot was that building going to be on? 18? 11? Borup: You mean the one that they want to have part of this -- it was Building 11. Shreeve: Eleven. Centers: Right above the road. Siddoway: It's Building Number 11. Oh, it's hard to see. That's the specific building site that they are also asking for approval on. Borup: The applicant didn't mention that. I'm assuming they are going to have a building on one of the interior roads, but I'm assuming that's one they have a tenant for first. Siddoway: I'm also not sure that the lot layout is exactly the same anymore, since the plat changed, but it's worth asking, I guess. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 30 Zaremba: Well, the roadway has moved into part of where the parking lot is, but -- Mathes: Cornell, could you show us on yours? Cornell: This road shifted down. Siddoway: Cornell, can you grab the extra mike that's sitting right there? Borup: We have closed the Public Hearing, so we need to figure -- either open it back up or have maybe staff -- Cornell, why don't you go on over to the staff table and then let him -- either that or we need to open up the Public Hearing again. It looks like the shape of the lot and, likewise, the building is going change a little bit. Siddoway: It has changed, so the site plan will most likely end up being Building 10 on the revised plan. Borup: Okay. So, the requested building will be 10 instead of 11. Siddoway: Ten instead of 11. Borup: And 10 looks like close to what Building 11 was. Siddoway: Yes. It's the closest match. Zaremba: Is that change small enough that if you had official notice from the applicant two weeks before the City Council we could still move it forward or do we need to wait for that to be changed? Borup: It essentially looks like the site plan is staying about the same. The only thing that has changed is the Number 10 to 11 -- or 11 to 10. Is that a fair statement? Siddoway: The way the road out in front matches -- changes a little, but if it's the same basic building footprint, same basic configuration with the parking surrounding it and the island as proposed. I don't know that it's -- I think they could submit just a revised site plan, just overlay this plan onto that site and tweak it, then it would probably work. Borup: Okay. It did change a little bit. I didn't see hardly any change between the two on Building 10, but the plaza did move. All right. Okay. Does that clarify that, Commissioners? Centers: Yes. Were they really being specific on the lot? I mean we didn't have that information originally, did we, Steve? Siddoway: Yes, we did. It was specific to -- Centers: I was looking at your comment and couldn't find it. Siddoway: You're wondering if there are staff comments that address this -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 31 Centers: The specific lot where the Conditional Use Permit for that building was being proposed, but you're saying we should specify Lot 10? Borup: No. Building 10. Centers: Building 10. Borup: These block designations have me confused anyway. It looks like the parcel that's going to have Building 10 on is labeled Block 8. Then right up at the top it's labeled Block 3. Do we need to worry about a Lot and Block? Centers: That's what I was wondering. Borup: Or are we more worried about -- Centers: That's the feeling that that's okay. Siddoway: Yes. I'm just reviewing the original staff report from December 4th . The only specific information I can find about it is in the summary on Page 2 where it says the applicant is further requested that Building No. 1, although I think it should have been 11, an office building located in the northwest corner of the site, Overland Road, be allowed a Building Permit for the first building prior to the plat being recorded. Based on the right of one Building Permit per legal parcel. It says this request is addressed below, but I'm struggling to find the -- where it's addressed. Centers: And when it gets to the Development Permit, he specifies that right? Borup: No. The Building Permit would be based on the parcel as a whole. Centers: Yes but then he specifies where he wants to put it. Borup: Right but it wouldn't be a legal lot and block at that time. Centers: Right. Shreeve: Do we need to specify or does it really matter where he puts his first building? Borup: Not unless he puts it in the middle of where a roadway is going to be and has to have a revised plat, but – Shreeve: That would be his job. Borup: Right. Then the plat would need to be revised. So I don't think it does really matter. Shreeve: So we just approve a building can be built on that land somewhere. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 32 Zaremba: I would be comfortable if we said a building could be built north of the stub road on the western edge of the property. Borup: Does that sound -- Siddoway: That works for me. Borup: Do we need that in there? Any comment somewhere then? Okay. Where did we leave off? We are on -- I thought we left off -- we need to cover the annexation and zoning. Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'd make a stab at that. I'd like to make a motion -- and I'm going to move chairs to do that and I'd like the applicant to put up -- you know, the print that you had that I made the asterisk on. Borup: Are you going to be referring to that plat, Jerry? We need to make sure we have that in the file, then, if the plat's going to be referenced. Centers: This is it. We don't need -- Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we recommend to the City Council approval of Item 4, AZ 01-018, request for annexation and zoning of 85.36 acres from RUT to C-C and C-G zones for proposed El Dorado Sub by W.H. Moore Company at the southwest corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road. The C-C zone should be restricted to all the property north of Cold Stone Way and East of King Salmon Way. The remainder of the property would be zoned C-G. That description is based on the final revised Preliminary Plat submitted to this Commission. Shreeve: I'll second that. Borup: Any discussion? Maybe you'll have the same thing. The question I had I'm not sure that -- the aspect about the L-O limitation needs to be mentioned here or in the Conditional Use. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I believe it should be mentioned now in this motion and also I would like to remind you that we do need to have new legal descriptions for the annexation. I'd like to have those before Council, so if that could be part of your motion. Borup: How many days before Council? Freckleton: Ten days. Borup: Okay. Centers: Yes so included regarding the new legal descriptions prior to City Council defining the zones in a better way and the L-O zone -- please help me there. Borup: Well, it's the limitation on the property on the southern border against the canal. It would be limited office classification -- I mean office use. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 33 Centers: And south of -- well, that -- in this case with them moving the road, it would -- yes, it would be south of that. Centers: South of Copper Point Way. Borup: Include that in -- Centers: So included. Borup: And any other use would require additional use applications. Centers: Correct. Borup: Did we get all that in the motion so far? Centers: Yes. As the applicant had stated, Paragraph 4 under annexation and zoning comments, he's totally happy with professional office only and I guess that would be the same thing that we talking about. So included. Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you. The next item is the Preliminary Plat. We have got the Preliminary Plat before us. I don't think we had any -- were there any concerns or comments on the plat itself? Yes. Maybe the two outdoor plazas need to be mentioned. Right. They don't show them as a separate parcel right now. The applicant said that he's fine with having those as common lots. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, on the Preliminary Plat comments, if you were to approve it with staff comments as amended by the staff report of February 19th and also from Jonathan Seal's letter, he has one amendment on Site Specific Condition Item 18 under the Preliminary Plat. I believe that that would cover everything. The issue of the plaza is mentioned in here and if we would just also request the -- a revised Preliminary Plat that reflected that, you know, ten days prior to Council, I think that's already in here as well. Borup: Okay. Yes. Item No. 15. You have already mentioned that, so there wouldn't be anything else other than the two documents. Shreeve: Just one question. Actually, it may be too late by virtue of the previous motion, but the building height -- of course, it has been talked about and, of course we talked about the 35 feet. Would it be prudent to -- since the architect has said that the 35 feet is the top of the building typically anyway, shouldn't be any problems, but just specify specifically that those buildings are then to be that as such, since it sounds like that's going to be the case anyway. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 34 Borup: I think that would be appropriate. That was one of the concerns of the neighbors. Shreeve: Don't go 35 feet and then -- Borup: I mean it could be -- I mean a residential zone with the definition could have a 40-foot tall -- Shreeve: Right but they are under the 35 foot -- yes, it's part of it anyway and so let's -- I think for residents' purposes let's commit them to that, then, if that sounds like that was going to be a big issue. That would be under the Conditional Use Permit is that correct then? Siddoway: Yes. I was going to say, it's not too late -- it's not based on the zone. Certainly it needs to be part of the Conditional Use Permit. You could also request that it be put on the plat as well if you like. Shreeve: Okay. Zaremba: Well, the Conditional Use Permit that's before us is only one building and I think the question applies more appropriately to the plat. Shreeve: Yes. Me, too. Centers: No. Borup: Well, it covers the pathway in the Conditional Use Permit. Centers: Yes. It's just the area at the southern edge next to Thousand Springs, but you can't tie the 35 feet to the plat. Borup: It would be -- Zaremba: That's what I'm saying. The Conditional Use Permit is a building that's not under that restriction. Centers: That's right, but -- Zaremba: Tonight's Conditional Use Permit anyway. Centers: The staff maybe, you know, put that in the wrong area, the 35-foot height limit, you know, when we talked about it. Borup: Because staff does have that under the Conditional Use Permit. Centers: Correct. Shreeve: And that's a good point. That's only just the one building, though. I think it needs to be attached to the plat, but -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 35 Borup: No. No. No. Not for one building. It talks about all the property adjacent to Thousand Springs. Centers: Okay. Shreeve: Okay. All right. All right. Borup: One building was included in for the building. There were two separate things there. I guess the staff said we could include it in with the note on the plat or leave it in the Conditional Use? Centers: I'd just leave it in both. Siddoway: Do both. Add it in a note on the plat, you can ask them to site the specific lots, add a note that says that those lots are restricted to a maximum 35-foot height limit and it can also be reiterated in the Conditional Use Permit. Shreeve: And, again a maximum. I mean -- Borup: Maximum to the top. Shreeve: Top shingle. Centers: Well, we could be specific on the plat and do the lots at the southerly edge of the property. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner. Zaremba: I move that we approve or pass to the City Council recommending approval Item 5 on our agenda. Preliminary Plat 01-020, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 32 building lots and 17 other lots, plus or minus, on 85.36 acres in a proposed C-C and C-G zone for proposed El Dorado Business Campus by W.H. Moore Company on the southwest corner East Overland Road and South Eagle Road. To incorporate all staff comments, in addition to which building on a plat, that the buildings along the southerly border may have a height of no more than 35 feet and that the uses along the southerly border be limited to those that would be appropriate in an L-O zone. Otherwise, they need a Conditional Use Permit for any other use. Are we there? Centers: No. Zaremba: And also incorporating the memo from W.H. Moore Company dated February 21st to William Berg that modified staff comments Page 6, Number 18, and accepting Mr. Moore's change. Centers: Item Number 1 only, though. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 36 Zaremba: Yes. His first bullet. And did we also include -- Borup: I think that's everything staff recommended. Zaremba: Okay. Director Kuntz remarks go under the Conditional Use, not here, so I believe I'm done with the motion. Centers: Yes and I would second that motion. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Next item. Conditional use. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we recommend approval to the City Council of Item 6 on our agenda. CUP 01-037, request for a Conditional Use Permit for mixed use with office, retail, restaurant, and hotel-motel for proposed El Dorado Business Campus by W.H. Moore on the southwest corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road. One building to be built in the area north of the stub road on the western edge of the property before the final platting process and incorporating all staff notes, staff notes to include on Page 7 an additional Item H covered in the memo dated the 17th of January 2002. The memo from Director of Parks and Recreation Tom Kuntz, and a change of wording to Item 7. In the last sentence striking the word inform and adding the words forward to, striking the words in writing of and adding the words a copy of and after MNID before denial, adding the word written. Borup: David, while you're there, staff also mentioned Item Number 8 to just be deleted. Zaremba: Yes. Deleting Item Number 8 and, in addition to that, from W.H. Moore Company memo dated February 21st , the second bullet, referring to staff comments. Page 6, Item 1-C incorporating Mr. Moore's comments and Mr. Moore's third bullet, modifying staff comments, Page 7, 1-G, incorporating Mr. Moore's comments there. Shreeve: And I -- well, and the 35 foot, didn't you say something about adding that into this as well? Borup: It's already in this time. Zaremba: It's in the plat, but -- Borup: Well, staff comment has an Item Number 3. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 37 Siddoway: It wouldn’t hurt to have it clarified as to the top of the parapet highest part of the roof. Centers: Where a bird sits. Zaremba: Incorporating that the 35 limit is to the very top of the building. Shreeve: I will second that. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Okay. Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you, everyone. Would the Commission like to take a short break or do we want to -- Shreeve: Yes. Borup: Okay. We will take a short break. RECONVENED AT 9:05 P.M. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing form February 7, 2002: AZ 01-027 Request for annexation and zoning of 77.9 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Baldwin Park by Capital Development Co. - 1/4 mile south of McMillan Road, east side of Linder Road: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from February 7, 2002: PP 01-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 272 building lots and 16 other lots on 77.9 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Baldwin Park by Capital Development Co., 1/4 mile south of McMillan Road, east side of Linder Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening and start with -- actually, Items Number 7 and 8. They are both continued Public Hearings from February 7th . I'd like open AZ 01-027, annexation and zoning for proposed Baldwin Park and PP 01-024, request for Preliminary Plat. I think we -- at our last meeting we had a list of items that we asked the applicant to address with a revised plat and -- Centers: What was that list or -- Borup: Pardon? Centers: What was the list? Borup: Of items? You want to -- well, I'm hoping staff will remember them all. Maybe they won't. We had two stub streets and the pathways and -- which was the -- I think that was the majority of it. There was a couple of lots that the sizes needed to be increased, which was just an oversight. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 38 Centers: It's coming back now. Okay. Borup: But I think it was the stub streets, micropaths, and those lots and maybe a couple other minor things. Is there any -- Zaremba: Phasing the plan. Borup: Right. Siddoway: I believe I'm prepare to address the outstanding issues if you like. Borup: All right. We would like that. Siddoway: Okay. As you mentioned, this was a continued hearing from your last meeting on February 7th . After that meeting Brad Hawkins-Clark put together a revised staff report, much like the one we just went through on El Dorado. It's dated February 19th and you should have a copy of that. Does anyone not have a copy of it? I can go through and just hit the highlights of what I believe the outstanding points of contention are at this date. First, I will just give you a brief run through on the board just to familiarize yourself with the property. It's off of Linder Road between Ustick and McMillan. Can you pull down that board for just a second? These are site photos. Basically agricultural property. You can see the White Drain, which runs along the south boundary in the photo on the right. Along Linder Road. This is the proposed – Borup: That's the original -- Zaremba: That's not the latest. Siddoway: Let's see if I've got the latest. I'm not sure that got put in. No. I guess I do not have a presentation with -- but if you don't have a copy, I certainly have one here. I can just go through the staff report and point out the -- what I believe are the outstanding issues and Mr. Yorgason can address anything else that I might miss. First of all, on Page 2 of the February 19th staff memo, the third bullet down talks about a vehicular connection. Without belaboring all the names, I can just point to it on the map. I believe it's either connecting this street through here or this one up to the west, the idea being to break up the large block length through here. That is a staff recommendation. I don't believe that the applicant wishes to do that. The fourth bullet right below it is another contested issue that is providing a third stub street to the north, which would basically be swinging this street up and connecting in at this location or something like it but the idea being to break up the large block length through here. Moving on. Item 12 on that same page at the bottom of Page 2 in the bold Brad has noted that we need to clarify the need and purpose for the two percent slope on the homeowner's side of the typical micropath section. Now what this is referring to is on the revised plat down at the bottom there is a typical micropath section noted on it. His concern is that the fence line is right at the base -- at the juncture of those slopes and was wondering if it was best to have a fence right where the drain is going to be collecting. Also on the typical micropath with drainage section, which is just below it, you will note that their asphalt pathway is right up against the fence on the left with no Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 39 landscape buffer between it and the Micropath Ordinance requires five feet. In Brad's memo, he is recommending a minimum of a three-foot wide separation between the micropath and the property line. Fence line. Clarification questions on that before I move on? Zaremba: This may just be my memory, but on the staff comment, Page 2, the third bullet that you mentioned -- Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: -- my recollection after some discussion was that that was to be a pedestrian, not a vehicular pathway. My recollection also differs from what they presented in that I thought it was going to go all the way through -- if this is the right one -- Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: -- but what we show is it only goes halfway -- there is a north and south pathway. It goes from a section of West Crescent to that north and south pathway, but my assumption that it was a pedestrian pathway that was going to go all the way through to the next street and connect the two streets by a pedestrian pathway. Centers: If I could interrupt, I think the Commission had thought that a pedestrian pathway might be adequate, but I think the planning staff still feels vehicular access is more desirable due to the 1,000 foot block length. Siddoway: I believe that's accurate and that's up to the Commission to decide ultimately whether it's -- it's still an issue I guess we need to resolved. The way as proposed is it a pedestrian connection that continues through or is it a street. Centers: I have a question. Steve, are you done now? Siddoway: Not done -- oh, I'm done with the micropath, but I still have some more on the -- Centers: Go ahead and finish. Yes. Siddoway: Okay. On Page 3, Item 21, it says the applicant needs to confirm in writing and reflect on their Landscape Plan that the micropath, Lot 2, Block 5, which is in this location right here, will actually extend across the landscape buffer and connect with the detached sidewalk along Linder. They just want to make sure -- we want to make sure that the micropath connects to the sidewalk in short. We don't want it to dead end at the berm. Item 22 refers to the phase lines for phases three and four. If you look at where they are drawn, they are drawn on the west side of the micropath that runs north south. This recommendation is basically to just shift it to the -- up to the east side of the micropath, so that both micropaths are included within that phase, so those micropaths are built with the first phase that's built adjacent to them. Shreeve: What? Point that out. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 40 Siddoway: Okay. Oh, here, I can -- okay. Yes. You might be able to see that better. Okay. There is a green micropath that runs north south through here. The phase line is on the west side of it, just right along the boundary. We are just saying include the micropath in the phase, phases three and four, so that the micropath is built with phases three and four and not waiting for the later phases. Centers: Which that says. Item 22 says that. Siddoway: That is what Item 22 says. Centers: Right. Siddoway: It's a change to what they propose in their -- the revised plat does not reflect this requested change. Shreeve: And why again? Siddoway: So that that micropath is built when the phase is built and that it doesn't come in after the fact. It's basically to be an amenity for the people of that phase. It's not -- it's not a major issue. Shreeve: Okay. Siddoway: Just something that we saw as would be beneficial to get done with that phase, rather than coming in behind someone's lots after they are all built and putting it in. We'd rather do it with the phase, rather than put it in their backyards after it's already built. Okay. The last item is Item Number 23 and this deals with the number of dwelling units and the single ingress-egress access onto Linder Road. Let's see. In conversations this morning with Steve Arnold what we were talking about -- and he can address this as well, is the lot that's in the upper left-hand corner, the northwest corner of the site. It's actually Lot 15, Block 5 that they would agree to a Nonbuild Agreement on that lot and provide an emergency access through that lot out to Linder Road until such time as they have a second access somewhere else. Having said that, there is still an issue with the Fire Department about developing anything east over in here of this point, because still all of this -- this half of the subdivision still only has a single ingress-egress point even with that. So that is what is meant by limiting the total number to 112 final Occupancy Permits until a second full permanent vehicular access is available. One hundred and twelve is the number of lots up to that point. Borup: Phase one would be 112? Siddoway: One, two, three, four. One through four would be 112, up to this point, and then beyond phase four it would have to have a second permanent access in place before developing beyond that point. Zaremba: I think at the last -- the earlier part of this hearing, which is now being continued, the applicant made the offer to not build and put a temporary road on one of the lots in the northwest corner. I think the majority of us felt while that was nice, we still Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 41 needed to go beyond that and do exactly what the Fire Department is asking and where that north-south walkway is say that they don't build beyond that, which apparently is the end of their phase one through four. Siddoway: That's correct. Zaremba: We are in agreement I think that they not build beyond that until there is another road out the back somewhere or -- either north or east, in addition to what they have offered on the northwest corner, which is fine. Siddoway: Right. Yes and just for clarification, they would be limited to 30 Building Permits in here until such time as that emergency access is provided and then once that access is provided, you're limited to 112 until a permanent access is in place. Shreeve: I don't see the 30. Borup: Yes. I was going to say that, too. Zaremba: That doesn't show. Siddoway: I got that number from Brad in talking with him this afternoon, so I don't know if it's in -- if it's in writing or it just came -- I believe that number -- it probable came from Joe Silva. I don't know if he submitted that number in writing to you or not, but that's the number I was told came from the Fire Department. Borup: I think that's something new. I mean last time the access -- the temporary access road was proposed to -- I remember -- Siddoway: Even get the first one? Borup: No. No. For the whole -- to allow additional for the whole subdivision until something else came, but I think it was discussed that there was still concern about that working and after -- after that was maybe not being looked at. I thought that they weren't going to talk about a temporary road. I guess we got to get some clarification from the applicant on that, though, but this 30 is the first thing that -- I think that that's come up. Zaremba: I haven't heard the specific 30 related to the temporary road, but I think several us were uncomfortable with going east until there was a north road. Borup: Is there any rationale to the 30? There has never been that kind of restriction on a subdivision before. Siddoway: I don't know. Without the 30 I mean I would say that the secondary access has to be in place prior to the first one. I mean what threshold are you going to set before at least a temporary access has to be in place? Borup: That was discussed last week, you know, in another subdivision that had 150 with one access before a secondary road. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 42 Siddoway: It's been inconsistent at best. I know that on Macaile Meadows they said no more than 100. I don't remember what it was on Woodbridge. Borup: 150. Somewhere around there. Siddoway: And now we have a 30 number and I don't -- I don't know where it comes from. Borup: Well, I guess we can -- Centers: Well, I think each case should be a case by case, because you have different arterials. You know, Linder Road here is traffic now and, you know, I think you would have to agree with that. It depends on the road that the project is located on. Borup: Did you have -- Steve, did you have -- Siddoway: That's all I have. Borup: Oh, that was all you had? Do we have any further questions? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple of questions. Borup: Go ahead. Zaremba: A couple more questions for staff, even though I have interrupted and I apologize for that. This may be just a general thing, but I didn't find the rules myself. When there is the pedestrian pathway, is there a standing requirement that there be bollards to prevent vehicles -- permanent bollards or is that something we need to add? Are pedestrian pathways defined anywhere? Siddoway: Micropaths are defined in the Landscape Ordinance. They do not specifically require bollards that I can think of, it's just -- it only speaks in there to the required minimum width of five feet with a minute five-foot planter strip on either side. Those are the standards in the micropath section of the Landscape Ordinance. Bollards, if you would like to require them, can be added to the requirements for the Planned Development. Zaremba: I would think if I read right they are proposing some of these be basically 20 feet wide and I think it would be necessary to have prevention of vehicles. So we can add that. The other question -- there was previous discussion about piping of a ditch, which is from the southwest -- the concern was -- not the whole ditch, but the southwest area where this is adjacent to a school, has there been any resolution as to whether that ditch is piped or not? We will ask the applicant that later. I'm done. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Yes. I didn't have a chance to read the entire ACHD report. Were they okay with two stubs streets? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 43 Siddoway: I'll have to double-check while we are talking, but my understanding is they approved the revised layout with two on top and one on the bottom. Centers: And Mr. – Siddoway: And one going -- Centers: Mr. Clark is not here to defend himself, but in his first staff memo on the project, he didn't make a recommendation of approval or denial. All he did was recommend postponement and then in his second staff memo, dated February 19th , he has no commitment. Do you want to make one for him, Steve? Siddoway: We'd probably recommend approval of staff comments. I personally still have redesign issues I'd like to look at, but I haven't been involved in any of the pre-ap, so I think that would be unfair at this point. Centers: So you feel Brad would recommend approval with these additional comments that he actually typed up, I assume, and he asked you to present them? Siddoway: That's my feeling. Centers: Okay. That's of record, so -- Zaremba: I did notice one thing in his notes where he is asking for -- I believe it was a third stub street to the north. He was mentioning a land locked property, which I think we, in discussion last time, realized is not really land locked. Borup: Right. Siddoway: I believe there -- well, yes. Not truly land locked. There is a third property here that did not stub to. I think that's what he was referring to. There is a -- or this thing -- let me use the pointer. Zaremba: The property that was originally thought to be land locked has a flag that goes up to McMillan. Siddoway: All the way up to McMillan. Yes. This stub here connects to the property that flags up to McMillan. This flag, of course, ties into the property next to that. There is a property here -- Borup: That -- the owner was here and he did not want a stub street was his -- Siddoway: There is no stub street to that property and, you know, that's -- I guess take that for what it is. Borup: Right, but yes, the landowner said he didn't want one. He wanted to be left alone. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 44 Siddoway: That doesn't mean there shouldn't be one. Borup: No. That's true but we had discussed last time felt, you know, the development there, that stub street could come in from the other property. Okay. Any other questions, Commissioners? Would the applicant like to come forward? Siddoway: Commissioner -- oh. Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Did you have some more? Siddoway: Well, you asked about the ACHD report. Borup: Yes. Siddoway: I have something to report from that -- from the report. They mentioned that the applicant is proposing to construct three stub streets. One to the north, one to the east, and another to the -- oh, they recommended two additional ones, one on the north, one on the south. Those have both been incorporated in the revised plat. Their general comment stated that although the applicant is proposing to construct three stub streets, the district feels as though the applicant should be providing more connectivity in the area. District Policy 72-05.5 states stub streets will be required to provide intra- neighborhood circulation or to provide access to adjoining properties. Just to point out that the -- they have complied with the specific ones requested by ACHD. ACHD and staff are very interested in making sure we have adequate interconnectivity out here. Zaremba: If I'm reading it right I now see five stub streets. Siddoway: The originally three, plus the two that ACHD was requesting. Borup: Okay. Mr. Arnold. Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record Steve Arnold. I'm with Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road. I'm here representing Capital Development on this project. To basically come up to speed, it was about a week -- a little over a week ago -- and I will give ourselves an attaboy. The Commission heard this on Thursday and couldn't believe that we could get back on Monday in time for this hearing. We did get it back. I'll address the changes that this Commission requested and then I'll go through some of the new comments that staff is -- the staff report is addressing. I guess I'll point here -- it's fairly obvious -- first of all, we started with the stub streets. ACHD did require an additional stub street there. It's 700 feet east of the west property line. We added that to the revised plat. They asked for the additional one to the south. We added that to the revised plat. The original plat shows two to the east, one to the north, so those two are additional. ACHD has -- ACHD did look at the stub street issue down here to the south of the school. We received a letter from the school saying we don't want a vehicle connection, but we would do a pedestrian. That's shown here both on the original plat and this modified plat. So we have added a stub street that the Commission had. Previously the staff had made a comment about getting a connection here. Vehicular. Their comment at the last Planning and Zoning Hearing was that a pedestrian connection would be adequate. They were also asking Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 45 for a vehicular connection between this point and this point. This is East and West Crescent Drive. At the Planning and Zoning Meeting, our last hearing, it was discussed to break up the block length to provide a pedestrian connection here and not a vehicular connection. I am showing on this revised plat what the Planning and Zoning directed me to do and that was just to provide a connection between here and here. Another one going through would kind of be a duplication of what we are seeing up to the north there. So this was at the recommendation of Planning and Zoning just between the micropath and the public street. As you will note, we also deleted two lots here in the corner. We are using that to pick up the storm drainage in this area. That is additional open space. I have not calculated -- the old calculation of open space was approximately nine percent, not including any buffer down here or this -- excuse me -- this was included, this pond area. The buffer for the Settler's Drain was not included. Previously we didn't show the piping of the Settler's Drain. We are planning to pipe that. We are going to get an Encroachment Agreement with the lots here. We placed them up -- they are approximately 160 -- 140 to 168 feet in length along here. Those lots will have the pipe, Settler's Irrigation Ditch, in the back of them, along with an easement and an Encroachment Agreement. The easement will be north of the White Trunk Sewer Drain Easement, so we are not going to get conflicting easements. We are not allowed to do that anyway. Let's see. There was a comment -- we did have some discussion with staff this morning. Our first discussion was, you know, would we be willing to put out an emergency access at this point to -- and that was, you know, to address -- or address the Commission's concerns. You wanted me to make all those changes that I showed and then come back to you and say how are we going to address this emergency access issue. One of the discussions was -- at that hearing was I was going to come back to you, do a Nonbuild Agreement with one of the lots and show an emergency vehicular access out to Linder Road. The concern -- what I understand here is you're looking at the back half of the subdivision saying, wait a minute, we can't approve this -- we are concerned about approving this because of the issue of only one access. If you look at our main roadway here, this is a typical standard residential street. It's going to be the residential collector. It's designed to carry higher volumes, as is Linder Road. It will be designed -- actually, Linder Road probably doesn't have the sub base or the surface structure that we will be designing this. So, in essence, we are not -- you're looking at this as kind of an isolated area, but we are serving as a major collector roadway here. It's not anything untypical that this Commission has approved before. We are willing to go with the same recommendation that you placed on Woodbridge Subdivision, which was 166 lots, actually. I talked to Brad earlier. Mr. Hawkins-Clark. It was 166 lots built on an emergency fire access until such time that there was permanent vehicular access. So they approved all the way up to 166 building lots on one access. After such point they were required to have the secondary emergency fire access. I believe Commissioner Centers had some comments last time that he thought from our standpoint, from a marketing ability, we ought to have two ways in and out. As an example of the type of subdivision this is going to be and the developer of the subdivision is the same developer as Bristol Heights. Bristol Heights is over 500 lots with one way in off of Cloverdale -- or Chinden Boulevard, one way in off of Eagle Road. Those lots -- Centers: That's two accesses. Zaremba: Two off of Eagle. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 46 Centers: That's three. Arnold: I believe there is only one. Centers: You have connectivity to another sub. Arnold: I will let the client address that, but the main -- when it was first approved there was only two access points and it was 500 lots, which was over 5,000 vehicle trips. If you look at the subdivision that you just approved, if you're looking and -- if look at the technical -- the traffic related issues behind it, the driveway entrances, the roadway entrances that you just approved will have higher volumes than this one entrance. There was three off of Eagle and one off of Overland Road. That subdivision is 1.5 million square feet of office commercial space. They will have probably close to twice the amount of trips on each approach as this single entrance. That's something to keep in mind. I know ACHD, the local traffic experts, they did review this plat and they approved this layout. They used to be. I know that for a fact. They have approved this plat and approved it with the one entrance. They approved it with the proposed stub streets. We are asking tonight that you not place a condition of the one entrance -- I believe it was talked about 112 lots -- it could be five years before we can get a secondary connection, but this plat may go forward sooner than we do get that secondary connection. You have received written comments from Mr. Silva of your Meridian Fire Department. The written comment he suggested approval of the subdivision as it was laid out, as I understand the comment. The verbal comments that he's had with staff are based on some -- possibly adopting some Fire Code that is of the International Fire Code. The 30 lots I'm not familiar with. The 112 lots I'm not sure -- other than from a phase standpoint, which comes halfway to the subdivision, I'm not sure where that number comes up with. Borup: That's not where it came up, that was -- Arnold: It was just a phase -- that's what I understand. I'm not sure of a technical reason, if there is a technical reason. I'm trying to place this, I guess, in numbers from a traffic perspective. Looking at it from a fire perspective, we are going to have a collector roadway there with two 21-foot street sections on either side of that island. That will allow a fire truck -- there is not going to be any parking on either side, so it's not like the entrance is going to be blocked. Essentially you're having two ways in. Obviously, one's in, one's out, but should anything block -- which it's not supposed to, because it's 21 feet back to back, you're still going to have the two ways in. Shreeve: For that half of the subdivision. Arnold: So that's our issues with the comments regarding the one way in. We are agreeable to do the fire access prior to that 167 building lots. If this Commission feels150 is where they want it to land, that's fine. We'd like to be able to be consistent with what you did in Woodbridge. The cross-section of the micropath was brought up. We are going to maintain the drainage of that micropath lot on that lot. The two percent slope that goes into the property line it won't be an issue. There is going to be some grass -- there is going to be some grassy swales, there is going to be some landscaping Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 47 there, but even if it was sloped it would pick it up, but for this Commission's review tonight, we are planning to maintain the on-site drainage for that drainage on that lot. The phase lines -- my client is proposing to phase this on the west side of the common lot. The main reason is we are bringing that phase up, we don't want to do the extra landscaping, the pathway in there. It's based on marketing, basically. We'd like the phase line to remain as we proposed and let the market drive and let the developer basically dictate what they bring on line with each phase. I think that was the only change in the phasing, where it was in relationship to that micropath. Borup: Were you going to address the slope, the drainage micropath, or was that what you -- you had mentioned a two in one slope. Arnold: The two percent slope? Borup: Yes. Arnold: That -- I believe the concern was the micropath -- that we were going to drain all the drainage onto the adjacent lots and that's not what we are going to do. Borup: No and in your cross-hatch it shows that, but you didn't address the second micropath drainage with the -- Arnold: Oh. That's correct. We are planning to do the three-foot. That was -- we put that together in a day and a half and, unfortunately, that got out a little bit sooner. The other change that I didn't bring up was the -- we had brought up all these lots about the 6,500 square feet and that was just an error on our part submitting that. Basically, what we are asking this Commission to approve tonight is remove the Site Specific Number 5 condition. It's the condition that asks for an additional stub street here. I have laid this out with the new stub street. Any additional stub street basically to be providing two stub streets to the 40 acre parcel. We have got one stub street to the -- I believe it's 12 -- roughly 12 acre parcel, it's got the flags that goes up to McMillan. Mr. Fisher over here didn't want a stub street, so eventually one will connect him. We made him aware of that tonight. It's most likely going to happen that way. We believe the two stub streets that we have are adequate. We are asking that Number 5 be deleted, because we have provided the revised plat. We are providing this pedestrian connection between West and East Yosemite and we are providing a pedestrian connection on the east side of East Crescent Street. So as you are acting on this plat tonight, based on what this Commission directed us to modify, we can delete that with the changes that we have made within the subdivision. We are also asking that you remove site specific -- or the Condition Number 12. It talks about the cross-section on the micropaths. You could either modify that condition to say keep the drainage on the micropath lots and that would be acceptable. I don't think that that's that big of an issue and remove Condition Number 2, which talks about phase lines along the western boundary of the micropath. We'd like to leave that to a future phase. I'm sorry. Did I say -- 22? Then modify Condition Number 23. Number 23 talks about limiting the subdivision to 112 lots. Essentially, if you limit the number, it takes -- this whole subdivision -- it essentially takes the developability from the client to build this subdivision based on no technical reason, no ordinance that supports that. We are asking that you approve this subdivision with this main collector roadway as you had in numerous subdivisions Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 48 throughout Meridian. If you'd like, I have got some examples of those tonight. Unfortunately, I forgot to pass those out. I can do that if you -- so those are the four conditions that we are asking that you modify and approve the subdivision as we have it changed tonight and I will stand for any questions the Commission may have on this. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Item 5, Bullet Point 2, which would be Page 2, you want to refer to that? You have added that, haven't you? Didn't I find it? Arnold: Would that be -- yes. That's right here. Centers: Okay. Thanks. Removing the conditions -- let's just really look at it realistically. Removing the staff conditions that you want us to remove, do you think you have a snowball's chance in getting it passed the City Council? Arnold: Mr. Chairman -- Centers: Because the staff is pretty adamant about some of these conditions that you're wanting us to just delete and move it on to City Council with our approval, when our approval is just a recommendation. Do you really think that City Council is going to look favorably at that? Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the way I understand the process with the Planning and Zoning Commission is you make a recommendation and their recommendation is the staff report as it goes forward. Centers: It's simply that, a recommendation. Arnold: It's a recommendation. That's correct. Centers: Yes. We have had projects go to Council that we recommended that they turned down. Arnold: I did that very project. Centers: I'm just trying to get you realistic here, because I can't realistically go along with the deletions that you're talking about and I'm telling you my opinion up front as I'm always up front. Arnold: I understand. Maybe to -- I guess I'm asking you to approve as we have it proposed without these conditions. Centers: Well -- and I'll come back to you. I'd like to give you an approval that I think the Council would look at favorably. I'd like to meet you halfway or part of the way, but some of the conditions you're wanting us to delete I don't agree with and I'll be specific later. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 49 Zaremba: I'm comfortable with not providing the third stub street to the north. There are already two and the reason for the third one was a land locked parcel that is not truly land locked. So I'm comfortable with deleting that one issue, but I agree with Commissioner Centers that the other ones have some validity. Borup: Plus some of them are already answered. I mean -- Zaremba: Some of them are, yes. Borup: The first bullet point has already been addressed. Zaremba: Yes. Shreeve: Well, that's -- yes. That's the thing. Bullet point one has been satisfied. Number 2 has been satisfied. Then three, as I recall, the applicant did as we had directed him. Centers: He has a path -- Shreeve: Right. So bullet point three -- Zaremba: Except that I thought it was going to go all the way across between the two crescents. Shreeve: No, because the applicant pointed that would have been a redundant path, because you have got one just to the north that would take you into the other street. Borup: Yes and I think from what we talked about, anybody coming from here, where are they going to go? They are going to go either to this area here or out the subdivision, so it's the same distance, either you go north to this point or you come here and go north to that point on a road. Zaremba: I'm comfortable with that. Shreeve: So I think although the staff has recommended Bullet Point 3, I like the path, so as far as I'm concerned Bullet Point 3 is satisfied by virtue of the path, as far as I'm concerned. Bullet Point 4, yes, that to me I don't agree with. I don't think we need to have that. So as far as I'm concerned, those have been satisfied to my liking. Borup: Yes and it looks like since we are in kind of a discussion stage here, Jerry, would you like to -- you said you didn't agree. Did you mean -- Centers: You want me to be specific? Borup: Well, yes, on those five bullet points -- or one, two, three -- or those four. Was there one of those that you felt different on? Centers: Well, in Number 5 on Page 1 -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 50 Borup: Right. What Commissioner Shreeve just went through? Centers: Yes. I don't necessarily agree with that either and I guess I would agreed that, you know, we are talking about the paths in lieu of breaking up the thousand foot. Borup: But you are okay with that one? Centers: Yes. Number 12 -- Borup: Right. That's a different -- Centers: I think we asked to stay in there. Let's get specific. Number 21, there was no problem there. Number 22, I agree with staff, because of the -- I guess I'm hung up on the one access to the subdivision and one access only. Number 23 I agree with staff. I would want that micropath completed prior to the phasing, because God forbid -- I mean we have a good economy, but if that's not completed, you're not going to complete it if you're not going to build out the rest of it. You know, it's obvious. Now I have seen slow economies where the -- that situation would just sit there, then. It would just sit there and that's the reason staff wanted it done and I totally agree with them. I'm not hung up on a temporary access, to be honest with you. I just don't think that the back half of that subdivision should be built out until there is another permanent access and I agree with staff in that regard. Borup: So the two that you didn't agree to deleting was 22 and 23? Centers: Correct. Zaremba: And 12. You want 12 deleted. Centers: Correct. Borup: Oh. Yes. That -- did you request 12 deleted? Arnold: Mr. Chairman, I guess -- you know, it's getting passed my bedtime and I'm getting a little stupid tonight, but -- Centers: This is early. Arnold: I guess I'm not -- if we've satisfied the conditions -- I'm not asking -- normally -- I shouldn't say normally. In other jurisdictions if you have satisfied the conditions of the Preliminary Plat, they don't have it as a condition. Some of these -- and I guess I wasn't asking you to delete the pedestrian connection that this Commission asked us to change, or to take off the requirement to put the stub, but since we modified the Preliminary Plat, I guess -- Borup: Right and it's a little redundant. Item Number 12, do we have any -- Arnold: Well, there is no problem there that -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 51 Shreeve: Well, I think 12 isn't so much to remove it as much just maybe to clarify that the drainage is to be taken care of on that pathway. Centers: And you knew full well -- my view at the last meeting that the single access was a major hang up with me. So, that's no surprise. We have no disagreement on most everything else. It's just that single access to that number of lots that causes me a problem. Shreeve: Let me assume -- just be Devil's advocate for a minute. You know, they come in and they have got their phase one, two, three, four, and over to the middle of the subdivision. Of course, the qualification or the wording on the Number 23 is permanent, that there be a permanent vehicular access. Therefore, the only permanent other access that there could be would be just the one to the north, unless development occurred around the development. Siddoway: Or east. Shreeve: Well, it says stub street to the east -- well, I'm talking about I guess the ability to have a permanent to expand out to connect into right? So that would apply. Do you have a site plan? What's the likelihood of that happening? I meaning are they going to be land locked for a long time because -- that's just my only concern is are they going to be at the mercy of people developing around them to give them that permanent access? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, it does put them at the mercy of others to develop around them. How quickly they will develop is tough to say. They are kitty-corner with Cedar Springs, which just got approved, so there is involvement close, but none of these would actually stub directly into Cedar Springs. Shreeve: Because I agree with Commissioner Centers in principle, but yet this could be land locked. Arnold: It really does mess us up. It takes the back half and makes it reliable on other developments and makes really the client vulnerable to some of the wishes of the other abutting parcels. Centers: I wouldn't say that, but -- and I see your point where, you know, you're going to try and get what you can with the -- you know, the land that you have and the most lots and I agree with that and another access, of course, is going to take a number of lots, whether you put it up here and move -- you know, it's going to take a lot of land away from you and I have a lot of empathy for developers for that situation. Borup: Could we discuss that a little bit? What is the concern for that other access? Is it traffic? Is it fire access? Where is -- what issue are we concerned about? Centers: What you just mentioned. Borup: Those two? Both? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 52 Centers: Yes. Traffic and -- Zaremba: My concern is emergency access, I mean worried that that back group needs another way out. Borup: I mean -- and that's assuming, what, there is going to be an accident on the road that's going to block both halves of the collector street or -- Zaremba: It could be an earthquake, it could be who knows what. Borup: Earthquake? Zaremba: I'm told they do happen here. Centers: Have we got the Fire Department letter? Borup: Yes. It's the second page of this -- February 7th . Here it is and he doesn't say anything about another access. His comments are based on the plat that had three stub streets. Centers: Did we do this, Item 10? Provide one additional access road to service Great Basin, White Sands, and Melrose Park? Borup: Okay. Where are those? Centers: Item 10. Steve, do you want to address that? Siddoway: I'm going to look it up. I think that that's the road that's in the eastern half of the project. Borup: It's this parcel right here -- or this whole area -- not parcel, but those were the streets he was referring to -- Arnold: Originally the fire department was concerned about the land locked parcel to the north and that was discussed at the last -- Borup: No. I'm talking -- Number 10 is talking about an access road to service this section. Arnold: The stub street? Borup: No. No. I'm talking about an access road to get into this area. He didn't say where it should be, he just said an access road and from the discussion it would be up in this area somewhere, but I find -- he didn't say this. I assume he's meaning an access road to Linder is what he's referring to. I don't know where else you would have an access road to, since Linder is the only street that you have access to. Centers: Isn't that the area he was referring to? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 53 Borup: I don't think that was discussed last time. You know, the Fire Department's comment. I don't think this was discussed at the last meeting. Centers: No. You know, another access was discussed, but -- Borup: Right. Right but I mean not from -- the only thing I see that's a little bit different here is because of the collector street. It’s almost like three subdivisions that’s coming onto this street, so, yes, you got access here and, you know, this area has got access here and this one's got the one, but this is -- it's like taking this with only one access point. You know the path -- we have looked at a lot of smaller subdivisions that have one point coming onto -- you know, this was the arterial. I mean in this case it isn't, but I think there are similarities there in what we are looking at. I mean I guess I'm personally not stuck on the 112. I don't know where you draw the line, though. You know, the 272, it's certainly -- and maybe another access -- what do the Commissioners feel? I mean an access road up to here? Centers: Well, it's a complete redesign, yes. Borup: Well, they said they could do a nonbuild on a road and do that temporary. Shreeve: Just temporary, but -- yes. Borup: Right. Yes. So would that open up -- open up a number of lots in here if that was the case? I mean I don't know if it's enough to feel comfortable to open all of them or, you know, half of this -- you know, maybe another phase line if there is another access point. Shreeve: You know, the purpose of this -- Borup: Because the subdivision is really only going onto one road. At some point these need to need -- they need to have something. Assuming, you know, if this road is blocked here, I guess that's one the fire stations -- I mean fire -- you have to block it on both sides. I guess it would need to be something major at the entrance. You know, this gets into here and down back to the rest of the subdivision. For this access road not to accomplish emergency access, you would have to have something so major that this would be blocked here and that would be blocked there and then we got -- Zaremba: My concern would be the blockage here. Borup: Well, yes, but, you know, you can do what if's on everything, you know, that's out there. Mr. Arnold, did you have a comment? Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba? Zaremba: Zaremba. Arnold: Zaremba. Sorry. If the concern is in this location -- I mean to address all the scenarios you can't. We could do a traffic rated pathway through here with a grass Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 54 creet and asphalt, which would provide a secondary means to this area back here, if that's your concern. Borup: Are you saying here and here or just -- just come up and then here from this way? Arnold: Well, ideally we prefer just the one, but if it is a concern in the back half, we could do that in this area. Borup: I think it's only a concern until another one of these stub streets go through. Zaremba: You're saying what is designed as a pathway could be used as a roadway temporarily and then when the other stubs connect to something it would go back to being a pathway. Shreeve: A fire access roadway, but it can designed that it can always have that capability as a fire access. Arnold: That's correct. It would always have -- Shreeve: Would it stay the 30-foot width? Arnold: Commissioner Shreeve, it would be basically a 10-foot wide asphalt pathway -- 10-foot wide asphalt pathway, five feet of grass creet on either side, so it would be a 20- foot wide total emergency fire access. I believe that's what was required of Woodbridge. Shreeve: That actually shows 30 feet, though, in your plat. Arnold: It's a 30-foot wide common lot, but the actual pathway is -- Shreeve: The derivable area would be 20 foot. Okay. Borup: Any discussion on that? Zaremba: Well, in an emergency there would only be traffic going one way, so there would be no need for it to be wide enough for cars to pass each other. It would be an exit and so it probably is wide enough. Arnold: Which area -- Zaremba: We are talking about what you were saying could be a fire exit. Shreeve: You know, I like that, because he also wants a temporary lot in the corner, just -- Zaremba: I agree. I think they should both be done and they can both be undone when there is another access to that point. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 55 Borup: You're saying you don't -- Arnold: This one wouldn't -- Borup: I mean you could, but it would cost more than leaving it and you're not gaining any additional -- Commissioner, you're saying if both of them were put in would that be the restriction on the number of lots or are you saying that could be -- open up that whole area with the two emergency accesses? Centers: Yes. That would be my question and not provide for permanent access out of the subdivision? Borup: You know, I think that's a great compromise, but I still think a permanent access in and out of the subdivision, whether it be by this stub, that stub or any of them, is necessary. Then it could be eliminated, you know, when that happens. Borup: Mr. Arnold, maybe -- you said something. I believe, that this -- talking about this was a -- oh, we are talking about two things here. One is an emergency access and the other is a temporary. The temporary would be -- would be a paved street with no sidewalk, no curb and gutter. Arnold: That's correct but it would be fire access only. Borup: It would be fire access only. Something was mentioned last time about that that's been done before like at Crossroads. Arnold: That has been done before. Our preference would be to make it fire only, just so we get -- the main focus of the subdivision, you can tell, is right down here through the boulevard. That's going to be where the developer wants to bring the traffic. That's where we want people to come in and out of the sub. Zaremba: How do you control if it's fire only? Would a person have to go there and physical remove the barriers for it to work? Arnold: There are methods. There is breakaway bollards, but there would be bollards, I believe. Zaremba: Which brings me back to the original question, which is kind of a side issue now, but on the pathways are you planning bollards on most of them? Arnold: The only bollards that we would be proposing at this point would be around this fire -- and then this fire access. We don't want to give the appearance -- the rest of the pathways would be five feet of landscaping, so they are not going to have the appearance of a straight road. We don't necessary want that. I mean bollards aren't the prettiest of things. Zaremba: I was thinking they were going to be 10 feet all over the place, but if they are only five, then you don't need them. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 56 Shreeve: Of course, another question is, is there going to be enough room to maneuver fire trucks into that. Right there. I mean that sounds good, but they are really impractical. You've got a 50-foot -- well, a 30-foot -- Borup: A 50 – yes and then a -- Arnold: We can make the radius. Borup: Thirty-six and 20, that is enough? Arnold: Wider than a standard T. Approximately the same width – Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, in Joe Silva's comments, Item Number 5 refers to the turning radius of a fire truck. Radius shall be 28 feet inside and 48 outside. Borup: That would be 36 and 20 -- what would we have as outside radius? Thirty-six and 20, that's 56, and he said 48. Siddoway: You can't add the widths and get the radius. You have to actually strike the radius that connects it to a point, a tangent point, and see what it ends up being. My hunch is that it would not meet a 48-foot radius. Borup: We are only talking roadway. Do we have another standard for emergency access? I think emergency is 47 and a half. Arnold: We are assuming they are not turning around in there, but we would design the radius so you can turn in and go through with that wide and the 20 foot wide grass creet and pathway they would have the radius to make it in there. It's not the radius to turn around in it. Centers: Well, he's talking about the internal road system. Siddoway: I think to make any turning maneuver they need a 48-foot outside radius, period, regardless of whether it's a street or a pathway or anything. That's the turning radius of the truck. Not to make a circle -- I mean if they are turning, making a right- hand turn to go into that, they need a 48-foot radius. Borup: Well, it depends on the truck, doesn't it? Siddoway: Yes. Borup: I'm assuming that's the largest truck. Siddoway: I assume so. Shreeve: Yes. That's probably their big one, but that's -- that would be the big tanker. Arnold: Mr. Chairman, you can make that a condition. I don't have a template with me to draw on there, but I know that we can make the radius that we need on that. If not, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 57 we could always move that pathway up straight and just make it a condition, if that's the direction of this Commission. Shreeve: That's true. Borup: Well, I asked the question earlier what the concern was. One was fire and one was traffic. That looks like an answer to the fire concerns. The traffic -- I would think that other access to the other point would have to be a right in, right out only and it's a little harder to control that. Shreeve: Chairman Borup, what has been done in the past? I know I was here with the development that was just south of Thousand Springs that went in that we required something to this effect, you know, a temporary access, limited their lots. Borup: The one that didn't get approved? Shreeve: The one that didn't get approved. Yes, it ended up not getting approved. We approved it, but -- I guess what's been the policy with that? Borup: That first phase is the only one they had one access to, didn't it? Shreeve: Yes. Borup: I don't know how many lots that was. Siddoway: What this body approved with Tuscany Lakes was very similar to what is being proposed here as far as the second access up in the northwest corner. Tuscany Lakes had one collector road in and out. They offered to do a Nonbuild Agreement on one of the lots and provide a temporary emergency only access on that property. Borup: Access to where do you remember? Siddoway: Access to the street out from Locust Grove. Locust Grove into -- Borup: Okay. Just the other end of the cul-de-sac or where the north -- Shreeve: And basically come right back down into the main road. I mean -- Centers: Didn't it adjoin another subversion? Siddoway: No. Borup: No. Shreeve: There was something proposed, I believe. I mean at least there was something right to the east I think that was ready to connection into it. I remember seeing something preliminary that would have hooked into Eagle Road, but that wasn't on the table at that time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 58 Borup: Did you have a comment, Mr. Arnold? Arnold: Mr. Chairman, I'm the one that recommended to Mr. Brown and we were also doing Tuscany, that very situation that you're discussing right now. Borup: Do you remember what the access road was? Arnold: It was a temporary for emergency fire slash -- Shreeve: And really, quite frankly, what these guys are going is more by at least continuing on with some other access, because, again, in Tuscany we came up off the main road, but came right back down to the main road where at least here there is theoretically a whole other path that a fire truck could take. I guess my personal opinion is with those I don't see why we should limit their number of lots is probably where I'm leaning. I just think that if we require a permanent access they are at the mercy for who knows how long with the surrounding neighbors they have got and I think -- like I say, with the pathway being built and moved up to meet the conditions of the turning radius of a fire truck, that that basically gives emergency vehicles a whole second way of getting back into there and so they have got two ways of accessing deep into their subdivision and who knows how long the surrounding neighbors would take to develop. Zaremba: You're thinking both things would happen, the temporary access out onto the main road? Shreeve: Correct. Zaremba: And the fire pathway. Shreeve: Right. Zaremba: I could support that. Borup: I think I have got the same concerns as Commissioner Centers. There are five stub streets and the way development is going. I don't see it being five years before at least one of those five is going to have development. I mean if I was concerned that it wasn't going to happen in the next 20 years, I would feel different, but that has not been the history and I don't have knowledge of what's going on the other parcels, but I see something happening sooner than later. Shreeve: Yes but did we -- I mean really -- Borup: But that's why I'm saying I guess I'm comfortable with what you said. Shreeve: Yes. Yes. Okay. I see where you're headed. Borup: But, again, there is no guarantee. Shreeve: Right. Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 59 Borup: Okay. Are there any other -- any other comments? Did you have anything? Arnold: I guess I have one last comment. You made a comment about moving the pathway here up to the north to the meet fire. I would suggest that we word it if you -- if this is acceptable, that it meet the fire requirement for a secondary -- if it works. I don't have a template, but I'm almost positive that we can make it work. Borup: Where it's located now? Shreeve: My gut feeling is I don't know if it will, but that would be for you to prove. Arnold: Yes. That would be a condition that we'd have to -- Zaremba: Let me ask this, if in meeting the radius you couldn't temporarily build on the four lots that adjoin that in exchange for building the other 150 that are the back part -- I mean if you -- if you had to meet the radius by not allowing a couple of those lots to be built yet -- Shreeve: Or he moves it up or whatever it takes. Whatever it takes. Zaremba: You eventually could build them once all the other roads are in and the exchange for that is you -- Borup: That might be a good exchange. Zaremba: Well, in exchange for that he can build the whole project, except for those four houses. So essentially I think that what we are saying is leave it up to you to work out the radius issue, but if you have to lose four houses, you get the other 180 back. Borup: Is that in phase three or phase four? Arnold: Right here? Borup: Yes. Arnold: I believe that's phase four. Zaremba: Four is the path that -- Arnold: Are you talking over here? Borup: No. No. Where that -- so that could be -- that could be five years from now before we could even be worried about that. Arnold: And we could have the full permanent access somewhere over here within five years. Borup: But I mean before you get to that phase. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 60 Arnold: It could be. Borup: I don't remember if that was -- the phasing time frame was mentioned last week or not, but that was a question, I know, but I don't remember the answer, but we were looking at one phase a year or so. Arnold: We are hoping it's better than that. It would, obviously, be dictated on the market. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, on phasing, the west half of that emergency access pathway is shown in phase four. The east half of it is in phase seven. So it should probably be all in phase four or have the -- phase five basically butts right up against it. It could be continued as part of phase five, which would be the first phase that is in that second half. I don't think we'd probably have a problem with it being constructed as part of it. Borup: Or redesign their phasing plan. Arnold: Mr. Chairman, we could make it such that we have secondary fire access to that phase -- any phase beyond phase four. Zaremba: Mr. Arnold, does your phasing plan apply to the roadway as well? I mean you won't build roadways until you open that housing phase or are you planning on putting all the roadways in and then just the housing is phased? Borup: Go ahead. Arnold: Usually you build the roads with the lots with each phase, so -- Zaremba: So nobody can get back there and get stuck on those roads anyhow. Until you start opening that phase you won't build that road. Arnold: That's correct. Centers: One thing I enjoy about the Commission is that it's five individuals, you know. In the past the previous Commission members, we had disagreements and never knew it. I mean, you know, everyone has their own opinion and I -- which I think is good. I'm an up-front type person and, you know, I would totally support Item Number 7, the annexation and zoning. I can't support Item Number 8, because it's my conviction with 272 residences most people with two cars. That's a lot of vehicles in and out on one road and I have, you know, some empathy for the people that live on Linder and travel Linder and getting in and out of the subdivision. I just can't -- I can't see it. When you get back to the -- you know, if you had a subdivision that was half that size, not a problem, but 272 residences and approximately 150 of them on the back side of that, you know, I'm just telling you where I'm coming from and I can't support Item Number 8. Shreeve: Based on the permanent access, is that -- based on the permanent -- Centers: One access. Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 61 Shreeve: Okay. Centers: Until another access is put in. But I agree with you, Commissioner Shreeve, that it's tough to land lock them and restrict them to 112 until they get the other one -- you know, I understand that and that probably wouldn't be fair either. Then we sit here and say, well, we know that it's going to be built out in five years, okay, well, then they might be okay with that restriction, one of those stub streets becomes another arterial right? Borup: Not an arterial. Centers: Not an arterial, but another access through that subdivision to an arterial. An access point. Shreeve: You know, just another thought, which, of course, is just repeating what Chairman Borup said, but, really, they have got the main street coming in. You could almost classified it as three small little subdivisions, I guess, and I kind of tend to agree with that thought as well, that that's another major collector road to the other road, I guess. Borup: Actually, it's probably a better -- in better condition than Linder Road is. Centers: Yes. Arnold: Commissioner Borup, if I can, I'm pretty -- used to fairly decent at doing the traffic calculations, and if I can put in perspective a little bit about -- I know that one concern is fire, the other is traffic and people sitting out there. The peak traffic here is 272 vehicle trips, that's peak a.m. and peak p.m. traffic. Borup: Well, on the -- Arnold: On the collector road. The main collector road. Borup: At the peak hours. Arnold: The peak hour traffic, the 272 vehicle trips, approximately 4.5 cars per minute. If you looked at Linder Road, a north-south arterial road, it's got approximately 6,000 vehicle trips. The intersections to the north and to the south are cross-controlled. If break down the peak hour traffic on Linder, that's approximately 600 vehicle trips. That's approximately one vehicle every 528 feet. It would be 500 plus feet. 528. So if you look at this intersection, if it's traffic consideration only, that intersection at full build out will operate at a level of C service, which is better than these intersections up here and the intersection down here. From a traffic -- purely traffic, this collector roadway will function better than the major arterial intersection that are cross-controlled. So from a traffic perspective it's -- 272 lots seems like a lot, but the traffic, based on our traffic studies and what I have -- which I'm presenting essentially to you, it operates at above adequate level of service C. So from that perspective if you take it away from fire, that intersection will operate at full build out with the one access. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 62 Borup: And you were putting in turn lanes on Linder. Arnold: Left turn in. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I move that we move forward, okay? Borup: We have been on this awhile. Did you have any final comments, Mr. Arnold? Okay. Then let's move forward. Shreeve: I move that we close Items Number -- the Public Hearings on Items Number 7 and 8, AZ 01-027 and PP 01-024. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Anyone handle the -- do we need some more discussion? I feel we probably might on Number 8, but do we need more discussion on Number 7 or are we ready for a motion? Do we want to have eight worked out before we even talk about seven? Shreeve: Well, let's just kind of go through real fast for a minute. Again, basically on their comments back to Number 5, at least it's my opinion that Number 5 has been satisfied to my liking. Again, not necessarily per the staff's liking -- Borup: These are all out of the Preliminary Plat? Shreeve: Right. Right but I'm discussing them ahead of time, yes, just to make sure that I'm clear that nothing will affect the zoning. Number 5, as far as I'm concerned, has been satisfied. Number 12, just simply will propose just modifying, indicating the drainage will be taken care of on the pathway side. Twenty-two -- I guess I don't necessary have an opinion one way or another on 22. Then 23, of course, you know, I'm looking forward to just approving with those fire accesses and a fire lane. Twenty- two I have no personal opinion on. Zaremba: Just kind of a connecting opinion, if we were going to do 23, which was the thinking the last time, that we would allow them a certain number of phases and stop them, then 22 makes more sense. If we are not going to put a limitation on how many phases they can complete and just let them do it at will and at the market, then I also don't see the need for 22. I think 22 and 23 are interconnected. Borup: Any other comments? Shreeve: I just wanted to verbalize those, Mr. Chairman. Borup: Do we have anybody else with comments on the same thing they'd like to mention now? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 63 Shreeve: I move that we approve AZ 01-027, request for annexation and zoning of 77.9 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Baldwin Park by Capital Development Company, quarter mile south of McMillan Road, the east side of Linder Road. Centers: I second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Siddoway: Including all staff comments? Borup: Yes. Do you want -- Shreeve: Oh. Including all staff comments. Centers: Second. Borup: Again, have a motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approved PP 01-024, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 272 building lots and 16 other lots on 77.9 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Baldwin Park by Capital Development Company, quarter mile south of McMillan, east side of Linder Road. With all staff comments as it relates to their February 19, 2002, letter, as well as their February 4, 2002, letter, with the following corrections. That Item 5 be removed, because that's kind of redundant. Item 5 basically be removed as the plat stands. Centers: Did you -- Shreeve: Right. Okay. Referring specifically to the February 19, 2002, letter, that Item 5 be removed. Item 12 simply to be restated that somewhere in there that the developer is to keep all drainage water on the micropath side and to deal with it and not have it sit along the fence, but there is -- whatever swale there might be is on the pathway side. Item 23, that Lot 15 on Block 5 become a temporary access basically just to be a nonbuild lot for emergency vehicular access and that the pathway -- where? Between Lots 8 and 9 on Block 7 become lot -- between Lots 8 and 9 of Block 7 and between Lots 21 and 20 on Block 7. Borup: You mean between 8 and 10? Shreeve: Eight and 10. Well -- Siddoway: It's all Lot 9. Shreeve: Okay. Lot 9. That Lot 9 be built to a fire access standard, that the turn radius be confirmed that the emergency access vehicle can, in fact, turn from Melrose -- what Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 64 is it, Park Avenue, Melrose Park Avenue, onto this emergency lane and basically provide them full build out. Zaremba: Would you say again the lot that you identified for the temporary access to Linder Road? Shreeve: That lot -- yes. Lot 15, Block 5. Zaremba: I think Block 2. Shreeve: No. Borup: No. It's phase two. Zaremba: Phase two. Okay. Shreeve: Block 5. Borup: Do we want to specify lot or just say the northwest section? I don't know -- or say 14 or 15. Shreeve: That's a good point. Borup: I don't know if it makes a lot of difference. Shreeve: 14 or 15. Borup: I mean when they get in the design it may be a factor. Shreeve: That's a good point. Give them a little flexibility there and then all -- yes, I guess all other staff comments. Borup: I think the first letter I think there was a -- staff got real specific on a few other comments. I don't know if we need to mention those or not. Block length variance. Shreeve: Are those Planning and Zoning, Steve? Borup: No. The Variance would not be, but that would just be the first part of the paragraph. There were a few other things. Staff wanted vehicle access between the two Yosemite’s and we recommended a pathway right. Shreeve: And that's why by virtue of Item 5 just to simply remove it. Borup: Okay. Not repeating the same thing. Shreeve: Right. Well, I believe so. Yes. Borup: It might be easier to state that we are making the recommendation based on the Preliminary Plat that was brought before us tonight. Would that -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 65 Shreeve: Very good point. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, maybe the way to clear it up is if -- go through the way it's sounding by deleting Number 5 of February 19th , that number corresponds with Item Number 5 in the original staff report where all of this -- all these streets and connecting issues that we are discussing are contained, so it's technically -- Borup: No. If you're -- well, he's saying deleting number five in a previous report also. Is that what you're saying? Well, no, that's -- but you're saying -- Shreeve: Well, is what I'm saying is that as it stands now with the plat dated March 15th -- wow. March 15, 2001, that it meets all the requirements that would be contained within item five. Zaremba: I don't think we are removing all the requirements, we are saying that some of them have been satisfied. Shreeve: Let me put it this way: The stamp -- the surveyor's stamp dated February 11, 2002, that that plat, as referenced with that date, February 11, 2002, is -- contains all of what number five would otherwise want us to do. That's -- Borup: That's the plat you're recommending approval of? Shreeve: Yes. Borup: With the other -- Shreeve: Modifications. Borup: -- modifications? Shreeve: Or changes. Borup: Okay. Is that complicated enough of a motion? Swartley: Yes. Zaremba: Does the maker care to restate it? Shreeve: No. Borup: I think that clarifies the -- Zaremba: I will second. Borup: Motion and a second. Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Opposed? Centers: Naye. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 66 Borup: Okay. Three ayes and one naye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE Item 9: VAC 02-001 Request for a vacation of an existing sewer easement in the proposed Sundance Subdivision by Briggs Engineering - west side of Meridian Road, 1/2 mile north of Ustick Road: Borup: We are completed with that. Okay. Item Number 9. I'd like to open the Public Hearing VAC 02-001, request for a vacation of an existing sewer easement in the proposed Sundance Subdivision by Briggs Engineering. This is a previously approved - - or a second phase of a previously approved subdivision. We'd like to start with the staff report. Oh, I'm sorry. This is not a Public Hearing. We are not opening a Public Hearing, but we do still have a request for vacation. We still would like to start with the staff report. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'll take a stab at this. The application that's before you for certification, an application for vacation of existing sewer easement in the proposed Sundance Subdivision. A little bit of clarification on that. It is Sundance Place Subdivision, which is a proposed subdivision lying north of the Sundance Subdivision that came through sometime ago. At this present time Sundance Place Subdivision has not been submitted to the City of Meridian or they have attempted to submit it to the City of Meridian. It was not accepted due to the fact that Sundance Subdivision that came through previously had not been approved by City Council. Therefore, Sundance Place would have not been contiguous and did not meet the requirements for it. The White Drain Trunk Line that we have been talking about for it seems like years now – Borup: It has been. Freckleton: Excuse me. The easement that was granted along the north boundary of this proposed Sundance Place, it was for the White Trunk. There had been a second easement granted that follows a circuitous path through the development in the same place of the roadway alignments. Staff and our City Engineer, we have sat down and talked about this and we are a little confused as to the timing of this request due to the fact that the proposed Sundance Place Subdivision has not even come before you yet. We have done design on the White Trunk, we have plans drawn up, we have two easement routes in place, and we have two different designs in place. One for the north and one for the route through the development. It certainly is our preferred route to go through the subdivision where we can follow paved roads and be able get to the sewer easier and it makes it easier for access and maintenance. I guess at this point in time we are, like I said, a little confused as to the timing of this request. We certainly would be more comfortable signing onto the vacation if we knew for sure that the alignment of the road and the subdivision was going to proceed through Planning and Zoning and through Council. Our comfort level isn't real good right now. Maybe the applicant can talk about their thoughts on filing this application at this point in time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 67 Borup: It sounds like staff's preference would be to request this vacation at the same time that the project is submitted? Freckleton: Or approved. I guess we could leave that up to the City Council. Like I said before, we don't really have a problem vacating this easement if we know that that route through the subdivision is happening. We just kind of hate to give up something until we know that the subdivision is a for sure thing. Borup: Let me ask you this, then. Is there any problem with -- I mean right now is -- I'm assuming these are non-buildable lots with -- well, maybe not. I guess these wouldn't have to affect the -- Freckleton: It's a non-subdivision. Borup: Right. I think they are concerned about the integrity of lots with that easement in there. That's why -- but there would be no problem with submitting this proposed project to the city -- Freckleton: Absolutely not. Borup: Setback easements and then they are getting one of them. Freckleton: That easement could remain until up to the point of final plat, it would not hinder their platting process. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: It would need to be vacated prior to the Final Plat, but this just seems like it's real early in the process to be vacating it. Borup: Any questions from -- Zaremba: My understanding the second easement is already a done deal? Borup: Both of them are. Freckleton: We have both easements. Zaremba: Both easements. Freckleton: Correct. Zaremba: And the only other question I have on what I'm looking at, the one that we vacated is a 36-inch and the new one is a 30-inch. Does make a difference to us? Thirty foot I mean. Thirty-six foot, as opposed to 30 foot. That's the width of the easement. Freckleton: The width of the easement, Commissioner Zaremba. I believe that the extra width on the one to the north is due to the fact that I -- it doesn't -- I think I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 68 followed the White Drain through there, so there was some extra width due to the fact that it was a drainage ditch. Zaremba: A little meander. Centers: Another question. Does this action go onto the City Council? Freckleton: Yes, it does. Centers: Okay. Borup: Mr. Arnold. Arnold: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, again, Steve Arnold, 1800 West Overland Road. I'm representing G.L. Voigt Development on this -- the vacation. A little bit of history. We have submitted a Preliminary Plat. We submitted that, oh, probably six months ago. We were told to come back and pick it up, because we weren't at that time contiguous. Sundance Subdivision to the south has been approved since then. You're going to have the reading go back before City Council of the Findings of Fact with the Development Agreement and then the ordinance will be, I believe, on the 19th . I talked to the City Clerk on -- pardon me the city staff on. The original easement was donated to the city by the original property owner. Since then G.L. Voigt has come back and purchased the property and we have come up with a Preliminary Plat design of which we have run through staff and the only comments of staff, although it's not permanent, is the additional stub streets. Keller has designed the sewer around both easements. One to the north and one to the south, so we are not asking the city, really, to give up anything, because we have got an existing easement clear to the south. The problem perhaps with waiting until we get Final Plat approval for the subdivision to the north here is that I believe the construction schedule will precede the likelihood of us getting Final Plat approval for that. Essentially, what my client is trying to do is to insure that it is constructed in the southern easement. Early is not that -- working with the staff, that's not a general concern, based on the fact that you guys have designed the sewer -- or Keller has designed the sewer for the southern easement as well and we are assuming that that's where it is constructed. Cedar Springs, which was recently approved on the other side, brings their sewer to that south property line and that's where they are -- not the south property line, to the entrance that we are aligning up with. So we are assuming that's where the sewer goes. It's a matter of a technicality. Granted, you do have this vacation before the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat is approved, but the designs are all for the easement to the south. I'm assuming once that this -- that you make your recommendation and it goes to City Council, at that time I think they will be a little bit more comfortable with moving the vacation along, because we will have the ordinance approved for the subdivision to the south. Stand for any -- Borup: Would your client feel more comfortable if there was a Letter of Agreement with the city stating that that's -- that they would be using the southern easement? Is there any reason the city couldn't do that? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 69 Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, as I stated, it is definitely our preferred route. We have done the design -- we have designed the sewer in both easements. We are only going to build one. Our preferred route -- Borup: Can you issue a statement in writing saying that it will be the one route? Do you have a problem with that? Freckleton: If the plat is denied, if that is a big problem -- well, it's not a problem. We could still build it in that south route, but it locks them in to that alignment. There is no flexibility. Borup: Right but isn't that -- Freckleton: Our position is we are just a little confused as to the timing. Borup: Well -- and that was what I was realizing when Mr. Arnold said something, was what is the timing of the White Trunk Line. Freckleton: We hope to be -- it definitely is going to be under construction by the 1st of April. Borup: And that's way before -- and that's way before this subdivision is going to be under construction. So if they don't have the subdivision plat approved, you got the same scenario. If you use that southern route they don't have a design anyway -- Freckleton: If we use the Southern route. Borup: Right. Mr. Arnold. Arnold: Commissioner Borup, my engineer has been working with Keller and Associates and that's where everyone's assuming that it goes. Just as you stated, if -- assuming we get a Preliminary Plat submitted in March, if it's accepted, the likelihood of this board hearing it would be probably three months down the road. That puts you into let's say April, May, June, perhaps another month at City Council, we are -- or two and that's best case scenario. I submitted a plat in February and it's not going to be heard until April. I'm assuming it's even further out. I would bet the sewer is constructed. So the developer is taking the risk already by granting the secondary easement that we are getting approved the alignment of the streets. I have done layouts on that property and if you look at where the sewer is laid and the lot depth and the length, there is not really much other way that you would layout that street with the addition of stubs and we are going to provide a secondary sub to the north, but we are -- or another stub. We are getting -- by the virtue of construction getting locked into that alignment. So maybe you -- Borup: Is the applicant concerned that the city could go ahead and use the north easement? Arnold: That is one of the concerns, because that messes up those three lots. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 70 Centers: That's the bottom line. Arnold: That is the bottom line. Centers: If we vacate that one and you're definitely going to take this other easement, there is -- it is dictating and, you know, I can see why you're here. It's very evident, but -- you're rolling a lot of dice. Borup: But what guarantees -- I mean when that trunk line goes in the subdivision is not going to be approved, but that's -- unless the city goes like it's done in the last few years and the White Trunk Line goes in next year, but -- but what -- what guarantee would they have if they used the southern easement and why is that a problem to make that guarantee? I mean even if the plat is not approved. How are you going to make that decision on which easement to use at this point? Both of them are through vacant, unplatted ground. Freckleton: Correct. Borup: Other than -- Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, at this point we have some flexibility and we have two easements that are granted to us, we have done design for both routes, at this point in time there is not a plat, we -- our hope is that Mr. Arnold will be able to submit the plat and everything will go through and we will be able to build the -- in the route of the road. I mean that's -- go on the record right here saying that. We want to build it in this roadway. It's the timing -- it's the timing of trying to get rid of our other option. If things fall through -- Centers: Mr. Chairman, I think I have a solution. You know, a lot of our responsibility here is in a Public Hearing and the public -- there is nobody here, you know, protesting this, and by the time he gets to Council it will be the first week in April. I'm not normally the type of guy to pass the buck, but that's the reason I asked the first question, is it going to go to Council. I think the Council needs to make this decision. Let's just send it to them, approve it and let them have at it and let Mr. Arnold make his case at that time. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I might even offer up some language that Council may even want to condition the approval of the variance on the plat, you know, recommend approval with a condition of vacation being tied to the plat. I think -- would that accomplish your goal, Mr. Arnold? Arnold: Let me understand. This board recommends to the City Council that the vacation be tied to the plat or that -- Freckleton: Council would make that. Council could make that recommendation or that condition, that they condition on approval of your Variance -- Arnold: Vacation? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 71 Freckleton: -- Vacation. Right. It's been a long day. Vacation. Approval of the Vacation on the plat. Borup: It sounds like the applicant is ready to take the chance that theoretically the vacation could move and the subdivision could not be approved. Arnold: That's correct. Borup: And they have got a -- Arnold: Sewer line that's in the -- Borup: Through the middle of their property and you're saying they are ready to take that gamble? Arnold: They are ready to take that gamble. We are designing the streets as we speak. Freckleton: And the City of Meridian is going to have to take a gamble here in probably three weeks, we got a decision to make, which route are we going to take. Borup: And the property owner has to make reference to whatever they -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Just -- I don't know whether this quantifies the risk, but it's a question regarding the risk. In looking at the potential layout of what may or may not eventually be the plat, if it were something close to that even. I know the preference would be that this sewer easement should run right down the center of a paved road, but if when the plat comes up for discussion the decision was that, for instance, the north housing lot lines need to be moved south another 10 feet or something like that so that those lots were bigger. What we are talking about is the easement runs under a portion of the road and maybe somebody's sidewalk. Is that not acceptable? Freckleton: That is not acceptable. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: We have defined corridors to run sewer, water, gas, telephone, everything. We have defined corridors within a public right of way and to run them under sidewalks, under curbs, cutting across a corner of a lot, things like that, that's not where we want to go. I'm not trying to make an argument for the north -- the north line. One benefit to going to the north line would be that it is a straight shot. You would minimize the manholes -- every manhole is a potential maintenance problem. A straight shot would give you less manholes, that would be one I guess argument for this subdivision, Sundance Place Subdivision, was not approved, that might be one argument to going to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 72 the north line, but as I stated previously, our goal, our hope is that the subdivision is going to go through and we are going to be building on the public street. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I think that -- I tend to agree with Mr. Freckleton, you know, you got to keep the option open for the city. You know, you hate to kill a calf, but you got to keep the herd alive, and -- but in the same token, that's up to City Council, because certainly by that time, you know, further advancements may have taken place and the City Council may have more going. Freckleton: One other point, too. City Council is going to be awarding the contract for this construction. City Council could give us direction on which route we should be taking. I'd rather pass the buck. Arnold: It will be determined by the Council by the very nature that they will decide on the line by the time they hear this request. Borup: So then it sounds like it may be a good idea for this request to be in front of them. If they don't want to -- if they don't want to address it at the next meeting, they can continue it to a time when they are -- Freckleton: Addressing the contracts. Borup: Yes. Well -- Mr. Centers. Centers: Pass the buck. Borup: Makes sense. Centers: Yes. I would move that we approve -- Mr. Chairman, recommend approval to the City Council Item 9, VAC 02-001, request for Vacation of existing sewer easement in proposed Sundance Place Subdivision and proposed -- right, by Briggs Engineering, west side of Meridian, half mile north of Ustick Road. Shreeve: Just that. Centers: There are no comments. Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 10: Planning and Zoning Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances: Possible/Proposed Amendments: Borup: Thank you. Well, Commissioners, in light of the hour I don't think we want to get into the other ordinance things. Has everyone had a chance to read the cell tower - - Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 21, 2002 Page 73 Centers: Well, McKinnon is not here anyway, Mr. Chairman. Borup: No. Centers: He's our man. Borup: Yes. Well, we have some time to read it some more, I guess. Zaremba: I read it and I have a couple comments, but they are not -- they can wait. Shreeve: Let's wait. Borup: Okay. Then we just need one more motion. Shreeve: I make a motion that we adjourn. Zaremba: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:56 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ____________________________ _____|_____|_____ KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ___________________________ WILL G. BERG, JR. CITY CLERK