Loading...
2002 07-11Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting __ July 11, 2002. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order on July 11, 2002, at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner Jerry Centers, Commissioner David Zaremba. Members Absent: Commissioner Keven Shreeve and Commissioner Leslie Mathes.. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Nicholas Wollen, Sharon Smith, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance Roll-Call: ___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers ___O___ Leslie Mathes __ O___ Keven Shreeve ___X___Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for July 11th. I'd like to start with roll call of the attendance of the Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes from June 20, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Borup: The first item is minutes from June 20th. Do we have any comments or questions on those minutes? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: On the first page, item three, I made a motion that we accept the previous minutes, Commissioner Mathes seconded that, and then I believe it was you, not me, who took the vote on it. I would just change that name. See where I'm talking about? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: That should be Borup, not Zaremba. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 2 of 94 Borup: Okay. Zaremba: My only comment. Borup: Make that correction. Any other corrections? Comments? Do we have a motion? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the minutes of the meeting of June 20th, 2002, as amended. Centers: I second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from June 6, 2002: CUP 02-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for four 4-plex units on 1.08 acres in an L-O zone on Lots 4 and 5, Block 2 of Scottsdale Subdivision by C.W. Construction, Inc. – West Alden Drive, at the southwest corner of West Franklin Road and SW 7th Avenue: Borup: The next item, Item No. 4, is a continued Public Hearing from our June 6th meeting. CUP 02-013, request for Conditional Use Permit for four 4-plex units on 1.08 acres in an L-O zone. I think where we left last meeting the applicant was going to redesign their layout and you have done that. Any other comments from staff? Siddoway: Just a few. I won't belabor most of the details, because you have been through this before. The location, as you know, was in Scottsdale Subdivision. A couple of site photos just to refresh your memories of what the surrounding area looks like. And they did come in with a revised site plan received July 9th. That's Tuesday afternoon this week. Staff has not had time to prepare a revised staff report based on this plan. I can go over what our initial observations are as far as the changes. If the Commission favors this plan, we would ask that at least if there would be a continuance so that we can prepare the final staff report based on this plan before it goes to Council. I did have a conversation with Dave McKinnon that suggested that that could happen as early as next week if the Commission so desired. You have another Commission hearing next week. There is only one item on the agenda, it's Lochsa. We don't need a lot of time to prepare the revised staff report, but we do need a little. So in terms of changes, it is my understanding that a lot of the discussion last time centered around making the project into single story units. The revisions do still maintain them as two story units, however, they have done some proposed modifications to the buildings. One includes building number two here where it's rotated on its side, so that the side is facing the residences back here and not the rear of the building. They have also proposed a couple of alternate site -- or elevations. This one you will notice it includes no decks, balconies, off the second story, whereas the other alternate here does include second story balconies. The side elevations you can see here with the few windows Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 3 of 94 that would be facing any residences that are facing a side elevation and I believe that's it. So with that introduction I will stand for any questions. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Steve, what was the setback on the previous -- this one shows 20 feet. Is that standard? The new plot plan here shows 20 feet. I was wondering how that compared with the previous. Siddoway: Okay. Just a second. Centers: Maybe the applicant can address that. I don't know. Borup: The previous one was 20. Centers: Previous 20 also? Borup: Yes. Centers: Okay. Siddoway: The last -- the other modification that I see is the inclusion of a half court basketball area in the sewer easement, the pedestrian walkway area that's asphalted on the south side of the property. So I think that's it for me. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to come forward? Anything else you would like to add? Breinholt: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, we are grateful to have the opportunity to continue this hearing. Borup: You need to state your name and address for the record. Breinholt: My name is Richard Breinholt. My address is 1976 Star Lane in Meridian. I am the applicant for this project. As before, we feel like this is a good project for Meridian. We feel like it will be a good contribution to the community. We have applied for this project, which is within the zoning that is given, which is L-O, and for 4-plexes, which, of course, is under conditional use is why we are here. We feel like this is a good project, because it is a good use of the space where it's like use is in use and if you would show that -- the pictures of the area there, we would like to point out that there is a day-care back -- a little slower, please. We have a day-care, which is just down the street. The pavement right here is the strip where the half court would appear, so it's not far to the day-care. The next one. Just immediately to the east, this is the street in front of it, adjoins onto 8th Street and that 8th Street is mainly 4-plexes. So it is a like use. It has always been zoned that way. There was some zoning labeling, I guess, changes, but that's what it's always been zoned for. The project is located close to main artery streets and to other amenities of the community and so it wouldn't put any undue stress on the public streets. We have made great efforts to comply with any requests that we Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 4 of 94 perceived during the last hearing. We, instead of just using picnic areas as amenities trying to keep -- and the reason we chose the picnic areas in the amenities was to keep a quiet backyard, so as not to disturb the neighbors, but then to the site we have included a third amenity of a half court basketball court. And, of course, that's on an easement for the sewer easement that's already been paved and we have a written easement from the sewer district and the developer which allows the use for that. The landscaping, as set forth originally in the subdivision development, makes a 20 foot landscape buffer between this project and the subdivision to the west and we feel like that's a large amount of the property going to create a private -- a privacy barrier between us and the other neighbors and we intend to continue to work at that and feel like that would be a great asset to the project. We have also -- could you turn to that plot plan now? We have also re-oriented the buildings so as to move the balconies -- one of the balconies away from the -- no. I'm sorry. I'm getting mixed up here. I have to look at this one. I can't see that one well enough. If you will bear with me just a second. We re-oriented this building here. It was turned so that the backside of it faced towards the neighbors there. Is this on? I don't hear it. Borup: You just have to hold it close. Breinholt: Okay. All right. And then this one we have left in the same orientation, but in doing so both of these buildings we made an alternative floor plan for them, so that we have eliminated the balcony off the top floor, then, so there would be no view towards the neighbors and you showed them that revised elevation. This is the back. And so we have taken the balcony, which was up here, off of those and turned that into a computer area inside the building and so we have done the best we can and if you'd show the side views again. He mentioned this already, but this is the extent of the windows which would be facing to that side and so we -- and then also wanted to make note that we have changed and put the stone and the other things to dress up the sides facing the streets, so that we would make a nice appearance for the neighborhood also. Zaremba: The side windows are mostly bathroom windows, aren't they? Breinholt: Kitchen. Zaremba: Kitchen windows? Breinholt: Yes. Again, I want to reiterate that this project -- there were some concerns voiced about crime coming in and with the screening that goes into a rental that we actually have better control on who comes into the neighborhood and can eliminate them if they become a problem, than a person does in their own neighborhood, because they can't control who is buying their houses and so on. We would like to point out that we also have control over the noise and we have done a lot of work to keep that in control by only placing picnic areas into the backyard and open spaces so that the residents can use that in a more quiet way and then added the basketball court, which is more distant from the property line. Let's see. I lost where I was at here. Also Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 5 of 94 trash was a concern. We have arranged for a weekly pickup and we will have enclosed receptacles onto the project, one there and one over here. Zaremba: I see some indication -- two places in the parking lot where trash will be. The drawing I have doesn't indicate that they are enclosed. Is that what you're saying, those are enclosed spaces? Breinholt: Yes. Those are enclosed. This new draft doesn't show that, but -- Centers: One or two? Breinholt: I have met with the -- what's their name? The sanitation department. And they have given me some drawings for enclosures, which I really like, and it allows easy access and good containment for them. Centers: One or two? Breinholt: Two. Centers: One on each end? Breinholt: One on each property. Uh-huh. So we don't feel like that would be a problem and, you know, the alternate choice is that it continues to be a neighborhood dumping ground for lawn clippings and so on and, really, this would be an improvement for that issue. So we feel like we have gone to a great extent. We looked at lots of other alternatives, but they are cost prohibitive. We looked at a single story, that's a cost issue and an appearance issue. It turns into a motel appearance, instead of a nice apartment complex. And we also looked at sinking them to a daylight basement, which would reduce the view, but the problem of egress and also with the patios out the backside and such would be sub grade, requiring retaining walls and so on, really becomes a big cost factor and so we have tried to shy away from that. And so I believe that we have met all of the concerns and issues that were voiced in the last hearing and we feel like this is a good project and would ask for your approval. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Centers: Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Steve, if you would go back to the area map and maybe, Steve, I don't know, point out the 4-plexes that are presently in the neighborhood, the location of them. Siddoway: Okay. The proposed site, of course, is outlined. The day-care sits in this lot up front. The existing 4-plexes are along in here on both sides of 7th Avenue over in here, so they are east of the proposed site. Most of the lots within this subdivision are vacant. The one up front does have an office building on it and the day-care. So that sits on that one. The surrounding properties on the west and south are single family. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 6 of 94 Centers: What are these? Single family? Siddoway: Single family. Centers: And the location of the basketball court exactly, if you could point that out. Siddoway: It's right about here. Centers: Okay. And last, but not least, what is the overall height of the building from ground to peak? Walker: Twenty-two feet. Centers: Mr. Chairman, is that possible? Twenty-two feet for a two story building? Borup: Probably a little more -- Zaremba: I thought I saw 34 on something. Borup: A little bit more pitch. 6/12. Sixteen, seventeen -- you're going to have about 17 on the building proper, eight on each floor and a foot in between. So it would be about 17 feet on the building, plus the roof pitch. Centers: So 23? Walker: I think 22, 23, 24 feet. Centers: So I appreciate that. Thank you. Zaremba: On the plat plan -- can you put the plot plan back again, please? I see that 20 feet landscape setback and assuming this is to scale, would it be right to say that there is an additional ten feet before you get to the edge of a real building? Of course, the parking lot has the 20 foot setback and the buildings have closer 30; am I correct in saying that? Breinholt: That's correct. Except for the one corner there. On the rest of them they are at least that. I believe I scaled it at one time at around 15 feet. Zaremba: The plan is accurate that you're not putting the building right up to the 20 feet, you're actually setting them back farther? Breinholt: Yeah. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borup: It looks like you have also added some more parking spaces; is that correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 7 of 94 Breinholt: No. I think that stayed the same. We did modify it from our first submittal before that last -- the first hearing, because the staff had some concerns about the access to the parking spots themselves as they back out and in and so we have turned some -- Borup: Well, on the one lot you had 16 originally and you have 19 now. Breinholt: Oh. Well, maybe I didn't catch that on the new drawing. Borup: The second one you have 19, the old one you had 16 also. Breinholt: Okay. Well -- Borup: I was thinking that was one of the staff comments on the parking for visitors. It looks like you have added six spaces for that. Does that conclude the questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Yeah. Breinholt: Thank you. Oh, just one last request. If there is any of the neighbors who would like to testify, I would like to see where they live located on that area map. Centers: They have to give their address when they -- Breinholt: But I'd like it if they could show us on there where they are located. Borup: I know last time several of them did indicate that. Do we have anyone else that what like to testify on this application? Now is the time to come forward. Epperson: Good evening. Daren Epperson, 214 South Outfield. Farthest corner behind the picnic area before the angle. I appreciate the amendments. Yeah. I appreciate the amendments, you know, the fact we don't have a balcony coming into our backyard is great. The one concern that I had -- and I remember, you know, vividly three out of the four board members were about to close this out being a second story issue and plaintiff basically said, well, if we rework this as a single story, which pretty much everybody agreed to, and then we get a resubmit as a second story issue again. We don't really want two stories behind us. One story would be great. I have never seen a 4-plex that could only go 24 feet. I mean one question I had -- Borup: What was that last one again? Epperson: The 4-plex? Borup: You have never seen on that could only go 24 feet? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 8 of 94 Epperson: Well, if we are talking only 24 feet, the ones that are across the way from us, the ones off of 7th, are far above 24 feet as far as height. My concern -- and maybe this is an issue, but these three lots are completely vacant and they are just as big as this area here and you have got 4-plexes behind here already. Why not put them there, because these people are all in temporary housing as well. They are not going to complain that they are putting 4-plexes right behind 4-plexes. You know, if anything, put houses here and I don't mind a neighbor that's single story. Put a 4-plex here and let them look at each other. I mean that's a situation that I don't understand why no one is looking at. All I'm basically saying is I appreciate the fact that there are no windows now looking in our backyard and no balcony, but you still have a view of a 4-plex and you still have parking lots and you still have the basketball court and there are issues in that situation as far as -- the picnic area, what kind of time restriction on this? What kind of lighting are we looking at? Am I going to be looking at, you know, a nice big florescent light in my backyard. That's my -- you know, those are my questions. But the biggest one that I have is why take and put 4-plexes behind single dwelling families when over across the street you can put 4-plexes behind 4-plexes and not interrupt a single dwelling family. Those are all the questions I have. Borup: Questions for -- Centers: Mr. Epperson? Epperson: Yeah. Centers: You had questions. I'd like to try and answer some of them. Epperson: Oh, great. Centers: First of all, your main concern was the land and why didn't they build single family. I think it's primarily because the land is too expensive and it would prohibit putting single families in there. Epperson: Okay. Centers: Secondly, you mentioned we were against the two stories. You know, we were against the privacy issue. Epperson: Isn't that two story? Centers: Everything -- every applicant -- excuse me. Every individual that testified -- in fact, there were five -- it was a privacy situation. I think the applicant has made great strides to eliminate people looking down on you. That was the big -- Epperson: I agree. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 9 of 94 Centers: From their balconies. He submitted plans without balconies and if I were to step up on this project, it would be with no balconies period. He's given two little small windows to face you, a kitchen window. So I think the privacy issue, in my opinion, has been addressed. Epperson: Sure. I appreciate those and I appreciate those changes. It's not as much of my concern for my individual dwelling, when you look at the -- I think it's building four and building one, those back up right to people's houses. So, granted, you do not have an issue of a balcony out back, but you still do have windows peering down into somebody's yard. It doesn't affect me as per se, but it does affect my neighbors. Centers: Yeah. You have a little kitchen window on each end. And the other thing I wanted to mention, the zoning does allow 4-plexes and other uses, which could be even more detrimental to your neighborhood. Epperson: As far as -- Centers: Depending on how you look at it. Epperson: As far as -- Centers: There is a lot of different uses that could be allowed there and the staff could run them off for you, but, you know, some of them aren't residential. Epperson: True. And I understand that. I mean when we -- originally years ago it was basically to turn it into office -- or light office space from the zoning that it was prior to that. Our only issue was we wanted to see the plans. I didn't want to see a build-up going behind my house, but, you know, a single dwelling like the Farmers Insurance and stuff on the corner there, perfect, that's not a problem and if my memory serves, everyone on the board basically had said single level and that's fine. Centers: And that was our suggestion to allow for the privacy or give you the privacy and I think -- personally, I think the applicant has addressed that. You have windows, granted, but -- I don't know. Epperson: And I don't view -- I really do, I look at the revised issue and I really do appreciate the fact that he has taken the balcony off and has taken the windows off and moved things slightly and tilted them. Some of the questions I have as far as the usage of the picnic area, you know, what kind of lighting is going to be provided? Is there going to be rules enforced for the picnic area? That does back right up to our house. Centers: That could be addressed. Right. Epperson: That's really all I had, though. Centers: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 10 of 94 Borup: One short question. The way you're talking I'm assuming that your subdivision does not have any two-story homes in there? Epperson: No. None. Borup: None at all? Epperson: No. There is two story -- not on our street. Borup: I meant your whole subdivision. Epperson: Well, our whole subdivision really only consists of this, this -- I should say this and this. There are no two story houses over here, there are no two story houses over here. There is a two story house over here, but it backs up to a house and there is a nice large lot, I do believe it is this one or this one, and you don't see a privacy issue from that, but there are no two stories here and no two stories here or here, I do believe. Not until you get really over here when you get into some of the -- I think there is the duplexes that go onto Franklin -- or Fairview. Or Franklin. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? McCarthy: Good evening. Mike McCarthy, 250 South Outfield. On the bottom quarter I'm the second lot up. Zaremba: Right there? McCarthy: You got me. I also am somewhat disappointed to see a two story situation. And I realize it's only one window now, which is a heck of a lot better than it was before. However, you never know if somebody is watching you when you walk into your backyard. This is the whole situation we were talking about before was on privacy. If I could, I'd like to remind you that all the 4-plexes that are currently existing either back up to Acorn Storage or vacant lots. They don't look down into any other single story dwellings. None whatsoever. Mr. Borup asked a moment ago about single story on our street. My neighbor, his father passed away and is not here tonight, but when they were trying to build they were told single story only on that side of the road. In fact, you built two houses on that road that I know of. The price of the lots in Meridian -- we were talking a minute ago, Mr. Centers, about the price of the property. Building lots are going up astronomically. So I really don't know how much more these lots would be as far as a single family dwelling would be. Do you have any idea pricewise? Centers: I wouldn't venture a guess. They are a lot more valuable than a single family. It would not be, in my opinion, cost effective to put single family dwellings in there. McCarthy: And Meridian I think the average price is about 40 grand for a building lot, 80 feet wide. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 11 of 94 Centers: Depending on which subdivision. McCarthy: There aren't hardly any that you can even buy. I have tried. Centers: You're not looking in the right place. McCarthy: Well -- Centers: Anyway, that's irrelevant. McCarthy: Yeah. So, anyway, basically privacy and also the fact that people lose value in their homes if it backs up to a two story dwelling. People just really don't want to be involved in anything like that. Does Council have any questions for me? Centers: Mr. Chairman. You're a true gentleman, Mr. McCarthy, and it's just a difficult situation and I'm sure you realize the position we are in. An individual has some land there that he's entitled to develop if they meet the standards and zoning laws and all the staff criteria, but when you have neighbors that vehemently oppose it, we have to look at that, too, and weigh all the options and, of course, from here it goes to the City Council, you're aware of that? McCarthy: Yes, I am. Centers: And if it did go to the City Council -- looking for Mr. Epperson -- you have another chance. McCarthy: I understand that, too. Centers: With the -- with the body that makes the final decision. Our decision is a recommendation either for denial or approval. But it has to be approved there. But even if we deny it, it can go to the City Council. McCarthy: Yes. I understand. Centers: Okay. Good. So I guess I just wanted a little empathy from you. It's a tough situation. McCarthy: I'm involved in building as well. Centers: You have to look at the owner's side -- I mean we have got some land there that -- McCarthy: I'm not opposed to people making money. You know, that's not a problem. Everybody has to work. I just think it maybe could be done a little better in this situation. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 12 of 94 My neighbor's suggestion of across the street behind the other 4-plexes hits me like a ton of bricks. That's an excellent idea. I don't know why it hasn't been looked at. Centers: What was that again? To develop it? McCarthy: To put the 4-plexes behind the other 4-plexes right there. Those are all vacant lots. Centers: Maybe this applicant doesn't own those. McCarthy: They are still for sale. There are signs. The land has not been purchased, according to the signs. Centers: Yeah. But -- McCarthy: Okay? Centers: Thank you. Anything else? McCarthy: No. Borup: Thank you. McCarthy: Thank you for your time. Borup: Who is next? Seeing none, does the applicant have some final comments you would like to make? Breinholt: I don't believe I have anything else to say. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Let me pursue one question with you. The picnic areas, are they going to be lighted? Breinholt: We weren't planning on it. Zaremba: So it's likely they would not be used after dark? Breinholt: Probably not. Yeah. Zaremba: Is the basketball court lighted? Breinholt: I wasn't planning on that either. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 13 of 94 Zaremba: Okay. Any consideration of the kitchen windows having -- not smoked glass, but some kind of a less transparent glass? Breinholt: I don't believe -- I don't know if I could rent that. Zaremba: Yeah. That might be difficult. Breinholt: We talked about that, we honestly did, about translucent glass of some kind, but, you know, I'd hate to stand at a blank wall and do dishes. Zaremba: Yeah. Centers: The way I'm looking at this plat, that right there is where the 4-plex borders the setback area. Breinholt: No. Borup: Against the street. Centers: You have the parking right here. Would you agree with me? Breinholt: Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood your statement. Yeah. You're correct. Centers: Was it your intention to try and go for balconies on that one? Breinholt: No. Centers: Or none of them if we went that way? Breinholt: If that's what you choose. Centers: You would waive balconies on all of them? Breinholt: What I had in mind -- if we could go back to the plot plan. Centers: Because you gave alternatives. Breinholt: Especially this one here where the back of the building is oriented there. We would not put balconies here. And this one is turned from what I last saw, but my plan was to not put balconies on either of these two on the top level. These two here are not oriented towards the neighbors and so I don't feel like the balconies would be an issue there. Frankly, if that's a problem, it's not a big deal for me to just eliminate all the top floor balconies. But I don't see that that's an issue with the orientation of those buildings. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 14 of 94 Centers: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, how do we stand tonight -- if we know that we have to continue it for the staff report -- Borup: Let me discuss that with the staff. McCarthy: Could I make an additional comment very quickly? On the 20 foot buffer area, could we go to the picture that shows that landscaping? Zaremba: Would you state your name again, sir? McCarthy: Mike McCarthy, 250 South Outfield. The picture right here, you will notice the trees are already in place. Again, they are fir trees, most them don't reach over the top of the fence. Is there going to be any additional buffer as far as between the houses? Borup: Yes. McCarthy: It will take 20 years for those trees to grow up. Borup: Those are trees that were put in by the developer, not by the -- not by the applicant. There is another landscaping detail that they will be putting in. McCarthy: I see. If my memory serves me on the last time these were the trees that were in existence and going to be there on their landscaping plan, if I'm not mistaken. Borup: Well, they are not going to tear those out. McCarthy: No. I understand that, but I don't believe last time they said they were going to add any additional trees. Zaremba: Would you repeat that into the microphone, please? Breinholt: The trees that exist there, the evergreens are just a partial landscaping. There are others that are required on the subdivision plot that would have to be put in. Zaremba: So you will be adding trees? Breinholt: They would be deciduous trees, I believe, is what they were labeled. Do you have that there? Borup: Okay. Commissioner Centers, just -- I had a question for staff on the -- let me get back here. I was looking over your staff comments and I wasn't sure which of those -- which of those items that you felt you needed time to revisit on. Siddoway: Well, for one, as was pointed out, the parking area covers the same amount of area as what was shown originally and we -- and this was pointed out it went from 16 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 15 of 94 to 19 stalls. We need to make sure the dimensions are still correct. There is just lots of detail work like that that needs to be checked out before it goes on. Centers: Excuse me. I'm looking at page four, item one, on the landscaping and I guess I have a problem with that. It says a detailed site plan on the landscaping will be required when applying for a certificate of zoning. I think -- I think we should know about that ahead of time. The conceptual landscape site plan -- I guess it was submitted. I read that wrong. But we haven't seen it, other than is that this? Siddoway: Yeah. Does that have trees on it? Centers: It doesn't give any size of trees or bushes, it just says shade trees and -- this is what you were referring to or what Dave was referring to? Because I think the neighbors have a right to know the size of the trees and how many and that type of thing. Borup: I don't know why this Commission can't have some recommendation on size. Centers: Uh-huh. Breinholt: Can I -- the subdivision when it was -- Borup: Name real quick again. Breinholt: What's that? Borup: Just repeat your name again for the record. Breinholt: Richard Breinholt. The subdivision when it was approved gave a landscape plot for that back 20 foot buffer and so on this one I have only addressed the issues along the street side of that -- of the project, because that's the only thing that we will be changing at all. Other than that, we just are following the subdivision's landscape. Borup: Your landscape plan that shows the evergreens, are that many in existence there now? Breinholt: I believe that's correct. Zaremba: Maybe I misunderstood earlier. Around the perimeter fence line that separates you from the private residences, you are not adding any more trees? Breinholt: No. We are. Yes. Evergreen trees are already there, but there is -- on the subdivision plan -- and I can't see that well enough. I think there is showing additional trees there. Borup: That plan right there is showing 23 trees along the back. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 16 of 94 Breinholt: Along the back. Yeah. Zaremba: And is that in addition to what's already there or is that -- Borup: Well, that's what's on that plan is showing 23 trees. Breinholt: I have used stars to show the evergreens, I believe, and then in between those are I think deciduous trees. Now I thought I had that plan here and I gave it to one of you Commissioners and hopefully you still have it somewhere. I think staff has a copy of that also. Borup: This plan? Breinholt: No. It's the subdivision -- Scottsdale Subdivision plan. It details out bushes and everything. Centers: Maybe that's what Dave McKinnon is referring to, because we certainly can't determine much from this, can we? Siddoway: As far as I can tell, this is the only landscape plan that was submitted with this application. There was a landscape plan submitted with the final plat for the subdivision that dealt specifically with the 20 foot buffer. Of that 20 foot buffer that was approved with Scottsdale Subdivision, the developer was required to plant half of the trees, the individual lot owners were required to plant half the trees. The way that's been interpreted from the plan is that the developer put in all the evergreen trees and the lot owners are to put in the deciduous trees. Typically we get on these Conditional Use Permits, you know, a more professionally drawn plan, but they are not required as part of the Conditional Use Permit to show names or sizes. It is allowed to be a -- what we call a detailed conceptual plan, which shows all the trees and their locations and they don't have to give the names until the certificate of zoning compliance and the sizes are dictated as a two inch minimum by the ordinance and that would be the size that you would likely see, unless you specify otherwise. Borup: Mr. Breinholt, is it your understanding on your plat every one of these evergreen trees that you have drawn are already existing? Breinholt: That's my understanding. I looked at that and I believe that's correct. Borup: So the deciduous are the ones that would be added? The only thing I did notice on that is they are a lot closer together than the normal 35 feet. Looks like they are almost -- Zaremba: So they appear to be a solid wall of trees. Borup: Well, that's not -- after they are grown. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 17 of 94 Centers: Are the dark ones the evergreens? Breinholt: I believe that's correct. Borup: I just glanced at the two and that coincides with this as far as location. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, these evergreen trees show up in this photo here. This is the photo of the site and showing the proper -- the fence line behind it. They are a little difficult to pick out, because they are only about six feet tall, but there is like three in the corner, one there and one there and then some off the site. So it is a little deceiving looking at that plan as to its density, but it is true that all of the evergreens that show up on that site plan are planted there, because I did inspect it. Breinholt: I questioned that with the staff when I was going into this application and he -- one of the staff, I can't remember which one, said that before that subdivision was approved he went out and verified that they were all there. So he and I both believe that they are there. Zaremba: They do look small. Have we verified that they meet the two inch caliper? Borup: Normally evergreens are determined by height and the other by caliper. Siddoway: That's correct. Centers: Thank you. What was the decision from staff on -- you know, knowing we have to continue it for the additional staff report and based on some of the comments, what's the -- Siddoway: Well, two thoughts. One, what I said at the beginning of the meeting was Dave McKinnon thought he might be able to prepare a revised staff report tomorrow and have it to the applicant and the Commission the first of next week for a hearing date next Thursday. That said, the mayor is asking us on all future applications from here out to have staff comments done two weeks prior to the hearing, so that we can get them to the applicants and get written responses back to the Commission. So you are going to start seeing that. The question is whether this needs to comply with that or where it's already in process, if you want to give it a faster time line, you know, we are trying to work with that, but -- Centers: Well, I guess you didn't answer my question, so I'll tell you I'm hesitant to make a motion to approve, if that were the case, because we don't have a staff report. So we just simply continue the Public Hearing to the 18th to give Dave McKinnon time to -- and then we would act at that time. Siddoway: That's correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 18 of 94 Zaremba: I can support that. But not at this point -- give the two weeks time between getting the staff comments and the applicant's response and all that, but I agree with the Mayor, that's a good goal and we should start doing that. I'm not necessarily sure we need to do that at this time. Centers: Yeah. I would agree with that. I would ask that Dave keep in mind the comments that were made here tonight regarding the trees. Well, let me just say this. I would recommend that the deciduous trees be required to be a four inch caliper or diameter. Borup: Four inch? Centers: Yeah. Siddoway: It would be difficult to find. Usually the largest that these nurseries usually sell is three. Centers: Okay. Let's go three. As large as possible. And no balconies on any of the buildings. I mean I'm not speaking for you, David. Or Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: You are so far. Centers: No lighting in the rear. All lighting on the sides of the buildings that face the neighbors, there wouldn't be any lighting, other than required by the city and it would all be downward. Borup: Okay. That's in the staff report. Centers: Okay. Zaremba: Shielded downward. Centers: Anything I missed or anything you want to add? And then I guess I would have to say I would -- Zaremba: Yeah. No lighting in the picnic or basketball areas. Centers: Uh-huh. Siddoway: Let just verify I got it. No balconies on any of the structures. Trees at least three inch caliper. No lighting in the basketball or picnic areas or in the rear of the residences. Is there anything else that I'm missing? Centers: And the elevation submitted with just two windows on the end elevation would be the favorable ones and that's it. And then I guess we want to move to continue the Public Hearing to July 18th. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 19 of 94 Siddoway: Please. Centers: So moved. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? We have one aye. Centers: Excuse me. I thought I said aye. Borup: Two ayes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT Borup: Any questions what we just did? Breinholt: I'm not sure what -- Borup: Okay. It's continued to June 8th -- July 18th to enable staff time to get a report. Breinholt: Will we need to be here for that? Borup: Well, you know, that's -- we are continuing the Public Hearing. We can continue the Public Hearing without taking public testimony. We can continue the hearing without taking any further testimony. We have done that before. Centers: Uh-huh. Well, we'd have to amend that, then. Siddoway: If any issues arise it would be good to get their feedback, though. Zaremba: And I think the applicant would need to address any staff issues and then the public should have the right to comment on that. Borup: Yeah. Centers: Yeah. I agree. Borup: The question on what staff issues, you know, I don't know what's in the report that's different from the report we already have, but -- Centers: Yeah. That's true. Zaremba: I don't know either, but I'd like to give them the chance. It's only one more week. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 20 of 94 Borup: Okay. Okay. So the motion stays? All right. Centers: I would tell the applicant that they should contact Dave McKinnon to pick up their copy of the staff report; correct? About next Wednesday when I get mine. Siddoway: They usually come through the clerk, but we can get them an advance copy just as soon as they are ready. Item 5: Public Hearing: AZ 02-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 24.89 acres from R-T to C-G and R-40 zones for proposed Fairview Lakes by Hopkins Financial Services, Inc. – 824 East Fairview Avenue: Item 6: Public Hearing: CUP 02-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for a commercial building site in a proposed C-G zone and a 192 unit residential apartment complex in a proposed R-40 zone for the proposed Fairview Lakes by Hopkins Financial Services, Inc. – 824 East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Okay. The next item is Items No. 5 and 6, Public Hearing AZ 01-011, request for annexation and zoning of 24.89 acres from R-T to C-G and R-40 zones for proposed Fairview Lakes by Hopkins Financial Services and a joining application, CUP 02-014, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for a commercial building site in a proposed C-G zone and a 192 unit residential apartment complex in an R-40 zone. I'd like to open these Public Hearings and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The proposed site for Fairview Lakes located on Fairview Avenue. You can see it's a large in-fill parcel with the L-shape right in the center of the diagram. It sits on about 25 acres. There are two zoning districts being requested, an R-40, which is high density residential, and general commercial as the second one. There is also a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development that contains a 192 unit apartment complex, as well as commercial buildings sites along Fairview. I have several site photos just to give you an idea of the area. This is standing at Fairview looking north into the site. The Settler's Canal runs through the site, as does the Jackson Drain, so there is two significant waterways coursing across this property. The property to the west includes Fiesta Guadalajara you can see in the photo on the left. Looking across the street, across Fairview, is the photo to the right. And then the development across the street on the south side of Fairview are these two photos. There are some significant existing trees on the property associated with the canals. It is unclear at this time whether the -- I believe these trees will be removed along -- I'm not a hundred percent sure if these are along the Jackson or along the Settler's, but the Settler's under the current plan would be completely tiled. If the trees are removed, there are some significant mitigation requirements under current landscape ordinances. Dirty Harry's Car Wash sits just east of the site. The next thing we need to do is make sure everyone has a copy of the correct plan, because the plan that's on the screen is the plan that the staff report is based on, but it was -- it's a revised plan from what was originally submitted with the application. I believe that all the Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 21 of 94 Commissioners should have a copy of this. I have extra copies here with me, but just to make sure -- Borup: Could you just briefly state what was revised, so -- Siddoway: Probably the most obvious difference is Teare Avenue has a road that connects down to the signaled intersection in this location. The original -- the original plan just had the parking lot through here. Zaremba: ACHD made the request that that connection be a dedicated public road and that's reflected in this change? Siddoway: That's correct. Zaremba: I assume it will be named at some point. I don't see a name on the -- Siddoway: That's a good question. I don't see a name on the plan either. The north portion of the site adjacent to the existing residential areas is where the proposed 192 unit apartment complex is located. The southern portion of the site is left for the commercial building pads. It is still conceptual at this point and would have to come back for a separate CUP for the commercial area, but they are intending for the Conditional Use Permit on the apartment complex area to be the final detailed permit. These are the elevations. They are three story units. They have three building types. This is building A, they have building B, and building C. There is also a clubhouse. This is an elevation of the clubhouse and the floor plan. And then I have some close-ups of the building A. I will hit the highlights for you of the staff report, dated July 8th. The acreage associated with the high density residential is about 9.1 acres. The remaining commercial area that's being requested for C-G is 15.8. One of the more significant issues that needs some discussion is the comments submitted by the parks department, Tom Kuntz, and in looking at the waterways, he's convinced that they should basically go back to the drawing board on this lot and take a look at the water amenities that exist on the site and try to design around them. That would, obviously, require a significant modification to what is currently proposed. Another significant issue is, as mentioned by Commissioner Zaremba, the Ada County Highway District has requested that the street connecting Teare Terrace out to Fairview -- or Teare Avenue out to Fairview be dedicated a public street. According to our ordinances this requires a platting procedure and the applicant will be required to submit preliminary and final plats to accomplish the right-of-way dedication and staff's approval is that the Conditional Use Permit should be continued to allow the plat to catch up with it, so they can go through the process together. The Jackson Drain that goes through the property through the middle of the apartment complex is deemed by staff to be a significant natural feature. It is a year around waterway and as such shall be preserved. It also is an important pathway connection for the city. It is shown on the Comprehensive Plan. It is an existing piece of the pathway over along -- connecting to Meridian Road. There is also a piece built south of Fairview near Penn Station. This would be another piece of that pathway system. One question we -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 22 of 94 Borup: Excuse me. Which drain goes through Penn Station? Is that Jackson or Settler's or combined? Siddoway: They both do. Yeah. Borup: Okay. Siddoway: They merge side by side. Borup: One pathway, then? Siddoway: One pathway. Borup: Correct. Thank you. Siddoway: One question that we have about the pathway is that this Fairview Lakes property was approved for a previous project and in comparing the contours that show up on the preliminary plat for that project and the location shown in this project, they don't appear to match. We are not a hundred percent sure which one is right, but we thought the applicant could at least address their level of certainty of where the Jackson Drain lies per this plan. If you look on page ten of the staff report, it starts a section called additional considerations and these are kind of the outstanding issues separate from all of the conditions that need to be discussed or issues that need to be worked out and either made conditions or deleted. The first one talks about the pathway and the parks department's wishes for the redesign. The second paragraph under that provides an idea that the sidewalk that is shown along the west side of -- in the staff report it says the western most road, but that's this road, it's the road that connects to the signalized intersection, that that could be detached off the street to make it feel more like a path situation. It's, obviously, still going through a parking lot. I think the parks department would suggest, you know, rethinking the area to daylight the Settler's Canal and keep some of that above ground and continue it through. So that's certainly a point for discussion. The preliminary plat's been mentioned. There is a recommendation -- I'm on page 11 now -- for a dust abatement plan. As written here it doesn't say when it should be submitted. We would suggest with the certificate of zoning compliance application. Parking is another item for consideration. The ordinance requires at least two parking spaces per unit. They do provide that, plus an additional 16 for visitors in the clubhouse. The ordinance requires this Commission to determine if that is adequate. Past projects have been required to provide up to one visitor space for every three units. This doesn't go quite that far. The last item that says buffer on Teare, there is an existing residence -- if I can get my pointer here -- on this lot here that as -- as the -- this proposed site plan would connect the street around and provide no buffer for that existing lot. This is suggesting that there maybe should be some buffering required for that lot. With that I'm turning to page 14 on the recommendation. There is some discussion here as to whether the C-G zone is appropriate adjacent to the existing residences or if a C-N zone would be more appropriate. At the very least the C- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 23 of 94 G zone should be required to prohibit certain types of businesses that would be allowed in the C-G zone, such as the list you see there, auto repair, service stations, hotels, truckstops, all of those are uses that would be allowed in a C-G zone. Skipping down the paragraph. The hours of operation are also not yet addressed. Since this is directly adjacent to existing residential, we feel that hours of operation should at least be required to meet the city's noise ordinance, which is 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and expect that no businesses open between those times. Centers: Excuse me, Steve. Didn't you say the commercial that is proposed is just pads at this time and any usage they would have to come back at that time? Siddoway: That is correct. Centers: And couldn't we address the hours of operation at that time? Siddoway: You could. Centers: Okay. Siddoway: But it would be good to just get it out on the table now, so that -- yeah. You bet. Depending on what comes out of the discussion related to the site plan and design issues, we would like to make sure a revised site plan is submitted and comes back to this body before going on to City Council. And that is all I have. Borup: Any questions from the Commission for staff? Centers: Mr. Chairman, you referred to the additional parking and you have seen other projects where the additional parking for guests at apartment complexes was one per every three units. Siddoway: Yes. Centers: That would calculate out to about 60 some for this project and they are providing 16? Siddoway: Correct. Centers: What's really the norm? You have seen three. I mean you have seen one per every three units, but what's the norm? Siddoway: Well, the Commission has often gone with that. That number was actually part of the planned development ordinance before the ordinance was modified earlier this year. So the Commission in the past has often gone with that number, but it's not -- it's not required by ordinance. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 24 of 94 Centers: The reason I ask that is they are a long ways from it at 16, so -- okay. That's all I had at this time. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Tamura: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Tamura and I'm the designer on this project. I represent -- my address is 499 Main Street and my applicant is Hopkins Financial. First, I'd like to thank the staff for their consideration and cooperation on this project. It seems like we worked well together with Dave on this project. What we are proposing is a two phase mixed use development on a parcel of ground that is currently RUT in the county, so we are requesting both rezone and annexation. Our first phase will consist of a 192 unit apartment complex. Our second phase will consist of approximately 110,000 square foot commercial development. Our general design concept was to develop a high quality, well landscaped mixed use development. We were planning on using both the Jackson Drain and Settler's irrigation ditch as water amenities, therefore, the name Fairview Lakes. Borup: You say you are going to use the -- Tamura: Well, what we have shown right now, we have worked real close with John Anderson with Nampa-Meridian, which controls Jackson Drain. Jackson Drain through that existing subdivision to the east of us is piped underneath the subdivision, so the policy with irrigation companies is that we are required by state ordinance to enter and exit the site where it historically enters and exits, but we have got the ability to move and relocate the ditches on site, as long as we maintain the proper easements, and so what are proposal shows then -- and maybe I can address what Steve was talking about as far as the difference in the topog, is that the location that we are proposing is to move the Jackson Drain to the location shown on our plan where it will act as a central amenity. The dotted areas to the sides on each end of it that angle are the proposed future easements of where the pipe ditches will fall within those easements, that, again, we have been working with John Anderson with Nampa-Meridian. The applicant Randy Hopkins will get up and talk about Settler's. We have been working with Settler's also as far as what their policies are with what they'd like to see done with their ditch. It is our goal, if possible, that we'd like to use the Settler's irrigation ditch as a water amenity across the Fairview frontage of our property and then bring it down to the main entrance along this side of the cul-de-sac, but as of right now we don't have permission from Settler's to do that. But, again, our first phase, which is a detailed conditional use, just shows the apartment complex. The second phase, which is our commercial, we will come back with detailed concepts of what we are actually going to do on that, so we are just asking for a rezone and conceptual approval on the commercial portion of it. Last night we approved -- we received approval from the Highway District to obtain a stop light on Fairview that will line up with the Phillips 66 car wash across the street. As part of that condition, as Steve had mentioned, the first go around of what we submitted was not to connect any of the existing streets in the neighborhood. We are apartment architects and one of the things that we are real sensitive about is neighborhoods and how growth and development impacts Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 25 of 94 neighborhoods and one of the things that typically neighborhoods don't want is traffic, but with the light we think that potentially the light will benefit the neighborhood as much as it will our development, because just knowing what the traffic is like on Fairview, it's kind of -- you know, it would help the neighborhood get better access. I think it will also help where it gives breaks in the traffic between Locust Grove and 1st Street to help, you know, increase the mobility of what traffic is going to do there. So we have got that approved by the Highway District. The conditions that they gave, though, for giving us the light was that we connect our street to Teare and then the connection to Clarene will just be emergency vehicle access only. So that connection to the neighborhood will be bollard off and the only time it will be used is for emergency vehicle access only. Kind of a little description of what we are planning on doing on our first phase is, like I said, we are apartment designer architects and one of the main things that we try to do is be an sensitive as we can to the neighborhood, so this project we have got 20 foot landscape buffers on both the north side and the east side. The building in that main courtyard is typically a minimum of 100 feet from each one of the property lines and the way the buildings are designed is they are all what's considered single loaded, so that all of the living space, both decks, living, dining, everything faces the interior courtyard, so the only thing that faces towards the parking or towards these neighborhoods are bedrooms and typically people with bedrooms keep their windows and blinds closed. We have to have egress, because that's a code requirement, but beyond the egress windows where we have got units that face neighborhoods on end units, we don't windows there, and so what we are trying to do is create its own environment inside these kind of interior courtyards. The amenities that we are providing is one is a clubhouse and a pool. We are going to use the Jackson Drain as an amenity through the middle. The other thing that we were trying to attempt to do is we worked -- and it's my fault that we weren't able to connect with the parks department, but we worked with Dave as far as this pedestrian connection and I noticed that he had had a comment that there is a policy with the city that the pedestrian connection was to follow the Jackson Drain. The thing that Dave and I discussed is it seemed like with Fairview that as the pedestrian connection comes up from the south and it hits Fairview and crosses underneath, that what seemed like made the most sense would be to move it across the north edge of Lithia, have them cross at the light so they can get across Fairview, and then bring them up the main central driveway of our project. The recommendation of being a separated sidewalk seems like a good recommendation. We don't have a problem with doing that. And then the other thing that we did was -- it doesn't show on this site plan, but on the -- can you put up the revised site plan? Siddoway: This one? Tamura: You can zero in and it's probably too small to see, but what our thought was is that we could have a pedestrian connection that crosses Fairview, would come up through our main project here, have a pedestrian pathway that went in between our commercial development and the apartments, you know, along through the 20 foot landscape easement over here and along through the Jackson Drain here and then tie in the future to the Jackson Drain, you know, in this one vacant large parcel up north. So our thought was is that we will go ahead and sit down with the parks department and Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 26 of 94 coordinate what this is, but the general intent that we told David is that we don't have a problem of allowing public pedestrian use, you know, along and through our project, so it didn't seem like it made sense that somehow people are going to fight their way across Fairview down here in this southeast corner where we could potentially have a stoplight here on Fairview. So that's why we showed what we did on our project. The time schedule -- Borup: So back on the pathway. So your intention would be that that pathway would exit out to the northwest of your property? Tamura: I don't believe the city has access to that right of way at this time along Jackson Drain, that's my understanding, but I know that in the future that's your goal is to continue that pathway along there. Borup: That's a vacant piece of property now. Tamura: Yeah. Yeah. So I think what our understanding was is that when it came in for development that potentially it would be a condition of approval that we would connect our pedestrian path along Jackson. So that's kind of what we are doing, so we'll stub it out to that location at this time. Borup: Okay. Which is not shown on the plans at this time. Tamura: Well, on this revised plan that was submitted to the city it shows this pathway coming across here and then ending right here at this point. So we brought it from -- Borup: I don't think it does show it ending there. Look again. Doesn't the pathway end at the parking lot? Tamura: Yeah. Yeah. Borup: Okay. Okay. Tamura: What the intent is we will stub it into the neighboring property, then, when the city -- Borup: The intent of it is it will go through your property line? Tamura: Yeah. The other thing about our property on this apartment complex addressing the parking issue -- and, again, just using our own personal experience, typically the requirements on parking is 1.5 per unit. It's our experience that the thing that works the best is somewhere in that 1.75 to 1.8. This project is designed for more the working class of Meridian, so 65 percent of our project is designed as one bedroom, the other 35 percent is designed as two bedrooms. We won't have any three bedroom projects. So we think that our target market that we are going after is working singles and couples. So, typically, knowing that, we have got the large majority of one bedroom Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 27 of 94 that we think that, you know, even though we are only 16 over two, that we will have ample parking as far as -- from our experience of owning and developing apartment complexes. Time schedule wise, we are hoping to start construction on phase one, which will consist of a stoplight at Fairview, the main entrance into the project, and the apartment complex. We are talking to a couple national tenants on our commercial development, but once we get that solidified we will bring in a detailed conditional use as far as what that looks like, how that will layout. The other thing that I discussed with David was the condition on the requirement of building permits and platting. We found a couple of requests that we'd like to make, is one is under the conditional use site specific condition number four, what we'd like to do is we don't have a problem of doing a plat, to go ahead and deed the right of way to the Highway District and go -- and then also provide a plat for the city. One of the problems that we have is since phase two, which is where the road goes through, we still are in a conceptual plan of working out details, but I think what we can do is, one, is David said that we could go ahead and do lot line adjustments, so I think what we could do is submit a plat that would go ahead and -- more or less configured to what we have got shown on our plat, you know, knowing that we could lot line adjust it if there is some changes depending on who our potential tenants were, but what we'd like to do is do that concurrently with the construction of both the road and the apartment development and so the request I'd make is that the language needs to be changed, so instead of upon -- that no building permit shall be issued until final plat is recorded, we are hoping that we could change it to read: Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit on phase one a final plat dedicating the road right of way will be recorded, so that way it's going to take us six months to build this apartment complex, that we can go ahead, build the road, build a signal, build a complex, and then concurrently be working on doing our subdivision plat as part of that process, that we wouldn't be able to occupy our project until the plat was recorded. So that way in talking with the Highway District, they thought that those conditions would work with their timing. The main concern that the Highway District had was that if they weren't required -- if we weren't required to go ahead and dedicate the road right of way and even though they had conditions and we built this as a private road to Highway District standards, was that if we waited too long the standards of both design and right of way may change in the future and we may have something that's under designed. So they'd like to have it dedicated and built as soon as possible and we said our intent was to do that, but just because of the timing of when we'd like to get this apartment complex under construction, we'd like to do that all concurrently. In regards to some of the other issues as far as the Jackson Drain and stuff, we will sit down with the parks department and work out the final details, but those were things that we worked out with staff as far as location and what we showed and that's why this revised plan that came back in was to accommodate both the Highway District and the City of Meridian as far as your wishes. I'm just here to answer questions. Borup: Any questions of Mr. Tamura? Zaremba: Yes. Do you have a comment on the staff's interest in having the commercial area be commercial neighborhood, as opposed to commercial general? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 28 of 94 Tamura: I talked to my client and I know that that was a part of the approval on the first -- when Atwood came through a couple years ago and to protect the neighborhood and stuff we don't have a problem of changing that one lot that's next to the neighboring to a C-N, neighborhood commercial. Zaremba: Okay. So you're being very specific about that one lot, so, essentially, we would be talking actually three zones. There would still be some C-G. Centers: Yeah. But David had been talking C-N, which is adjacent to residential. Zaremba: Okay. Tamura: Yeah. Borup: This area would be the C-N. This area I assume you're saying on the other side of this over here against the other commercial could be the C-G. Zaremba: Would still be C-G, so we would have -- Tamura: Well, what I understood what Atwood's plan was, this was all going to be C-G and then this parcel right here was going to be the C-N. That was our understanding. And I think that's what was originally approved with Atwood's project, because this was the C-N portion right here and so this seemed like it made logical sense that we do this. I haven't reviewed enough of the C-N as far as the uses, but our -- the tenants that we are looking at right now are just more general service, you know, video, you know, soft goods, you know, those types of uses, so more just general commercial uses is what we are looking here. You know, we don't have a problem of relooking at buffering the lot here on the corner. Oh, I guess one other thing that I wanted to add as a clarification. One is when I first talked to David he was thinking that we could potentially do our project, since we had kind of a phased project of detailed and successful, that we could do this without a development agreement, but then later Shari added the development agreement as part of our conditions and I told them that we didn't have a problem with that, but what we would like to do is that once we get beyond Planning and Zoning, that we'd like to be able to sit down with the city attorney to work out the details of the development agreement, so that when we go to City Council that's part of our package that we take to City Council and address the development agreement as part of that. You know, I don't know if that's part of the policy. I know that in some of the projects we have done in the past we went all the way through City Council, we wrote the development after the fact and what we'd like to do is be more proactive, you know, again, timing wise prepare the development agreement ahead of time and then take the whole package to City Council, so that all the T's are crossed and the I's are dotted, so - Centers: Makes sense. Wouldn't this be -- this would be somewhat adjacent to the residential, too, wouldn't it? Would you be opposed to C-N for those two parcels or -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 29 of 94 Tamura: This is probably the biggest question mark of our development. If we are going to look at a third phase, we are probably looking at this, so my thought was is we will do this starting this fall and spring, we are going to do this as phase two, we have got some interest, you know, potentially on these out pads and a portion of this is general commercial and we thought that so we don't paint ourselves in a corner that what might make the most sense is to leave this vacant for right now and then once this happens and the stoplight, come back again to Planning and Zoning, show you what's going to happen. So right now what we did was just show a conceptual thing with the box. This is where the mobile home park sits right now and -- and then this is where the Mexican restaurant sits and so I think that when we come in for the detailed conditional use, we can kind of address buffering or whatever it's going to be, but for right now we just show something. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Could you elaborate more on the -- you had mentioned just briefly the buffering on Teare. It looks like everywhere else you've got at least 25 feet, except for that one lot on the corner. You mentioned you thought -- are you looking at maybe sliding the street in that area a little to the south or what? Tamura: Yeah. I think what we will have to do is, you know, maybe work that out with staff, what would be appropriate there. Borup: Okay. Tamura: You know, I guess maybe I could just throw this out as one of our thoughts is that depending on what potentially could happen here on this commercial development and the connection that's here, that I could see that potentially these neighbors, you know, may have some objections about, you know, having this thing wrapping around them, we thought that depending on, you know, who came to us, that we always had the possibility of, you know, potentially coming all the way up into here where this extension would come across here, you know, and then, you know, include this as part of the rezone, but we thought, well, what we have got is -- if we know that we want to do this, we don't really know what's going to happen here, so we thought is we will work through our marketing, depending on the size of potential future tenants, that we come back and address how that's going to work. I think what the Highway District is going to require is that we just do this portion of the development as far as our first phase. So how this thing connects and stuff I think what we'd like to do is make that part of our detailed conditional use when we come back in with the commercial portion of it. Borup: Okay. Then I have some questions on the -- you talked about water amenities with Settler's. Settler's is coming in right here somewhere in this area; is that correct? Tamura: Yes. Borup: Is that something you're still thinking about doing? That would be kind of a redesign of that area or -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 30 of 94 Tamura: I was going to have Randy get up here and talk, because he met with both Settler's and with Nampa-Meridian. Settler's wish was that we go ahead and pipe the ditch all the way through the site. I believe in Atwood's proposal he was going to pipe the ditch all the way across Fairview to the western edge and then run it up the western edge until it ties into the existing ditch and then have it exist, but have it all underground. Our thought was is that we'd like to go ahead and create, you know, two or three -- you know, a nice water amenity at each entrance and a real large one at the main entrance of our project and that we go all the way down to the cul-de-sac and then, again, next to that C-N development do another nice large water amenity in there and create, you know, kind of a combination pedestrian landscape buffer through there and then, like I said, hence the name Fairview Lakes. Borup: Yeah. You either need to do that or change the name. Tamura: Yeah. So I think our long-term goal of what we want to do is we want to make this landscape wise a real nice project and so, again, we've got to sit down with Settler's and kind of work out the details on how we do that. Nampa-Meridian was real good about, saying, yeah, you know, we will work with you on what you want to do on that, but, again, we haven't got far enough along on the Settler's portion yet. Borup: I wondered -- and you said you were going to get with the parks department. I wondered about any consideration of bringing the pathway here along through the buffer area and then tying in to the Jackson pathway, rather than cutting through the parking lots and crossing all these streets here. Or probably both is what would be logical. Tamura: Yeah. Doesn't it seem like the logical crossing would be at the light? Borup: Right. Yes, it does. Tamura: Yeah. Borup: And I think if we have got someone coming down the street that doesn't have to cross this street, coming right through here, and maybe walk, you know, on a greenbelt type of thing, rather than going through a parking lot also. Tamura: We have got plenty of buffer landscape space in here to provide an additional pedestrian path in there and we don't have a problem with doing that. Borup: And I kind of gathered from reading the parks department that's what they would like to see. It sounds like they would like to see it open, but I don't know what that's going to gain to have it open in that location, but have a pathway through there. Centers: And I would ask did you see a copy of the parks department's memo? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 31 of 94 Tamura: Yeah. I read through the -- Centers: Okay. So you have. I was going to offer you one if you didn't. Okay. Tamura: You know, I guess from our experience I think the more neighborhood connectivity you have, both pedestrian and vehicular, the better off your project is. So I think it's just inviting people into your project. So that's what our goal is to make it as friendly as we can, but we think that with the addition of the light on this project we will be able to really attract some, you know, first class commercial users for the City of Meridian. Borup: Thank you. Any other questions? David? Zaremba: Yeah. In discussing this, have you actually had any contact, talked to the property owners of those four or five houses in there? Tamura: You know, Steve Vogt with Hopkins Financial has talked to the gentleman that's on that corner and he can get up and give some testimony on what his comments were. Zaremba: Okay. And they may be here tonight as well. Tamura: Yeah. Yeah. Thanks for your time. Borup: Thank you. Did you want some comment from Steve on that or wait for public testimony? Zaremba: Wait for the applicant or prior to the applicant? Borup: Steve, do you want to comment on that? Zaremba: Just conversations that you have had with the property owner. Vogt: Steve Vogt, address 111 Auto Drive, Suite 105, Boise, Idaho. When we first started this project I actually printed about 75 letters, walked around to all the existing neighborhoods, even further than the city canvasses for the people that are affected with this development. I had several phone calls, met with some of the neighbors at the door, very little opposition that we had to the project. We had a lot of neighbors just concerned about the apartments, what we are doing with lighting, privacy issues, like you heard before on the previous project. The neighbor that the property is on the corner, he actually called me up and he said he knew development was coming at some point in time, just didn't know what it would be, and essentially he was in support of the project and we told him that we would be conscientious and work with his property to create whatever kind of landscaping buffer and stuff we needed as far as that goes. But the people and stuff that we spoke with that did actually call me and Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 32 of 94 voice their opinions was just concerned with privacy issues and things of that nature, so it was mostly positive. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Kinney: Good evening. Dennis Kinney, 1835 North Teare Avenue. The original proposal that they came in -- the original proposal that they came out with earlier -- we are right here at this point. At that time that was supposed to be residential and it's now went to apartments. We are concerned about the barrier. Borup: Could you elaborate on that? Kinney: Well, we have a six foot fence at the time and -- Borup: No. I mean about the barrier. What -- Kinney: Well, if it's going to be a mound, block, you know, exactly what. Borup: Are you talking about the buffer? Kinney: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. I thought you meant the bollards. Kinney: You know, having seen this tonight with the three story apartments, that's a deep concern. But the barrier -- you know, so we can keep that privacy, that's the main concern. That's all I have. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Kinney: One thing I would like to add, too. You know, with the North Teare Avenue, too, there is a lot of children on that street. That will open up the traffic considerably. That's a deep concern, especially with grandchildren. It's a quiet neighborhood at the time, but with all this complex going in, invariably traffic is going to -- you know, it will be increased tremendously. Borup: Okay. Thank you, sir. Smith: Yeah. Jack Smith, 1751 North Teare. Someone very generously called me the gentleman on the corner there. I do my best. Right there. Yeah. When the proposal first came out it was proposed as a -- Teare as a dead end street and I have no objection to that at all. Like Mr. Centers has mentioned, if a guy owns a piece of property he ought to be able to make a buck off of it and that's fine. I guess I'm a little dinosaur, I wish Meridian still only had 9,000 people living in it, but, let's face it, it doesn't and it isn't Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 33 of 94 going to be that way, but -- but I guess I've beat my head against the wall and I have seen the Ada County Highway District lay down their edicts in the past and sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong, just like on the Curtis extension. That was kind of silly. This -- I think it's really going to disrupt our neighborhood with Teare coming on and being a through street there and I'm going to end up with a street on two sides of my property, instead of just one and I would object to that. Thank you for hearing me out. If you have got any questions. Borup: Okay. Any questions from the Commission? I would be interested in if there is some type of buffering that you feel would help your situation. Smith: Well -- Borup: I mean if your neighbor across the street had a 25 foot buffer, at least on this plan, on this conceptual plan. Smith: It would cross the street here, too. Borup: If something like would help ease your concerns? Smith: Well, I don't know. Like Mr. Kinney said, there is an awful lot of kids in the neighborhood, I have got a couple dogs and every now and then they do get out in the street. I have got a dog run for them. That's going to be -- the street is going to be right along there. I didn't catch if there was going to be a -- if there was going to be a sidewalk along there or not, but I know I put it in the backyard, so that -- and the dogs can get kind of noisy at times if people are walking and that will be a deal. I just -- I really object to Teare being a through street like that. I think you can understand how I feel. Borup: Did you go to the ACHD hearing? Smith: I didn't realize there was one. Borup: Okay. Smith: Had I known about it I would have. I used to work with -- Borup: I think you need to get the mike just a little closer. Smith: I'm sorry. I used to work with a company that we had quite a few dealings with the Ada County Highway District. That was before I retired and I know how they work quite bit, too, but what can you do? Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Smith? Thank you. Smith: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 34 of 94 Delgato: Good evening. Max Delgato, 885 East Willowbrook Drive. Basically I like the idea. It's going to be a little bit better than what we had before. We had a lot of dry grass out there where people were dumping, kids out there doing questionable stuff on motorcycles, so this would be an improvement. The only thing that I have concern with is maybe -- I'm getting a little too far ahead of myself here, but -- of what we are going through here, but maybe a concern over some security and also the buffer and maybe the barrier. As you can see, I'm on the north end right there. I'm kind of concerned about that. As far as the buffer area, would it be a wall or is it just going to be the trees here and is it just going to be that fence there keeping -- dividing that area. Also we don't have any security. What we are looking for as far as in the future if we have any grievances, such as noise, people jumping the fence, crossing over, privacy issues, how would those issues be resolved? Basically that's all I have got to say and those are my concerns. Borup: Thank you. Florczyk: Hi, my name is Dot Florczyk. I live at 1758 North Teare. I live across the street from Jack. And my main concern -- I didn't have a problem with this project at all until you guys said you're going to open up the end of Teare and I -- Borup: What guys? Florczyk: I know it's -- Centers: Yeah. We paid too much for it. Florczyk: I'm going to complain. I'm going to make my complaint and then I'm going to go to the ACHD and make my complaint. But there is a park right behind my house exactly and that park draws a lot of children on their bicycles, walking, whatever, and, therefore, you have got -- Teare Avenue is not that long of a street. Jericho is where everybody goes up and down and they go fast up and down. All right? To open up Teare is just ludicrous in my opinion, because it's offering more traffic going by this park where all these children are at, when they can just go down one more -- two more streets to Teare -- I mean to Jericho and go in and come in around with the signal. I am so dead set against this. I just feel that it's not a very good move. I mean I know we have to have growth and, like Jack said, a person has got to make a buck, but to open up Teare is really a foolish idea. And I do happen to know the head guy of ACHD and I am going to go talk to him. I grew up with him, so -- Centers: There you go. Florczyk: And I didn't realize there was a hearing on it or I would have been there to make a complaint. Centers: What's the head guy's name? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 35 of 94 Florczyk: Don't ask me right now. I'm too nervous. Borup: You did not receive a notice on -- the ACHD hearings don't sent out notices? Is that correct? Siddoway: We were just discussing that, Mr. Chairman, and we are not sure, but we were under the impression that they should. Don't know. Florczyk: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: May I ask -- is your main objection to the project having Teare connect into it? If Teare were still a dead end -- Florczyk: Yeah. That would be all right. Zaremba: That would not be a problem? Florczyk: Yeah. I mean I don't have to face the three story apartment buildings, but -- you know, or have them looking down my backyard, but it's just the opening up that road and I just can't see -- the point when Jericho goes straight through and that's what everybody is used to anyway. I think it's just asking for trouble. Somebody's going to get hit on a bicycle or some little kid is going to run out. There is a lot of parked cars around there. That's just my opinion. Centers: Where is Jericho? Florczyk: It's over -- Zaremba: To the right. Florczyk: Right. Borup: Do we have anyone else? There you go, Commissioner Centers. Centers: Uh-huh. Yeah. Bernard: Hello. My name is John Bernard, 946 Clarene Street. That's supposedly the emergency access that will be blocked off on the right corner of the project. That was in question before, that Steve had -- I had called him about and it sounds like that's still emergency access, so I'm glad to see that. Like these other people, we are saying Jericho with the school in the back, it's got plenty of traffic. I was very much hoping my street wouldn't get opened up into this and I could see these people's point, too, cutting through there. So if the light is going to be at the center of Fairview out there, I'm very Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 36 of 94 glad to see that, rather than make everybody go over to Jericho to a light. It sounds like they got that handled last night, so that relieves me. Other than that, just the dust from when they are building it is something of a concern for us, but that's about all I got. Borup: Thank you, sir. Centers: Mr. Bernard, the dust -- the dust abatement is addressed in the staff comments. Bernard: Okay. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Yes, sir. Laramore: Good evening. My name is Jerry Laramore, 757 East Willowbrook Drive. Right there. I have a letter here from Steve Vogt. Item one talks about a 30 foot buffer. I see on the plans it's 25 feet. I hear tonight it's down to 20 feet. I also am concerned about what they are going to do with the fence and I'm very concerned about the three story apartment buildings. I have looked around, I don't see any other three story buildings close to this neighborhood, and I'm wondering if this is, in fact, the first three story project going in in Meridian. From the plan it looks like I'm going to have a fantastic view straight across -- Borup: This project right here is three story also. Aspen Hills. Laramore: Great. But it looks like I'm going to have a fantastic view of the top of a carport looking directly into a three story apartment building that has an excellent view right into my backyard. Thank you. Centers: Mr. Laramore, if you recall -- and maybe you missed it -- the applicant addressed the fact that these buildings -- the only thing that will look into your backyard will be a bedroom -- bedroom window or bathroom window. Bedroom window. All other living areas face the courtyard area and as the applicant stated, bedrooms are normally, you know, private and people tend to keep the curtains drawn and that type of thing. So I think they have done a good job on the design in that regard and it's a considerable distance from your backyard. Considerable distance. And the applicant will address that. Laramore: Thank you. Borup: Mr. Laramore, you had mentioned some concern on the fence. Was that whether they were going to remove it or what was -- Laramore: What will be done with the existing fence? What type of fence will be put back in its place? What type of trees and shrubbery will be placed there? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 37 of 94 Borup: Okay. And the landscaping has some real detail on the trees. We will find out on the fence. The plan just shows an existing fence. I'm not sure if they plan on replacing it or not. We will ask that. Laramore: Can I get a copy of the most recent plan from somebody? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I have some extras over here at staff table. Borup: Okay. And I was interested -- you said you received a letter talking about a 30 foot buffer? Would you like that placed in the -- part of the record? Laramore: Please. Borup: Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else? Hopkins: Good evening. I'm Randy Hopkins, the applicant. I'm the president of Hopkins Financial, which is at 111 Auto Drive, Suite 105, Boise. 83709. I guess I'll address maybe the simpler issue and then address the neighbors' concerns. On the Settler's drainage, which does go through the irrigation canal, it is a delivery canal, smaller lateral, I mean it's about five or six feet wide and it does go through the center of the property. In meeting with the director of Settler's, they -- they actually requested that it be piped, because they do not want a developer or whatever -- they have maintenance issues, etc. I actually want to create, first of all, what the name implies as Fairview Lakes and I guess -- if we could bring my -- the site plan back up and I might describe at least my general thoughts and as Doug Tamura stated, we just hadn't quite got there yet with exact design, but I will go over of few of your -- Centers: Yeah. You can borrow mine, but I guess I wanted to ask, Mr. Chairman, were there other people that wanted to speak before the applicant responded? Because this is an applicant's representative. Borup: Right. There wasn't anybody that -- Centers: Okay. Here you go. Hopkins: Thank you. First of all, along the frontage there, all the way from here, the Jackson irrigation lateral actually stops right there about at that spot. Not the -- and the Settler's comes across about like so I would think and then the Jackson Drain, of course, is back here. Borup: Do you know what the water volume on the -- on those Settler's is, what diameter piping and -- Hopkins: It would require a three foot -- three foot diameter pipe. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 38 of 94 Hopkins: I don't know how many inches that is. I think -- Borup: No. That's what I wanted to know, the diameter. Hopkins: Okay. But my request, why I wanted to meet -- we met with John Anderson and he said we have actually an excess water problem. We are at the very end of a water lateral. As I remember, Steve, didn't we have 15 inches of water? Yeah. Fifteen inches of water from the Nampa-Meridian and so he really wanted to -- for us to do whatever that we could and my thought in talking to my brother, who I had planned to do the landscaping, is to take advantage of the gravity flow and flow that down here and create some small ponds slash lakes on the entry, make it very my landscaped all the way along. Now with Settler's coming in here, I just simply want to take advantage of the water that is on the site in the maximum degree that we can, both in the design of the apartment complex back here with the Jackson Drain, as Doug mentioned, this is where the water amenity is inside, which I think would help relieve -- I mean as a self- contained somewhat project of everything focused on the inside versus the neighbors' concern about privacy on the back side. So, in general, as the applicant I really do want to create what the name implies as far as Fairview Lakes. And as Doug mentioned, if the walking paths need to come this way also or as Doug originally designed here, because of the traffic light you would think that people would want to be safer crossing there, is exactly how that should unfold from an efficiency standpoint and best standpoint I do not know, but I want to create that in the best way that we can, nicely landscaped, very nice amenity, and as I guess one of the requirements or -- not requirements, I guess conditions or statements or mission of Meridian is to bring future businesses, is that in this location, which is I guess what would be the neighborhood commercial that you were talking about, I generally intend to move Hopkins Financial there, so I will also be a neighbor in this area and that's my intent at this time. So as Doug mentioned of creating some water amenity here. We have got to take advantage of the topography and I noticed on the application one of my questions tonight was is it legal to drill an irrigation well to supplement -- to supplement -- to drill a well to supplement the irrigation, so that we can have the water amenity and landscaping amenity that I desire as a developer and it was answered in the findings there, that you can do that, you cannot drill one for domestic purposes. So I was glad to see that. So I guess I'd like to go to the next paragraph and that is the neighbors' concerns. I apologize for Steve to the neighbors for sending out a 30 foot buffer. That's what we had just generally thought and after Doug's input, 20 feet is a great deal of area and Doug placing the buildings a hundred feet from the property edge here, 100 feet -- and if a building is 30 foot high, that is a low level already with 20 foot of landscaping, I doubt that after a few years a person could even see the buildings and I can say my intent in our landscape plan is my brother owns Hopkins Evergreens and he did the sprinkler system and landscaping for Lexington Hills in Eagle. I was one of the original developer guys in that group and so I really plan to do something that I don't think is actually offered in Meridian as far as a very -- well, I would say what Nahas has done coming off the freeway with very nice, you know, landscaping appearance. Not saying that we are going to do huge berms here, but we are going to take advantage of it, Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 39 of 94 because I think that is one thing that developers always miss is to create the environment. The environment, again, is Fairview Lakes as a place that we can draw businesses, office, and retail to this site. And mainly retail in the front. I think the only real office area is probably the weird little acre site that is in the back that we talked about. So from the Teare Avenue I might mention that ACHD required Teare Avenue -- or Teare Avenue or however you say it, to be opened up as part of our commercial development plan. Centers: Yeah. Let me interrupt, because I was going to ask that anyway. If by some miracle someone can talk to ACHD and eliminate that and continue -- or keep that as a dead end, would you oppose that? Hopkins: I do not think so. Centers: I wouldn't think so either, looking at your plan. Borup: The first design had it closed off. Zaremba: And I think their objection was that if it's connected it was connected by a private driveway and they were saying if it's going to connect it needs to be a public road. I didn't get the impression they thought it had to connect, they just don't want it connected by a private driveway. Hopkins: Doug would have to respond to that. Centers: And they could provide for bollards? Is that the correct term for emergency access? Zaremba: Same thing they are doing with the other street. Centers: Same thing they are doing up above. Hopkins: Yeah. So maybe some opposition by the neighborhood would actually be good, because we don't have any issue with that. We want to be as neighborhood friendly as we possibly can. Centers: I think the first thing that the neighbors should check was were they notified of the Public Hearing. I don't know if you're supposed to be. You need to check if you were. I don't know. We thought -- we think you were. Right? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I had someone in the audience tell me that they only notice those in the paper, they don't send out mailings. Centers: And everyone reads those, don't they? Zaremba: Every day. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 40 of 94 Centers: With a magnifying glass. Hopkins: Another question by the neighbors was the six foot fence. We expected to leave the existing subdivision fences that are there, because we felt with the additional 20 foot buffer of landscaping would provide adequate buffering. That was just generally our approach. That is it. Thank you. I'm excited and looking forward to doing a development that does really promote the name of Fairview Lakes in Meridian. Thank you. Borup: Questions from staff for Mr. Hopkins? Centers: Yeah. Mr. Chairman -- and maybe directed to the architect. You know, you can do a sighting from your third floor level to the distance from the back neighborhood on Willowbrook is it? You can do a sighting and you could have that available. I've seen that on other proposals. Tamura: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, my name is Doug Tamura, 499 Main Street. One of the things that we do on specifics where we neighbors that are concerned about privacy and stuff is that with our landscaping -- I think all the things -- you know, a six foot high fence provides some kind of screening as far as automobile lights and stuff, but if they want to really provide good long term is landscaping and so I think is what we can do is meet with them, you know, come in with a landscape plan and with 20 feet it gives us plenty of room to do whatever we need to as far as large time savings and provide them with the kind of fire -- Centers: Well, I agree with Mr. Hopkins. Your buildings are considerably -- a considerable distance from the back and I saw it with a hotel submission where they did a signing and showed what the neighbors are going -- or what the hotel occupants would be would be seeing, which was negligent. Tamura: We could provide them with exactly what that looks like. Centers: Yeah. Yeah. Tamura: As far as the height and where our building is located and what our -- Centers: Exactly. Tamura: Oh, in regards to the Highway District, I'm not real sure. The first person that we actually worked with was Andrea at the Highway District. One is I don't think they send out public notices, but I think that part of the Highway District feels that it provides a neighborhood service to have access to this light, because of how difficult it is. You know, again, it was more of a condition of the Highway District for us to make this connection with the neighborhood versus what we did, so I think if we had -- I mean if we that disconnected we would still be wanting to go ahead and provide some kind of Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 41 of 94 emergency vehicle access lane. We would still go ahead and dedicate from that main cul-de-sac as a public right of way. Centers: So you think that ACHD did it because they thought the residents on the street wanted it? Tamura: Well, what we do to warrant a stoplight like that, what they do is they look at the impact of both Fairview and adjacent neighbors of how it benefits both and I think that what they look at is the benefit of a light of how a neighbor could access a road like Fairview and potential future access and they see that as more of a positive than as a negative. It's interesting that from a neighborhood standpoint that I knew as a developer that our biggest issue that we always fight is privacy and traffic and I told Randy going in, as long as we cut off the traffic so that wasn't an issue for the neighborhood, that we could gain the majority of their support and that's why we designed it the way we did. Once we knew that we had the ability to get the light, then it became more of a 50-50 issue of hoping that the neighborhood would recognize that as a benefit more than as a detriment of potential traffic. We think with Jericho that's still like creating this traffic break on Fairview, it will give the ability of people to access Jericho and allow more ability to get in and out. We hope that what will happen in the future, even if this has to remain open, that the only traffic that will use that is more just the local -- you know, the local people that live Teara and Clarene. But, you know, it's hard for us to crystal ball what that's like. You know, one is we don't have the problem of the neighborhood going back to the Highway District Commissioners to -- you know, if -- asking if that's a potential -- something they could look at, because, you know, again, we originally submitted it without that connection. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: I'm sorry. I just wondered if I could address a question to Mr. Tamura. Doug, was that -- the light, whose idea was it? Was that you guys? Tamura: Well, there was two things. One is since we do a lot of development, we were real aware of the Highway District's standards, that one of the policies or goals of the Highway District is on a major arterial, particularly streets like Fairview, is to locate lights every half mile and since Fairview -- and this is one of the last large parcels we are going to generate a considerable amount of traffic, we knew that the success of our project was contingent on getting that traffic light there. It met all the conditions as far as what the Highway District was looking for and so that's why we went to the trouble of doing everything that we could to go ahead and get the light. Freckleton: Okay. So I guess the gist of my question was the warrant for light. They took your traffic counts into consideration and across Fairview when they were talking about that location versus Jericho, for instance? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 42 of 94 Tamura: What we did was we proposed the whole warrant and it came out positive that we should have a light just on the merits of our project alone. Each out pad -- each commercial out pad generates as much traffic as that whole apartment complex will generate and each 100,000 feet of -- yeah. Each 100,000 feet of commercial. So just on our project alone it would merit the light. But, again, the Highway District thought, well, as long as we are going to benefit, then put this light in, let's go ahead and let the neighborhood benefit from it, so -- Freckleton: Okay. Borup: I had a question of Mr. Tamura. With your experience with the Highway District, would they be open to perhaps the idea of keeping the dedicated road -- I mean just as discussed and putting bollards in Teara, which would allow the neighborhood not to have the traffic through there, but if in the future if they decided they'd like to have that opened up and like access, they could petition the Highway District at that time and have them removed? Is that something that the Highway District would be open to? Tamura: Yeah. I think if it's the wishes of both the Commissioners and the neighborhood, there is always something I can go back to staff, you know, let them know, you know, what came out of the hearing tonight and see what our possibilities are. Borup: I was just thinking that might be -- that might the best of both worlds to do the same as on the other street, have emergency access only and if the commission is right and the neighbor wants it, it would be there available. If the neighbors were right and the commission is wrong, then it solves the problem. Tamura: It's not much different from having it for emergency vehicle access in. The standards of what we are looking at is, you know, fairly minimal. Well, the Curtis Road example, you know, as long as we are going to do it, we may as well build it to public street standards now and whether it's blocked off or opened up, we can deal with that in the future. So, yeah, I think that's -- Borup: That's definitely the direction I would be leaning towards. Centers: Good option. Borup: All right. Hopkins: I guess since I didn't sign off, thank you very much for your consideration. Borup: Okay. Commissioners, what outstanding issues do we have here? Open issues? Do you still want to testify, ma'am? Aseguinolaza: Marie Aseguinolaza at 885 East Willowbrook. I have a few concerns, especially concerning the original mailing that went out. I don't think you have a copy of Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 43 of 94 it. Like the gentleman already addressed, 30 feet was mentioned, and I wanted to say also that a fence was going to be included in that. I'd like to see a fence that was maintained by the apartment tenants and not by the individuals lot owners. That to me was something that I believe was mentioned in the original mailing. I tend to think that some neighbors might have come out if they would have known no fence was included and it was reduced to 20 feet and I'm concerned about that. So I'd like to see 25 feet with a fence that is maintained by the apartment tenants. Borup: So it is your proposal to -- Centers: You live back here? Aseguinolaza: Yes. Borup: -- to remove the existing fence or put a new one up or put another fence along side the other one? Aseguinolaza: Maybe along side. Something that's maintained by the tenants -- or by the apartment owners. I don't believe that each individual lot owner should have to maintain a fence that's going to keep the -- basically the traffic in the apartments out of their backyards. I think I'd prefer a maintained fence by the apartment. Zaremba: Do you not have a fence now? Aseguinolaza: We do, but it's -- I can just -- to me it's going to save my fence to have a fence that's maintained by them. I can see people scaling our fence -- I don't know. I just see that it would almost be possibly damaging to our fence if that's all that's keeping the apartment traffic out of our backyard and not -- I'd like to have a cement fence of some sort, a block -- cement block. So -- and it's -- I don't know if you have reference to what the gentleman already had that he handed you, but it said fence, didn't it? Borup: Yeah. I just was reading it. It says the landscaping buffers include fencing, berms, trees, shrubberies, etc. Aseguinolaza: So I would like them to stick to what they originally sent out to some degree and maybe 25 feet would be a -- some sort of compromise. Since it's 20 now and they sent out 30, I'd like to see 25 feet and a fence that they maintain. And maybe a cement block type fence is what I was envisioning. I mean there is a lot of things that sound really nice, but they have a nice plan. I like the use of the water and I like how everything, you know, is looking in on their little community, but I was a little disappointed to see what they already set out to some degree. Then my other concern was the 80 feet for the remaining -- or the 75 feet for the buffer and then you got the buildings. Is that parking that's going to be there? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 44 of 94 Centers: You have the buffer, then you have parking, then you have the driveway and then you have more buffer and then you have the building. Aseguinolaza: Because I was hoping to see the -- not -- you know, the parking to me just brings noise. I was hoping to have the buildings and then the buffer and then our housing, keeping the -- you know, keeping the noise from the slamming car doors and the people getting in and out of their cars and the traffic in the middle of the night away from our fence and the buffer and, you know, I was hoping to see it somewhere on the other side, but then, again, that would bring your building closer to being able to see probably the backyard. Centers: Yeah. That's in conflict with some of your neighbors. That's doesn't want -- Aseguinolaza: Parking to me means noise, but -- and those are my only concerns. Any questions? Centers: No, ma'am. Thank you. Borup: Was there someone else that didn't come up earlier that -- Delgato: Max Delgato, 885 East Willowbrook. I just want to know if it's too early to comment on the security issue. Is that something that they are going to have someone else taken care of or -- possibly or is it too early for them to comment in any way? Borup: Yeah. I think they did not comment on that, so they could still get -- Tamura: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Tamura, 599 Main Street, Boise, Idaho. The company that we are working with that's going to develop this complex is Inland Construction out of Spokane. They just completed the Liberty Lakes project on the freeway toward Boise and then also that -- I think the Renaissance II on Maple Grove. They are a large regional apartment complex developer. Typically the security issues like this are more of management style, so I think it will be something that we will have to get from our partner on this as far as how they manage it. The goal of what we want to do is just like we said, you know, a class A -- just singles, couples type of project. So I'm assuming that -- we are hoping that it's not going to require security. I know that on the projects that we own in Boise, you know, because of the mix of tenants and clients that we have on there we don't have those types or problems, but, again, it's all just management driven. Borup: Thank you. Would staff like to maybe just quickly summarize those issues that you felt -- I mean I realize you did that in your report, but -- Siddoway: Yeah. I can take a crack at what I have been writing down during the testimony. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 45 of 94 Borup: Just to summarize those issues that you thought still needed to be addressed or have they been covered at this point or -- we talked about the pathway -- Siddoway: Right. And the pathway, seems like there is still some resolution that needs to happen. The applicant said they would meet with the parks director and work out some of those issues. I would suggest that that should happen before it leaves this Commission to go onto City Council. There has been some discussion -- quite a bit of discussion, frankly, about the buffer along the rear and whether it's adequate or not -- enough or not. One thought I had sitting here was that you could add a condition that trees are added to that perimeter buffer -- and maybe not just on the north, but that trees would be added such that their canopies would touch at maturity. There are quite a few breaks in that buffer right now. That would be a fairly easy addition that would provide some additional buffering. Heard quite a bit of talk tonight about how the applicant intends to develop this plan around the concept of the lakes and it's pretty clear that the conceptual area for the commercial doesn't look that way now and though they may intend to do it, I would suggest that we at least get a plan that looks like that concept that's being discussed. The issue of the bollards and going back to ACHD, I definitely think that issue needs to be resolved one way or another before going onto City Council. There has been discussion of three different zones and incorporating part of the commercial area as neighbor commercial. If that's the case, we will be requiring revised legal descriptions and maps for the new boundaries of those zones and that needs to be done before it goes onto Council. The issue of whether or not the plat should be submitted and allowed to catch up with this application has not received much discussion yet. Borup: Did you listen to the applicant's suggested wording? Did you have any comment on that wording for that one staff comment on the -- Siddoway: Yeah. They were just going with occupancy and not building permits. Borup: Right. Zaremba: Well -- and he was talking about the final plat, I think. I think it's reasonable for us to see the preliminary plat before we move to -- Siddoway: Yeah. It's a separate issue. That one deals with the timing for the building permits in relation to the final plat. We are scratching our heads on that one. Usually there is always a final plat done before building permits are issued. That's pretty standard. The only -- on the other hand, this one is being required by the dedication of that right of way -- Borup: Was the intention on -- maybe I should have asked if you're talking about building permits on the residential or the commercial? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 46 of 94 Siddoway: On the residential. Residential is phase one. There are no commercial building permits until a separate detailed plan is submitted. So it's definitely the residential that they are concerned about. Borup: That is pretty standard that -- final plat before residential permits are issued, isn't it? Siddoway: That is standard, yes. Zaremba: Before the building permit, not just the occupancy permit? Siddoway: That's correct. I'm going to let Bruce take over for a second. Freckleton: However, in most cases with residential it is the subdivision with individual lots, individual ownerships. This is all going to be one lot, one ownership. A little different animal, but -- Borup: So why is there a plat with just one lot? Zaremba: The zones need to be platted, for one thing. Siddoway: The right of way has to be platted. Borup: Right. Siddoway: And then if there -- if the individual commercial pads, if they want to sell those off and a different ownership, those need to be platted. Borup: So the only other choice would be having two subdivisions, one for the residential and that would be a separate plat for the commercial, but that's not what we are looking at. I think Mr. Tamura had a -- Centers: Well, we have seen that on El Dorado and Silverstone. They are platted and then the applicant has come back for a -- moving the lot line; correct? Siddoway: They actually added area and then platted an additional area in that case. Centers: But they were platted to begin with; right? Borup: Did you have a clarification, Doug? Tamura: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Tamura. As a clarification, what we are doing concurrently right now is we are running a one time lot split with the county so that we will have two legal lots, so the residential will be one legal lot and then the commercial would be another legal lot and so the only requirement of the subdivision is to get the road right of way. So that's why we were Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 47 of 94 hoping that if we changed the language that we will have technically two legal lots and the only thing we are going to accomplish is the road right of way paid to the Highway District. But along with that, we will go ahead and plat the commercial so it will reflect, you know, the future final development that will come in. Borup: How much road right of way do you have in the apartment lot? Tamura: One of the things -- one of the conditions with the Highway District that we worked out with -- for us to do -- the main issue was that turnaround cul-de-sac that we have in the middle of our main driveway just south of our apartment complex. They were saying if we were willing to do that, then what we would be able to do would be to dedicate a hammerhead -- and you can that hammerhead turn around dotted into our parking lot. So the intent is -- and then we worked that out with the county, is that we could meet the 250 foot requirement as far as street frontage with that hammerhead dedication. So part of what we are dealing with is running a concurrent one time split, dedicating the hammerhead to the Highway District. Borup: Okay. Then you would be dedicating the north part of the cul-de-sac into the project, would be the other -- Tamura: Yeah. Well, then, the full street right of way that -- you know, inside our project would be dedicated to the Highway District. Borup: Right. Tamura: And accepting that hammerhead. Borup: And that's all the commercial project? Tamura: Yeah. Borup: So the part that's in the residential is just the -- north of the cul-de-sac and the hammerhead? Tamura: Uh-huh. Yes. Borup: Okay. So there is no other interior streets that are dedicated. Tamura: No. It will just be a private parking lot. Borup: Okay. Mr. Freckleton, does that put a different light on -- Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I still believe that the hammerhead and the driveway off the end of the cul-de-sac is still public right of way dedication. Borup: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 48 of 94 Freckleton: Per our ordinances the public right of way dedication would necessitate the plat. Borup: Okay. Okay. Did you get through your list, Steve? Siddoway: I think I had three left. Borup: I interrupted you before you finished. Siddoway: It was after the plat, which in number seven I had -- Borup: What was -- oh. Yeah. Plat was number seven. Siddoway: Number eight I had down as the mitigation issue. I think there is a -- there is, obviously, a lot of trees shown around the apartment complex that are not necessarily required, but there are some substantial trees that I believe may be coming down along Settler's canal that didn't receive any discussion yet, but we should verify that the number of trees in addition to what's required actually do meet that mitigation requirement. Nine was the parking and just need to resolve the -- whether or not the parking as proposed is adequate. And, then, the Teare -- the buffer adjacent to the gentleman on the corner -- or what's becoming a corner and I think the concept that we approved should probably show the buffer and not just have it in words only. The same should probably be done with the detached sidewalk pathway issue. That should actually be shown so your -- like the general concept of how it is, even though we do know he's going to be coming back for the detailed. That would be my suggestion. Borup: Okay. Steve, is there anything on the parking issue -- on the parking issue? Any consideration on the number of units? I don't remember that we have discussed that a lot in the past. I know we have done the 2.3 on some projects and others have been closer to the two, but I thought on those we had more two bedroom units. You know, the idea of this many one bedroom units I hadn't realized that they were talking about to that extent. Siddoway: I think it's a fair statement. I would say most of the projects we reviewed in the past are two and three bedroom apartments, which would certainly warrant a larger number of potential vehicles. So it's just literally up to the Commission's discretion. There is no specific requirement for visitor parking in the ordinance. Zaremba: But the logic would be, though, that the one bedroom apartments mostly would have one car and not be using the two stalls assigned to them. That's where the excess comes. I think. Siddoway: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 49 of 94 Borup: And maybe we should have gotten that from the applicant. You know, I don't know what percentage the one bedroom units have two people living there. And, you know, if it's a young couple and they are both working, they have both got a car. Centers: He said 65 percent would be one bedroom, so -- but that's about -- Borup: Definitely it would be less than we are normally seeing in a two and a three. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, a final issue that I just thought of. The pathway as shown on the plan along the Jackson Drain is a five foot pathway and all of the recent pathways that have been built have all been ten feet wide. So that -- it's not addressed directly in Mr. Kuntz's report, but I believe that he would want ten -- a 10 foot wide pathway there. Centers: I think it's obvious that there is a number of issues to address and I think without a doubt you and Dave would get together with the applicant and talk about your list of 10 items and they were going to get together with the parks department. We want to see a preliminary plat. We leave the Public Hearing open and postpone it to the earliest possible date. I hate postponing, but it's got to be, without a doubt. I think the neighbors can be -- well, I hope you have luck with ACHD. I think that that would be great. I think -- Zaremba: And it would give some time to revisit the issue with ACHD. Centers: Right. Zaremba: And many of the others. The applicant has been cooperative, so I think most of the other issues can be worked out. Centers: And, you know, we had a number of neighbors testify, but I think most of them can be satisfied. I'm pleased to see that, so -- and I think the applicant has a good project, so I would recommend that we continue the Public Hearing. And do we have a date that is possible to meet without pushing? Borup: The second meeting in August is our -- Zaremba: It wouldn't make it by next week. Centers: No. Forget that. Zaremba: August 15th would be the second meeting in August. Centers: That's why I say, is that possible to meet without any -- Borup: Is that enough time for the applicant is the question. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 50 of 94 Centers: Right. Okay. So I would move that we continue both Items, No. 5 and No. 6, Public Hearing AZ 02-011 and Public Hearing CUP 02-014, continue both to the August 15th meeting. Zaremba: Do we need to add to that that we also wish to add a Public Hearing on the Preliminary Plat? That's a question. Centers: That would be advertised separately. It's up to the city. It's not on our agenda tonight. I don't think so. Zaremba: I certainly second the continuation of these two items. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes, Steve. Siddoway: Two things. One, given that we now need to get a revised staff report out two weeks prior it the hearing date, we would like to receive the revised items probably a week before that. We can work together on that, but, you know, getting them a week prior to the date is going to be too tight. Borup: The Mayor wanted it two weeks before the hearing? Is that what he said earlier? So that he hopes we will get it one week before? Freckleton: The goal is to have the staff report to the applicant one week prior to staff's deadline for having comments to you. Typically we have gone with Friday prior to -- prior to your meeting on Thursday. Centers: You know what? I wanted one day extra and I meant to mention to the Mayor the other night and then he was talking two weeks and I was -- wow. Great, Freckleton: Yeah. So in order to hit that -- in order to hit that and have staff -- have a staff report ready for the applicant to look at and review prior to that week that we have to give it to you guys, it's just tightening things up. Borup: So that the applicant would need to have their submittals in by August 1st, approximately, if we are meeting on the 15th? No. That's not true. You say a week before that. You're still okay with the -- that going to be somewhere around the 25th of July or something. Okay. They are still -- I guess the motion can stand. Siddoway: My second point is in relation to the plat being able to catch up with this. Our deadlines for submittal are the 15th of every month and if this follows a standard Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 51 of 94 procedure for scheduling, our next deadline is July 15th, which is this coming Monday. Assuming they are not going to meet that, I don't know that they are ready to submit a plat on Monday, but anything submitted on Monday will be going on the September 5th -- yeah, September 5th hearing date. The next deadline will be going in October. Borup: Other than the notice requirements, where this is an existing application, is there any leeway on moving that up a little bit? I mean I know you have got the deadline on the notification that have to be met with, but -- Siddoway: In a case like this we may be able to put it on a second meeting and try and bump it up. We still have to make sure we keep the proper comment time for the different agencies, as well as the notification time, but we might be able to bump it up half a month or something. Borup: It just didn't look like a real complicated plat, compared to -- Siddoway: Exactly. So, you know, something like that could -- rather than putting it on the standard schedule, it might be able to be moved up, as long as we are maintaining adequate time for the different agencies to respond to the plat as necessary. Borup: So it sounds like the best effort would be made there and I guess the applicant would live with whatever that best effort is. Okay. Well, we did have a motion and passed and so we are concluded with this application. The Commission wants to thank everyone. Does the Commission want to go on or do we need a short break? Zaremba: Five minutes. Borup: Yeah. Okay. Well, we will take a short five minute break at this time and then conclude the rest of our meeting. (Recess.) RECONVENED AT 9:43 P.M. Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 02-012 Request for annexation and zoning of 2.02 acres from RUT to R-4 zones by Jerald S. Frank – 2310 South Locust Grove Road: Borup: We will go ahead and begin. Item No. 7, Public Hearing AZ 02-012, request for annexation and zoning of 2.2 acres from RUT to R-4 zones by Jerald S. Frank, 2310 South Locust Grove. We'd like to open that Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Actually, Steve is -- Freckleton: I will cover it. Mr. Chairman, I'll make this real brief. This is kind of a housekeeping issue. This address -- in October of 2000 City Council approved hookup to city sewer for a county parcel. They had a septic system that was failing and in Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 52 of 94 October of 2000 Council gave them that approval, conditions of that approval that they would move forward with annexation and zoning and also connection to city water. Those last two items never happened. They never got the annexation and zoning, they never hooked up to city water. Low and behold recently their well went south on them and that necessitated them coming back to us and requesting water. So we allowed them to hookup to water, but we held up their permits for them to do that until we had the application in hand for their annexation and zoning. So that's where we are at today is the annexation and zoning is now coming before you and staff has a recommendation of approval and that's where we are at. Borup: Thank you. Is the applicant here tonight? We see none. Zaremba: I would ask one question. We have a letter from Jason Hopkins, president of the homeowners association in the Raven Hill Subdivision. Can anyone point out to me where Raven Hill Subdivision is? Is that -- Borup: I believe it's -- Zaremba: The subdivision that wraps around this property? Borup: Is that correct? Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: Is that an R-4 zoning? Borup: Yes. Siddoway: Yes, Commissioner Zaremba, it is R-4 zoning. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. So this application is for the same zoning as that subdivision, correct? Siddoway: Yes. Borup: And it's not adding anymore housing. I think he was very confused in his letter. Centers: One thing you want to do is learn by mistakes and hopefully the city learned by their mistake back in October of 2000 by not requiring the application at the time they approved the sewer hookup and -- you know. Anyway -- do you know what I'm -- Zaremba: They took a word of mouth promise on -- Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, at the time that this did go through in the year 2000 we did have a formal agreement with the applicant that was signed and sealed and delivered saying that they would move forward with the annexation and Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 53 of 94 zoning in connection to the city water. This was an agreement that was prepared and recorded -- prepared, signed, recorded in the county records, so -- Centers: But unenforceable, maybe? Freckleton: Perhaps. Borup: Did it say how fast they would move forward? Maybe not. I guess everyone has got their own pace. Did we have any other -- Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing be closed. Centers: I second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the Council recommending approval of AZ 02-012, request for annexation and zoning of 2.02 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Jerald S. Frank, 2310 South Locust Grove Road. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT. Item 8: Public Hearing: RZ 02-001 Request for a rezone of .97 acres from L-O to C-G zones for Lot 3 Block 2 of Amended Magic View Subdivision for a Subway sandwich shop by Blaine and Cynthia Jacobson – northeast corner of East Magic View Drive and South Allen Street: Borup: Thank you. Item No. 8, Public Hearing RZ 02-001, request for rezone of .97 acres from L-O to C-G zones for Lot 3 Block 2 of Amended Magic View Subdivision for a Subway sandwich shop by Blaine and Cynthia Jacobson. This is I think additional to an application that we saw a few months back. We'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Apologies for the mix up on the staff report. I'm not sure what happened, but you now have a copy, which I will go through the highlights with you, since you, obviously, haven't had a chance to read it. It is a request for a Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 54 of 94 rezone from Limited Office to General Commercial on the lot outlined on the screen in front of you on Magic View Subdivision. You can see the site on the other side of the car in this photo. This is looking across the site with the existing Chevron in the background. If you look at the second paragraph under the summary, the primary reason for this rezone request is that the applicants would like to build a taller sign than is allowed in the L-O zone as currently designated. L-O would allow a maximum height of 15 feet under a center sign, whereas the tallest sign allowed in a C-G zone would be 35 feet. Trying to get visibility out onto Eagle Road. Page two simply goes through the standards for the zoning amendment. If I were to point out one, it would be item E, will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained harmonious to the intended character of the general vicinity. Staff finds that the recorded development agreement on this project limits the development or redevelopment to office use, unless otherwise modified by action of City Council in the future. The construction of the taller sign we feel would not be harmonious nor appropriate in the appearance with the intended office character of the immediate vicinity or the development to the east or north and with that I will skip over to page four with the recommendation that says we do not support the requested rezone and recommend denial of this application. The subject property has been through many public hearings regarding the proper zoning designation of the property and proper uses and even height limitation on the building and staff does not feel the need for additional signage is justification for a rezone to a higher intensity designation. Further, it goes on that we wouldn't support a variance either, because it would not meet the findings on the issuance of a variance under the current zoning designation. So with that intro I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? What are the minimum required findings for a variance? Siddoway: You basically have to show that there is -- it's not possible for them to meet the ordinance and in this case it's not impossible for them to do a shorter sign. Borup: Okay. Is the applicant here? Like to come forward? Larsen: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, my name is Cornell Larsen, address is 210 Murray Street in Garden City. I'm here tonight representing Blaine and Cynthia Jacobson on the request we have -- or you have before you. We were kind of actually glad you didn't have the staff report, but we'd like to address a couple of those issues that are in there for your consideration. We believe that there is some justification to rezone this site and that's why we sent the application to you. We have had several inquiries for different types of uses than just office on that site. Those uses would be primarily in the proposed office facility -- retail facility that was next to the Subway -- Subway site itself and I have a little site plan here I'd pass out to -- I think I got enough copies for everybody. I'm not sure there was one in that staff report that made reference back to the site plan that we submitted previously. Siddoway: Cornell, if the staff could get one we could put it up on the screen for everyone. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 55 of 94 Borup: This is the same one we have in our -- this is just blown up a little more. Larsen: I highlighted the sign location that we had shown there and as we have gone through the Subway development and potential for the future office retail facility there, we have had users that were interested in like a cell phone facility, we have had users inquire about it as a small medical supply store, pharmacy, some of those issues that would like to be around and near the hospital or around and near the freeway and so part of the request for a rezone was to enable us to get some of those other service oriented uses that are retail in nature to locate at that location. And then in addition to that, as staff mentioned, the signage was an issue and what we were proposing to do is where we had highlighted the sign in yellow, that's where we had shown it in our -- some of our previous submittals to you is to place the sign there that was in compliance with the C-G zone that allows for a maximum of a 20 foot high sign and if you look at your ordinance regarding a center sign, if you had more than one building you could potentially apply for a center sign of 35 feet. It was our desire to have a higher, more visible sign there, because that's kind of the nature of the fast food business and we could isolate that sign by screening it with the building from any of the residential to the north and it would be pretty much in the same general area as the signage that is there now that exists. It would not be particularly visible to the residences to the north and it would certainly enhance our business and the visibility of that business when it's accessed from the -- from the street either down Magic View or down Allen Street. We also -- in going through the standard zoning amendment conditions, really, the only issues that pertain to not supporting this application or the issues of signage, we -- and we understand that the signage is important to both the city and to the business locating there, so -- but also it's important for us to stress that we have other uses that may also be supportive of the businesses in the area that would have some desire to locate there. And it's also important that if the Subway facility is there, that if the traveler is going by that he has the opportunity to stop there, as opposed to drive farther north on Eagle Road looking for services and it enables us to minimize some of those impacts of the traffic that may head north from just the individual that's looking for a place to stop and have lunch. So the signage would help get that individual to the site. And so in short we weren't really proposing a 35 foot high sign, but we would like to be able to have a 20 foot sign and we would like to have the zoning changed to the C-G zone in order to help facilitate us in leasing the building to get some additional uses that may fit in there. If you are looking at that building from the north side and you are in that neighborhood, you -- the building that we have proposed there is 18 feet tall and with the angle you might be looking at it from the ground beyond, your chances of seeing the sign in that location would be fairly limited in view and exposure and when the office -- future office retail that we have shown on that map is constructed, then your angles from the sign would pretty much be cut off from where the residential area mostly is and I don't know whether there is any residents here to speak to it or not, but I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you might have. Centers: Mr. Chairman. So you would be happy with a 20 foot sign? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 56 of 94 Larsen: I believe we would be fine if we could have a 20 foot sign. Centers: And, secondly, when we looked at this two and a half months ago and the Council approved it, why wasn't it brought up at that time? Why didn't you go for -- you knew you needed a sign with the Subway. Larsen: Yeah. It really came up as a result of the Subway franchise people coming to visit the site after the approvals had been brought up. It was their desire to have a larger sign and, quite frankly, some of the signage issues and some of the use issues have came up as we have gone forward with the project and been able to get it out to the public and had all the appropriate approval people look at it from the franchise standpoint. Centers: And you and staff can answer. Even if the C-G zone were approved, you would have to come back for any use on that property. Larsen: We have to come back for another PUD or conditional use. I believe the condition previously was -- and Steve might help me, but I believe the previous condition was that in order to do the second building we had to file a PUD application, which would then list the uses that might go into that facility. Centers: Regardless of the zone you have got to come back before you can build anything there. Larsen: Before we can build anything other than the -- Centers: The Sub. Right. Larsen: Correct. Centers: And you're satisfied with a 20 foot sign? Larsen: I think that's -- we are fine with that. Centers: Okay. That's all I had. Thanks. Zaremba: My recollection of this was that the future office building was for the sole purpose of being the corporate headquarters of the local Subway franchise. Larsen: They will occupy -- Zaremba: And no other -- nothing else was going to be in that building. Larsen: No. They were actually intended to occupy about one-third of that building to one half of that building, depending on their needs and they had some space available in there for lease. And I apologize -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 57 of 94 Zaremba: I missed that. Larsen: I apologize if we didn't convey that to you at that time, but that was the intent. They do not have the need for that large of a facility for their corporate Idaho headquarters here. Centers: And then a question for staff. How tall was the bucket? That gives me, you know, relevance. How tall was it? Anyone remember? Siddoway: Sixty feet, wasn't it? We are not sure. It was probably 60 feet plus. Larsen: A telephone pole is about 40 feet. Centers: Yeah. This is a ten foot ceiling, isn't it? Larsen: Probably. Centers: Okay. Borup: I think most of the signs on Fairview are 35 feet, aren't they? Siddoway: All the center signs are. The signs -- I believe all the signs, for example, out at the crossroads shopping center, the 35 foot center signs, and then -- do you know if that's true for sure? Siddoway: I think they are. And then they have the monument signs for their ads. Borup: Yeah. Siddoway: They give you a sense of what a 35 foot sign is. Borup: Okay. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Anything else from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Thank you. Larsen: Thank you. Borup: Is there anyone else to testify? Do you still -- whoever is first come on up. Boyd: Commissioner, Members of the Commission, my name is Jim Boyd, I reside at 202 North 9th in Boise, Idaho, and I was speaking on the behalf of the development of this project and Magic View and we have been before you several times in the past year I guess it would be. We are not here to necessarily oppose Blaine and Cynthia in what Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 58 of 94 they are doing in terms of their request here tonight. Probably the one thing that we would be concerned about -- and I think it was mentioned earlier about the fact that if there were a rezone, any use would be conditional use, because the concern we would have is we have got there the 30,000 square foot office building known as Lincoln Plaza there now, we have got Mountain West Bank that's in there as an office use across the street from this proposed site. Also there is another office building that will go in between the Mountain West Bank and the Lincoln Plaza building. I think it will be about a 17,000 square foot office building. And then to the north of the subject property where the Subway is proposed are two other lots, a total of three lots there and the Subway will go -- number one lot would be on the top, the center lot would be two, and lot number three would be the southerly lot where the Subway goes. So the desire from a development point of view -- and I think Blaine Jacobson is concurrent with this, that we want a use that is compatible to office. That's what we told the neighbor to the north is that this would be -- would be office, with the exception of a possible restaurant. So that's what was requested here was a restaurant and, again, as long as the use is compatible with office, we are not opposed to it, but I do know that in the C-G zone there are uses that would not be compatible to office and I think that we are not opposed to having a little taller sign to meet their needs, so -- we don't want a real tall one, but one that's tall enough to see from the street when you're approaching that area. Borup: So, for example, like a cell phone -- cell phone business and things like that? Boyd: There are compatible uses to office. Centers: Dry cleaners. Boyd: I don't know. I hadn't thought of that. Centers: I mean -- Boyd: It would be. That's something handy that supports the office uses that you're going to have around there and certainly the Subway restaurant I think is a great alternative to -- as a healthy sandwich to some of the other fast food choices there. So, again, we are not in opposition, we just would want those uses that would be restricted, so that they are compatible. Centers: And fill me in. I know we have met -- you represented another applicant in the same subdivision? Boyd: I was involved with a developer, Winston -- W.H. Moore Company involved in this Magic View Project. Centers: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 59 of 94 Boyd: And it consisted of that -- started out with two five acre parcels in that -- this street that you see between -- that comes off of St. Luke's and then drops down into Allen Street. That was that new street that come in and split those parcels. Centers: Right. Okay. Did they break ground on the hotel that's down near the interstate? Boyd: That -- did they break ground on the hotel? Centers: Uh-huh. Boyd: On the interstate? Centers: Yeah. The Hampton Inn. I was just wondering if they broke ground on it. Freckleton: Not yet. Centers: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Horel: By name is Chuck Horel. I live at 3043 Autumn Way in Meridian. I'm just to the north of this project. Just a couple concerns. I'm not against Subway in any way. I think their application was above and beyond board and everything. I have got a couple questions I'd like to clarify, please. One of the things -- are other businesses negated in this location by an L-O designation and, if they are, why? I mean this was -- this was all planned as L-O and so, hence, why are we going to C-G and then one of the other questions, if it's C-G would that allow for 24 hour operation? Zaremba: The C-G zone allows much heavier uses than an L-O does. Centers: But they would have to come back for approval of any development other than the -- Horel: As it stands right now, any businesses that are designated or that would fall within the parameters of L-O. Everybody here is in agreement that, hey, that's the deal, let's go with that and I don't know why that would -- I'm just -- when anything like this happens I get this little sneaking suspicion that there is an ulterior motive to change this and I don't know why. Centers: I think it opens up their opportunities for possible users. And even with the L-O zone we are able to approve retail. Borup: There is a lot of conditional uses in an L-O zone. Bars -- well, that was one that jumped out at me first of all. But, you know, laundromats and mortuaries and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 60 of 94 Zaremba: Those are conditional, though; right? Borup: Well, the mortuary is a permitted use, but that's -- Horel: And I guess my other comment -- Borup: A truckstop is a permitted -- a conditional use and I think that's what Mr. Boyd was saying that they wanted something going in that would be compatible with the office. It sounds like, as staff mentioned, probably one of the reasons -- it sounds like one of the reasons for the request is to be able to get a 20 foot sign instead of a 15. Horel: Right. Right. And I don't know that anybody would have any objections to a 20 foot sign as compared to 15. And just another comment -- and I know the staff works really hard at preparing these and in the past, you know, the time and effort they have put into it when they come up with their suggestions and recommendations. The City Council hasn't necessarily followed those, i.e., the 65 foot McDonald's sign that shines in our -- you know, but that's a moot point and that's another issue, but like I say, I really appreciate their time and effort in preparing this report and thoughtfulness that they have put forth in preparing this report. Borup: That sign was different than what this Commission recommended Horel: I know. I know. I appreciate that. That's my comment and -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. Lloyd: Commissioners, I'm Michael Lloyd and I am also a neighbor to the north of the property. I live at 3091 East Autumn Way. That would be the property -- so I know that the city has gone to great lengths over the past number of years, actually, to come up with a comprehensive plan and to modify that plan and the zoning according to a layout that would be compatible both with existing uses, existing neighborhoods, and the development that is going on that is so much needed for the growth of this community. Of course, one of the -- in that plan this area being designated as limited office we feel will access the buffer zone between the commercial uses and the neighborhood uses and we have been before the Commission many times and testified many times on the developments that have gone forth there. In fact, one time we were asked by a developer if there was anything that we didn't oppose and I think it should be noted that we did not oppose the Subway going in and we still do not oppose the Subway going in. We think that that was in the original development agreement in terms of an ancillary office on the further part of that parcel. However, we would and we do oppose any change in zoning to the commercial zoning and we do oppose that, because of the broader types of things that that type of zoning allows. Centers: Who is we? Lloyd: Myself and the neighbors that live around us. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 61 of 94 Centers: Do you have a petition with you? Lloyd: I don't have it with me right now. Centers: Are the other neighbors here? Lloyd: Chuck is. Centers: We have heard from him. Lloyd: And the Bowens are not here that I could bring a signed copy from them. Centers: Okay. So you're representing yourself tonight? Lloyd: Okay. I'm representing myself. Centers: Okay. Lloyd: And in the next meeting, if we have another one, I'll make sure if I say we that I'll bring a petition. The signage being with respect to the tallness of that and shining into the neighbors is another issue that we would have. So I just would like to say that I do oppose that zoning, I do not oppose the Subway. I believe that they can build their property there and get the uses that they need for that Subway without a rezone. I would oppose any type of retail or heavier uses that would come about because of the change in the zoning and I believe that that should also be -- if the reason for a change in zoning -- I think you have to have a very good reason for a change of zoning. If the reason for the change of zoning is to have additional retail use in that area, that should be stated in the application. Thank you. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Are you opposed to all retail use in there, then, of any kind or just certain types of retail? Lloyd: So for retail any -- Borup: We are talking about -- Lloyd: Any use that would be -- Borup: -- on this application just for the -- you know, for Lot 3 as they said. Lloyd: Yes. Borup: Lot 1 and 2 -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 62 of 94 Lloyd: I believe there are types of uses that are available under Conditional Use Permit in the L-O zone that possibly would fit that type. I mean if you think about it, even the Subway itself is a type of retail use in terms of the -- Borup: Well, it's a restaurant, so it's a conditional use. But retail stores aren't -- don't even have conditional use in an L-O. Lloyd: Okay. So then -- Centers: So you would agree with Mr. Boyd, for the most part, that you're not against retail if it's compatible with the businesses, because you weren't against the Subway and that's compatible. So would that be a fair statement? Lloyd: So when you say retail, I guess the things that come to my mind when I define retail are stores where you can go in and you purchase items, oftentimes those stores draw a lot of traffic and have uses that often go passed like a 9:00 to 5:00 and 9:00 to regular daily use. Centers: Well, there was mentioned cell phones -- Borup: Have you seen the site plan? Lloyd: Yeah. That was not given to any of the neighbors, so the only thing that I have seen in -- Borup: Well, it was the same one that was on the -- Lloyd: Yeah. That's the first time I have seen that. So I would be opposed to the change in zoning to a C-G and to the additional uses that that would allow. I would not be opposed to the uses that are allowed under the conditional use of the L-O zone. Borup: Okay. Lloyd: Did I clarify that? Borup: Yes. Thank you. Lloyd: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Final comments from the applicant? Larsen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Cornell Larsen again. I just want to make sure that the neighbors realize that it was not the entire site that's outlined in the black line on the screen, that it's the lower one-third and that the office buffer would remain in place between this zone and the neighborhood zone. There would be two additional lots in there that would still remain in the office. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 63 of 94 Centers: That's lots one, two, three. Larsen: Correct. Centers: You're planning for a rezone on Lot 3 and that's what I want to clarify, too, that the whole thing was outlined, which is very misleading, so -- Larsen: And then the other thing I wanted to clarify is the Comprehensive Plan in that area when it was -- before the new one was adopted, it had that shown as a mixed use facility and before the new plan was adopted this application was submitted and we really -- we are really not looking for any uses that aren't particularly compatible with office. We think that a pharmacy or a cell phone facility or something that might be a medical supply store would be something that would be very advantageous to have in that area due to the proximity of the hospital and the people that might be using it at the hospital or the need for cell phones by a traveler that may need some work on one or etc. So some of those needs are things that we feel would be advantageous to the area, but not detrimental, and we realize we have to come back through for the conditional use on those -- on those zones. Centers: You really only have room for one more user besides Subway. Larsen: One or two -- two tenants, maybe 1,300 square feet each, and then the Subway facility itself. So we would have smaller tenants or one 2,600 square foot tenant, roughly, that would put us up to 3,000 and that user itself most likely wouldn't be a large draw type of user. Borup: Is that a two story office building? Larsen: It's a single level. Borup: Single level. Okay. Larsen: Projected with the parking requirements right now. So we wouldn't really see a user that would have a great deal of traffic that might come to that facility. The restaurant would probably generate more traffic than whatever retail user we might have there. I don't know whether that eases any of their concerns or maybe want to come back again, but, in any even, that was the responses I had in regards to the two gentlemen's comments. Borup: So was that clarified, that any future use for that building would still come back before us as a conditional use? Larsen: It was a condition, I believe, when the Subway went through that the next building would require a PUD conditional use application is my recollection. I don't have Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 64 of 94 those approval conditions in front of me, but I believe that was correct, and so as a result of that, when that building is developed by the applicant you will see it -- Borup: That would be the building. How about the uses in the building? Larsen: You would probably see the uses -- each use thereafter, the way that was worded. Borup: Each individual -- Larsen: Unless it was a use that fell in the L-O zone, unless it was an office use, but you would probably see it. Centers: Would you confirm that, Steve? Siddoway: Well, I would recommend clarifying that as part of your motion tonight, but -- because it's my recollection that the reason for the required Conditional Use Permit was because of the two buildings on a single lot, being the Subway and the future office. So certainly the second building will have to come back. Whether or not each individual user would have to come back I don't think is clear, as far as I recall in that prior approval. Larsen: I'm not sure each user would have to come back, unless it wasn't a use that was permitted in the L-O zone, which is -- Centers: Unless it was a C-G zone. Larsen: Yeah. But if it's a C-G zone we could certainly make that a condition of the rezone if you wanted to. Again, we are looking for uses that are compatible. We are not trying to hide anything. We don't -- we won't have a use there like a bar or something like that. That's just not going to work for what we are trying to do. Borup: I just looked over the permitted uses in an L-O and I don't see anything that's not office-related. There is a lot of conditional -- Centers: L-O or C-G? Borup: L-O. I think what he's saying, if it was zoned C-G it would still be anything other than permitted uses in L-O would need a conditional use. Centers: Okay. Borup: That would be a restriction that could be put on. Centers: That would be a good restriction, because the Subway was a permitted use in the L-O. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 65 of 94 Larsen: No. It was a -- Borup: I think it was a conditional use. Centers: Was it conditional? Borup: Yes. It's conditional. Larsen: And was also permitted under the development agreement as an ancillary use. Siddoway: It was also conditional because of the drive-thru. Larsen: Correct. Yes. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Larsen: I believe that's all I had. Centers: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would move that we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT. Centers: Give me that again, Mr. Chairman. Borup: On? I said motion and second. Centers: Yeah. What you just said. Borup: Oh. Well, I was just thinking out loud, I guess. Centers: I see the neighbors' concerns, but -- Borup: There is a lot of uses in the L-O zone that are conditional. I mean a bar is one of them. So -- and they would have to come back before us. Anything that I could see here that's permitted in L-O, accounting services and administrative, you know, it's all -- you know, medical clinics, all those things are compatible, but I think the applicant was saying if it's permitted in an L-O it would not need a conditional use, which makes sense. Anything that was conditional use in L-O would have to come and then C-G would -- anything in a C-G would all be conditional use, unless it was a permitted L-O, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 66 of 94 Zaremba: I'm uncomfortable with doing that. There was so much discussion and so much thought that went into having this end up being an L-O, I'm not very much in favor of saying, oh, well, let's make it a C-G and say that has to comply to L-O, just to get a taller sign. I mean that's -- but I plan to patronize it. Centers: However, staff has said that they cannot apply for a variance on the sign and I think they are entitled to a sign and 20 foot is not very tall. Zaremba: I don't have a problem with that. If there was a way to get it from the variance, I could go for that. Centers: According to the staff and he's agreeing with that. Zaremba: I'm uncomfortable making it C-G. Centers: So if we made it C-G with the proper conditions where they had to come back every time, they are not uncomfortable with doing that. Borup: There is two things on the C-G. One, they want to go five feet higher on the sign and the other to come back under conditional use for some compatible retail uses and I can see some retail uses that I think would be -- I mean a cell phone store, a medical supply store -- Centers: Well, I think the area probably needs something like that. Borup: Yes. And I don't know that -- Zaremba: That's not been done under L-O? Borup: L-O does not allow retail. I guess, unless you get a different definition for retail. Centers: The other thing is that it backs right up to the Chevron and McDonald's, you know. And on the corner. Maybe it should have been C-G to start with and the developer screwed up. But that's the only way -- Borup: Well, there is some things in C-G could be pretty intensive. I think they are right to limit a lot of the outright permitted C-G uses. Centers: Well, the developer -- Borup: A hotel would be one of them. You know, laundries. Laundromats. Centers: Or the applicant, I should say, is not against coming back every time, so, you know, I would like to hear from staff how we can make that so restrictive that they have to come back for any use if we give them the C-G zone. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 67 of 94 Borup: I think we just state that any use that's not permitted -- a permitted use in L-O. Centers: Right. Borup: That quantifies it. Is that -- I know it's not -- I know that's not the staff recommendation, but doesn't that clarify things specifically? Siddoway: That scenario would allow them to apply for a retail use on Lot 3. The current zoning does not allow for it to be retail even under a Conditional Use Permit. I would point out there is some discussion about this area needs commercial and the Comprehensive Plan is showing all of this area as commercial south of Magic View and then it maintains the area north of Magic View and around, so that all areas adjacent to existing residential are limited to office only. Zaremba: My feeling is that's been talked through so many times I'm not comfortable changing it. Borup: I think we ought to have a motion and move on. Centers: Yeah. Well, I guess I'm just the opposite, because of where it sits and if we can make them come back for any use that would not have been allowed under L-O to get a five foot higher sign, because they are not going to be able to get it with a variance and, you know, I think they are entitled to a sign. Borup: So we have got a 20 foot sign next to an 18 foot building. Centers: Yeah. None of the people here tonight were opposed to the 20 foot sign. They didn't want to see uses in there that are not compatible with L-O and I agree with that. I think they would agree, too, that there is certain types of businesses that are very compatible and I think Mr. Boyd agreed. So I'll make a motion and it -- I don't know how -- you're going to have to get involved here, Mr. Chairman, it's very obvious. Zaremba: I can second a motion whether I agree with it or not. That just brings it to a vote. Centers: I would, Mr. Chairman, recommend -- that we recommend approval for the City Council Item 8, Public Hearing RZ 02-001, request for a rezone of .97 acres from L-O to C-G zones for Lot 3 Block 2 of Amended Magic View Sub for a Subway sandwich shop by Blaine and Cynthia Jacobson, northeast corner of East Magic View Drive and South Allen Street. Any sign not to be taller than 20 feet on the entire portion of Lot 3 and any use not presently allowed under the L-O zone would have to come back for approval from this Commission and subsequent City Council. Borup: Approval of the conditional use? Centers: Correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 68 of 94 Borup: Changing the tape. Zaremba: I second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? Zaremba: Let me think a minute. I think your motion was restrictive enough that I could be satisfied with that. It works. I call the question. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I'd like the clarify one thing. On the 20 foot sign limitation, the C-G zone -- well, my question is would you allow for a single sign, this 20 foot that would be multi-tenant for that parcel, or would you allow for two 20 foot signs, one for Subway and one for the office building? Borup: I had the impression they were looking for a single sign. Centers: Yeah. That was my -- Borup: Is that true? Centers: Well, I would amend the motion, then, to state one sign maximum 20 feet and any future signs would have to come back for approval. Would that be appropriate? One sign with this application. Zaremba: The second accepts the amendment. Borup: All in favor? Okay. The ayes do have it. Thank you. We worked through that. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT. Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 02-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an 11, 700 square foot multi-tenant flex space office / warehouse building by Falash & Ross Construction, Inc. – 150 S. Adkins Way, Lot 5 Block 2, Medimont Subdivision, northwest corner of E. Franklin Road and S. Locust Grove Road: Borup: Okay. Items No. 7 and 8 -- or 9 and -- Items No. 9 and 10. Public Hearing CUP 02-016, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an 11,700 square foot multi-tenant flex space office - warehouse building by Falash & Ross Construction at 150 South Adkins Way and -- you want to open both of these at the same time, even though they are on Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 69 of 94 different properties? I guess it makes -- does that work, counsel? They are identical buildings that -- Siddoway: I think we better open them separately. Wollen: I think that's the best idea. Borup: Okay. I just realized that. They are two separate little parcels. Wollen: Yeah. Borup: Okay. That's it. We are opening -- I'll open that Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The proposed project is in the Medimont Subdivision and it's already platted, zoned light industrial. The use is a permitted use in the light industrial zone. The only reason it's before you tonight is that the development agreement for this subdivision required that all of the lots along the eastern boundary of the project, because they were abutting existing residential uses to their east, that they would come before you as a Conditional Use Permit. We have reviewed the application, we find that it meets the ordinance standards and is in conformance with the requirements of the development agreement and we recommend approval of the project with the conditions mentioned in the staff report dated July 5th. Borup: Any questions from the Commission for staff? Centers: Did you address Mr. Wetherell's letter in your staff report, some of those issues, Steve? Siddoway: I am not familiar with the letter. Let me see if I can find it. Borup: Probably the main thing I was wondering was about the irrigation easement. Is that what you were wondering, Commissioner Centers? Centers: Uh-huh. He makes some -- well, let's say accusations or -- do you want a copy of it or -- Siddoway: I have it. Borup: I think his comments came after -- Centers: Yeah. Right. It's received July 5th. The same day. Siddoway: The same day. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 70 of 94 Borup: Right. And he wouldn't have seen it until after his report was done. He had mentioned along the back part of the property there is an irrigation easement, which this application shows parking. Centers: Uh-huh. Siddoway: Maybe we can take some testimony while we read through it. Borup: All right. Is the applicant here this evening? The applicant is not here? Okay. We will hear from the applicant first. Falash: My name is Michael Falash. I reside at 981 West Bankside Drive. This project is -- as Steve was saying, it's a light industrial subdivision. The development agreement has addressed a lot of the issues out there. I can address some of Mr. Wetherell's issues there, some of them, and maybe get you up to speed on some of the things there, too, but so you know, there is a 20 foot landscape easement or buffer that is along the eastern property that runs down the right-hand side of the eastern boundary of the property and that was set up as a buffer for the residential area. So that would have been set in place. Under the development agreement it allowed -- they also set up a landscape strip on the northern side of our property that is seven foot in width and the intent of that is that each property owner would develop a seven foot landscape strip, so that once you get all the property developed you would have a landscape strip between all the properties. So that's allowing us to do our paving and parking up to property lines on the south boundaries and put a buffer on the east side up to the eastern boundaries. Easements typically, my understanding, you might correct me, especially irrigation easements, are set up for access through for irrigation and to prevent development of building structures into the -- encroaching onto those areas. It does not prohibit any parking issues or landscape issues or sidewalks going onto those easements. So, you know, we brought our parking back onto it. He mentioned the things about it being one inch down below grade. If there is an issue like that, we would definitely drop the pressurized irrigation line down to where it meets the sections and so forth. So there really isn't in my mind any issues on that. Mr. Wetherell also addressed -- he thought that drainage had to be run out to Adkins Road and we can't really do that. Typically it's all got to be contained on site. So it is an issue there. So some of the things that he's addressed like that aren't quite up to speed on what the ordinances are or city requirements are. Zaremba: You are containing it all on site? Falash: Yes. And typically the seepage from the back of the buildings, we take all our drainage from our buildings down into drain lines that go into a seepage bed so we won't have any on-site -- even onto the parking we don't drain our roof drain onto it, but everything is basically in the seepage beds and it's all designed to contain the water, the precipitation levels that we have here in the Boise area. Let's see, a couple other items he had in there. Get my glasses on here so I can read it. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 71 of 94 Centers: Must be over 40. Falash: Yes, I am, unfortunately. One of his other concerns was the fact that maybe since his property was adjacent to this, if we had some blockage on our seepage beds that the thing might flood his adjacent property. I doubt we even have enough rainfall, since typically around all the parking we will have a six inch curb and then the landscape at the top of the curb, so it would take quite a bit of water to even get a blockage and one of his concerns was water would actually spill over into their property line from our on-site parking and typically when we design the parking lot drainage we always go to the center of the parking lot or the center of the lot with our drainage to -- that minimizes your -- the depth of your parking lot in relationship to the finish floor of your building. So typically everything would be draining from the east side coming into the center and then from Adkins Road coming down and back into the center again and the seepage beds will be, of course, about in that area, in the center of the place also. We talked about light issues around the perimeter and typically I would, you know, be in agreement that we wouldn't put any lights -- even some down lights on that eastern side in order to minimize that on the residential area. We will probably have lights in the back area, which is the unloading areas. We are light industrial; we are typically designed with overhead doors. Our typical clients in this type of building will be somebody that has an office space that needs some storage and the back area that processes whatever type of products that they are merchandising or passing on. Zaremba: The back of the building, the way it's oriented, though, would not be towards the residents? Falash: No. The back of the building would -- in this case on Lot 10, the back of the building is to the south and it faces, you know, adjacent -- Zaremba: The next building. Falash: Yeah. To the south. Centers: The staff addresses the lighting. Falash: Yeah. But they talk -- you know, it's -- on the staff report, the lighting talks about the certain types of lights and down lights and I would be in agreement, I would just not put lights on that side of the building, but they do make some lights that are basically watching the ground and I guess we could look at that and -- as long as they don't get into the residential area. Another concern was the trash enclosure, basically on the eastern side of the property. I think that the -- that's probably the only logical spot to stick it. There are -- the sanitation department does like to have a direct access into the dumpster areas to pick up the dumpsters and the most direct shot is really coming straight in or if you came another direction you would be coming from the north, in this case coming down to the south. I don't see any advantage of taking -- and in the staff report they mention moving the dumpster to the north side. I don't see any advantage to that, since we do have a 20 foot landscape buffer on the east side, because I wouldn't Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 72 of 94 want to stick that trash enclosure clear inside -- you know, 40 feet inside the property line, because then you are going to cause some problems with the sanitation trucks being able to get to the dumpster. So there is really not too many spots that it could go. Typically clients will have their trash in their warehouse and come out the back door and that's the most logical spot to have it anyway. Centers: Well, staff comments don't direct you to -- they just tell you enclosed at least three feet side, four feet in height, but they don't give you a location. Just per SSI. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, it is on page four. It's item number six. Centers: Five. Siddoway: Six. Locate dumpster to north side of property to lessen impact of noise to adjacent residential property. Centers: I was looking at five under general comments on page four. Siddoway: Yes. And I'm looking at six under site specific comments. Borup: What page is that on? Siddoway: Same page. Page four. Centers: Relocate -- Borup: Oh. There we go. Centers: So you have it two different places. Falash: I guess in my mind I don't know what we are accomplishing if we stick it on the north side, as opposed to the south side. Centers: Well, he's talking about noise to adjacent residential property. Falash: Well, you've got residential on the north side. Centers: Point it out. Where you want it and where staff -- Borup: Well, they have it right now -- right there. Falash: Yeah. I'd like to keep it right where it is. If you stick it up here you're really not -- the residential side and the 20 foot buffer is all down this side here. We are not really accomplishing anything if you -- Centers: You're going to still back up to residential? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 73 of 94 Falash: Excuse me? Centers: You're going to still back up to residential? Falash: Yes. This whole strip along here, though. Centers: And you have the trash truck running in there making the noise going in and picking up the trash. Falash: Well, if you stick it out here on the street, you have the corridor of landscaping and the 35 landscape strip down to Adkins Way, if you want to have a trash dumpster out there on the street. If you look at the property to the north of us, that's where the trash dumpster is in the back. To the south of us it's in the back. I don't know, you know, and they want to have a direct access into it, to me its needs to -- you know, it needs to go down in this area and -- it could go right here, but they still want to come into the trash dumpster, a direct route into it, so we are not accomplishing anything by moving to the northern side. You don't want to stick it down here, because I think they would have problems with the sanitation trucks being able to make that turn in there to pick up the dumpster out of there. Centers: Those are the fronts -- or the office portion -- Falash: Yeah. This is the front of the building and -- Centers: And, obviously, people are going to come out the back to dump the trash. Falash: That's why I'd put it out there in this area and then you'll make your trip out in back. Borup: You say the adjoining businesses have those -- that they are in the same -- Falash: Yes. The property on the north and the property on the south are in the same location. I had one question for Steve here. One of the things from the storm management recommendation talked about swales. Is that just a recommendation or are they -- are we still -- my understanding we are still allowed to do the seepage beds under a paving area. It's just that doing swales just doesn't work. On this type of lots are not -- Siddoway: My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that it's a recommendation, not a requirement. Falash: Okay. The other item I would probably like to strike on this is note four, it says water service is inaccurately depicted on the site plan. The existing fire hydrant falls within the driveway. Well, I went out today and measured it and the hydrant is right where it is, it's four foot off this property line and I'm showing six foot back to where the Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 74 of 94 curb cut is. So the hydrant is at that location. I may be incorrect where the water tap is at that point, but typically the water tap's coming off of the fire hydrant lines and you tap that line and you bring your fire line into the building and you also bring your domestic water into it. But maybe the stub is different on this lot, but we will pick that up when we get into the detail site drawing, site-specific drawings on the site. Any questions? Borup: Steve, any idea why that fire hydrant thing was -- Freckleton: That's my area. Siddoway: Yeah. Borup: Right. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, when I made that comment I was referring back to the as- built drawings for the subdivision. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: And on the as-built drawings it shows the hydrants more in the middle of the driveway. So there is, obviously, an error in the as-builts. Borup: I mean normally you have them as close to the property lines as possible, so you don't have that problem. Freckleton: Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. So I'm glad it's not an issue. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: I don't want to have to move a hydrant. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward? Smith: I'm Robert R. Smith. I live at 335 South Locust Grove Road, Meridian, Idaho. Mr. Commissioner and Commissioners, I'd like to make a statement for his comment that he's wrong. I'm also the water master for that water right that's on there and have been for 35 years. If I had a pointer I could point out some things. Number one, we thought this from the very beginning, that we would have the water line put over on the berm that he's talking about, the 20 foot berm, but the developer decided to put the water line over on the property side. It runs down along this edge here and, contrary to his belief, it's not a pressurized line, it's a gravity line and it comes off the Hunter lateral over there and we have had real difficulty now with all the developers who have put this thing in and it actually is running uphill, but we finally got enough height on the water box over there on the other development over there where the police station is to get water in here, but we have -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 75 of 94 Borup: It runs north then? Smith: The water -- our water runs north. Yes. It's runs -- that's the gravity fall into the pond that's out front of the Medimont development. That's his water that stores in that pond and then runs into the Five Mile Drain, the excess. But when the original development came up, conditions were that there would be no parking or traffic on this side of any of the buildings that adjoin the residents that are on that property and also that garbage dumpster that he has there is on the back of the buildings, but the ones that are there now, it's not against that fence line. But also NBS isn't against the residents. Borup: Just Mr. Smith is speaking now. Smith: And they said that there wouldn't be any traffic there. We've had problems with the garbage on the other side coming in at 5:00 o'clock in the morning and everything and banging those big dumpsters. My wife's had to contact them to get them to come at a later time for interrupting all of us along there. So these boundaries and conditions are not being policed for what you make on them. After you guys get done with them we are the ones that have to police them and then they don't get policed very well from the city. Borup: You said the original agreement, you mean this was a development agreement or do you know -- on the -- the parking is what I'm referring to. Smith: All of it -- all of it was when the -- this side of the Adkins Street that the residents were up against, there would be no traffic on the back side, so the developments that were there would not have like parking lots and all of that against the residence side of it. And so far that has fallen in favor -- that favor. In fact, the last -- that forest products that you guys developed, that was -- it was going to have a landscape buffer, not any traffic on the backside along that edge of the residents there. And no -- right. And no openings and no lighting whatsoever on the backside of them. Centers: Where do you live in relationship to the -- Smith: I live about over in here right now. Centers: How far? Smith: Oh, I'm -- on this one here I'm not -- I won't be -- but this next application is right against my property line. The next lot that he has for the same type of stuff that will come up. And this is the first time we have seen this. He's never ever gave us a description of what he was going to do until we were notified by the city again. This brotherly love that these guys bring up don't seem to get to us very fast. My property is this property right there, that two and a half acres. Centers: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 76 of 94 Smith: And I think he's going to develop this piece. This piece -- these two pieces here are the -- Centers: Well, to be honest with you, Mr. Smith, I wouldn't think that this individual would contact neighbors every time he built a building, because the whole project was originally approved and his use complies with the original approvals. Smith: But that was one of the conditions of it. Centers: That he contact the neighbors every time? Smith: Every time there is a development on this site that we be notified what the -- Centers: And you were by the city. I think that's -- Smith: Yeah, but we didn't have nothing there. We had no idea what he was going to do, just the permission. We had no idea what the building would look like or anything until right now. Centers: Uh-huh. Thank you. Smith: Thank you. Anymore questions? Centers: Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? Does that cover that, Mrs. Smith? J.Smith: Jeri Smith and I live at 335 South Locust Grove. The way he has explain this, he doesn't really know right now what kind of development there is going to be there, so he doesn't know anything about the noise or anything that's going to be developing along the way and it was approved or put in the conditions that each one of the buildings be approved each time there was a new one put in, because of the noise and things that we have had to put up with along the residential, and that was back, I don't know, what, probably three, four, five years ago. Borup: At least. J.Smith: When it was first developed. So that would be right at the -- we have already had problems with the Schwann's icecream trucks. They run at night and they are honking and doing all kinds of things and they face the north and they are over across Adkins. So the noise is a big concern with us on this type of development. Borup: This building would be similar to the one that's up there at the entrance, the flex space with the warehouse that he's proposing. One has a blueprint shop in it and the truck accessory place and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 77 of 94 J.Smith: But they are going to open it to right back within 20 feet of our residence. Borup: Right. But I mean you said you weren't sure what type of use. That's the type of building -- J.Smith: Well, the type of building, but not specifically the business that's going to be -- Borup: Right. Right. Yeah. At this point they don't know, but it would be those type of businesses that -- J.Smith: And it would be probably changing periodically, maybe if somebody wanted a bigger warehouse or whatever and this is a concern to us, because of the residential and the noise and the lighting, beings it's open on the back, because when we went to City Council on the forest products and the lumber products, it was going to go in directly behind us -- Borup: I didn't understand your comment on open on the back. J.Smith: Well, isn't that where they were going to go -- they were going -- the entrances that would be -- the back of the building would be our place. Borup: No. The back of the building would be the south of the buildings. J.Smith: Would be the south. Borup: Right. Against -- J.Smith: For one of them, but that would -- would that be the case with the other one that's going to go in? Borup: Well, the other one would either be south or north. Zaremba: It's split, so it would be on the -- Borup: Against your property it did not have any doors or anything. J.Smith: There is no doors or no windows or anything? Borup: I'm not sure about windows. J.Smith: And the operating times was a concern also. Centers: The staff has addressed the operating hours. 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. shall be limited to. I think that was agreeable to the applicant, because he didn't address it. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 78 of 94 Borup: The east elevation had no doors or windows in the plan that was submitted to us. J.Smith: What is the makeup of the building, the exterior of the building? May I ask the applicant what the makeup of the outside of the building is? Borup: We can get that information. You mean the materials for the building? J.Smith: Yes. And how tall is the building? Borup: Okay. It's a one story building, but because it's a warehouse space it's taller than a residential one, so -- J.Smith: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Do you want to answer some of those questions? The one on material I think was -- and the building height. Falash: Again, you know, I'm not -- we are trying to be, you know, coexistent here and I did the building right across the street from it and I owned it and we sold it this year, but that was a concrete build up building and the one that we're just coming in with is a concrete build up. I feel that the concrete build up buildings are a big upgrade from what you're seeing there now with the block buildings and the sloping roofs. The building height is 22 feet in height, so you're going to get a little over more than a 1,000 feet of roof going on there. So, you know, I feel like we have gone to that limit, that extent to really upgrade and make a site. If you look at the building across the street, what they had, and you will see the kind of quality that we do and we keep them landscaped well and we want to maintain it and keep it -- you know, keep it looking nice. And so our intent is -- it's hard to compare this project -- you can't really compare it with the lumber products, because, you know, they do need to move -- I believe that they have semis coming in, big trucks, they have skidsters out there. This building the storage space is 12 foot inside warehouse space, so you're not talking about hyster spaces where you can get big semis coming in here and forklifts running in and out, you don't get tenants like that. Typically our intent is to have small tenants who want to bring in -- our intention is to tailor to tenants that are 1,600 to 2,000 square foot that need maybe 1,000 square feet of office or 1,500 square feet of office and 1,000 feet of warehouse space just to house their goods and most of it will be boxed goods or -- it's the same kind of tenants I have across the street like Buy-Mark and Malone Properties, they just need an office space and a place to house things. So typically probably the biggest vehicle most of the time you're going to see will be either a van or their service trucks that come in and bring the products in and out. An electrician, you know, needs a place -- and by the development agreement this stuff cannot be stored outside, it has to be stored inside, so we are not going to have any outside storage and -- so, you know, that's part of that development agreement and when we submit tenant improvement plans to the city, the city has to review it and if they aren't an approved use in a light industrial zone, then they are not going to approve this. So we have the rest of this Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 79 of 94 approved in this area, so we don't -- and it's all been through the early stages of developing this project, but when we submit plans to the city, it goes through Planning and Zoning and they have to make sure that that use is compatible with the light industrial. So that they -- you know, there is a check and balance there for -- Centers: Wouldn't it be true, also, that there is very little weekend use? Falash: Yeah. Typically across the street it's -- I mean they are very seldom there Saturdays or Sundays. It's almost -- you know, there may be an occasional function that somebody has something going on on Saturday, but our intention is a smaller client. We aren't into big warehouse spaces and we just want to find that little nitch for the smaller tenants to go in. Centers: Similar to the ones off Franklin, Yogy McDonald built some down there behind Meridian Plumbing -- you know where, off Franklin, similar to those projects where they have office and warehouse. Falash: Yeah. And that's -- Centers: Very low traffic. Falash: Yeah. But you need to probably go back to the covenants and the restrictive guidelines that they set up in the development agreement, because I'm not aware and I believe that we are allowed easements there, we are allowed to park on the easements and we are parking on that right now. Borup: That's what I was going to ask, if you're familiar with the -- Falash: I don't remember seeing it in there. I read through all the CC&R's. I did the building across the street. I did the building on the corner. Borup: I think there was different requirements for the other side. Falash: Well, we all have the same, you know, CC&R's to go through and then it's spelled out this lot, this lot, you know, two through ten had to be -- go through a conditional use. Now there was an issue with the piping that runs down there for the -- that feeds the -- you know, my understanding there is pressurized irrigation, but if the piping isn't rated for traffic, then we will, you know, basically replace the drain pipe or irrigation pipe down there and put in traffic rated piping and those things we will have to go through in the process of when we get into the detail drawings on the civil side of it. Borup: Okay. I assume there is a conflict between the original agreement, then. Falash: I think we can reach an understanding of what is in the agreement. You know, I'm aware of it in there and all the problems with the easements, that you can do -- you Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 80 of 94 just can't put drains on them. You're allowed to park on them, but if there is something specific in there we missed, then -- Zaremba: The development agreement happened long before I was on the Commission, so -- just that in the discussion about the size of the tenants that are likely to come in here and looking at one of the building drawings that you have, most of the spaces are 1,800 square feet and then on each end you have not very much larger, but a couple larger spaces. Falash: That's correct. Zaremba: Would it be difficult not to change your plan, but to rearrange a couple of those, so that the smallest one was on the east end and, therefore, not have a -- the smallest possible client on the residential end of your building? Falash: Well, if it worked that way. It's just hard to say. We don't -- until we get the tenants it's going to be a tough one to limit yourself to doing that. Zaremba: I assume you're going to put the walls in ahead of time. I would say -- Centers: No, they're not. It could be 110, either four or five; am I correct? Falash: Yeah. It could be and we are basically trying to shoot for six tenants, you know, maybe -- we are setting up the doors in the front and the entrances for six tenants, but you might end up with four tenants and one guy takes, you know, 3,200 feet and one guy takes -- you know, it's just a flexible thing that we have to work with when we get the -- Zaremba: What I was trying to do was get the smallest tenants toward the residential end, because the bigger they are the more trucks they are likely to have. Falash: And your bigger tenants will probably want to be at the front or the street side. That's probably where they are going to gravitate to and be closer to the street and more direct access, it gives them more exposure to people coming, and the ones at the other end are going to be less visible to the street and less signage, so you probably will find the littler ones at the end of it and the big ones on the west side. Borup: Okay. Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I was just going through the Medimont Subdivision files and I found a development agreement for the subdivision and in this one do not find any reference to that easement and whether or not any parking is allowed or not allowed on it. In talking with Mr. Smith, he's indicated that it's not in this development agreement, but is in a prior development agreement for the same property, but we are uncertain what that is. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 81 of 94 Borup: Can we have more than one development agreement on the same project? Siddoway: Well, that's a good question and another question is if there is a newer one does it go in addition to or does it supercede the prior one. Maybe a legal question. Wollen: Well, is there any mention of a prior agreement in the second one? Siddoway: Well, not that I have seen. I can't say that I have read the whole thing word for word, but -- Centers: Well, which development agreement is our applicant in possession of? Zaremba: Subject to? Borup: Do you have some information on this, Jim? Come on up. You would be welcome. Boyd: My name is Jim Boyd. I reside at 202 North 9th, Boise, Idaho. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- and not to contradict Mr. Smith at all, but I was involved with John Barnes on the development there and I think what -- as I remember -- I'm trying to go from memory -- the development agreement, they don't speak -- does not speak to limited parking on the property. There was a separate lot, which is a 20 foot buffer down the east side of that development to buffer the I-L industrial zone from the residential and then in addition to that, it had originally -- there was just a limited number of lots that were conditional use and in the later date it was determined that they were all -- all the lots on the east side of Adkins Way would be conditional use. And in the development agreement with the City of Meridian, those lots there have a greater setback from the east boundary line than what other lots have in the subdivision, because of the residential. So that was the main thing was to have a greater building setback, besides having a 20 foot landscape buffer. And I don't remember comments at all to any other restrictions beyond that. Borup: That is what I'm kind of remembering, that the 20 foot buffer went in there so you wouldn't need to worry about -- Boyd: But yet you still have the larger setback from the residential down that side. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask Mr. Boyd a question. Jim, do you -- were you involved with John prior to Medimont? There was another development that was being planned there by John. Boyd: No, there was not another development planned by John. There was another development plan by -- what was his name? There was another developer that had a boy that was going to -- Freckleton: If I remember, wasn't it Mike Preston? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 82 of 94 Boyd: Mike Preston was the developer that presented some project here and I don't know anything about it. Prior to John. Freckleton: Okay. And then his project basically came unraveled and it went away. Boyd: It was turned down and then John bought the property from whoever the owner was. It wasn't -- just had it under contractor or option to try to put the development through. Freckleton: Right. Right. Okay. So I guess the question is was there a development agreement under Preston. Boyd: I don't think it ever got that far. I think it got turned down. Freckleton: Okay. So the question is, then, I guess to legal counsel would be do any of those prior approvals or prior commitments maybe that the previous developer made on his property stand today? Wollen: I think that if there is different parties involved in the development agreement and there is no mention in the lateral of the earlier, then it's going to be hard to -- it would be hard to enforce. So that's at least my initial impression of it. Freckleton: So basically those original agreements would be nullified? Wollen: Well, I don't know. You would have to take into consideration, you know, when in relation to each other they were, but I think that it's really hard to hold a second -- you know, a second party to an agreement with the earlier party. Borup: Especially if the project was turned down. Falash: Yeah. Centers: Yeah. If the city didn't approve the agreement. Wollen: Yeah. I think that it's very unlikely that they would be held to it. Smith: Robert R. Smith. 235 South Locust Grove Road. This agreement was with John Barnes and originally was planned that way. I told him I have it all in my records and it's public testimony at the time and why it was, because of all the residents, it was agreed that this wouldn't -- there would be no businesses in there that had excessive noise. In fact, they turned down one -- Shari Stiles turned down one before it even got to you people. It was a sheet rocker that had bought one of those lots and it was turned down and he was not allowed even to have it, because of storing his vehicles and all of his equipment on the backside, which would be on the east side of the building, would constitute too much noise for the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 83 of 94 Borup: Because his storage was outdoor -- Smith: Storage outdoors. Right. Borup: And that's what is mentioned on no outdoor storage. Centers: But this agreement that Barnes had, was it approved by the city? Smith: Yes. Centers: The project was approved? Smith: Yes. Centers: And you're saying it's on this project? Smith: That's exactly right. Centers: Where is it? Smith: I don't know, but I got -- I have got the copies of it at home and I'll bring it, the testimony and everything that -- Centers: We are talking the development agreement that has a seal on it and signed by all parties -- Smith: It was supposed to have been. Centers: What? Smith: It was supposed to have been. That's all I know. We were there when it was supposed to -- we listened to the testimony and the agreement was drawn up at that time. Wollen: When was this? Smith: I can't recollect. I will have to look at my files and everything. I think it was about four or five years ago when he originally developed that property. Centers: Okay. Smith: Thanks. Borup: Commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 84 of 94 Centers: Yeah. I'd like to close the Public Hearing. So moved. Borup: Do we have a second? Zaremba: No. Borup: Not yet? Zaremba: No. Not yet. Borup: There is some things that need to be resolved? Zaremba: Well, yeah, particularly this one issue. Borup: I wonder if that's something that could be handled before it gets to City Council? Centers: That's just what I was thinking. We don't need to have the Public Hearing open, because -- Borup: If there is a recorded development agreement it needs to be complied with, doesn't it? Centers: That's exactly the way I was going to move. I was going to move on this project -- Zaremba: So do I second the closing of the Public Hearing? Borup: Mr. Freckleton's shaking his head. Wollen: Did you have an idea? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this other agreement that we are talking about -- the development agreement that is recorded for Medimont Subdivision that we have in our file -- Wollen: That's dated when? Freckleton: Is dated September 4th, '97, is the recording date, which is five years ago. That's in the time frame that we are talking about here. Council, when we had our meeting with the Mayor and the city attorney, it was made very clear to us that Council wants issues resolved before it is brought to them. So I would strongly recommend that you not send it to Council and let Council resolve this. I think we need to resolve it here. Borup: Do we have any evidence in the file of another agreement? Centers: Is this recorded with the county recorder? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 85 of 94 Siddoway: Yes. Centers: And the Public Hearing is closed. Did we vote on that, by the way? Zaremba: We did not vote yet. Centers: We had a second. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Oh, we did get a second? Zaremba: I seconded it. Borup: Okay. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT. Centers: My comment would be that if there is any other recorded document, any individual, those documents are open to the public, they can go down to the county recorder and get copies of them and Mr. Smith, whoever, can do that. He would present that to the City Council at that hearing. You know. So I'm going to recommend approval of the project with no reference to a development agreement -- Borup: To a second development agreement? Centers: Right. With no reference to any other development agreement, other than the one you're looking at. And if Mr. Smith or Mr. Jones or whoever wants to go to the county recorder's office and find a development agreement that's recorded -- because it has to be recorded to be valid -- can do so. So there you go. And that's the only place you can find it, because it's recorded and it has to be recorded. Wollen: If I may comment. Bruce, I got the same -- I got the same idea from the Mayor from our meeting the other day. I think this is one area, though, that, you know, if the Commission does not have all the information in front of it regarding these development agreements, there might be something out there, I think that is an exception where the Mayor and City Council would be glad to have that for their consideration. Freckleton: I would agree. Centers: Well, what I was saying -- because my opinion is that the other development agreement is hearsay, it's referred to as being recorded testimony, and I don't take that into consideration. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 86 of 94 Wollen: And I say to the Commission -- I take the motion at this point to say that the Commission is going to consider approval of this with only the one agreement that was in 1997? Was that -- and with no mention of the other agreement. If there is conflicting evidence that is brought up later, then that can be considered by the Commission -- by the Council. Centers: It would have to be. Wollen: Okay. Centers: Yeah. In fact, I'm not going to refer to a development agreement. We are here to approve a Conditional Use Permit or deny it. Zaremba: One question. Where else could something like that be? Could it be on the plat? Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, if there is a reference on the plat, it more than likely references the recorded development agreement. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: When I made my comments it was prior to you formulating a recommendation. I just simply wanted to make the point that Council doesn't want to have unresolved issues passed to them, but I think you're on the right track. If there is -- if there is additional information out there, Mr. Smith could bring that before the City Council. Centers: Well, that's true on any issue. The public has that right. Freckleton: Sure. Centers: And the recorded documents are public records and anyone can go down and get copies of them and I encourage Mr. Smith to do that. Borup: But in this case if there is another document, I hope it gets -- staff would be made aware of it prior to the Public Hearing at City Council, too. I think that's something you'd want to have right away, isn't it? Freckleton: Yeah. Centers: Bruce, item four, page four, you don't have a problem with that? Just eliminating that or -- top of the page. Borup: On the water service location. Freckleton: Right. Thanks for pointing that out. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 87 of 94 Centers: So eliminate it? Freckleton: Yeah. That could be handled with the civil design plans when they are put forth. Centers: And I guess -- Freckleton: I think it's simply an inaccuracy in our record drawings. Centers: And I guess speaking out loud, I would recommend that we eliminate number six right below that. It makes sense to have the dumpster at the backside of the building. Either north or south is going to be adjacent to residential. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Centers: I don't understand that recommendation. Borup: Go ahead. Siddoway: I'll take a crack at it. If you look at the site plan that's on the screen, the south portion of the property is adjacent to this lot, which is residential. The north portion is adjacent to this lot, which was approved for an apartment complex, but in looking at -- does it have a residence on it currently? Okay. Apparently it does have a residence on it currently, but I think that Dave McKinnon was probably thinking about with this area being approved for the Cobblestone Village, I think the name was, that it would be less likely to interfere with that development if and when it does happen and with the residence that's remaining below it. Either way today there is an existing residence, apparently, so -- Borup: Well -- and, likewise, the other one would want it on the south of the property to be further away from the Smith's, then, on the north. Siddoway: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's a do or die issue for staff. If it can't -- Centers: Okay. Siddoway: It's up to the Commission there. Centers: Did you see any other issues, Dave? Those were the only -- Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion. I'd like to recommend approval to the City Council for Item 9, CUP 02- 016, request for Conditional Use Permit for an 11,700 square foot multi-tenant flex space office-warehouse building by Falash-Ross Construction at 150 South Adkins Way, Lot 5 Block 2, Medimont Sub, northwest corner of East Franklin Road, South Locust Grove, including all staff comments, with the exception of page four, number four Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 88 of 94 at the top, eliminate, and number six, page four, eliminate. All other comments to stay intact. Zaremba: I second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT. Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 02-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an 11, 700 square foot multi-tenant flex space office / warehouse building by Falash & Ross Construction, Inc. – Lot 10 Block 2, Medimont Subdivision, northwest corner of E. Franklin Road and S. Locust Grove Road: Borup: Okay. Believe it or not, we still have one more. Item No. 10, Public Hearing CUP 02-017, request for a Conditional Use Permit for the same size building on Lot 10 Block 2, Medimont Subdivision. Open this Public Hearing and do we have any additional comments from staff? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, this project is very similar to the one you just saw. It is the southern most lot along the east side in Medimont Subdivision. I do have some site photos of the existing Medimont Subdivision in that area. This is the proposed site plan and elevations and with that I'll stand for any comments. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: Page four, item four. Borup: Same for both? Were both lots inaccurate or the -- Centers: It's worded a little differently here. Borup: Okay. Centers: Page four, item four. Borup: It just says water service is inaccurately depicted. Mr. Falash. Falash: Mike Falash. If you go out and measure where the hydrant was, it is shown as on the plans. It's 38 feet from the property line going due north. So it puts it outside of our -- and I assume, again -- you know, I'm assuming that's where our water service will come from is the stub from -- Borup: That's what I was just going to ask. Is that how it's done? It comes from the fire hydrant, not a separate meter? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 89 of 94 Freckleton: No. Mr. Chairman, this comment on this application was specifically in reference to the water service, not the hydrant. Again, our as-built drawing shows a different location than what the applicant shows it. Borup: But is there a meter box there, though? Freckleton: No. Borup: No meter box. Freckleton: These are commercial services. Basically, the way we do those is we stub in an eight inch main, it goes in and dog legs 90 degrees, there will be a blow off on the end of it. That's about the only thing you will see on the surface is a blow off manhole. Falash: A lot of times they will take that eight inch line and that's what they will stub off the -- your fire hydrants from. So usually it's in the same approximate location and if you get the vault in, put the meter set and tap off that eight inch line. If the fire hydrant is in and it doesn't matter, we'll do -- in the civil drawings we will make sure where the meter is set. The meter set can really go anywhere. We just got to tap off that line where it is located. We can run it horizontally whatever distance we need and then put a meter set in, so it's really not -- as long as the meter is not in the -- or as long as the hydrant is not in our driveway that's proposed that we'd have to relocate the hydrant, which it isn't. Freckleton: Yeah. Commissioner Centers, I believe in this particular instance I think comment four is probably fine the way it is. We'll just deal with it. Centers: Uh-huh. Falash: Again, I'm just going to briefly tell you on this property we did orient it to the south, because we knew the lumber products -- or I guess the lumber products is going in on the north side of this property and I looked at their elevation, it's pretty much on that side, so it seemed like to me the back side of this building would put -- up to the wall on the back side of the lumber products. We did do -- in this case, you know, we still have the seven foot landscape strip that's required by the development agreement on the north side. We are going to develop a five foot landscape strip down on the south side. I wanted to make sure there was landscaping at the front side of the building and typically I even -- you know, it doesn't show on the landscape plan, but typically we like to even put some columnar type trees in front of our buildings, so it gives a lot of greenery in front of the building also, so that's kind of the -- similar from one side, but we did do a little more on the landscaping on this one. Zaremba: The properties to the south of this location, are those commercial? They must be facing the water tower, is it? And are those commercial? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 90 of 94 Falash: I believe so. Aren't they? I don't know what the zoning is down there. They are vacant lots right now, but -- Siddoway: They are zoned R-8, but they are platted to be future commercial lots. The -- you can see the size of the lots on the site plan. The 1993 Comprehensive Plan did not support a commercial designation there. It was given an R-8 and the police department developed on the large lot down here as a Conditional Use Permit and not in the R-8 zone. In new Comp Plan, which is about to be final, would support a rezone to commercial in this area. I'm sure it will happen, but currently it's zoned R-8. Borup: I don't think there is much question on that. Zaremba: What is the -- is that pink piece of property right to the east? Borup: The purple? Zaremba: Purple. I'm color blind, so -- purple. Siddoway: Yes. Mr. Chairman, that property is zoned Limited Office. It was approved as an office for the Woodbridge Subdivision. Zaremba: Okay. Siddoway: Which is kitty-corner to the east. Borup: And that was their annexation path, wasn't it? Siddoway: It was their annexation path. Yes. Borup: Okay. Have you got any other comments on this one, Mr. Smith? This is the one that's by your property -- or the corner of it. Smith: Robert R. Smith. 235 South Locust Grove Road, Meridian. The other thing I'd like to address is I had heard nothing about dust abatement. We have been inundated with this whole project with dust and weeds and I hear nothing in this thing about any dust anymore and you can't believe what we have been putting up with with all the stuff that's going on out there. Borup: So you'd like to get some asphalt over it to stop the weeds? Smith: We'd like to have something that gives us something. The agreement that was made to take care of that light office, we have been three months this year trying to get the weeds cut down and finally through a threat that we had to get it done and it finally got done. But it's a shame that none of these ordinances are complied with when you make these agreements and these people don't take care of them and we end up with a mess all the time. Like I said, I'd like to address the dust situation and they could do Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 91 of 94 something about that. I hear this other agreement that -- when they did do something about the dust. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Centers: Mr. Smith, I have a question for you. Talking about the dumpster again. You're right here and, let's see, relocate it to the southerly -- do you have a problem with the dumpster? Smith: Well, I do, because of the garbage trucks coming in and like they did on the other part of the complex where he told -- that he had the -- they were coming in there at 5:00 o'clock in the morning and they'd pick those up and slam them over the top of the truck and you come out ahead about four feet, you know, and -- Centers: Where is your house? Out in that area? Smith: No. No. Our home lies about right there. Centers: Really? Okay. I think I would agree with staff, then. Smith: And so they -- we have had quite a bit of problems with the other part of the complex with them picking up the garbage making all the racket. Centers: You've got a large parcel there. How many acres do you have? Smith: I have two and a half acres. I used to live in the country. I'd like to live in the country again, but I guess we are going to have to move to Payette to get there. And also I'm a dinosaur. I'm a natural Meridianite, which probably you people don't run into too often anymore. Borup: Payette may not be far enough out. Centers: I would move we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: All right. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 02-017, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an 11,700 square foot multi-tenant flex space office-warehouse building by Falash & Ross Construction, Lot 10 Block 2 of Medimont Subdivision, northwest corner of East Franklin Road and South Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments and did the staff comments include moving the trash structure south? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 92 of 94 Centers: Yeah. Number five. Zaremba: Okay. To include all staff comments. Centers: And before I second that, does the city have a dust abatement ordinance? Siddoway: Actually, the development agreement that we have addresses it this way: It says that the lot owner shall perform at least yearly dust abatement on storage yards, unless said yards are paved. Upon ten days notice to the property owner more frequent dust abatement may be required by the city, so -- Zaremba: I will add to my motion requiring dust abatement during construction. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT. Borup: One more motion. Zaremba: I'd like to have some discussion. Our meeting on the 18th has the Lochsa Subdivision continued. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Three issues of that. And then one thing that we continued from tonight to then. Centers: The 4-plex. Zaremba: We had discussed earlier that sometime during July we would run through the new suggested ordinances. Do we want to add that to the agenda for the 18th? Borup: Depending on how long Lochsa is going to take. I am not going to be here next week. Centers: Yeah. I'd rather our chairman participate. Borup: I don't mind if you want to stay until 1:00 o'clock. Centers: Does staff have anything on that? Borup: Are we talking the old -- the one list that we had that we were looking at? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 93 of 94 Zaremba: Uh-huh. Things that Dave has been working on. Centers: Too bad David isn't here. Was Dave handling those, Steve? Borup: Does he have a few of them that are ready to take a look at or do you know? Siddoway: I honestly don't know their current status. I know he's been working on some things like home occupation ordinance, cell tower ordinance, etc. I know he gave them to Shari for her review, but that's the extent of my knowledge. Borup: I think we talked not trying to do them all at once, just, you know, plug away at them one or two at a time. Centers: You could tell him to maybe bring one, you know. Zaremba: Just stick them on the last item on the agenda and if we have to skip it, we will skip it. I know there were some other things we were going to clean up, light industrial, industrial, the fact that the descriptions and the charts aren't the same. Chapter 7, Chapter 8. Borup: Yeah. There is a whole list of things that need to be addressed. Centers: For the record, too, I had mentioned to the Mayor the other evening and, in fact, e-mailed him -- I don't know if you saw it, Keith. And I mentioned it to Keith Bird. Keith agreed with me and I think the Mayor did, too, in lieu of design review board, to give the P&Z more authority on the design review, rather than a design review board. Borup: I'm in favor of that. Centers: Keith was and I thought the Mayor was, but I just want it on record and they can proceed with that, because I have seen -- I'm talking commercial, not residential. Borup: Right. Centers: We have seen projects that, you know, we would like to dress up if we had some authority, but, yet, I don't like the design review board, because it's just another month delay for the developer. Borup: And they can really get out of hand. Centers: Yeah. Borup: I mean at least from what I have heard from past experience in other cities. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 94 of 94 Centers: Yeah. Well, I know Eagle has one, but Eagle is a different story. I mean they started at the right time. If Meridian had started 15 years ago, then it would have been different, but -- Borup: I think right now, at least that's what we have been told in the past, that this Commission does have -- maybe not authority, but we definitely have some input and make it our recommendation. Centers: And I think that -- Borup: And if they don't want to comply with it, we don't have to recommend approval. Centers: Uh-huh. Borup: I think for the most part most of the buildings I have been fairly pleased with. I have seen a couple that I would like to have gone back and recommended denial. Centers: Well, the one that to me is that day care that we saw again tonight. Borup: Oh, the castle? You don't like that? Centers: And Blockbuster down on Fairview -- or Hollywood Video I should say. Borup: I like that one. Centers: Do you? Borup: The one that bothers me was the auto store down the street. The auto parts store further east. Centers: I don't recall that. Borup: It's just a square building with hardly any windows and very plain. Centers: Oh, yeah. So maybe we ought to use more authority and -- Borup: Yeah. Whether it needs to be an ordinance or we just be more vocal about it. Zaremba: I wouldn't mind if there were some stated authority. I think we have been sort of exercising it, but it wouldn't hurt to have it stated. That being said, I move we adjourn. Centers: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 11, 2002 Page 95 of 94 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:38 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ____________________________ _____|_____|_____ KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ________________________________ SHARON SMITH, DEPUTY CITY CLERK