Loading...
2002 09-05Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting September 5, 2002 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m., on Thursday, September 5, 2002, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, David Zaremba, Keven Shreeve, and Leslie Mathes. Member Absent: Jerry Centers. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Dave McKinnon, Nicholas Wollen, Sharon Smith, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: X David Zaremba O Jerry Centers X Leslie Mathes X Keven Shreeve X Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Okay. We'd like to begin our regular scheduled Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for September 5th and start with roll call of those in attendance. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of August 15, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Borup: Let's go ahead and go to the minutes for August 15th . Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we approve the minutes of the meeting of August 15, 2002, as written. Mathes: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second to approve the minutes. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Before we start the other agenda, I might just mention for those in the audience, there have been three of the Public Hearings that have given us a formal request to be continued to a later date. That is the Mike -- the Caven area impact request and then also Sundance Subdivision and Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. They have been Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 2 of 47 noticed, we're -- well, let me ask is there anybody here in the audience that's here to testify on any of those three? Okay. I think that makes that easy then. Our intention at this time is probably just table those three things. I think one thing the Commission needs to decide is a date. I don't know if you want to do that now as part of the adoption of agenda or do it when we come to those items. Do we have a preference? Shreeve: Just do it when we come to them. Zaremba: Do them individually when we get to them. Item 4: Public Hearing: RZ 02-002 Request for a rezone of 1.52 acres from R- 4 the Holy Nativity Episcopal Church by the Holy Nativity Episcopal Church – 1021 West 8th Street: Borup: Right now we have -- we have six items on the 19th already. Some of them maybe not real lengthy, but I don't know if we are going to be able to do all three of them if we postpone them all to that date. Okay. Our first Public Hearing is RZ 02-002, request of a rezone of 1.52 acres from R-4 to L-O zones for the Holy Nativity Episcopal Church at 1021 West 8th Street. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. With that new light bulb our overhead works now, so I'd like to direct your attention to the overhead. The site property is the bolded area and this is a small church, a single story church located on West 8th Street. The large yellow parcel that you see up on the north side of the property is actually the middle school, Meridian Middle School, just to give you some orientation, and Pine Street is the large collector street that's running east west. The property is, as I said, a single-story church building. Approximately half of the property is vacant right now. The southern half of the property is vacant. The parking lot for the church is partially in front and partially to the south of the project. The applicant has requested the rezone for a couple of reasons. As stated in the staff report, one that the zoning currently resides in the R-4 zone, does not allow the church use, so they said let's rezone it to use the -- rezone it to a zone that would allow a church use and so in order to make it conform, they decided the L-O zone would be the most appropriate zone. Secondary to that, the church would like to have the opportunity in the future, if they would -- if possible, to sell the building and putting it into an L-O use would allow different types of uses to take place other than residential uses, so those are the reasons that they have asked for this rezone tonight. In the staff report there is just a couple of things I'd like to highlight. If you could turn to Page 5 on the staff report. Item Number 2 I believe deserves some clarification. It's under the site specific comments. Steven has written in the report that if there is a secondary -- or secondary principal building that is proposed on the undeveloped portion of the property, it shall be developed as a Planned Development. I think that it would be appropriate to add to that that the applicant may subdivide the property and build separately, rather than be required to do a planned development on the property in order to build a second building. Item Number 1 under standard conditions, if you could remove that and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 3 of 47 renumber the remaining three. The reason I'm asking you to move that one is because there is no existing domestic wells or septic systems that service this site. One more note of special attention before I turn the time back over to you for questions would be the site right now is well signed. There are a lot of signs for the property. There are three of them on site and there is one off premise sign that's located on the corner of Pine and 8th Street, a very small sign. You may have noticed it in the past, but it's a small sign that's hanging off of a pole. The existing Sign Ordinance that we have does not allow for off-premise signs and that's part of the staff's site specific comments on the Page 5, Item Number 3, and there is some discussion about how the signs need to be removed and brought into compliance with the Sign Ordinance. The applicant has provided for you a piece of paper tonight with some alternative language to that and she's here to talk about some of the sign issues and so she is here tonight and she would like to address you. With that I would ask if there is any questions of staff? Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I do have one. I fully support the sign ordinance provision that says no off- premise signs. However, I guess in my thinking that refers to commercial enterprises. We typically around the city have signs that indicate that the church is half a block or two blocks up some street. We have signage for the golf course, we have signage for two, or three other things that I remember seeing around that are off-premise signs that, in my way of thinking, I would like to preserve. Is there a way to exempt those? McKinnon: Well, Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, Mr. Chairman, Steve and I actually discussed this a little bit today with the applicant, some alternatives to that. One of the concerns that we have as a staff is that if the use of the property changes, let's say it goes to an office use, typically what happens when there is a different type of use in there, they take the signage over, rather than replacing it with new signs, they just replace copy. We don't want to leave the impression that they could replace the copy of that sign to say, you know, Jim's Accounting, just to name something. As an alternative, we discussed that it might be possible to state that as long as the church remains the use, that they be able to retain the sign until such time as the church use ceases at that location. We talked about that with the applicant and, like I said, she's here tonight, she can address it in more detail, but we would be amenable to something to that effect, saying as long as the church use remains, that the freestanding sign on the corner of 8th and Pine could remain. That's something that we have thought about. Zaremba: Okay. Is that a change that needs to be made to the sign ordinance, though, to -- and I would be very specific, but a sign indicating a church or a public park is exempt. McKinnon: That's probably a really good idea. As the applicant is speaking, I will double-check in our ordinance to make sure there is nothing that Steve hasn't overlooked in the report. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 4 of 47 Zaremba: And I agree, I would not just make it general any sign or -- but I think churches and parks, in particular, should be -- Borup: And there may be other non-business type signs that could be appropriate. Zaremba: City Hall. McKinnon: As I said, I will look through it as we have some questions for the applicant and maybe I will have something by then. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Would the applicant like to come forward? Avera: Good evening, Members of the Commission, I'm Janice Avera, representing Holy Nativity Episcopal Church. Borup: You need to state your address, too, for the record. Avera: You mean the church address? Borup: Either one. Avera: 1021 West 8th Street, Meridian, Idaho. Borup: And that's where your office is, I assume, then? You have an office there? Avera: That's where the church is. Borup: Okay. I think you have heard the discussion. You have read the staff report. It sounds like the only thing you have any question or concern on was the signage issue? Avera: That's correct. Borup: Is there some more things you'd like to add to what -- Avera: No, actually, I don't know that I have anything terribly important to say at this point. I had prepared a document and I'm hoping you do have it in front you. Borup: Yes, we do. Avera: Simply stating that we would like to grandfather in the sign and if it is of assistance to you, the sign in question off premises is relatively small, it's only two feet wide and two and a half feet high and -- Borup: That's what I was going to ask. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 5 of 47 Avera: And almost 10 feet of the ground, so it is no traffic hazard. More of a hazard for me being on the ladder and measuring it but it is -- and the people who live there have no problem with it. In fact, they even trim their trees so it's visible. It is helpful to us, because we are not a big church sitting on Cherry Lane, which is part of our interest in asking for it to be grandfathered. Unfortunately, we just bought two signs of those three that are on our property. However, we appreciate the importance of the Sign Ordinance and we are willing to comply with that and take down two of those three. Perhaps I can answer questions, since Steve's done the talking. Borup: Okay. Any questions from the Commission? Zaremba: You requested six months to combine the three signs into one. Does that make it easier for your planning and absorbing the cost, I'm sure? Avera: Yes and it gets us beyond the Christmas holidays and we get pretty busy at the Church of the Nativity around Christmas. That's why I asked if we could extend it to be six months, versus three. Zaremba: Okay. Are you comfortable with the statement on Page 5 that staff was pointing out to us that if at some time you propose a second building, that you have the choice of either doing it as a Planned Development -- under the Planned Development Ordinance or subdividing the property? Avera: Yes. I am very much in favor of that language. Zaremba: Okay. Avera: Thank you for asking. Borup: And it sounds like in your discussion with staff earlier, no problem with restricting the off-premise sign to -- just to the church usage? Avera: Oh. Borup: If the usage changed, then, of course, it would need to come in compliance with the Sign Ordinance at that time. Avera: No. I have no problem with that. That seems appropriate and reasonable. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, while the applicant is still up front, I have found in the Sign Ordinance where it talks about grandfathering the signs, the legal nonconforming language. It's found on Page 21 of the Sign Ordinance and it says that the sign can be legally nonconforming until there is a change in the use of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 6 of 47 property that the sign is located on, rather than a change in the zoning. As long as the church use is there, it would be appropriate to allow the -- Borup: So that way we wouldn't even really have to do anything, then, would we? McKinnon: We need to change Item Number 3. Borup: Right. Just in the staff report. McKinnon: Right. Borup: But they are not requiring a Variance or any other application or anything? McKinnon: That's correct. Borup: Were you going to say something? Shreeve: Well, I think the request sounds like the off-site, off-premise has resolved itself and I have no problem with the six months. Mathes: I don't either. Zaremba: Likewise. Borup: So Item Number 3 would be -- Zaremba: The off-premise sign should be grandfathered and the three freestanding signs shall be consolidated within six months. Borup: Okay. Yes. Mathes: Do we have to say anything even about the off-premise sign if it's in the ordinance? Wollen: I believe that it would be advisable to do it, just so there is a record put on there that we recognize that the use may change and it's not going to be allowed for a changed use. Borup: Thank you. Did you have anything else? Avera: No. Borup: Okay. Avera: Thank you very much. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 7 of 47 Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Okay. Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the hearing on Item 4, Public Hearing, be closed. Mathes: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Do we need discussion further? Zaremba: I think we have had it. Borup: I think we have. Shreeve: I'll go ahead with a motion. Borup: Okay. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve Item Number 4, RZ 02-002, request for a rezone of 1.52 acres from R-4 to L-O zones for the Holy Nativity Episcopal Church, by the Holy Nativity Episcopal Church at 1021 West 8th Street. Taking all staff comments dated August 28, 2002, with the change on site specific requirement Number 2 that it shall be developed under a Planned Development or the applicant may subdivide the land and proceed in either case. Site specific Item Number 3, that the off- premise sign be grandfathered and if the use is changed, then the sign becomes nonconforming and that they are given six months to make the change for those signs on site, to reduce from three to one. Then under the standard conditions, to eliminate Item Number 1, and to simply renumber the remaining three items there. Zaremba: I will second it. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Public Hearing: AZ 02-017 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.41 acres from M-1 to I-L zones for Ronald Yanke property by Ronald Yanke and Walter T. Sigmont Jr. – northwest corner of East Franklin Road and North Eagle Road on East Lanark Street: Borup: The next item is Public Hearing AZ 02-017, a request for annexation and zoning of 5.41 acres from MI to I-L zones for Ronald Yanke property by Ronald Yanke and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 8 of 47 Walter T. Sigmont, Jr., on East Lanark Street. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff comment -- staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission if I could direct your attention, again, to the overhead. The bolded areas are the areas that we are talking about annexing tonight, 5.41 acres, as you referenced earlier. The property is currently zoned M-1 in the County, which is essentially an industrial zone. They are requesting an I-L zone, just like the property that surrounds those lots that you see that are highlighted. This is a staff-prepared annexation. Staff supports this annexation. We are annexing a piece of property that has services available to it by the city. It's an enclave piece that is currently County that should be city, in our opinion, and I'd ask if there is any questions. Borup: I think none. It seems like last time that property was before us I asked a question of why they just didn't annex the whole thing at the same time. I don't remember what the answer was, but maybe we will find out. Is the applicant here or their representative? I guess not. McKinnon: This is staff prepared, so I guess I'm the applicant. Borup: Okay. Well, we got your report, so any questions of any Commissioners? Shreeve: No. Borup: Well, maybe -- did this start like last year for this request? McKinnon: Actually, the request came in just this year. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: Well, this request itself. It may have been in the works for longer, but the request for this staff prepared just came in this year. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anyone here from the audience to testify on this application? Seeing none -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on Item 5 be closed. Mathes: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 9 of 47 Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 02-017, request for annexation and zoning of 5.41 acres from M-1 county to I-L city zones for Ronald Yanke property by Ronald Yanke and Walter T. Sigmont, Jr., northwest corner of East Franklin Road and North Eagle Road on East Lanark Street, to include all staff comments of the memo dated September 3, 2002. Mathes: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Public Hearing: AZ 02-018 Request for annexation and zoning of 5 acres from RUT to L-O zones for Bair Property Annexation by Donn Reiswig – 3975 East Franklin Road: Borup: The next item is Public Hearing AZ 02-018, request for annexation and zoning of five acres from RUT to L-O zones for Bair Property Annexation at 3975 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. Again, if I could direct your attention to the overhead. This is -- we spent a little bit of time on the slide that you have in front of you. As you remember, the Touchmark property is a very large piece of property that's directly behind the St. Luke's and across the street -- or I guess kitty-corner, more or less, from the R.C. Willey property. It's a large -- what is typified as a retirement-type community with assisted care, with attached dwellings and other types of housing for seniors and it's a very large project. Throughout the project it completely surrounds the piece of property that we are talking about the annexation tonight that would be highlighted, the thumb that sticks through here. Again, this is another piece of property that's a County enclave completely surrounded by the city. The applicant or Touchmark, when they came through, did not own this piece of property and, subsequently, when the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Touchmark project took place, this property was not changed on the Comprehensive Plan from the 1993 to the mixed use zone, as all the rest of the Touchmark project was. What it ends up with is we have a piece of property that, according to the 1993 Comprehensive Plan that was in effect at the time, showed that as being residential. On the effective Comprehensive Plan it is continuing to remain a single-family residential. It brings up a couple of issues, because if we were to change it to the mixed planned development per the existing -- per the 1993 Comprehensive Plan, we would be required to have this piece of property go through a Conditional Use Permit. Because anytime you're in a mixed-use zone with the Comp Plan, it requires a Conditional Use Permit. We need to have a specific finding tonight and you will notice that on page five -- it actually starts on Page 4, points of discussion, and ends on Page 5, discussion on how we need to handle that tonight. If you were to include this as part of the Comprehensive Plan and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 10 of 47 the Development Agreement that took place when the rest of the property was annexed, you need to make a specific finding that the requested office use that they are making should or should not have to go through a Conditional Use Permit. It sounds very convoluted and it is, there is three or four different steps that we had to go through and hopefully you have read the staff report to follow that a little more closely than the brief explanation I have given you tonight. As I just mentioned, they have requested to use a -- to use the property for an office use. There is an existing single-family dwelling on site and they have asked that they use that home for an office. In discussions with the Public Works Department, Public Works Department felt that it would be appropriate to allow them to continue to use the existing well and septic system that are on site and that when services become available through the Touchmark project, that that area be included with the rest of Touchmark. That way water and sewer will be available to them at that time. The intent is not to use this forever as an office, but to incorporate this as part of the overhaul Touchmark project. Hopefully you have had a chance to read through all the additional considerations as Steve pointed out. I think I have touched on most of those at this time. The applicant, they are here tonight, we would ask that they offer just a little bit of information concerning the asphalting of the driveways and the parking area. There was some concern from Steve in writing the report about 19 foot parking spaces with only a 21 foot driveway aisle and if there is land available to make that larger, the applicant could address that tonight. You could draft a question to him at that time. We do support this. We would like to see this included as part of the Touchmark project. There are a couple hoops that we have got to jump through, though. We have to amend the Development Agreement that Touchmark had for the development of this property. We will have to include this as part of the Development Agreement that will not necessarily go to you, but the Council will have to make the amendments at that time. We wanted to make you aware of that that the Development Agreement for the entire project will have to be amended to include this small parcel as part of the overall project. With that I'd ask if there is any questions that you have for me at this time and we will have the applicant. If there are any other questions that arise, feel free to ask. Zaremba: This is kind of a two-part question. If the applicant is willing to put this into the Development Agreement and willing to have an 18-month expiration on the right to use this house in this way, then there doesn't need to be a CUP? McKinnon: In the site-specific requirements -- Steve spent a little more time with this than I did. In Item Number 6, what you're talking about, if you took -- I'm looking at the exact same note that you did. I've looked at Items Number 2 and 3 underneath the site specific comments on Page 6, that the current Development Agreement has to be amended and the temporary office use of 18 months. Then if you look down to Site Specific Number 6, it talks about requiring a Conditional Use Permit for the office use. It sounds like it's the same question that I had, is there really a need for a Conditional Use Permit if we are amending the Development Agreement and that would be a good question for Nick to answer, as he smiles. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 11 of 47 Wollen: Well, with all these -- my take is that if you did go back to amend the Development Agreement, that you wouldn't need to go through with a Conditional Use Permit. It would be redundant, but that's -- that is as far as I know on the situation. Borup: Any other questions of the Commission? Shall we get the applicant up here and maybe clear things up? Mathes: Dave? McKinnon: Yes. Mathes: Number 6 it says you will need a CUP for any use other than the temporary office? McKinnon: That's intent of the applicant -- Zaremba: So I read that if they are going to use it for a temporary office, then they don't need a CUP, as long as the development agreement is -- McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: And this is just a catch-all that says if they change their mind about the use, then it does have to go through a -- McKinnon: Yes. That does -- that's right. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Cook: Are we ready? Borup: We're ready. Cook: Richard Cook with Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland in Boise, here tonight representing the applicant. Dave, do you have an overview for the site plan -- or of the site plan, by any chance? McKinnon: I'm sorry. Borup: We have one in our packet. Cook: Oh, you do? Okay. Let's see. The Development Agreement for the Touchmark Living Center does make reference to the Bair parcel and the future annexation thereof and we will amend that according to the requirements of staff. That's not an issue. We can take care of that. One thing we would like to ask for is on Condition 3 on the site Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 12 of 47 specific requirements, temporary office use of the existing vacant residence shall expire within 18 months of approval of the annexation, but the -- Borup: That was a question I had, too, was if that's adequate or not. Is that going to be a construction office? Is that the intent or -- Cook: It's going to be used as an office specifically for the development of the project, okay? Construction office and logistics and what have you. Borup: That's what I was assuming. Cook: Right and -- Borup: So the intent would be that that would be there until -- until the new office -- until the new building was built that it could be moved to or was the intent to be there until the whole project is completed? Cook: No. It's the intention of the applicant to retain this long enough to allow them to get a new office building constructed on the site that is part of the Touchmark Living Center development. As you know or you may be aware, that it's within the project and there are residences, there are offices and there is some retail -- Borup: Will it be in one of the office buildings, which is, I believe, close to that entrance somewhere, where they were -- rather than in the main building on the southerly part of the -- Cook: Right. Correct. One of the things we are looking at is that 18 months from the date of approval would not really give them the time that they need to utilize the structure. Once we get the annexation approved, everything and we have to go in and remodel the building, and that's going to take some time before they can actually start using it. We would like to ask the Commission to accept a 24-month time frame on the temporary use of that particular structure. Borup: Does that give you enough time to get your other building built, then? Cook: The way we see it right now, yes. We are keeping our fingers crossed. Borup: Are you talking 24 months from annexation or 24 months occupied time? Cook: From annexation the way it reads right now. The next issue, Item 4, all parking and associated drive aisles shall be paved per the ordinance and so on. That I believe encompasses the paving of the parking area, the driveway, and the dimensions thereof, if I know the ordinance right. We do have a problem with the width of the drive aisle behind the parking stalls. If you look at the site plan you will see that four of the parking stalls are in front of that existing garage. I just simply did not have enough room to maintain a 25-foot drive aisle, provide enough space for the trees over on the east Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 13 of 47 property line, and put the parking in there as well. I didn't want to get the parking too far south of the garage. We could move it south of the garage, that would hinder the handicapped parking area somewhat, and that's not really a desirable thing to do with your accessible parking spaces, you like to have those as close to the building as possible. Again, this being a temporary use, it's all going to go away and it's not a through drive, it's just a -- you know, an area where people are parking there who work in the office will back up and turn around and head out and I think the 21 feet that we have is more than adequate to provide safe backing distance to get people turned around and headed back down the hill. Also on the -- Zaremba: Mr. Cook -- I'm sorry to interrupt. Cook: That's okay. Zaremba: While we are on that subject, may I ask you -- the cars that would be parking there, are they for employees who would likely come at the beginning of the shift and not move the car again until they go home or will there be in and out of people coming to the office to do something? Cook: It's primarily for the employees. There will be some in and out, but it will be the employees that are going in and out to check areas on the site or to go off to a meeting or whatever. Essentially, the parking is going to be stationary throughout the day, with people coming in say at 8:00 in the morning and going home at 5:00. There won't be a lot of in and out traffic. Zaremba: Thank you. Cook: Now the paving of the driveway, we would like to ask the Commission to give us permission to adhere to the requirements of Ada County Highway District, which is to pave the driveway to its full width of 30 feet in depth, rather than putting down all the asphalt clear up to the office building, just to turn around and have to rip it out in 24 months. Seems to be a little excessive. If there is any difficulty with dust control, we can use the approved dust control measures on the driveway itself. We don't see that as being a significant problem. As far as the rest of it is concerned, I don't see where we have any real concerns. Let me see. Points of discussion. Well, I think that covers it and I will respond to any questions you might have. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Okay. I have got a couple. Just -- 21 feet is -- can be a little tight, especially on a construction site with some of those long trucks and stuff that may be in there and I'm wondering if you couldn't at least take the three stalls to the south of the garage and add some depth to those three. Cook: Yes. Borup: The plan I have shows three of them -- three of them south of the garage there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 14 of 47 Cook: Right. Borup: Yes. Those could -- the depth on those could -- it looks like you could -- Cook: We could shift those to the west a bit to provide more room for turning around. I don't anticipate any kind of large construction vehicles in there. There might be a pickup truck. Borup: I'm thinking a long bed pickup with a crew cab. Cook: That could happen. Borup: And then as far as the gravel driveway, were you anticipating that was going to be compacted and rolled? Cook: Yes. Borup: Not just spread and -- I mean there are different compactions. Cook: Right. Right. Borup: I have seen some gravel compaction that's -- for a while looks almost -- is almost as solid as pavement. Cook: We don't have any objection to doing that, because I know you can put down the proper mix and then roll it and it's a pretty solid surface. Borup: Okay. Any other comments, David, on -- from staff on -- well, on both of those. That would only add three more parking places. You know, the other would be, I guess, compact size, technically, but -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, that sounds fine to me about the parking spaces. As far as the driveway in and out, you know, only going 30 feet back per ACHD's requirement, I just have a couple of questions concerning the dust abatement, as you mentioned, Mr. Cook. Are you talking about oiling the road? Is that what you -- Cook: Yes. That was my thought. I know they have an environmentally safe mixture now that they can use to oil the road, so to speak. It's not really an oil per se, but it's something that is environmentally safe that they commercially produce now. McKinnon: Have you given any -- Bruce and I were talking just a little bit. Have you given any consideration to using some reclaimed asphalt -- recycled asphalt in that location? Cook: I haven't thought of that, no. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 15 of 47 McKinnon: Okay. Because that may be, I guess, a more lasting improvement than simply oiling the -- and it's less dust and that's one of the major concerns that we have is with the construction dust. Cook: So rather than the gravel, using the reclaimed asphalt and rolling it down? McKinnon: You'd use a gravel base as you would, but then it's an overlay of the recycled asphalt. You can actually roll that and I have seen people actually put it back through a pug mill and go ahead and roll it back out and new oil and everything, but typically it doesn't last as long as asphalt, but it's a little bit less expensive and it would meet closer to the intent of the ordinance. Cook: Sure. McKinnon: Okay. Borup: So, Mr. Cook, you think that would be -- that would work for you if we made that -- if that was part of the recommendation? Cook: Yes. Using the reclaimed asphalt? We can do that. Borup: Okay. Okay and if there was a turnaround, probably, again, to the south of the tree, it looks like a pretty solid site plan. You do have a little extra room if they need to come back up in that area where the road can go further to the east, but maybe you can see how that works on site. Cook: Was it the intention to eliminate the parking spaces that -- Borup: No. Cook: -- in front of the garage? Borup: No. Cook: They just take those -- Borup: Those three there and -- Cook: -- and extend them out. Borup: Extend the depth on those so you have some -- Cook: Yes. Yes. We can do that. Borup: Okay. That would get those in there, so the other cars could maybe back around easier, too. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 16 of 47 Cook: The cut out that we have to the south, we can increase the depth of that a bit as well. Borup: Yes. You probably would for it to be usable, wouldn't you? Cook: Yes. Borup: Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one clarification. I just heard your discussion about lengthening the time to use the temporary office an additional six months. It sounded like you were hoping that that would be the right time. Wouldn't it be better to add a little bit more time to that, so that you don't have to come back in case you have a problem, say two and a half years, 30 months -- Borup: Is it 24 months from the time of occupancy? Cook: From the time of occupancy would really -- I think that would be more than -- McKinnon: I'd feel more comfortable with something like that as well. Cook: From time of occupancy, rather than from the time of -- date of approval. Borup: You had mentioned that you would be doing some remodeling there, so -- Cook: Correct. The structure right now is in pretty sad shape, so it will take some extensive remodeling. Borup: I thought it was just temporary. You guys want to be pampered while you're in there? Cook: Oh, absolutely. They want to be warm and cozy in the winter and cool in the summer. Borup: Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission? Thank you, Mr. Cook. Cook: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing AZ 02-018. Mathes: I will second that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 17 of 47 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: It looks like Item Number 2 and 4 in the -- well, never mind. I'm looking at the points of discussion. Shreeve: Three and four. Borup: Okay. Item Number 3 and 4 in the site specific requirements. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: Unless there is some discussion, I think I'd like to make a motion that we -- Zaremba: We probably are, but I just want to clarify that the points of discussion one and two, about there not needing to be Conditional Use Permit if the Development Agreement is changed. Borup: Doesn't six clarify that properly? Zaremba: In points of discussion they are Items 1 and 2. I think item two in site specific requirements answer that question, as long as we are make a requirement. I think we have discussed it and it's covered. Okay. Shreeve: Is that right? Okay. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve AZ 02-018, request for annexation and zoning of five acres from RUT to L-O zones for Bair Property Annexation by Donn Reiswig, 3975 East Franklin Road, with all staff comments dated August 28, 2002. With modifications to the site specific requirements Number 3 to be 24 months from the time of occupancy is when the temporary office shall expire. Then Item Number 4, that the driveway shall meet ACHD requirements, which is to pave the full width back 30 feet deep, and then from there to use reclaimed asphalt for the remaining driveway and parking lot. Also including that the back three parking stalls to the west of the existing garage -- Zaremba: South. Shreeve: Or south of the existing garage be extended, what, five feet? Got to give them some kind of a distance, I guess. Borup: Well, we are four feet short from the ordinance, I think. Shreeve: So four feet? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 18 of 47 Borup: Minimum. Shreeve: That it be extended four feet to make them longer. I believe that's it. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if we could get some clarification on the parking lot. The parking lot would be asphalted, rather than reclaimed. It's really hard to get a wheelchair through reclaimed asphalt. Shreeve: Is it? It's compacted. McKinnon: It breaks up. Unless you rerun it through a pug mill, it's essentially gravel. Is that okay with -- it's really hard to -- Shreeve: You're saying that the asphalt -- that there would be asphalt for just those stalls? Borup: That is, too. It looks like -- it looks almost like regular asphalt for the first year and then after that, depending on how much traffic. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just spoke with Mr. Cook and he said that there is a large concrete pad at that location in front of the garage at this time and that they were planning on asphalting the rest of that with hot batch asphalt. Borup: From the existing concrete to the edge of the – okay so the gravel is just the driveway. Shreeve: Is just the driveway. Borup: To the -- Shreeve: Oh. Okay so parking will be asphalted or – yes, or concrete. It's just the driveway that we are talking about the reclaimed asphalt. All right. Well, that -- did you get that motion right? Wollen: Mr. Commissioner, I just want to make sure that we did. The changes to the sight specific requirement Number 3, 24 months from the date of occupancy is when their -- the 24 month period from the date of occupancy. The driveway shall meet all the Ada County Highway District requirements, paved to 30 feet deep, and then we are allowing a reclaimed asphalt driveway with a concrete parking lot, which is already in the plans -- developer's plans. Then the three parking stalls to the south of the project be extended four feet. Borup: I think the parking lot will be concrete and asphalt. Wollen: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 19 of 47 Shreeve: Concrete and asphalt mix. Zaremba: May I ask a question? Do we need to clarify that the right to use the existing domestic well and septic system also expires at that same 24 months or is that -- that's item one of the site specific -- Borup: Well, yes, Item Number -- oh, I'm sorry, I'm looking back at the staff -- Zaremba: Page 6. Shreeve: It just says the city services extended -- they have to be abandoned when and if there is a change in use as far as expansion beyond that being proposed. Borup: So they can be used just for the temporary office only. Shreeve: And so if, in fact, that building isn't temporary -- if it is temporary, then it changes its use. I think it's covered. Freckleton: I think we are covered. Zaremba: I second the motion. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 7: Public Hearing: Mike Caven MI 02-005 Request for change of Area of Impact by Caven, Inc. for 39.64 acres located at the northeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road Borup: Okay. Item Number 7 -- I'm not sure -- did we have anybody else come in to testify on Item Number 7? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: At the request of the applicant, I move that Item Number 7, Public Hearing on MI 02-005, be continued until our meeting of September 19th . Mathes: I'll second that. Shreeve: Is there room for the 19th ? Borup: Well, that's what I'm a little concerned about. That's why I wouldn't mind maybe discussing that a little bit tonight, if staff has some answers. My question is whether -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 20 of 47 the applicant has stated this piece cannot be sewered from the Meridian South Slough Trunk Line. Zaremba: Even with a lift station? Borup: Well, anything can be sewered with a lift station but Bruce -- oh, anything can't be? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Bruce, do you have any other information on that? Freckleton: I don't. In fact, Mr. Chairman, when we got the notice that they wanted this item continued, staff did not even prepare a report for you. We don't have an applicant or his engineer representative here tonight, you don't have a staff report, -- we are ill prepared to do anything tonight. Borup: Any comment on their statement that back in '98 or whenever that Meridian City at that time said it could not be and -- I mean they said the City Council already gave consent for the change. Freckleton: I don't have any recollection. I would have to dig into the file to do some research. Borup: I mean, you know, if that's true, City Council has kind of already made up their mind, but I don't know at that time if they really knew fully what could be sewered and what couldn't. Freckleton: No. Mr. Chairman, at the time back then we were quite a ways off from having the South Slough sewer extended and we now are -- anticipate breaking ground on that South Slough sewer in November. We will be taking sewer through to both Ustick Road and Eagle Road. From my recollection from our facility plans, that is the trunk line that does serve that corner. A little fuzzy on it, but I'm pretty sure that that's how that corner gets its service, so I think we are light years further today than we were way back when. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: So I'm going to have to dig into it a little deeper and prepare a full report for you. Borup: And we will have that for whenever this is on the agenda. Freckleton: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 21 of 47 Zaremba: Just as a sense of direction, we have a note from the Water Department that there is a 12-inch main already in place on that property. Freckleton: That's correct. We extend probably a third of a mile east of Eagle Road. Borup: Clear to Duane -- just about to Duane? Freckleton: Well, it goes down to the Summers Funeral Home. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: Is where that main goes. Zaremba: My inclination would be not give up this piece of property, so if in your seeking a determination a lift station can serve it, it would be interesting to know that. Borup: Well, the city’s past policy is not to do lift stations for small areas, though, hasn't it been? Freckleton: Well, that's not a real small area. Borup: Okay. I guess that depends of what the definition of a small area is. Freckleton: I don't -- Borup: But I don't know if that's -- I wondered whether it's really necessary. I mean if the South Slough will service all the area to the south of the trunk line, I mean it should be able to go the same distance to the north. Freckleton: Well, the general topography of the top does fall off to the northwest, so I know we do -- you know, you're losing ground as you go north and west. You're losing depth. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: So -- Borup: How about the parcel on the -- Freckleton: West of it? Borup: Yes. Freckleton: That is the parcel that is owned by Winston Moore. Borup: Right. That's coming before us. It's coming up. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 22 of 47 Freckleton: Yes and, see, the -- the South Slough sewer that we are starting construction on in November will be coming out into Leslie Drive and we are running services north -- we are running a main line north. We are also running it out to Eagle Road here so it can be served -- or this line serves a good majority of the Davis parcel and also Winston Moore's parcel on the corner. This parcel, my understanding is, has sold recently and we will be seeing an application on it this fall. Borup: Interesting. Freckleton: So I think we are see things happen in this area that -- my gut tells me that services are going to be available here in the short time. Borup: Okay. The Winston Moore property would have to be pretty marginal as far as sewer depth if it won't service across the street. Freckleton: Well, and again, we are guessing and we are going back on the -- Borup: Okay. Well, this may be an appropriate time to discuss -- Zaremba: The 19th calendar. Borup: Yes. Since we have this and two other projects. You want me to run through it real quick before we have got it scheduled for the 19th ? Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Well, a day care, a 40-acre subdivision, church expansion, just add a manufactured home office space, I believe. CUP for a couple drive-thrus at Silverstone and Drawbridge, which is -- Drawbridge Subdivision. It's a small half-acre or acre -- probably one acre -- small one-acre subdivision. Half acre but just five lots so probably not a lot of time on that one either. One that will probably take -- the only full subdivision will be Castlebrook. It's off of Black Cat, back like the subdivisions we used to see all the time. We have got room for some -- when this agenda was set up it was done with not anticipating, really, continuing more than one item and with that in mind to not get too far backed up. I mean normally we don't have this many things on the second meeting, but we were going to start getting further behind if we didn't. Zaremba: Let me ask a procedural question. Normally, on our second meeting of the month the continued items are handled first. Is that a rule or could we ask that the continued items be put on the end of the agenda? Borup: They can be whichever we decide. My first inclination in this case is we put them on the end, because they are the ones that -- Zaremba: They are essentially new -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 23 of 47 Borup: Because they asked for it to be continued. They weren't continued because we didn't get through them. Normally they have been first on the agenda because we have opened the Public Hearing and just ran out of time. Did you have -- Wollen: I believe that would be proper, since the Commission is accommodating the developer by continuing the hearing. Zaremba: I have a motion that has not been seconded. I will amend that motion to say that this item should be handled at the end of the previously scheduled items for September 19th . Borup: Do we have a second? Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Do we want to wait until the end of the meeting to address the continuing -- or the tabling of the other two items and go on to Item Numbers 10 and 11? Shreeve: Yes. Let's do. Borup: Okay. Let's go ahead and -- let's see. This is tabled. How did your motion -- did your motion say continued or tabled? Zaremba: Continue. Borup: You meant tabled right? Shreeve: Table. Yes. Zaremba: Well, I thought you had opened the Public Hearing, so I was continuing it. Borup: No, I'm sorry. No, I did not. I did discuss it, but I didn't open the Public Hearing. So I maybe I misled you there. Zaremba: So my question is if it's been noticed for this meeting and we can move it without taking any testimony, I think it needs to be opened to the -- Borup: Are we okay with that? Because if we are doing the table publicly -- the tabling publicly -- Wollen: As I read it that tabling in public -- tabling it in this fashion would be proper, because we have asked -- or the Commission has asked for public testimony and none Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 24 of 47 has been forthcoming, so I believe that we can table it and re-notice it up on the next hearing docket. Borup: Yes. We did have no one here to testify. Zaremba: The maker of the motion did use the word continued and I would be happy to amendment that to tabled. Borup: Second? Shreeve: Second. Borup: Okay. All in favor? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 02-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a three building office complex in an I-L zone for Treasure Valley Business Park by Clark Development – southwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Fairview Avenue: Item 11: Public Hearing: PFP 02-002 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 3 building lots on 2.66 acres in an I-L zone for Treasure Valley No. 2 Subdivision by Clark Development -- southwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Then let's move Item Numbers 7 and 8 to the end of the agenda and go into Item Numbers 10 and 11. Public Hearing CUP 02-022, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a three building office complex in an I-L zone for Treasure Valley Business Park by Clark Development. Also, Public Hearing PFP 02-002, request for Preliminary and Final Plat approval of three building lots on 2.66 acres in an I-L zone for the same Treasure Valley Number 2 Subdivision by Clark Development. I'd like to open both these public hearings at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I assume you have read the staff report and it's a fairly short staff report. I'll give you a brief overview of it, though. On the overhead you will notice the location of the property, again, is the bolded property on the map in front of you. It's on the corner of Florence and Eagle Road, directly across from the Family Center Shopping Center. The question for the Preliminary Plat is to separate the existing single parcel into three separate parcels, but prior to having that recorded they have requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow for up to three buildings to be placed on that lot prior to the recordation of the Final Plat. The applicant has requested that they be allowed to put three office uses on this lot at this and then in the future have the plat recorded. The types of uses that are requested are the office -- typically medical office. They have already received a certificate of zoning compliance for the first building, which is the Primary Health building. That's the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 25 of 47 northern most property that's highlighted by my laser pointer. Not exactly, but it should have -- there we go. This is an elevation of the building that's already been approved. The Landscape Plan for the entire parcel was approved with this building when it came in for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. The Landscape Plan is very similar to the one shown on the map in front of you. The rest of the building will follow a similar design as to the one shown in front of you at this time, as it's a conceptual -- the Planned Development so we could show the elevation of what the other buildings would look like, the typical office buildings. The site plan has one or two items that I'd like to point out to you. The site specific comments on page three, item number one, the applicant in their proposal did not show a detached single sidewalk on Eagle Road and per our ordinance they are required to put in the five foot detached sidewalk. I'm sure the applicant will be able to address that. The other items are very straightforward, just some changes to the plat. The Conditional Use Permit essentially says that the uses would be permitted if it weren’t for the fact that it has not yet been split into a subdivision. One other item of special note tonight in the staff report -- and I know that the Larry Strite, the architect, is here tonight. I'm sure he is here to address this, is that within the project itself there is some parking stalls that are 17 feet in length that they provided for some oversize sidewalks and landscape areas to provide for some over parking, some areas that the bumpers can hang over. In the past the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council have approved the shorter stalls with the overhang on the oversize sidewalks and for the landscaped area. About 40 percent of the parking stalls in this project are shown at 17 feet, but that's not a major concern of staff at this time. With that, I'd ask if there are any questions. Staff does support this project and turn the time over to you. Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? Zaremba: I do have one question and I will kind of focus it around Item 4 on Page 3. Development of this property shall be in accordance with the recorded Development Agreement. I don't have that, but what my question is -- when the plat is eventually finalized, if this has three separate properties, one of each of these buildings on it, do we have anything that says that there will be a Cross-Access Agreement for parking, if it's going to be three separate properties? I'm guessing that would not be in the development agreement, because splitting it was not anticipated. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, I thought we had that covered, but we don't. It would be appropriate to add that into Site Specific Number 3 on Page 3 that the Cross-Access Easement be noted on the face of the plat. Zaremba: Want to make that Item 10? Freckleton: That's fine. Zaremba: I don't know how many items there are, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 26 of 47 McKinnon: That would be Item Number 10. Zaremba: Okay. That was all of my questions. Borup: Dave, which was the 17-foot parking? Along which side? McKinnon: The 17 foot parking is on the southern half of the property. It's not a part of Primary Health, so if you were to go south of the Primary Health Building -- I have got a scale if you would like to take a look at it. It's really hard to differentiate between a 19 and a 17 on the map without the use of a scale. Borup: Yes, it is. McKinnon: If you'd like to use a scale I have it. As I said, the -- Borup: What was the size of the sidewalk then? McKinnon: It's a six-foot sidewalk that is shown on the -- within the internal area. Borup: Okay. That was my question. That's what looked to me like the notes or so on a six-foot sidewalk. McKinnon: Like I said, it's an oversize sidewalk. Borup: Just one foot over size, though. McKinnon: Right but you would still have a four-foot wide walk path. Borup: With a two-foot overhang, so there is four feet left. McKinnon: Yes. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant representative like to come forward? Strite: Chairman Borup, Commissioners, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante, Boise. I'm here with Caven Homes for Primary Health, as well as Mr. Cook, who have been before us he's with Briggs Engineering. If, in fact, there are any questions regarding the preliminary plat, he's here to hopefully help me. He's substituting for Steven Arnold, who I think had some teeth work done today, so he's not here tonight. Quite frankly, we find the staff report acceptable, very positive, we are happy with the results. We do have two concerns. I think that David has already mentioned the first one. For those of you who have been here for awhile, you will know that we have testified regarding these 17 foot spaces probably a half a dozen times, the last one being the Wendy's at Corporate Drive where I quoted the Urban Land Institute and I think probably a good example -- probably the best example is that if you go out and look at your parking lot out here, you have 19 foot spaces, whereby you have a curb and sidewalk and then Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 27 of 47 three foot beyond that you have a parking bumper, most of which are deteriorated badly and have been a very difficult thing to maintain. As Mr. McKinnon has noted, those -- those considerations were taken to this particular Commission, as well as the City Council. So far we have been successful in convincing them that 17 foot spaces are, in fact, appropriate, considering that ULI does suggest that the national average for cars from the wheel base to the front bumper are somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 foot six to two foot eight inches. Having said all of that, if we could just construct or reconstruct item number three to reflect 17-foot spaces, we would appreciate that. The second item of concern has to do with a request five a foot sidewalk. Now this request - - and I will have to send you back to the preliminary plat. Borup: You're talking about the one on Eagle Road? Strite: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Strite: What I'd like to suggest to you -- spoke to Dan Kunz today at ITD. They would prefer that we do not have a sidewalk. I'd like to also suggest to you that over 50,000 cars a day are now using Eagle Road. There is no sidewalk south of this site, so, really, this particular sidewalk would have absolutely nowhere to go. What I think more importantly you will find in our proposal in the site plan before you is that we provided interior sidewalks that run from the south edge of this boundary north to Florence Street, we are providing a crosswalk at Florence Street across Olive -- excuse me -- across Florence Street at Olive. We will be before you next month or the following month with the north half of this parcel, which we refer to as Treasure Valley Business Park Phase 1, which includes all the northerly lots north from Florence to Eagle Road and westerly to Hickory. Wherein we have internal circulation that will tie to the proposed crosswalk in this application that will give internal circulation, which I think is probably more appropriate and certainly more safe than putting the sidewalk out on Eagle Road. It appears at this particular point in time the majority of any pedestrian traffic, if, in fact, there is any, would be coming from Blue Cross and anything that is developed in the south of this site. I think also we have to keep in mind that ITD is considering the interchange at Eagle Road and Fairview and if, in fact, that is the case, there will be internal circulation from that particular intersection down to the site, which, again, we will tie to the crosswalk that I have mentioned previously. I think those two things I'd like your consideration on and certainly, from the standpoint of safety, as well as pedestrian circulation, I think we all have to look at what's happened to Eagle Road. When I was here last -- and I want to say it may have been the Crossroads back a few years, I think at that particular point in time we were talking about 35,000 and 40,000 cars a day on Eagle Road. Today we are experiencing, according to Dan Kunz, some 50 to 55 thousand cars a day and he expects it to get even greater. I would like your consideration on that particular item, as well as the afore-mentioned parking item, which has been before you on numerous times. Dave would love to see you guys suggest to the City Council that the ordinance be changed to reflect those kinds of changes consistent with the Urban Land Institute's edict that 17-foot spaces certainly are Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 28 of 47 appropriate. With that I will end my comments. If there is any comments relative to the plat that maybe I can address, when Richard is up here, I would be happy to come back before you and if you have any questions of me, I would be pleased to answer them at this time. Borup: The only question I had on the plat was not pertinent, but I was just curious on the jogs -- I'm not going to ask you that. I do have a question on the site. Could you clarify again where the internal sidewalks are? You said there is one down -- did you say down Olive Avenue? Strite: Chairman Borup, we are running sidewalks from the southerly extension of Olive north to Florence and from Florence, the intersection of Olive Avenue to Florence, we have now delineated a crosswalk that takes you due north onto the potential sidewalk for phase two, which, as I mentioned, will be coming before you potentially next month. We are submitting that on the 15th . Borup: And Olive ties into what right now? Strite: Well, Olive ties into the required emergency exit to Blue Cross on the south. Borup: Okay. Strite: There is presently -- Borup: That was the foot traffic you were talking about? Strite: That's correct. Borup: From Blue Cross would come -- Strite: That's correct. Borup: All would be direct access to that? Strite: There is presently a cul-de-sac there. That was put there as a temporary turnaround by the Fire Department as required by the City of Meridian. However, when Blue Cross was developed, they asked for a secondary access. They now have a secondary access that comes directly north on Olive and that's why the cul-de-sac, as you see delineated there in the dotted line, will be removed, because they now have access into Blue Cross and vice-versa. The Fire Department also has the required hammerhead turnaround at the south end of Olive created by the southerly extension of Olive and easterly access into the Meridian dental parcel. I trust that answers your question? Borup: Yes, it does. Any questions from the Commission? Any Commissioners? Maybe while -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 29 of 47 Zaremba: You're saying -- you're involved in the development north of Florence and there is not going to be a sidewalk there either? Is that what you're saying? Along Eagle Road? Strite: Commissioner Zaremba, what we are proposing at this particular point in time is the internal sidewalks will, in fact, extend north across Florence -- to extend northerly, if you will, on Olive and will extend all the way westerly to Hickory, which is the westerly extension back onto Fairview. We are suggesting and hoping that this Commission will act upon the fact that we do not have external sidewalks along Eagle Road, either on this particular site south of Florence, or north to Fairview. We prefer to do it internally, because we are convinced that the traffic out there -- number one, it's very dangerous I think to walk that side, but, Number 2, internally I think the traffic is going to come from the inside, because most of the development now is to the south and to the west. What we are hoping is that internally the pedestrian traffic will follow Olive up and around and westerly to Hickory or into what is eventually going to be developed north of Florence. The long way around a short question, but I just think it's inappropriate at this particular point in time, due to the fact that the traffic, as already mentioned, to put a sidewalk onto Eagle Road. I mean Blue Cross does not have a sidewalk there is nothing south there at Pine Street. So the sidewalk really doesn't go anywhere. There is internal traffic -- or internal pedestrian access, as you probably already know -- in fact, there is a very nice jogging track on the south side at Blue Cross. We can pick that up and go all the way to Pine Street without going back onto Eagle Road and I think that's important. Borup: Any other questions? Zaremba: I brought up the issue with staff about a Cross-Access Easement Agreement among the parking lots when this is divided into three lots. Is that a problem? Strite: No. As a matter of fact, that would be part of our conditions. We have to do that internally and we would be happy to put that as a condition. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: So the only two items that you're looking at changing would be on parking, the 17-foot parking, and the sidewalk on the Eagle Road? Strite: Chairman Borup, actually -- Borup: You're in agreement with all the other staff comments? Strite: Yes. We have absolutely no concerns over the staff report as it relates to the conditional use. Unfortunately, the comment relative to the sidewalk occurs on the preliminary plat. Borup: Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 30 of 47 Strite: And if Richard would like to discuss that -- as I say, he's kind of filling in for Steven and in that respect, if you'd like, I'd come back up and comment. Also, if I might, while we are -- now that you brought it up, under the general comments, Item Number 4, the Preliminary Plat, the pressurized irrigation system -- and, again, I would be happy if you think it's more appropriate, I'll come back up at the time and discuss that. Borup: No. We are kind of handling testimony on both at the same time. Strite: As it presently stands, we do have the ability to get water on the southwest -- excuse me -- southeast corner of this particular site. We will find in our submitted drawings to the city that we are proposing a new pump station at the southeast side of the site that will proceed north along the 35 foot landscape strip that will provide pressurized irrigation in the future to not only this site, but the northerly site. I thought I better address that now, unless you would rather discuss it with Richard. I can tell you right now, that Briggs Engineering has been commissioned to complete the pumping station and the pressurized irrigation north along our easterly boundary. Until such time as phase two, which, again, without being redundant, will be before you either next month or following month, depending upon the submittal date, we would ask that pressurized irrigation be noted on the plat. However, we would like to have it deferred until such time as phase two is constructed, at which point the pressurized irrigation system will be mandated to move north and provide the pressurized irrigation to the three sites that are before you tonight. Borup: Well, what -- is what you just said really different from what the staff comment is? Strite: Well, it does -- only if it -- maybe it's just a matter of semantics. It says the year around pressure irrigation system must be provided to all lots within this development. We certainly agree to that but perhaps we can write it such that it's deferred until such time as phase two comes on board, at which time we are prepared and are planning to develop that pressurized irrigation system. Borup: So you're saying that this development would be fully developed before you have an operational system that -- Strite: No. Let me clarify that, if I can, Chairman. Primary Health will be submitting I believe this week -- tomorrow, perhaps, but maybe Monday, for a Building Permit. They are going to move forward. Obviously, we will not have the Preliminary Plat even completed until such time as the City Council sees it. However, they are allowed to build one building on the site, which they are going to do. Borup: So their building could get built before the irrigation. Strite: That's what we are asking for, to be deferred until such time as either the second building, if that's your preference, is built and ready to occupy or until Phase 2 is -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 31 of 47 Borup: That would happen before the following spring? Strite: Yes, I would certainly think -- Borup: Before next irrigation season? Strite: Yes. I would certainly think so. Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Any, I guess, input from staff on both those items, the Eagle Road sidewalk and the irrigation comments? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, last week we learned that irrigation season is going to end in about a week, so about the 15th of September irrigation water is going out. I don't have a big problem with what Mr. Strite is proposing. I guess I need a little clarification on what is Phase 2. Is Phase 2 north of Florence, the additional land north of Florence to Fairview, or are you referring to Phase 2 being future building two and maybe Meridian Family Dentistry? Strite: Mr. Chairman, if I might. Bruce, what we are considering Phase 2 is actually referred to as the Treasure Valley Business Park Phase 1. If it occurred, it would be north of Florence Street to Eagle Road and the four lots that are north of the extension of Olive to Hickory, which would exclude only the three lots that are presently developed I guess from Hickories east. I think their last building is an Office Depot or something like that -- Freckleton: Office Value. Strite: Office Value is the last -- it's all those lots south of that, if you will -- east of that and south of Florence. Freckleton: Okay. Strite: So it's the remainder of what they refer to as to Treasure Valley Business Park Number 1. Freckleton: Would you be able to put in any of the system now that would keep you from having to tear up landscaping or anything around Primary Health for the extension of the mains north along Eagle Road? I guess what I'm wondering, can any of the infrastructure for the irrigation system be put in with the development of Primary Health to keep you from having to tear things up? Strite: Mr. Chairman, if I might. Yes, Bruce, as a matter of fact, I think we probably would like to do that, because the 35-foot of landscaping which is going to have to go in under this -- this particular application, certainly we would be prepared to do that. The point I was trying to make -- and I think that the chairman was astute in bringing it up, is Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 32 of 47 that Primary Health is going in now. It may be a fact that we won't get that landscaping in place at the time that the Building Permit is issued. By the time we get into either future building Number 2 or what we refer to as the Meridian Family Dentistry, yes, in fact, we would have the infrastructure from the south pumping station to at least the south edge of Florence Street and I think we can assure you of that, yes. Freckleton: Okay. Mr. Chairman, if I might maybe propose -- what we have before us now is this project. It's confined by Florence and Eagle and Olive and Blue Cross on the south. I guess from my perspective I would like to see the requirement for the irrigation system maybe tied to the second building, like Mr. Strite had said, or, you know, development beyond the Primary Health. I guess my thinking there is with economic times the way they are, it might be -- you know, who knows how long it will be before the rest of the project develops out that we have not seen an application on. I just throw that out for your consideration. Borup: And your concern is until that happens that there is no water available? Freckleton: The irrigation system might not get built. Borup: Yes. Strite: We are prepared to do that I think. Borup: Okay. Strite: Incidentally, I did send Brad a request today for the 300-foot notice, so I can assure you that the second phase will be in here soon, but -- Borup: Do you have an approximate construction time on the Primary Health building? Strite: Primary Health is coming in for a Building Permit on I believe Monday, so it's imminent. They are prepared to start. Borup: The construction time, do we know that? Strite: I think in four months. Borup: Okay. So not -- Strite: He's the builder. I'm the dreamer. Five months so it would be at the irrigation season. Borup: But you're prepared to tie that to the second building? Strite: Yes, sir. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 33 of 47 Borup: Or a time frame? Either one? Strite: Whatever is the choice of the Commission. I think we can live with either one. Borup: Bruce, the irrigation season next year? Strite: No, we don't want to get into a little unnecessary construction during the winter, but -- Freckleton: Sure. Sure. Strite: If you want to tie it to that -- my suggestion would be that Primary Health may, in fact, end up bonding for the landscaping on the 35-foot setback anyway, because of the timing now. So that by next spring we could have the infrastructure in place prior to them landscaping. Freckleton: Sure. That's fine. I don't see the Primary Health facility being a huge impact on irrigation, if they water with city water for a temporary period of time, so -- Borup: Yes. They are going to be moving in, in February. Freckleton: Yes and it is pretty tough to build a system, test it and activate it in the middle of winter, so -- Strite: I don't see a lot of landscaping being done at -- Freckleton: No. So -- Zaremba: How about a statement something like this: This system shall be installed with construction on this property and may be connected to source from Treasure Valley Business Park Phase 2 to the north of Florence. Time is during the construction on this property. Borup: Well, the source isn't -- the source is the southwest -- southeast -- Strite: Southeast corner. Yes. Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were sourcing it from -- Strite: No. The southeast corner is our source. Borup: They were going to service -- they were going to service the other one. Strite: Yes. It's our -- we are anticipating that the pumping station will be in the southeast corner and just south and east of what we refer to there as the Meridian Family Dentistry. It will go due north up that 35-foot landscape easement, across Florence Street, and serve the entire phase two is what we are referring to. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 34 of 47 Borup: So think that's -- Zaremba: So two is sourcing from this one. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: So there isn't any reason why this shouldn't be installed and just leave a stub that you can -- Strite: No. No. We are prepared to -- we are prepared to install the infrastructure and get it prepared and I guess -- I guess from the standpoint of the development, it might be best, I mean for us, would be to tie it to maybe the Occupancy Permit of the Meridian Family Dentistry, if that's acceptable. I think we are flexible on -- Borup: Yes we can incorporate that into the statement you just made. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Okay. Then any other comment on the Eagle Road sidewalk? McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Commission. Bill, you referred to that right now is not the appropriate time to install a sidewalk on Eagle Road and you mentioned the traffic counts. We agree with the traffic counts and we agree that it's somewhat dangerous. That's the reason why we requested that the sidewalk be a detached sidewalk, so it's not immediately adjacent to the project. My mind, as you were speaking, started recycling all of the information of the projects that have recently been approved on Eagle Road and what the requirements were on Eagle Road. Directly across the street from this project in the Presidential Subdivision there was a requirement for a detached sidewalk and that detached sidewalk is a meandering sidewalk and it has been installed. There is a sidewalk in front of the Eagle -- I guess the Eagle Road Fairview Family Center Shopping Center and currently the R.C. Willey Subdivision, Willey Subdivision, on Franklin and Eagle Road they are installing a sidewalk. ACHD is actually designing the sidewalk on Eagle Road from the intersection heading north to Lanark and that is to be a detached sidewalk as well. Elixir Subdivision was another that -- that there was a requirement as per the ordinance and Elixir Subdivision had some topography issues that they needed to request relief from through a Variance. The Variance was issued to them by the City Council, so that they would not have to install a sidewalk on that west side of Eagle Road. However, it was only through the Variance procedure that they allowed that not to happen, because it is ordinance that requires this. Just to go back to how I started, Bill referred to the fact that now is not the appropriate time. Staff would disagree with that statement, saying that if it's not installed now, there won't be other opportunities without spending a lot more money to disrupt traffic on Eagle and without having to go through the construction and then the tearing out of landscaping and then installing the new sidewalk. I can't dispute what the applicant has stated concerning the traffic counts. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 35 of 47 There is not a great deal of pedestrian traffic, there is not a connection to the south, but if you don't start now, everything becomes harder in the future and that's why I would leave it. Borup: Did curb and gutter go in yet? Strite: Mr. Chairman, curb, and gutter are already existing there. If I might, Mr. Chairman, respond to Dave's comments. I think all of the as-build, if you will, sidewalks occur on the east side of Eagle Road presently and in talking to Dan Kunz, again, without being repetitive, he says when the intersection goes in that they actually, quite frankly, would discourage sidewalks along the west side. There are no places for the sidewalk to go and if internally we could accommodate the pedestrian traffic, which -- and I have to agree with Dave, down south where it is a residential area, perhaps that is appropriate, but you have to take in consideration at the time that we brought in the commercial subdivision to the east, there was less than 40,000 cars a day rushing up and down that roadway. Today there is over 50,000 cars a day. I just think it would be more appropriate and a heck of a lot more safe if, in fact, all traffic pedestrian wise, if you will, would be funneled up only the east side and force them to make any -- and probably I shouldn't have to suggest forcing, because I think that's the only way pedestrian traffic can get east to west or west to east is going to be either Pine or it's going to be at Fairview. Once they get onto that side, they cannot proceed north on Pine, because there is no sidewalk. They come internally and get onto the walking path that Blue Cross has so gracious provided, we pick up that path at our south boundary, we pick it up, and we take it all the way north of Fairview. I think that's more appropriate and more consistent with good planning but I'm not arguing his comments. Borup: No. I agree completely with what you said, David, and this is the time and except for the fact that you said there is not going to be one on the Elixir property and they have already been granted a Variance and, again, that's building a sidewalk to nowhere. I mean I think you should have had it the whole way, you know, clear from Fairview to Eagle, but if the City Council has already ruled on that and we have got a void there, I don't know if it makes a lot of sense. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the void is a long ways away from this site and talking about a distance of over a mile from the Elixir property and the reason -- Borup: Wait. Over how far? McKinnon: The Elixir property -- Borup: Probably a quarter mile. A quarter to a third. McKinnon: It's a quarter mile, half mile. It's about a half mile. There is some distance there and the reason that they granted the variance -- they were required to go through a Variance and that might be the most appropriate way to address this is to have the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 36 of 47 Council make a determination on the Variance from the ordinance requirement, but they granted the variance based on topography. The topography drops off rather rapidly, because that's where you start getting towards the hill and the topography dropped off rather rapidly, so that required the applicant to bring in a lot amount of fill and raise it and bring in some retaining walls to build the sidewalk. They felt it was appropriate not to have to install a sidewalk from the Elixir property. One other comment I just -- Bruce and I were talking -- as far as Blue Cross providing pedestrian access, there is a question in my mind as to whether that pedestrian access through Blue Cross is the public or a private walking path. I don't believe there is a public easement for the use -- of the public to use that pathway. Unless -- in fact, that's a tickle in the back of my mind and for reason it doesn't seem to me that that was granted as a granted -- granted to the city for use through a public access easement. Zaremba: Is there any move afoot to have Blue Cross put a sidewalk along Eagle? McKinnon: Bruce and I have heard nothing concerning that. Strite: Maybe if I might, I can clarify that this is not the time. I did not mean that this is not the time for this Commission or the city to request it, but when -- what I'm expecting to see on Eagle Road -- and according to Dan Kunz, it's not the time, because we have got 53,000 cars a day, you're going to have probably closer to 70,000 cars a day within 2020. That's why they are putting in the intersection there. I didn't mean to suggest that this is not the time from the standpoint of getting into a development sense, it's just not appropriate, and I have to agree with David. I don't think that there is any pedestrian -- or I should say public access to and from the Blue Cross building. However, if you will, that jogging path I'm sure is used by a lot of people. There is a lot of people from the west that are using it coming east -- coming north onto -- onto Olive, walking up to the intersection to get to the shopping center. I have seen that myself a number of times. Because there is absolutely no way, unless it's 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning, that you can cross from Blue Cross over to the shopping center on Eagle Road. Borup: It sounds to me like you just made an argument to have a sidewalk down to Pine Street. Strite: I don't -- Borup: Or down to Fairview. Strite: I think that the whole reason that they do that is because they want to avoid getting onto Eagle Road. They come from the west and they come onto that jogging path. Then they come north and then go up Olive Street until they get to the intersection. With the internal sidewalks that we are proposing on the internal streets, which, incidentally, are local roads which have the capacity of less than 2,000 cars a day, seems to me a little more appropriate for pedestrian accessibility than one that has 50 some thousand cars a day. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 37 of 47 Borup: It's going to be easier to cross Eagle at Pine than it is at Fairview, because of the turn lanes. Strite: I think that's absolutely correct. Ultimately that would be the case. Borup: Well, this Commission -- well, I mean where it is an ordinance, this Commission can't really -- I guess we can make a recommendation. Strite: No. All we would ask you for is a recommendation. Borup: But it would be up to the Council to really -- Strite: That's correct. We understand. Borup: -- handle that. Strite: We understand. Borup: Okay. Have we spent enough time on this? We might want to have some discussion before we final close the Public Hearing. Did you have any other comments that -- Strite: I'm done, unless you have any -- Borup: Any other questions from -- Zaremba: Have we asked if anybody else wants to testify? Borup: Yes. Well, yes, we have got to do that, too, but, as I say, we may want to have some discussion before we -- okay. Zaremba: On the sidewalk subject, I would be inclined to leave it in as staff requested and have the applicant make their case to the City Council, either with a Variance or -- Borup: They are going to have to make their case there anyway. They could come from this Commission with no recommendation either way. Well, I guess there would be a staff comment. I guess we have, but -- okay. Was there anyone else to testify on this application? Well, essentially there is -- we have two -- we have two separate public hearings in front of us and really the only two areas was the parking and the sidewalk on Eagle Road. Anyone have any concerns with the parking as designed? Shreeve: I don't. Zaremba: I don't and I actually agree, although it doesn't need to be done right now, but that's probably a subject where we should change the ordinance. It probably makes Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 38 of 47 more sense to have a wider sidewalk with an overhang, than to have the example with the situation in the City Hall parking lot. The bumpers, when you get snow, snow removal is a problem. You have got this little gap in between the bumper and the curb and to just make the sidewalk that much wider makes sense to me. Apparently the applicant has done that. Borup: If we had some other -- Zaremba: Which really makes the stall 19 feet anyhow, it's just that a portion of it overhangs the sidewalk. Borup: Right. I agree. It looks like the discussion is that the sidewalk -- unless there is any other comment. Do we have the wording on the irrigation system? Do we have any other -- Zaremba: Let's see. The way I ended up with is this system shall be installed before occupancy of Meridian Family Dentistry building. Borup: Bruce, does that satisfy what was dictated and that works okay for the applicant? Okay then any other comments or discussion on the Eagle Road sidewalk? Shreeve: I think the sidewalk -- I think we ought to just leave it to the staff comments. It's got to go onto the City Council anyway. Mathes: I agree. Shreeve: Yes. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could rewind and go back to the irrigation issue. Bruce had a comment that I think makes a lot sense, is that, rather than tie it to the Meridian Dentistry building we just tie it to the second building. Borup: To the what? McKinnon: The second building. Borup: Oh. Yes. That makes a lot more sense. That's gives the applicant more flexibility, too. Zaremba: Okay. If a motion is in order, I move we close the Public Hearing. Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 39 of 47 Zaremba: Aye and that was intended to be on both items, CUP 02-022 and PFP 02- 002. A lot of twos. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. Let's address the first Item Number 10, the CUP application. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda, CUP 02-022, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a three building office complex in an I-L zone for Treasure Valley Business Park by Clark Development, southwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Fairview Avenue. Actually, that's southwest corner of Florence and Eagle. To include all staff comments, with the addition that on Page 6, Item 3, all parking circulation within the project shall be in compliance the MCC 11-13, except that a portion of the parking stall may overhang the extended sidewalks. Borup: Does that need some more -- McKinnon: A little more clarification, because there is some areas where they back -- where they front on landscaped areas. Just point in fact, these areas right here in this area. Zaremba: So those parking stalls that have overhand expanded sidewalks and/or landscaped areas. McKinnon: Or just 17 foot stalls with two feet of overhang. Zaremba: Okay. The end result being that the stalls measure 17 feet with a two-foot overhang. I believe that's everything for the CUP. The other items are on the preliminary plat. Mathes: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Item Number 11. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 11 on our agenda, PFP 02-002, request for Preliminary slash Final Plat approval of three building lots on 2.66 acres in an I-L zone for Treasure Valley No. 2 Subdivision by Clark Development. Southwest corner of North Eagle Road Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 40 of 47 -- actually, southwest corner of Florence and east -- I'm sorry. Southwest corner of North Eagle Road and Florence Avenue, to include all staff comments, with the following exceptions. On Page 3 under site specific comments, Item 3, add a paragraph 10, which says, a Cross-Access Agreement is required for the parking lots. Preliminary Plat general comments, this would be added to Item 4, which begins on Page 3, but continues on to Page 4, at the end of that paragraph add the sentence, this system shall be installed before occupancy of the second building. That's all of my notes, I believe. Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 02-016 Request for annexation and zoning of 42.72 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Sundance Place Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development – east of North Meridian Road and north of East Ustick Road: Table to September 19, 2002 Meeting Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 02-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 144 building lots and 5 other lots on 42.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sundance Place Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development: east of North Meridian Road and north of East Ustick Road: Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: At the request of the applicant, I move that we table Items 8 and 9 of our Agenda, AZ 02-015 and PP 02-010, to our meeting of September 19th to be at this point the last item on the agenda after the previous tabled Item 7. Borup: There is a motion. Shreeve: Second. Borup: Second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Maybe we could ask afterwards. Is there anything on either one of these applications that we could get a little information tonight and save us time next time or would it really make any difference? Probably not. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 41 of 47 McKinnon: You should have a staff report for Sundance and what is stated there, we need to make some revisions to Sundance. Borup: Right. That was mainly because of the drainage areas? McKinnon: Right. I'll just point that out to you. It's just this drainage area down in this area. They are counting that towards open space. It's essentially a 40-foot wide area here and a 40-foot visual corridor here. The rest of the project would be surrounded by a six-foot privacy fence so it's not exactly the most visible, nor the most useful site for the required open space. We felt it would be appropriate to ask them to move that up and the applicant has agreed. They are revising it at this time so it will be something a little bit different. Other than that, that was the -- Borup: How about the block length? Were they making any revisions there? McKinnon: The block length is something that you may want to take a look at. There is a stub street -- and I'll highlight it if I can. Coming from Sundance and then this parcel maybe – yes this parcel right here. You can tell it's got really long driveway that comes back into it. Essentially farmland right now. There is no house on that and I think it's around 12 acres, but a lot of it is unusable, because of this long driveway. There is a stub street coming from Heritage from the east to the west and there is a stub street from Sundance into it. We have the opportunity to place another stub street and, if it would be desirable, to come down from Sundance to provide for more connectivity. The block length is over the 1,000 foot length and it would be appropriate to require that, but if we required an additional stub street, that's more area of asphalt and roadway that would not be able to be developed into something else on this property, which already has two stub streets to it. The ordinance would support the stub street at that location, but, at the same time, it may not be the most appropriate location, because there are other sub streets that connect it and subdivision that we are discussing has stub streets to those other subdivisions. There is some connectivity, but not necessarily direct connectivity. That's just a brief overview and in the staff report there is a little more detail on that, but that and the open space were two of the major issues. Borup: Do you know the width of that flag access? I don't think it's 50 feet, is it? McKinnon: I believe it's larger than that. Borup: Oh, it is least 50? McKinnon: I believe it's 100 feet. Borup: Okay so right now we have three access points to that 12 acres and so the question is do we need one more. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 42 of 47 McKinnon: You will notice that in the staff report that was not a requirement of the site specific requirement, it was something to place in front of you that would be supported by the ordinance. Borup: Well, I guess my feeling was maybe the subdivisions may need another access, but I don't think these 12 acres needs another one. Zaremba: Go ahead go back to the -- yes. This one. I think we are focusing on here, this area, so it would be opposite the cul-de-sac. Borup: Or it could be -- or it could be the cul-de-sac itself. Zaremba: So this -- McKinnon: Or straighten this out. You could straighten this or you could come through and -- we have looked at it two different ways and played with some graph paper and -- to see how it might lay out and it would be possible to develop it with an additional stub street coming down. Borup: It probably makes it worse for the 12 acres to have four access points coming into it. Zaremba: Would it, between a couple of these lots, if there were a walkway access that's not a roadway, but an emergency 20 feet wide or whatever it is? McKinnon: Yes. The applicant is not here tonight and that probably would be the best person to discuss that with. Borup: I was just wondering if you had discussed that with them at all? McKinnon: Yes. I talked with Steve Arnold about that and what would be appropriate and we have talked about putting some sort of pedestrian access -- or one of the pedestrian accesses at this location in one of the cul-de-sac lots. Zaremba: Could be usable for an emergency vehicle. McKinnon: It could be used -- you could go emergency vehicle with that. The Fire Department would like to see that and that would provide a break for pedestrians and bicycle traffic, so that might be the most appropriate thing to do. Code -- typically the way it's been handled in the City of Meridian is providing an emergency access point is not the same as breaking up a block length. That is not breaking the block length. Without a road, you haven't broken the block length. We still have the issue of the block length being over 1,000 feet, even with pedestrian type emergency vehicle access. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 43 of 47 Borup: Okay. Well, one of my concerns is I don't know if we are going to get to everything on the 19th . I will be very surprised. Unless we want to stay passed midnight and I don't think we do. I'm assuming I'm speaking for the rest of the Commission. Shreeve: Well, I -- of course, I don't think we owe these people anything, necessarily. You know, I mean if we can't fit them in on the 19th , we can't fit them in on the 19th -- Borup: Well, we can table it to that date. Bruce, could you give us an update on the White Trunk Line? Just a time frame update is what I'm -- when is that going to be in operation? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it is behind schedule at this point in time. The last estimate I heard was we were about three weeks behind schedule. Borup: Which means when will it be usable? Freckleton: We are -- we are testing and trying to final it out as we go. So, you know, starting at Ten Mile Road as we march on through developments that are on that end are going to be able to start utilizing it. Right now we are in the mile between Linder and Meridian. We are about the mid section line. We are about a half mile through -- Borup: Okay. Freckleton: So we are approaching the Settler's Park area. Borup: Okay. Well, then, that's not going to hold up this subdivision, that's what I was - Freckleton: No. Borup: This is the next phase. It's not even -- they are not trying to do this with their other -- the other Sundance, are they? McKinnon: They could. Freckleton: Yes. They could. This does have the White Trunk that runs right through it. I think that's it right there. Borup: Is that what they are working on there now? That's the line that's going in there now? They are doing some work -- I thought it was further south. Freckleton: They are. They are working on Sundance Subdivision down in here right now. In here and what they are doing, since the trunk line is not there yet, is they are working on sewer mains on the upper end, because they are shallower and they -- there is a little forgiveness if the trunk line comes through and it's not at the right grade, we can make adjustments on the low end. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 44 of 47 Borup: And Heritage is going full blast. Freckleton: Absolutely. Borup: I was just wondering when the trunk line was going to get there. Before the subdivision is done? Freckleton: It's going slow. It's going slow. It's very deep and it's very wet. We have had a lot of groundwater to contend with. Some days they are getting, you know, 60 feet for a full day's work. So it's going extremely slow. Zaremba: Let me ask a question -- Borup: Well, I was just referring to Commissioner Shreeve's comment that we don't and I just wonder whether it's going to affect the timing on their project one way or the other. Zaremba: Well, let me ask staff a question, if I may. If they are asking for this continuance or delay, so that they can revise their final plat and do some other stuff, you need to have it by Monday, this coming Monday, in order have your ten working days or whatever it is -- or are you likely to have that by then or should we be continuing this to October? Borup: I think it depends on how extensive they change the plan. The revision is because staff has requested it. McKinnon: In the staff report I requested that there be revisions made to this. I don't believe that the requested revisions will be so dramatic that I can't revise the staff report in the quick manner. It would be more than appropriate for them to have something to us by Monday. Whether or not they will have that is something that remains to be seen. I think it's -- yeah, Bruce reminded me -- and I agree completely is that we need to stay consistent on this. If we put it at the end of an agenda and, just to reiterate, you guys have the ability at the beginning of every meeting to amend your agenda however you see fit, if you'd like to do something earlier or later, you guys have that ability, whether it's placed at the beginning of the agenda or at the end of the agenda. That's one of the first things you guys do is adopt the agenda and go forward with that. If we are going to continue it -- if you continue it and be consistent with everybody else, Monday would be the date that we would like to see it and I can get in touch with Steve Arnold tomorrow. Say if I don't have it by Monday, then we will continue it on until October and I'll bet you we'd probably get it by Monday. Yes. Being consistent, we'd like that 10 days. We really would, if you guys could give us that -- Shreeve: You table it -- yes. McKinnon: Again. Continue it on into October but we'd like to have the opportunity to review it and have adequate time to do that. Monday would be the right date to give us the ten days to review that, but there have been occasions where we have allowed less Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 45 of 47 time, but I don't see that there is any outstanding reason that we would have to go for less time than ten days right now. That's been something that we have been consistent with all along. Zaremba: Well, we'd like to help you with that by not giving you short periods. McKinnon: We appreciate that. We really do. Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I fully agree with Mr. McKinnon that the Commission does have the ability to change or move around the agenda however they see fit. The only thing that I worry about is this -- this unwritten policy of getting out of here at midnight and if things are shifted to the end and they in the end are taken to the next meeting, that may eventually lead to some hot water and I'm not saying that there is any problem potentially with these ones, but there may be down the road. Borup: You mean a problem with the time? Wollen: Well, that they would sit here all night and -- Borup: Oh. Well, what we have tried to do -- and our unwritten -- and I guess we can change that anytime we want, because it's unwritten -- is -- has been that we -- if it's a lengthy hearing, we don't start a new one after midnight and that we end at 1:00, even if we are not done. I mean we haven't adhered to that always, we have gone to 1:30, but that's still plenty late enough. That's kind of what we agreed on at one time is -- like in this case, if it was one of these two subdivisions and it was after midnight, we wouldn't even start it. We have also tried to look at -- at the 9:00 break, we have tried to anticipate how far we are and what we could do with -- and some of the times we have said we are just not going to make it to the last item or whatever it is. I think we only had to do that once, but we -- that's the other thing, we have to try to look at 9:00, see what we think we can get to and at least notify them at that time, so that someone isn't waiting all the night to find out that they are going to be continued. Commissioner Zaremba, you had another comment? Zaremba: Well, that was going to be my suggestion that we pick a time, 9:00 or 10:00 to announce to the audience whether we are going to complete the agenda or not. Borup: That's what we have tried to do, yes, at the break, wherever that hits. It's usually been somewhere around 9:00 -- does that sound -- I mean I don't know what we can do beyond kind of -- Wollen: I think it's a really good idea. I think, you know, just practically speaking -- Borup: Well, it's just common courtesy. Wollen: -- people are warned and the Commission has done a great job since I have been here of doing that, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 46 of 47 Borup: I mean that's just the courteous thing to do, for one thing. Okay. Well, I think I interrupted before we continued Bridgetower. Was that where we were at? Zaremba: We did take a vote on eight and nine, I think, already. Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 02-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 439 building lots and 50 other lots on 209.01 acres in an R-4 zone in a Planned Unit Development for Bridgetower Crossing East Subdivision by Primeland Development – northeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Ustick Road: Borup: Yes so Number 12. Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we table Item 12 on our agenda, the Public Hearing for PP 02-014, until our meeting on the 19th of September, to now be the final item on the agenda. Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: We have one more motion from somebody. Shreeve: I make a motion we adjourn. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you, Commissioners. It's 9:03. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:03 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 47 of 47 ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK