Loading...
2002 03-07Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 7, 2002. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, March 7, 2002, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, David Zaremba, Jerry Centers, and Leslie Mathes. Members Absent: Keven Shreeve. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Dave McKinnon, Larry Moore, Sharon Smith, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: X David Zaremba X Jerry Centers X Leslie Mathes O Keven Shreeve X Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, everyone. We'd like to begin our regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for March 7th . Let's begin with roll-call attendance. Commissioner Shreeve is absent. He did call me a few days ago and said he had an engagement he couldn't get out of. Commissioner Borup is here. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from December 6, 2001: AZ 01-015 Request for annexation and zoning of 34.60 acres from RUT to I-L zones For proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC – 3365 North Ten Mile Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from December 6, 2001: PP 01-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 34.60 acres in a proposed I-L zone for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC – 3365 North Ten Mile Road: Borup: I'd like to begin on Items Number 4 and 5. Item Number 4 and 5, Continued Public Hearings from December 6th . Request for annexation and zoning of 34.6 acres for Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek and Item Number 5, Continued Public Hearing, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other on the same project. I was going to mention a letter received today, but I think I will go ahead and turn that over in the report from staff. Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. We have Utility Subdivision again tonight. It shows some of the highlights about this project on the overhead. You see an aerial of the site. This site is essentially encompassed by the creeks along this way. We have Ten Mile that runs north and south that borders this property and then Ustick that borders the property running east and west. There is another picture that just highlights the area in question. A few months ago we had a Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was brought before you that would have been impacted this project. The Comprehensive Plan was a text amendment change only it was not a map amendment. The text amendment that was originally approved by you, Planning and Zoning Commission, is the above text that industrial development should be encouraged to locate adjacent to or near the City Waste Treatment Plant. You made a recommendation of approval of that to the Council. The Council did not approve the language as you suggested. The Council approved the following industrial development may be considered immediately adjacent to the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant. This is quite a change. They are saying that only those uses that are immediately adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant may be industrial. So there was a change that the Council did -- Zaremba: David, I'm sorry to interrupt, but according to the minutes of the Council meeting that statement was actually, limited light industrial development may be considered. That's a significant difference. McKinnon: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Minutes weren't available when this presentation was put together, but I appreciate that, it adds to the presentation. In addition to that, I'd like to point out that as I noted earlier, there were no map amendment changes that came along with this, it was just a text amendment. The map in the 1993 Comprehensive Plan still shows that property as being a regional park with the agricultural type designation. We have the views from different parts of the property. I will go through those rather rapidly. As you know, you all have a letter in front of you today that came from the applicant Wayne Forrey. I'll just read a couple highlights from that. It says Dear Commissioners, as a representative of Falcon Creek, LLC, the owner and developer of proposed Utility Business Park Subdivision, I am respectfully requesting that you continue the Public Hearing for our development applications at your March 7, 2002, meeting and authorize continuation of our Public Hearings to your March 21, 2002, meeting agenda. He goes on to say the reasons why is to provide a new layout for this. At this time you have a Public Hearing that has been continued and is open at this time. If there are any questions of staff, I will be happy to answer any questions. I'll turn it back over to you at this time and it looks like there maybe some changes to the site plan that we have in front of us tonight and you may want to continue it. I would defer questions concerning the timing of when we can get this on the agenda again to the City Clerk's Office for notification, if there is any need for that. Are there any questions? Borup: Questions of any of the Commissioners? Okay. One question I had is -- and I think we may need to ask Mr. Forrey the extent of the proposed changes, which will determine the timing on a continuation. If they are going to such an extent that it needs to go out to the agencies again, that would determine the date to continue to. Zaremba: I would not want to speak for the applicant, but from reading the notes of the Council meeting where the discussion actually was to the draft Comprehensive Plan, but whether or not this text change should be made. It sounds like the changes are elimination of any school bus participation, moving their proposed recycling next to the Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 3 substation, moving the trash collection back closer to the back corner where the sewage treatment is. That to me is a significant enough change -- we have had discussions about what's significant and what's not, but to me that would be significant enough change as to start over. Just as a warning, I will offer -- after we have heard public testimony from the people who have come -- this is a Continued Hearing from the previous meeting -- I will offer a motion to actually close the Public Hearing and not continue it. I will then offer a motion to deny this entirely and have the applicant start over. Borup: Okay. Any other comments? Zaremba: Just letting you know where I'm planning to go. Borup: If we could bring the applicant forward. Centers: Well, first of all, the text amendment was approved by City Council. That's a given. Zaremba: It was -- whoever, it was stated slightly different. Centers: I understand that, but that's done, and I would concur with your comments, Mr. Chairman, that it would be very difficult -- well, we couldn't put this on the March 21st meeting, because of the advertising to the adjacent homeowners. Our normal meeting for continued hearings is the second meeting of the month, so that the soonest that we could hear it would be April -- Borup: The advertising to the homeowners would not apply here because it's a continued hearing. Centers: Well, not according to our Legal Counsel who is sitting on my right. They have to be notified again, according to -- Borup: For a continued hearing? Moore: If you're going to make a substantial change in what's being -- Borup: Well, that's what I said. You have to determine whether we are even talking about a substantial change, which hasn't been determined yet. Zaremba: My vote is that's a substantial change. Borup: But you don't know what the change is. Oh, you mean moving a building from one lot to another? Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 4 Zaremba: It sounds to me like a complete reconfiguration. I don't see any way they could remove what was three-quarters of it before the bus system and move the trash around into that location without a significant change. Borup: Well, because we are not really considering those things, we are talking about a plat. We are talking about those lines on paper is all we are looking at and that's all -- and that's all technically we have been looking at all along. They have talked about some uses on those lots and now they are talking about perhaps changing those lot configurations. Centers: Right. Borup: And they -- to inform us of what they are planning on and what uses they are planning on the lots, they have told us about the bus barn and the other, but, you know, that's a whole separate issue. Let's get Mr. Forrey up here to answer some of these questions. Zaremba: Okay. Forrey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Commission. My name is Wayne Forrey. My address is 701 South Allen Street in Meridian, 83642. I'm the representative of Falcon Creek, the owner of this site, and the developer. I can definitely appreciate what the Commission is discussing and I'm impressed that you have read the minutes and analyzed that. As I was sitting there, with my wife, I said to myself limited light industrial and staff said light industrial. I agree with the Commission, yes, it was limited light industrial. So thank you for picking up on those things. Let me say this, the reason we are at this point in this entire process is because the Planning and Zoning Commission asked us to do this. You asked us to reconfigure -- you said meet with the neighbors, make the changes, try, and work with the neighbors. We have met with the neighbors, we have had about six neighborhoods meetings with different groups that came up and said I want to meet with the developer or I represent my cul- de-sac, or people up and down my street have said this. We have contacted those folks and met with them and overwhelmingly people said it's -- we want the school buses out of there. When we went in front of the city at our Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment, we informed on the record that we would take the school buses out of the project and make three-fourths of that site subject to Conditional Use Permit. That's what your Planning and Zoning Commission back in December asked us to do, knowing that there might be some adjustments to some lot lines to meet neighborhood concerns. You asked us to look at more buffer areas, more landscaping, to widen things and move things and we sat down and we did that. Then we ended up at the City Council for a text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that the Commission asked us to do. The City Council acted upon that, changed the wording to limited light directly near. We made the adjustment of moving the Sanitary Services site directly adjacent to the Waste Treatment Plant to comply with -- because the discussion was how do you define near and so we moved away from the meaning of near to adjacent. The proposed Western Recycling site and the Sanitary Services site would be directly adjacent to the city Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 5 property of the Waste Treatment Plant. The school bus site, all of the frontage along Ten Mile, all of the frontage along Ustick and basically three-fourths of this site would be subject to Conditional Use Permit. Our road layout has really not changed. A few lot lines will change. Borup: So you're still looking at the same access points? Forrey: Yes. Those access points have been pre-approved by ACHD and we would not be amending those access points. We have an Architectural Firm and an Engineering Firm both working on the site plan of Sanitary Services and Western Recycling. Again, your Commission many times has said to people show us what you want to do on the site, don't just do a bubble map where we think we are going have this kind of development on that lot. You wanted to see -- and so do the neighbors and we committed to do that. That's why I'm hoping we could continue this Public Hearing to give the Architectural Firm and the engineers enough time so that we can come to you with a very good drawing and show you exactly the distances from home, the buffer strips, the heights, the lines of those buildings, where the drainage will occur, all of those items. I understand that you normally continue your hearings to the second meeting in the month, so I'm agreeable to the second meeting in April. That gives us plenty of time to get all of that technical data together for a good -- and I also committed to meet with the neighbors when I had those drawings completed so that we can accomplish that as well. We have got a good working relationship with some neighbor groups and they said before you go to P&Z we want to see your site plan and so we'd like that chance to do that as well. I'm hoping you will continue this to the second meeting in April. Borup: In April? Forrey: In April. It sounds like March is too soon, the second meeting in March. Borup: Well, it would be too soon to give notice to the agencies. Forrey: Yes. Borup: And that's why I was wondering. Are you anticipating doing some plat adjustments? Forrey: I expect some internal lot lines, but no access changes. We are adding some landscape lots and landscape buffers. Again, that came out of direction from the Planning and Zoning and our neighbors. Centers: You mentioned a small little park area in your letter. Forrey: One of the neighborhood groups – Centers: Which site was that? Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 6 Forrey: Can I point to it? Centers: Sure. Please do. Forrey: One of the neighborhood groups we met with asked us to consider -- one of the neighborhood groups we met with asked us to consider a natural park area. They used the term like Kathryn Albertson Park, a natural area, because we have two -- there are two creeks, Nine Mile Creek and Five Mile Creek come together here and this is a very natural area. The neighbors said could you consider taking a portion of this back of the property and making that into a natural area park and we said we would consider that. We are still evaluating. Centers: Okay if you did go with that, about how many -- about an acre? How many square feet? Forrey: Well, I don't know yet, Commissioner. Centers: Okay. Forrey: But we do have the opportunity for pathways here and pathways here and plus there is just a lot of public -- well, it's not public, it's owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. Former Bureau of Reclamation, it has been transferred to Nampa-Irrigation District, and we still need to meet with them to see their feeling about having a natural area near the intersection of two drains or creeks. There is some agency coordination. We are working on that. We can't have that ready, you know, maybe for -- if we have a 10-day -- Centers: Would you have it ready by the second meeting in April? Forrey: Oh, yes. Definitely. Centers: Well, I think that's good timing. Forrey: Yes. I mean we can work the best we can and we will be ready by then. If you require 10 days prior to the next hearing, if it's April 21st , 10 days prior to that, Monday, we won't be ready by Monday of next week. Borup: That was normally the time frame just for staff to do their review. Forrey: I understand that. The second meeting in April, that would be workable for us, and I believe the neighbors as well. Centers: Well, just a comment while I think of it, Mr. Chairman, in regards to your comment, Commissioner Zaremba. You know, this developer and landowner have been working on this project for many months. We first heard it in December. I'm very Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 7 anxious to get going with it, as they are, and let's hear it again the second meeting in April. You know, I wouldn't support having them start over and I think all the homeowners and the ones that are here tonight are going to go back and tell whomever. Then they will be re-notified, by the way, and have their chance again that night to say their peace. Zaremba: I certainly want to be flexible and I'm happy and ready to listen. My concern was we have already asked the public to come a couple of times and both wanting to give the applicant and the public time to mull this over and get back to us. If you're not stuck on March 21st and April 21st is the time that we are aiming for, then I'm not so concerned about -- Forrey: 18th . Zaremba: -- killing it and having them start over. Forrey: Thank you. Thank you very much. Is it the 18th ? Centers: 18th . Forrey: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Any other comments or questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I would ask one question and I guess this is in reference to the trash trucks coming and going. As Meridian grows, we assume -- let's say the population doubles in the next 15, 20 years. You're probably not only doubling the number of trash trucks, but because the perimeter of the city grows, the distance gets bigger and the transportation issue comes in, you're probability more than doubling the trash trucks just to cover double. There are probably 14 now, so we are looking at 30 trucks, which probably make two or three trips in and out of there a day, that's still a lot of vehicles in and out and I realize that the facility itself is moving back, but the driveways are still right next to the residential. Does each truck come a couple times a day to unload or do they just make one trip out and one trip back? Forrey: That I don't know, Commissioner. Steve Sedlacek is the owner-operator of Sanitary Services and I will get that exact information for you. Not only current, but projected, exact number of the usage of each truck, the number of in and out trips and the impact on that driveway. Zaremba: I am concerned about the number of trips with heavy trucks. Forrey: Okay. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 8 Zaremba: You may already know this, but let me just make this comment for the general public. The trash group in another meeting -- I'm sorry, I don't know -- their initials are SSI -- in another meeting has mentioned that they are, for at least the next couple of years, going to operate their trucks on a certain portion of alternate fuels, which -- Forrey: Yes. Zaremba: -- which benefits the city in a way that they -- each truck will be offering less pollution. That doesn't solve noise problems, but this is a group that's trained to help the city. They are under contract to the city and they are trying to help the city solve some of our problems, one of them is pollution, by going to this alternate fuel. So we know they have to land somewhere. Forrey: Right. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mr. Forrey, if that's okay. Borup: You bet. McKinnon: Wayne, the number of lots -- are you guys going to be modifying the number of lots significantly? Forrey: Well, I believe so, because the school site was one lot, 17 acres. McKinnon: Okay. Forrey: And I think now we will end up probably with three or four lots taking that space. But the access points would remain the same. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple follow-up questions if that's okay. If you will refer to the map up there, you have a cul-de-sac that pulls in right here. Forrey: Yes. McKinnon: In order to break that up, that cul-de-sac's orientation is going to change, I'm assuming, if we are going to break that up. Borup: Extend it down? McKinnon: It will be extended either down or further into the lot. Borup: That's what I meant. Are you anticipating that? Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 9 Forrey: Yes. I don't know the exact dimension. That's what Hubble Engineering and Lynn Brown, the architect, are working on. I think it's in the magnitude of maybe 100 feet, 150 feet extension. McKinnon: Okay. Forrey: But still at that location and in that configuration, just a little deeper into the property. McKinnon: An additional question. The traffic impact study that you submitted was based heavily upon the bus parking lot being in that location. Are you going to submit a revised study at that time? Forrey: No. We asked ACHD about that and they said no. Everything that we would propose in there would be probably less of an impact than the school buses, so the school bus actually kind of a worst case scenario. They felt, if anything, it might actually improve or have less traffic. McKinnon: Do you have something in writing from ACHD or could you provide something from ACHD in writing? Forrey: Yes. I will do that. McKinnon: An additional question or two if I may. Trying to formulate how to ask the question. You said that you would allow Conditional Use Permits on all of the properties that would be south of the SSC and the recycling center? Forrey: Yes. That's our concept. McKinnon: Are you proposing any changes to the requested zoning designation? Are you still requesting I-L for those locations or are you changing the zoning to designation? Forrey: At this point I don't know. I would want to work with staff about the mechanics, but the direction we had from the Planning Commission in December was have Conditional Use with a Development Agreement and we are now saying that is good, we will do that. McKinnon: My concern stems from the fact that we noticed this as I-L for the entire neighborhood, rather than commercial or some other type of use. I just want to make sure that that is addressed and that the number of lots is not something that the Commission is going to be concerned with by noticing seven lots with one other lot and changing that to 15 lots with a separate zoning designation. I just wanted to make clear that we are talking about a number of different lots, a different traffic study and I mean -- and possibly a park in the back and a follow-up question to that is if we do have a park Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 10 it's in the far back corner. Providing parking for that park, is that going to be part of the proposal that you're going to come forward with? Forrey: I guess we will have to cross that bridge on April 18th . McKinnon: Okay. Forrey: Those were things that are all under consideration and so if you will just, I guess, give us time to continue to meet with staff, work with the neighbors, do the architect and engineering and then we will have something we can all pick apart. Borup: I think one of the concerns of Mr. McKinnon was if you're talking about a zoning change, it will probably need to be re-noticed. Is that where you were going, David? McKinnon: I have concerns about that, but if he noticed it and sent out notices -- Borup: Even if it's a down zoning, but still a zoning change. McKinnon: The use is going to be different. You know, when the uses came out originally that 17 acres was, obviously, going to be used for the bus parking lot. If a retail use was to go in that place, the impact of the amount of vehicle traffic could be very similar. We wouldn't have the large vehicles, we could have a different type of vehicle traffic and more vehicle trips based on the retail types of uses that could go in there. If the zoning is different, retail is not allowed in an I-L zone right now, but if the zoning is different it could be a significant change. In addition to that, a lot of people received notification within the 300-foot radius notice that's required by State Code, that this was going to be an I-L zone piece of property. To change that significant -- to change that it may a significant change and I, you know, would defer to our attorney for some additional Legal Counsel on that. I have my own hesitancy to say that that's not a significant change. Borup: Is that what the word is, a significant change or just a change? Moore: Significant change. McKinnon: Significant change. Borup: To zoning? Moore: Yes. Borup: Okay. I guess I was -- just any change, but -- so some people may be disappointed the bus barn is leaving and the office and retail may go in? McKinnon: I wouldn't say that, but it's a change. It really is. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 11 Borup: No. I was being facetious. McKinnon: Yes. Sorry. Centers: You're sticking with the I-L zone? Forrey: At this point, yes. Borup: With the Conditional Use on the other -- Forrey: That's correct and Development Agreements. Borup: You're not looking at mixed used or something else? Centers: With a few more lots, possibly? Forrey: Yes. That's correct. Although the industrial zone does allow for some business uses and so -- Centers: Of course we have a Development Agreement with the CUP. There you go. We will see each lot as it comes out. Forrey: That's correct. Centers: And the neighbors may be here each time if there are certain types of uses that are objectionable. Forrey: Yes. Centers: So I think they are very well protected. Forrey: The Commission asked for that, the Council said yes, we said yes, that's all in the minutes and it allows us to work together to try and do something that's workable on that site. Centers: Right. Forrey: The bus didn't work let's try something else. Centers: I think that was obvious the first night. If I could say in addition, Mr. Forrey, I appreciate your time again tonight and I don't want to steal any thunder, but we are going to hear this at a lengthy meeting probably on April 18th . Of course, we do have a Public Hearing right now and the public that came to testify, we are certainly quite willing to listen. However, if you want to save your comments until April 18th and regroup, we will be here then. I mean it would be repetitive if you came up tonight then at that time, too, but don't let me stop you from coming up if that's the case. Thank you. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 12 Borup: Thank you, Mr. Forrey. I would assume that probably staff may want to look at the application and decide what would need to happen at that time, would that be -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mr. Forrey, I just have one comment and it's tied to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. We are dealing with limited light industrial uses that would be allowed immediately adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. It would not allow for the rest of that project, according to the Comprehensive Plan if it were followed, the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan, the rest of that property would not be allowed to be develop in an I-L, a light industrial -- a limited light industrial way, just the area immediately adjacent. I think we may be looking at a zone change. Forrey: That could happen after the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted. McKinnon: Actually, the text amendment was to the 1993. Forrey: Yes but I mean the new -- the proposed may solve that problem. McKinnon: It may. Forrey: It may. Borup: So, Mr. Forrey, was that your interpretation of the intent of the motion was that limited light industrial -- when we talk about adjacent to -- Forrey: Yes. Borup: -- it was talking about the legal parcel adjacent to and not the whole project adjacent to? Forrey: No. No. The use adjacent to. We made that clear with the City Council. Borup: Okay. Forrey: The buffer -- Borup: I thought the motion was a little ambiguous on that meaning, at least to me, whether it meant that -- well, if that's the case, then it does need a zoning change, doesn't it, at this point? Forrey: Well, it may not help Sanitary Services and Western Recycling get moving forward and that's been our objective. Those folks need space in this community. The rest of it could be dealt with maybe years down the road when the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 13 Borup: Years down the road? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I got lost in that last discussion. Are we saying that this entire property may not be zoned the same? Borup: Well, that's the interpretation of the City Council motion, that the light industrial only be allowed immediately adjacent to the Wastewater Plant, so unless they made that one big lot, the only lot that could be light industrial would be the northern lot. Zaremba: That means the properties that bound Ustick and Ten Mile would be some other zoning? Forrey: Or a Development Agreement with a limit to what could or could not occur on that ground. Zaremba: All right. Borup: Mr. Forrey that may be the other thing. I'm thinking about a Development Agreement and limited uses. If there is some specific ones, rather than us stating what we feel would be appropriate, I think I'd rather see you come with a list -- Forrey: Come forward with -- yes. Borup: It's a lot easier for us to cross things off, than to add our own. Forrey: I agree. We will. We will be prepared for that. Appreciate that. Thank you very much. Borup: Thank you. I might just mention, then, in light -- and I agree with what Commissioner Centers said, but anyone that is here tonight we do want to open it up, keeping in mind that the plat is going to change. We do not want any testimony on that. It would really be meaningless at this point. The only item that would be appropriate is if anyone has any comment that they would like to make on the zoning itself that would be at this time the only issue that's before us is the issue of I-L, light industrial zone. Comments on uses is not really before us at this point either. At this point, we'd like to open it up or invite any public to come forward on that one issue. Mr. Crane. Crane: My name is Charles Cane. I live at 3610 West Ustick Road. I'm the neighbor on the other side of Nine Mile Drain, the little triangle property there. This is my backyard that we are talking about turning into an industrial zone. The neighborhood meetings that we were speaking about, I wasn't involved in those. The hundred neighbors that I have talked to weren't involved in those. I would like to have a little more involvement in those meetings if they are going on. I would actually like to see this application denied and put a stop to. I would like Mr. Forrey and the developers to actually have meetings with the neighbors -- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 14 Borup: Could you address this to the zoning issue, please? Crane: For the industrial zoning? Borup: Yes. Crane: I believe a less intense zoning use would be appropriate, because it's near the people's homes where children and families are and that the Comprehensive Plan would preclude the south area of this from being industrial at all. Even with the text amendment, the property that is immediately adjacent to the Waste Treatment Plant is the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation ditch. This property is the next property passed that. I think by definition this is not immediately adjacent, because the other property is immediately adjacent and this is on the other side of Nampa-Meridian's property. Borup: You're saying Nampa-Meridian is a separate deeded parcel? Crane: Yes. The Five Mile Creek, I believe. Borup: Who owns that? They do? Crane: Nampa-Meridian Irrigation. I believe it is separate property. It's not just an easement. Centers: Mr. Crane, when you said a less intense zone, what zone would you think would be more appropriate? Crane: I think that mixed use that was suggested to City Council by 100 people at the meeting. Centers: Which would allow offices, which would allow retail, restaurants, a number of uses all with a mixed use right? Crane: With a Conditional Use Permit. Centers: So you do agree that it's not residential type land? Crane: Actually, my house is right there and I plan on building another house-- Centers: As far as the large parcel. You know, I realize -- Crane: The entire parcel, no. Centers: Yes. It would be very difficult to sell that to a developer for the development if single family homes, which is the problem everyone is facing, so -- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 15 Crane: I believe a planned project that has mixed uses would be appropriate. I don't believe a 35-acre industrial park in the middle of a residential neighbor is a right use for that property. I believe a mixed use with mixed uses, some residential, some businesses, some commercial would be appropriate, but I believe the neighborhood would be very interested in being involved in that project. I, myself, was – Centers: Now are you speaking for the neighborhood when you quote the mixed uses, retail, and everything or are you speaking for yourself? Crane: I'm speaking for the neighborhood. At the City Council meeting they went on record that there were some uses that they would be willing to -- Centers: Okay. All right. Well, I guess we will hear for sure on April 18th , so -- Crane: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions of Mr. Crane? Zaremba: I was just going to suggest that you give your phone number to Mr. Forrey, who I believe has contacted the Homeowners Association presidents or somehow. He appears to be quite willing to talk to people, so -- Crane: I would like to see some names. I hear the neighborhood supports them but the 300 people on the petition that was given to City Council in opposition to this they didn't support this. The 100 people at the meeting didn't support this. I would like to know who are these neighborhood meetings with if all these people from the neighborhood are here opposed to it? I would like to have them come to a meeting and say they are for this or they are -- Centers: I don't think he said they were for it, Mr. Crane. They were making suggestions if you did this, this is what we'd like to see. Could you leave some of this natural and/or, you know, that type of thing. I don't think he said that he had neighbors that were for it. He didn't say that. He had people that were making suggestions and would like to see extra buffers, extra landscaping, if it were ever approved. I don't know -- I don't think he made that comment. Crane: And what I'm saying, the neighborhood actually would be for development. I have never talked to anybody that opposes development. It just needs to be something that fits with our neighborhood. We would like to actually work with him, if he will work with us, and we'd like to be on record that the neighborhood supported the project. Actually, I would like to see this one -- this industrial zoning refused and to come back with the support of the neighborhood with a planned mixed use for this area. Zaremba: If we were to act on the issue of annexation and zoning tonight, you would be in favor of annexation with a multiple use? Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 16 Crane: And Conditional Use Permits. Zaremba: And Conditional Use Permits. Development agreements. Crane: Right. Yes. I would personally. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: One other question, Mr. Crane. From what you said earlier, it sounds like you were telling us that you felt the motion from the City Council that their intent was that the industrial zone was going to be in Five Mile Creek, that was their intent to zone Five Mile Creek light industrial? Crane: Well, what they stated was immediately adjacent to the Waste Treatment Plant. Borup: Right. So you're saying you think that's what they meant? Crane: Well, they wanted to severely restrict -- Borup: Right. Crane: -- the industrial but they also -- not just the south side, but -- Borup: When they said immediately adjacent, you think they meant just down the ditch only? Crane: I'm not sure what their meaning is. You would have to check with them. What they stated was -- Borup: Thank you. I just wanted to see how forthright you would be. Crane: But they also -- they were considering the property north and east and west of the treatment plant, not just this property, at the City Council meeting. They were affecting people all around the Water Treatment Plant with that amendment so they did want to limit it very tightly to that. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Anything else you wanted to mention? Crane: That's all for now. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Henning: Good evening, Members of the Commission. My name is Sharon Henning and I live at 2696 North Morello, which is -- well, it's kind of to the south and east of Candlelight Subdivision. I'm off Ten Mile, but it's pretty close to what's happening. First Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 17 of all, I just wanted to formally have the testimony that I have given concerning this situation -- and I believe I gave testimony -- I'm not exactly sure on all the dates, but I suppose that's on record. I just wanted to formally just go on record that I still want to bring forth those ideas. The other thing is, is that I need some public clarification, because as you well know, there was kind of a problem with that original map, in the map with the floating dots. That caused quite a bit of confusion and I will have to be honest with you, from this new proposed map when it says that they wanted a change -- to change industrial to a public park, office, or residential, staff agrees with the mixed use designation. My interpretation is that the mix would be public park, office, and residential, but mixed use opens that up to a much larger scope in terms of that development. I don't consider myself to be an ignorant person, but being kind of new to this whole process, I don't know if that needs to somehow be reworded or stated in such a way that there isn't a misunderstanding. If I were to go on just the colors here, I would envision that entire parcel to somehow be developed very conservatively with residential office space and a lot of open green area. Centers: Are you talking about the 2000 Comprehensive Plan that's being proposed? Henning: Yes. Centers: Okay. Borup: You realize that is just a suggestion that someone made for that location? Henning: Yes, I'm aware of that. Centers: You don't have the colored map, Mrs. Henning. Yes. The color designations and, of course, Mr. McKinnon will address your questions. Henning: I understand. Okay. Thank you very much. Centers: Without a doubt. Henning: Thank you very much. Again, I wanted to say that I did receive a phone call from Mr. Forrey previous to the February 19th meeting. It was the week before, suggesting that we try and meet and I was basically only given two days to try and contact all of the people that I represent for a meeting that was going take place on an evening that was only convenient for the developer. Since then, I have not heard from Mr. Forrey and I also represent my entire neighborhood, which I had gone around too personally and talked with and got signatures. I would just like to say that I, too, am concerned what neighborhoods have been actually involved in these discussions concerning how the neighbors would appreciate having this parcel developed. I believe that he does have my number and I would appreciate being included in that. I need to say a couple of things -- and this goes back to a presentation made by staff, that they did not believe that the requested rezoning I-L was not in compliance with the adopted general plan. I also believe that in the development of this parcel, in order to stay within Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 18 the design that Meridian as a city has put in place by its ordinances to protect its neighborhoods, it clearly states that the kinds of uses that are going to go into this area cannot be hazardous or disturbing to the existing or future neighborhood uses. With the new North Meridian Development Plan that whole area is going to be surrounded by residential. I look forward to the meeting in April. I don't want to, you know, try this into the ground, but I do want to say to you there is still quite a bit of concern about how this actually is going to take place. I know that I can honestly say that at the last City Council meeting, in all the discussion that was said, I know of two Council members and I believe there was even a third who said in public that they -- their hope was that that could be a park. Now, obviously, that was said in discussion in terms of what I guess everybody would wish could be there, but if that desire exists in someone's mind and they are willing to, in their capacity as a governing body of the City of Meridian, if they are willing to wish that themselves, I guess I hold onto that wish. How we need to make that happen I don't know, but I think there still needs to be a lot of work done. I thank you for letting me just sort of bare my sole and let you know that there are still a large number of people who feel very passionately about this development and I just you will have to see our faces a lot more in the future. Thank you very much. Do you have any questions? Centers: Mrs. Henning, I think staff was going to address the 2000 Comp Plan for you. Henning: Okay. Centers: So if you want to just hang out there. Henning: Right here? Zaremba: While he's getting ready I would only comment -- and this is actually for everybody and many of us wish there were many more parks all over the place. This location would be a nice one as well. One of the things the public can do, since funding is very short is if you feel there is specific place where there must be a park, is get together a bunch of neighbors and do some fund raising and figure out how to buy the piece of property. That would help the city as well. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could address -- the map that I have got up on the easel right now is the map that you made a recommendation on a few months back. I believe it was in December that you made a recommendation to the Council. The map that Mrs. Henning has in front of you tonight that she showed you are recommended changes to the map that you adopted. Staff has flip-flopped on that being industrial, that entire area, we are now recommending that that go to mixed use, not industrial as you recommended back in December. The staff has made a change from what you have already recommended approval to for the Council. This is a map that was generated after you made the recommendation for approval of that to be industrially zoned. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 19 Borup: I'd like to point out when you say our recommendation, at the regional hearing I don't think that was discussed. I believe that was put on as a staff recommendation maybe from -- maybe from some input, but I don't remember any testimony at all relating to that parcel. Centers: I don't either. Not at the meeting -- Borup: So that was a proposal that was put on there, somebody requested it, no one was in opposition to it, that was why it was on the map as part of our recommendation. Centers: Right. McKinnon: You're correct that back in the December meeting that you guys made the recommendation, I believe, and then Commissioner Nary made a point of saying that nobody came to testify in opposition of that prior to that meeting in December. Centers: If it was changed from industrial to mixed use, that was -- as you said, your change, and we had no testimony to do whatever with it, as we did with a number of other parcels and pieces of property -- McKinnon: That would be correct. Centers: But I think she wanted an explanation of mixed use. McKinnon: Mixed use is a -- is a Comprehensive Plan land use designation, it is not a zoning designation. If you were to look through our entire Zoning Ordinance, there is no definition of what a mixed use zone is, because they do not exist. The schedule of use control does not have anything listed under mixed-use zone, so you would have to look in an underlying zone, what would the actual zone be. Is it C-C, is it commercial neighborhood, or is it commercial business district. High density residential, other types of uses could all be in there with an underlying zone. The one thing that our Zoning Ordinance does rely upon with a mixed use is a statement that -- let me grab my codebook really quick and read it to you. It says essentially that anything that's in a mixed-use zone on the Comprehensive Plan map has to be developed as a Conditional Use Permit. Centers: Right. I remember that. McKinnon: So the same recommendation that came to you from the original Utility Subdivision saying everything should be require a Conditional Use Permit, would then become mandatory with the adoption of that becoming mixed use. It would come to be that everything would be a Conditional Use in that zone. Whether you adopt it that way or the new map gets adopted, any use in there would have to go through a Conditional Use Permit. So it's still in line with the original recommendation from staff on the original Utility Subdivision. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 20 Centers: Does that answer your question, Mrs. Henning? Henning: Yes, it does and -- it does. Very, very helpful and I guess I need to also understand the relationship with this to what you -- what you were working with as well. Zaremba: I think that's part of the reason that there is a series of Public Hearings. There are Public Hearings in front of this Commission and we pass that onto the City Council, who makes the final decision after they have their own Public Hearings. I think it's perfectly legitimate for us to have recommended a general plan to be forwarded to the City Council and for staff to have rethought some of the issues and said, well, maybe this needs to be different. To me that's not a significant enough change in the overall plan that they should have brought it back to us for more hearings, considering that it would already have hearings before the City Council. The fact that -- actually, this happened before I was on the Commission, but the fact that the Commission recommended forwarding something to the City Council that has a minor change, albeit in the exact area that we are currently looking at, is really part of the process, because, again, it goes to hearings before the City Council. Henning: May I add just one more thing? I know that Commissioner Borup was commenting at an earlier meeting that where we were during the other parts of this plan. I'm not trying to make excuses or anything, but for any of us who are relatively new to the area and were still looking at the earlier map, to be honest with you, there was a point of ignorance, I suppose, where we didn't even realize, you know, what was actually taking place. I don't know if it has to reach critical mass before people finally realize what's going on, but I just do want to say in defense of a lot of people, we seriously just didn't realize what was happening. Obviously, by trying to continue to stay current, which is still not easy to do, because I barely knew about this meeting tonight, that it is kind of tricky to try and stay up with all of this. We appreciate your patients and consideration of what we are asking. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Come on up. Stevenson: Hello. Shane Stevenson at 6040 North Ten Mile Road. I'm the first one to admit I'm not really sure how all this stuff works, but I have been paying quite a bit of attention to this, since I do live just north of it. My grandparents live right across the street. I'm sure you have heard this several times before, but I just would like to go on record saying that I really think that putting an industrial park right here is a mistake and there is a lot better things, like a mixed use, that would be good thing to put here. Industrial use -- I'm just still in high school, but from what I have seen it's quite obvious there is still a lot of land out and available for industrial use. Why just -- I don't know why we wouldn't use that up first, instead of moving out further into out near the country? We have lived out here and -- we have lived out that way just because we kind of like being away from people. I feel that if it's industrial it would be bringing a lot more traffic and a lot more people around our -- down Ten Mile and down Ustick and I just don't think that we are quite ready for that. If we could move this industrial -- have this industrial stuff in an area that's already designed industrial, then it might be a lot Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 21 better for everybody. I understand the land might be worth more, but I certainly think that this is a bad place. I travel down Ten Mile Road every day to school and I know that the road is pretty beat up. I know that there would be changes made, but still I think that this -- from what I have heard, this industrial use and what has been planned for here, I think that's too big of -- too much big equipment traveling down that road, especially for the road right now. I don't know how that would work and it's getting more in the mornings when I travel up Chinden Boulevard, it can be backed up clear from Linder to Ten Mile. This industrial use -- I do not think this is a -- I just don't think it's the right place. There are places in town that are set up for this and they are already industrial use land, same type of roads and traffic is coordinated with it so I'd just like to go on record for saying that I think this is great for mixed use, rather than industrial. Do you have any questions? Borup: Thank you. Any final comments from any Commissioners? There is one thing I would be interested in and I don't know if we have a good definition of -- on the schedule of use control, the definition of Sanitary Service's business and I, for one, would be interested to know what that definition -- you know, the -- Zaremba: There is not a definition I don't find in the -- Borup: Well, maybe not a definition, but does it fit -- where would it fit in the discussion? Zaremba: In Chapter 7. If you look in Chapter 8 -- and I think you are looking -- there is a listing of waste transfer and recycling, both of which are permitted uses in an industrial zone. The difficulty that gives me is back in Chapter 7 there is a definition for light industrial. There is no definition for industrial. The only industrial zone we show in Chapter 7 is light industrial. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, you're actually right on. We don't have any other definition for industrial, other than light industrial. In the past there has been discussion about breaking out between heavy industrial and light industrial, but as of right now we only have one zoning designation for industrial uses, which is the light industrial definition. If you were to read that definition and apply it directly to this application, this application wouldn't work under the light industrial definition. The light industrial definition includes language stating that almost all of the businesses be enclosed entirely by a building. Zaremba: And be quiet and odorless. McKinnon: And be quiet and odorless and it doesn't apply to what they are actually requesting up there. We have to look at the schedule of use control for some additional guidance. In the schedule of use control we have, like we mentioned, the solid waste transfer station and we have recycling centers as permitted uses. Those uses are permitted uses in the light industrial zone. I think they were placed there, because we have no other zoning designation where they would apply. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 22 Zaremba: Those appear to me to be heavy industrial uses and, again, the difficulty is we don't have a definition for that in Chapter 7, but Chapter 8 all look like heavy industrial things to me. McKinnon: And, like I said, that's a problem with our code. We do not have it broken down to separate zoning designations for industrial, light industrial. We have three different zoning designations for commercial, plus an Old Town for commercial, plus a limited office for commercial. We have one definition for industrial, it's the light industrial definition in Chapter 7, and it would preclude by strict definition many of the uses listed in the schedule use of control. Centers: Dave, I think you owe the public -- you know, mixed use, as you appropriately stated, is not a zone. I think you could name the zones that would be applicable to mixed use and I think you should call those out, if you could. McKinnon: We have a mixed-use application currently before us in an R-4 zone. We have mixed use applications that have been before you just recently as last month with an R-8 zone. We have limited office uses that are also L-O zone, the C-N zone, the C- C zone, and the RSC zone. By definition we have planned developments which are what we are required to do with mixed uses in our zoning amendment, which you recently passed for planned development which say in which zone each different type of planned development. Essentially every zone could come in and say we'd like to have a planned development for this. I have got a copy of it -- Centers: Right. That was my point. Most zones are applicable to the mixed use. McKinnon: Absolutely. Centers: Okay. So I didn't want the public to be misinformed that with mixed use you are eliminating this type of project. Okay. McKinnon: In fact, planned developments in mixed-use zones are a Conditional Use by our code. Zaremba: Do you I understand correctly that it does overlay the requirement for Conditional Use Permit, the things that might otherwise not require it? McKinnon: That is correct. Borup: Okay. Anything else that the Commissioners would like any information on? Centers: No. Borup: Do we have a motion for a continuation? Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 23 Centers: Yes. I'd like move that we continue both Public Hearings, Mr. Chairman, Item Number 4, AZ 01-015, and Item Number 5, PP 01-017. I would like to move that we continue those Public Hearings to April 18th and with the notation, my understanding that both will be re-advertised and re-mailed again. Borup: Not on a continuation they wouldn't. Centers: Because of the substantial change to the plat. Wasn't that the -- Zaremba: And a possible change to the zoning request. Centers: I would like to see a re-notification. Moore: Commissioner -- or Chairman Borup, Commissioners, it's certainly up to this body to determine whether that is a substantial change or not. If you want a legal opinion, it is a substantial change and it would require re-notification. Centers: So that remains -- Borup: So that's in your motion for it to be re-notified. Centers: Right. Zaremba: I will second it. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a point of clarification. Commissioner Centers, as part of the re-notification, do we want to set a time frame as to when the new applications -- not new application, but the new information that's submitted to us, so that we can send the information out to everybody? The standard 10 days will not apply to this, because we need to have it beforehand in case it does need to go out to the additional jurisdictions. Borup: Well, you need more than that for notification. McKinnon: Yes. We need that for notification. We can't have 10 days. Borup: What would be your time frame? McKinnon: Sharon? Smith: And, once again, I would need to ask Mr. Forrey how soon he thinks we can see this information. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 24 Borup: Well, I think you just need to tell him how many days you need and then that's their deadline. Smith: I need at least 14 working days. So I mean we would be looking at April 4th -- McKinnon: Sharon, is that to include the additional notification, having it done prior to the meeting, having notifications send out? Smith: We can send notifications out. McKinnon: Okay. We need all of the information. Smith: Right but the information could come in. McKinnon: Will that give other agencies enough time to respond back to us? Smith: If I have them in my office on April 4th and can get it out of there on April 5th -- we did it on -- I believe El Dorado. I mean that would be really cutting it close, but again I -- McKinnon: On El Dorado we didn't re-notice, though, did we? Smith: No but we had to send out a new transmittal. I'm just trying to respect the time frame that he is dealing with, too, in that. April 4th would be really cutting it close. McKinnon: Okay. Thank you. Borup: The only thing, if it's not in by -- what day is April 4th ? That's a Wednesday -- or a Thursday it looks like. Why don't we say April 3rd by 5:00? If it's not in by then it will just be taken off the agenda, is that -- Centers: Absolutely. That would be my recommendation. Exactly. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Centers: Yes. That would be part of the motion that any changes would have to be to the City Clerk's office by April 3rd at 5:00 p.m. for notification purposes. Borup: Does the second -- Zaremba: Second accepts the amendment. Borup: Any other discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 25 Item 6: Public Hearing: AUP 02-001 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for The operation of a Family Day Care for five or fewer children out of home in an R-4 zone for Brenda Martin by Brenda Martin – 3668 Judicial Drive: Borup: Thank you. Item Number 6 is Public Hearing AUP 02-001, request for an Accessory Use Permit for the operation of a Family Day Care Center for five or fewer children out of home in an R-4 zone for Brenda Martin at 3668 Judicial Drive. We'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff comment. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- you can go ahead and stand right there if you like. I'll keep it short. In January, Brenda Martin applied for a Family Childcare Home License to care for five or less children in her home. On the overhead you can see a picture of her home. The location of her home is in the Crossroads Subdivision, which is located behind the -- behind Eagle Road, behind the new subdivision that's being created right now called Presidential Subdivision behind Wal- Mart if you wanted to go to the north. The location is -- there is the home. The home site is just like this. The areas of the site plan that are marked with an X are those areas where children would be allowed to play. There will be no day care up on the second floor. The person who wrote a letter in opposition of this stated that we do not want anyone using the common area that isn't an owner, a friend, or a guest. No commercial uses. That is the only reason that this is in front of you tonight. Typically, you do not have Accessory Use Permits in front of you unless someone states that they are in opposition of it. That is the opposition, that they don't want the applicant to use any of the common areas. If the applicant's available to say that they won't use the common area, I think that that would cover everything that we would need from the applicant tonight. Ask if there are any questions of the Commission. Borup: Any questions of staff? Okay, sir. State your name. Martin: My name is Maynard Martin. I reside at 3668 East Judicial Drive, Meridian, Idaho. Concerning the use of the common area, we hadn't planned on it, but I feel we have the right to use it as such, according to my Neighborhood Association Guidelines and Procedures. Article Number 6 concerning property rights, it states in Section Two, delegation of use, any owner may delegate in accordance with the bylaws his right of enjoyment to the common area and facilities to the members of his family, his tenants, or contract purchasers who reside on the properties. Therefore, I would feel that would give me the right to use it if we so desired to use it but we didn't have plans to use it. Borup: Okay. You mean right to use it with the day care students? Martin: Yes. In case we go out there and have them play around or whatever. Borup: And are those three things -- you mentioned the owner's tenants and what was the other -- Martin: The last one was a contact purchaser who reside -- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 26 Borup: Purchasers. What part of those three categories would the day care students fit in? Martin: I would assume that they would be contract purchasers. Borup: They are buying your house from you? Martin: No, but they are purchasing a service from me. Borup: Okay. Martin: Doesn't apply? Borup: I think that means the purchase of the property. Martin: Well, okay, considering that, within these here property rights there is nothing that prohibits it, though, if I'm correct. Or correct me if I'm wrong. Centers: Well, this body does not interpret CC&R's. That's not part of our obligation here, but we can place restrictions on the use of day cares. Martin: Right. Centers: That would be between you and your Homeowners Association if you didn't agree and if you had a lot of relatives that were over to your house. Then you have to talk to the Homeowners Association, not us. We are just here tonight to act on your request. Martin: Okay. Centers: Because there was the one -- Martin: That one -- yes. Centers: -- comment. Zaremba: Mr. Martin, can I ask a question? If you know. Are you and Mr. Honcosky members of the same Homeowners Association? He appears to be across the common area from you. Do you know if it's the same Homeowners Association? Martin: One second. I'm under the impression that the one who wrote the complaint -- where is that at? His name was Stiles. Centers: He's on Presidential Drive. 3619. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 27 Martin: Okay. Yes Brian and Connie -- okay. Okay. Zaremba: The name you're looking at is our director of Planning and Zoning was the receiver of the complaint. Martin: As far as I know, yes, he is part of the -- Borup: There is only one association for the whole subdivision? Martin: That's right. Correct. Zaremba: Again, this isn't necessarily our place to make this happen. Would you be willing to write a letter to your Homeowners Association saying that you would indemnify them against any claim from parents of your charges for -- if you happen to be out on the common area and one of them got hurt and a parent wanted to sue the association, would you indemnify the association from that? Martin: Yes, I would. Zaremba: That might satisfy the other homeowners that -- I mean they are rightfully concerned about what goes on in the common area, as you would be, too, if somebody else wanted to run their dogs out there or something. Martin: Well -- I'm sorry, but there have been those occasions. I do have some neighbors that occasionally in the summertime they set up their little dog runs and they have had dog practice out there with some of their friends, so -- Zaremba: Well, I'm sure you have a right to complain about that, too, so -- although you're probably trying to be a good neighbor. I'm just offering that as a suggestion, that maybe it might satisfy some of the other homeowners, that you said you would -- if you would make sure the Homeowners Association wasn't sued if one of your charges got hurt. Centers: Mr. Martin, if I could. Are you aware of the letter that your wife wrote? Martin: Yes, I am. Centers: She states, my intentions are not to use the common area. I have a very large yard with play equipment for the children. Would you be okay with approval of the application subject to all children remaining on your premises, per your wife's letter? Martin: Yes but then again -- Centers: Maybe you and your wife can get together and talk about this. Martin: Well, no, we had a talk about it and the point is -- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 28 Centers: I just read you what she said. Martin: I agree. Our original intent wasn't, but per chance down the road in case we did, what, are the P&Z patrol cops or something going to come out and get us a ticket because they did cross the fence or something. See what I'm getting at? So all we are saying -- Centers: We don't have any P&Z patrol cops. Martin: All I'm saying is we want to reserve the right to use it if we so choose is all we are saying. Centers: She didn't say that. Martin: I know. All I'm saying is that in all fairness and honesty to you and to those involved, we hadn't originally planned on it, this neighbor brought it and it's like, well -- Centers: Take that. Martin: Well, no. Well, he brought it up and we hadn't thought about it and it's like, well, hold it, on second thought, what if we did want to use it, we should -- Zaremba: You're a partial owner of that common area, too. Martin: Exactly. Centers: Yes but professional day cares -- I mean you're going to be a professional day care, especially the larger ones, confines their children to their area. They have a fence, which is required. Don't you feel like you would be okay living with those rules, confine your children to your yard? Martin: I would be fine with that, but what if I decided to take them out to the common area as in I was going to the park to play? Right? See what I'm saying? A guy -- you tell me -- right? Say you have a public day care and they decided to take the children to the park, they have a right to take the children to the park. All I'm saying is I want to reserve the right, if we so choose -- not that we had planned on it, but I believe I have the right to take them in the common if we wanted to and kick a ball around is all I'm saying. I don't want to -- I don't want to commit myself to something that -- I won't sit here and lie to you on the one hand and go and do something contrary on the other. Centers: Your wife didn't come tonight? Martin: No she's afraid to come and speak to you guys. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 29 Zaremba: Even if you were to go out there or across the common area with the kids, you're not planning on setting up any of the equipment out there or building anything out there on the common area -- Martin: Oh, no. No. We have a huge wooden – Moore: Chairman Borup, if I can give you some legal advice. He's quoting the contract between himself and the Homeowners Association and this body has no dealings with that. He must take that up with the Homeowners Association, not with this body. Martin: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Yes. I think we need to get back on track. Any other comment you had on -- Martin: No. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Is the complaining person here? Borup: That's what I was hoping for next. Okay. Thank you, sir. Martin: So when will I know whether -- Borup: We are going to discuss it right now. Is there anyone else that would like to put forth any testimony on this? Seeing none -- Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing on Item AUP 02-001 be closed. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Centers: Well, I guess I would agree with counsel and I stated it earlier, the CC&R's are not our concern. You know, really, when you think about restricting the children to the home, that's not our concern. The complaining party is not here. I would move that we approve Item 6, AUP 02-001, request for Accessory Use Permit for the operation of a family Day Care for five or fewer children -- five or fewer children out of the home in an R-4 zone for Brenda Martin by Brenda Martin, 3668 Judicial Drive. Zaremba: Second. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 30 Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? I guess I might just mention if it was a larger day care it might make a difference, but a lot of families have five or more children anyway. Centers: Well, that's why I said on the use, five or less. Borup: Right. Yes. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 02-001 Request for annexation and zoning of 1.14 acres from R-1 to R-4 zones for Marvin and Violet Werth by Marvin & Violet Werth – 2150 South Locust Grove Road: Borup: Item Number 7 is AZ 02-001, request for annexation and zoning of 1.14 acres from R-1 to R-4 zones for Marvin and Violet Werth by Marvin and Violet Werth at 2150 South Locust Grove Road. I'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, on the overhead you can see where the subject property is located. As stated correctly, it's located at 2150 South Locust Grove Road. The property was serviced by city water and sewer a few months back and the applicant agreed at that time to come in and apply for annexation and zoning. The property looks just like this right now today. The property has been now requested to be annexed in accordance with the agreement with the Public Works Department. City staff really has no comment, other than this is one that was agreed upon and they have come and followed through on that. Ask if there are any questions. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Is the applicant here and would like to put forth any testimony? Seeing none, is there anyone else here that would like to testify? Again, none. Commissioners? Centers: I wanted to thank her for keeping her word. Well, I'm on a roll. Is there any discussion? I don't want to move on here if -- it's nice to see these people come back and keep their word. I would make a motion that we approved Item 7, AZ 02-001, request for annexation and zoning of 1.14 acres from R-1 to R-4. Excuse me. Got to close that Public Hearing. So moved. Zaremba: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Okay. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 31 Centers: Now start over. Thank you, Larry. I would recommend approval to the City Council for AZ 02-001, request for annexation and zoning of 1.14 acres from R-1 to R-4 zone from Marvin and Violet Werth by Martin and Violet Werth at 2150 South Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments. Mathes: Second. Borup: Our Commissioner spoke. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 01-045 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,743 square foot Sandwich Shop with a drive-thru window in an L-O zone for Subway by Blaine & Cynthia Jacobson – Northeast corner of Magic View and South Allen Street: Borup: Item Number 8, Public Hearing CUP 01-045, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,743 square foot Sandwich Shop with a drive-thru window in an L-O zone for Subway by Blaine and Cynthia Jacobson, at the corner of Magic View and South Allen Street. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission as you will notice on the overhead -- if you could all look at the overhead really quick. Just recently in the past few months we agreed to approve the subdivision of the subject parcel of ground into three separate parcels. The parcel that we talking about right now is actually the far southern parcel, which is located farthest away from the Greenhill Estates, which is up here. Right now, we have not had a Final Plat recorded, but you have approved that. This would actually be located on the farthest south property. The applicant at the time went through the Preliminary Plat and the annexation for this piece of property. He signed a Development Agreement that said that this property would only be used for office uses, such as those shown on the map surrounding this property kitty-corner to the Subway parcel, across the street at Lincoln Plaza and the rest of the property. At the time of the annexation there was some discussion about allowing an ancillary restaurant to be located in that property. An ancillary restaurant, by definition, is a restaurant that's part of a building to serve those uses that exist on the lot, those being ancillary to that. The project that we have before us tonight is actually a stand-alone drive-thru restaurant. This is actual the easiest site plan to refer to when we discuss this. Right now we are talking about only developing this portion of the lot. The secondary portion of the lot right now is to remain to be developed at a future date. They are only proposing right now the 1,700 to 2,000 square foot restaurant right there. I'd have to refer to my note to see exactly the size, 1,743 square foot drive-thru restaurant. The drive-thru lane would come in through here. The window is right here on the north part of this property closest to the Greenhill Estates, as the earlier map showed. Borup: You're saying that is the window? Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 32 McKinnon: That is the -- the pick-up window is actually further to the south. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: On the western side of the property. This is actually where the speaker system will be. The speaker system actually is directed and is closest to the neighbors to the north. They will be able to order here, pick up here, and then exit the complex at this location. Right now, they are providing more than enough parking than is required. In anticipation that in the future they will either subdivide this property further to allow the development of a building right here for offices uses, as was approved with the Development Agreement, or to apply for a planned development to allow a second building to be placed on that lot. Two things that I'd like to address rather quickly. One, they haven't provided any landscaping in this area as part of the Boyd's Subdivision that you recently approved. They were required to submit a Landscape Plan and at this time we would request that all the landscaping be installed for the entire project, rather than have a project that ends with a vertical curb, then has dirt. We'd ask that the landscaping be continued as found in the conditions and a secondary comment to that, it has to deal with the parking, because the drive-thru lane right now, the way that it is oriented, would have vehicles backing up into the drive-thru lane. By Meridian city code, definition of parking, they are required to have a 25-foot wide driveway aisle width behind the 90-degree parking stalls. They do not have that. They would have to either modify this area to shrink it down or to take the landscaping up along the north and make that smaller, rather than 10 feet as they proposed. Maybe drop it to five feet, which would still meet the minimum requirements, that way they would have some additional space for a vehicle to be right here and still allow people to pull out of the parking lot. Those are the basic comments. There may be some additional comments. I know that the applicant is here tonight to address some additional issues. There are some issues concerning the property. Along the south side there is a sanitary sewer service line that runs up in there, it's not a city line, and placing landscaping on top of that may be an issue that we'd like to discuss in tonight's meeting. With that I would ask if there is any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Page five, Dave. McKinnon: Okay. Centers: Paragraph 8. McKinnon: Yes. Centers: Modification of the Development Agreement requires separate application and a Public Hearing. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 33 McKinnon: Yes. Centers: Hypothetically, we give a yea or a naye to this -- and hypothetically a yea, do we have to do another Public Hearing? You modify the Development Agreement or -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers -- Centers: It wasn't clear. McKinnon: We would not -- your body, as a Commission, would not be required to have that separate Public Hearing. That would be a Public Hearing in front of the City Council. Centers: Okay. McKinnon: I have already addressed that with the applicant. Centers: So we are not wasting our time here. McKinnon: We are not wasting our time here. The applicant's already aware and has already got the application. I'm sure he's probably got it done already. Centers: That's the only question I had. McKinnon: Thanks. Borup: Anyone else? Zaremba: I do have a -- kind of a configuration question. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: In the north area where you're saying you need to widen the driveway -- McKinnon: Right here. Zaremba: -- these same people own the parcel that's -- or, actually, at the present time, what is going to be three pieces is currently one piece right? McKinnon: That is correct. Zaremba: And we have not seen a plat that makes it into three pieces? Borup: You have seen a plat, you have approved a plat, and the final plat has not been recorded at the Clerk's Office. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 34 Zaremba: All right. Then my question is if -- even though they are separate pieces, there has been a lot of discussion about making sure that properties have certain flow through. That north property is going to be totally isolated from this piece of property. We wouldn't want to join the parking lots somehow? Centers: They proposed that, I believe. Borup: Actually, the site plan shows there is no connection between the two parcels of ground. There is an existing curb cut from the property to the north on the street that runs north south. They already have a curb cut right here for that property. You're well within your rights to request that they continue a parking lot through here. The landscape requirements -- and you have got parking, besides joint parking, has to be separated by a five-foot wide landscape buffer, which they provided for. There is no specific requirement to force them in our code to provide access to the secondary lot through their lot. Zaremba: Could we require that part of that landscaping have a pathway on it? I'm trying to make it easy for people to go back and forth without -- even if they walked from one building over to the Subway. McKinnon: That has great merit. Rather than have people tromp through landscaping, have some -- that's an idea that gives you some thought. Absolutely. Zaremba: We are hoping people will patronize it, so -- McKinnon: Sure. Centers: One other question -- well, first of all, of course, the applicant will address this, but I would suspect there is going to be a Cross-Access Agreement. Borup: Would that be correct. Centers: They are going to utilize parking and then if you go back to the area map, the first map. Where is -- is this a vacant lot? Borup: The other end. McKinnon: The entire property is vacant right now. Centers: No. No. I mean the proposed -- the Subway is going to be the bottom two- thirds of this lot? McKinnon: Bottom one third. Centers: Right here? Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 35 McKinnon: Yes. Centers: The Subway is going to be down in here? McKinnon: There will be two more building lots. There is a building lot in the middle, and then one up north and my hand is really shaky. Borup: The vacant lot is right there. McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: How many feet from the notable speakerphone is it to the residential area? Maybe the applicant can address that. Borup: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I can address that in a -- just in a round about way. I haven't actually put a ruler down, but if the Final Plat had been recorded prior to their application, there would have been no radius notices send to this neighborhood. There is at least a 300-foot separation. Centers: Okay. And last, but not least, the Development Agreement that I'm familiar agreement with -- we have been here before -- at least Chairman Borup and I have -- if not used for an L-0 zone, they would come back to the Commission for a CUP. McKinnon: This is the Conditional Use Permit. Centers: I know. I know but it's stated in that Development Agreement that if not used for L-O zone, they would come back to see us. Correct? Correct Chairman Borup? Borup: That's my recollection. Centers: Yes. Okay. And they are here tonight. McKinnon: They are here tonight for a Conditional Use Permit for that. Centers: Okay. Zaremba: I'll make a comment on the speaker and, again, I will address this with the applicant when they get here. Just for our own consideration, it's likelihood that whatever building they put on the north piece of property is going to provide some blockage for the speakerphone. Then I'd also like to make the suggestion in Boise on Broadway there is a Schlotsky's Deli that actually has a hand telephone set that you use as a speakerphone. That probably was at the request of the neighbors where the person in their car still drives up, doesn't get out of their car, but they reach out and take this telephone looking thing and speak into it and nobody outside their car can hear them. That may be an option. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 36 McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, that's an option that we have utilized in the past, making that a requirement on drive-thrus when it impacts residential areas. I'd point out that right now we do have a drive-thru bank located immediately adjacent to the residential area. The speaker system is actually focused towards the west, but it's actually much closer and we do not require alternative means of speakers at that location. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward at this time? Larsen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Cornell Larsen, 210 Murray Street in Garden City. I'm here this evening representing the applicant, Blaine and Cynthia Jacobson, on the project. If I could, David maybe to go back to the Landscape Plan on his overhead. I'll probably be shaking as much as him, so we probably got in the same coffee pot or coke. The intent of this project was to be a project -- a stand-alone project for a Subway and also the intent of the project, so you understand, is the office building that was proposed here is also for the Subway people. They would be occupying that. That is just a couple of years down the road until they are prepared to move forward with that project. So we wanted to make sure that you understood that as we talked about the project. Zaremba: I'm not quit understanding. You're saying that's going to be their corporate offices for the local Subway Franchise? Larsen: Correct. That would be correct. In looking at the staff requirements, there were several things that we wanted to talk about, as well as some of the issues that you had, as a Commission had brought up. One is we think this is a good location for a Subway. There are offices in that area, there are people in that area frequenting the hospital, and there are people that stop off of the freeway to get gas and food. This does prevent traffic from going on down to Fairview and Eagle Road where there may be food services. It would keep some of the traffic that may actually have to drive on farther down or some of the hospital people drive on farther down if they did want to get a sandwich or stop by the Subway. We think it will help some of the traffic congestion in driving up and down Eagle Road. Secondly, there -- as you know, as a result of that there are businesses there and that area is developing and there is a need for food service in that area. To discuss the project, we can and have set it up so that most of the customer parking as they come off of Magic View and off of Allen would be typically oriented in this area. For the people they would go through -- this would be a main entry. They would be served, they would go out or they could come back out this way. The drive-in facility we could adjust the landscape buffer here and a little bit here to accommodate the extra drive width as David had mentioned basically in Item Number 2. Borup: How much more room -- do you need 10 feet for a driveway or -- Larsen: About 9 to 10 feet. Yes. I think he suggested 9 and we could -- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 37 Borup: That's a parking spot. Larsen: Yes and we can probably get that adjusted, so that -- Borup: So take five out of the landscaping and four out of the -- Larsen: Four out of that back -- Borup: -- landscaping around the building. Larsen: Out of that area right there, we could adjust that. Borup: Okay. Larsen: In addition, I wanted to talk a little bit about Item Number 1, which was submitting the Landscape Plan to go around the entire parcel. I don't think we would have a problem going around that. We would like to leave some of this bare, so that we don't have to tear it back out as we do the building construction itself. We'd like maybe a little consideration on your part to do along this boundary and maybe along here and here, but keep that to minimum at this point in time, so that we didn't have to damage that at a later date. Borup: I'll clarify that. Mr. McKinnon, you were talking about just perimeter landscaping, weren't you? McKinnon: Just the perimeter landscaping. Borup: And was the size of that landscaping discussed, the buffer size? McKinnon: In fact, we already have a Landscape Plan for this parcel for all the perimeter landscaping. It was approved back when it was Mystery View, when we originally approved it. They have now changed the name to Boyd's Subdivision, but there was actually a Landscape Plan that came with that. It has actually been approved already showing the perimeter landscaping. We did not require that at that time to place all the perimeter landscaping in for the entire project, because they didn't want to rip out the landscaping. Borup: I remember that. McKinnon: And the perimeter we are just talking about the street edge. We are not talking about any interior landscaping. Borup: And that was my understanding, too. Does that work -- Larsen: Yes. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 38 Borup: -- for what you had in mind? Thank you. Larsen: In addition, under Item Number 6 there was a question or a request from us to state the hours of operation for the Subway facilities. Normally they operate and open on all days of the week at 10:00 A.M. in the morning. They close on Sunday through Wednesday at 9:00 P.M. and then on Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays they have an 11:00 closing. Centers: When you say normally, is that consistent throughout the valley you mean? Larsen: That's their standard hours. Centers: That's their standard -- Larsen: Yes. Centers: Okay. Larsen: And that we are -- right now, we are trying to comply with Item Number 6 to give you the hours that we intend to operate. The next item was the Development Agreement. We had talked with staff. We did realize that the City Council was the entity that modified the Development Agreement and we signed and agreed to those. Assuming that we get an approval from you tonight, then we would be prepared to submit the Development Agreement modification tomorrow to the city, so that we could then move forward to the City Council modification on the Development Agreement. Zaremba: And you agree with limiting that modification to just this project and not making it over the whole thing? Larsen: Yes. That is correct. It was just this parcel and it was modified specifically the way staff had written. We do not have a problem with that. I believe there was a question from one of the members of the Committee regarding the distance to the property line to the north. There are two lots -- Borup: Did that conclude everything on staff comments? Larsen: Yes, sir, it did. Borup: Okay. Larsen: The copy of the Preliminary Plat I had showed a lot to the north, which was Lot Number 2. It was approximately 150 feet. Then Lot Number 1, which is adjacent to St. Luke's Drive, it shows about 142 feet to the -- what would be the south boundary of St. Luke's Drive, which is about right there. There is some additional distance on here which -- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 39 Centers: How wide is the road? Larsen: It appears to be about 108 feet at one end and it's probably less than that on the -- about 108 feet right there and it’s less than that at this location. Centers: So 100 feet? Larsen: Yes. Something in that range. Centers: Okay. Larsen: Also I'd like the Commission to know that we notified the neighbors based on the notices that we had obtained from the city on the required notices and had a -- had and scheduled a neighborhood meeting. We did not have anyone show up to that meeting. There may be people here to testify against us, because they don't always show up or they have comments on it, but at that time, we had no one show up. We did have a lady who indicated she lived immediately north, but wasn't opposed to the project, and, I'm sorry, I didn't get her name. If she's here maybe, she could fill you in on that tonight. Let's see, there was some other questions, but -- Zaremba: I didn't want to interrupt you unless you were done, Mr. Larsen, but I did have one question. Larsen: Go ahead. Zaremba: And that was on the suggestion that there be a pathway through the perimeter landscaping, so that people in the adjoining offices could easily walk to this restaurant. Larsen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, yes, we don't have a problem with a pathway system there and we had at one time talked with the owner of the other two lots or -- would be W. H. Moore and they are not sure how those might develop as the project goes on. We do have a scheduled meeting with the individual on the very north lot that would be a medical office facility, so we do know that that's potentially in the works, it may come together or it may not, but we do not have a problem with the intersection with a sidewalk or something through there. Zaremba: I'm just thinking that you'd probably replace a five foot by five foot square of turf with a piece of concrete. Larsen: Yes and we'd try to line it up so that it goes between cars. Centers: Or even stepping-stones. Larsen: That would be fine. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 40 Borup: I think that would be to your benefit. Larsen: Yes. We hadn't thought about it. It is a good idea and, like I said, we have no problem with that. Borup: Do you have any -- you mentioned two parcels to the north. There is discussion of a building on one and assume it's going to be another office type building on the other. Between this -- what I'm getting back to was the comment on the speaker. Between this and the 400 feet to the subdivision, there would also be two buildings. Larsen: Yes. There could also be one, depending on if this – Borup: Two small ones or one large one? Larsen: Or one large one but there would definitely be another one or two structures in between that -- this facility and the neighborhood. Centers: I don't mean to get personal, but what would be the -- for valuation purposes, taxable value of this? Larsen: Of this project -- of the Subway facility? My guess is it's probably going to run about 70 dollars a square foot, maybe a little more than that as far as the value of the building itself and the improvements. Centers: Without the land. Larsen: Without the land. I don't know what the land costs are. Centers: All right. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Larsen? I was wondering if you had a comment on the ACHD report. Larsen: Well, we had comments, but it was regarding their extraordinary impact fees. Borup: That was what I was wondering. Isn't that street already in? Larsen: Yes. There was a -- I guess I can speak to this briefly, Commissioner Borup. There is a street that was put in from here over to here in which Mr. Moore dedicated the right of way of the land. ACHD went ahead and put in the street, put in the stoplight, and as a result of that, they are requiring what they call an extraordinary impact fee. That impact fee is based on projected trips generated by a drive-in restaurant. The Subway facility doesn't normally have near the trips that a drive-in -- a typical drive-in restaurant, McDonald's or a Wendy's or something like that would have. We will probably have to do a special assessment with the Highway District to see if we Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 41 can get that number reduced, but we understand why it is and what it is, we just need to discuss the amount. Borup: Okay and that was part my confusion. ACHD did put that road in, that wasn't done by the developer originally. Larsen: That is my understanding that they did put that in. Zaremba: Well, he gave them the land for it. Larsen: Yes. The land was given to them. Zaremba: You don't get any credit for that? Larsen: Not much. Not enough, I guess. Borup: Well, are they rebuilding Magic View, then? Larsen: No. They have already put -- they have not done anything to Magic View. It will be our responsibility to improve Magic View. Borup: Because their statement said that it would go into funds to construct and dedicate a right of way for a new road from Eagle Road that intersects with Magic View and Allen. They are asking for this money to redo Magic View. Larsen: For that whole area, but it's specifically tied to this Subdivision, the road improvements that -- Borup: So they are planning on improving that roadway? Larsen: Yes. It probably will get improvement, but in this case we are going to be ahead of their project, so we will get to do it. Borup: That's what I thought. That's why I was wondering. So you get to do it, plus pay them to do it again? Larsen: That is the way their staff report is worded. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Anything else? Larsen: No. I would be happy to come back if we have some comments. Borup: Really, as far as the staff comments, there was just clarification -- and you're fine with the perimeter landscaping on Item Number 1, that you're agreeing with all staff comments. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 42 Larsen: Correct. Zaremba: And prepared to do the Redevelopment Agreement? Borup: Yes. Larsen: We would be modifying that so we can try to stay on schedule. Borup: Thank you, Mr. Larsen. Larsen: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone here to testify on this application? It looks like we have got the same people here that came to your meeting. Zaremba: I was hoping Jared’s would show up. Borup: Well, I think the thing was installed in this past meeting, that they are not proposing a hotel. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed on CUP 01-045. Centers: Second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you. Centers: Yes. I did expect some people here tonight, so I took the time to stop at a McDonald's and got out of my car. Fifty feet away I could hear the speakerphone. Not well. A hundred feet away couldn't hardly hear it. I don't have the greatest ears, but I don't wear a hearing aid either, so I couldn't see the emphasis on the speakerphone, especially when it's 400 feet from the neighbors, so -- Borup: Anybody ready for a motion? Do we need some discussion? No discussion? Anybody ready to make a motion? Centers: Sure. I'd like to recommend to the City Council that we approve CUP 01-045, request for Conditional Use Permit for a 1,743 square foot Sandwich Shop with a drive- thru window in an L-O zone for Subway by Blaine and Cynthia Jacobson, northwest corner of Magic View and South Allen Street. Zaremba: Actually, that's northeast corner. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 43 Centers: Including all staff comments and specifically their site specific requirements starting on page four, Item Number 1, to be amended to include landscaping around the future commercial site at the north end of this application and also the applicant has agreed and I would propose that they include the appropriate pathways through landscape buffers that surround the property. Number 6 on page five, the applicant, for the record, stated that the hours would be Sunday through Wednesday 10:00 to 9:00, Thursday through Saturday, 10:00 to 11:00. That should be it. For the record, the applicant has agreed to all of the other site-specific requirements. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. Mr. Larsen, you want some of these? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 02-001 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for a 54-unit apartment complex for The Foothills Apartments by Sitzlar Real Estate Development – Northeast Corner of North Nola and East Franklin Roads: Borup: Item Number 9 is a Public Hearing, CUP 02-001, request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for a 54 unit apartment complex for The Foothill Apartments by Sitzlar Real Estate Development at the northwest corner of North Nola and East Franklin Road. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Get my graphic up there. Catch up with myself. As you can see, the project is actually a very long, narrow piece of property that fronts on Franklin. It has the intersection of Nola and Franklin Road. There is the intersection right there. This is the view from the property across from Franklin. As you can see, the reason I think they are calling this Foothills Apartments is because the foothills are very visible from this location. This is the actual area they would like to put the apartment complex, the 54 unit apartment complex. It actually overlooks the dreaded bus barn that we talked ad nauseam with the Utility Subdivision. The existing bus barn is located directly behind the apartment complex where it would like to be located. In addition to that, it's right next to the Wooden Nickel Bar Restaurant. This is the rear of the bar restaurant. I put this picture up for future reference, because we will talk a little bit about the setback reduction and the request that they have. The site plan for the apartment complex is just like this. This is a conceptual Landscape Plan that they have placed before us. As you can see, it's well designed with a number of different types of apartment complexes. It includes a pool. It includes a basketball court, plus open picnic area. The clubhouse is located in the southwest corner right here. The apartment complex itself has an equal ratio as required by code for the number of parking spaces, two spaces for every single unit, which is the minimum requirement in our code. There are some concerns, however, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 44 which have been addressed in the staff report regarding the lack of parking. The reason for that is for a number of different reasons I'll just highlight quickly. There is a linear arrangement of parking stalls, 23 parking stalls linearly arranged without any landscape islands. There is a requirement in the Landscape Ordinance that says no more than 12 in a line without a landscape island, so they will need to place one there, which would be a net loss of one parking space. Additionally on the far east side there are more than 12 parking spaces linearly arranged, so they will have to lose a parking space. In addition to that, they show six ADA handicapped parking stalls. Those handicapped parking stalls are among those. According to the scale that was submitted none of those meet the requirement for van accessible parking. One of those would need to be modified to meet the van accessible parking requirements for ADA. They provide the minimum number of parking just for the apartments. They provide no additional parking for the clubhouse. The code requirements for the clubhouse parking are one parking stall for every 300 square feet. We could look at the definition of parking requirements for a pool, which is actually one parking stall for every five occupants that the pool can contain. Seeing how there is really no way to quantify how many people can be contained in a pool, we decided to refer to the clubhouse parking, which would require an additional eight parking stalls to be located somewhere within this parcel of the Sparrowhawk Subdivision. As you are aware, we have recently passed a Planned Development Ordinance. This apartment complex is being requested in a zone that is -- that would prohibit, typically, an apartment complex. The C-G zone does not allow apartment complexes. This is the first time that Meridian has used the 20 percent exception to be used with a Planned Development. This is an exception to the use and as an exception, they were required to meet some specific requirements as required by the Planned Development Ordinance requiring open space and other amenities. It's very easy to see that they have provided the open space and the amenities with the clubhouse, pool, park area, and basketball court. The basketball court needs to be rotated 90 degrees as noted in the staff report. Before we move on to the rest of the project, a couple other things to point out that we talked a little bit about -- I talked just momentarily about the picture showing the bus barn is located directly behind this project and the Wooden Nickel is located right here. The applicant has requested reduced setbacks -- or reduced landscape buffers. Our Landscape Ordinance requires that when you place a high-density residential use, which by our Landscape Ordinance is a class two use, adjacent to an industrial use, which is a class five use, you have a 30-foot landscape buffer. They are showing only a 15-foot landscape buffer. Typically, they would not be required to place that 30-foot landscape buffer on their property. However, there is a clause in our ordinance that says if they are locating adjacent to an existing development they have to provide the buffer on their property. As part of the Planned Development they can request the reduced buffers and it's up to you to determine whether or not those buffers are appropriate. The site plan references only a chain link fence across the back of the property and down through the middle. The landscape -- not the landscape, but the Final Plat comments from the entire subdivision require a cedar fence. A chain link would not be allowed so you would have a cedar fence buffer between those. Keep in mind, however, that these apartments are two story apartments, so they will be able to see over that six-foot site buffer. Some additional buffering may be something that you would like to consider as Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 45 part of this project and keep in mind that they are only requesting a 10-foot landscape buffer behind the Wooden Nickel. You saw what the Wooden Nickel looks like from behind in an earlier photograph, which we can refer to later if you like. I'd like to get a little more specific with the site-specific comments. If I could ask you to turn to Page 6 really quick. Site Specific Comment Number 3, as you're turning, requires perimeter landscaping for the entire subdivision. I will move back to the entire subdivision layout. When the Final Plat was approved, it was stated that any occupancy or any Building Permits, Final Plat, would require that all the perimeter landscaping be installed first, regardless of what part of the project begins the development. No occupancy can take place in this part of the development, if this is the first part of the development, until the landscape buffer on the perimeter, the full 35 foot wide landscape buffer down Franklin and the landscape buffer along Nola is installed. The entire landscape buffer must be and that was something that was agreed to on the Final Plat. Take you to Item Number 4 on the site-specific comments. We need a new detailed Landscape Plan. The only thing we have right now is a conceptual approval. We would need something to show us what kind of trees those are. You may want to consider making those trees along the areas that need additional buffering conifer trees or trees that have a larger area, rather than columnar trees that are very narrow and don't block view. Item Number 5 we addressed a minute ago, concerning the perimeter fencing required as cedar fencing. Item Number 7 I have covered quite a bit concerning parking. That's really the most specific I'd like to get into it. Now if I can refer to the rest of the project, which is the commercial aspect of the project, rather than just The Foothills aspect, The Foothills Apartment Complex. The rest of the project is commercial in nature. They have listed several types of uses as being retail, warehouse, and office uses. In the far southwest corner they are actually showing a restaurant drive-thru, like a Chevron with a McDonald's or a Texaco with Taco Bell, that type of fast food drive-thru restaurant with a service station that is located in this area. This is conceptual at this time. They will come back with detailed Conditional Use Permits for every single use that is located within this project. This is only conceptual approval of the project. This is detailed. This is the last time you will see The Foothills Apartment if you approve it tonight, unless Council remands it back to you for any changes, if you make the approval. The rest of this you will see again. They will add additional landscaping comments and they will show you what type of building that they will be locating in that project. A few points of interest to point out. They do provide a pathway system that starts on Nola, follows the exterior perimeter to the north, and comes across all the way to the -- it dead ends right here. Staff comments include adding a pathway connecting the apartment complex to the commercial project, rather than forcing any pedestrian access to the commercial project by going down, around, through the parking lot and then back into the pathway. They include additional outdoor areas, outdoor plazas, but at this time it's just conceptual and they are just looking to determine whether or not you think these uses that they propose are appropriate. Staff agrees that they would be appropriate and we have no problem allowing the types of uses that are in here, with some minor modifications concerning landscaping and parking. One final comment and then I will turn it over to you for questions, has to relate to the proposed type of buildings that they have shown us on the commercial project. There is an elevation right there, it shows you what type of product they would like to do with a 6/12 pitched roof, metal type of Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 46 roofing, with a stucco wall type of covering and then for the warehouse they show a similar type of flat roof with some metal sheeting along the peaks with some sort of river rock wainscot. We have accommodated those site design requirements and building requirements as a condition of the conceptual approval that anything that comes before you would match this type of design. So that we can keep a uniform appearance of the entire project, rather than have different types of buildings and not have a uniform appearance. I just thought of one other thing that I'd like to address just really quick and it's probably more appropriate for Bruce to address, is the final comment the Fire Marshall had concerning the amount of water that needed to be required for fire suppression. The project would need to have a 12 inch water main down installed along Franklin in order provide the amount of water that's required for fire suppression and I think the applicant is aware of that and so I'd like them to address that. That would be a requirement by the Fire Marshall and the Public Works Department to place that water line in there for fire suppression. With that I would ask if there is any questions. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Centers: I have one question. You just hit on it, the design of future buildings. Was that in the original approval by this body? McKinnon: The original final plat approval? Centers: Yes. Any approval. McKinnon: No. This is the first time they -- Centers: This is your recommendation? McKinnon: This is our recommendation that we include these types of design elements as part of their future Conditional Use permits when they come back in. Centers: So we are just acting on the -- on the Foothills apartments? McKinnon: We are actually acting on the entire project conceptually. The Foothills Apartment we are acting on a detailed planned development. Borup: The rest of it would be the Sparrowhawk Subdivision. Centers: Right. I remember that. McKinnon: It's kind of a split type of application. We are approving tonight the apartments. Everything else would have to come back to you. Centers: All right. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 47 Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Did you have any comments, Mr. Freckleton, on the water line? How far does it -- it's got to go down Franklin towards Eagle how far? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, the end of the existing high-pressure water main is about 7/10ths of a mile, I believe is what it is. It's down by Parkway Plaza. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: Down Franklin Road. Roughly where you see -- do you see the blue triangle on the right, it ends right there at the tip of the triangle. They will need to pick it up there and bring it down. That eventually will tie to Nola. We have a water main at Nola but what we are dealing with is we have got a high-pressure zone and a low- pressure zone. The low-pressure zone cannot provide the water supply that's required by the Fire Department. There is an addendum comment from the Fire Marshall. I don't know if you have got those in your packet. He came up with some fire flows. Zaremba: I saw something -- Freckleton: Dated March 4th . The flow that he came up with is 4,250 gallons a minute for a four-hour duration, without sprinklers -- without a sprinkler system in the buildings. That flow is -- that's a huge flow. I don't know that we can provide that even out of the high-pressure zone, so the likelihood that these buildings will have to be sprinkled is pretty high. Borup: That would be determined at the time the building comes in, then. Freckleton: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. When Joe came up with these numbers, you know, of course, he didn't have a set of Building Plans in front him and -- as far as material types and all that, so he's -- this is his gut feeling as to what the number is going to be. When I did ask him about if the buildings were sprinkled what would the fire flow drop to and he said -- his guess was it would come down to probably around 2,000 gallons a minute. Borup: Thank you. Do we have the applicant's representative here this evening? Ford: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. For the record, Ashley Ford, Hubble Engineering, 701 South Allen, Suite 102, in Meridian. First I want to say I didn't realize we were the very use exception, so I feel a little bit honored in order to do this. Representing the developer tonight we have reviewed the conditions of approval and we are in agreement. We will make the requested modifications as staff has requested. We do have three comments we would like to make, however. The first is we will be able to meet the additional parking requirements required by staff for the eight additional spaces as required by the clubhouse. This will cause a slight rearrangement of the buildings and we will make these modifications and submit it back to staff prior to going to City Council. It won't be anything significant, but it will be a shift in order to accommodate that. Number 2, staff has recommended increasing the buffer Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 48 along the north and east of the apartments or placing additional buffering per conifers. We would prefer to do the conifers, rather than increasing the buffer 30 feet, because of the constraints of the site. Three, one of the conditions were regarding the fire flows. We are requesting, if we can meet the fire flows for the apartment, that we hold off extending the water main until the later phases of the project. Of course, if we can't meet the Fire Code, we will extend the water and accommodate the Fire Code. I think that's all I have. We request your approval this evening. We think it's a good project and will be of benefit to Meridian. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Centers: Yes. Ashley, how do you feel about staff comments, Page 7, Number 11? This is the first time I have seen this come out of staff and I wondered how you feel about it when you read that. We don't have a design review board or commission. Ford: Yes. We don't have a problem with that. I spoke to my clients regarding those conditions. Centers: So that was their intent? Ford: That would be the intent. We wanted -- Centers: Is that kind of how you -- you want to leave that on there? Ford: We don't have a problem with leaving that on there. Centers: Okay. Very good. Ford: We are definitely looking at trying to do a high quality project. Centers: Good. Borup: Any other questions? I had one on -- along the lines of he buffering aspect, specifically on the north. Isn't there a -- looking at the photos, isn't there a grade change there of significant -- Ford: Yes, there is, and we will be doing some significant grading for this project. Borup: Is most of the grade change of slope -- is that on your property or is that on the adjoining property? Ford: I believe it's mostly on our property. Borup: Okay so this does have a lot of slope to it from the south to the north? Ford: Yes, it does. Yes, it does. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 49 Borup: So those northern apartments aren't backing up against the hillside -- I, mean you know, off the back of the -- Ford: There is a lot of grading that will be done and the lot will be more level than what it is at this time. Borup: But where does that put it in relation to the commercial buildings down below is what I was wondering? Are you still above them in grade? Ford: Yes, we are. Borup: The reason I bring it up, I mean to me that's somewhat of a factor in the buffering if you have also got a grade difference between the adjoining uses, that, itself, is a buffer also in my mind. Okay. It looks like most of the grade does step down within the project itself, then. This doesn't show the grade of the adjoining properties either, though. Well, there is over 10 feet, 10 to 15 feet in drop off on the site. All right. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward on this? McReynolds: Yes. Clay McReynolds here on behalf of the Meridian Foothills Apartments. Borup: On behalf of who? McReynolds: Meridian Foothill Apartments -- Borup: Okay. McReynolds: -- Associates and Cole Community Development, which is the developer of the apartment portion of the project and I did want to address a few of the questions that have come up. One was with respect to the Wooden Nickel and the buffering issue. If we could see the site plan for just a second. Borup: I assume you weren't able to buy that property when you bought the other, is that -- McReynolds: No, but we are hoping when they widen the street it will go away, because there won't be any parking, but -- Ashley mentioned that there would be some necessity for moving some of the buildings in order get the parking. I don't have a fancy little pointer, but what we are -- what we had proposed is to move the streets down this way and to accomplish that the basketball court would be rotated, which was requested anyway. The clubhouse would be rotated and then we will be able to put the smaller building here, the 4-plex, in this corner and the larger building here with the street moving this way. It would -- we pick up parking here, which we pick up basically six across here, plus the eight down here, which would allow us to pick up what we need Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 50 for handicapped and the clubhouse, etc. We lucked out here, I think, because this 4- plex would be turned sideways, so that what would be facing the Wooden Nickel here would be an end of a building with I think one window on the second floor. The building itself would provide a pretty effective additional buffer and then -- it's so tight I don't know how much, if any, we can pull the building back. We would propose, through fencing and planting conifers and shield vegetation to block that. Then with respect to the fire flow, I'm a little at a loss on the reason, I guess, for the 4,250. I didn't know why that -- under the Uniform Fire Code I believe it's 2,250 and if it drops below that it would require sprinkling. I have never seen a municipality ever that could provide 4,250, I don't believe, so I guess I would -- Borup: Your question is where do they -- how do they come up with that? McReynolds: Yes. I really don't know where that value comes from. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I'm going by comments we received from the fire -- Assistant Fire Chief. He references the '97 Uniform Fire Code, Appendix 3-A. So I don't know -- Borup: So you may want to look into that. Freckleton: -- where he's coming up with that. I was quite surprised when I saw the 4,250 for four hours, too. McReynolds: I'm hoping for a typo here. Zaremba: Always a possibility. McReynolds: Yes. As far as I know it's a straightforward application of the Uniform Fire Code, which I believe should be 2,250, not 4,250. I guess I would ask two things with respect to the fire flows and the water line, is that we leave it open that we get clarification regarding the required flow. Then also that once the Sparrowhawk Developers have extended the line up to the apartments, that we be allowed to do a flow test to determine whether there is sufficient capacity in pressure to not continue to line up that 3,500 feet or so. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I could address that, I'd like to at this point. The water line will have to go all the way to Nola eventually. The reason for that is you saw the site plan of what is planned in the rest of the development. In the rest of the development they have three story buildings in there. Our water model -- we ran this through the water model and our model indicated that from the low-pressure zone we could barely provide 1,500 GPM flow. One of the biggest issues in this area is it is on the high end of the low pressure zone, which means basically that our static pressures out there are really low to begin with. So, you start stacking buildings up three stories tall and you lose a pound of pressure for every two feet vertically that you go up and pretty quick you're out of pressure. We have determined that it is necessary for this water main to go for this project and that it will have to go all the way to Nola Street and tie into the 12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 51 inch main that's down there. Now that will be valved off at Nola, but for the Foothills project itself it would not have to go all the way down to Nola. When those -- when the CUP’s come in for the rest of the project, that main will have to be carried on down to where it eventually could make that. Borup: Where is that main coming from, then, right now? Freckleton: Which main? Eagle Road? Borup: Well, no, the one that they would be using -- Zaremba: The high pressure. Borup: The one that they are using for the project. Freckleton: The one that they will be using for the project is going to have to come from the east towards Eagle Road down by Parkway Plaza. Borup: Well, eventually but I mean -- Freckleton: No. Now. Borup: Oh, now. Freckleton: It's going to have to come there to serve this project. Borup: That's the source of water. Freckleton: For this project. We cannot serve it from the low-pressure zone. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: It just does not work. Borup: Were you aware of that in staff discussion previously? McReynolds: I wasn't, but then under our agreement we are not responsible for the water, so it's kind of secondary for me. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, when we had discussions -- we were still in our old building when we first had a meeting on this project and it was brought up at that point in time and it was our gut feeling that this was what was going to have to happen. Borup: So the overall developer already -- McKinnon: Absolutely. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 52 Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. McReynolds? Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else -- anybody else from the applicant -- oh, you -- either way. Come on up, sir. Anderson: My name is John Anderson. I live at 120 North Nola Road, which adjoins this property. Yes. Right there. Excuse me. My big concern right now is the issue of water. They have now buried our ditch. We have no access to water downstream. This affects approximately 75 homes. We have got a big concern with this. Earlier we were told that they would initiate an agreement with our Water User Association, which I'm the water master of. I also noticed that the main artery to the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District's aren't reliable. This will keep them from running the water -- I happen to be the District Water Superintendent for Nampa-Meridian, that's why I know that. It's not our facility for the district, but it is for the homeowners and if there is anything that you guys can do to help us out there we'd appreciate it. We have set a deadline of March 15th on this. The apartments as far as where my home sits, I guess I don't have a problem with that. I was concerned that it was coming all the way down. Is it possible that I could comment on what the plan is now changed to, the Preliminary Plan? I was told originally -- can I walk over there? When I first came to the preliminary things were just -- there was supposed to be a 25-foot buffer -- landscaping buffer from my property on both sides of this and that seemed okay. Now I understand from tonight they want to put a bike path in there and I'm begging you, don't let them put a bike path in my backyard. Those things are nothing but trouble. I have horses in there. I will have people crawling through my fence. Can they please move that? I was assured that I was going to be buffered away from this thing. I'm the only residence back there. Didn't they just say that a minute ago? Borup: They just said a pathway. Anderson: Pathway. Okay. I called it a bike path. Whatever it's going to be, that's what they term it to be and I thought that's -- if I'm wrong, I apologize. I think if it's a pathway -- call it what you want, but -- well, they said all the way from Nola coming up through here. Borup: Just the person at the microphone needs to speak. The pathway would be within the buffer would be my understanding. Are you concerned that the buffer size is being reduced? Anderson: No. No. No. No. They told me they were going to make them put in a landscape buffer, so that my residence would be protected and private. If they put a pathway in there it won't be. When I heard that tonight, that's -- that's all I knew and when I hear you're going to address these in each phase I feel like, boy, I better not miss one little curb going in out here or I'm going to not be here for something like that. I was assured at the very first meeting this would not occur, that my privacy would be protected. Couldn't they relocate the pathway or whatever you want to call it, say along Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 53 Franklin Road? It's not going to bother anybody in there. It doesn't infringe on my privacy rights, but I sure feel like it's going to when it's back there. I deal with these lots. Centers: Well, the applicant will address your concerns after you speak. I guess I want to know how can we help you with the irrigation. Anderson: We required that they get that started right now and get an agreement with the Water Users Association. We have asked for that in writing previously. Centers: Yes. I understand. I remember seeing you before. For their parcel? Anderson: Yes. The ditch. They buried our ditch. Centers: Okay. Borup: I believe on a previous application that the agreement was that the water would not be interrupted. Isn't that what you're referring to? Anderson: Yes, sir. Centers: That's always the case. Anderson: It's interrupted. Borup: How much water have you got in one of those ditches now? Anderson: None, but we will very soon. Borup: So you're saying they need to get the new ditch in or a pipe or whatever it is they are doing before water comes in. Anderson: They got me nervous. I deal with this all the time. I'm kind of nervous. I like these done on time. Borup: I think we will have the applicant address that issue. Anything else? Anderson: No, sir. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anderson: Thank you. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just had one comment to make to add to what -- Mr. Anderson, is that correct? What Mr. Anderson just stated. On Page 9 of the staff report, we actually address the 25-foot wide buffer. The item will be actually on Page 9. It just talks about the Sparrowhawk Final Plat required a Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 54 minimum of 25 foot buffer there and they have encroached on that 25 foot buffer by placing the pathway in that 25 foot buffer. That is something that we, as staff, would like for you to determine as to whether or not that is appropriate to place that within the agreed upon 25 foot buffer. Borup: Anybody want to comment on that now or we'll get some more testimony? Do we have anyone else on this application? Maybe this would be a good time to comment on these things that have been said, then we'll bring the applicant back up. My comment on the buffer and the pathway maybe which side of the landscaping the pathway would be on. Centers: Yes. Correct. Borup: If the pathway is between the landscaping and Mr. Anderson's property, then, yes, I think it would be a concern. If the pathway is between the landscaping and the roadway, then in my mind that's a difficult matter. Zaremba: Well, if there is a 25 foot buffer and 10 feet of it is pathway, then he'd really only have a 15 foot buffer is that what we are staying? Borup: Well -- McKinnon: It would be a 20-foot buffer. The pathway is located on the south side of the landscape buffer, so there is a 25 -- there is a 25 foot buffer that was required, five feet of that they are requesting to use as a pathway, locating that on the north -- actually, on the south side of the landscape buffer. It will be a 20-foot buffer, landscaping, between Mr. Anderson's property and the pathway. Borup: So the pathway is -- if you look on the plat, it's nothing more than a sidewalk is it? McKinnon: It's a sidewalk. Centers: Right. Borup: It's a five-foot sidewalk along side the road. Centers: So that should address Mr. Anderson's concerns. There would be 20 feet of landscape buffer correct and a five-foot sidewalk, you know? Yes. They haven't eliminated the buffer. The only other comment I had was regarding the -- it's kind of a flip-flop here. You know, we have one applicant where, you know, they don't want a project coming in because of the noise, the odors and the site -- or unsightly conditions. In this situation they want to put an apartment complex that looks down on buses and sits next door to a bar and nobody's here to oppose that. I say if the applicant wants to do it, let them do it. If they feel, they can rent those apartments that are up to them if they want to make that kind of an investment. Frankly, I'm not that concerned about the Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 55 buffer on the north side or the building adjacent to the bar. I think that's a good idea to put that end of the building right up to them, with a minimum setback. Zaremba: I agree with Commissioner Centers. We have kind of bookends here. Earlier we had commercial trying to go in the middle of residential and now they are trying to put some residential in commercial. I think staff makes a good comment. This is an initial foray into our mixed use planning idea and this is possibly a very fine place to discover whether this actually works or not and it's something that many of us have advocated doing. It's a little difficult to be against really doing it. I agree that people who are going to have to rent these apartments are going to be well aware that there is industry around them. I would just mention we had a letter from Mr. Milo O. Elston, who owns the property that is in the I-L zone that backs back to back with this property and he is worried about his commercial property being devalued by having residential next to it. Borup: I enjoyed that. Zaremba: This is the converse to the issue we had going on earlier. I have the feeling that this -- as long as the residents are fully aware that it's there when they move in, they really don't have anyplace to go to complain if his property is commercial. It's been that, apparently, for 12 years, so his comments are noted, but it's the apartment dweller's risk to decide whether to live there or not I feel and I personally feel that this is a good foray into making the mixed use plan work. Borup: I agree. Okay. Any final comments the applicant would like to make? Centers: Yes. If you could address the ditch water concern and the -- Ford: Yes. Two comments. The first is the pathway. As you have noted, we are providing at least a 25-foot buffer, but we want the south five feet for the pathway. We will be happy to relocate that and redesign it. This is only conceptual for this portion of the site at this time. So, you know, we'd like to offer that if that will alleviate the concerns, because nothing is set in stone at this point. Regarding the pressure irrigation, the ditch, Mr. Folmer has been doing some lot grading and he will put the existing ditch back by March 15th , so that will alleviate any concerns Mr. Anderson has. I will be happy to stand for any more questions if you have any. Centers: Tomorrow's March 8th . You know, you're on record March 15th . He'd like -- Ford: Mr. Folmer would like two weeks. Centers: Okay. By the 22nd . Ford: Okay. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 56 Borup: So at this point you're fine will all staff comments? You already stated the parking would be taken care of. The pathway will be connected between the projects and there wasn't anything on your staff comments, any problem or concerns with -- Ford: No. Absolutely not. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the Commissioners? Centers: No. Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing on -- where are we? CUP 02-001 be closed. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Before we actually make a motion on this, there is an underlying request that we give a conceptual approval to the undefined plans for the rest of it. I would say -- I don't know if that takes a formal motion or if they just want an opinion from us. I would give the opinion that they are going the right direction. Is that all we need? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you can incorporate that into your actual motion. Zaremba: Okay. Centers: Well, you know if they do redesign that -- that pathway, they are going to have to come back. Zaremba: They will have to anyway. Centers: We have a CUP on every one of the -- Zaremba: They want to know whether they should change this to a hospital and a gas station or whether they are going the right direction. Centers: Well yes, we like the design, but you know, I don't want to tell them they have to stick to it, because they are going to come back anyway. Borup: I think Mr. McKinnon's comment was more or less the general architectural concept of the buildings. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 57 Centers: And the applicant agreed to it, so -- Borup: Yes and that's what the building -- Zaremba: Probably have a common design and -- Borup: Right. Zaremba: And the other layout conceptual seems pretty good. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I guess my question was do we just give them an opinion or do we make that part of a formal motion? McKinnon: Make that part of a formal motion, please. Borup: Any other discussion we need before we formulate a motion? Centers: I would certainly second a motion for approval of this project, if one of the Commissioners would want to so move. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I would like to recommend that we recommend approval to the City Council - - forward this to the City Council recommending approval of Item 9 on our Agenda, CUP 02-001, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for a 54 unit apartment complex for the Foothills Apartments by Sitzlar Real Estate Development. This is on the northeast corner of North Nola and East Franklin Roads. This project is actually on the east end of that project. To incorporate all staff comments, to which the applicant has actually agreed. So incorporating all the staff comments. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I might, this fire flow question, the 4,250 I don't know if you want to -- Zaremba: We will leave open the question of whether there is a typo in the assistant Fire Commissioner's comments and if that is found not to be a typo, it reinforces the need for putting the 12 inch all the way across the project -- or does that have to happen anyway? Freckleton: The 12 inch will have to come down to serve this project. Borup: That's their source of water. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 58 Freckleton: That's their source of water. Zaremba: So it actually doesn't make any difference whether that's correct or not, they still need to put the 12-inch in. Freckleton: Well, they'll put the 12-inch in, but Mr. Silva's comment is very specific. It says that a fire flow of 4,250 per minute shall be available for duration of four hours to serve the entire project and so I just wanted to kind of -- Zaremba: Okay. The way I read that first, he seemed to be quoting the Fire Code when he stated that and the question is whether that's an accurate quote of the Fire Code. We can leave the question open to resolve that question. Borup: Could it be stated that it needs to be in compliance with the Fire Code? Centers: That was my suggestion. Meet required code for sufficient water flow to satisfy the City of Meridian and its fire department. Zaremba: I accept that. Freckleton: It works for me. Zaremba: I would include that so we have included all staff comments and that is regarding the 54-unit apartment complex. In addition to that, my motion includes the second portion, which is a conceptual understanding that this Commission at least is in favor of the suggested plans for the rest of the property. Centers: And if I recall, the applicant had requested -- what was the term, conifer -- conifers in lieu of certain landscape and I don't think we have any objection to that. Did we want to include that? Zaremba: I would be happy to include that in the -- we already know that the applicant has agreed to redesign the landscape buffer on the west end of the property adjoining Mr. Anderson's property. I think that's the complete motion. Mathes: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any questions? Mr. Moore? Essentially, I think the only exception to staff comments was clarification on the Fire Code. Moore: I got that part and you're approving the conceptual design as far as the regular project. Zaremba: We are conceptually approving the conceptual design. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 59 Borup: We have a motion. We have a second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Okay. Thank you. We have one project left. Would the Commissioners like a short break at this time? Let's take a short break. RECONVENED AT 9:45 P.M. Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 02-002 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.81 acres from RUT to R-40 zones for proposed Cooper Canyon Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC – east of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Wilson Lane: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 02-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 building lots and 2 other lots on 5.81 acres for proposed Cooper Canyon Subdivision by Wildwood development, LLC -- east of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Wilson Lane: Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 02-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 22 4-plex units in a proposed R-40 zone for Cooper Canyon Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC -- east of North Locust Grove Road and South of East Wilson Lane: Borup: Okay. Let's reconvene and start with the next application. Actually, we have three Items, 10, 11, and 12. Ten being Public Hearing AZ 02-002, request for annexation and zoning of 5.81 acres, from RUT to R-40 for proposed Cooper Canyon Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC. PP 02-001, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 building lots and 2 other lots in the same property and CUP 02-002, request for Conditional Use Permit for 22 4-plex units in a proposed R-40 zone for Cooper Canyon Subdivision. I'd like to open all three of these Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I guess we can start with the overhead again, showing where the location of this property is. If you'll refer to the overhead. The location of the property is just south of Wilson Lane. It's going to be a little bit to the east of Locust Grove Road. The highlighted property right here to the east is Butte Fence and recently we had the approval for the Air Manufacturing adjacent from the southeast portion of the property. The property is actually to the east of it. It's adjoining and was approved original a Fountain Park, an apartment complex for a number of apartment complexes -- it's actually a larger apartment complex than the one we are looking at tonight. Obviously, it's larger in size and we are dealing tonight with a very narrow, long piece of property and keep that in mind as we go through the staff report. We are looking at 88 apartment units -- if I can get to the overhead -- 88 apartment units and 22 different 4-plexes. As you can see, it's Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 60 pretty much linearly arranged, with the majority of the apartment 4-plexes located on the west side of the property, with four apartment complexes located on the east side of the property. They are Preliminarily Platting this entire property, in order to have every single lot be sold to a separate developer if they so choose. So tonight when we to talk a little bit about the design, we need to keep in mind that because this may be held in a different ownership, we want to have some sort of continuum of design. That maybe something to look at tonight as determining what type of design standards we want to go with. Whether or not the design standards that they have given to us as part of the application process. We have got copies of those on the overhead, whether we want them to stick just to the types that they have submitted or if there is, some design standards that you'd like to adopt tonight to maintain some sort of uniformity throughout the project. If you would turn with me to Page 5 of the staff report, there are a few things that I'd like to address specifically as we go through the presentation. Under additional considerations, as to layout and open space comments, I'd like to just address a few things that are noted in the staff comments. These three parcels right here located with the highlighting -- I can't tell the size right there. I believe its Lots 12, 13, and 14. When we originally looked at this project we discussed whether or not it would be appropriate to move these buildings to the south and move the open space more centrally, so that, actually, you would have the open space adjacent to the parking, rather than surrounded on all sides by the apartment complex. As you pull into this apartment complex this area is not visible right now, as it's all located behind buildings. In talking with the Fire Marshall, the Fire Marshall said there is no way we can move this back here and keep the parking up here. It would be too far away for them to be able to provide the firefighting -- for them to have fire suppression they drag their hoses -- their hoses back to the rear -- farthest point of the rear of the building. So we weren't able to make that a requirement. However, it's something that you may want to address tonight. The applicant has provided a new site plan. This is it right here. He's got a colored rendition of this. It addresses a little bit the idea of making this more accessible to all of the apartment, I guess, residents. They have added a pathway right here -- sorry about the shaking again. A little too much Coke and over here to this side they have actually added some pathways, which were requested further in the staff report. I'd like to address now the second issue under additional considerations, that's the issue of stub streets. Steve, in the staff report it talks a little bit about maybe requiring a stub street to the south. I'd refer you back to the original overlay. Fountain Park, we did not require them to put a stub street to this project, nor did we require Fountain Park to put a stub street to the south. In a sense to require a stub street to the south would be a stub street on the most narrow piece of property and bypassing it from the larger piece of property, so there is really not a specific need for that. However, we wanted to make the applicant aware that this will be somewhat of a concern as Locust Grove continues to grow and get bigger, that Wilson Lane is located very close to the intersection and there may be some accessibility problems in the future. I would point out, however, that there are some accesses through The Shucks and through Elm Tree that they can actually access Fairview, so it won't be the only way out, there are some other ways out. In the future Wilson Lane will be extended somewhat to the east. However, it runs into these smaller portions that may not ever turn back to Fairview, unless you have a complete condemnation of some of these Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 61 narrower pieces of property. So we don't have a major way of extending this and connecting it back to Fairview, other than going through the commercial projects. If you will follow, again, with me to Page 6 of the staff report, Item Number 3 of the Site Specific Comments for the Preliminary Plat. Steve wrote in his comments that a six foot tall perimeter fence should be installed around the entire project, unless the city Planning and Zoning Department -- and that would include you as part of that with the Commission -- decides that there is no requirement for the fencing. I have had some preliminary discussions with the applicant and he has some ideas concerning the fencing and whether or not that may be the most appropriate thing to do at this time to require them to put a six foot tall privacy fence around that. Within our ordinances, there is no requirement for a six-foot perimeter fence around any subdivision. I'm going to try to touch on a couple more highlighted areas and I'd like to touch -- if I could get you to turn to Page 9 in the site-specific comments for a Conditional Use Permit. Item Number 4 concerning two amenities in the open space, the second paragraph, which is actually the final paragraph on Page 9, talks about the open space requirement. The applicant has come tonight with additional information concerning the open space and he will make comments to you tonight and it will turn out to be that less than 20 percent, it's actually more in the lines of 17 to 18 percent of the open space requirements. As part of the Planned Development, they are required to have a 10 percent open space as one of their amenities. Seventeen percent exceeds that. In addition to that, in preliminary discussions with the applicant during the staff report, there were some discussions about the propriety of playground amenities and that's something that they would be amenable to. If you'd like to make that a part of your conditions, you can address that with the applicant. Item Number 12 on Page 10 of the site-specific comments, it says that staff disagrees with the proposed side yard setback of zero feet. Staff would recommend at this time that a five-foot setback be replaced for the zero and that we agree to a five-foot setback. That would be in line with other projects that we have currently approved on a preliminary -- under the Planned Development Ordinance allowing a five foot per story or a five foot total -- let me backtrack on that. Let me make that statement more clear. We have allowed a five-foot setback for two story buildings in other Planned Developments recently, such as Woodbridge, Kodiak, and Berkeley Square. It's five foot for each building, for a total of 10 feet between buildings. Zaremba: Just to clarify, you're not talking about the perimeter around the whole property, you're talking about after this is platted into 24 different pieces of property, and each individual property has a five-foot setback? McKinnon: Five-foot interior side setback. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: Regardless of the number of stories of the building -- and if I can get you down to the recommendation, this is the final page, Page 11. Just to address the four issues that we'd like you to clarify for us tonight. Open space. Like I stated before, the applicant is here tonight to give us the new calculations as we requested. Accessibility to the open space they have addressed by providing pathways, which they will make as Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 62 changes to their plat map to accommodate that prior to submitting it for Council. The slopes and trees within the open space, the applicant has been agreeable to providing additional trees and allowing the slope to be no more than three to one. You will notice it's a typo in our staff report. It says the slope is one to three, which is almost vertical. We don't want that, we want three to one. The amenities. Again, the applicant stated that he's amenable to providing that for the people that live in the apartment complex. The stub street. Like I said before, we haven't required stub streets to any of the other properties in this area. It may not be an appropriate time. However, it's something we'd like for you to determine. Trash enclosures. SSC has submitted a letter stating that they can work with the applicant and they can make it applicable. That may be something you don't need to worry about tonight. Item Number 4, the Landscape Plan. The applicant has stated to me already that he will have a Landscape Plan submitted to us that will be in compliance with our code. With that, I will ask if there are any questions. Borup: Any question for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward at this time? Semple: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Barry Semple. I'm with Toothman-Orton Engineering, 9777 Chinden Boulevard in Boise. David has stolen most of my thunder, so I don't have a whole lot more to say. I would like to touch on a couple of the things that he has brought up in the staff report, specifically with regard to the open space. This site is -- the site layout is fairly limited by the configuration of the property. We have made an attempt to break up any kind of linear arrangement of the parking lot by putting the jogs in the parking lot, so that we don't have a continuous parking -- straight parking lot all the way down the center of the site. With regard to the stub street, I would note that we are proposing and have negotiated with Air Manufacturing for an emergency only access to the east. We have -- we have coordinated that with the Fire Department and they are -- the Fire Department has agreed that the combination of the driveway and that emergency access will adequately provide them access to the project. It also -- that connection they also note as an extra access, a second opportunity to get back to the Air Manufacturing site as well. Centers: So that is an improved property next door where the emergency access leads to? Semple: It's currently under construction right now. Centers: Okay. Semple: Yes. They have got Building Permits and they are -- I believe the building is constructed and most of the underground work is done. The parking lot is not completely constructed yet. Zaremba: By the time you have any kind of occupancy they are complete, you're assuming? Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 63 Semple: I would think that they would certainly hope so. With regard to the staff comment about requiring a fence, we are agreeable to considering a fence. I think initially in the design we had -- we understand the buffering requirements that we have. We were considering providing that buffering with landscape improvements and hadn't necessarily considered a fence as part of the buffer. I think what we would -- we would certainly agree to consider including a fence in -- as part of the buffering and as staff noted that when we come back with the updated landscape plan prior to the next hearing we will incorporate a fence, if that's -- if we think it's appropriate. Borup: How much fence are you talking about? I mean are you talking about your entire property or just on -- Centers: That's what staff says, the entire property. Borup: Right. Well, that's why I was interested to hear what the applicant was appropriate for them. Semple: The applicant isn't opposed to a fence. There are certain benefits of having a fence for security and the like. I think what we'd like is the opportunity to evaluate the options that we have got by either including a fence or not including a fence. Certainly I think in talking to the staff one of the objects of having a fence was a clear delineation between the projects and whether that's done through installation of a fence or additional landscaping or the like to provide that delineation, I think we would just like to have the flexibility to -- Centers: Personally, I think a fence is important, because of the possibility of 22 difficult owners there. You know, I think that the applicant-developer should think about that. Borup: You'll get 22 different types of fences -- Centers: Right. That's right and security for the 22 different owners who rent to four tenants each. That's my personal opinion. Semple: And I think just to clarify, I think staff's comment is related to a perimeter fence around the entire project, not necessarily in between the lots. Centers: No. I know. Right. Zaremba: If I can join in on that, it would seem logical to me to have one continuous similar fence, therefore, put in by the developer, fence along -- this picture is cocked to us so what’s up is the east boundary and what's down is the west boundary. I would say you probably wouldn't put it along Wilson Street and you probably wouldn't go along the canal because of the pathway there. It would make sense for me for the developer to be responsible for putting the same fence along the east boundary and the west boundary, certainly to separate you from the commercial stuff that's to the east. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 64 Borup: The commercial project did not put a fence in is that correct? They do not have a fence on their project? Semple: I don't believe there is one that's currently, no. Zaremba: I would think security, safety, and appearance you probably out to control that. Centers: Are children going to be allowed? Semple: Pardon me? Centers: Are children going to be allowed as tenants? Semple: I would certainly -- Centers: Right. So I think a fence, you know, for that reason. The canal to the south, how much water does that have in it? McKinnon: Yes. It's got a lot. Centers: Yes so, you know, I would -- that's the most important place for a fence there and up to Wilson. Anyway, that's -- Zaremba: Since we have interrupted -- I'm sorry. Semple: That's okay. Zaremba: Let me address another subject that was brought up. It would make sense to me if your thought is to sell any or all of these parcels individually, that you do have a pretty well set in concrete design standard that would include the appearance of the building and any fencing that they might add between the parcels, so that there is a consistent appearance to that. I would modify that by saying you probably might ask them to paint all the buildings different colors, though, or provide different trim, so that while there is some consistency to it, it isn't cookie cutter. That's just a suggestion. Semple: We have submitted, I believe, draft CC&Rs and there will be design standards included in the CC&Rs, because there will be a Homeowners Association to maintain the common area and so that's definitely in the program to provide some consistency in appearance and design of the buildings. Borup: And parking is part of that common area, I assume? Semple: Yes. The parking lot is on the common area lot, yes. I guess what I would propose is I'll continue on and the developer may want to address -- afterwards may want to comment on the additional comments on the fence issue. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 65 Centers: Go ahead. Semple: Don't want to spend his money, so -- let's see. Moving down to site-specific comment on the Conditional Use Permit, Item 4, which staff has already commented on and I wanted to just submit some additional information. One of the concerns about the open space -- the large open space that's located in the rear of those three buildings right here, as staff indicated we have proposed a modification that could be a condition of approval that would add an open space pathway corridor coming from both -- from two different directions. Those two locations there, to provide common area access for the residents of the project and playground amenities can be provided. We are amenable to providing that kind of an amenity in there. With regard to -- specifically with regard to the open space issue and the question about whether -- how much open space there actually is, the entire site is 5.81 acres. There are 22 individual residential lots, which are designated by this medium green and the tan is the footprint. Those lots total an area of 2.53 acres. The required buffers along the front and along the side are the dark green and then the parking lot, those total .41 acres, and the parking lot area is 1.85 acres. Goes like this. All of that acreage does not count towards the common area requirement. Those acreages -- Centers: You mean open space requirement. Semple: That's right. Right. I'm sorry. They don't count towards the 10 percent requirement. Those areas that I just indicated total 4.79 acres. The difference between the total site and that is 1.02 acres and 1.02 acres is 17.56 percent of the 5.81 total acreage of the site. We will have exceeded the 10 percent open space requirement by seven and a half percent, approximately. There was some -- Item Number 7 on Page 10, there was kind of left open the issue about required parking spaces. The ordinance requirement -- Borup: I'm sorry. Could you -- back to Item Number 4. Semple: Sure. Borup: So you're saying the two of them -- one of the amenities is the open space and the other amenity is the pathway? Semple: Yes. Borup: You weren't talking about any additional -- Semple: No. No. We are -- Borup: -- any additional amenities? Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 66 Semple: We are certainly amenable to adding a playground tot lot type thing, possibly a half basketball court or something, some additional actual active amenity to the open space area. Borup: You're amenable to it or you're planning on doing it? You don't know at this point? Centers: And let me interrupt and ask John -- or Dave. Excuse me. Where does the 17 percent come in that's sticking in the back of my head on the PUD -- McKinnon: Commissioner Centers, I don't why it's sticking in the back of your head. Centers: Isn't that a requirement of a Planned Unit Development or a Planned Development like this? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, in a Planned Development of this size there is only a requirement for -- no open space, actually. The requirements are tied to open spaces if you count it as one of your amenities. If you count your open space as one of your amenities, you are required to provide 10 percent open space. If you are a subject division and are over five acres in size, you are required at a minimum to provide five percent open space, regardless of a PD or not. Because this project is, more than five acres they are required to provide at least five percent open space. So maybe -- 17 percent, though, I'm not sure -- Centers: Where did I get 17? McKinnon: The open space requirement is -- I don't know. Borup: Does the Staff feel the pathway is an adequate amenity? McKinnon: The pathway is a continuation of the pathway that comes from Air and I believe that it will be -- Borup: I'm sorry. This is a pathway along the waterway. McKinnon: Along the waterway and it is something that's on the Comprehensive Plan that we'd like to see. We will be seeing the development of that to the north. It will actually -- you know, as the applicant stated, he's amenable to putting a tot lot in. If you were to make Condition Number 4 to include a playground area, he said that they are willing to do that. If you just make it a condition that would give them the additional amenity if you don't want to consider the pathway as the -- Borup: Oh, I do. I'm a strong advocate of the pathways. I feel that's an important thing. Centers: The two little connector pathways to the open area -- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 67 Borup: That's what I was originally thinking. I got off track here. Centers: Yes. Was that on the original layout or is this the first you have heard of it, Dave? McKinnon: It's not the first I have heard of it, since I talked with Mr. Semple earlier, but this is something that's new that was not in the packets. I just handed out to you just tonight. Centers: Okay. Borup: That's why I got confused. I was focusing in on that new pathway and forgot about the original one. Semple: And I apologize, I probably should have been more clear on what pathway I was specifically talking about. It's associated with the Jackson Drain. Borup: Thank you. Go ahead. Zaremba: To the pathways that are the access to the open area, how wide are those? Semple: Those are approximately -- they are 10 to 12 feet wide and there will be a sidewalk that will be constructed from the parking lot to the open space area. I think I was talking about the parking -- there was a question about Item 7 on Page 10. That comment kind of left an issue of adequate parking open somewhat. The ordinance requirement is two spaces per unit. There are 88 units proposed on this site for a total of 176 spaces required. According to the Uniform Building Code for a parking lot with between 151 and 200 spaces there is a requirement that six of those spaces be accessible. We do -- we are proposing six accessible spaces. In addition, we are proposing a total of 201 spaces, so we have provided for 25 additional spaces over and above that required by the ordinance for a visitor or whatever. Centers: And I think staff agreed with that. I think what they are saying is that they want to see them installed to meet all dimensional requirements of the City Ordinances, so that each parking space shall be per City Ordinance size. That's what they want to -- Borup: Is there a concern on that, David? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I did talk with Steve about this and what he was really looking at was not so much the size, is he saying that our ordinance does not provide for any requirement for guest parking? We say two vehicles per space and that's it. The rest of our ordinance for other type of multiple family housing, such as mobile home parks, we require two per space, plus one for every five units, and he wanted to make sure that you, as a Commission, were comfortable with just allowing the minimum plus 25 additional spaces, if that would be appropriate. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 68 Borup: The figure I have heard in the past is about 2.3 and that's about what they have got here. Would that be about 26 and you have got 25, so that -- I mean it looks like they are complying with the 2.3, which, again, as stated, is not in the ordinance, but that's the recommended ratio, so, actually, they have done that. Zaremba: It's slightly over one extra space per every 4-plex. There are actually 22 built 4-plexes. Semple: Right. Zaremba: And you have got 25 extra spaces. Semple: Right. Zaremba: You have got one extra parking for every 4-plex. Semple: Right. Borup: Yes. So that would exceed that. Zaremba: Which is pretty close to -- McKinnon: It exceeds it. Zaremba: Six of which are the handicapped ones. Borup: I commend them on that. That's nice to see that it's not right down to the minimum. Semple: I wanted to confirm that the applicant is willing to accept as a condition the imposition of a five-foot side yard for the individual lots. Centers: Do your calculations take that into effect, where you will have 10 feet between each building? Semple: The calculations for -- Centers: I mean your drawing here and your -- Semple: Yes, as a matter of fact, it does. Centers: Okay. Semple: Yes. These 10 boxes are kind of conceptual footprints and as you can see there -- I believe we -- when we drafted those, we provided six or seven feet of setback. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 69 Centers: Okay. Semple: So we are certainly willing to accept the five-foot side yard setback. I guess just in closing, to review -- to go through the recommendations Number 1 on the open space, I believe that the calculations presented tonight have satisfied the concern about the amount of open space. We have provided access to the open space via those two additional pathway areas. I don't foresee the three to one slope limitation in the open space being a problem and I think the revised landscape plan will address the issue on the tree requirements. We are willing to accept as an additional condition the installation of a tot lot or a playground type facility. With regard to the stub street, we feel that providing a stub to the south is a hardship and the utility of that is questionable. I think in our mind we do have a second emergency access that we are providing. With regard to the trash enclosures, we will coordinate with Sanitary Services and get an approved location and layout of those prior to Council hearing and, again, the landscape plan will be submitted at least ten days prior to the next hearing. That's all I have. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer them. Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: I was just going to say, as I read the trash enclosure issue, it's not necessarily a sanitation collection issue. It's whether or not the people that park next to them have a safe way to back out. Can they see as they back out? So you'll work on that, too? Semple: Yes. Absolutely. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, if I can address the applicant. I was just reviewing the plat map, there are a few things that have struck out, and it's in the staff report. I think this needs to be added to the comments underneath the Preliminary Plat, either in general or site specific. Under your notes you state that the minimum house size shall be 1,200 square feet. I don't think that needs to be on the plat, so can we strike that note? Semple: Certainly. McKinnon: Item Number 6 underneath notes. All development shall be in accordance with the approved Conditional Use Permit and I think it's 19037. That needs to be stricken as well from the approved plat. Semple: I'm at a disadvantage, because I don't have a copy of the Preliminary Plat. McKinnon: Okay. Well, it just says that in accordance with the approved CUP and I don't think we want that on that plat that we are approving tonight, because it's not the Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 70 same as a Conditional Use Permit. In addition to that, all the comments concerning home site dimensional standards concerning site entry living garages, all notes underneath that should be stricken as well from the plat. It looks like it was taken -- all these notes look like they were taken from a different application and none would apply to this application. I think we need to add -- I'm addressing this to the Commission and to the applicant right now. There is no mention of a Cross-Access Agreement in the notes to provide a cross-access through the platted lot to the common lots -- did you already address that? Then an additional note concerning ownership and maintenance of the common lots and how that would be handled, they need to be added to the notes on the plat. Zaremba: And clarify what the common lots are. McKinnon: The common lots would be the open space that we have got down below here. We are having 22 different ownerships, possibly, and this open space is going to be owned by somebody. This is going to be open to everybody. Who maintains this? We need to have your Homeowners Association or business association would maintain that. I would recommend that you put a note on the plat that says the Homeowners Association should be responsible for the maintenance of the common area. Also in addition to that common area would be the landscaping adjacent to Wilson Lane, plus the landscaping within the islands, and the landscaping adjacent to the Jackson Drain, as well as the road and pathway throughout the parking lot. Because of the joint ownership we think that's something that should be added to the face of the plat. Zaremba: And including the pathway accesses to the -- McKinnon: Absolutely. Semple: If I might just comment. I would believe that the draft CC&Rs address those ownership and maintenance. McKinnon: The only concern I have with the draft CC&R's and not as a note on the plat is that becomes a private contract between the homeowners and the homeowners alone. The city would have no ability to enforce anything in your CC&Rs. I would prefer to see it as a note on the plat. Centers: You're not proposing cross-access agreements between the lots, just the common lots? McKinnon: Common lots only. Centers: Common lots. Right. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 71 McKinnon: Just the -- you know, the parking lot, in order to use the parking lot, if somebody owns that parking lot, the different parts of the parking lot, to provide a cross- access through the parking lot so that -- Zaremba: If they are defined as common areas, is that -- McKinnon: Sure. That's fine, too. I just think it needs to be addressed. These are not owned by each one of these 22 different lots and somebody has to maintain it, somebody has to pay for it, and I'd like it to be pointed out as something that the city can enforce, so the city can come in and say you in the Homeowners Association are responsible for this. Right now, we have nobody to go to, to say you are responsible for this. Zaremba: But does it satisfy that if they are defined as common areas and maintain by the Homeowners Association? McKinnon: I think that that would be appropriate, just to say the common areas are not under individual ownership. Zaremba: Is that agreeable to -- Semple: Sure. That's acceptable. Yes. That's definitely the intent. Zaremba: And staff -- Dave, you're saying that should actually be on the plat, though? McKinnon: I think it should be a note on the plat. Semple: That's not a problem. McKinnon: In the past, just for the Commission's clarification, that is a common note that we place on the plats, typically the final plat stage, but we are doing just the Preliminary Plat this evening, we may as well have it on both for continuity. Borup: Thank you, Dave. Any other questions? Semple: I think the applicant would like to address the fence issue. Findlay: Chris Findlay. 145 Bryson Drive, Boise, Idaho. The only thing I would say is on the west side there is a large apartment unit coming on line, too, so I guess my feeling is I would want to be -- work something that probably works for both parties on that as far as how they want their -- because they are also going to have a buffer zone requirement like we have on the east side, too, and so I -- Zaremba: Do we know if that one is required to have a fence? McKinnon: I don't know. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 72 Zaremba: Certainly we don't need two fences six inches apart. McKinnon: Right. I don't recall. We wouldn't want to have a no zone like that to fill up with debris. However, I believe that we are actually in the process of working with the applicant for a new project on that site, so what we have approved may not actually happen. Findlay: All I'd like to do is just be able to work with them. McKinnon: That would be fine. Findlay: So there is continuity. Borup: That makes sense. Zaremba: Absolutely. Findlay: And on the east side, you know, I have a lot of different feelings on that, in that when we originally talked they wanted just a landscape buffer and not a lot of fencing was talked about, so we are willing to put fencing in. The landscape is pretty intense along that whole side there with the tree requirements and everything else that they usually like along there. There wasn't a lot of room for a fence. I mean if we get to cut down on the amount of trees and all that kind of stuff that's in the city requirements in order to put a fence in or do you have to put all the fencing in, plus the trees and -- because there isn't enough room for the trees and fence and the buffer zone. McKinnon: The actual Landscape Ordinance would prefer to see trees than fencing. Findlay: That's what I thought we originally started off with and that's what I thought you recommended the first time. That's why we went with what we did, but instead of a fence, we recommended something else. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, just as a point of clarification, Steve's note just says if you don't think it's appropriate don't require it. If it's not appropriate at this time, you can say that we don't feel it's appropriate at this time and leave the statement as is. Findlay: Probably in your fencing cost by me, it's a lot cheaper than putting in a lot of trees if it's required. I mean I'm willing to work with the Commission on this. If you'd like to see a fence on here, that's fine, but I would just like to -- Zaremba: My concern is that the individual property owners, if that's the way it turns out, may individually decide to fence their back line and I think on the fences we'd like to see some consistency there. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 73 Findlay: Well -- and I do see that point. Zaremba: Okay. Findlay: We are going to have some ownership of -- Zaremba: That's one that we could defer to the CC&Rs and say one kind of fence and that's it. Findlay: Along with the architectural controls and all that kind of stuff. The one we are concerned about, though -- I mean Airs has a huge pond going in to float the rafts and stuff, but we were real concerned about our liability in the open uses on their end. The other thing, too, is that the Fire Department wants that bollards and, you know we'd like to have it fenced. I mean ideally you'd like to have a chainlink fence along there, but you can't have chainlink either. So -- and then I don't know how you do what you do on the Jackson Drain, as far as -- we were told that we couldn't fence that right? McKinnon: You have to leave it open. Findlay: Yes. We had some concerns about that with little kids falling in the Jackson Drain, so -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I may, the open drains are a concern that we always have. However, as you will notice in Tulley Park, Folley Park, and a number of the other pathways that we have got in the City of Meridian run right along open drains and open canals and so enforcing a fence along the Jackson Drain is not something that we'd like to delve into at this time from a staff point of view. Borup: Do you feel comfortable that -- in not necessarily having a fence against the commercial project there? Findlay: I guess I'd like -- you know, I mean when we first initially went into it, it was like they wanted landscaping, so we gave them landscaping. I'd rather have a fence, but you can't have all the landscaping requirements and a fence and -- Borup: Well, a fence doesn't take up that much room. Findlay: I understand that, but when they put the growth and the trees around it and everything and the kind of trees that they want, it was -- you know. If you put a six foot high fence on that, you know that it's going to -- something's got to give there, so -- I will work with staff on that. I don't have any problem with it. Borup: Again, it's one of those things that -- Centers: Didn't he just tell us we couldn’t fence the canal? Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 74 Findlay: Right. Centers: And you know -- Borup: So that would eliminate the perimeter -- I mean a hundred percent of the perimeter. Centers: You know, the comment is you want a six-foot high fence around the entire project, as far as I'm concerned we can just strike that if we can't -- that's my opinion. If we can't fence off the canal to keep the children from getting in there, then let him work with the neighbors and do his landscaping and go from there. Borup: Yes. The property to the west is a like use or -- and the one on the east -- that should actually be up to the applicant. I mean if he wants to screen from the commercial use or not. Findlay: I would have loved to have put a six-foot high fence all the way along there. Centers: Yes. Borup: Well, landscaping to me is conceptually more pleasing visually than a fence. Findlay: Well -- and I don't have a problem with that, Commissioner. I just -- we are just trying to work along that -- Borup: Well, I think you're talking about the Landscaping Ordinance is what I'm -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you can put a fence and trees next to each other -- Findlay: What kind of trees? McKinnon: -- typically it's above six foot high if they are property taken care of, so you can have them adjacent to each other and the Landscape Ordinance does not prohibit putting the two together. Findlay: Okay. I was just a little concerned on the intensity of it, so -- Borup: Any other comments you have? Findlay: Well, just that the -- we want to have strong CC&Rs and a strong Homeowners Association and typical to the style to what's being built and what's going into it. We don't want it as an open free for all for everybody to decide what they want to put into it and the maintenance of it is real important in order to maintain good rents and necessary just for the economics of it. Yes, we perceive that strong CC&Rs and a Homeowners Association is going to be real important to this thing. We have talked Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 75 about it. As far as the pathways on here, I guess my feeling is that the staff is just trying to reposition it there in order to have the design layout, but as far as getting access into that and everything, we don't have a problem with that. A tot lot, a basketball court, something like that, I don't have a problem with bringing that in, but let's go from there. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward on this application? Any discussion from any of the Commissioners? I think it looks like most of the concerns on staff comments have been answered on the two amenities and after I got my thinking clear I'm fine with the open space as one amenity and the pathway as the other. I think the pathway along the drain is the first thing. I do all I can to encourage that throughout the city. In my mind, I don't know that we need to require a tot lot or something else that should be up to them if they feel it's going to help the project, unless someone else feels otherwise. Centers: Yes. I would agree with that, because, you know, I think they probably will do that anyway for sales and marketing and rent ability, because you have that open space there and just nothing else. I mean that doesn't make sense to me, but I don't want to put a requirement on there. I'm with Mr. Chairman. Zaremba: I think that's applicant driven and they probably will choose to do some of those things. Centers: Personally I would eliminate the fence requirement, since it was pointed out that we can't keep an eye on the canal, I would just flat eliminate that and let the applicant go from there. Let's see -- Zaremba: Are we satisfied on stub streets? Centers: Yes. I am, with the emergency access and especially with it going to an improved lot, you know. Borup: If there were a stub street issue it would come from probably to the west. Zaremba: Which it doesn't, so the only place would be south over the canal, which is undeveloped -- Borup: Well -- and that is a real narrow part of that property. Centers: So I would -- again, I would second a motion by one of the Commissioners to approve the project. Zaremba: Well, I would say, first, I move we close the Public Hearing. Centers: Yes. That's a good point. Second. Moore: All three of them? Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 76 Zaremba: Yes. We have three Public Hearings going. Let us close Items Number 10, 11 and 12, the Public Hearings for AZ 02-002 and PP 02-001 and CUP 02-002. Centers: Second. Borup: I'm Sorry. Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Do we want to -- maybe it would help by putting a few things that we would need to have in the motion? Let's see. Centers: Well, you got to strike all the comments that Dave referred to the Preliminary Plat. There should be a simple way to refer to all of those. McKinnon: Sure. Centers: Without getting too lengthy. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could. Eliminate notes five and six and all housing notes. Borup: Did someone get that? Moore: No. McKinnon: Eliminate notes five and six from the Preliminary Plat and all home site dimensional standards. Centers: And all what? Borup: Home site -- McKinnon: Home site dimensional standards. Borup: Might want to mention Item 4 that we still don't know whether -- Centers: Well, wait a minute. Let's continue with the Preliminary Plat. Borup: Okay. Centers: Because he has mentioned cross-access to the common lots. That should be noted on the Preliminary Plat. Borup: Yes. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 77 Zaremba: Well, it states that in his common areas. Centers: Commons areas of the -- Zaremba: Call the common areas and other homeowners -- Centers: So all common areas to have Cross-Access Agreements. Borup: And maintained by the Homeowners Association. Zaremba: Yes. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the Preliminary Plat with the actual engineering stamp on it does not include any of the notes that I asked to be stricken. The comments that I had were from a -- well, they are from the application from a previous drawing. Borup: We have got the same drawing, too. McKinnon: Okay. The actual one with the engineer's stamp that's sheets one of one, dated October 31, 2001, is accurate and the notes are accurate. You don't need to worry about eliminating the notes and the home site dimensional standard notes. Zaremba: But do we still need to add the common area note? McKinnon: Yes. We still need to add the common area note. Zaremba: Wasn't there a second thing to add? Centers: How about all home site dimensions? Borup: No. That's also with the -- McKinnon: That's all been taken off already. Zaremba: Did we want to add a consistency of design? Borup: Not on the Preliminary Plat. McKinnon: Not on the Preliminary Plat. The other thing to add to the Preliminary Plat was a Cross-Access Agreement. Borup: And that was -- I thought that was -- Zaremba: That was combined -- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 78 McKinnon: That's right. Zaremba: -- with the common areas. Borup: Okay. I think that's it on the Preliminary Plat. Centers: Yes. I think I can stumble through it here. Borup: Well, let's go ahead and make the motion first and then move onto the others. Centers: Yes. We have got Item Number 10. I would -- Mr. Chairman, I would recommend approval to the City Council of AZ 02-002, request for annexation and zoning of 5.81 acres from RUT to R-40 zones for proposed Cooper Canyon Sub by Wildwood Development, LLC, east of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Wilson Lane, including all stuff comments. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Item 11. Centers: Yes. I would like to recommend approval to the City Council PP 02-001, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 building lots and 2 other lots on 5.81 acres for proposed Cooper Canyon Sub by Wildwood Development, LLC, North Locust Grove and south of East Wilson Lane, including all staff comments. In addition, on the Preliminary Plat we would want it included that all common areas to have Cross-Access Agreements and maintained by the Homeowners Association. Now I have a question on these two other lots that I just read. Those are common areas? McKinnon: Those are common areas. Centers: And are they platted and are they numbered? McKinnon: They are platted and they are numbered. Centers: So the Cross-Access Agreement should be -- should include those, in addition to the common areas? McKinnon: I don't believe that they are in a position that they would be required to have a Cross-Access Agreement for them. I believe that they are the landscaping lots and landscaping lots would not be required to have a cross-access across them. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 79 Centers: It's not going to hurt anything. McKinnon: No. Centers: Put it that way. Then specifically on page -- Zaremba: Well, let me ask a clarification. What we have said so far includes that parking lot and driveway? McKinnon: Typically across that -- Zaremba: Open areas. McKinnon: Yes. Commissioner Zaremba, if I may. Typically, a Cross-Access Agreement is for the use of the property to cross over it and landscaping we are not really worried about people crossing over the landscaping, that's not typical. Typically, you see a cross-access within a parking lot that's owned by a number of people when they share the parking lots. Across the landscape buffers is not typically something that you would see recorded. Zaremba: So we are covered? McKinnon: We are covered. Centers: If we didn't have 22 different homeowners we wouldn't have to worry about it. On Page 6 under site-specific comments and Preliminary Plat, remove Item 3 in reference to fencing. That would be it. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: And Item 12 -- Borup: We didn't get any discussion on that. Do we need a little bit there on things we might want to include or are you ready? Centers: I think we talked a bit about it, yes. I have got some notes. Here we go. Item 12, CUP 02-002, we'd like to recommend approval to City Council the request for a Conditional Use Permit for 22 4-plex units in a proposed R-40 zone for Cooper Canyon Sub by Wildwood Development, LLC. East of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Wilson Lane, including all staff comments, specifically on Page 9, Paragraph 4, the last sentence, the typo should be -- should read three to one per the landscape ordinance, not one to three. Page 10 -- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 80 Borup: Do you want to mention the first paragraph, that they comply -- feel they have complied with the open space and pathways? It says staff questions. Centers: Yes. Good point. Right. Yes and that we feel they do comply with the two amenities required for the Planned Development with the 10 percent open space and the pathways as their two amenities. On Page 10, Item 12, insert a five for the zero at the feet, specifically five-foot setbacks for each building -- side setback. That's -- Borup: Number 7 they have asked us to determine if adequate parking is provided. Centers: Yes and I think we agreed that adequate parking was provided. Borup: Right. Centers: That would be -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, Item Number 12, the -- there was no change to the staff disagrees. You can scratch disagree. The staff agrees with the proposed side setback of five feet. Centers: Yes. I thought you were disagreeing with zero, that's why zero was -- McKinnon: Oh. Okay. Then the staff supports a five-foot -- Centers: Right. McKinnon: Okay. I'm sorry. I misunderstood. Centers: Page 11, under recommendations, I guess my motion would include that we feel there is sufficient open space and we have provided for cross-access to the open space. They will meet the Landscape Ordinance. We feel that the -- both amenities supplied are sufficient and that the applicant should not be required to have a tot lot, but we suspect they will. We don't require a stub street and they will resolve the trash enclosure issue to the city's satisfaction and they will submit a revised landscape plan in compliance with ordinance standards. End of motion. Mathes: I second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you. I think this is the first straight 4-plex subdivision we have seen. I don't think the city has seen one, since I have been on it anyway. We have got one more item. The last item is Item Number 13. This was -- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 81 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: May I interrupt and get something in before we go on to 13? Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I think we all had a letter dated February 22nd addressed to David McKinnon from Wes Steele, the architect of the Hampton Center Development. You didn't see it? This is in reference to CUP 01-044 and PFP 01-010, which we -- both of which we passed on February 7th and sent on to the City Council. The applicant is now requesting that their use permit be amended to say instead of three different buildings, they could construct a 6,000 square foot medical facility instead. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, if I can correct you before you go too much further with that, that's not something that you guys will be hearing. Again, that's something only for the City Council. Zaremba: Well, I was wondering, isn't that a significant enough change that -- McKinnon: It's actually not a significant enough change. The change that they are referring to is the Development Agreement, not the Conditional Use Permit. It was just a semantic error sent out by the applicant. They were required, as part of your approval for the Hampton Inn project to amend the Development Agreement. The original Development Agreement was for Sonntag Eye Associates in a 60,000 square foot hospital type health care, with the in-patient. There were some outpatient care facilities just for eye care. That's the way the Development Agreement was written. It was very strict, saying only 60,000 square foot. They were required to amend that to allow for three different office buildings, including a -- well, two office buildings, plus a hotel of 92 rooms. They had to make that request, they have made the request, and it's actually on the agenda for the March 26th Special Meeting for City Council. Borup: Is that the same hotel we have already approved? McKinnon: Yes. Same hotel you have already approved. Zaremba: That was what I -- the way I was reading it -- and I'm now corrected -- is we approved the hotel and they are coming back and saying, no, we want an entirely different thing. Instead of three buildings, we want a medical center that's 60,000 square feet. That's the way I read it and I stand corrected. Borup: The highlighted -- the dark areas, they can do that or the other -- McKinnon: That's correct. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 82 Zaremba: What they are adding is what we already approved. McKinnon: Yes. They are required to do that by ordinance. Item 13: Tabled from February 21, 2002 Meeting: Planning and Zoning Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances: Discuss Possible / Proposed Amendments: Borup: Okay. David, did you want to discuss Item Number 13? McKinnon: Yes. I'd be happy to discuss Item Number 13. As promised, I -- guys asked for some things to give you guys some working ability, some documents that would give some amendment language for you. Such as -- as you directed to me at the December meeting, provide for new noticing requirements and provide for neighbor meetings. I've given you some new documentation for that. I went around and talked with some of the other jurisdictions, plus with my background with another jurisdiction, I worked for before I came to the City of Meridian. I gathered some ordinances together, put together a couple of draft ordinances for you to discuss and maybe to even forward on to the Council if you would like. I have taken a straw poll amongst the planning staff in Meridian, myself included, concerning whether or not we think that neighborhood meetings are a good thing or a bad thing and they can be a double edge sword, in almost everyone of our opinions. The City of Boise, who requires them on all applications, says that unless they have the neighbor meeting well in advance of submitting the application, they don't do any good. That's the reason why I put in our application that -- in the model ordinance I put together for you -- Borup: We don't have that yet, do we? McKinnon: You don't have it yet. These are some recommendations that you guys asked me to put together and I just put them together as a model ordinance. The reason why I put the language in there concerning having the neighborhood meeting at least five days prior to submitting the application is so that at the neighborhood meetings if there is some changes that can be corrected where the applicant's agreeable with the neighborhood, they can make those changes before they submit. Prior to it getting to you guys and having another situation where the neighborhood says we don't agree with this, we think this is horrible, they haven't met with us, they can say we did meet with them. This is when we did meet with them, these are things we discussed, here are the changes, and they would have that done before it even gets to you. It needs to be done beforehand and that's the reason why it's written in this way. However, we are kind of -- have odds with ourselves. We think it's a good idea to have the neighborhood meetings, however, making it a requirement is something that we are not sold on as a staff. Borup: You're talking about making it a requirement on every single -- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 83 McKinnon: On every single one. Borup: And I agree. McKinnon: I agreed that if we are going to make them do it for some projects, we need to make them do it for all projects or no projects. Borup: So there is no way to make it on projects over a certain size? Zaremba: You could put some quantification to it. McKinnon: I looked at some quantification issues and tried to figure out how to quantify it. It's impossible to quantify the impact on some neighbors. It's like we saw tonight, we had like a neighborhood -- when the -- trying to think back as who it was. We had a lady that applied for a day care in the neighborhood. A lot of times those go through hands down, no problem. We had another one that came through where 54 people signed a petition and said we don't want it. Borup: On a day care? McKinnon: On a day care. Centers: Here? McKinnon: Here in front of you. Centers: That was the alternative school. McKinnon: No. This was a day care and 54 people signed a petition against it. Moore: This is the lady who want to apply for five, but wanted to have 12. Borup: Okay. Moore: And the surrounding neighborhood wouldn't support the 12. McKinnon: Right. Yes. You might have been gone. I wasn't at that meeting either, but I did see the result of it. I said, well, if we can quantify it based on intensity of use. Well, maybe there is no way we can quantify this based on intensity of use, because that's subjective. Borup: But that came out at the hearing and I think some of those smaller ones we could do that, but there may be some that won't solve everything with -- McKinnon: And you can't really do that with all -- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 84 Borup: No, they are not. McKinnon: And so it -- Borup: But like tonight they had one and no one showed up. McKinnon: Right. At the same time, I think that you guys ought to take that in consideration as well and making it an option, because there was nobody else here tonight either and so it's something to think about. They could be required to have it -- either you require it on all of them or you require it on none of them, in my opinion. Borup: Can we make it a strong suggestion or a strong recommendation that they do somehow that's written? I mean maybe a recommendation can't be written in an ordinance, but -- McKinnon: Oh, sure, you can put some modification language in here. As Commissioner Zaremba mentioned earlier, if you want to say here is the ones that require it and here is the ones that don't require it and add it to the model. Borup: Well, no, you're talking about making it a requirement. I'm wondering if we can say we strongly recommend. McKinnon: The Council could pass a resolution, but unless it's in an ordinance, it has no muscle. Borup: Right. You can't do it -- Zaremba: Then it could say -- if I could suggest what I was thinking of quantification and get some discussion about whether it's workable or not, that we would require a neighborhood meeting in excess of five days before submitting the application or 10 days or whatever works out. If the project, one, is located next to residential and, two, bigger than five acres with a different use. Borup: So you're saying next to residential even if it's the same use? Zaremba: No. If it's the same uses they don't need to do it and if it's smaller than five acres they don't need to do it and if it's located next to commercial they don't need to do it. Borup: So a more intense use. Zaremba: The conditions are that it's located next to residential and it's greater than five acres. Borup: And is more intense -- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 85 Zaremba: And it's not residential. Borup: So it's a more intense zoning than the current residential? Zaremba: That would be a good way to do it, too. Borup: So if you have got an R-40 next to R-4 they would need a meeting? Zaremba: I agree with that. Okay. If it's more -- Borup: I'm not saying that's what it is I'm asking you if that makes sense. Zaremba: That wasn't the way I put it, but that's a better way to put it than the way I was putting it. I would still quantify to say if it's greater than five acres. If it's a more intense use and greater than five acres and next to a residential -- Centers: Well, the Ameri-Tel Hotel comes to mind and it was on an acre and a half and it wasn't adjacent -- well, it was adjacent to residential. We wouldn't have to require a neighborhood meeting for that, then, because it's less than five acres and it doesn't fall into that category. We didn't have to require a neighborhood meeting, because all those neighbors got their notices in the mail and that developer met with them. Zaremba: I think the other ones will work themselves out. What I'm trying to do is -- again, we are trying to define significant every time we turn around. What I'm trying to do is define something that would significant in most cases, you know, and some of the others the neighborhood meetings will happen without it being required, but -- and I agree that by my definition it would not have been required in that case. Sometimes I think it will happen anyhow and we certainly are not preventing anybody from doing it. I'm just suggesting that, you know, one guy building one house next to another house shouldn't have to have a neighborhood meeting. Borup: I definitely agree with that. Centers: Well, I'm against a City Ordinance where we require a neighbor-meeting period. That's my stand. McKinnon: My personal opinion as well. Moore: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, can't you develop an ordinance which says that they should seriously consider having a neighborhood meeting and that if controversy arises this body may require that they have such a meeting before they take further action. Zaremba: Excellent. With no quantification. Centers: Yes, but what -- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 86 Moore: No quantification whatsoever. You're simply telling them it's a good idea for you to have a neighborhood meeting. If you don't and you come here and there are 45 people lined up here to testify against you, we may require you to go back and have that meeting before we take any action on your project. Centers: What's the definition of controversy, two people protesting, or 45? Who is going to be the defining jury on it? Moore: And that is for you to decide in every case. In other words, if you say may, then you have the control of it. Borup: And there has got to be five people here to agree on that. Centers: We tell them now you need to go back and meeting with these neighbors and -- Moore: You're simply giving them a forewarning. Borup: Well, that might be a good solution. Zaremba: I like that idea, because now it's still in the realm of -- Centers: A suggestion. Borup: It's not being forced on them but what it's telling them is if they do that, they may save some time on their application approvals. I mean that's the idea of the whole thing is to save time for them and us. McKinnon: Okay. Centers: I'd go along with that. Zaremba: Excellent idea. Moore: Thank you. McKinnon: Okay. Perhaps I can draft some model ordinance based on that as well if you like and have that for you for the next meeting. A couple of things. I don't know if you have taken time to look at the sign changes for notification. I basically took Eagle's -- Borup: Is that size reasonable? Zaremba: Isn't that what Eagle -- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 87 McKinnon: It's exactly what the City of Eagle has. Borup: Well, if we start -- someone could start another sign company in town just to -- Zaremba: Just doing the notifications. Well, I think that's a good idea. I agree with having some exceptions for small projects where that isn't required. Although what they post -- what small projects probably should be defined as well or -- I mean -- Borup: That's what I'm wondering. Zaremba: Just staple it to a tree or -- Borup: Well, by the linear foot of street frontage or something, maybe. Maybe that's not a good way to do it, but that's been some complaint in the past. You know, you got a large project on a corner and you stick it clear at one corner, one end that's not even on a corner, you can be driving by all the time and not know about it. You got, you know, a hundred feet of frontage, you need an eight foot sign. Zaremba: Prominently displayed. Borup: I question whether an eight-foot sign was needed in all situations. McKinnon: In fact, I was looking at some quantification -- it's a four-by-four. Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. McKinnon: I wonder if I got an old copy or -- because I did put some qualification language in there not requiring it for home day cares -- Zaremba: You had a couple where it wasn't required. McKinnon: The ordinance that I have got in front of me right now doesn't include the language that I changed on that, but I tried to do some modification on that, because it's not every application should require that in my opinion as well. However, it's not -- if we are going to make it for one, we should probably do it for everybody and make it uniform. It's so much easier to enforce and have some very strict guidelines. I hate it when we have subjective enforcement. Centers: Let me ask you while I think of it, Dave. Are you going to include the definition of industrial zone and light industrial zone? McKinnon: We sure can. Centers: And -- which is a pet peeve of mine. McKinnon: Absolutely. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 88 Centers: Not that, but where schools are permitted it says residential. It says permitted. Everyone, including the City Council I think, agrees that that's the traditional school. McKinnon: Correct. Centers: It's a personal issue there. McKinnon: Commissioner Centers, Members of the Commission -- Centers: You don't need to be that formal. McKinnon: Sorry about that. It's an old habit. I have a bunch of definitions. You will notice there was a list of definitions that we got from our central use control that we don't have defined, so I have given you some alternative definitions you could adopt. School is a tough one to define, because I have a book of zoning terms, I have the internet with everybody, every zoning body's language in the United States where I can pull from. Nobody separates the alternative school, the education program and school. Centers: What if you could put a C? McKinnon: We could put a C. Centers: CUP. CUP required. McKinnon: Absolutely. That's something that would be fine. However, I think we are going to run into -- Centers: When in doubt put a C and that covers everyone. McKinnon: Yes. The problem we run into with that is the school district is going to be very concerned about whether or not they can put those schools and have to be permitted and whether or not they have to run into the situation where they come in for a Conditional Use Permit. The neighborhood says we don't think this is appropriate. They want it to be a permitted use now where the schools would be a permitted use. So it's just competing interests. Your interest would be to keep that from happening, keep the alternative schools from going in, where the school district would like to keep it from the -- Centers: I think they should know that they are going to have to apply for a CUP on an out-of-the-norm type school. McKinnon: An out-of-the-norm type school and I played with the idea of actually defining it as an educational program, which is how they actually define their alternative school that you had before you a few months ago on Pine Street. They ended up Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 89 calling that an alternative program. We could put alternative program in a separate definition from the schools, completely leave it off our schedule of use control. If it's not on the schedule of use of control it becomes a Conditional Use it all zones. We would have the definition in place and we could say there is a separation between the two types of schools, that way we don't have to change the schedule of use control, but we do put the definition and say that there is a separation between the two. That's the alternative that would choose. Centers: Just so it's real clear. McKinnon: And, like I said, I had a hard time coming up with a definition for that, so if you could pen something up, I would really appreciate it. I really did struggle with that, how to define them separately, because the alternative school and educational programs are define very similarly. Centers: Well, the word traditional was used a lot, if it's not traditional type school. That word was used many times. McKinnon: And the high school that -- the alternative high school. I forget the -- Mathes: Charter. McKinnon: The Charter High School. Thank you very much. The Charter High School is not a traditional school, so they require charter schools to go through as well. Zaremba: What about home schooling? McKinnon: Home schooling is a whole other bag of tricks, but -- Centers: Maybe you would -- maybe you would do a charter. McKinnon: A charter school to go through -- that's not a bad idea. Just say if it's not a traditional in the sense of traditional -- we would have to define traditional, which is not a hard thing to do. Centers: We have a traditional meaning -- Zaremba: Do we want to further clarify that by saying a public traditional school? Borup: Well, are you saying that Bishop Kelly High School would not be approved? Zaremba: Well, it would need a CUP. McKinnon: In the definitions that I came up for you -- I actually stopped right there on the school, alternative educational programs. I actually put that in and I couldn't come up with a specific definition that would differ from the private commercial school or a Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 90 school as a trade or vocational school or a school itself. I defined every one of them, except for the alternative program and as far as the definition for schools. It's a fairly universal definition. We just -- let me read it out loud, just so I can get it in my head again and so that you guys will be working on the same page as I am. Schools. An institution of learning for minors, whether public or private, which offers instruction in those courses of study required by the state board of education to a group of children. That encompasses more than just standard traditional schools. This definition includes nursery schools, kindergarten, elementary schools, junior high schools, senior high schools, but does not include vocational or professional institutions or any institution of higher education, including a college or university. At that point I put parenthesis after the period saying see alternative school. Or we could just add alternative school at that point. Centers: Here is another thing that you could work in. I don't know how you would word it, but a teacher receives a teacher's certification and they can only teach K through eight or whatever. The alternative school teachers had to have another certification and any type of school like that, an unusual school, they have to have another certificate. They have to have more education, et cetera, et cetera. I know that for a fact. My daughter is a teacher. So I guess if you can find the language to define just -- you know, a teacher with minimum certification -- McKinnon: I can find that out -- Centers: -- that would be a teacher at a traditional school. McKinnon: Sure. Centers: See? McKinnon: I can get that definition. My brother -- Centers: What scares me is that that zoning book -- I don't know. When was it written in the '40s? McKinnon: Our zoning book? Centers: Yes or the '50s? McKinnon: Some of the definitions are from the '50s. Way back. Centers: Yes and 20, 30 years from now we are going to have a zombie school for whomever and they are going to call it an XYZ school instead of an alternative school. You know, like they have the classes for the gifted students, they are going to put a name on it. You're going to have different -- so I think you've got to really clarify it. McKinnon: Okay. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 91 Centers: So a few years from now you're note rewriting it again. McKinnon: Well, right now we don't have anything. The definition that I read to you is one that I pulled off of -- Borup: The one on schools that you came up with? McKinnon: Yes. That's not even a definitions that we got -- Borup: I think it goes a long way saying that it's a course of study required by the State Board of Education. That's a definition of -- Centers: Alternative schools is required -- Borup: Right. That's what I'm saying, that doesn't cover alternative schools, but that does define what we think of as traditional and that's what he has down there next was alternative school and no definition -- but no definition in there yet. McKinnon: That's something I struggled with myself trying to figure it out, but I think that the certifications or that requires additional certification to teach a different group of students I think is right along the right track. I'll come up with something on that. Centers: I think you can come up with something like an educational facility that requires additional education over and above the standard teaching certificate. Zaremba: One that will cover special education as well. Centers: Yes. Exactly. It will cover a broad area. McKinnon: I think that's a very good comment. A couple more things, Commissioner Borup. I know that you requested that the temporary trailers be either redefined or reclassified as permitted uses. Borup: We talked about that a long time ago. That was on P&Z's hot list. McKinnon: Yes. We talked about the hot list a little bit at the last meeting I was at and we kind of discussed those things that you thought were the most important. That was one of the things that you brought up among the definitions, which, of course, the temporary trailers are not defined. We came up with a definition that that would be essentially a construction office. It could not be used for residential quarters. The reason why Shari had some trepidation with changing that is that she didn't want people to say I'm doing an addition to my house and I'm going to live in the travel trailer in the driveway. She didn't want that to happen, so some additional language requiring that no -- would not be used for any home type of uses -- I'd have to look up exactly what Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 92 kind of definition I made up, because it was a made-up definition, I didn't take it from anybody else, I just kind of did some wordsmithing. Borup: I think one of the reasons we brought it up was sales offices was the ones that were having the problems and a concern. By the time they went through the process it was four months later and they didn't need a sales office anymore. Centers: Right. McKinnon: Well, in the -- Zaremba: If they constructed it for sales, but not residential, not living quarters. McKinnon: Let me tell you the way I redefined it, just as an idea, was that construction buildings on a temporary -- any structure of a temporary nature containing an on-site construction management office for an active construction project, construction buildings may not be used as a temporary living quarters. Didn't develop into the sales buildings, because the current standard right now is to build a building -- you see that a lot in the Hubble Homes and you see it also in Bridgetower, which you approved, is they will build a home. They will put the sales office in the first model home and that is something that we have allowed. We have allowed that through the particular zoning compliance and not a Conditional Use Permit. We are handling those differently. If we go to Golf View where they actually put out a small -- a manufactured home is the closest, with the cardboard siding and they put landscaping around it. That was something entirely different. It's doesn't fit. Zaremba: Ashford Greens has done something like that. Borup: Well, at Ashford Greens they came to the -- McKinnon: Yes and that looks different. I still think that that should probably go through the Conditional Use Permit process or -- Borup: Really. That looks better than a temporary trailer. McKinnon: It does look better than a temporary trailer, but it doesn't look like a model home with a sales office inside, which is something that Shari's okay and agreeable with. When we talked about it, she said, I don't want to see travel trailers and I don't want to see these small homes. If it looks like a standard home in a subdivision she was okay with that, but you know, that's just staff opinion. You guys are the body that makes the decision Centers: I agree. I agree. McKinnon: That's my opinion as well. If it is something that is going to look different from what's approved, then it should go through a Conditional Use Permit. Those Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 93 people that buy in that neighborhood shouldn't have to look at it, unless they have an opportunity to say something about it. Borup: But it's going to be there before they start buying if it's a sales trailer. McKinnon: Sometimes but without a Conditional Use Permit we don't have the ability to say you have to move it out by a specific date. Borup: Oh. Well, that's -- McKinnon: That's just something you might want to think about. Borup: Well, all they have got to do is plan ahead a little bit. If it's going to be there a long period that shouldn't be a problem, so it's -- Zaremba: Just thinking it through for Ashford Greens, which is where I live, so I know this. They originally had a home built that they were using as a sales office. They sold that and moved their sales office into another fully built house. This is now the third place what is now the trailer with a cover around it is the third place that they have had it and I tend to agree, they should have had to go through some permit process. McKinnon: They did. Borup: They came through this -- Zaremba: Oh, they did. McKinnon: Yes. They came through this body. Borup: Okay. That was a Conditional Use thing, so it took them how many months? McKinnon: Four months. Zaremba: That's where the process of saying that some of those things don't need a permit. I would probably want to word it so that that one still does. Borup: And that's the way the definition is. McKinnon: That's the way my definition is, it will still carry that. A couple other things that the Council has had a couple work sessions to play with the Cell Tower Ordinance. They are getting ready to remand it back to you. Not remand it, but actually hand it over to you to start having some Public Hearings on that. From what you have right now, that is additional language that you don't have, it's actually a little more astrictive. Council has instructed me to take out any towers that would be of wood construction. They don't want to see any towers of wood construction. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 94 Zaremba: Disallow them or -- McKinnon: Disallow them. Zaremba: Or remove them from the language. McKinnon: To remove the language that allows them and to add language disallowing. Borup: Has there been any even -- McKinnon: The reason we would want to do that is to keep power poles from having the antenna arrays placed on top of the power poles. We think that that's not a very visually attractive thing. We'd also like cell towers redefined and had some sort of definition for some sort of design standards for cell towers, which I'm still working on right now. Centers: Yes to interrupt, Dave. Is that the process, we discuss it, you write it up, take it to Council, and then they send it back to us for a Public Hearing? McKinnon: Not every time, but with a cell tower it was a specific request from one of the members of the Council to have that in a work session. Something like the language we talked about earlier for an increase in noticing standards, you guys could make a recommendation tonight if you wanted and it would go to the Council. Centers: Yes, but we don't need a Public Hearing? McKinnon: They would have to have a Public Hearing. We'd have to notice it as a Public Hearing. Tonight we have already noticed this as a Public Hearing. Centers: Right. McKinnon: So the Public Hearing would also take place in front of the Council. It might be a little more specific saying this is the ordinance that we are requesting to be change. Tonight we requested a Public Hearing to discuss these items. Zaremba: I have a couple comments on the ordinance, but if they have made some changes to it I'd probably rather see their version. McKinnon: Oh, on the Cell Tower Ordinance? Zaremba: Yes. McKinnon: If you have got some changes to it, Commissioner Zaremba, I'd love to see them, because I could incorporate that into it before it goes to you guys. If you make those requests, it means I have to make some changes at a later date, which pushes it Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 95 further back. We need to have something in place that's been -- I have talked to a number of wireless companies just in the last two weeks looking to build new ones. Zaremba: I may be stepping on things that they have already done, but if I conflict with them, take their word. Beginning on the top, wireless facilities, poles, antennas, towers, do we want to deal with satellite dishes? I know they are not usually on this kind of tower. Okay. Then short title. I would suggest that it actually be Communications Tower Ordinance, because that covers all sorts of other things. Microwave towers, anything that's not a cell. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: The only other place you refer to it as a cell tower is that first Paragraph A and I would change it to a communication and then, actual, throughout the rest you call them communication towers. McKinnon: I can make that. I appreciate that. Zaremba: This is a question. I am now on 11 question mark four, there is A, B, C -- I don't have a page number for it, but it's -- McKinnon: Eleven question mark four. I know where you're going. Zaremba: Yes. Okay. C Number 1, it says documentation from a qualified Licensed Engineer that shows that it complies with FCC standards. Maybe you don't know the answer to this, but is that -- does the FCC standards cover whether or not they interfere with the neighbors' televisions and radios and -- McKinnon: The 1996 Telecommunications Act, which is commonly referred to as the FCC Act, said you can't consider that as part of your approval or denial. Zaremba: Oh, really? McKinnon: Yes. Zaremba: So they can put something up that interferes with people's TV reception and we can't say anything about it? McKinnon: The RF's that they are using, the radio frequencies they are using, isn't going to. I'll put that in blood if you want to. It won't affect that. You also can't, according to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, base it on health problems related to radio frequency. Borup: Supposed health problems. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 96 McKinnon: Supposed health problems. 1996 federal law says you can't consider that as a reason for denial. Zaremba: All right. Then -- okay. Following down on the page we have 11 question mark five, general provisions and requirements. Turn to the page after that where we have -- I'm sorry. The last on that page we have an A, B, C, D and I'm suggesting -- E and I'm suggesting to add an F before you get to the Number 3 there. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: Also prohibiting any kind of signs, flags, or banners. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: Just a suggestion. Then the thought came to me -- somewhere in here, you mentioned encouraging co-location. We could further encourage that if somewhere in here we said they are prohibited from erecting a tower within a one mile radius of an existing tower or a two mile radius or something that just says you either co-locate or you got to be two miles away. Borup: Commissioner Zaremba, there is a problem with that. It's tied to the fact that if there is a cell tower that's already in existence that is not co-locatable and another cell tower company needs to put up a tower within that cell area, because they couldn't co- locate, they wouldn't be able to build a tower in that area. I think that the language in the co-location says that in my -- I'm not looking at it right now, but if I remember correctly it says that if they can show that they can't co-locate, that they will be able to erect a new tower within that one mile area included. The reason for that is because not all the towers that we have got right now are co-locatable. We need to have a separation between the two and you need to have the height and a lot of the towers are not tall enough to take the additional radio antennas in a location that would not cause interference between the two projects. Zaremba: What I'm saying if aesthetically for the city we don't want that and we want to say they have to be a certain distance apart, can we? I hate to see them every 600 feet like the power poles that we were talking about before. McKinnon: The feel -- the industry itself refers to those as farms. Antenna farms. We definitely need to get away from the antenna farm. However, just because an existing cell tower is in a one mile radius of another one doesn't -- in my opinion -- and that's all this is right now -- is that you already have one there and they can't co-locate on it. I don't think you should prohibit another company from going in, in that one square mile radius and putting a cell tower in, just because there is not one there. I mean you run into some monopoly issues there, too, where if somebody's got -- I have got the only our tower, I'm sorry, you can't co-locate on my tower, we are the only person that provides service to the cell. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 97 Centers: Monopoly is the key word. Borup: Is there anything the city can do to the original tower owner? McKinnon: Well, the original tower -- we don't have a whole lot of original towers, which is one thing that we are lucky about. We have got quite a few towers in our area of impact that we may have to worry about the co-location. We do have some towers that may not be able to be co-located. However, in the future all new towers -- we can't force them into allowing co-location. By forcing them to provide documentation to the city upon approval of the tower, it says we will provide co-location upon request at a reasonable rate to another company. We can force them to do that. We break no laws by doing that. The FCC guidelines are very explicit saying that we are breaking no laws by forcing them to co-locate. Some people have argued in the past that, you know, in order for us to verify the radio frequency as trade secrets between corporations there is no -- there is no trade secrets if it's mandated by the city. Those companies have to release that information to each other. We can require it on every single new tower. We can also, Commissioner Zaremba, require that they give us documentation that says that it's impossible for them to co-locate on a new tower in that area. Zaremba: I was just thinking to give an extra kick in the butt to make that in their interest to co-locate to say, well, you can't put it 500 feet away. You either co-locate or you're a mile or two miles away. McKinnon: Yes. Zaremba: I'm just trying to think of incentives to get done what it is we want to get done, which is fewer towers. Moore: Isn't there a way that we can require for them to set up some type of a fund to take these towers down in case the company goes out of business or goes bankrupt or whatever? I mean we are going to have a lot of new companies that if they put up a tower and then disappear – Borup: And if someone else comes along and they want their old tower. Zaremba: We could have 12 or 15 cell companies trying to -- you know. We need something so that they have to set up some type of an escrow account to provide for the taking down of that tower in case they abandon it. McKinnon: I don't have a copy of that ordinance in front of me, but if I remember correctly if I do need to add that I believe there was some language concerning they have to bond for that through the bonding process, rather than have to provide the money and that's -- Zaremba: Well, there are even cities that charge license fees to keep the tower up there. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 98 McKinnon: Oh, absolutely. They sure do and the city -- Zaremba: Could be a source of revenue. McKinnon: In other cities they encourage the cell towers to be located on city property and pay the city for the lease of that. They are very encouraged to pick a public piece of property and it pays for itself. The city of Garden City has one right next to their city hall. Do you have some other comments? Zaremba: Not on that ordinance. McKinnon: To give you guys a heads up, I don't know -- Zaremba: Actually, let me comment. I made a whole lot of notes before I read it of those things that I thought ought to be in the ordinance. As I read through it hit all of them. McKinnon: Cool. Zaremba: So I was impressed. McKinnon: That's good to hear. I know there are some formatting changes that are going to have to take place with the cell tower one. I'm trying to get some of those corrected before it gets to you guys, have that corrected in a City Council Work Session before they hand it over to you guys. I think it's been helpful for -- to let you guys see it before it gets to you. A couple other things that are coming down the pipe right now, just to let you guys know. I have drafted a Dust Control Ordinance. Centers: A what? McKinnon: Dust control. We are getting hit pretty hard federally about our air emission, air quality in Ada county, and one of the requirements of NTES phase two -- and I guess Bruce could address this a little bit more -- ties to air quality. It's PM-10 and PM-2.5, that's particulate matter. That's 10 micrograms or smaller or 2.5 micrograms or smaller and they -- the EPA. That's one of six things that they monitor for air quality, the largest contributor to the PM-10 in Ada County is fugitive dust, which is dust that comes from construction sites. Dust that comes from uncovered vehicles traveling within Ada County and mud that has been tracked onto the roads and then is dispersed as it's pulverized in the roadways. The ordinance would be something that would be fairly simple in enforcement that would say if the dust is rising in the air the enforcement officer can go out there and say you're stockpiling dirt on a construction site and the wind is coming and blowing it away, you can get a fine for that. The way you keep the dust down is you either water it or you put some sort of chemical containment on that, whether it's oil or whether it's some sort of dust -- I can't remember the word that they Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 99 use specifically, but Pennzoil actually makes something that's specifically for dust abatement. Centers: But Boise just went through that less than a year ago and they backed off. McKinnon: Boise went through it and they are -- and they have got actually their NTES stuff, which is a 20-page document that they actually require that construction sites do meet a lot of those requirements that are -- Centers: They have backed up on their finding. McKinnon: They have backed up on their findings, but they still have the ordinance in place. In fact, they take it a lot further than what I think we want Meridian to take a step. The reason for that is Boise says it's very hard to enforce. They have two people that their job is to go around and monitor and enforce that ordinance. I don't think Meridian is ready to take that step just yet for dust ordinances for the NTES. Eventually we probably will in order to meet the phase two requirements. That's a Public Works discussion. Zaremba: Although if you had the ordinance and a citizen called in and complained, you could generate somebody that went out there and looked. McKinnon: We would have something to back it up. In my years of enforcement I have been called out quite a bit to take care of dust problems, say get a water truck on here. It would have been very helpful to say, hey, I have got an ordinance that says you have to put water on this. I never had that. They would be compliant by going out and talking to contractors, because I knew most of the contractors personally. They would say, yes, we will take care of it, but it sure helps to have an ordinance. I think it's easy to have an enforceable ordinance that can say, you know, we are taking care of it. It's very easy to enforce if you take a picture that shows the dust is leaving the site, you have to take care of it. That will be coming eventually. I'll get that to you. I don't know whether the Council wants to see that first or not. I know there has been some discussion between Shari and a member of Council concerning that. Zaremba: Is there a possibility that we could be penalized by DEQ or some of the agencies if we don't do that? McKinnon: That's the whole NTES thing and, yes, we could lose some highway funds. That's part of the reason that ACHD is also very heavily involved with NTES information. Borup: One of the biggest polluters, as I understand, is exempted from that. Farms. McKinnon: And in the ordinance that I put together that is still an exception. Actually, in Ada County alone the highest is particulate dust. It does not come from the agricultural. In Canyon County, it's agricultural dust. In Ada County, it's actually construction dust. I Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 100 have got facts and figures. Compass and DEQ have actually been working for a number of years on getting some model ordinances together. I wrote -- Borup: I agree with that, except for maybe from Meridian west. McKinnon: Meridian west is -- Brad Hawkins-Clark and I had that same discussion a couple days ago. We are in Meridian -- we are actually very close to Canyon County as well, so there is going to be some migration of the fugitive dust. You can tell when the farmers are disking up here. You really can but as far as Ada County as a whole, Compass has information stating that the majority of the fugitive dust in Ada County actually comes from construction sites. That will be coming to you soon. I don't know how much you guys are willing to start passing some of these definitions along to Council for increased notification standards. I think it's something that is well within your rights as the Planning and Zoning Commission body to make recommendations of Council and to change the ordinance. As soon as you feel comfortable with any one of these model ordinances with your changes, if you're free to do that, we can continue to notice it as a Public Hearing to change the ordinance. As soon as you make that recommendation, it will go the Council and Council could take some action on that. If there are some things that you're really concerned about, you can get them going. I have no qualms about doing some model ordinances or -- Borup: I'd like to go ahead and talk about notification tonight. You have already got it written. When I first read it I made a bunch of notes, over five acres was one of it, but then you turn the next page and you have already addressed that, so I made the notes before -- I think that the exceptions you put handles everything real well. I mean at first I was questioning them as determined by the Zoning Administrator and any additional areas. The more I thought about it I don't know how you define it any other way. I mean you can't put it in a definition, it needs to be a case by case, and you have to look at each specific project. I don't know that I felt strongly that it needs to be the zoning administrator only or none of the other staff can do that or you guys want to not take -- want to pass the buck anyway? McKinnon: I think that we could get rid of the Zoning Administrator as the term Zoning Administrator. That does make it somewhat subjective. However -- Borup: Well, that needs to be determined by somebody. I agree. The Planning and Zoning Department maybe or -- McKinnon: To be quite honest with you, Chairman Borup, when it says Zoning Administrator that typically includes her designees and we could -- or the staff. We could make that language to be as his or her designees. Borup: I don't know how you do it without having somebody on staff to determine it, because you're not going to get that -- you're not going to get that in writing that would be a definition in an ordinance that would tell you which ones warrant it and which ones don't. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 101 McKinnon: Okay. I guess it gets away from things like a subdivision where we noticed 300 feet and, obviously, a lot of people want more than that. You bringing that up makes me think that maybe we should take it out, Commissioner Borup, and just the whole subjectivity thing is that -- if we have it for one person and don't make another person do it. We are being subjective and it could become personal. We are all -- Borup: Well, that's why I originally circled it, because I thought -- but then -- but we have had a lot of them where they have been big enough projects and large enough subdivisions say why weren't we notified to this. Most of the time they are right. Sometimes they are not, but -- McKinnon: Commissioner Borup, I think that you bringing that up makes me think we don't want it subjective period. Borup: Well, that was my first thought, but after I looked at it, I agreed with it. McKinnon: I like your first thought. I was going to say in the Cell Tower Ordinance we would change some language to say that it would be within 600 feet or 1,000 feet. The City of Eagle has adopted 1,000 feet of cell tower they have to notice and I changed ours to 600. I don't think that 1,000 are necessarily correct for a cell tower. We could actually take this sort of quantification language that's very specific, such as the five acres. If you're over five acres in size to go 500 feet from -- I don't want to be subjective, though, because that could turn around and say that the Planning and Zoning Commissioners said that we should notice everybody within 500 feet, because we knew that this one person would get the notice. We knew this one person was going to come in and totally testify against it. They could come in and say that in front of a judge and I don't think that we want to have any subjectivity. I think we want it cut and dried. Zaremba: Well, can I suggest a quantification? McKinnon: Absolutely. Zaremba: Because I think we are talking about the same -- I just found it, so I think I'm on the same subject. Borup: Item Number 1 there under A. Zaremba: Item 1. I don't know if it's a state requirement that we notify everybody within -- all the property owners within 300 feet. McKinnon: It is a state requirement. Zaremba: Okay. Can we add to that? I know we can't do any less than that, but can we add to that? Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 102 McKinnon: Sure. Zaremba: Okay. What I'm thinking of, for instance, there are a number of developments -- and I was thinking of one out in my area that -- a different developer than my developer, who was developing property across the way, divided their own big development up in such a way that there were no property owners within 300 feet. Except for almost only one house did they ever have to notify and the way they divided it and phased it, they got to build 90 percent of it without ever notifying anybody around. My thinking was if we start with State Statutes that say any property owner within 300 feet has to be notified, and then add to that if there are not 10 property owners within 300 feet, that you expand that radius until you have 10 property owners to notify. So that at least 10 people -- however that radius has to be expanded until you have got 10 people. You know, if it's more than that within 300 feet, that's fine but you start with 300 feet, if you don't have 10 property owners to notify you keep expanding the radius until you have got the 10. Is that a legal kind of a thing to do? Moore: If I might suggest, Commissioner Zaremba, you have got to be more specific than that or you're going to get somebody who says, great, I can go this direction and pick up 10 and I don't have to notify the 1,500 in the other direction. Borup: Well, that's why I was saying radius. Go out in a circle. You don't get to choose what direction this is. You know, it may be 400 feet or it may be a mile. Centers: What did you say Boise is? McKinnon: Boise's is at 300 feet. Centers: Period? McKinnon: They may have some specific requirements for different types of hearings similar to Eagle -- for like cell towers. I can't do it, but typically the notice of 300. I can speak for certainty that the City of Garden City is specifically 300 feet and notifies no more, no less, to stay away from any subjectivity and keeping away from lawsuits, saying why did you notify this person, it was outside the boundary specified by State Code. Centers: Well, you get into more expense. Zaremba: Well, in my case you're still only notifying 10 people. I mean you could have 40 within the 300 feet. That's possible but if you don't, I think at least 10 people ought to be notified. It's just an opinion. McKinnon: I can come up with an alternative -- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 103 Zaremba: You know, if there is a way not to make it subjective and that would be the radius goes in all directions and so you have identified -- McKinnon: At least 10. Zaremba: -- 10 people. McKinnon: I mean it would be very easy to write that into an ordinance and I think that takes away some subjectivity. It may be some difficulty on staff where working with it where we say, you know, 300 foot radius for property and then we have to put in a different -- Zaremba: What is the process that you -- I see that you're saying that the person will actually go into P&Z and obtain the list. How difficult is it for you to take X person and say here is whom you need to notify? McKinnon: It would just be a further process, because if we say it had to be at least 10 people, we'd start off with our database and say within 300 feet of this property. You look at that and say, oh, there is only six. You say, okay, let's go within 600 and we go, oh, but that's only nine and say put in 450, now that's 13. Do you pair it back from that until it's just at 10 or no more than 10 or do we pair it down to stay at 650? Zaremba: I would think if there are ties and then you're notifying 13 people. McKinnon: But the problem is, is that if you just shrunk it just a little bit more -- or the process would say boom, boom, boom, oh, put it back out, out, out, and have to move back in and you have to get it back to 10 -- Borup: But that's the same thing you're saying, you do it until an even number and you get 15 to say 10 and they say, you know, we would have passed if you didn't get those other three people. McKinnon: And so it becomes subjective to say at least 10 -- but we can get it down to at least 10n, probably, in a certain circumference, but outside of that it becomes confusing. My personal opinion, stay at 300 as the State Code says. Leave it alone. Borup: Well, isn't that one of the purposes of the larger sign to notify the other people around? McKinnon: And the newspaper as well. Centers: And any additional area that may be impacted by said application as determined by the Zoning Administrator. You're covered there. Borup: No. I understand he wants to eliminate the -- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 104 Zaremba: Take that out. Moore: You need to take that out. You have to take that out. It's too subjective. Centers: Well, then I agree, leave it 300 feet, no more, no less. Borup: Other than a larger sign. The other question I had was the last sentence. It seems like I don't understand it in relation to the first sentence and that's saying they have to sign a sworn statement that it's shown on the records of -- oh, wait a minute. I'm sorry. That was crossed out. McKinnon: That's the part that was crossed out. Borup: I thought that was my mark. That's the one you crossed out. Sorry. Zaremba: Okay. Are we still working on the first paragraph? McKinnon: Sure. Zaremba: The first paragraph only says that they must get a list of names from the P&Z Department. Doesn't say what they have to do with them. McKinnon: We do the mailing. Zaremba: You do the mailing? McKinnon: We do the mailing. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. So it's not -- McKinnon: We don't allow them to mail it out. We have run into some problems with that. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: So we do the mailings ourselves and keep a copy of the list ourselves, so that if someone says I wasn't notified, we can say -- Zaremba: You need to clarify that that says once they have the list P&Z will do the mailing or something like that. McKinnon: Okay. I can do that. Borup: The City Clerk will -- Zaremba: Let me make a suggestion if I can. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 105 Borup: You need to put the city -- Zaremba: Yes. The city. Don't say whom. Let me make a suggestion. Actually, just on the title. This is kind of -- to call paragraph one notification of property owners, then, two, posting of hearing on property. McKinnon: I like that first one. That was -- Zaremba: Notification of property owners and, two, posting of hearing notices on property. Then three needs a title. Neighborhood meeting or did we decide we weren't going to -- McKinnon: That's up to you guys, whether or not you want that or not. Zaremba: While I'm looking at it, make a suggestion on paragraph 2-A-2. McKinnon: 2-A-2. Okay. Zaremba: You're defining that the words Public Hearing notice must be in six-inch letters. I would ask that the date be in six-inch letters also. Date of the hearing. The other stuff they have to stop and look at. McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, do you have a copy of the plan that goes along with that? Borup: No. Mine doesn't have that. Zaremba: You didn't have one. Borup: No. It refers to it as an example, but there is no example. McKinnon: You didn't get that? Actually, I had Sonya help me out with that and she actually did a really good representation of that. I believe that the date is actually in four-inch letters and if you want it to be six inch, that's fine, too. Zaremba: I was saying let's just specify it as being -- the two things that should be the biggest things on the sign are the Public Hearing notice and the date. McKinnon: Okay. I'll have to look and see. The map came along with it and actually specifies the height of every single type in there. Zaremba: Oh. Perfect. McKinnon: I don't know if it's six inches. My gut feeling is it's four and a half. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 106 Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: But if you want it to be six inches, I can make it six inches on the date. Borup: It just depends on how -- four inches are the size of the numbers on -- our address numbers on a house. Zaremba: That's good size so you could see it. I just wanted it to be prominent, put it that way. McKinnon: And those signs are very easy to see. I saw about four of them this weekend. I'll make sure she gets a copy of the map, I guess, of the signs that Sonya put together is just exactly how it was to be done. We are actually putting together an application form that says -- to tell you how to do it and how to post it and there is information we need back from your specifically detailing it all out, which is really nice, because Eagle already has done that work for me. Zaremba: If we are ready for a different subject, I have got a couple of them. Borup: Is there anything else on the notification from anybody? Zaremba: No. All my suggestions got shot down. Borup: Well, no, they didn't. You got the title in there. McKinnon: You got the title. You got the six inches. You got the add mailed by the city in there. Borup: And do we want to have it -- what did we decide on Number 3 then, the neighborhood meeting? Is that -- does anybody else have any -- right now everything that's on there I agree. You're talking about eliminating the -- Zaremba: I like the wording that they are strongly suggested and that P&Z may require it. Borup: Okay the language that Mr. Moore came up with? Zaremba: Absolutely. If there is -- what was it, contention, or something in the meeting? McKinnon: Strongly recommended and Commission may require. Zaremba: Is there -- you used a word and I don't remember it. Contention or something. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 107 Moore: And I'm not sure whether you want to use that. Controversy is what I used, but if you simply say that the Commission may require, you get to make the determination. Borup: Not even put controversy in. Moore: No. Zaremba: Yes. You're right. Borup: Because someone else would say that wasn't -- there was no controversy. McKinnon: I will come up with something that says that we strongly recommend -- that the City of Meridian strongly recommends neighborhood meetings be held prior to the submission of an application. The city will be able -- will provide addresses and a mailing list for the applicant and that a second sentence to that that the Commission may require it. Zaremba: Something like that. McKinnon: Okay. I'll get that for you. Not a problem. Borup: Well, I'd like to go ahead and make a motion on this before we move on. McKinnon: Do you want to make a motion on it or do you want me to make those changes and get it back to you? Borup: Well, right. I guess that's really where we need to go, so we can review the final draft. McKinnon: Give me some instruction to do it and I will do it. Borup: I'd make a motion to thank you for what you have done so far and to clean it up and bring it back to us. McKinnon: Okay. I'll do it. Thank you. Borup: I don't know if we need a formal motion on this. McKinnon: I will get it done. Zaremba: Do you want a consensus? Borup: Yes. I think we got a consensus. Okay. You were going to say something else, David? Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 108 Zaremba: Yes and these are questions about whether we want to even think about. I'm thinking of the long abandoned huge building on Fairview and whether or not Meridian ought to have some ordinance that says an unused building needs a Conditional Use Permit or something like that. If it has been -- if it's never been occupied or if it becomes unoccupied for six months you must apply for a Conditional Use Permit, we will issue two of them, and then we may require you to take it down. McKinnon: Okay. Outside Meridian it's the Fairview -- Borup: The old Smith's on Maple Grove. Zaremba: It looks like the property was originally an outdoor theater, a drive-in theater. McKinnon: It was. Zaremba: And then, they put up this tilt up building. I'm using that as example. I'm using that as an example, I'm saying what if we begin to have abandoned buildings? Can we have an ordinance about abandoned buildings? Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, it's real interesting that you brought that up, because we had discussion in our department about that this week. There is -- I guess you could call it an apartment building in Meridian that is very questionable on the integrity of the buildings and that sort of thing. The question has come up about what do we have as far as hazardous buildings and what do we have in code? We did get a copy of Boise City's Ordinance and we are in the process of reviewing that now to see where we could be going with it. Moore: Be very careful. I mean basically you're condemning the property and anytime you deal with real property you have to be careful what you're doing. Freckleton: And we did look at the Uniform Building Code and where we are at right now is the Uniform Building Code was the '97. I think that in discussions with our Building Official he didn't feel like we had anything with a tooth right now to go anywhere with it. That's why we have been reviewing Boise City's Ordinance and we will probably be making some recommendations here before too long. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: Commissioners, if I may -- and Counsel Mr. Moore, we typically refer to this a gray field, things that came in. They were great at one point and then all of a sudden they moved out, it's a big box store, and all of a sudden, you have got a big box store, what do you do with it. Usually you break it up. If you look right now like what's going on by Costco over there, you have seen that Home Base moved out. Now you have got some type of strip development moving in there, T.J. Maxx and some other types of strip development moving into it. It's gray field development. The Maxx Store, the old D'Allesandros at the corner of Glenwood and Chinden. You see gray field like that all Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 109 the time. That's something that's the vain of all planners that it's hard to provide for that. People want to have these big buildings and have the low prices, but then it creates a problem in the future where they are ugly, they are big, and what do you do with them when they are no longer viable? The problem that we all have and it's something that I don't think there is an easy solution to -- if I could address just momentarily the Uniform Code for the abatement of dangerous buildings. It's an appendix to the Uniform Building Code, that is something the City of Meridian could look into. I have been in charge of enforcement of that section of the Uniform Building Code before in the past. It provides 16 different ways in which you can condemn an unsafe building, say this is part of the Uniform Building Code. The Building Official is in charge of enforcing those things that are part of the Uniform Building Code and that they can condemn that building according to those 16 different standards that are listed within the Uniform Building Code -- the dangerous Building Code. Uniform Code for dangerous buildings is what it's called and it's very specific for buildings that are unsafe and that is something that the City of Meridian could adopt. I was surprised to hear that the City of Meridian has not yet adopted that. Typically, when you adopt the Uniform Building Code you adopt it with the appendices and my understanding is that typically that is with the appendices. That's something that the City of Meridian could look into if they wanted to start condemning buildings and the Commission -- the Council or members -- Moore: At one time we had looked at condemning the old creamery over here because of the conditions that it's in and that was one of the problems we ran up against is that Meridian has not adopted codes that allowed me to do it at that particular time. McKinnon: In addition to that, it becomes very tricky with the dangerous Buildings Code. If you condemn a building, like the building Bruce was talking about where there are people living within the building right now, when the city condemns that building where do those people go? The city is putting those people out until such period of time as the building can be renovated and become habitable again. I haven't seen -- Zaremba: But what if you leave them there and it burns down? McKinnon: Exactly. Zaremba: Or the roof falls in or something. McKinnon: Right but who becomes responsible for taking care of those people? Does the city become responsible for taking care of those people, providing housing for those people? I haven't seen any case law. I have spent quite a few hours with a couple other municipal attorneys who I have some respect for and they didn't have a specific answer either as to whether or not the city would be required to help those people. At a planners meeting that we had up in Sun Valley we did discuss this with Will Harrington, he's a Land Use Attorney who does a lot of the teaching. He does a lot of counseling of other jurisdictions within the state. I posed the question to him that if we find something that's dangerous, we condemn the building, people don't move out, the city does not Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 110 take action to remove those people and it does burn down, he said that the city would not be liable for that. I disagreed with him. In my own opinion I think if the city didn't take the action to remove those people the city does take some liability, but that's something that -- Zaremba: Well, that brings up a parallel question on whether we ought to have slumlord ordinances. Moore: Legally you can't hold the city liable. McKinnon: Even if the city knows that it's condemned, has condemned the building, and allows the people to remain there? Moore: If the city has condemned the building that's different, but if they haven't condemned it, then -- McKinnon: If the city condemns the building and allows them to stay there. Bill Harrington said that even if the city condemns it and we allow them to live there. We don't force them to remove those people and the city would not be liable. I differ in opinion from that and it looks like our attorney here tonight disagrees with that opinion as well. We could become liable if we noted it's in bad shape and we don't take action to correct it. That's part of the position of government is to protect its citizens. There are ways out there that you can take care of that. The gray field is -- if there were an answer for that, you would be haled as the chief planner for the world. It's a tough question. It really is. There are some -- there are some ways you can go about doing some modifications on that, some community centers, but it takes bucks. It takes money. There are some innovative things that -- I know Shari is actually going to be attending a meeting for one of the planners conferences where that's actually one of the topics of discussion is what to do with those type of developments. There are books and articles on the Internet that I have read and nothing I could say that would work every time. It doesn't mean we can't try. Centers: Okay. Well, I think you need an ordinance, like you said. McKinnon: Sure. Zaremba: I have another question unrelated to that. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: And this is about annexation. Title 11, Chapter 16, I find that it says that to annex something – McKinnon: Give me one second. Let me grab my codebook. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 111 Zaremba: This is actually a question for everybody and we have been talking about saying that to annex something it has to be contiguous. I tried to find that and I didn't find it in the materials that I have. Centers: It's State Statute. Zaremba: What I found was Title 11, Chapter 16, that only says it must be within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area. That's what I was asking, where is the State Statute or what is it that -- where is that quantified? Moore: I will be happy to send you a copy of it. Zaremba: Thank you. Is that somebody that we could -- McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, I actually thought I brought a copy of that tonight, but it doesn't look like I have got it. Centers: Well, we can't annex if they are not -- Zaremba: Our code says that it has to be within our Urban Service Planning. It doesn't say anything about contiguous or -- Borup: Do you have a copy of the State Statute, Dave? McKinnon: Yes. I think it's actually Title 67. I think that's -- I don't know if it's in 67 or if it's in specific to a subdivision of 69 and 65 or something else, specifically a subdivision. Moore: I've got it sitting on my desk, so I don't even guess. Zaremba: So if it does exist in the State Statute, are we able to add to that to say that it has to be contiguous along one border or do we have to go to the State Statute and we are done? McKinnon: I think we just leave it with the State Statute. Centers: Yes. McKinnon: There have been so many annexations that the City of Meridian has done in the past where it would either be a kitty-corner type annexation where there is no border or even more -- Moore: Very liberal. All it has to do is touch. Zaremba: I know. We approved one last time. I was trying to find a way around it. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 112 McKinnon: I don't know if you want to deviate from the State Code so much. I think that if you become more stringent than the State Code, that's okay. If you have been doing it otherwise for a number of years it's not always the best thing to do to jump in the fray and say we are going to do something different. Centers: You don't want it more liberal -- you want to be able to -- Zaremba: No. I want to be more restrictive. Centers: More restrictive. Zaremba: I want more connection than just one point one, one dot point. One corner. Borup: But a lot of those one corners are on an intersection, which to me is fairly logical. Maybe not a lot of them, but -- I mean there is one in my neighborhood. Summerfield Subdivision is that way. Zaremba: My concern was the one that we approved -- and I forget the name of it now, but it was two weeks ago. It touched on two points and it made a huge isolated enclave of county property, surrounded by almost contiguous city property. Centers: I think it needs to be more liberal for us to be able to annex it if we want. We don't have to annex it. It's our choice. McKinnon: Just for a point of reference, Baldwin Subdivision is only contiguous in a corner. It's not a bad idea to maybe make it more restrictive, but I think that it's -- considering the way that Meridian has behaved and performed in the pass -- or not behaved, but performed in the past in interpreting, that we should continue to define it in the same way. Moore: I think I have pointed out to this body before that if you will follow the State Statute, you're okay, but if you don't and you go ahead and approve something outside that statute, then you personally become liable for any lawsuit. Center: I have heard that before. McKinnon: I've heard that speech, but I appreciate it. A couple things. It sounds like tonight you want to get a definition of industrial zone separated out from light industrial. Would you like me to take that a step further and put that into the schedule of use control -- a modified schedule of use control showing which uses would be permitted into heavy industrial and which uses would be conditional or permitted in light industrial? Zaremba: The two places. I think in Chapter 7 we need to have a definition of regular industrial and maybe even heavy industrial, as opposed to the language that's there. Then Chapter 8 we need to have light industrial on that chart. It already has industrial. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 113 McKinnon: Right now we have light -- it's light industrial that's on that chart right now and I can add industrial. Zaremba: I'd like to see a separation on both places. McKinnon: Yes. I can accommodate that. I don't know if my -- I'm going to have to change font size. I don't know if I have got enough room but we can make that accommodation. Zaremba: More columns. Borup: And we are fast approaching our closing deadline, but -- McKinnon: Bewitching hour. Anything else you'd like added, I can get for you. If you have any changes to those definitions or have some additional thoughts on the definitions give me a holler. Before the next meeting, you know, let me know, because that way you guys will have something you can work with and that we can send to Council if you want. If you have some comments, go ahead and get them to me and I will incorporate it in some model ordinances or some definitions. We do need some definitions, because right now we struggle a little bit saying, well, a service station is a gas station, it's also a place we can repair our car, it's also a C Store. I don't think we want to define it that way, because those are all separate uses. Centers: Well, I think you should go to other cities and rip off some of their definitions. McKinnon: I have done it. Centers: Have you? McKinnon: That's where most of these came from. Centers: Because a lot of my good ideas come from other people. McKinnon: Absolutely. Ninety percent of planning is plagiarism. I understand that. Most of the reports you guys receive is just -- it's just the same thing with different findings. It's the same format every single time and -- yes. If you have got something that works, go with it. I stole from Boise City, I stole from Garden City, I stole from Mountain Home, and I stole from some cities in California. Some actually in Pennsylvania for these definitions, in addition to making up my on definitions and my friend Webster, the dictionary, so -- Zaremba: Well, the assimilation comes out really good. I mean they are useful definitions. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 7, 2002 Page 114 McKinnon: And we have modified a lot of them just to meet the City of Meridian's desires or my desires for what I think the City of Meridian wants. If there is something different, let me know and I will change it. I think this would help us in performing our duties better, that way it will around and help you guys be able to make better decisions. So, if that's all you guys got, go ahead and close this meeting. Borup: Any final comments? Anybody like to make a motion? Zaremba: Thank you. Centers: Yes. I would move that we adjourn. Mathes: I'll second it. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Adjourned at 11:59. We made it by the midnight deadline. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:59 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK