Loading...
2002 01-17Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. on January 17, 2002, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, David Zaremba, Jerry Centers, Keven Shreeve and Leslie Mathes. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, David McKinnon, Larry Moore, 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: Okay. We'd like to call to order the regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for January 17th and start with roll call of the Commissioners in attendance. We do have a full Commission this evening. We've had a couple of vacancies to fill for this year and our newest Commissioner is Leslie McDonald Mathes. We'd like to welcome you here this evening, Leslie, and this is your training session and I will get with you afterwards if you have any questions, but it's mostly training by doing. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of January 3, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Borup: The first item on the Agenda is the minutes from the December 20th Commission meeting. Zaremba: Chairman Borup, I would like to ask for one small amendment. On Page 13, the second or third paragraph where I am quoted -- we were talking about a halfway point between Meridian and Locust Grove and I probably did say Locust Grove. I would like to ask for an amendment that that be Linder. That is what I meant to say, I believe. It was probably transcribed correctly and I said the wrong thing but the whole conversation makes much more sense if that's Linder. Borup: Okay. So noted. Anyone else have any comments or corrections? Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we approve the minutes of the January 3rd meeting, with the so-noted change. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 2 of 101 Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from December 6, 2001: 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 December 6, 2001: 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 December 6, 2001: 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: And I had originally mentioned January -- or December 20th . That was -- I did mean January 3rd . Okay. The first item on our Regular Agenda is Item No. 4. This is a Continued Public Hearing from December 6th . At that time the applicant asked to have the hearing continued. This is -- and Items 4, 5, and 6 all on the same El Dorado Business Campus project. Item No. 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 Subdivision by W.H. Moore and PP 01-020, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 32 building lots and 17 other lots on 85.36 acres and CUP 01-037, request for a Conditional Use Permit for mixed use with office, retail, restaurant, hotel for proposed El Dorado Business Campus by W.H. Moore. It's on the southwest corner of Overland and South Eagle Road. We'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. You can see on the overhead it's the southwest corner, as stated earlier, of Overland and Eagle Road. It's directly to the west of the already previously approved Silverstone Subdivision, which is approximately 80 plus acres of commercial. Between the two projects that area will have over -- just the two projects alone will have an estimated 1.5 million square feet of commercial office flex retail type uses. This is going to be a major commercial hub for Meridian in the future. This is another overhead there. The applicant has requested that the property be split Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 3 of 101 into both C-C and C-G zones. As you can see, there is the different harsh- marked lines there depicting the separation. Those separations actually follow the street diagram that they have submitted. Here are some photographs showing what it looks like right now. It's basically a large, flat piece of ground, 80 acres -- 85 acres. One of the interesting parts of the development is this is one of the first new planned developments that has taken place under the auspices of the Planned Development Ordinance that was recently passed. As part of the Planned Development Ordinance they were required to put in two amenities. One of the amenities that they have proposed as that is a pathway system that runs right along the Ridenbaugh Canal. Here is a picture of the Ridenbaugh Canal and this is going to be a topic that will probably discussed tonight by the applicant and those other people here and here is the reason why. You can see on these pictures -- this is the subdivision that's directly to the south of the project. There is a pathway that runs through the subdivision right to the Ridenbaugh Canal. This subdivision, Thousand Springs Subdivision, when it was approved, was approved so that this pathway would cross the Ridenbaugh Canal and extend into whatever project takes place on the other side of the canal. The pathway -- the second picture, the lower picture that you can see right here, that's actually a picture taken from the end of the pathway, taken from standing right next to this tree. That pathway actually extends two blocks through the subdivision, so that people two blocks away from the subdivision have a direct access to that. The applicant has proposed putting in a pathway system that starts from Eagle Road and runs all the way up to the far western edge of the property as one of their amenities. Their secondary amenity will be the jogging path, which is really kind of hard to tell from this site plan, but essentially runs from the pathway system that's here through the subdivision and then back to itself, back to the jogging path. As part of the Conditional Use Permit they are requesting the ability to build one of their buildings at this time prior to the Preliminary Plat being recorded. They are allowed to have one building permit prior to the recordation of the Final Plat. They have proposed quite a few water amenities. This is a picture of one of the water amenities that they have proposed and here is a proposed drawing of their entrance into the subdivision. If you have had an opportunity to go down by the Silverstone entrance that they have now installed, it will be something similar in design to that. That is what we have got tonight. There is a couple of topics I'd like to bring up to you. Brad has submitted quite a number of revisions to the original staff report. I think you have all had a chance to review those and have gone through and made some corrections for myself as well. If there is any questions we can address those. One of the topics of concern that we have as a planning staff is that there is only one stub street that's currently proposed. This is a diagram that was just recently drawn up by the applicant showing that the stub street now would be located approximately in the middle of the subdivision, rather than towards the north or south end of the subdivision. As you know, you have a letter that was submitted today from the property owner directly to the west that states that he would like to have two stub streets to allow the additional flow of traffic through that subdivision and through his subdivision. With that I Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 4 of 101 would ask if there is any questions and allow the applicant to discuss this project further. Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Is the applicant here and would like to make a presentation? Seel: Good evening. My name is Jonathan Seel with the W.H. Moore Company, 600 North Steelhead in Boise, Idaho. First, for clarification, just to make sure, the original application showed Winston Moore as the applicant, the owner was a Mr. Griffin. Mr. Moore has since purchased the property, so he is now the owner of that. We mentioned that to staff, but I just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of that. First, before we get into the staff reports from the other areas, what I'd like to do is talk a little bit about the project itself, which I think is important. This is a rendering. It's changed slightly, so bear with me on that, but what I wanted to do was show you I think kind of the flavor of this. Winston's vision for this project is one that it will be I think the finest business campus within the State of Idaho. I think as David's mentioned to you, if you start to look at it, for example, on Overland Road, also Eagle, you've got a 35 foot of berm here, which will be all landscaped. The roadways going in here, the interiors have landscaping in between the lanes for the opposite directions of traffic. We have the jogging path that goes throughout the project. Down through here we will have a pathway that will be to a park. The other things that we have done -- and I know you have some pictures. At the corner of Overland and Eagle Road we are going to have a water feature similar to this and then the entrances, which -- I apologize, it's a little bit smaller, but you have those pictures. We show you the entrances for it. So it's a beautiful project. It's one I think that the City of Meridian could be very proud of. I think it's one that the City of Meridian can be very proud of. Like I say, it's going to be a first class project. I think it's the type of Business Park that any community would be extremely proud of. It's the type of Business Park that I think will attract businesses, not only from the City of Boise, but outside of the Boise area, throughout the state of Idaho, as well as outside the state. I think there are businesses in states, for example, California, Washington, Oregon, places like that, that would be very interested in locating in this type of park, because of its quality. As a result, we believe that when this thing is fully developed it will generate between three and four thousand jobs for the community and probably generate taxes in excess of a million dollars, so we think it's a real plus. I think the combination of this with Silverstone will be something that I think Meridian will be very proud of. A couple other things to discuss with you. We did have a neighborhood meeting about, oh, two weeks ago. We had, I think, about 25 people at the meeting. I think the meeting went well. We addressed some concerns of the neighbors, such as the height of the buildings. Along here what we have agreed to -- and this is in the staff report -- is that we will restrict the height of the buildings in here and other than office and flex, we would come back for a Conditional Use Permit. I believe, of course, the neighbors can speak for themselves, but I believe that that addresses their concerns. We are trying to be sensitive. We are going to change a little bit of Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 5 of 101 the layout for the way these buildings will be opened and configured, but we think that we have addressed their concerns there. So I think it was a positive meeting. A couple of the concerns that they had was with this pathway across the Ridenbaugh Canal and of course, the issue with the road, which we don't have any control over. A couple other things that I wanted to clarify in this report, too, and as far as the pathways, we had met with Tom Kuntz and Brad Hawkins- Clark with respect to that and we have agreed to the pathway. The one thing that I mentioned to David that we would like to get clarification is part of the pathway could potentially be within the easement for the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, so we have asked that here to be acknowledged that assuming that Nampa-Meridian would allow a license agreement on that project, that we could put the pathway within their easement. So we wanted to make sure that was in the staff report itself. It's not interpreted that our easement for a pathway will be outside the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation easement. We have done this in the past and they haven't had any problems and we think we would be successful again. A couple other things that we wanted to clarify here and I would pass these out. What you have in front of you -- the original plan that we show -- sorry to keep going back and forth. The original plan we show showed these three going over to here. We met with ACHD about a week and a half ago and in the process started asking the purpose of this street. It became fairly evident that they really had not given it a lot of thought. Typically in most developments what the district wants is they want a road at the half-mile mark. So I think the thinking was that this would be close to that half-mile mark. But they also acknowledged the fact that you have got a subdivision over here, you have got the Ridenbaugh Canal here, and there is no benefit, there was no purpose to it, and they acknowledged that, yes, this really did not need to be here. It was not important. At the same time we have the City of Meridian requesting a connection here into this project to the west and Mr. Moore's reaction was to that is, you know, we are putting outdoor plazas throughout the project, we are putting a walkway through here, we are having to dedicate streets throughout the project, how much can I give away and still make this project justifiable, make it make economic sense, and he was very much opposed to this. So the feeling was, as we talked to ACHD -- and, in fact, we went to the Commissioners here yesterday and it was approved, that they would agree to move this street -- or a street to where it would be approximately in the center of the project and connect here. This could be maybe a cul-de-sac that shows on your plan or something to that, but this would not go through. It seemed to address the concerns of the City of Meridian for what they refer to as interconnectivity, which would allow them to connect at this project, as well as the next the project further west. What we did when we talked to the District and the District said essentially they are flexible in moving this road up another 900 feet plus or minus within this area. So they are very flexible in that and we talked with Brad Hawkins-Clark yesterday, he indicated he thought the city would also be agreeable to putting a road in the center as you see it in your plan. Again, I think what it does is I think it's a win-win for everyone. It allows you to have your interconnectivity, but, at the same time, it still does not require us to give up so Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 6 of 101 much land that this project becomes uneconomical for us. So, as I say, the Commission yesterday at their hearing approved that, with the understanding that the plan you have in front of you is -- because we only came up with that in the last couple days, that they recognize that we are going to be tweaking that over the next couple weeks and before we go to in front of City Council we will have a final plan on that, but right now we are still trying to fine tune that. So hopefully, again, from the Commissioner's standpoint this will also be acceptable to you. Again, we think it's a good plan. We don't see the need for the two streets. This one really -- you have got the high school down here -- and that was another of the concerns that the neighbors had, that they had concerns that if this connected to the high school there would be a lot of traffic going through here and they had some real reservations about it. So from their standpoint -- and, again, they can talk to you about that, but from their standpoint, the feedback they gave us here a couple weeks ago is they prefer not to have it. So, again, I think we are satisfying the neighbors, I believe we are satisfying the City of Meridian, and I know we are satisfying ACHD on this. So, again, we would ask for consideration or approval of that. A couple other things just in clarification. When we met with the Commissioners yesterday we requested four access points along Eagle Road. They did give it to us. It was a unanimous decision all of them approved it, so we felt that was very encouraging, too. Zaremba: I'm sorry to interrupt, but the four accesses are three roads and one driveway? Seel: Yes, sir. Zaremba: Okay. Seel: Finally, I think as David has mentioned to you, from the original staff report there has been some modifications. We have gone through those, we are in agreement with those, and so we'd ask, again, that the staff report be approved with those conditions tonight, with the exclusion of -- I believe it is the final one that mentions at that time that there was a disagreement on the two stub streets going to the west. I believe we have addressed that, Brad Hawkins-Clark felt we addressed that yesterday. Other than that, we have gone through the staff report and we have no other comments on it, so I'm certainly pleased to answer any questions you might have. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Do you have the original staff report dated December 4th ? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 7 of 101 Seel: Do I? Centers: Yes Page 3, Paragraph C. Seel: Page 3? Centers: Yes. Paragraph C. Seel: Okay. Centers: And the staff's comments there. Maybe you could read that and then address it. Seel: The staff finds that the Commission and Council should review the applicant's list of proposed uses in Exhibit A to determine if all the requested uses would be harmonious with the adjacent residential subdivisions to the south. Staff recommends restricting certain proposed uses on lots immediately north of the Ridenbaugh Canal. I believe that we have done that -- Centers: You were addressing that when you were talking about that height and meeting with the neighbors and -- great. I thought that was the same thing. Seel: Yes. Again, their concerns -- and it's understandable, with the homes bordering over here, is that they were concerned about what was going through here. So as it says in the staff report, we have agreed to a height restriction and we have also agreed, other than office and flex, we would come back for a Conditional Use Permit. So in that sense they have a second bite at the apple. They can look at this and determine if it's acceptable to them and so -- and, quite frankly, other than office, office flex type stuff, I don't know what else, other than pasture, you could put in here that would be considered less undesirable or undesirable and I think that, you know, office is what everyone would prefer, other than just a pasture. Zaremba: I think in the same area, although in a different place in the notes, there is a question about whether a utility facility would be appropriate along that same southern border and there was a request by staff to move that out of the permitted use into a conditional use. Would you have a problem with that? Seel: Well, I think, again, if you -- Commissioner, if you were talking about that along the Ridenbaugh Canal, I think the fact that anything other than offices we would come back for a conditional use, I believe addresses their concerns. That was our intention. We understood that they had concerns. The unknown, obviously, is a little scary. But we felt that if it's going to be office -- anything other than office, we can't imagine -- I mean I think that's a desirable use there. Anything else, yes, there might be some potential concerns. They'd have the opportunity to come back, as we do, and either justify it or get it turned down. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 8 of 101 Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Any other questions, Commissioners? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. McKinnon: I have a question. Do you have Tom's e-mail that came in? I think all the Commissioners have a copy of Tom's e-mail. Borup: Yes. Seel: Yes, I do and, as I mentioned to you, Dave, we don't have any objection. McKinnon: You're okay adding that to the staff report? Seel: Yes. McKinnon: And approving that as such? Seel: Yes. Borup: The only question I had on that is every 3 or 400 feet a trash -- I mean is that necessary on the trash receptacles? Is that overkill? Is that what would be practical? Seel: I'm sorry, Commissioner Borup? Borup: I think his e-mail says have a trash receptacle every three to four hundred feet. Seel: Well, I -- Borup: Is that what would be necessary? Is that a little overkill? Any comments on that? Seel: Well, I don't profess to be an expert on pathways, so I think that's more of a Parks Department and felt that that was what they felt was necessary. Borup: So you're fine with that? Okay. David, do you have a -- Zaremba: I did have another question and it comes up here and I guess, again, in Silverstone. Let see. I'm looking at the notes of December 4th on Page 7, Item 2, special notes of the Commission and the Council. It addresses the fact Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 9 of 101 that there is a dispute between ACHD and P&Z about whether there should be curb and gutter. Is that being resolved? Seel: I believe I can answer that it's possible at this point, I guess. ACHD's initial response to us is they are opposed to doing an offset of the impact fees. Their position is that the impact fee money for this project is allocated for other projects, such as Locust Grove crossover of the freeway and various others. However, I do understand that there has been some subsequent discussion on that, so at this point I think it's still a little bit up in the air. Is that -- McKinnon: That's -- Seel: Okay. Borup: Does this project have an opinion on that? Have you got a position on -- Seel: Well, I almost -- I will let Mr. Moore answer that one. Borup: I think Mr. Zaremba's comment was the other project wanted to go ahead and curb, gutter both sides of Eagle Road and -- you need to go ahead and just state your name. W.Moore: Yes. My name is Winston Moore. I'm the owner, applicant, and developer residing at 11665 Thomas Drive in Boise. We are agreeable to the curbs and gutters and any improving of Eagle Road that ACHD will allow us to do. At the moment, for whatever their reason, they are rather opposed to seeing anything happen over there, as I understand it. Why, I'm not exactly sure. They want to improve it north of Overland, but in our visits with them they seem to be reluctant to allow us to do anything south of Overland. I may have misinterpreted something, but that's the way I see it. But to try and answer the question, we are agreeable to cooperating with the city, with ACHD, to make that Eagle Road south of Overland a showpiece. I mean it's a benefit to our project and a benefit to the community. We just have to have the cooperation of the agencies. We will not balk on that at all. Anything else I might – Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Did that clarify it? Seel: That's exactly what I would have said. Borup: Anyone else have any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 10 of 101 Centers: No. Just a comment. I think it just makes sense. With a project of that magnitude and what you're going to do there, I mean you want to make it look as nice as possible for your future investors and tenants. It just makes sense, so -- Seel: Well, I think, again, I think it's an excellent project. I know there has been a great deal of thought put on behalf of Winston and Cornell has worked on it, too, and many other people and I think it will be one of those gems that I think the City of Meridian would be very proud of and I think will enhance you in bringing businesses to your community and I think it's what your desire is and this is the type of park that will attract from off of state, as well as within the state itself, as well as attracting them away from Boise, which some like to hear. Borup: Just to clarify, then, on staff comments, you said you reviewed them -- and I thought you said you didn't have any other conditions or revisions or anything on -- were you referring to both the revised and the original? Seel: What I'm -- Commissioner Borup, what I am referring to is this is -- and, of course, this isn't all of them, which is the memo from Brad Hawkins-Clark regarding El Dorado Business Park, which lists changes. Borup: The 14th ? Centers: Other than the last one. Seel: Other than the last one that -- Centers: Right. Seel: We are in agreement on those and I believe that number -- the last item, as far as the road goes, I believe we have addressed that and I think we satisfied the city and I know we satisfied ACHD -- Borup: The last item, you mean item G? Seel: What it talks about on the memo. Borup: Oh, the very last one. Seel: Yes. Where it says item four, the applicant is strongly opposed to providing a second stub road, I believe that we have addressed that one and what we are submitting to you today is what I would call a Preliminary Plan that we ask that would be approved, with the understanding that there will be some slight modification to it, only because at this point we have come up with that approach only in the last few days and we have not had the opportunity to kind of look at how we want to layout the lots specifically, but trust that at this point it will Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 11 of 101 be fairly close to that and when we come to City Council we will have it in a final form. Zaremba: But basically it will be the 11-by-17 -- Seel: Yes. It will be similar. It's not going to deviate a lot. We may -- a road may end up not being a 90-degree, it might curve a little bit different. We have a few layouts that -- a cul-de-sac might be located different, the stub road might be slightly adjusted, and ACHD and the Commission, when they approved it, gave us the flexibility of moving that road around. So I just don't want to leave here giving you the impression tonight that that's cast in concrete, but it's a very good representation of where it's going to be. Centers: Excuse me. I was preoccupied, but this is what you're talking about as far as your final Preliminary Plat, that you would have finalized prior to the City Council meeting correct? Seel: Yes, Commissioner, that is correct. It might be deviate a little bit. With respect to -- there is another memo in here that Brad has also provided, which is dated January 14th , which is this one. Again, we have gone through that. That has to do with the -- with the walkway or the pathway along the Ridenbaugh Canal. We are in agreement with those conditions and also with the condition of the one public area, which is there on the west boundary of the project. So we ask that those be included in approval. Borup: Well, the second one you referred to is the actual staff report. Seel: No. I -- Borup: No. There is another memo. Okay. But it's -- Seel: Modifications. Borup: -- modifications of the original staff report. Seel: Yes, Commissioner. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Zaremba: I have a question. There is a September 18th fax memo from Steve Siddoway of P&Z to Cornell Larsen and the final question -- I haven't seen an answer to it. It says two zones are requested, but the same uses are proposed in each and his comment is that makes the zoning irrelevant. Do you have any comment on why it needs to be two zones or -- Seel: Well, I will let Cornell Larsen -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 12 of 101 Zaremba: I'm sorry. Larsen: My name is Cornell Larsen. My address is 210 Murray in Garden City. We had asked for two zones so that as things change with time sometimes uses in zones change, so we were trying to make sure that we identified the zones that we wanted in a particular location and, yes, it is somewhat irrelevant, because of the Development Agreement and the zones that we have listed there, but we thought it was appropriate to identify some zones associated with the property that would work for us in the long range. Zaremba: Sounds like a good plan. Now I have a tough one and I'm not sure who to ask this to and, actually, it combines -- first, let me say I like the idea of a project like this and the projects around it, including Silverstone and its phases Seel: That is a beautiful project also. Zaremba: Yes, I think so, and probably good additions to the city. However, both the Fire Department and the Police Department have commented that this is going to add sufficient traffic and sufficient need for their services that ACHD may not have been ready to solve the street problems yet and make it easier -- and I don't know if this is a question for our legal counsel or staff or for you, but I'd like to think through a creative suggestion and that might be something of the kind that -- for some sort of incentive, like a smaller impact fee or foregoing the taxes to the city for a year or two or something. You would actually give to the police department part of a thousand square foot building and four parking spaces and I'll later ask Silverstone if they'd do the same thing for the fire department. Is that anything that we are able to discuss? Legal counsel is shaking his head no. Borup: We do have a Fire Department -- I mean a fire station site a quarter mile down the road from here. Zaremba: I didn't know that. Oh, from here or from there? Borup: Well, no, from this site. On Eagle Road at Thousand Springs. Yes. Zaremba: I'm just trying to -- Borup: That does answer that part of the question. Seel: And we had -- this project was approved unanimously by ACHD Commissioners yesterday with the various conditions, too, so -- Zaremba: I guess my concerns are the response times that the fire department comments and if we can't solve it, we can't solve it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 13 of 101 Seel: I wish I could help you. Zaremba: Okay. Centers: Their insurance premiums will go up if their response time is down and I guess they will be prepared to pay for that. Zaremba: Okay. Moore: Chairman Borup, just for clarification, what's the date on the original staff commentary? Borup: I think it's December 4th . Moore: Thank you. Borup: Commissioner Zaremba's comment, I think that is an ongoing concern is how do you handle the other -- the other facilities that we need for new projects. Sewer and water takes care of itself. The roads eventually do, but -- Zaremba: I'm just thinking the sheer mass of all of the projects that are designed for this section of Eagle Road in the next couple of years are going to be some strain. Seel: Well, I think just for my on own input on it, I think both these projects I think are very long term. They may very well extend out eight or ten years to -- you know, these are, obviously, very sizeable projects, so it's not going to happen overnight. Zaremba: That's a good point. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Any other final comments, Mr. Seal? Seel: No. I hope I haven't confused you on all this stuff. Like we say, we think it's a great project and we ask you to approve it tonight with the conditions that we have brought up and appreciate your time. Borup: Thank you. Okay. We'd now like to open it for any other public comment. We did have two individuals that signed up and they are welcome to come up at this time. Hornbaker: My name is Loren Hornbaker. I live at 2918 East Green Canyon Drive, right adjacent to the common area where the proposed bridge crosses the canal. Since we talked to Mr. Seel, I believe -- and I would have talked to him prior to the meeting, but I believe he's putting a little squeeze play on us. The canal, from my understanding, from the center of the canal, our -- it was Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 14 of 101 mentioned has 50 feet from the center of the canal either direction, onto my property, onto this other property, for an easement for their access. The road is on the north side of the canal and I haven't put a tape measure on it, but that's going to put the walkway practically on the road. I talked to Anderson today of the Nampa-Meridian and he is not for a bridge across there for the reason of their access to the ditch, so that they can get in there and clean it, burn it, and take care of the maintenance on the ditch, but he will have to speak for that, but I do not want the ditch -- or the bridge across there. I was held to a three foot fence, as you can see on the right-hand side there, the fence drops down -- I had to have six feet to -- for the covenants on the side of my RV, okay, then it had to drop down to -- there the city put in a three foot fence from there back to the canal. Centers: That's your house right there? Borup: That's my RV. Yes. Centers: Okay. Hornbaker: And if they go ahead and run that bridge across there, I will want to put in a higher fence, because a young kid can jump that fence and, you know, I mean if they are playing tag or whatever, and I don't have anything against kids, but, you know, it's going to be hard to keep them out of there is what I'm trying to say. The other thing is when you get on the other side of the canal with a bridge, you are -- if their walkway is right up next to this road, there has got to be a fence to keep the kids out of it -- out of the canal, I would say, and that's what Mr. Seal proposed that there would be a fence along there to keep people out of the -- so, therefore, Nampa-Meridian would have to open and close two gates to get access back and forth on the canal, which I know they make two to three, maybe more trips a day, which that's Nampa-Meridian's problem, but I mean all I'm saying is that's realistically what's got to happen. My understanding before that we would be like 85 feet before we came to the walkway. In other words, it would be more free space there, then the walkway and then a planter and, you know, just the -- what do you call the buffer, a little planned zoning deal that follows on down. Now this walkway will only go up -- at the time being will only go up to the property that's between the high school and Mr. Moore's property, which I can't think of the name of the developer that has that, but, anyway, as far as I'm concerned the bridge isn't necessary, but I can't speak for everybody in the development. I don't feel that -- there is plenty of places to walk in our subdivision without going over in a commercial or their complex to walk. I don't feel I've got any business down there, to be right frank. I do think a fence, if it does go through, if they put a bridge across there, I think a fence is -- it has to happen. The fence has to be there, because kids will go across that bridge and as soon as they can get access to that water they are going to be down there playing in that water. Right behind my house it's between seven and eight feet deep and it's swift. It shallows out as it goes down a little further. But, anyway, it Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 15 of 101 looks to me like on this new plat that he had up here that the buildings aren't actually closer to -- the distance between -- see, the center of the canal there, I don't -- what would the -- could I find out what the distance is to those buildings? Centers: This isn't to scale. I couldn't tell you. The applicant would have to answer that. Hornbaker: Well, on the other one I think they roughly measured it out and they have a parking lot in mind and everything, so we have quite a distance there. So the noise, lights, and whatnot wouldn't affect us. I would like to make sure that it is on the -- in record that we would have a Conditional Use Permit on anything that is adjacent to the canal, I mean so that we would have some -- and I understand that it's already in there, but I would -- we would like to have some say so, so we don't end up with two story -- I don't think we will the way Mr. Seal talked. I think, you know, that would -- but – Zaremba: I believe you're asking about the same area that both Commissioners Centers and I asked about earlier and the response was everything would be a Conditional Use, except for office and flex space. Hornbaker: But I don't understand flex. Zaremba: It's a combination of office and warehouse space. Generally should be a quiet operation. Hornbaker: Okay. I would like to see it go like from the center of the canal say 100 feet before the walkway and that, but -- and I don't know, that seems awful close, that 50 feet. Borup: Mr. Hornbaker, do you have any idea -- is there a fair amount of grade difference between -- on each side of the canal? Hornbaker: I don't know what the actual measurement is. Yes, as soon you get across Nampa-Meridian's road it drops off quite fast and I would say there is probably maybe a five or six foot elevation difference. Borup: The applicant may have some information on that, I don't know, but we will clarify that. Zaremba: The question before -- your back property line is the canal? Hornbaker: Yes. Zaremba: Is it face in between on yours -- Hornbaker: Right. He's changed the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 16 of 101 Zaremba: And I understand and agree with your privacy issues. I'm guessing that pathway having been there probably before you bought your house on the original plan for -- Hornbaker: No, it wasn't. I had my house and property and the house built before, then they came along and put in a three foot fence and I said I will pay my share to put in a -- one of these nylon or Teflon -- what do you call them? The white -- vinyl fencing and go up to six feet and they said, no, no, can't do it. Zaremba: Is that your CC&R's that don't allow the six feet or -- Hornbaker: No. The CC&R's -- Zaremba: What I'm wonder is there some -- Hornbaker: Yes. It's strictly the city. But the CC&R's six foot in the backyard is fine with them, you know, but they held it to six -- to three feet and I can understand the reason they told me was that if you hold it to three feet people can't go back there and hide and raise hell, you know, kids can't. In other words, three feet you can see over it, you can see the smoke coming up over there, if they set a fire or whatever, you know, but -- and I can understand that. Zaremba: This may be a question for staff. Would it be possible to put the three feet solid and the next three feet above that as a see-through type of fence that would still keep people from jumping into his yard? I'm assuming your neighbor on the other side of that pathway has the same issue if there is a lot traffic. Hornbaker: No one lives there right now. They have moved out, but -- Zaremba: Is that a possibility to extend the fence so that -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission that was actually a requirement of the plat that they have the pathway there. The pathway was there, it was scheduled to be placed there and a three-foot fence was approved there prior to construction of your building. That was a requirement of the plat. Hornbaker: It may have been approved. It wasn't built prior to -- McKinnon: Okay. Prior to the occupancy of the home the improvements were bonded for and the money was already put up for the fence, even if your home was built prior to the fence being installed. Hornbaker: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 17 of 101 McKinnon: So there was a condition of the plat. Whether or not they can put up some sort of lattice or see-through fence, I would have to check with the conditions on the face of the plat. Typically we have in our ordinance -- we have the micropath language, which states that there shall be a fence that's no higher than three feet in height if it's site obscuring, four feet in height if it's not site obscuring. We have allowed in the past the lattice type work up above that to go -- to extend that to six feet, but that would create in the nighttime the type of corridors that you were talking about earlier that would be dangerous, that would allow people to go back there and to utilize that area without being seen by those people that live in the homes. Borup: Mr. McKinnon, I think in your report you said it was intended for this pathway to cross the canal. Was that the intention when the subdivision was built? McKinnon: Absolutely that would have been the intention of that. In fact, the developer bonded for the improvements halfway across the ditch. Borup: So he was paying for half the bridge? McKinnon: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Mr. Hornbaker, was that -- were you aware of that, that that was the intention? Hornbaker: No. No, I was not made aware that that -- it was contemplated that -- and the way I took it is if that was a subdivision down below, then -- but now I understand that it has been -- hasn't been intended, according to the city, to be a subdivision, it's always been -- Borup: But your understanding is that pathway was to go somewhere, not just to dead end? Hornbaker: Well, yes. Borup: Okay. Hornbaker: But I -- there, again -- and if it has to go, then so be it, but I would like to have it be a slight crown to it and an overpass type deal, so Nampa- Meridian can drive underneath it. To me that would be an ugly mess of -- but, anyway, just a small crown bridge going across there if need be and then, of course, a fence on both sides -- on the north side of the canal for the -- to keep kids from going over there. I have seen little tikes, three, four year old, ride their tricycle down there and, of course, they stop, but there is a deal going across there, they are going to ride right up across that bridge if there is an opening on the other side where they can go right down to the water, that's where they are Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 18 of 101 going to go. So, you know, it's -- I don't want to sit there and worry if I'm in my backyard that this little kid is going to -- I don't want to baby-sit everybody's -- you know, that's what I'm saying. Borup: Okay. Is there another question here? Okay. Thank you, sir. Hornbaker: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Waters, did you still want to come forward? Waters: First off, thank you for letting me speak. I'll step back a bit, I really hate to speak -- Borup: Can we get your name and address on the record? Waters: Yes, sir. My name is Warren Joseph Waters. I live at 3000 East Green Canyon in Meridian. Yes, we do back up to the canal also. Personal history, just so you know where I'm coming from, my great grandfather homesteaded outside of Twin Falls. My grandfather homesteaded outside of a little place called Letha just outside of Emmett, it's not there anymore. My father was raised in Emmett. He went to the mill and we were born in -- the six kids and I, we were born in Emmett, Cascade, and Council. Well, to keep going, my -- two of my sons were born in Council and – Borup: That's fine, but we would like to rather get to this. Waters: Okay. One more here and that's my grandchild. Actually, I just wanted to get her name in on it. Basically, to begin with, growing up in Council we found out that helping one another, being neighbors, is very important. Looking over the back of the fence at somebody and seeing what help they needed was always very important. Barn raisings that was a great event. This that is going on behind us right now is very much the same thing. We are going to be neighbors. They talk very much about, yes, they are going to be giving us taxes, they are going to make this very beautiful for you, and, yes, I am also living right there and I have also planned long term to live there. I do also pay taxes. I plan on having the rest of my kids live there. What I don't want to have -- I don't want to look at the back of a building. I want to be able to look over -- now I'm going to apologize for using the word, because it's out now, but from our backyard you look over at Squaw Butte, it does look like an Indian princess. She’s looking out, you can see the forehead, the eyes, the whole nine yards. That was part of the reason we bought that. Now if they are going to build a building that -- whether it be a motel, hotel, an Albertson's, that will destroyed that and I might as well have stayed in the middle of Boise and paid my taxes there. Part of why we live in Idaho, Meridian, is the quality of our life, what we can see, the people we know. All of us. I didn't get his name, he came to the first meeting at the parks and recreation, he was one of the first ones that said what we are going to try to push Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 19 of 101 for is right behind the -- next slide, please. The one that shows the -- that's close enough. Well, right there. Off the path -- or off the canal that they have to walk, that would be there, they would have a walk path there where people could come and walk and I think it would be great. My wife and I, we walk lots. I'd like to go down in your area and see stuff and, actually, yes, that is part of my business is I will be visiting restaurants or whatever you have there. I want to make sure they are low enough, though, that it doesn't spoil our view over the top. There, again, going back to why don't I just live in a condominium with a wall right behind me. El Dorado. That name just cracks me up. The legendary city of gold. What are we paying for? Who is going to get the 30 pieces of silver -- gold, 30 pieces of gold? Well, you guys are going to get the taxes from it and we will grow, but the quality of life, our group, and the small group here -- the first time the whole bunch of us showed up. I don't know where they are now, but since they are not here -- what did I forget, babe? No. It's basically -- what we talked - - what we talked about at the first meeting is don't worry about it everything is going to be about 20 feet, unless we change our minds and make things larger. We just wanted to not say we demand this, but, you know, you're the people that are going to say, okay, this is what we are going to allow to happen and we put our trust in you and, you know, if it is for the best of the community, you know, looking at the back of a -- whatever and -- but hopefully you will be able to buffer that change for us. Thanks for letting me talk and talk to you later. Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Waters: Oh, and I do have the wagon wheels that my grandfather brought over - - and if anybody would like to come to our house and look at Squaw Butte and see that, it's very beautiful. Borup: Okay. Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward? Come on up, sir. Herron: My name is Frank Herron and I live at 2896 East Green Canyon and one thing that I heard here it kind of disturbed me is the fact that they are saying that they want to use the right of way of the canal to utilize for their path and in talking before, we talked to David out in planning, who stated that that would be at least 100 feet back before they would build any of these buildings and I guess I want to just clarify the fact is that right of way that the canal has from the other side of the road and whatnot, is not to be utilized for the path, if at all possible. Keep them buildings and equipment and so forth back as far as possible from the canal. Borup: You're proposing to have a path right next to the road that's already there? Herron: There is no path there now. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 20 of 101 Borup: But there is this roadway right here. Herron: There is a road that services the canal. Borup: Right. But you want to have a path right next to the road? Herron: Passed the canal -- passed the road and to the right of way associated with that road and the canal and that's -- my understanding is they want to eliminate that -- or to build a path that they are talking about on that right of way, rather than on the north of the right of way. So I would like some clarification on where that path that they are talking about is going to be and how close to that road and if the right of way of the road is going to be used for that pathway and what sort of buffer is between the canal, the road that services the canal, which is on the north side of the canal and the easement associated with that canal. Borup: Okay. Any questions from the Commissioners? Centers: No. Thank you. Herron: Thank you. Borup: Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else? Come on up. Jensen: My name is Gayle Jensen. I live at 9975 Sussex Drive, Boise, Idaho. I represent Ron Van Auker. You have seen our letter. We feel that circulation there -- and we are definitely in support of El Dorado, we own the 40 acres to the west. We feel that the two access points give a much better circulation than a single access point that they are proposing and quite possibly from discussion I have heard here tonight it may be a little better fire and police access to cross to the projects to the west and on down toward the school. Other than that, we are very much in favor of the project. Centers: Mr. Jensen? Jensen: Yes. Centers: I have one question. Does Ron Van Auker own the property or have an option? Jensen: He owns the property. Centers: Owns it outright? Jensen: Yes. Centers: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 21 of 101 Borup: Have you done type of preliminary design on your property at all? Jensen: No, we have not. We have just -- from a circulation point of view is the only thing we have looked at at this point in time and talked with ACHD about where the new light will go on Overland Road there. Borup: So that other than circulation does it look like you have any problem complying with city ordinances as far as block lengths or anything like that? Jensen: No. I don't think so. Shreeve: About how big is your property? Jensen: Forty acres. Centers: Another question, if I may. Are you the only property between this applicant and the high school? Jensen: I'm not sure. There may be another piece or -- Centers: I was trying to -- Borup: I think there two other -- Jensen: There is at least and maybe two other parcels. Borup: Back to the -- oh, there you go. Centers: Okay. So you -- right there. That's 40 acres? Borup: No. All the way down. Centers: All the way down? Right here? This is separate? Jensen: I believe that in the original platting that the homeowner had -- Centers: Right. I think I know the house. Shreeve: But you own that? Centers: So we have these two and this is the high school property? Jensen: Yes. We also own property on the other side of Overland Road. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 22 of 101 Borup: Do you know if that other parcel to your west -- is that under one ownership -- or those four parcels? Jensen: I don't know. Borup: I thought it was, but I haven't seen that. So you haven't talked with them as far as design either then? Jensen: Not to the best of my knowledge. Borup: Have you talked with ACHD on Overland access? Jensen: Just the location of the new signal light along there. Borup: And that is at what location? Jensen: I believe with the letter we included a map that showed. Borup: All we got was just your letter. I'm sorry. We did get -- Jensen: We had that discussion with ACHD as to the location of that. Zaremba: Have you had an opportunity see the latest drawing that they have presented to us? Jensen: I don't believe we have. Zaremba: Which has their one connecting street much more centered on the property. You're stuck on two streets no matter what? Jensen: We'd really like to see two streets. We think it gives much better circulation. Borup: Well, I guess the comment I have is a lot of it depends on what happens to the rest of you, too. Jensen: That's true. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I may point out on the map up here right now, these two parcels right here and here, that's a small parcel, 2.2 acres right there, adjacent to the high school, that's going to be a city park. Right now those are three separate parcels of ground and underdeveloped at this time, but the city -- if the school district decides not to build a school on this site it will revert back to ownership of the city and the city will utilize that as a park. The pathway system that we have been talking about will cross over. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 23 of 101 pathway system would lead to those parks and to the high school and if you will notice this is actually all one parcel that drags all the way down to right here. Borup: So at this point the city does -- that sliver of parcel goes to the El Dorado project then? McKinnon: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Any other questions, Commissioners? Centers: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. A.Waters: Adrea Waters and I live at 3000 East Green Canyon. We live three doors to the east of that. I just want to say that most of the plans sound really good to us. We just want to be sure that the buildings aren't too high, because they do look at view corridors, so that we are not looking at a wall. Perhaps look at lighting. Right now when I look out my back window the lights from the Holiday Inn shine in my window and that's a mile away. I really don't like it. I'm a little confused about the pathway. My understanding was it was on the other side of the road and that it would be like 50 feet from the center of the canal and then 30 feet after that, so they couldn't even start building for 80 feet and so that's -- I think we all want that clarified. That's about it. I just want to make sure that you're aware that we are concerned and we think they have a good plan, but we are very nervous about it. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come up -- Larsen: My name is Cornell Larsen, 210 Murray in Garden City. I'm just going to talk a little bit about some of the neighbor's concerns that we have heard. Initially -- if we could go back to the overall plan, that would be -- thank you. Initially what we had discussed with the neighbors and was required by the parks department, is that we provide a 30 foot wide pathway system on the north side of the canal. So the canal right of way is 50 feet wide, there would be an additional 30 feet, and then we had a grade down in the corner by Eagle Road, there is two smaller buildings. To be able to connect that pathway down, because the road got so close there to -- and the reason the road got there is because we had to line up with the street that was across the way proposed in the Silverstone project and we had smaller buildings there, so we could shrink the width of the pathway a little bit there, because of the smaller building. One of the things that parks department was concerned with was having blind spots or areas where you couldn't get visual contact with the pathway along there. They also wanted some variety in movement. In addition to the pathway width, we also agreed to set the buildings back an additional ten feet, so you would be at about 90 feet from the center line of the canal to the building location and that Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 24 of 101 rear landscaping of the building would be incorporated into the pathway system, so it felt wider and it had some variety. Also when we did meet with the neighbors we talked about lights and we are concerned about blasting them with lights, too, and we also talked about view corridors. So I'll take the lights first. The lights -- the intent along the buildings that would be positioned along the residential subdivision would be to primarily use soffit lighting there. We purposely rotated the building so we could keep the views open where we could keep the views and that's really a conceptual plan, but the intent there would be to try to use smaller buildings. Again, it was at the neighbors' request, to allow to keep more view corridor open for them and we tried to rotate the parking in there, so that the parking lot wasn't right up against their houses, so they didn't have cars moving and lights moving in their backyard, so to speak. So we tried to position the buildings there to give a variety of the pathway, tried to rotate them so that the long side of the building -- as you can see in that colored version over there by Commissioner Moore, one of the neighbor's complaints was the biggest building in the park was right in their backyard and I don't know how that happened, but I guess it was just by default when we were drawing. But we understood their concerns, so we went ahead and made the revisions to that and the access pathway across the canal was a requirement that the city had asked us to incorporate into our plan. They didn't specifically make it a requirement, but in our preapplication meeting they did ask that we would incorporate a connection at the pathway system to the Thousand Springs Subdivision. So we showed it on the plan. I'm not sure that that's exactly in the right spot, but where it might occur, but we did show a connection to that pathway system. The next item I want to talk about a little bit was when we did meet with the neighbors they were concerned about the access road that the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District uses there to service their ditch and if we take that bridge and the pathway system across and we do fence it, which we would need to do in order keep it secure, so that we didn't have kids out on the -- or people out on the right of way of the canal walking where they weren't authorized to be, so it would require a double gating system there for Nampa- Meridian. In other words, they would have to open the gate on the east and open a gate on the west in order get a vehicle through there to do their maintenance. So I'm not sure what their position will be on that, but we did show that. The intent was not to have an elevated walkway. At one time Nampa- Meridian indicated to us that the pathway would have to be high enough that they could move their equipment underneath it, but that's not going to be something that we want to do or the neighbors want to see. In addition to that, I wanted to talk about lighting again. I think we could use -- we could certainly limit the lighting on those buildings, again, to use soffit lighting and try to minimize the impact on the neighbors. We also talked a little bit about the park system, had -- ask for that pathway system. We talked a little bit about landscaping. They would like to see some landscaping strategically positioned potentially at the building sites to block the buildings and we indicated we would work with the parks department with those requirements. As far as the road system, again, when we met with the neighbors they felt like they'd like not to Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 25 of 101 see the road system connect as close to the south boundary as we had shown it on the original concept and in several discussions with the Highway District and the neighbors, we thought that it might be advantageous to move that road up and then allow the property owners to the west the option of tying in more to the center and then when we met with the Highway District -- and if I could David to go back to that kind of overall concept that shows all the parcels around that. Thank you. They suggested that we put a road in the middle of the property at the -- at least the middle portion of the property, so that if it were extended to the west it could serve all four of those parcels that are to the west and it would basically intersect the middle of Mr. Van Auker's property and would allow him the flexibility to go south with his development and would allow the other parcels to come from what might be their border and go south as they developed or needed access. It would also come into the school site at an area that could be utilized for the school for emergency access, as opposed to coming in farther south, which is -- they indicated would be some of their playing fields and may be a future parking lot, but they weren't sure, so part of the reason for positioning the road there was a result of some requests that we had from the Highway District as well and it seemed to work well to facilitate future planning in that area. I hope I have answered all the questions that the neighbors might have. My list is somewhat jotted down quickly. Zaremba: I think I'm only aware of one hanging. There was a question about the height of the buildings along the south border. Larsen: We had agreed to limit the height of the buildings along that south border based on the staff report. I don't remember the number of -- McKinnon: Thirty-five feet. Larsen: Thirty-five feet. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the reason for that is that those home that are within Thousand Springs Subdivision are limited to 35 foot height and so we felt that the same zoning that you have in the R-4 would be applicable due to the zoning adjacent to the canal, which would be a maximum of 35 feet. Just for a point of reference, the C-G and C-C zone typically allows a 40 foot tall building, so it's actually a reduction of five feet. Larsen: They did also Saturday -- I believe Mrs. Waters had asked us to go look in the backyards of their properties. Well, I went down the pathway system, rather than wander down the backyards of their properties, but where the pathway came out of the Thousand Springs project, I stopped -- there is about -- as the property comes from Eagle Road heading west it gradually tapers up as the canal goes down, so it varies a little bit in height along there, but at about that Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 26 of 101 pathway I believe the gentleman said it was about five to six feet grade difference and that is correct, it is about a five to six foot grade difference. As it gets farther to the west we do see it creeping up a little bit. Borup: Okay. Maybe just a clarification on -- I thought -- I may have misunderstood what Mr. Seal said, but you're saying that 50 feet from the center line of the canal and then another 30 feet would be your pathway easement, for lack of a better term? Larsen: Correct. Currently we own, as they do, to the center line of the canal. There is a 50 foot easement on each side of that center line for the canal and what we had -- and what the parks and recreation asked for is that we have a 30 foot easement outside of that, unless there was someplace we could use the canal right of way. Well, the other requirement that we have is that we fence that canal right of way -- or the pathway system, so it is not -- so we fence anyone that's using the pathway system from going onto the canal property. So at some point along that canal easement there would be a fence that would be positioned to restrict access to the canal. Borup: So that's really the only permission you'll need from the irrigation district is just on the fencing? Larsen: Just on the fencing and they did indicate we could use that area for landscaping and we may be able to use it for a pathway system, but practically the only place we can use it is up on this end and where the smaller lots are out closer to -- Borup: Where it narrows down? Larsen: Where it narrows down. Because the slope is such along there that it's going to have to stay out of the easement. Centers: Let me interrupt. I think the presenter for the applicant indicated that the canal easement wanted to be used for pathway. Period. Borup: That's why I asked for clarification. Centers: Can the other presenter address that? Because that was presented in your first presentation that that's the exception that you wanted. Borup: You might want to maybe have comments from both of you if you want, but -- Seal: Jonathan Seal. Yes. What I explained in at least my understanding -- and maybe Cornell and I may have misunderstood -- is that on the -- what I will call the north edge of the roadway where it crops out, we could put a fence there and if we still have some area that falls within the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 27 of 101 easement, we could use that area for a pathway or with a buffer and a pathway and what have you, so that that -- you know, there may be areas where the pathways within the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation 50 foot easement, but it's outside of the maintenance road. Borup: Are you saying, then, that you may end up using more than the 30 feet for the pathway if you want a meandering landscaping; is what you're referring to? Seal: No. I think if we could bring the picture up of the side of the canal, maybe I can go back -- Borup: So you are proposing less than the 30 feet, then? Seal: What I am thinking is on this side -- actually, on this side here. Get my bearings. Where the road drops down, there would be a fence here, which is what we agreed to, and then the path would be on the other side of that. There may be -- there may be places in there where Nampa-Meridian irrigation easement extends beyond the edge of this road, the high part of the road. That's not uncommon to find that. They always take 50 feet, but many times they do it - - we have done this in almost all of our developments where we will utilize part of their easement for pathways, parking, landscaping, things like that. There would be a fence. There would be a buffer area. There would be the pathway and then there would be the landscaping and then the building also. Borup: So you're saying rather than go by a measurement, you're going to be going by the physical characteristics with the road? Seal: Yes. That's my thinking, unless that's incorrect, because what you're faced with, again, is Mr. Moore owns that land from basically the center of the canal. If you take this and then you can take out to this point somewhere out here where that easement is, then you add another 30 feet, you have now penalized him even further and I think as we mentioned, you know, we are using a height restriction, we are turning the building, so we are going to try to preserve as much of the view corridor as we can and we are going to restrict the height of them and we are going to limit it to office within anything else being a conditional use. So that's always been my thinking. If any of the neighbors have -- if I have explained it in a way that they have interpreted it different, I apologize, but that's has always been my thinking is where this drops down. When we had the meeting with Brad Hawkins-Clark we actually talked about putting the fence along the top of the canal right on the edge and I talked to John Anderson, Nampa-Meridian, and he said absolutely not, you can't do that. We had to put the fence down here. So the fence will be down here. So all I'm just saying is there may be places where we will have a path within the easement, but, again, without that, then that requires us to give up even more land in addition to everything else that we are required to do. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 28 of 101 Shreeve: Mr. Seal, let me just throw some numbers out there, just to make sure I understand you. Okay. You got the center line of the ditch. By the time you get out of the ditch past the road to the edge the road -- let's call that 20 feet. Seal: Oh, no. This road typically -- just the road by itself, Nampa-Meridian wants this road to be about 20 feet. I haven't measured it, so I can't tell you exactly, but you will very seldom find it much more than 20. Preferable they like it wider. So you take that, plus from the center of -- Shreeve: So let's call it 30 feet then. Seal: Might be 30, 35. Shreeve: Let's just throw out 30 feet. Seal: Okay. Shreeve: So 30 feet from the center line, now you're putting in a fence or maybe five feet further, let's call it 35 feet further to get you down off the road and -- Seal: Okay. Shreeve: So what you're suggesting is now, theoretically, you have got 15 feet of easement left that you'd like to utilize for a pathway. Seal: That's -- Shreeve: So now -- then your other 30 foot buffer now is then theoretically reduced by 15 feet then? Seal: Well, no, I think what our thinking is is that that 30 feet or in this case 20 foot pathway here will be -- then will be -- I believe there is another five feet for the building. Right, Cornell? And then there will be the building. So if we end up having to pave this all the way out, if we started to use it particularly on this property here, it make these lots unbuildable. We can't build -- in fact, that's one of the reasons we let it come in with the 20 feet. So, again, if you look at this little thing -- let's pretend that that's the road, much of the easement that we could utilize as far as the pathway and the buffer on both the north and south is what I propose. Okay. That's mine. That's what I wanted to touch on, the discrepancy. Centers: So if we said that no building would be any closer than 90 feet from the center line of the canal, you would be fine with that? Seal: Well, no, I don't think – Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 29 of 101 Centers: Ninety feet was mentioned earlier. Seal: Yes. Yes. I understand. At least from my perspective -- maybe Mr. Moore will want to respond to this, but, no, because then we have, again, the potential that we are eating away more land, we are giving a 30 foot pathway here and 20 feet here, if we end up being potentially restricted where we can't use part of the easement up here as part of it, then it may make, for example, here this land unbuildable and we can't put buildings on it. This road right here can't move. Centers: Well, did I make improper notes? I mean that was my note here. Ninety feet from center line of canal to building. Seal: Well, that's what Cornell said, but I'm not sure that that's -- I guess -- Centers: Well, then, again, you need to talk. Isn't that what you said? Ninety feet from the center line? Larsen: At the widest point we could be 90 feet, but I sat down with some of these other ones. This went down into a smaller area where we were restricted with lot sizes. Centers: You did say that? Larsen: Yes. Centers: Then I missed that. I don't -- Borup: I think did say that, he just didn't give it a measurement at those points. Centers: What would you think would be the closest then? Larsen: Well, if this were -- I don't know exactly what the setback is in a C-G zone for a neighboring residential, but this is -- the distance of the canal and the pathway system would far exceed a normal setback to a residential area, generally. Centers: I'm aware of that. Yeah. Larsen: Yeah. I think the buildings are going to fall between 75 and 90 feet, along there, depending on the grade, depending on how we can put the pathway system in there and depending on how much it has to meander. Zaremba: And that number was from the center line of the canal? Larsen: Correct. Well, I -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 30 of 101 Zaremba: Well, on the residential side isn't there another 30 feet from the center line to there? Larsen: There is another 50 feet. That has a 100 foot right of way, 50 on each side of the center line of the canal. Shreeve: So the residence's fence is 50 feet away from the center line of the canal? Larsen: I don't know where their fence is, but I know the easement is five feet from the center line of the canal. Zaremba: Just trying to net the distance from their fence to your -- Larsen: I'm not sure what their fence distance is from the center line. Borup: Okay. Do we have any other -- any closing comment, Mr. Moore? W. Moore: I'm Winston Moore. I'd like to assure the Commissioners and more especially the neighbors that we intend to cooperate with the neighbors 100 percent. The way I look at this is just as though I live up there where you folks do. We are not here to try and ram something through that's going to be a detriment to you or that you're not going to like. We'll cooperate with you, we will meet with you, we will keep you advised. Somebody mentioned a Holiday Inn being there, another mentioned Albertson's -- believe me, that's the furthest thing from our mind. If there is any activity like that it will be clear up at the other end near the intersection. The question -- or the request to put two streets in instead of one, Ron Van Auker is a friend of mine. I know him well. We have done some developments together. He's tried to sell me the property next door and respectfully I submit that as far as traffic flow goes and the traffic spread, I would think that the staff of the City of Meridian and the staff of the Commissioners of the Ada County Highway District pretty well understand about traffic distribution and they have approved the one road in there. I think the case could be made that the property next door might be enhanced if we put another stub road in there. I'm not sure I want to do that at my expense to just simply enhance the property next door. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Commissioners? Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff. Go back to the original area map. Thank you. Silverstone, which we looked at originally. Now the original project on the corner of Overland and Eagle, it's this parcel right here? All the way down? McKinnon: Silverstone is all the way down to there. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 31 of 101 Centers: Right. It's the whole thing. It's almost the same size. McKinnon: Correct. Centers: Are there any stub streets on the east side of that property? Borup: There is at least one. Centers: I think there was no more than one. McKinnon: There is one in -- Centers: And I remember private drives. McKinnon: Commissioner Centers, if I might, tonight when we are discussing Silverstone II we will get additional -- Centers: Yeah. I know. I know. McKinnon: So we will end up with two. Zaremba: There is somebody in the audience who appears to have that answer. The Public Hearing is still open, I believe, isn't it? Sir, would you like to answer that question? Larsen: Cornell Larsen, 210 Murray in Garden City. Silverstone originally had a requirement for a stub street called Titanium Way to the east boundary of Silverstone and at that particular point in time there was a concern from the city and from the Highway District that there needed to be a road on the half mile line. So Mr. Anderson went to work and because there was a small sliver of ground down along the bottom of Silverstone that was not under Mr. Anderson's control and it almost rendered that piece useless if the road was put there, he required that eight acre piece, which you will hear later tonight, and has proposed at the same time to take a road which lines up almost with the south road on El Dorado called Copper Point and that road would go -- would be the one stub going to the east in Silverstone. It will have several cul-de-sacs off of it, but there would only be one stub going in. Borup: Thank you. Okay. David, did you finish your comment? McKinnon: Actually, Bruce has got it on the overhead real quick. You can see exactly how Silverstone was approved with the one stub street we will be discussing tonight. Borup: It doesn't have all of it on there. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 32 of 101 McKinnon: We are going to get there. It's our new toy. We are still working on it. Freckleton: Bear with me. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Would we be in order to close the Public Hearing? Is this own our discussion now? Borup: Either way. We can still have some discussion without it being closed. In fact, I -- Zaremba: I'll wait. Borup: Do we have any deliberations at this time from the Commissioners? Centers: Well, I think since Silverstone is across the street, I don't know whether it's relevant regarding the stub street that we have been talking about on that and -- Borup: Any other concerns that the Commission would like to talk maybe while they are doing that? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have one concern that I'd like to bring up while we are still in Public Hearing, if I may. Tonight we are having a hearing to approve a Preliminary Plat for a Preliminary Plat drawing that doesn't exist. We have been given a new drawing that you all have in front of you, it's 11 and a half by 17 and it's presented to you tonight. There is no Preliminary Plat drawing to go along with that. The Preliminary Plat drawing that we have in your packet is very different from what you have in front of you tonight and typically -- well, historically the City of Meridian doesn't approve a Preliminary Plat if you don't have one that's accurately reflective of what we are discussing. So tonight I would make a comment just to the Commissioners that we may be overstepping our bounds by approving a Preliminary Plat tonight that does not exist and is at drawing stage, but we may want to see this again at a later date, so that as far as the discussion further with the Preliminary Plat, we may want to think about discussing the Preliminary Plat when we have a Preliminary Plat that's reflective of what's in front of us tonight. Borup: I think I agree with that more procedural aspect on a project like this. I don't know if the plat -- either one is going to have a big affect either way, but that has been the policy -- is that Silverstone you have there? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 33 of 101 Larsen: Correct. This is the Silverstone project. This is Overland Road. This is Eagle Road. Initially when the subdivision was approved it had a street that came up like this. There is a requirement that it become a stub street to the east boundary of the project. In the meantime, this parcel down here has been acquired and we have reworked this and we have made that one connection to the east via Copper Point Way. Centers: Well, we'll get to that later. You know, I just wanted to make reference to the fact that there was one stub street on the Silverstone project, which is directly across the street and that's on the Agenda later, so -- Larsen: Okay. And I just wanted to comment on that. Borup: Staff had mentioned concern on the plat aspect. Do we have anything else from any of the Commissioners that have some concern you want to discuss or are we ready to go ahead and close the Public Hearing? Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on -- well, actually, before I do, would it be pertinent to leave the Public Hearing open, because I guess I concur with the staff that, you know, there is really not a motion of approval or denial, necessarily, at this point in time until we get the Preliminary Plat in front of us. So do we necessarily need to close the Public Hearing or can we just leave it open until we get the Preliminary Plat back and proceed or -- I guess we can always reopen it, too. Norton: Well, we have three Public Hearings open at this point. Shreeve: Right. But is it -- Borup: The first is annexation and zoning and the second is the plat and the third was the Conditional -- Shreeve: Any reason to really make a motion one way or the other on any of them without knowing what's going to take place on the Preliminary Plat? I think that's kind of been done in the history as well as -- you know, why annex something that you really don't know for certain exactly what you're going to need on approval of the Preliminary Plat. Now we have got a good indication, but it's not official. Borup: I know that's been City Council's preference. My feeling is it depends on what it is and, you know, you look at it case by case. I think whatever the Commission would desire. I mean I think this is appropriate zoning and annexation. I don't have a concern with that aspect. Shreeve: I don't either, but I guess -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 34 of 101 Borup: I don't have a big concern with the plat aspect if it's going to be a business park. You know, the lot sizes may shift and vary, but I think it's more a procedural -- Shreeve: Right. Borup: -- aspect and I think that's the part that I have a concern with. Zaremba: May I ask a rookie Commissioner question? What is the difference between a Preliminary Plat and a Final Plat? Borup: Maybe staff ought to answer that better. I mean the plat can change some as the project develops and the Final Plat is what is finally accepted by the City Council. Would you like to clarify that a little bit more, Bruce or David? McKinnon: Yeah, I guess I'll attack it first and then if Bruce wants to correct me on anything. The reason why we have a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat process is because there is actually in state code two separate approvals for that. There is different requirements for each one. On the preliminary plat we are looking at basically the overview of it and then when we receive a Final Plat we are looking at a plat that reflects very closely what was approved at the Preliminary Plat. There can be some minor tweaks to the plat, but any significant changes from a Preliminary Plat to a Final Plat would require the Preliminary Plat approval again. That's essentially the situation that -- there is such a thing called a short plat, which would be a Preliminary/Final Plat being done concurrently. That's typically only allowed with lots that -- with a subdivision that contains four or less lots and it does not have any right-of-way dedication. That would be the basis separation. We have got an attorney here tonight and he could probably get in the finer details on that. I would defer to him or Bruce to be correct me on those. Zaremba: Well, I may have my answer. I think the interpretation is the Preliminary Plat that was legally and officially presented to us does differ significantly enough from what they want that we still need to refine the Preliminary Plat and we can't just do it at the Final Plat process; is that correct? Borup: Right. We do not see the final plat at this Commission anyway. Centers: And question -- and maybe Bruce remembers, too, because of his longevity. Haven't we acted on something like this in the past with the -- with the final drawn Preliminary Plat being done prior to going to City Council? I mean haven't we acted on something like this in the past and the final draft being done prior to going to City Council? I think we have. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe that there were a time or two in the past that that did happen. However, I believe it was Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 35 of 101 Council's desire that you guys look at what is sent back to them and make sure that it meets with your full approval before it goes to them. In other words, don't send them something that is conditional, assuming that it's going to be correct when it reaches them. Centers: Okay. Borup: I think that's what it's been and we have done that quite a bit and the majority of the time it's worked fine, but there have been occasions where it has not and that's I think what we want to avoid. Zaremba: Just to express an opinion, then, if we are not in a position to approve the Preliminary Plat as it is legally given to us in the packets, I don't see how we can approval the next Conditional Use Permit and then the question arises would we want to send the annexation to the City Council separately and I think they have asked us not to do that, so my feeling is, unfortunately, we are talking about continuing all three of these. Borup: I think that's the direction we are going. Centers: And leave the Public Hearing open, so that we don't have to re- advertise -- Borup: Yes. Centers: -- and reschedule it for the February -- what is it -- our second meeting would be the 21st of February, which we normally do the postponed items. Borup: Correct. Zaremba: Well, I think it's fair to leave the Public Hearing open, so that we can have comments, just in case it's different enough from this when it comes back that there can still be comments. Borup: We'll need to have it open to at least have a Public Hearing on the plat left open. I don't know if -- I mean maybe we can just leave them all open. The annexation and zoning could be closed if there was no -- Centers: We are doing all three at once anyway. Borup: Okay. Any other direction we want to give the applicant, other than have a final -- I mean have a preliminary plat that's accurate? Centers: Well, I'd like to say this, that I agree with the one stub street. I think it makes sense and I think the city thought it made sense. I'd like to address the neighbors that were here and took your time this evening and came out. I think Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 36 of 101 you made some progress and I think you saw Mr. Moore stand up and give you his word that he would not build a hotel behind your property and I think Mr. Moore has been around the area long enough that his word is good. So I think you made some good progress and I thank you for coming out this evening and with that I'd like to recommend – McKinnon: Mr. Chairman -- excuse me. If I could ask Sharon, the Deputy City Clerk, how much time she needs to have to send these redrawn Preliminary Plats out to the other agencies that we need to notify? We do send these plats out to other agencies, so they have a chance to review them as well, so we will need to have the redrawn plat by a specific date. Borup: Just a second. We are changing the tape. McKinnon: Are we going? Borup: Not yet. There we go. McKinnon: Okay. We are talking about going to the February 21st -- Borup: 21st. Centers: 21st. Borup: Is that enough time? McKinnon: How much time would we need to have? Smith: That would be sufficient. McKinnon: Okay. How soon before then do we need to have that in order to get this out? Smith: Two weeks time would really be cutting it close. How soon do you think you could have that drawn? Zaremba: We'd need to have it like the 6th or the 7th. Larsen: Yeah. We can -- this is Cornell Larsen again, 210 Murray. We can make the 6th or 7th, we can have that over to -- or earlier to -- for publication. Centers: Well, we want to get you back as quick as possible, so if you can push and get that done, then we can get you in on -- Borup: A little over two weeks. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 37 of 101 Larsen: I think that will be fine. Centers: Good. Borup: And if you need more we can do it to another later date. Larsen: I don't think Mr. Moore would like more in this case, I think he would like less. Borup: Mr. Moore, did you have a comment on -- Moore: Just one. Our Planning and Zoning regulations require that we give 15 days notice for any Public Hearing, so that's going to have to be to us by -- Borup: But this is continued, so -- Moore: I understand. Borup: So I don't think the 15 days applies on a continuation, does it? Moore: You still have to advertise you're going to have another Public Hearing. Borup: I don't believe so, if we make the notice tonight. Zaremba: We are continuing the same Public Hearing. It's a technicality, maybe, but -- Moore: It is. Borup: I mean the Agenda is going to be advertised, but I don't think we need to renotice -- we don't need to renotice. Moore: No, but your Agenda does. Shreeve: Because you're going to approve the Preliminary Plat; right? Smith: And that would be adequate. Borup: Okay. I think we are okay there. All right. Did we -- Zaremba: There was no motion yet. Centers: Well, I was going to make a motion, Mr. Chairman, that we continue Items 4, 5, and 6, as identified on the Agenda, to our regular meeting of February 21st. End of motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 38 of 101 Zaremba: I will second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Was there any questions from the applicant on the -- W.Moore: For whatever it's worth, I want you to know I agree 100 percent with the way you're handling it. I appreciate it. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. That ends those three applications. Commissioners, do we want a break or are we ready to go into the next one? Commissioners, are we ready to go into the next application? Anybody need a short break? Zaremba: I'm fine. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from December 20, 2001: AZ 01-021 Request for annexation and zoning of 4.83 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Berkeley Square Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 1025 North Ten Mile Road: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from December 20, 2001: PP 01-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 34 building lots and 7 other lots on 4.83 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Berkeley Square Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 1025 North Ten Mile Road: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from December 20, 2001: CUP 01- 040 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 34 townhouses in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Berkeley Square Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 1025 North Ten Mile Road: Borup: Okay. The next items are continued Public Hearings -- we kind of need to have you maybe go out in the foyer if you could, please. Item No. 7, 8, and 9 is also a continued Public Hearing for Berkeley Square Subdivision, so I'd like to open these three continued hearings, one, first, on annexation and zoning, the second on a Preliminary Plat, and third on a Conditional Use for a Planned Development. We will start with the staff report on those. David, do you have any other -- I mean we had quite a list of things last time and it looks like we have got quite a list of things this time, too. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if you guys could just go ahead and grab your staff report and turn to page six, there are -- pretty much all the major issues are encompassed on this page. If I could just address each one Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 39 of 101 of those really briefly. Let me go ahead and get the overhead, so we can follow along what we are talking about. All right. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you will notice that the first item that I have is highlighted under additional considerations, it's the setback issue. Around the periphery of the subdivision it requested five foot setback only. Our Planned Development Ordinance does not allow the setbacks along the periphery of a Planned Development to be reduced beyond the required zoning setbacks, so they have requested an R-8 zone. The R-8 zone requires that there is a five foot per story setback on the site setback. That means that they will not be allowed to have a five foot setback along the periphery, it would be required to have a ten foot setback along the periphery. This affects their project due to the fact that the product that they have proposed to you tonight -- you see right here -- these are 28 feet in width. One of the products. That means it's three feet wider than what would be allowed for developable space. Those lots that we see here are actually 40 feet in width. If you take out five feet for the interior side setback, you take out ten feet for the other interior side setback, that puts you to 25 feet that's developable. The product that they have submitted to you tonight is not going to fit within that, there is going to have to be some modification either to the product or to the Preliminary Plat. The common driveways issue, this is the first time we have really addressed this with the new Planned Development Ordinance. The Planned Development Ordinance has a requirement that says if you have a private drive -- I'll go ahead and let the applicant address this as well. There is some ambiguity here, but they propose only a 20 foot wide driveway to service six units here and five units here, six here, four and four. Our ordinance requires that if they do have a private drive that services four to ten dwelling units that it be 24 feet in width, plus five foot sidewalks located on each side located within an easement. So it will also change the plat and their product quite a bit if we had to shorten each one of these lots by seven feet to accommodate the additional square footage that's required as part of the private driveway. The third issue that we really didn't talk about tonight is the pressurized irrigation. They have asked that they have a connection to city water in order to service all of the lots that are located in the subdivision that have homes on them. All the common lots will be serviced by an existing well and pump. However, that pump and well does not provide enough water to service all of the additional area that you would have within the subdivision. And the third -- the fourth and final thing that we really need to discuss tonight in order to get through this project is there is a stub street requirement that originally when we had this project before you there was a requirement by ACHD to have a stub street to the south. There is about a five acre parcel down here and about a five acre parcel to the north of this. Staff requirements were as well to have that to be a stub street to the south. They have eliminated the stub street to the south. They met with ACHD yesterday afternoon. ACHD changed their mind and said we will not require that there be a stub street to the south. This is a very small parcel of ground. It's 4.83 acres. They are trying to fit a lot in there in order to make a product that -- a project that they can make -- that they can produce a product within the project that's something that's presentable and at the same time be able to make money Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 40 of 101 it. There is no reason to develop if you can't make money. If you have to put the stub street to the south that would be placing one quarter of the entire project within the right of way with improvements. As it sits right now there is approximately 18 or 19 percent of the project right now that consists of just right of way. So those are really the major issues that I have tonight. I know that the applicant is here tonight and he's going to present a lot of information to you and at this time I would ask if there is any questions for staff. If not, I'd ask that you guys give the applicant an opportunity to take off from where I left off. Borup: Any questions from the -- it sounds like there is four issues is what you have narrowed in on. McKinnon: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Wardle: Good evening, Commissioners. My name for the record is John Wardle. My address is 50 Broadway Avenue and the last time we met it was last year and it's good to be back in front of you this year. Thank you for letting us come back and bring you another project that we have presented to you before. Give me just one second to put this up and we will go from there. It may be too low. Just let me know if it is. I think that's the same date stamp, dated the 7th of January 2002. Just a little easier to show you the common area that we would be landscaping with this project. I think Dave did a good job of going over the project. Just to restate, this is a single family residential project. We are looking at 35 units on 4.82 acres and we do have frontage on Ten Mile Road. The issue that Dave went over I'd like to address those maybe in kind of a different order. I'll just change them a little bit. The setbacks along the periphery, we have looked at that. We understand that it is the requirement of the PD Ordinance that you need to maintain ten or you cannot reduce the setbacks along the perimeter. If it was a single story -- single level unit I understand that we could do five -- it could be a five foot setback, but with two stories you need to maintain ten feet. We believe that we can adjust the interior lots. Our actual footprint is just over 28 feet, which gives us about a foot -- 1.8 feet per lot that we could pick up and that would give us about 5.1 feet or close to it that we can add to the lot on periphery that we can maintain the setback. So there actually had to be some adjustment of the frontages of the lots that are not on periphery, but we would maintain the ten foot setback around the entire periphery where that setback is required. As for the stub streets, we met with ACHD yesterday. It's kind of an interesting I guess dilemma that we are in. There was a lot of discussion about this and I think there are different points of view of what is actually required. ACHD did agree with us yesterday that one stub street is sufficient. I know that they would like to have more. I think ultimately what they are trying to do is limit access to the properties north and south of us, not allowing them to access Ten Mile Road, but as we came out of the meeting yesterday we were just showing a single stub street to the north. They agreed with that. And that's what they acted Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 41 of 101 on yesterday is a single stub to the north. No stub street to the south. Talking about pressure irrigation for a minute, we do have -- we have a well that is shown in the very front of the project in this location that we would use to irrigate the common lots within the development. We have proposed that the lots within the development be single family residential lots, would use city water to irrigate their sites on each lot or, you know, somewhere -- I think the average is about 3,800 square feet per lot, plus or minus, it's in the staff report more specifically, but they are rather small sites. We don't feel the pressure irrigation system should be required. Our actual level of water that we take is on a rotation. We get it every seven days. The actually flow is very limited. It's been suggested that we go back and talk with Nampa-Meridian to see if they could, as it was put in, could service out project. Based on our water right as a the stand-alone. We will go back and talk to Nampa-Meridian and see what they have to say in terms of pressure irrigation. It's our preference not to do it, to be very candid. It's a very small project. Borup: So at this point the way it is presently Nampa-Meridian will only give you water once every seven days? Wardle: If I can clarify, Mr. Chairman. In talking with the adjoining property owners on our side of the street, there are -- from us down -- I think it's actually down to Pine Street, there are four owners and depending on the size of your property they went to -- they made a rotation a number of year ago that you took water every seven days. That's how it was explained to me by the property owner to the north and I spoke with Nampa-Meridian and they said they were unaware of that, but that's what we were informed of by the adjoining property owners, that we take water every seven days. Does that answer that question? Borup: Well, what did Nampa-Meridian assume? They assumed you had continuous water supply then? Wardle: Nampa-Meridian just -- they asked us what our water right was and left it at that. They really don't get into the rotation issue, if there was an agreement made in the past. Borup: And the water -- where would the water supply be coming from? I assume there is a delivery ditch? Wardle: There is a ditch in front of the property is my understanding. I'd have to clarify that for sure on where that delivery is. I know that the school also takes water out of that as it abuts Park Side Creek. They take -- did I get that wrong, Bruce? Freckleton: I'm sorry? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 42 of 101 Wardle: I'm sorry. I didn't want to make a false statement there. It was my understanding from the property owner to the north, Mr. Masingale, that the property -- their water continues through the school and I was under the impression the school also takes water from that system. I could be wrong. Freckleton: I do not -- I don't know. Wardle: Okay. If I misspoke, I apologize. Probably the most critical issue this evening is the issue of common driveways. I think there is some ambiguity in the Planned Development Ordinance as it's written. In the Planned Development Ordinance, Chapter 6, Section 2 -- 2-A-6, it starts off with driveways, streets, and pathways. It says driveways for more than two family dwellings shall not be less than nine feet in width. Service driveways, drive-thru lanes, and escape lanes shall have a minimum width of ten feet per lane without parking on either side and then it starts a new sentence. Publicly dedicated streets shall be designed and constructed to Ada County Highway District standards. New sentence. Private streets may be approved by the Council and the following roadway standards shall apply. There are four different definitions in this paragraph that identifies driveways, service lanes, public streets, and private streets. We feel that we fall under the driveway designation. In this definition driveways to one and two family dwellings -- and I don't take that to mean only one or only two units, it just says one and two family dwellings, because later on it clarifieswhen it talks about private streets and number of units, shall not be less than nine feet in width. We are proposing 20 feet in width and it would be a concrete driveway. We feel it's adequate, very similar in terms of the requirement in other jurisdictions to provide 20 feet of width for common driveways. And also by using the common driveways we are really limiting the number of other driveways on this roadway street. The driveways are focused in -- where we do have common driveways in these locations and the cars accessing the public right of way would be limited in those locations. Centers: Didn't you just read that the private streets -- ten feet on either side. Reread that. Wardle: I will. It was walking about service driveways. It says service driveways, drive-thru lanes, and escape lanes, shall have a minimum width of ten feet per lane. I take that to mean if you have two lanes it would be 20 feet. I don't think -- in talking with staff I don't believe this qualifies for the definition of a service lane or -- I think that we described that as more talking about like a fast food restaurant that would have a service lane of some sort or maybe behind a store of some sort that they have a -- I can't even give you a definition, maybe Dave can do that but we feel that we are a driveway and these homes are accessing the driveway to the public street. The ordinance, at least as it's written today on Planned Development, is ambiguous, as we said, so there -- we feel that the common driveways are adequate. They will -- they will not be verburdened by the units on these driveways. Yes, we are taking six homes from them in the most -- in the largest case, but -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 43 of 101 Shreeve: Did you say there would be parking along these driveways? Wardle: Commissioner Shreeve, no, there would not. On the common driveways there would be no parking allowed, except in the individual driveways that each home must take access to it. So the home -- for example, the home would still be set back 20 feet from the common driveway to allow the individual driveway, so if there is any parking it would be there. And as for parking on the common driveway itself, it would not be allowed. Okay. If I can get into the site specific requirements. Under the Preliminary Plat site specific requirement number two, which is on page seven, we just asked that the condition -- that we be -- that we provide 24 feet of pavement, plus two five foot sidewalks in lieu of the common driveway that we are proposing to be eliminated. We feel that's -- the sidewalks themselves really -- we do have -- we just don't feel that that requirement is -- should be applied to these common driveways. We don't feel they are private streets, they are common driveways, and we just ask that site specific comment number two be stricken. Also just for clarification, we are proposing a 33 foot wide public street section, which is still going to require us to get fire department to sign off. ACHD allows a 33 foot public street section, parking on both sides, and that allows 18 feet of clear span, unimpeded for -- for example, fire trucks to go through with parking on both sides. I'm under the impression the fire department wants 20 feet. If they will not sign off on the 33 foot wide street, we would go to a 36 foot wide street, which is the standard back to back with attached sidewalks of five feet. So in site specific condition number six it says a proposed four foot wide detached sidewalk shall be installed as submitted if a 33 foot wide street is approved. I just want to note for the record that if we can't get the 33 foot wide street approved, we will be doing a 36 foot wide street with attached sidewalks, which would be five feet. In the standards for conditional use, on page nine, Item A, the statement there says: Staff finds that the sub's property is not large enough to accommodate their requested use and all other required features given the submitted building footprint. I think we are talking specifically about a couple of lots that are on the perimeter. As I noted tonight, we believe that we can redesign on the lots to make it work, to provide the setback, and to provide the necessary space required to satisfy that condition. So with a slight redesign we believe that we can -- that the site is large enough to accommodate the requested use and all other required features given the building footprint. And site specific conditional use number two, just to reiterate just what I said, we believe that with a slight redesign, reducing the frontages of the lots that are adjacent -- that are away from the periphery and adding that additional width to the lots on the perimeter, we can satisfy that condition. We appreciate your time back here this evening. Thank you for your indulgence in letting us work through this process and going back to work with ACHD again. We feel that this project will be a benefit. We'd like to note that we have worked with the school district, we are going to provide a micropath to the school, which will be for public use. This will give the City of Meridian a product type that will be little a bit different and different is good. We've presented you Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 44 of 101 with a plan tonight. We've tried to make it so it's very efficient, but they are good size units also. We ask that the annexation, the Preliminary Plat, and the Planned Development application that are before you be approved and stand for any questions that you might have. Centers: Mr. Chairman, one question. I would think that young families, young children would be occupants; correct? More than likely? Wardle: More than likely. Centers: Are you going to have speed bumps on the drive? Wardle: We haven't proposed that. Centers: You think it's a good idea, don't you? I mean, you know, there is no parking on that, right? Wardle: Correct. Centers: So I think you could get some heavy duty use of that private drive. Borup: For 80 feet? Centers: Eighty feet, yes. Borup: How fast can you get in 80 feet? Centers: I don't know. What is that? It's 80 feet from Ten Mile to the back of the property? Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about the private drives. Centers: No. From Ten Mile to the back. Borup: You're talking about the public street. Centers: Yeah. Right. Borup: Okay. I thought you -- I heard you say private drive. Centers: Well, I was referring to -- Wardle: I'm sorry, I may have confused the issue. We are talking about the public street? Centers: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 45 of 101 Wardle: I'm not sure. That's actually up to ACHD. Centers: Is there going to be parking along the public street? Wardle: There would be. Centers: There would be. Wardle: There would be parking both sides. Regardless of the street section, we want parking on both sides, which it causes friction and people do drive slower. If there was no parking on there I think you're correct, it would be very fast at that width, but we are asking for parking on both sides of those streets. Centers: Just a thought. I don't know. I just thought that -- Zaremba: On that subject a clarification for me. If there are cars parked on both sides of the street, then there is only width enough for one vehicle? In other words, there would be one-way traffic during the time that there is cars parked on both sides? Wardle: Commissioner Zaremba, we are talking, once again, about the public streets? Zaremba: The public street. Wardle: Typically a car width, as measured by ACHD, is eight feet. You park eight feet on both sides, it's a 33 foot street section, back to back, you would end up with about 18 feet clear span in between. Eight plus eight is 16, plus 18, 32 -- 5.5 inches per curb on either side, so you have 18 feet, which would allow, if the fire trucks were going, it would allow two fire trucks to actually one pass the other one. They want 20 feet, but you could still get two fire trucks -- I think they are measured nine feet from mirror to mirror. I could provide -- I know that they would prefer 20 feet. Zaremba: So having cars parked there doesn't stop traffic? Wardle: It does not. Zaremba: Okay. I have a question on a separate issue if I may ask. The street naming committee -- Wardle: Yes. Zaremba: -- has commented that there is another Berkeley someplace and asked that you change your name. I looked on an AAA map and all I could find Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 46 of 101 was a couple little cul-de-sacs with that name on the far end of Boise. I don't want to diminish the fact that some day somebody may call emergency services and say I'm having a heart attack on Berkeley Street and they won't know whether it's West Berkeley Court or whether it's South Berkeley Lane, like the other one is, but have you addressed the seriousness of whether you should change your name or not? I didn't see follow up to that question. Wardle: Commissioner Zaremba, if I can address that. We have, in fact, changed the names. We are putting a stub street to the north and a public street. The way the street naming committee works is if a name has been used anywhere in Ada county it's off limits and there is a bit of irony, though, that our streets that we named here, which the main street coming in is North Wave and the other street, Cliff Creek, come from subdivisions to the west -- pardon me, to the east and to the north. They are non-continuous streets, but if your streets are in alignment you must carry the same name. Now they are non-continuous, so there may be some confusion, but that's the way it works. If your roadway is in alignment with another public street, they ask you to carry that name, which we have shown here. We are just carrying the public named streets through our project. Zaremba: That answers the question. Thank you. Centers: And do you have it in writing from ACHD on the one stub street? You said that was yesterday? Wardle: It was yesterday. I personally have not received the findings. I'm not sure if the city staff has received them either. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, city staff has not yet received anything in writing, but I have verbally verified that that was the decision of the ACHDCommission. Zaremba: I have one other question. It's probably directed to staff, but while you're still here. On page seven of the staff comments, number seven at the bottom addresses there being a perimeter fence all the way around. My question involves the pathway through the common area that I understand is supposed to connect with the school. Is the intent of number seven to be that there be a gate there or will that be open and unfenced across the walkway? McKinnon: There will be a gate there. John? Zaremba: The applicant agrees? Wardle: If I may, talking with the school district, they would prefer bollards, something that would impede a vehicle -- a motorcycle or a car to get on that path and go through. I'm not sure that we would do a gate, but that was Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 47 of 101 something we can discuss with the school district and I'm really -- it's how we interface with them. We want to make sure that our property is distinguished from their property, yet we want to provide the connectivity through there. So a couple bollards on either end I think would probably address that issue. Zaremba: So for the record there would be an opening in this fence that goes all the way around your perimeter? Wardle: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Yeah. That's normal for the micropaths. They are normally not fenced. I've never seen one that's been fenced. Kind of defeats the purpose of having it. Zaremba: That's what I was worried about. Thank you. Borup: Anyone else have any questions? Centers: For staff? Borup: Well, you know, I have got one question. I had a request from -- I don't know whether it's from the City Clerk's office or such, but I don't know that we have got a copy of the Planned Development Ordinance. Do any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: I just looked in the materials that I have and I do not have that. Just the one that the applicant -- Borup: I'd make a request that the Commission have a copy. This is pertinent -- from the ordinance? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we will make sure you guys get a copy of that before the next meeting. Borup: If this page is pertinent, maybe could we just get some copies of this one page tonight? McKinnon: Sure. Borup: That would be quick and then the other we can get later. I will give that back. Are there any other pertinent ordinances that we don't have copies of? Anything else Mr. Wardle? Wardle: I'm assuming I'll get an opportunity to maybe make final comments when the public has testified? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 48 of 101 Borup: Okay. Just to summarize what you said, I think you're okay on the setbacks and you adjust your lots there. Your request on the common driveway, so it will keep it as designed. Wardle: Correct. Borup: And then the pressurized irrigation and the stub street it looks like it's settled as far as ACHD is concerned. Okay. Was there any other issue -- those things I think addressed your concerns. Wardle: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application. Mrs. Atkins? Atkins: I have nothing to say. Borup: Your questions must have got answered. Atkins: I don't think that's ever happened to me. Borup: Sounds like someone did. Okay. Seeing no one, Commissioners? Centers: I have a couple questions for the staff. Bruce, on the pressurized irrigation, I take it you were involved in this? Freckleton: Yes, sir. Centers: Would you agree that due to the size of the lots that the applicant makes a strong point -- you know, I understand the rationale behind the pressurized irrigation and the second part of my question is how long has this been a city requirement for pressurized irrigation on a new plat? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the size of the lots -- yeah, I think you've got a strong argument. However, this is an ordinance requirement. When that ordinance went into effect I will try and tell you here in just a second. Centers: Approximately. Freckleton: Five years ago, probably. Borup: That sounds about right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 49 of 101 Freckleton: '96. The cost of pumping municipal water, domestic water, putting it in the pipes and delivering it continues to climb, the regulations continue to grow. It is our desire that whenever there is surface water available that it be used for irrigation, instead of the domestic water being put on the ground. So basically what we would like to have, as we have detailed here, is for them to check into the feasibility of going across the road into Thunder Creek where they do have a pressurized irrigation system that is supplied by Nampa-Meridian and seeing if they can tag into that and be able to provide water for this development. We've asked that the developer provide us with a letter from Nampa-Meridian, you know, saying yea or nay, whether they can or can't, and then -- Centers: What if they can't? Freckleton: What if they can't? Then the applicant -- this being a PUD, I believe he just can ask for a waiver of the pressurized irrigation requirement at the Council level. That is something that Council can waive. Centers: Okay. Another question. I attempted to look it up in my book here, but in an apartment complex what are the width of the driveways? Freckleton: Have you got one specific that you're wondering about? Centers: Yeah. I'm comparing this to an apartment complex when it comes to the private drives and I look at that very -- you know, it's very similar. Freckleton: Sure. Minimum width required by ordinance is 20 feet. Centers: Okay. So he meets that if it were an apartment complex. Freckleton: Unimpeded 20 foot width. Centers: So he meets that if this were an apartment complex? Freckleton: Correct. Centers: Okay. Could you go back to the aerial map and how this sits in relationship to the city? I don't think we ever -- at our first meeting we saw it, but we have two new Commission members and I think they need to see the in-fill progress and the creative effort to develop a small piece of land. There we have it. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, if you want I can explain exactly where it's located. Right here is Chaparral Elementary School and right next to it you have Fuller Park. The project to the north is a single family dwelling. The project that we are talking about is right here. The project to the Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 50 of 101 south is a single family dwelling as well. This is Pine Street right here. Pine Street. If you continue further down to Linder Road you will see that the high school is located right here, just to sort of get yourself oriented. Albertson's is right here as well to the north. Zaremba: I was at the meeting where it was first presented and then continued to this one. Centers: Thank you. Zaremba: Just as an opinion -- I know it was expressed by other members of the Commission at the time -- the drawing that you presented at the time, which had a private street of a fairly good width with the open space down the middle, I know it's so much water over the dam for this project, but I would like to side with the Commissioners that had favorable comments about that and say that I hope you will save that concept and present it some other time if it can be found to be appropriate. I do have a question that probably is not for this applicant, but would be for ACHD. The stub street to the north, if the intent of that -- we need the area plan again. Yeah. Let's go back to the -- Borup: We got it on this -- Zaremba: That one. Thank you. The stub street that will go to the north, if the intent of that is that when the north property is developed that they will not have access to Ten Mile, then they are going to end up with two cul-de-sacs of roughly probably a T-shaped road that doesn't connect to anything, except this subdivision, and is that something that's going to be found to be acceptable? All I can see is them having a T-shaped road that this is the lower leg of. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I hate to speculate on development that we don't have in front of us. However, we -- as staff we would like to see that the neighborhoods interconnect with each other and ACHD's goals are kind of mutually exclusive from our goals sometimes. We would love to be able to have everybody have access off of every single street, but it doesn't make sense from a traffic engineering standpoint. They would like to limit Ten Mile. And part of the concern with limiting Ten Mile is what happens when Ten Mile continues to become larger and larger as an arterial than it is, the traffic becomes more and more -- the more traffic access points that you have onto an arterial, the more opportunity you have for traffic accidents between the two streets that would be connecting. Right here we have a street. If we had a street to the north that came out it wouldn't line up with anything. The street to the south here doesn't line up with anything right how. However, if you limit it to just that one, you would actually decrease the amount of traffic accessing Ten Mile to two separate points and funnel them through one. We are not a huge fan of cul-de-sacs, but, like I said, sometimes our interests are mutually exclusive from each other. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 51 of 101 (Commissioner Centers left.) Zaremba: Well, I think on that subject the logic would be that if this was presented to us as the property north of it and maybe the property south of it all at the same time, the access would be a continuation of Forecast Street. McKinnon: We would love that. Zaremba: What we are making is -- we are not eliminating the number of intersections, we've added another intersection. McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: In kind of a stair step fashion up the street. McKinnon: That's correct. If we allowed the properties to the north to develop at a separate time with an access to the Ten Mile, we would be adding another one. So we would increase that stair step instead of by one, we'd increase it by two by allowing the north to have access to Ten Mile as well. Initially ACHD wanted to force the property to the south when it develops to use this as the primary access point as well. So what we would end up with would be an M shape, it would be right here and then down to here, with only one primary access to Ten Mile. Zaremba: Well, I did hear -- and I sympathize with the comments made by Mr. Fuller at that previous meeting, that ACHD, in determining where the stub streets go, are making the land use policies for the next property and -- McKinnon: Absolutely. Zaremba: -- sometimes that can be difficult. McKinnon: Thank you for putting it -- Zaremba: Again, it's not this applicant's fault. They appear to have done everything they can do to solve the problem, since the other properties are not being presented. (Commissioner Centers returned.) Borup: Okay. Anything else from the staff? McKinnon: Not at this time. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 52 of 101 Borup: Commissioners, I think that -- I have four main things and I'd like any input that others would have. The one I felt that probably needs discussion is the common driveway. Is there anything else that you think we -- the stub street's been handled. The setbacks can be handled. The pressurized irrigation somewhat will depend on ACHD's -- I mean Nampa-Meridian's comment -- or attitude on that. So in my mind the common driveway is probably the thing that has not been answered. Anything else that you think we need to -- Zaremba: Same question on the common driveway. And probably, again, this would be for staff. Twenty feet seems fairly narrow. For traffic that's going straight along it that's not a problem, but all of the traffic will be entering or exiting this at a 90 degree angle and I'm wondering is 20 feet is wide enough for most vehicles to come out and make a 90 degree turn. I'm talking about from the personal house driveways. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, I just -- an epiphany of sorts just hit me. We discussed a second ago what the minimum width would be for an apartment. Our minimum driveway width is 25 feet. I don't know why that didn't strike me before when we were discussing 20 feet. But the minimum driveway width that we see in fast food restaurants, that we see in everything -- in fact, it's exclusively listed in the code is 25 feet for everybody that pulls in and out of those 90 degree parking stalls. Ninety degree parking stalls in all commercial developments are required to have a 25 foot wide driveway width. So let me correct myself and say that the minimum riveway width is 25 feet within an apartment complex. I guess I do need to address the issue of the private driveways and the private streets there. I have done some research and called some of the other jurisdictions in the area. Boise city currently allows only four homes to access off a private driveway. At no time do they allow the private driveways to exceed four. They do have similar sizes of driveways that we have adopted in the Planned Development Ordinance that you now have in front of you the pertinent information, the 24 feet wide, but the sidewalks is another issue. I wasn't involved in the approval or the process for the Planned Development Ordinance. I've tried to figure out any other type of development given the parameters of the Planned Development Ordinance that would work for a private street. If you were to take C that you have in front of you that's circled and envision a private road that services ten houses that's less than ten -- that's less than 200 feet in length, that's very similar to what we have in front of us tonight. We have a road that varies in size from 70 feet to 150 and 125 feet, depending on where you measure from. It would be very hard to consider this anything but a private road under these definitions. There is no other way that you could define it. If I could, I would draw a picture for you that shows a private road that's less than 200 feet with ten houses, but it's impossible to do that under any other guidelines than what's specified here. Something under 200 feet. So I think hat we have nailed it down exactly how the City Council has approved this Ordinance saying that it must be 24 feet wide with two sidewalks on each side, for a maximum of 35 feet. I have taken the opportunity Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 53 of 101 to sit down with the plat and look at the plat and reduce the lot sizes that we have based on smallest lots within the subdivision that's 40 feet, roughly, by 90 feet in length. If you reduce that by seven feet, there is really only two lots within the subdivision where the same product that they have tonight, the 28 foot wide product, that product -- there is only two lots where it wouldn't fit, even with the seven feet taken out from each one. They have taken an initial 14 feet of a 24 foot road with five foot sidewalks on each side. That's not the problem. I think we have that narrowed down. The problem that really arises from this in the subdivision that we have is the cost, an additional four feet of asphalt, plus ten feet of concrete is a pretty heavy burden for a project of this size. I don't see any other way that we can define a private road, other than the way they set it up with these parameters. A road that's under 200 feet in length is exactly what we have got and it's surveyed from four to ten houses. So I think that this is what was intended by the City Council when they adopted this, is to force them to do that. I did check with the planning director. The planning director said that this is the way it should be defined. She was involved in the adoption of the Planned Development Ordinance and that was her intent and legislative intent behind that from her viewing of the ordinance. Borup: And I may -- I personally don't think it's a cost of an extra four feet of asphalt that's got the developer concerned. It's losing however many lots we are going to be losing. You're losing a fourth of your lots or whatever it is. I think -- I mean a little bit of asphalt is not a concern, it's -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, like I said, I have taken the opportunity to sit down and look at the design and look at the limit that they have for setbacks and the size limitations they have to have, the two car garage, plus the 800 square feet on the ground floor. If we eliminate seven feet from each one of those lots, they are only two lots that become unbuildable within the entire subdivision and those two lots, according to the testimony we have heard tonight, there is some wiggle room within these lots where they could make some arrangements to make some of the lots maybe a little bit larger one side that they could fit. We would essentially be eliminating two lots. If you have got your plat map in front of you, it's Lots 2 and Lot 7 and I think that I have actually addressed that in the staff report. Those would be really the only two lots where even with the reduction of the seven feet from each lot, that's the 14 feet total that they'd have to add, with that seven foot reduction they would still be able to fit the same product type on every single lot, except for maybe Lots 2 and 7 and I say maybe, because there is some wiggle room there and they may be able to design a product that could fit in there. So we are not talking about the elimination of a number of lots, a quarter of the lots, we are talking about the elimination of green space, we are talking about the elimination of their private drives and the way that they have got it. The lots still workfor the minimum lot sizes. The product design that they have still works, except for two lots within the subdivision and there may be some wiggle room for them to fit. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 54 of 101 Borup: Has there been any discussion at all on sidewalks on one side of the street -- one side of the private road? McKinnon: The only thing that I have to go off of, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, is the ordinance. Borup: Right. I realize what that -- I guess it -- and it was before this ordinance was written, I believe, but the city has approved roads in the past on PUD's with the sidewalk on one side. McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: Are you talking about the public road down the middle? McKinnon: No. Borup: No. No. No.. McKinnon: In the past we have had private roads we have approved without meeting these same standards. The unfortunate thing is is we have adopted a new ordinance. I'm bound as staff to tell you what the ordnance is and give you an interpretation of that. The ordinance states that there shall be two sidewalks on both sides of these private drives or private roads. So that's what I have to give to you tonight is that our ordinance that the City Council adopted states that they shall have a five foot sidewalk on each side of this road and locate the road within an easement. Borup: I don't remember -- the previous one was -- I believe they asked for a variance at that time, so I think that's where this would be going to, if the interpretation of the ordinance is correct. McKinnon: That would be correct. It would require a variance. Borup: Okay. Any other discussion with Commissioners? Shall we have the applicant come up and discussion the issues with us? Zaremba: I think I have another question for the applicant on that similar subject. Borup: Okay. I think we are -- Wardle: For the record, my name is John Wardle, 50 Broadway Avenue. You had a question? Borup: Well, maybe -- yeah, maybe let David ask his questions. I think the thing we wanted to get into is interpretation of the ordinance. Well, part of what I think we are struggling with is -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 55 of 101 Zaremba: If we go by the new ordinance and say if there is six houses on it it doesn't make any difference whether you call it a driveway or road, it has to be 24 feet wide and have these two sidewalks. Then what we are getting into is taking away useful space for each of these platted housing units, which gets into a problem with setbacks. So where my rumination was going on this is harking back to your original plan, which is no longer viable. You did have some zero lot line houses in that and would you be able to do that on some of these lots? I don't want to start re-engineering your project, but would you be able to do some zero lot line houses -- what looked to me like duplexes, but they were technically not that, I guess, and give up some of this space. Would that work? That's kind of an off-the-wall question, I guess. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, I assume we are talking zero lot line houses on these common driveways? Is that what we are talking about? Or redesign the project so they orient out to the public street? Which direction are you -- Zaremba: No. On the common driveways, but you pick up some space, because you would lose setback requirements, at least on one property line. Wardle: Just -- if I can go back to our previous product that we had shown you. Our lot sizes -- we proposed 39 foot wide lots, which will only allow -- we were showing eight foot separation between structures. The lots sizes would be the same on the product type that we had before, they are shown today with 40 feet per lot with the zero lot line, with attached -- detached units. That's how it was, two 40 foot lots sharing a common wall. We proposed 39 feet per lot, but that wasn't allowed in the Planned DevelopmentOrdinance, because it was less than the required setback between structures. I don't know that we gain much with the product type that we had before on this one. You know, there really -- there is a different interpretation on common drive, private street. I believe Mr. -- Dave had references before that other jurisdictions, for example, Boise,allows up to four units on common driveways, which is 20 feet. In Boise city we have done a number of these and put a 20 foot pavement section. I also understand that currently staff has a proposal in front of them to modify the Planned Development Ordinance, because there is some -- there needs to be some clarification. Someone has submitted a revision ordinance for common driveways. Centers: Let me interrupt. Wardle: Yes. sir. Centers: Because, Dave, I have read number six. McKinnon: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 56 of 101 Centers: If you read half the paragraph, the applicant complies. Then if you start again: Publicly dedicated streets shall be designed and constructed to Ada County Highway District standards. Private streets may be approved by the Council, and the following roadway standards apply. McKinnon: Correct. Centers: But I think, in my opinion, the way I read it, the first half of that paragraph applies to his project and his 20 feet complies with the ordinance. Driveways, streets, and pathways, semi-colon, driveways to one and two family dwellings shall not be less than nine feet in width. Period. Service driveways, which is what we have here, drive-thru lanes and escape lanes shall have a minimum width of ten feet per lane, without parking on either side, which is what we have here. Period. End of story. And then it goes on to talk about the City Council can approve private streets. He's not saying they are private streets, I'm agreeing with him. I think they are driveways and I think he's met the 20 feet. So I think he's got an excellent point when it comes to interpretation. I read it his way. He reads it the same way I do. I don't how our city attorney reads it, but maybe he can interpret. I think everyone in this room would interpret it a little differently. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, if I may, I don't disagree with you, Mr. Centers. I had some problems myself interpreting this ordinance. I went to the other two planners in the office, both Mr. Siddoway and Mr. Hawkins- Clark, and we had a discussion. That's why we went to Shari and said, Shari, you were the one that worked on this ordinance. What is your interpretation of this ordinance? This is an ordinance that you presented to the Council, not one of the planners, myself, Brad, or Steve, had had any input on this and so we had to find out what the interpretation was and we went to Shari, Shari's interpretation was 24 feet -- Centers: So the point of view had some -- McKinnon: It's very trickily based. The wording of this is very odd. Centers: Well, let's let the City Council decide is what I think, in my opinion. That's where I'd like to send it, with the 20 foot drives, and let them interpret it and see if they agree with me, the applicant, or disagree. We recommend approvals and denials to the City Council and I -- let them make the decision, based on Shari Stiles then. McKinnon: That's fine. My job is just to tell you what -- Centers: I understand and you have done a good job. I understand. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 57 of 101 Wardle: If I can just make a final comment and I'm not going to beat this horse. In terms of common driveways, that's our interpretation in front of you and we'll leave that in your hands. Also we are grateful for staff. Staff has taken a lot of time on this project. As we told you before, we went through a number of pre- application meetings, we had a different product type in front of you, we came back with this. This really gives -- either product -- if I can just put this back up. That's where we started. It would have been a great project for the City of Meridian. We feel this project can still be a good project for the City of Meridian. We need some flexibility to do these projects. We can bring things to you that will be viable, there will be pride in ownership here, we feel that this is a good project. It could have been better, but it is a good project. And if I can just make one comment based on what the Planned Development ordinance states, which you probably don't have that section in front of you, since you only have one sheet right now, which is the second sheet, but in the second paragraph it says the purpose of the Planned Development process -- there is a couple lines here. They are all semi-colons. The third line: Fosters innovative design concepts and promotes flexibility in site design. We really need some opportunities to come back and give you -- we need some flexibility to do these projects. If the Planned Development Ordinance is so rigid in interpretation, you're going to get a bunch of cul-de-sacs with attached sidewalks 80 foot in dimension by 100 feet deep. We will want to do something different. We feel this can be a good project and we ask that these three applications, the annexation, the conditional use, and Preliminary Plat be approved -- recommended for approval to the City Council. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions of Mr. Wardle? I have some questions on the construction detail. You had mentioned you had planned for the private drive to be concrete? Wardle: Yes. Borup: Any curb and gutter with that at all or -- Wardle: No. Borup: -- just like a normal driveway would be? Wardle: Just like a normal driveway. Borup: That would be out the full 20 feet? Wardle: Yes, it would. Borup: Okay. Shreeve: In concrete you said? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 58 of 101 Wardle: Concrete. We feel that if we did asphalt it would unravel, there would be maintenance issues. The concrete is going to last a lot longer. We have done some of these -- if, for example, if there needed to be a cut across that, it's very easy to saw cut, do it, and replace it, and not lose integrity of the common driveway. I don't envision that ever happening, but it's much better than asphalt where you go back and patch. So we did it in concrete. Borup: Any drainage concerns? What about the curb and gutter? Wardle: I don't believe so. We -- like I said, we have done a number of these in Boise. We haven't seen any drainage problem yet. Most of these do drain back to the street. There may be some drainage that's on site and we can work and make sure that there is not a drainage issue on these. Borup: The sample product that you gave to us tonight, do you know what the depth on those houses are or how much depth are you looking in the back? Are you down to a minimum? Wardle: When we looked at it originally, Commissioner Borup, we felt that we could do it on -- I think it was about 84 foot, 85 foot lots, what we really needed to maintain the 15 foot setback. I think we will have a minimum 15 feet and I think it will probably be more like 17 feet or 18 foot from back of structure to fence line on the smallest lots, which would be the 90 foot lot. Borup: So not much extra. Wardle: I think Mr. Freckleton has a comment. Borup: Was there a comment from staff there? Freckleton: Yes. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of questions, maybe some points of clarification. One thing that John said about the streets, the private drives draining back to the street, I don't believe ACHD is going to allow that. Particularly, they don't allow drainage to come off of private onto public, so I don't believe that that would be allowed. They would need to address that. The other thing I wanted to maybe get a point of clarification on is the front setback and the location of the sidewalk from the back of the sidewalk on the house side to the front of the garage. What kind of distance are we looking at there? Is a guy going to be able to park a car in the driveway in front of the garage without impeding the movement of pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk or -- Borup: They don't have a sidewalk. Shreeve: Well, you do on that main street. Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. On those. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 59 of 101 Wardle: Are we talking about this section right here? Centers: I don't think they are -- you know. Wardle: We propose that the setback be 20 feet from back of sidewalk to face of garage to maintain the setback. We understand the concern. If it's any less than that -- because that is where the sidewalk is, 20 feet from back of sidewalk to face of garage, so that a car could park there and not impede pedestrian traffic. So I think our intent is whether it's a common driveway or back of sidewalk where we have a public street, we will maintain a 20 foot setback to face of garage. Borup: Bruce, your comment on the drainage and ACHD, was that referring to private driveways or private roads? Freckleton: Private anything. I mean -- Borup: Well, presently in every residential subdivision the driveway drains onto the road. Freckleton: True. Borup: However, the difference is -- Freckleton: This is a common driveway that is -- Borup: The difference is this would be draining for three houses, instead of one. Freckleton: Absolutely. Borup: I mean does that make a difference? It's still a driveway. Freckleton: It may. It may. I mean -- you know, you can't take parking lot drainage to the street and dump it in the street. It's something that ACHD may comment on. Borup: Okay. We'll leave that up between you and ACHD. Wardle: If we find that we need to accommodate that, we will do so. In the past with our common driveways there has not been any additional requirement to do so and I know that the streets and drainage systems are designed to handle a certain percentage of additional -- I think it's, in my estimation, about a third of each lot can drain to the street. That's what I have seen in the past. So every residential unit is really allotted a third of their entire site could drain to the street. We will do our best to deal with the drainage issue and we will work with ACHD on that issue. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 60 of 101 Borup: I guess one of the reasons I started this was I wouldn't mind seeing a couple more feet in that width, but the dilemma there is, you know, the more you take out of there, the less you have in the backyards and it depends on what you want to give up. I have got no other comments. Were you going to say something, Commissioner Centers? Centers: No. We don't want to forget we do have to close the Public Hearing, however. Zaremba: Right. Borup: Okay. I think Mr. Wardle -- did you have any other comments? You can have a conclusion there and then ask you some more questions. Wardle: We appreciate your indulging us this evening. Appreciate it. Moore: Commissioner Borup? Borup: Mr. Moore. Moore: You asked for some comment concerning this particular ordinance and I can only tell you that unless it specifically defines what a driveway is, what a street is, and what a pathway is, then it's up to your interpretation or I should say the Commissioners interpretation. At this particular point I can find no definition for any of those. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there are no definitions for those at this time. Borup: The closest thing I could see is nine feet to two dwellings. I guess we can let that influence any other thoughts. Centers: Yeah. It's poorly written. I think everyone agrees with that. No doubt. I would move that we close the Public Hearing. Shreeve: For all three? Centers: Yes. For items 7, 8 and 9. Shreeve: I will second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 61 of 101 Borup: Okay. I'm going to take them one at a time. Going right to No. 7, the annexation and zoning, AZ 01-021. Would you like any deliberation or are we ready for a motion on that one? Centers: Anymore discussion is fine. I'm happy to make a motion here. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, one final thing on the streets, the private driveways. One thing that I had thoughts of and I didn't address yet is that the lots within the subdivision, the street frontage from which they are deriving the street frontage is off of the private driveways. The 40 foot street frontage requirement that they have, they are deriving that off of the private driveways. These lots along the periphery have no public street frontage and so that would be one other reason to term these as public streets, is because these four lots in the back of these six -- these four lots in the back of these six, their public street frontage -- or their street frontage requirement is being derived off of the private driveway. Centers: I'm not following you. McKinnon: There is a requirement for a street frontage. Each lot has to have a specific amount of street frontage. That street frontage can be reduced in a planned development to whatever standard the applicant requests. However, there is a street frontage requirement. The standard street frontage requirement in an R-8 zone for detached housing is 65 feet of frontage on a public road. If you take just a straight R-8 zone. Centers: But these aren't public roads. McKinnon: Those aren't public roads, those are driveways. Centers: Sure. McKinnon: What I'm saying is that that requirement for that 40 foot -- well, you can reduce it down in a planned development, the frontage. It doesn't say you can eliminate the frontage, it says you can ask for a reduction of the minimum requirement. The minimum requirement is 65 feet for the type of product they have. They have asked for a reduction down to 40 feet. That 40 feet that they are requesting for the minimum lot frontage is derived off of the private driveways or private streets as we'd like to define them. Either way. It just -- it lent to more ambiguity, I guess, to whether these are private streets or whether they are not private streets. Borup: I think what he's saying, if we have got a requirement for frontage off the street, whether it's private or public, it needs to be defined as a street. Otherwise, you don't have frontage on the street. Is that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 62 of 101 Shreeve: So, technically, these back lots have zero frontage. McKinnon: Technically -- Shreeve: As a driveway definition. McKinnon: That's correct. These lots right here have no public street frontage. All the lots along the periphery two deep. Hey, John, come over here and -- Borup: Why don't you go ahead and talk to him, otherwise, if we need to we can reopen the Public Hearing. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, one thing that I just found in the ordinance under definition of lot, it does say that a lot shall have frontage on an approved public street or an approved private street and may consist of a single lot, a portion of a lot, and a combination of complete lots or a portion of lots. Whatever that means. Borup: Sounds like an attorney worded that one. Freckleton: Yeah. Shreeve: Read that again. Freckleton: The portion that caught me was a lot shall have frontage on an approved public street or on an approved private street and may consist of. Centers: Is that in the PUD? Freckleton: No. That is in Chapter 2, rules and definitions. Borup: Of the Subdivision Ordinance? Freckleton: Yes. Well, no, the zoning regulations. 11-2-2. Centers: In the PUD you have got a lot of leeway, so to speak. Or we do, don't we? Especially when there is driveways involved. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I don't know if there is a whole lot of leeway that's in the definition that's in front of me. There may be -- my own personal opinion there is not a whole lot of leeway in that definition. However, in talking with the applicant -- and we discussed this previously before, the applicant and I, concerning whether or not they could place those private driveways -- the homes in the private driveways. Explain really quick. These homes right here, create these as flag lots, with this being a common cross- access easement, and you could drag out a number of flags out to the public Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 63 of 101 street and they would each have public street frontage and they would flag back and then we could create a cross-access easement across that property where all those people could come across. We get around the requirement for the lot frontage if that were the case. Borup: Didn't we just do that two weeks ago? McKinnon: We sure did. Centers: Uh-huh. Yeah. I remember that. Borup: Right. It was less lots, but the same principle. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman? Borup: That doesn't answer that concern, but that definitely was a -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's just like in Boise city where they limited it to four. The one that we dealt with a couple weeks ago was a subdivision that had four lots, so -- and two of those lots in the four lots actually had public street frontage and directly from the street and they created the access point for all four off the common lot. They could have approved that with actually three -- with three access points onto the collector street. Borup: We are still discussing the annexation and zoning. Centers: Yeah. That's not the big issue. Borup: Do we want to go ahead and act on that or do we want to have some deliberation on the other issues? Centers: I'll go ahead. Okay. Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Concerning Item 7, AZ 01-021, I'd like to recommend to the Council the approval of request for annexation and zoning of 4.83 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for the proposed Berkeley Square Sub by Wardle and Associates at 1025 North Ten Mile Road, including all staff comments. And I don't think there is anything else relevant to the A&Z. Shreeve: I second. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 64 of 101 Borup: Okay. The next one may take more discussion. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recommend approval to the City Council for Item 8 on our Agenda, PP 01-022, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 34 building lots and 7 other lots on 4.83 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for the proposed Berkeley Square Sub by Wardle and Associates located at 1025 North Ten Mile Road, including all staff comments, with the exception of page seven, under site specific comments delete item two and recommend approval of the 20 foot driveways, based on my interpretation of the ordinance, which I will read for the record: Driveways, streets, and pathways, semi-colon, driveways to one and two family dwellings shall not be less than nine feet in width. Period. Service driveways, drive-thru lanes, and escape lanes shall have a minimum width of ten feet per lane without parking on either side. Period. The ordinance goes on with other definitions, but it's my interpretation that this applicant meets that part of the ordinance. In addition, if required, the applicant to record cross-easement access for these driveways, which would comply with the street frontage code or ordinance. Cross-easement access. I had it backwards. Applicant to provide written approval from the ACHD regarding the one stub street and applicant to satisfy the ACHD regarding drainage from the driveways and project to the public street. Applicant would be required to contact Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and, if available, tie into a source which would be located directly across Ten Mile or nearest source. If unable to hook up, then they would have to apply with the Council for a variance of the pressurized irrigation system. McKinnon: Ask for a waiver, please. Freckleton: Just ask for a waiver. Centers: Ask for a waiver. Yes. The word variance is overused. I agree. Applicant -- yeah. Applicant has stated that they will meet setback requirements with the improvements they intend to put on the specific lots, which they know requires a minimum of 800 square feet on the main floor and a two car garage. Did I miss anything? I'm open -- excuse me. I did. Page seven of the staff comments, item six, under site specific comments, it reads: The proposed four foot wide detached sidewalk shall be installed as submitted. Would like to add if the 33 foot wide street is approved by the ACHD, which is the main public street into the project. Anything else, Commissioners? Borup: I think that covers it. Shreeve: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussions? Zaremba: My only question would be that this means that their plat is not going to be exactly as we see what we have in our papers. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 65 of 101 Centers: Yes, it is. Zaremba: Aren't they moving some of their lot lines to get to the outer -- Centers: No. Just record the cross-access agreements. Borup: Well -- Zaremba: But to get the outer ten feet of clearance they were going to have move some of the lot lines away from the out perimeter. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Weren't they narrowing some of the lots and shifting -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, that's not a significant change. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: The thing that we see is when they start moving roads and making more lots or less lots, things like that is usually when we are -- Zaremba: I'm still experimenting with what a preliminary plat and what a final plat is. Borup: Well, they all vary a little bit, but there is usually some adjustment in lot sizes between the two anyway. Zaremba: I don't have a problem with that. Borup: Any other -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, one clerical correction to that motion. Commissioner Centers said there were 34 homes. There is actually going to be 35 building lots within the subdivision. Just to correct -- Borup: Okay. We are reading off the application. Centers: So the motion would be amended to 35 building lots? McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: Seven other lots? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 66 of 101 McKinnon: Fifteen other lots. Centers: Six? McKinnon: Fifteen. Centers: Fifteen? McKinnon: Fifteen other lots. Centers: The motion is amended -- Borup: Oh, there we go. The new one does say that. You were looking at the previous one I think. Well, you're looking at the -- the Agenda was off the -- Centers: Well -- Borup: The staff comment did say 35. Centers: Okay. Borup: The Agenda said the other, which was probably a carryover from the previous -- Centers: So the motion is amended to include 35 building lots and 15 other lots, open space, obviously. Shreeve: Second. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. We had the discussion. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. The last item is No. 9 then, the CUP. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: We have already discussed the aspects that applied here. Centers: What was that? Borup: I just said we have discussed the things that are pertinent, but go ahead. Centers: Yeah. I'd like to recommend approval to the City Council Item No. 9, CUP 01-040, request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 67 of 101 35 townhomes in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Berkeley Square Sub by Wardle and Associates at 1025 North Ten Mile Road. I don't think we have anything to add there, do we? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman? Centers: Including all staff comments, obviously. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, if we could address item number two on page 10 of the site specific comments. I think we may need to amend that. The statement now reads: The applicant shall provide ten copies of an elevation and footprint of a residential structure with a two car garage that will fit on a peripheral lot. We may want to change that to state that -- we could actually eliminate that. Centers: Yeah. McKinnon: Just eliminate item number two. Centers: Yeah. The motion would include on page ten at the bottom, item two, to eliminate that requirement. McKinnon: Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: That concludes -- okay. Want a break? Okay. I think we'll make this one short. RECONVENED AT 10:13 P.M. Item 10: Public Hearing: AUP 01-017 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for the operation of a home office for general contracting business in an R-4 zone for Paul A. Hoeper, Sr. by Paul A. Hoeper, Sr. - 70 Willowbrook Drive: Borup: Okay. We are ready to reconvene. Item No. 10, Public Hearing, AUP 01-017, request for an Accessory Use Permit for the operation of a home office, a general contractor business, in an R-4 zone for Paul A. Hoeper -- is that Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 68 of 101 pronounced right? I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you have before you tonight essentially a home occupation for a general contractor out of his home. You can see his home depicted on the picture right there. It's located at 70 West Willowbrook, which is just off of Meridian Road. The applicant is here tonight and he can address what type of home occupation he'd like to do there. There is really no true staff report to be given tonight, other than here is the picture and the applicant is here to tell you what he's got. Hoeper: My name is Paul Hoeper, 70 West Willowbrook Drive, Meridian, and that is a picture of the home of current. When we purchased the home on -- there were no yards, it was all dirt, and the thing was basically a giant mess. We have gone through the process of cleaning it up and getting it orderly and being good neighbors, actually, to our neighbors. My business is general contracting. It's a small company. We pursued the accessories permit, because that's what you're supposed to do if you're operating a business out of your home and so that's why I'm here. Zaremba: Not to be stupid, but I assume your general contracting is in the construction industry? Hoeper: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted that clarified. Your use of it is mostly just office space, phones and files? Hoeper: Right. We do -- we have no trucks. As a general contractor you're hiring subs, you're -- we don't have any -- or maintain any heavy equipment. In fact, that's the heavy equipment you see in the driveway. Zaremba: So there wouldn't be any storage of supplies or anything outside, you're just -- this is just a home office? Hoeper: Just a home office. Borup: Any questions of any other Commissioners? Centers: Yes. In your application you say that you will meet the off-street parking requirements to be met. Yes. Do you know what they are? Hoeper: The off-street parking requirements? Centers: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 69 of 101 Hoeper: The way I understood them was providing parking for who we have living in our home. That's what we have. Centers: I think they are referring to the business and I guess maybe staff should address the off-street parking requirements for business-related use. McKinnon: For general office type use the parking requirement is one vehicle parking stall for every 400 square feet of office area. The home occupations typically have a lower rate of use, less customers coming in, so typically -- if I can address the applicant really quick. Are those three cars typically parked outside, are they all yours? Hoeper: All three of them are ours. In fact, we have one more. Borup: You have one more? McKinnon: Is the garage usable as a garage to park those cars on the inside, so if you had customers coming they would not have to park on the street, they could park in the driveway? Hoeper: Well -- McKinnon: That would be the requirement, by the way. Hoeper: My son has the car nearest us and he goes to the University of Nevada-Reno. My daughter has the blue one next to it and she works all day and then I have the white truck and my wife has one other car. We have room for four -- actually, we have room for five vehicles there. You can't see it on the other side of the garage, plus we have got a -- McKinnon: Do you have gravel over there? Hoeper: I'm sorry, sir? McKinnon: Do you have gravel over there on the side? Hoeper: Yes. McKinnon: Yeah. I was out there today. I took the picture this afternoon with all three cars there. Hoeper: Yeah. And you saw it was double deep on the other side. There is actually parking for I think five cars in front in the driveway itself and then the third car garage is clear. We would be able to park if we need to. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 70 of 101 McKinnon: Okay. One of the requirements that they have for an Accessory Permit is that you provide parking on site, so your customers will not have to park on the street or across the street. The letter that came in opposition of this was -- concerned the fact that right now people are parking across the street from your home and in the future when that project develops -- they are going to develop, they have come in to pick up the development applications to build the real estate office across from you, you would not be allowed to have your people that are coming to visit or coming to have work with you to park on the street. They would be required to park in the driveway. So you would need to utilize your garage as parking for your family and keep those vehicles -- keep at least one space for each of those people that come to as your home as an office. Hoeper: Okay. Borup: Do you meet with clients in your home? Hoeper: Not usually. Usually it's at the sites or usually it's with them personally, they will have something that they want to see as a sample and so we will take them to a house or meet with them. Typically in construction we will meet with them at a home that they are at now or go some place. We do have people come over occasionally, though. We will make sure we provide -- we will provide parking for them in the driveway. Centers: That's the concern of your neighbor, obviously, and you have seen the letter sent by the neighbor? Hoeper: Yeah. Actually, that was sent at a time -- when we purchased that home -- this is -- I made a brief little note. When we purchased the home the yards, as I said, were completely trashed. There used to be a front deck and entryway and it was predominately unsafe to be able to get in and out of the home. As you can see, what we did is we took it and we completely removed it and then we put in concrete there. Additionally in the back it was a disaster. Inside the house there was -- they had a handicapped child and it was heavily urined all over the place, so we had a lot of things going on in the house and at the time we applied for the permit we were still in the cleaning process and those are the things that we were in the process of and, in fact, there is still some little knickknack things that we are still doing, just making it so it's habitable and that was, I believe, you will find on the date there, because of the – Centers: She doesn't date her letter -- well, we received it on November 13th. Hoeper: Uh-huh. Centers: But she states in her letter that so far they have parked on the opposite side of the street, referring to the people coming and going. So I guess there is concern on their part -- you know, she has some good things to say about what Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 71 of 101 you do and you have done to the property, but concerned about people coming and going and the parking situation and I guess, you know, I've got to be honest, I have concerns about running a business out of a residential neighborhood. You know, it's obvious you need an office to meet with people or to show them the plans, go over plans, and that type of thing. Hoeper: We have -- again, we have very -- we don't have a lot of traffic going through the area and I believe this was the neighbor -- I did get a copy of this and I went next door to my neighbor just to make sure that we were addressing the concerns. I tried to make sure even during the process of doing the rehab that we were considerate of our neighbors to make sure that we were careful and we will make sure that our customers, if they do come over, will park in the driveway and we will make sure that they are not an obstruction them. Centers: Did you purchase the property with the intent of going this way originally? Hoeper: Actually, yes. Uh-huh. Centers: Were you given any opinions by anyone that you would be able to do it without a problem? Hoeper: Well, we did -- what we did was we called the building department, because we did pull a permit before we did any changes even in the house and even the cleanup process we just didn't go in and start cleaning up, we made sure that what we were doing was conforming to the city ordinances as we were explained to them. We had an office in Boise that it just wasn't being utilized as it could have been. It was a waste of money, basically. Centers: A commercial -- Hoeper: And it was in a commercial office building in Boise and we -- Centers: You got a permit for the renovation you mean? Hoeper: Yes. Centers: You were tearing down and adding to? Hoeper: Actually, we removed a wall -- Centers: Okay. Well, you would need a permit. Hoeper: -- but we were also doing a tremendous amount of cleanup and from what I understand the ordinance is -- and play by the rules -- anything over 600 dollars worth of changes you need to a permit for and so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 72 of 101 Centers: How many square feet is the home? Hoeper: 1,970. Centers: And per the ordinance -- and correct me if I'm wrong, staff -- that would mean five parking spaces? Four and a half? Zaremba: That's not all office space. He's only using a bedroom -- Centers: I understand that. I understand that. But he's getting a CUP to operate a business out of his home. McKinnon: No. No. No. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, if I may I address that issue. The ordinance requires that only 25 percent of the home may be used in a home occupation. Centers: Okay. McKinnon: And if you said 25 percent maximum, they can actually have less than that, we would base the parking based on that, take a 1,900 square foot home, divide it by five, we'd end up with 400 square feet, roughly 380 square feet or one parking stall would be required. Centers: Okay. Zaremba: Sir, if you quantify this as a ballpark, now that you don't have your own internal construction traffic parking there, out of a week how many hours might there be somebody parked there that is not a resident of your house? Hoeper: It's very sporadic. It's very seldom. I don't even have subcontractors come over and see us that much. I mean occasionally we will have a sub come over and want to ask questions about something on our particular sub plans, but hours in a week -- Zaremba: Sounds like five. Hoeper: Six. Five, six hours at the most. If they are in there, they are just in and out. Zaremba: It's low impact. Hoeper: There is just not a lot of activity. Most of the -- the activity does take place on the job sites. I'm not familiar -- Keith, you're in the business? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 73 of 101 Borup: The first ten years I was in business I didn't have an office. I did it out of my home, but I never had anybody -- I mean, you know, you meet with your clients at the real estate office or their home. I would just go to their homes. So it depends on the size of business and how much volume you're doing and as it grows, then you go out and get an office outside. I mean I don't think that's -- I think that's fairly common. Hoeper: Just choose to play by the rules and go and get the Accessory Use Permit. Borup: Well, I mean it's fairly common. It doesn't need to be a real intensive use, especially somebody -- I don't know how long you have been in business, but -- Zaremba: That was really why my first question. It's really just for offices and files and -- you have to have a place to keep your records. Hoeper: And process paperwork. Zaremba: Yeah. Centers: I guess I was basing my initial comments on the letter that I received and you mentioned, too, that you've had people coming and going and parking and -- and Chairman Borup mentions the fact that he operated out of his home and didn't have people coming and going, didn't have to apply for a permit, because -- Borup: I'm out in the county. I don't believe they have such a thing. Centers: Yeah. But, you know, I know other contractors who do the same thing, they operate out of their home, but they don't have people coming and going and that was my concern with the letter that we had from the neighbor, because -- I think next door, based on the even numbered address. Zaremba: Am I clear that the answer to that question was that the people who were coming and going at one time were actually fixing your own house and that's no longer an issue? Hoeper: That's no longer an issue. Centers: Oh, you don't have customers coming and going? Hoeper: No. We don't have people coming and going fixing the house and putting in the sprinkler system and pouring concrete and fixing all the things that needed to be fixed in the home. We had a lot of traffic for a long period of time. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 74 of 101 Borup: So you're saying that traffic -- the parking across the street was from the people working on your house is what you're saying? I mean we have had other comments on other types of applications and I mean the people have complaints, but then the teenage kids with all their friends coming and going, which the ordinance doesn't address things like that and I -- you can have as much or more traffic without having a business. Zaremba: So my assumption is the things that caused the concern are no longer an issue. Hoeper: And I invited my neighbors if they wanted to come and give comment. I invited them over. I want to be a good neighbor. I mean that's our responsibility. Nonetheless, you know, if I'm not, then they'll complain, which will just create a snowball effect and so that's just not good, so that's what we did. Zaremba: Thank you. Centers: I really don't think you need a permit to have a file cabinet and a desk and a business phone. That's my concern, that you don't need a permit. I'll speak very firmly on that. So why did you come before us? Just because you -- Hoeper: Because when I went in and I went to the building department and I said this is what we are intending to do and they said, by the way, make sure you take this, it's an accessories Permit, if you have a business and it doesn't distinguish between the size of the business, it says if you have a business that you want to operate out of your home, you must have an Accessory Use Permit. And If I read that wrong, then I got wrong counsel from the building department -- Borup: We had an Accessory Use Application here that -- that his office was comprised of a desk and one file cabinet in one part of his kitchen and that was - - Centers: No people coming and going? Borup: No. He was doing accounting stuff. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my definition is it is a home occupation that he has and home occupations are required to have an Accessory Use Permit and the reason why this is before you tonight -- and typically we do a bunch of these that you never see. The only time we bring these before you is if one of the neighbors has a problem. We send out a notification that says that somebody is doing a specific use within your neighborhood. We only send it to the adjacent property owners, including kitty- corner across the street, send it out and say you have 15 days to respond either affirmatively or negatively and if there is a response negatively, we bring it front of you tonight for your approval. This does not go on to the Council, it's just for Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 75 of 101 approval by you tonight. The person who wrote the letter in opposition on this I don't believe is here tonight, so there is no actual opposition at this meeting tonight. He has stated that he has meet with them and discussed with them. There will be people that will be coming to his house. The applicant stated that he will allow a parking stall to be located for those people on his property. I think he's met the intent of the ordinance and he's here tonight just to get approval from you and I think finish the comments I had with that statement. Borup: I think that's a good summary. Unless there is any other questions, let's move on. Shreeve: So I recommend closing -- is it a Public Hearing? Borup: Yes. Shreeve: I recommend that we close the Public Hearing AUP 01-017, request for an Accessory Use Permit for the operation of a home office for general contracting business in an R-4 zone for Paul A. Hoeper, Senior. Zaremba: Second. Centers: It's certain there is no other people here that wanted to -- nobody. Okay. That is fine. I saw a gentleman out here I'm not familiar with. Borup: We have got three more hearings. Centers: I would second that motion to close the Public Hearing. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Shreeve: I make motion that we approve AUP 01-017, request for an Accessory Use Permit for the operation of a home office for a general contracting business in an R-4 zone for Paul A. Hoeper, Senior, by Paul A. Hoeper, Senior, 70 Willowbrook Drive, with, I guess, any conditions that are -- Borup: Did staff have any -- staff had mentioned they need to comply with the parking ordinance. Shreeve: Parking ordinance. Borup: There is a motion. Centers: I second that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 76 of 101 Borup: And a second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 01-025 Request for annexation and zoning of 7.83 acres from R-1 to C-G zones for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center Phase II by Sundance Investments - southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 01-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots on 7.83 acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center Phase II by Sundance Investments - southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 01-043 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for High-Tech Fabrication, office, retail and Health Club in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center Phase II by Sundance Investments - southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Items 11, 12, and 13 all pertain to the same project. I'd like to open the following three Public Hearings, AZ 01-025, request for annexation and zoning of 7.83 acres for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center, and PP 01-025, request for Preliminary Plat, and CUP 01-043, request for Conditional Use Permit. I'll open all three Public Hearings and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. On the overhead you see an actual site plan of the overall area. The highlighted area is not the entire area that we are talking about tonight. The way it currently sits this parcel of ground is over 50 acres in size. We are not annexing all of the -- the entire acreage at this time. We are actually annexing just a part of that, roughly seven and a half acres of that and that's going to be located -- if I have a pointer real quick -- right here in the northwest corner, it just comes across, back to about the end of Silverstone, and down and back across following the Ridenbaugh Canal as we go across. At no time does this property go south of the Ridenbaugh Canal. Forward on to -- to give you a better idea of what that looks like, if my computer will cooperate. It doesn't want to cooperate. Well, that's the parcel. What we are -- Bruce can work on that while I go ahead and discuss a few things. Because we are doing a Preliminary Plat tonight at the same time, we can split this property without annexing the entire parcel, because of the -- because the Preliminary Plat is being handled at the same time. The property would like to be annexed, zoned, and have a Conditional Use Permit approval as the original project Silverstone I was approved. As you notice in Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 77 of 101 your staff report, there was some comments concerning the fact that the Planned Development Ordinance has been passed since the time that the first phase of Silverstone was approved. In order to make it easier for enforcement, rather than have a separate set of standards for the second phase of a project, we would support approving this with the same Development Agreement by amending the Development Agreement that was approved for the original Silverstone and not require any of the additional Planned Development requirements, such an amenities and the requirements for phasing and additional Conditional Use Permits in the future. The reason for that is it gets confusing to both staff and for those people that are looking in the future to build on this property. If they want to build in Phase I they are not required to come back in for a Conditional Use Permit. If they want to want to build in Phase II they may be required to come in for a Conditional Use Permit. This is a timing issue, that they came in after the ordinance was adopted, even though Phase I came in under the first -- with the first PD Ordinance that we had. The actual discussion of that is located on page ten of the application. It starts on page 10 and continues on to page 11. I have given two additional comments to place on the staff -- on conditions of approval if you wish to utilize the new Planned Development Ordinance. The applicant would be required to include two amenities and under the Conditional Use Permit requirement the applicant shall be responsible to obtain a detailed Conditional Use Permit approval through new application fee and Public Hearing for each phase to be constructed in Phase II of Silverstone Corporate Center. The reason for this is that the applicant has proposed to develop this subdivision in three phases. Each one of the phases that they have proposed would end in a cul-de-sac, so there would be a turnaround in each one of the phases. They requested that they be given a year to complete each phase for a total of three years. The Planned Development Ordinance allows the phasing of projects, as long as they come in every year for the additional phase. So we have no problem with requesting -- granting their request to allow them to phase this project. This is the project that we talked about earlier and it would be provide the stub street to the east. You remember the other drawing that's in there that shows the stub street connecting through to the east through part of the original Silverstone project. I apologize for the fact that my computer is not -- there we go. All right. This is the page I wanted to get to. This is the Preliminary Plat right here. Let me get back to this page right here. The original Silverstone stops right here and runs essentially along these lines. The new project would have Phase I ending in a cul-de-sac, Phase II ending in a cul-de-sac, and Phase III ending in this cul-de-sac. This would be the entire area of the project. As you remember from the first slide, it showed the entire area of the project going across and back all the way down to Eagle Road and we are only annexing that smaller portion. They are proposing similar designs in all their buildings as we had in Silverstone I, with all the same requirements. In fact, like I said, they have requested that we just amend the original Conditional Use Permit that was approved from Silverstone. With that I'm sure it's clear as mud and I would ask if there is any questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 78 of 101 Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: I have a couple questions -- actually, on the ACHD report. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: They suggest that the applicant participate in transportation management associations, transportation management organizations, if those ever come to exist, and require their tenants to participate in ACHD commuteride and things like that. How does that get into the record as far as Meridian is concerned? McKinnon: I'll have to defer to the applicant on this one. I believe in Silverstone Phase I there is a location in Silverstone Phase I that needs to be set aside for the alternative transportation or a bus stop within Phase I. The unfortunate thing with ACHD reports is sometimes we get those after these reports have gone out to you and that was the case with this one, I believe. The date on that is the same day of this report. We didn't receive the request for that from ACHD until the day that we had already finished this and sent this over to the Clerk's office for publication. I applaud your reading of it, even though we did not include their findings in this and if you would like to make the recommendation as a condition of approval to have them do that, I would be very welcome to that. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Wasn't that probably already included in the first project? McKinnon: There was some discussion about them working with ACHD. Borup: ACHD has been putting that kind of boilerplate language on every large project. McKinnon: That's correct. Borup: Any other questions? Anything else, David? Did you say you -- Zaremba: Not at this time. Borup: The only concern I had -- and I don't know if staff had looked at connectivity. There is no connectivity between the two projects. McKinnon: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, we as staff did have discussion about the connectivity with Phase I. If you will notice that through the parking lot there is connectivity. It runs from this access point right here through the parking lot to the final cul-de-sac. There is two things that are kind of Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 79 of 101 working against this. One, we have already recorded -- well, we haven't recorded -- already approved Phase I of the project. Council has approved that without a stub street to the south to connect these two projects or to create a stub street to the south we may have to go back and redo the Final Plat and the Preliminary Plat for the entire project. It would be rather hard now that they are already starting construction on that project. The second thing that works against us is this is just a conceptual layout. This could be entirely different once it's completely -- once it's developed from the way it sits right now. The buildings are only conceptual and the building pads themselves are somewhat conceptual. If you will notice in the -- I believe the final comment of the Conditional Use Permit requirements state that the staff understands and the city understands that this is conceptual and that the applicant may build more than one building where there is one building shown or one building across multiple lots. This is a conceptual approval only. When we approved Silverstone I, which was conceptual, we may not ever see anything that looks remotely like this, other than the road system. We could see one large building placed right here and 30 smaller buildings -- not 30 smaller buildings, but we could see a lot of small buildings placed here. This is conceptual in nature. I'll let the applicant address that. This could be developed entirely different from the way you guys are approving it tonight. What we are really looking at is whether or not the uses are appropriate for the location, whether those uses are appropriate located next to the first phase as well and that's the way we approved Phase I is just under conceptual approval. The new Planned Development Ordinance requires that each phase of the project come back in for a detailed Conditional Use Permit and that way we would know exactly what's going in on each one of these and we would have the ability to approve each project individually. Phase I is not approved that way. Phase I, you come in with a certificate of zoning compliance. It will never reach your ears, it will be handled by the Planning and Zoning Department and then it will be handed off the ACHD and the building department for permits in Phase I, as long as they do the approved uses. Some of those uses that they have requested tonight are the same uses that you approved for all of Phase I. Borup: And I had a look at the parking lot situation and there is not a lot of difference between the drive through. I mean it's got a pretty direct -- pretty direct connection through the parking area, so I guess that takes care of my concern there and I assume -- are those reviewed by staff at least on -- McKinnon: Each individual building that comes through does receive a certificate of zoning compliance. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: The certificate of zoning compliance process, for those of you that aren't familiar with it, we go through the Conditional Use Permit and the Development Agreement to determine if all of the requirements that were placed Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 80 of 101 on the approval of the project were met by each individual site, then we review that to make sure that they meet all the minimum standard requirements that pertain to the zoning ordinance. Borup: Or you take a look at the connectivity through the parking lots and -- McKinnon: We take a look at everything at that time. However, because this is a large project, Commissioner Borup, I would hate to say that we would look at this project right here to determine if there is connectivity to the parking lot for this project here, because we wouldn't be able to determine, necessarily, at the time this develops that connectivity will be exactly in this manner, but it would be something we could look for. . Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anything else? If the applicant would like to come forward with their presentation. Zaremba: While he's coming forward let me ask staff one more if I may. Sanitary Services has a comment on the number of -- well, I lost my thought there. I think on how trash was going to be disposed. McKinnon: Yeah. Zaremba: Has this been resolved? McKinnon: Well, it's been resolved by the statement -- I believe it's item number seven in the Conditional Use Permit conditions. Well, let me see. Oh, Item number 8 states essentially the same thing you just said. There is no trash enclosures shown on the conceptual site plan, that the applicant shall coordinate locations and construction requirements of the required trash enclosures with the Meridian Sanitary Services, Incorporated, and provide a letter of approval from their offices when applying for a certificate of zoning compliance and during that certificate of zoning compliance process that's one of the things we look for to make sure that the sanitary services has approved the location and the size of the garbage container area. Zaremba: Thank you. Larsen: Members of the Commission, my name is Cornell Larsen, 210 Murray, Garden City. I'm here tonight representing Roger Anderson, Sundance Investments, on the Silverstone project. I'd like to take a minute and tell you that it's been about a year since we were here before and we have finally got some buildings going up, so you are seeing some progress on what we had envisioned a year or so ago. David did a pretty good job of giving you an overview of the project and I wanted to just take a minute and point out some things that came up in the last hearing on the El Dorado project and how that relates to this project. This roadway system here that's called Copper Point Way that was Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 81 of 101 added was kind of a request that came from the Highway District, as well as the City of Meridian to have a road on the half mile line. It was virtually impossible to have it here, because this eight acre parcel that lies right in this area would have limited what could be done with that piece of ground. It was very small and narrow in this area and so Mr. Anderson had contacted the Sutherland Farms people who owned that and had negotiated a deal to get this piece of property under his control to extend Copper Point Way up here and to leave a sliver here that could connect into the Sutherland Farms and could go on over and serve the property to the east. So this became an issue that helped meet the city's requirement and ACHD's requirements for the half mile road, as well as the connectivity to the adjacent pieces of property. The other thing, this bridge was slated to be redone this year and it's been pulled off ACHD's agenda in the intent of them looking at redesigning that and making it a five land bridge, instead of a three lane bridge, because it was designed as a three lane bridge. And as you may or may not know, we have had many discussions with the Highway District on improvements to Eagle Road and Overland Road and I will highlight those a little bit for you later, but as a result of this bridge, this half mile road needed to be moved a little bit farther so that we were not right at the -- coming out right at the base of the bridge and so it was pushed this direction a little bit and I think it went about 170 or 180 feet. That also helped the piece of property across here, because, otherwise, it was coming in right at the very end of that and making it extremely difficult for this piece to work across the street. So part of the reason for how this road got into this position is this little piece of ground, this bridge, shifting it to make it work for everybody and then also bringing it into the eastern boundary for those people over there. As David had mentioned, we were proposing a Phase I, a Phase II, and a Phase III and that's sort of subject to market conditions and I'd like to talk to you about an area here -- and maybe see what some of your suggestions might be on that a little bit later on. I wanted to go to the staff report real quick. We had a couple items on the staff report that we wanted to comment on briefly. One was under the Preliminary Plat site specific conditions. It was item number five on the previous -- on the previous Silverstone Plat Number I on item number five. We had requested that we -- instead of make the landscaping buffer along Eagle Road a separate common lot, we asked them if we could make that a permanent landscape easement or a common lot. The reason for the permanent landscape easement is we would maintain it in the association, as we would do the rest of the project, that gives us the opportunity to show the lot size a little bigger to the purchasers, as opposed to have it in a separate lot. That was approved under the last under -- under the last application. The next item that I wanted to discuss was -- under the site specific Conditional Use PUD was item number two. It says that the city may impose restrictions and conditions in addition to the current ordinance. The Development Agreement that we have in place on one speaks to how those restrictions and conditions might be -- might be addressed. So I'm not sure that we wouldn't prefer some wording that says per the original Development Agreement, so that it might be consistent with what we had done on the first phase. And then the next item I was going to discuss was on page 10 and 11 of Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 82 of 101 the staff report, which David had mentioned that we had requested that the Silverstone II project become a part of the Silverstone I application. We are very desirous of that, so that it can be administered easier by us and can be monitored better when we do not -- it's always tough sometimes to remember what you were doing on the last little eight acres. There is about eight percent of the site in that area, the overall site, that's owned by Sundance, so we were hopeful that you would take the paragraph above that starts in the effort to keep the approval process simple and would adopt that, as opposed to the next three paragraphs. There was -- and those were all the comments we had the staff report. We have no additional items to discuss. In addition to that, there was a question earlier on in the El Dorado project regarding the Eagle Road improvements. We have made four or five written requests to the Highway District to allow us to do improvements to Eagle Road, to do some sort of an offset agreement. This developer has agreed to sell the right of way as an incentive to the Highway District at a favored rate at about half of what it's really worth. He has also agreed to pay for the two stoplight locations or to participate in those two stoplights. W. H. Moore agreed to participate in the one on Eagle Road. The one on Overland Road is solely at Sundance's expense. So we have made numerous requests. We've made some headway with them, but we aren't where we want to be with the Highway District. We have talked to them about traffic coming off that site taking access to other public streets, like the highway system -- State Street I should say and like Eagle Road and those streets that are state funded, and have talked to them about the potential of reduced impact fees if we couldn't reach some sort of equitable arrangements for Eagle Road and Overland Road. So they are still working with us. We don't have a definite answer for you. Your Meridian city staff has expressed the same interest to the Highway District staff and the Highway District people and, again, we are still in the mode of no solution. So our proposal is to keep working on that and keep that moving along as best we can. And in Mr. Anderson's words, it's kind of hard to sell a car without the paint and the finished streets and stuff are just as important to him as they are to you, so -- Borup: So your proposal is to do curb and gutter for a five lane road on both sides? Larsen: Between the two developers they had agreed to split the cost of a five lane road with curb, gutter, and sidewalk on it. They had asked for an impact fee offset agreement for doing that work. In other words, they are loaning the Highway District the money and if Mr. Anderson or Mr. Moore only does two buildings and they have got 500,000 dollars of impact fees out there, they are paying the interest on that improvement and they don't get it back until they build more buildings, which means they've you got to spend more money. So in that essence, plus the reduced sales on the right of way and some of the other things that they have agreed to do, we thought it would be enough incentive to get them to do that, but at this point in time it's not -- they have indicated to us in writing Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 83 of 101 that they have those funds -- those impact fee funds allocated for other projects in the Meridian area and they are not willing to do the offset agreement. Borup: So how much do they get if you don't build the project? Larsen: The same thing that we -- zero. Borup: You propose to do the road improvement yourself then? Larsen: It was our proposal to do the -- Borup: I mean not have ACHD -- I mean it would be contracted by -- Larsen: Yeah. Our -- Borup: An agreement between you and Winston Moore and -- Larsen: Well, our proposal is to do the Highway District in conjunction with the ACHD support of an impact fee offset. Borup: Right. In any case, you could do the design, I assume? Larsen: We would do the design at our expense to their standards. They would review it. Borup: Kind of where I was going, I would assume that your costs are going to be less than ACHD would do for the same half mile of road, too. Larsen: Correct. Borup: That's normally been the experience on any private-government splits. Larsen: Then I had another item I wanted to discuss with you in light of what had happened on the El Dorado project. We have had a user approach us about taking a large portion of the site and I want to -- I'd like to switch microphones. And what we really like is your suggestion on it. Tonight we are asking you for approval of the project the way we have got it put together. We have a user that would like to take this area here on the site and we were wondering if staff and you could support a condition that might say that we would have the option to delete this cul-de-sac as a condition of approval. Borup: I think we have a copy of the alternate plan in the packet that -- Larsen: I think that came through the Highway District and I have a little bit -- I have another color copy, but that was one of the items that we have been working on. We are trying to get the user there. They are about a 110,000 Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 84 of 101 square foot building user and it would be a pretty good user, it would be a good project and it will be a good employer for the area. Zaremba: Can you expose what that business is or would you rather not? Larsen: I will probably get a number ten in the rear if I tell that from Mr. Anderson. Zaremba: Never mind. Centers: If you had one user for all of that why would you need that cul-de-sac. I think that's a no brainer. Larsen: Yeah. We would like to -- our request would be, assuming that -- well, obviously, we filed a Preliminary Plat that shows it like this. Our request would be if you would approve the Preliminary Plat with the option of being able to delete that cul-de-sac should we have a user take that and that would then go ultimately into maybe three or four lots at the most in order to make it work for this user. Borup: Yeah. But I mean the plat that we have got has a building right in the middle of the cul-de-sac, in that street. It makes sense to me. Larsen: I think I came through the ACHD's request. We talked to them about it. I believe it's attached to their report. Borup: Yes, it is. Larsen: And I can give you a couple of conceptual sketches of that in color if you would like to see kind of what the thought was on that. Borup: Black and white is fine for me. Larsen: This is another one that shows just a little bit different concept. Centers: I think Dave hit the nail on the head earlier when he mentioned that we knew that this was all conceptual. Larsen: Yes. We tried to present it that way the first time around, so that if this did happen to us we were not -- we were not in a position where you had indicated that we were telling you an untruth or something, we wanted to be as open as we could. I have one drawing here that was kind of half printed. Did anybody get one that didn't look like it was complete? I think that ended the comments I had, unless you had questions or Mr. Anderson would like to speak for a minute. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 85 of 101 Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Did you want to say something, Mr. Anderson? Anderson: My name is Roger Anderson and I'm losing my voice tonight. I live at 8795 West State in Star. To answer your question we have been working with this now for about three years and we have now come to this part. The problem we have is timing. There is always a timing issue. So we want to proceed with this project. We are giving our best plan, our anticipated use of the project. They have come to us and we had met in town again today, so we expect to have something next week. As it is I have already spent some time with the Mayor nd Mr. Nichols and we reviewed some things so that we understand better what our criteria is we need to meet in order to meet the building permit criteria, so that is where we are. Cornell's question is what's going to happen, if this happens it's going to come in between the Preliminary Plat and a Final Plat. So what we would like to do is have the opportunity to get your feeling on the Preliminary Plat, so that we don't have to come back and then redo it in order to proceed with the project. So our option is to delete a cul-de-sac, that leaves all the main roads going through, leave the access, there is no disadvantage to the interconnectivity, it actually improves, because the lots get bigger and not as many streets, so I don't think staff will have any problems with it, it's just that we would like to get some comfort that if this happens between the Preliminary Plat and the Final, our proposed change is something that the Commission would like to see. Larsen: I'm sorry. Cornell Larsen again. 210 Murray. I forgot to address one issue. There is a question about the transportation facilities. We had agreed and shown some bus stop locations throughout the site on the original concept, so that when bus service became available that it would be in some designated locations. Typically we had those designated around the entry facilities on Overland and on Eagle Road, so we had a built in -- a naturally built-in shelter there and typically what worked well. We haven't really addressed one up on Copper Point as to how we might do that there on the street to the south, but I'm sure we can accomplish one. Zaremba: Thank you. There is an additional comment by ACHD that would require you to require tenants to participate in ride share programs and communteride. I don't know how that would be accomplished, but is that something that you're willing to do in your contract with your tenants? Larsen: Specifically what we have done in the past is we have done -- and not with Mr. Anderson, but on another similar project where a large tenant took a four building complex, which was Hewlett-Packard, off of their facility site. They participate -- the tenants would actively participate in those of ride share or working with the Highway District. A good deal of the time they will run a swing shift, so that they have an early start and a late finish, so that they can try to encourage their employees to not be on the roads at 8:00 and 5:00 and we have Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 86 of 101 seen those kind of activities from the tenants and we generally encourage those, as long as the company would do that and we found that a lot of companies go to those flex hours on the bigger companies and it works quite well. The smaller ones don't always have that desire. They like to park at their front door and drive to and from their office. And there was one more comment that was in the staff report from the parks department on a -- they were asking for a 30 foot pathway system very similar to the one that they asked for on the El Dorado project and it was our understanding that the pathway along this part of the Ridenbaugh Canal would actually go on the south side along the residential area the way it was programmed and I had talked to David a little bit this morning, he was going to talk with Tom Kuntz, so I'm not sure how that -- what the result of that was. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Cornell, I did talk with Tom today about that and I have dealt with the Sutherland Farms application -- had a pre-application meeting approximately a month ago. It did show a pathway system along the -- and this would be the south side of the Ridenbaugh Canal. I agree with Cornell's interpretation that it would be better to -- in our discussion we had earlier today that it would be better to place the pathway in the residential neighborhood than in the commercial neighborhood and we have no problem with that and in talking with Tom, I explained to Tom that under our current Comprehensive Plan that we show no pathway system on any area west -- or east of Eagle Road. So we can't actually make a requirement, unless we make it a requirement under the annexation, because anything else other than that could be considered a taking. So only under the annexation could we do it as a condition of annexation. Secondary to that it would be better served on the other side of the canal next to the residential uses. There would be a bridge that would be installed as part of the Sutherland Farms and there will be a bridge crossing of the Ridenbaugh Canal that would connect these subdivisions together to cross the Ridenbaugh, instead of just using the five land or three lane bridge that they are developing on Eagle Road. So the interconnectivity from this project is across Ridenbaugh, not on Eagle Road, but that application is yet to come in, but preliminary discussions they stated that they would put the pathway on their side - on the south side of the Ridenbaugh Canal and Tom's okay with that. Borup: Okay. Did that answer that question? Any other final comment? Larsen: No, I didn't have any other comment. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could address the city attorney really quick. Mr. Moore? Moore: Yes, sir. McKinnon: In thinking about how we could make this parcel -- not the parcel, but the cul-de-sac eliminatable under the Preliminary Plat conditions, could wording Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 87 of 101 similar to the following be added that would be appropriate, that would still be legal that could be stated that the elimination of the northwest cul-de-sac shall not be considered a significant change of the Preliminary Plat? Moore: Absolutely. McKinnon: Okay. Then I think that's probably what we ought to do. I agree with the applicant that that is no problem, because this is conceptual and they did bring it up right in Public Hearing, the first Public Hearing that we have had on this project. Moore: Yes. McKinnon: So I think that that sort of language should be adopted as maybe item number nine. Moore: I'm not even sure that much language is needed, but if you put it in there, then you're covered and you don't have any problem with it. McKinnon: Okay. I might make that suggestion to the Commission, to make that item number nine under the site specific comments on page six of the Preliminary Plat. Zaremba: I might encumber that with a reason, maybe, added to it, that it doesn't need to come back before us if it's eliminated for the purpose of adding a single large building. McKinnon: That would be fine. That would be great. Borup: Is that Cobblestone -- is that also called Cobblestone or do we have a name? Larsen: I don't believe they approved Cobblestone Way, but I guess we could make reference to that. I believe they did approve Rollingstone Way and Brookstone Way did not get approved, so we will be -- we will have to submit another name. You could say the -- yeah, you could say the cul-de-sac -- Borup: That's right. The one on the north. Larsen: And Copper Point Way is an approved street. Borup: Okay. Larsen: Excuse me. I think it's Copper Point Drive is what it was. Centers: It says Way on this. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 88 of 101 Larsen: Yeah. They changed that in that last approval process. I think it will be Copper Point Drive. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'd like to address what Commissioner Zaremba just said and in discussing with the applicant here at the desk I think that we don't want to encumber that by saying one single large building and the reason for that is because they would like to -- the map that we have been given shows one building with some future expansion building pads on that for the same project, so we may not want to state just one single building, but for one large project, perhaps. Borup: Or for a single user. McKinnon: Single user would be great. Centers: Well, and that's not to say that, you know, if this tenant doesn't work out for them that they can't put the cul-de-sac back in. McKinnon: That's correct. Anderson: My name is Roger Anderson, 8795 West State. The issue the staff did bring up and the questions we would have is our intent in eliminating a cul- de-sac would be because we have a large user and that user is going to come in and he may have a campus style, but what usually happens is they all anticipate expanding larger than they really do, so we have to provide the base building and some expansion pads. We may find one or two or three years down the road they decide that they don't want those pads, we still would need the vehicle, then, to be able to sell those pads to other people. So if you want to preface it so that we put a project together and eliminate the cul-de-sac, that's not a problem, I just want to be careful that it doesn't eliminate our opportunity to spin off these excess pads if they decide two or three years down the road they don't need them, because that's typically what happens. Borup: So it sounds like the simplest thing is maybe just say the elimination of the cul-de-sac without -- Moore: If you just use the language: Elimination of the cul-de-sac north a Copper Point Drive is not considered a significant change to the Preliminary Plat. Period. Centers: Then they can or -- Moore: They can or can't that way. Centers: We want to be flexible. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 89 of 101 Borup: Okay. Somebody get that down. That was the same wording David had had. Centers: Well, I think we will use our attorney's wording. Freckleton: He gets paid more. Zaremba: There are two places in the staff report, one of them begins on page four, item four, at the very bottom and, again, the same subject beginning on page 10, which is the additional considerations where it asks for a choice of whether we want to enforce for these few acres the new standard, which would be different than the entire rest of the project or whether we want them to allow these last few acres to be developed under the same standards as their -- Borup: You're saying let's discuss that before there is a proposed motion? Zaremba: Yes. I think the applicant has stated a preference to have everything work the same under the old ordinance and I don't have a problem with that. Centers: I don't either. Borup: I think it makes sense. In fact, if I remember, one of these Commissioners suggested they buy that parcel clear to the canal anyway. Was that you, Commissioner Centers? Or maybe -- someone here wondered why that didn't happen to start with. Centers: I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing, Mr. Chairman. Shreeve: Second. Zaremba: I'll second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Did we reach the conclusion that the Commission feels to have it included in Phase I? Shreeve: Yes. Centers: Yeah. I would agree with that and I would agree with page six, to allow the 35 foot landscape buffer to be an easement and page nine per the original Development Agreement, item two, and then we just talked about it on page 11. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 90 of 101 Moore: What was that on page 9? Centers: As part of the Conditional Use Permit the applicant had proposed, per the original Development Agreement, the City of Meridian may impose restrictions, rather than saying as part of a Conditional Use Permit. Borup: That's number two, Larry, on page nine. Centers: I think this is a real asset to the City of Meridian, even though it's going to increase my traffic at Overland and Eagle where I go through at 7:00 in the morning every day, but we need it. Shreeve: I will try it. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve AZ 01- 025, request for annexation and zoning of 7.83 acres from R-1 to C-G zones for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center Phase II by Sundance Investments, southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road, with any applicable staff comments, which I don't think there is anything significance. Centers: I would second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Shreeve: Move to approve PP 01-025, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots on 7.83 acres in a proposed C-G for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center Phase II by Sundance Investments, southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road, with all staff comments, changing on page six, item number five, staff comments dated January 14th, 2002, that the 35 foot landscape buffer to be an easement. Centers: Excuse me. If I could interject, Keven? Shreeve: You bet. Centers: Actually, page five on page 6 is under the annexation comments. Annexation and zoning. And I don't think it should have been. Can we address that? Borup: I didn't follow you, Mr. Centers. Centers: Page six is part of -- Borup: No. Top of page five. The Preliminary Plat starts at the top of page five. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 91 of 101 Centers: Excuse me. I had two pages stuck together. We are fine. Shreeve: All right. Gee, I was on a roll, too. Also to change on page nine -- that's the CUP, though. No, we don't get that one yet. On page five, that we acknowledge that this Phase II fall under the same Development Agreement as Phase I. Is that the proper wording? And that the option to eliminate the north cul-de-sac off of Copper Point Drive be considered -- shall not be considered a significant change to the Preliminary Plat. Whatever your wording was. And I believe that's it for the Preliminary Plat. Borup: I don't know if it would do any good. Do we -- does the Commission have any desire to put forth an opinion on the development of Eagle Road? The applicant has said that they would like to -- Shreeve: I think the opinion is if we could sure get that thing developed. I don't know what you're looking for. Borup: Just saying that, that we would support -- Shreeve: Improvements? Borup: -- improvements by the applicant. Shreeve: Yeah. Do whatever -- Borup: Or just -- it's part of item number four of the staff report, says P&Z and Public Works are in support of it, so -- Centers: Well, I commend the applicant and Winston Moore for trying to get the ACHD to get curbs and gutters in on Eagle Road and Overland and get them off the dime. It would be nice. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, as the applicant had stated, they have tried, our staff has tried talking with ACHD staff. Unfortunately, I think we are in a situation where Council is probably going to have to address this directly with the Ada County Highway District Commission and -- so I think showing -- a motion including your support to the City Council, you know, just strengthens that case, so -- Borup: That's the reason I brought it as additional support. Zaremba: Should that be a separate independent -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 92 of 101 Borup: Well, you know, item number four addresses that. I guess if we said anything else it would just emphasize it, but -- and maybe that's not bad to emphasize that. Shreeve: Absolutely not. Zaremba: I throw my support behind it. Shreeve: Yes. I'm done with the motion, unless there is anything else we need of the Commissioners. Centers: Does staff think we covered it? McKinnon: You got it. Centers: I second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? Zaremba: Yes. Did we -- we addressed the choice that I believe was on page four, five, or six, something like that. Did we address the choice that was on page -- Borup: No, because that's going to be on the next one. Zaremba: Okay. Never mind. Borup: On page nine? Zaremba: Right. I think it starts on nine and goes through ten. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Never mind. Shreeve: I move to -- oh, did we have a second? Borup: Yeah. Unless anybody has any other discussion. We are in discussion phase. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Shreeve: Move to approve CUP 01-043, request for Conditional Use Permit for high-tech Fabrication office, retail, and health club in a proposed C-G zone for Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 93 of 101 proposed Silverstone Corporate Center Phase II by Sundance Investments, southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road, with a change -- with all -- including all staff comments as noted on the January 14th, 2002, memorandum, with a change on page nine, item number 2, it shall read: As part of the original Development Agreement, the City of Meridian may impose restrictions and conditions in addition to current city ordinances. Page nine, item number two, per -- yeah, per the original Development Agreement. Just scratch off Conditional Use Permit. And I believe that's it. I guess maybe to reiterate that -- well, of course, this pertains to -- that the original Development Agreement is in effect in Phase II. Centers: I had a question for staff. I had made a note here that -- to amend the request for Conditional Use Permit to amend and comply with Phase I. Was I confused there where we were talking about the Development Agreement? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the Development Agreement is to be amended. The original Development Agreement. Centers: I made the note in the wrong place. Okay. Shreeve: Okay. Centers: Second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Fine looking project. Item 14: Planning and Zoning In House Laundry List - Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance Amendments: Tabled from January 3, 2002 Borup: Okay. Item 14 was to get priority on subdivision ordinance and amendments. I wasn't planning on getting into them tonight. Originally, after the second meeting in February had nothing on the agenda until Mr. Centers took care of that. Who did that? I don't remember. Anyway, we did continue one to that point. But at this point that's the only one that we have on the meeting is the El Dorado -- will be on that agenda and that's it. So I'm anticipating and hope we would have some time to get into this subject at that meeting on the 21st. We do want to get a course of direction. What I'm saying is we are going to have some time to get into it in depth at that time, but I think we need to know where we are going and that's what we want to do tonight. Centers: I have a question. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 94 of 101 Borup: Yes, sir. Centers: You know, I have reviewed this and -- I honestly have, I have scanned it, and these are not Public Hearing items; correct? We are not going to have a Public Hearing on these items. I mean -- let me finish. Why are you asking the Planning Commission for input when this was the staff, in my opinion, should be making these decisions? I mean we are not going to have Public Hearings on these items, are we? There is no need for them. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, a change in zoning ordinance would require Public Hearings. Centers: So any of these items that we select to -- McKinnon: Each item that we have would be a separate condition -- would be a separate Public Hearing. Case in point the landscape ordinance. Centers: Well -- Borup: And beyond that, one of the duties of this Commission is to initiate proposed amendments and review existing amendments and review subdivision naming system. That is the direction of this Commission. Historically this Commission has not done that, but just leaves everything up to staff, but that is how it's stated in our responsibility. Centers: Well, then, the common duplexes don't require two car garages per unit. Okay. What are you proposing? Borup: Well, that's up to us to talk about. These are -- and maybe -- well, go ahead, have you got -- McKinnon: Well, we have these issues that you brought up, Commissioner Centers. I agree with you, staff should be able to come up with some of these items for you. In fact, I've got one for you tonight, it's actually going to be on the Council's Agenda this next week, thought I'd get a few that are going to end up bank in your hands. I have drafted a wireless communication facility cell power ordinance for you to take a look at. As far as all these other issues that were addressed in the laundry list of P&Z subdivision ordinances, a number of these issues are actually brought before you by private parties actually come forward to amend the Planned Development Ordinance that is in this type of language that we discussed tonight, did come forward to change that and to create an actual definition for a private driveway. They have come forward with saying let's allow a one-car garage with a duplex. So all these issues are going to come forward in front of you regardless of the information that we are sitting and talking about tonight. However, we do need some direction from you as the Commissioners as to where you guys would like to go with this, what would you like to see us Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 95 of 101 present. I have the time at the office and I have spent a lot of time writing ordinances in the past before I came to the City of Meridian and while I have been at Meridian writing ordinances -- I don't have a problem writing them. Direction from you would be helpful. If you have seen something in other ordinances that you have worked with in the past that you think would be helpful for us, we would love to see that information. We need to have some guidelines from you, because this is actually going to be something that you're going to have to have some ownership in, because this is going to be something the Planning and Zoning Commission does approve and make recommendations for approval to the Council. Moore: David, if I can interrupt for a minute. Sharon, can I get a copy of this? Shreeve: I think I have got an extra here. Borup: Those are just things I have accumulated. Shreeve: Are you talking about the cell tower ordinance or what are we all looking at? Moore: What you're all looking at. McKinnon: I don't want to take up much of your time tonight, but that's the direction that we would like to go. You are the Commission that are empowered by Idaho State Code and Title 57 of the Idaho Code, so you are the ones that are going to make these decisions. We can bring those decisions before you if you give us an idea of where you would like to go. One of the other things that are not included on this laundry list, but just to get your mind thinking at this time would be what we can do in order to increase the notification process that we have right now in the City of Meridian. As you may have noticed, there is some small, yellow, 11-by-17 signs that we put up for public notification, a lot of people see those and they look like a lost dog type of flyer that one puts up. People don't know what they are. You know, in driving from west Boise to Meridian every day for about six months before I moved out to Meridian, the City of Eagle puts up large signs, larger than real estate signs, so we may want to adopt some standards like that and those are the types of things that we would like for you to give us the direction on and we would support that and we will write up the ordinances, but those are the types of things that we would like to have some input on from you. If we can bring those to you -- I personally can write those up for you, if you like, if I had some direction as to how big you guys would like that or what type of construction, who pays for that. Those are the types of things we are looking for. I'll just hand out the personal wireless communication ordinance to you tonight and I don't think we need to have any discussion on it, it's going to be in front of the workshop in front of the Council, but you will see a number of these issues come forward to you without actually you coming to us with them and we are going to continue to make processes on this. I have actually taken Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 96 of 101 three pages worth of amendments, I have written three pages worth of amendments that almost address each one of those issues individually which you have on that laundry list and you are more than welcome -- I would be more than happy to distribute them so you have an idea of what we would like to see come from you or from us to get back to you with some direction. I know that the ordinances that we have is -- sometimes we as planners get this ideal and think this is the way it should be and this is a wonderful thing and it's not always financially feasible in order for us, some of the things that we think of in our mind, and so we rely on you to help keep us grounded very often. So we'd like to have some direction from you. We will provide to you, if you'd like, a list that says here is the things that we would like to have done in a certain order, but I think it's very important for you guys to say to us what you would like to see done, what problems do you see in our ordinance and give us some direction on that, because there are some problems with our ordinances, beyond what we see every day that we struggle with. So I'll hand this out and if you have any questions, I will be more than happy to answer those at this time. Zaremba: I think just a comment from having looked through what we were given -- Borup: What you were given are just things I have accumulated over the last couple years, so there is not real any specific order to it. A couple of things were memos and stuff that staff had put together, but -- Zaremba: It seemed to me that they were, in my opinion, all roughly equally prioritized. There are a lot of things that need to be clarified. I agree with David and, actually, a note from Tammy de Weerd, who is now on the City Council, points out the need to strengthen the public notice requirements and I personally have had that opinion myself. Bigger signs, you know, even stating how big the lettering on them has to be, so that people can read them at 25 miles or 35 miles an hour in a car, to know that there is something happening. I agree with all of that. That's probably the only one that I would put as a first priority. All the rest of them to me are equally important and the caveat to that is the new -- or at this point the draft Comprehensive Plan is going before the City Council pretty soon and we will very well find many of the Planning and Zoning Ordinances will need to be revised because of that and I could see this as being one process and I guess my only comment is I would be happy to serve on any subcommittee that writes a whole new Planning and Zoning Ordinance from scratch. Borup: Have you thought of that or is it still better to just go through and make some amendments? McKinnon: It's a big process. I was aware when you guys approved the landscape ordinance and I know Commissioner Zaremba and Commissioner Mathes, you weren't here when we went through that process and maybe the Commissioners that have been here longer than I have can attest to this, but the Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 97 of 101 length of time it takes to approve just one section of the code to that, it's a very lengthy process. Zaremba: The difficulty is having Public Hearings on each little sentence that we want to change. McKinnon: Well, we can have Public Hearings like we have had tonight where we take three topics at one time. We can say we have this many proposed changes to the zoning ordinance, we don't have to take them each as a Public Hearing, but something like this cell tower ordinance is -- you know, City Council wants us to put it on their workshop, that would be something that we could take as a separate Public Hearing. There is some minor changes, you know, a one car garage and maybe some of the home occupation ordinances -- I don't have a laundry list in front of me, I gave my last one away, but a lot of those are very basic and things like adding definitions, we don't even have definitions or all the uses that we in our schedule of use control. We can't just put it through our ordinance and say, oh, this is the definition for this, they are non-existent. Those are the types of things that we need to have in our ordinance. Zaremba: I would also add a cross-reference index someplace, so if somebody wanted to know all the requirements for R-4, there is one requirement here and there is one requirement there, and there is another requirement here. McKinnon: Yeah. We actually do try to do that with the application process. We put together applications, we put together a checklist that says here are all the things that you need to provide and here are how you need to provide them to us, specific dimensions, specific scale. So we actually do do something like that with the application process. However, in the code book cross-referencing sections -- I have my own thoughts on that. It becomes another thing that mires people into it. They don't just come directly to the city and the ordinance is confusing enough as it is for people to interpret and if it was too easy then I wouldn't have a job. Centers: Dave, you referred earlier to developing lists of priorities and I think I would like to see that at our scheduled meeting for this and then just tackle them. One note I had made and we ran into it a couple months ago, R-4 zones, schools, be permitted. That's got to be revised to say traditional schools or whatever we decide on, because that was a packed house. I don't know if you were here. Things like that.. Everyone agreed that that was the intent. It was 50 years ago, but as traditional, and things like that. So if you could develop that list we could tackle them, right? Borup: Yes. I think that would help. A couple of things that I marked was items that have come up. If fact, here is a copy of a couple of things that have come up before this Commission over the past couple of years and one is temporary construction trailers. Right now they are requiring conditional use, you know, it Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 98 of 101 takes them four months to get approval and by then they don't need the trailer anymore. Centers: Uh-huh. Yeah. Borup: And the other item number 13 was the gravel parking. We have recommended waivers on that a lot of times, too. And if some of those things get answered, then we don't have to go through that -- spend that time and that process here to do that. So those are two that I marked those as maybe a little bit of priority just because we have seen them several times over the last couple of years. Just a lot of other stuff, but I think that would help. Zaremba: Another would be a rule that says a construction trailer that's not going to be there for more than six months doesn't need a permit; is that what you're -- Borup: Well, you still need a permit, but if you handle it on a staff level as an allowed use. Zaremba: Rather than here. Borup: Rather than coming for a Conditional Use Permit -- Zaremba: As long as it's clearly temporary. Borup: Needing Public Hearings here and City Council, I mean -- Zaremba: I don't have a problem with that. That seems fair. And having gravel instead of paving allows for water runoff and sink in and -- probably a good idea. Borup: We have been approving that as long as there isn't any traffic over the gravel. If it's, you know, a fairly permanent type of storage parking then -- and I think that's probably why that's on there for that type of thing, but that just needs some clarification. My intention was that we would hit this in bunches, as David mentioned. We wouldn't take them all at one time, hopefully we could combine some smaller ones together and I think if we try to wait and do everything on all these lists all at once it's going to be overwhelming, though. I think we need to take a bite out of it at a time. Centers: So, Dave, are you going to advertise your cell tower ordinance and then we will have the Public Hearing February 21st? McKinnon: I got an e-mail from the City Clerk's office today after I left my office, he came and told me today, he said I just e-mailed you today so we could get a copy of the cell tower ordinance so we could put it on the Agenda for City Council's work session on Tuesday. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 99 of 101 Centers: So it doesn't have to go through us? McKinnon: It will end up going through you, I'm sure. All changes to the zoning ordinance go through you and -- Borup: The City Council has asked -- McKinnon: The Council has asked to place that on their work sessions, so that they have an idea of the direction that -- I have already written -- I have already written an ordinance, but the actual body that is responsible for changing that ordinance by Idaho Code is the Planning and Zoning Commission. I could refer to Mr. Moore on that. Moore: Yeah. It needs to go through Planning and Zoning, so that's a definite. Is there a combine meeting the 31st? Borup: No, because we have got 29th would be when it would be, but we are doing the new comp plan on the 29th. Moore: Okay. So you're going to need me here the 29th? McKinnon: Well, City Council is meeting on the 29th, not us. Moore: Okay. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think I have taken up enough of your time. I have got a -- you guys gave some direction tonight on noticing, schools, temporary trailers, gravel parking, we can come up with some of the language on that and place those in a hierarchy of things that we need to change and I can come up with a list for you and get that to the Clerk's Office and disseminate that amongst you. Unless you have anything else, I think I'm ready to go home. Well, if you have any questions. Borup: Anything? We will plan on having a list or some stuff prior to the 21st? McKinnon: I will have some stuff for you for the 21st. Borup: Unless we continue something else from the next meeting, we should have time to do that on the 21st. Zaremba: Let me just add one thing while you're mentioning lists and this was, again, from Tammy de Weerd's comments. Along with strengthening the public notice, she suggests that for projects of significant size neighbor meetings be required and I'd like to see that happen, too. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 100 of 101 Borup: We need to think of some input on what's the definition of significant size. Zaremba: Yeah. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, would you guys like me to come up with some language addressing these? Gather some information from the Association of Idaho Cities and other surrounding jurisdictions and come up with some alternative language or brand new language to address these issues? Borup: We would. And on that last one, I don't know how the others feel, we have talked about that a little bit, I don't necessarily think we need a neighborhood meeting on every project, but some of these big ones or -- Moore: You don't know what's going to be controversial. You don't know what's going to controversial. Borup: No. Moore: Look at the small little plot that was going to be a school. Borup: Yeah. But I having a Public Hearing took care of what it was intended. I mean that's why staff wanted that to come forward as a CUP, because they were concerned about the neighbors. I mean I think the system does work. The idea of having a neighborhood meeting to save time here, though, that's why I would be in favor of it. I mean I think El Dorado demonstrated that. They got with their neighbors and if they hadn't of there probably would have been six times as many people here. I don't -- McKinnon: It can be a double-edge sword. If you were to take a look at the Utility Subdivision, the more information that's been given to those people the more people have shown up and the more problems that it's created, the more misinformation and dis-information has been available. Borup: They even have a website out now. McKinnon: There is a website. Stop the Dump. Borup: Okay. Well, we appreciate that, David, and to have that information, I don't know that any of us feel comfortable in writing ordinances. I think we kind of feel our role is to give you the input. It's not easy for us to change something that someone else has done and tell what we don't like, rather than tell what we do like. McKinnon: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 101 of 101 Zaremba: Thank you. Shreeve: Make a motion to -- Borup: Okay. Traditionally our newest member usually makes the final motion of the night. Mathes: I make a motion to go home. Borup: Adjourn. Mathes: To adjourn. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:42 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK