Loading...
2003 08-07Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 7, 2003 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order on Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Leslie Mathes, David Zaremba, and Michael Rohm. Members Absent: Jerry Centers. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Nick Wollen, Sharon Smith, Anna Powell, Brad Hawkins-Clark, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll call Attendance: ___X___ David Zaremba _______ Jerry Centers ___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm ___X___Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for August 7th . Start with the roll call attendance of Commissioners. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of July 17, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Borup: The first item will be minutes from the July 17th meeting. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we approve the minutes of July 17, 2003, as written. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: I think those are the shortest records we have had for three years or minutes, I mean. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 2 of 104 Item 4. Public Hearing: PP 03-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 building lots on 10.97 acres in a C-G zone for proposed Southern Springs by The Land Group, Inc. – southeast corner of Meridian Road and Overland Road: Borup: Okay. The first item on the agenda is Public Hearing PP 03-016, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 building lots on 10.97 acres in an existing C-G zone for the proposed Southern Springs by the Land Group. We'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. This item is requesting a plat for 11 building lots. It's approximately an 11-acre parcel located here at the southeast corner of Overland Road and Meridian Road, State Highway 69. The property is annexed, has been annexed for several years at the C-G, Commercial General, zone. They are -- they have no need to request application for annexation at this time, since they are in, so they are just proposing to plat the property. The Ten Mile Creek is contiguous to the property here along the eastern boundary. Running Brook Estates Subdivision is immediately to the east of that. Country Terrace Subdivision is also nearby up to the north and east. Elk Run Subdivision is across Meridian Road. ACHD, as you have probably been out there and seen, is constructing a storm water retention area in this triangular shaped piece here on the north side of Overland and they are in the process of widening Overland Road at this time. The intersection improvements will be an Idaho Transportation Department project that is separate from the Ada County Highway District project that's going on right now. That intersection project is in the design phase, but it's -- it is a separate project, separate funding from what's being done right now. Here is an aerial photo giving you a little orientation, of it's existing farm vacant property. Here are the Preliminary Plat and the Landscape Plan that were submitted to the city for application. What is shown here on the left and right, actually? Both show building pad sites, 11 of them. They also show parking and internal circulation. There is a pathway shown along the Ten Mile Creek. The building pads themselves and the parking are not an item for this discussion per se, since it is just a plat. They are just requesting, basically, to subdivide the property, but they have - - they have shown you the layout that they anticipate to happen on the property, even though that's not a part of the application approval right now. The general breakdown that they have shown is about 21,500 square feet of restaurant, fast food, there is four lots designated for that on the Meridian Road frontage. There is about 11,100 square foot of use for bank and 37,000 square foot of use for other commercial and there are five lots for that. The largest proposed lot is down here in the southeast corner of their property and that at this point is just shown as a General Commercial building that is not called out for any specific use right now. There was a detailed traffic impact study that was done as a part of the application, done by Adobe Engineering. It's projected to build out by 2007 in that traffic plan. There are no new streets proposed, it's all internal circulation within the project. They are proposing an access point off of Meridian Road here about a third of the way down from Overland and, then, a second one close to the southern boundary and those are the two access points that they are proposing right now. To my understanding, we have not received any written comments from the Idaho Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 3 of 104 Transportation Department either approving or denying these two access points. I understand from the applicant, though, that the deed for the property does entitle them to two deeded points of access. I will go back to the vicinity map here just for a second, so you can see the Calderwood Street is located here just separated from this property by one -- about a two acre parcel here. Ultimately, what you will see we are looking for is an ability for some of this traffic to have a cross-access through this parcel to get to Calderwood that would ultimately help to minimize the conflicts on State Highway 69, so that they can get to a future signal that is ultimately planned by the Idaho Transportation Department on Calderwood. Here is a couple of site photos for you that show the existing trees, all of which are on the east side of Ten Mile Creek. This is looking at it from the property and generally looking east and south. This shot here on the bottom right is giving you somewhat of a sense for the Ten Mile. This is, actually, taken from Calderwood further south than the property itself. I'm going to hold off on talking about the proposed pathway design and let the applicant describe what they are proposing on that. There are a couple of different options that they are looking at right now. They did hold a neighborhood meeting with the residents within 300 feet were mailed notices and some of these alternatives are coming out of that neighborhood meeting that they held. In terms of staff's proposed conditions, I think there are two of them to point out to you starting on page five of our staff report. We do have a special consideration that we have mentioned on the buffer and that's the reason why these alternative designs are in here. Getting back to the project here. You can see they are not permitted an access point to Overland Road, vehicular access point, but the city Comprehensive Plan does show a public multi-use pathway adjacent to Ten Mile and that would tie into an Overland Road sidewalk and generally come here on the east side. Now, we have a requirement that anytime a commercial development goes adjacent to residential, you have to have a 25 foot wide buffer and the standards for that buffer width are in the landscape ordinance, but, generally, it has to be within three years that buffer has to be 60 percent opaque, so they need to put the types of shrubs -- mostly evergreen, of course, that are going to be able to create closure for a year around screen to close it off. The conflict that the application is looking at is that they have that 25-foot requirement from the residential subdivision. They are also dealing with a safety concern that's been expressed by the Police Department that for a public pathway it not be blocked off from view and create some kind of a safety or a hazard for any future pedestrians. They -- they are kind of looking at some options on how they can accommodate the safety concern, as well as provide the buffer between the residential. As you may recall, this northern third of the property on the east side of Ten Mile is an existing -- just a single house with Ada county property. It's not been annexed. The subdivision does not come up to that point, so there would not be the buffer requirement for that piece, but there would begin where the single-family residences are at here to the south. The two items to point out to you, I guess, are Item Number 3 on the conditions on page talks about the sidewalks on Meridian Road. Our ordinance requires them to be detached. The Idaho Transportation Department generally is discouraging any pedestrians along their facilities, so the -- we'd like the applicant to clarify that. If ITD is, indeed, saying they do not want a sidewalk, that's something that this Commission needs to discuss and consider whether you want to require that. That -- that's Item Number 3. Then, Item Number 10 on Page 6 is the correction that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 4 of 104 East Overland Road has to have a 25-foot landscape easement, not a 35-foot. Also, it's not the Silverstone Business Association, so that needs to be stricken. Then, finally, on Item 9 that's talking about how public pathways are going to be platted in Meridian. Actually, just this week we had some issues come up on how the county -- the county surveyor John Priester wants to see pathways, pedestrian pathways dealt with on plats. That item there will actually need to be amended. We cannot require the applicant to dedicate public land through an easement on the plat, it needs to be set up as an easement separately, not just shown on the plat. Basically, we need to just state on that that a permanent pedestrian easement in favor of the City of Meridian shall be created, not shall be added to the face of the plat and, then, that easement should be recorded as a separate document. Like I pointed out, I think probably the biggest issue on this project tonight is going to be discussion on the pathway issue. Then, also the staff, as you saw in our recommendation, is asking for a Planned Development on this project, because we feel there is enough issues to be dealt with in terms of the building layout. It's kind of a tight site, the access is pretty critical, how the drive-thrus are going to work, you know, none of those issues can really be dealt with in a Preliminary Plat. We would like to see a Planned Development application submitted that would be a separate Public Hearing process that we could, then, deal with the configuration of the pathway and the access issues and also building elevations could be a part of that, which is not a part of this application. I think with that, if you have any questions, that's all I have at this point. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Mathes: I have a question. When was it zoned C-G? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Mathes, that's a good question, and I did -- I did try to find that. It's certainly been -- Mathes: Was it before or after Running Brook? Hawkins-Clark: When it was annexed I did not get that information, so I did ask the applicant to provide to you, to check with the current property owner, because I believe the current property owners did annex it, so -- Mathes: Okay. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Zaremba: I also had a question. Several times there is reference to common area lots and even in their own CC&R’s there is how to deal with common area lots. I did not identify any lots that were specified as common area lots. Do they exist? Hawkins-Clark: No, they do not. There are no common area lots proposed at this point. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 5 of 104 Zaremba: Wouldn't it make sense to make the main driveway that has to be commonly maintained and things like that into separate lots for the association to maintain? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, that could work, but if they knew the precise building pad locations, but -- Zaremba: So, you're comfortable with it the way it is? Hawkins-Clark: It would be difficult, yes. Zaremba: They have plenty of cross-access agreements and easements and all that of sort of stuff in there, but -- Hawkins-Clark: Right. Zaremba: That's comfortable? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. We are certainly requiring the cross-access. Right. I think the one that could become common would be potentially the pathway lot, which right now is -- the pathway would go through about six different lots, because they all just have easements that go to the center of the creek, but that could potentially become a common lot. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Koga: Good evening. My name is David Koga with the Land Group at 128 South Eagle Road. I appreciate the time to be able to talk about this project, Southern Springs. I want to, first of all, go over just a couple general key points about the development and go more specifically on the site-specifics. I want to talk the access, first of all, so everybody kind of understands where we are with our two accesses into the site. As Brad had mentioned that the existing property warranty deed does grant two accesses off Meridian Road. They were previously accessed for agricultural, now we are asking for access for commercial, so because of that we have to go with ITD through their right-of-way encroachment application permit process. We have filled out this form and turned it into ITD District Three. We turned this in about a month before we turned in the Preliminary Plat and it's still being reviewed. We had a meeting Tuesday of this week. It was a joint meeting with out traffic engineer, ACHD, and ITD, to discuss where they are in regard to those approaches. We are requesting for two -- basically two access for full access. They are still, like I say, reviewing this, because they are taking into account some other factors. I don't know if you're aware, but ACHD has hired a consultant and they are going through the process for redesigning the intersection of Overland and Five Mile and they have plans to have it to be built in 2006 or 2007. That kind of brings out one factor on those accesses. Number 2, is there has always been Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 6 of 104 discussion and talk about a traffic light at Calderwood, so they are trying to take into account all these different factors to come up with a final ruling from District Three, which, eventually, will go to the headquarters. The bottom line is we do, though, at least have two accesses for the project. Secondly, the overall intent of the design on the site -- all of the buildings along Meridian Road are what we would call high density user buildings and all the buildings that are on the back are what we call low density users. The reason why I was trying to be sensitive with the residents to try to keep all the -- more of the high use traffic end users along Meridian Road and less cars along -- along Ten Mile Creek, Number 1. Number 2, all the buildings along the Ten Mile Creek will be what we call front loaded buildings, meaning we won't provide any type of access or roads on the backside of those buildings. Once again, try to keep as much of the activity away from residential side, Number 1. Number 2, the buildings themselves will become some type of their own buffer, which will help to take care of some of the visual impacts into the development, Number 1. Number 2 takes care of some of the sound coming off Meridian Road. Basically, in general, we feel that Southern Springs, you know, is a good improvement for the -- not only the City of Meridian, but the community, because, as you know, there is not a lot of commercial retail development on the south side of the freeway. Because of that everybody -- I mean I live on the south side also and everybody has to come and go over the freeway and that's where you have all your traffic woes and congestion in there. We feel that this development on the south side would also help with a lot of the residentials from Meridian to Kuna for other traffic. In regard to the site-specifics, in wanted to go over a number of -- first, over site-specific Number 3 in regard to the Five Mile -- Five Mile sidewalk. In our meeting Tuesday with ITD I asked if they have any procedure or standards in regard to requirement of sidewalks on their roads and they said they do not, they kind of take it case per case, number one, and, number two, they will listen to whatever the city kind of requests also. Bottom line is they don't have a standard that requires a sidewalk along there. Another thing that we would like the Commissioners to consider, though, on that sidewalk is we feel there is somewhat of a safety issue, because of the traffic of Meridian Road, everybody knows it's a very busy and high volume traffic. At the same time, we will be providing a pedestrian pathway system that's going north and south along the Ten Mile Creek. We feel that would be a much safer pedestrian circulation use going north and south. The developers will install a sidewalk along Overland that provides east-to-west type of pedestrian circulations, but we would like to suggest using the pedestrian pathway as more the northbound pedestrian circulation on there. Then, on regard to site-specific number nine -- Brad, could you forward that to the section in there? If you'd kind of bear with me on this, I'd like to kind of walk through the situation. I think it's kind of a challenge on here and we think we are truly trying to work with the neighbors on this. When we went to the neighborhood meeting we tried to listen to their concerns and are trying to come up with a possible solution. What I'm showing first here is the existing site conditions and it shows in the middle the Ten Mile Creek. This section, by the way, is very accurate taking account of the survey and it's showing the Ten Mile Creek with the slopes of the banks coming across. We have a hundred foot easement from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and of that, of course, 50 feet of that irrigation easement goes from the center -- or about the center of Ten Mile Creek to the developers. That's one easement on that area. Also we have a 20-foot sewer Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 7 of 104 easement that aligns with the Ten Mile Creek that's inside of the 50-foot Nampa -- of the irrigation easement. That sewer easement is approximately 800 feet long from the north property line at Overland going south. On those two easements the restrictions we have, of course, on the Nampa-Meridian irrigation system, we need -- we are required to provide a minimum 18 foot flat surface area so they have access to maintain on the Ten Mile Creek. From historical use of that area, of course, all the maintenance has happened more on the west side of Ten Mile Creek, so we are not expecting that Nampa-Meridian to go through on the residential side. The other issue is on the sewer easement. Of course, we will not be able to provide any trees inside, because the Public Works does not -- they prohibit any type of trees planted inside of their easement. Okay. What I'm showing here first is -- it's the original application Site Plan that we put together with some modifications of the landscape buffer. Basically, what we did on this, we added more trees along the buffer area and I kind of want to explain how this works on the section. This section shows one of our proposals taking into account of the existing site as we turned in the application. What we are showing is inside of the -- of course, first of all, we have a 50 foot easement that we feel that the developers are providing that's an adequate buffer for the landscape buffer area. The landscape buffer, as Brad mentioned, it requires a 25-foot landscape buffer, so it's kind of broken up in two things. We have a -- we have a width area and we also have a type of buffer that's used for the buffer area. We feel we adequately provide the distance with the -- inside the 50-foot easement. We do have restrictions, of course, with the type of trees that we can put inside of this buffer and the case in point is on this -- the way we have this designed here, we are showing that also inside this easement we are also proposing to provide a pedestrian pathway system. We have an adequate area -- anywhere from five to seven feet of a landscaped area where we could more of the heavy evergreen plant material to buffer from the neighbors inside the landscape buffer area, but we are also restricted because of a safety issue, as Brad mentioned, because of the firemen and the police, when they are cruising by that area, they like to be able to view into that pedestrian area. What we propose as an alternative is the best way to plant -- to put plant material in that buffer is we are showing -- on the lower area we are showing a planter shrub area that would not exceed 36 inches tall and that could be an evergreen and, then, above that we would provide trees that would be limbed up at least six to seven feet tall, so, basically, we are providing a window -- a view window to where we feel that the police and the firemen could view the safety issue along the pedestrian pathway system. Also, we are showing that outside of the easements we would not start installation of the -- any of the buildings minimum 25 feet from that easement. We are also going to be using that area as adequate landscape to buffer and soft up -- to buffer the backside of the buildings. Also to soft, up the parking -- the parking area. That -- basically, I'm showing you that was our first application that we turned in. The second one here is a little trickier. What we are requesting is a Variance -- a Variance from the planning director to where we could ask for a width reduction from the landscape buffer along Meridian Road. What we are going to request is we'd like to change the 35 foot wide buffer area along Meridian Road into a 20-foot landscape buffer. We would still provide all the amount of trees that are required along that buffer. What we would like to do is transfer and take that 15-foot landscape buffer area and replace or move that, excuse me, to the area along the Ten Mile Creek Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 8 of 104 adjacent to the west wide of the irrigation easements. Basically, we are expanding that buffer even more so another 15 feet. Also, if you notice, we were able to almost double the amount of trees on that area. I'd like to show through a section what that would kind of look like. If you notice we have taken the pedestrian sidewalk to the west and so that the east side of the pedestrian pathway is along with -- with the easement, number one. By doing that, we also would be able to provide a planter bed on both sides in this pedestrian area, five feet on the west side, and it varies five to seven feet on the east side. At the same time, we have to be -- so, number one, we are providing more distance and we are providing more buffer to -- for the residential area. At the same time, we have to be sensitive or understanding of the safety issue with the pedestrian pathway system, not only viewing from the pedestrian area looking to the east and the pedestrian area, we still need to take into account of the safety issue of the plant material to the east of the pedestrian area, Number 1. Number 2 the Ten Mile Creek -- and everybody knows this, this includes a residential area, we talked about it, is that the Ten Mile Creek is a natural amenity it's an esthetic wildlife amenity. Basically, we are providing -- I'm not going to say this is the greenbelt of Boise, it's a minor version of the greenbelt that people, the public, have -- you know, would like to enjoy the view -- the beauty and to view into the Ten Mile Creek area. At the same time it's not -- it's not fair, if you want to say, for the developers and the public to be completely blocking off the buffer looking to the east into the Ten Mile Creek area. In our meeting for -- with the neighbors, the neighbors' request was to provide a six-foot tall berm and fence somewhere along the landscape buffer area. The concern or the problem we find with that is, Number 1, if this 12 foot buffer is -- of course, is on west side of the pedestrian area, you definitely would block any type of safety issue to the pedestrian and if you put it on the east side, you have the same problem. It's a safety issue. Plus, you're blocking any type esthetic views for the amenities of the Ten Mile Creek. I think this is a very -- I call it a challenging issue with the landscape buffer. I think -- like I said, myself and the developers, we are sensitive of the neighbors along the Ten Mile Creek. At the same time, though, we feel that the developer has the right, because of zoning, able to - - to be able -- or I should say to be able to build this project. I hope I haven't confused you all. I was wondering if you have any questions at this time? Or any other questions about development? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Yes. I may have several, but let me start with the first one. Help me with a little bit of math. What would be the east end of -- or this east diagonal along Ten Mile Creek? If that's 100-foot wide easement, is that whole hundred feet on your property? Koga: No. I'm sorry to interrupt. It's on both sides, so it's only 50 feet on the developer's side. Zaremba: Okay. Still, the whole width of that opening -- Koga: Is a hundred feet. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 9 of 104 Zaremba: -- is 100 feet. Koga: Yes, sir. Zaremba: And, then, you're adding another 25 feet to that? What I'm trying to establish is in the portion where there are residences backing up to your property -- or, actually, backing up to Ten Mile Creek, the distance from a resident's fence to the wall of your first building is going to be like 150 feet? Koga: Yes. I kind of checked that. A lot of the buildings are pretty close to the easement on their side, so if you had basically -- on this case maybe 100 feet, plus 25, plus another 15 feet, so 140 feet. Zaremba: From the nearest building to one of their fences, actually. Koga: From their residential building -- Borup: Well, from their property line is what he is asking, I think. Koga: Well, their property line is at the center of the ditch -- of the Ten Mile Creek. The Ten Mile Creek, basically, is the property line. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Their fence would have to be 50 feet back from that. Borup: So, the easement goes into their property line? Koga: Yes, sir. Borup: Fifty feet. Koga: Yes, sir. Borup: But doesn't Nampa-Meridian have a no build policy within that 50 feet? Koga: Yes, sir. Zaremba: So, they can't build there. What I'm trying to get is I think what you came up with from either their property line or their buildings to the back of your building has got to be in excess of 140 -- Koga: A hundred and forty feet. Correct. Zaremba: Something like that. Fifty feet. Koga: Correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 10 of 104 Zaremba: Okay. That answered one of my other questions. If the other 50 feet of the easement actually on their property, then, it isn't a solution for you to plant trees on that side of it, instead on your side of it. That's doesn't help. Mathes: Do you know when this was annexed as a C-G? Koga: One of the owners had just mentioned that it was annexed prior to the subdivision. Borup: Dave could -- you don't have a year, though? Koga: I do not have that answer. Mathes: But it was before Running Brook? Koga: I don't know that. Maybe we could ask -- Borup: We need to get -- it doesn't work to have someone speak from the audience. Someone had stated that the property was annexed in 1993. Did you have some other questions, Dave? Zaremba: Let's see. I think I remember the staff notes were requesting that you make some arrangement with the property owner to the south to have easement on their property and I'm not sure that I heard a resolution to that. Koga: Well, we are if you -- Zaremba: I say it looks like you're stubbing -- Koga: Yes. We are providing a cross-access agreement stub for that use. Borup: I think that's all staff was asking is to make sure there was access to that property; is that correct? Zaremba: I saw the request, I didn't see the resolution. Those are my questions so far. I'll probably have more later. Koga: Okay. Borup: Anyone else? Rohm: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Along the Meridian Road you had mentioned that the retail development would be parallel to that portion and it seems like if you have got retail along there, that you would have pedestrians and if there is no sidewalk along that, basically, they are either walking in the street or they are walking in the parking lot and it Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 11 of 104 seems like from a safety perspective that there -- we would be better served by having a sidewalk along that roadway, if at all possible. Can you address that for us, please? Koga: Yes, sir. You know, that's always a tough call on other projects have been to and what we found, though, in reality, it's kind of human nature in America that we drive everywhere and not so much walk and so because of that most people would be coming from the parking lot into these -- to these type of buildings, Number 1. Number 2, I think by doing some better direction possibly people to use by putting a pathway system in there. Borup: But the pathway is not going to help them get to the retail businesses. Koga: In the front area there? Borup: Right. I'm thinking along the same lines as Commissioner Rohm. I guess, you know, we put sidewalks along Eagle Road and I'm trying to remember how many times I have seen people on that. Zaremba: Well, I was going to save this for some discussion later, but I would lean towards asking for the sidewalks, almost not even just because of this project. If we ever get to the point where Meridian or the Treasure Valley has any kind of a transit system, this is certainly one of the major roads that the buses will go up and down and you would want people to be able to use the sidewalk to stand at a bus stop and I think that's part of the reason that -- that there are some sidewalks along Eagle Road as well. It seems like a road with this much traffic -- car traffic, I agree with the issue -- if it's only going to be car traffic, it would be safer not to attract pedestrians, but thinking even farther down the line, if we ever have any kind of a transit system, then, we need a way for them not to be standing in the planters to access the transit system. Just an opinion. Borup: I think it makes sense. You know, if this were just all office buildings or something along that line, it would not be generating pedestrian traffic at all. If it is going to have some fast food, you know, the likelihood there is going to be some. How much we don't know. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Borup? Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Could I just make one clarification? I think I might have misstated at the beginning that the ordinance does require -- Borup: Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 12 of 104 Hawkins-Clark: -- the sidewalks and so it would require a formal Variance in order to not construct it, as far as the city code, because it's not something that can just be waived. Borup: No. I think we all understood that. Koga: Okay. Borup: As you had mentioned, the conflict is between ITD's -- well, apparently, ITD's non-policy, so maybe there is no conflict, if they don't have a policy. As it stands right now, that is -- and you understood that, that is Meridian's policy and ordinance to require sidewalks along all projects. Okay. Anything else from any of the Commissioners? Rohm: I don't have anything else. Borup: Is everyone clear on the two -- you're saying -- you're offering two options on the buffer? Koga: Yes, sir. Borup: One with the -- essentially your original plan with more trees? Koga: Correct. Borup: It, then, the other with adding 15 feet to it and sliding everything down, is that what -- Zaremba: Gaining those 15 feet by taking it out of the Meridian -- Borup: Right. Yes. Koga: No. One thing also I forgot to mention, that the developers were not only required to, you know, provide the 35-foot landscape buffer originally, but ITD also required another 12 feet of a right of way for a de-acceleration lane. If you really add up all these 35 feet, 50 feet here, you know, it really adds up, makes it somewhat of a hardship with the developers. Borup: Well, I think we understand that, but the de-acceleration lane wouldn't be necessary if the project wasn't there. I think. Isn't that right? Okay. Rohm: Well, personally, I think I'd rather see the sidewalk on the front side and give way some of the expanded pathway on the Ten Mile Creek side and, basically, you slide everything east. Koga: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 13 of 104 Rohm: It seems like that would satisfy the fact that you are giving up some to the roadway and you have the pathway along Ten Mile Creek and you just slide everything to the east and put the sidewalk along Meridian Road. Koga: So, you're leaning more to the latter option, the last option, when you say that? Rohm: Yes. Koga: Okay. Zaremba: Whichever option. I thought it was creative and I like the idea of limbing the trees up, so that you create a visual zone -- Koga: Right. For the safety -- Zaremba: -- at an appropriate height for the safety. I like that. Koga: Thank you. Borup: Any comment on the staff's recommendation on applying for a Planned Unit Development? Koga: I will be quite honest with you, we have had a meeting with the staff recently, and we still maybe don't understand the full request on that to change from -- to provide a Planned Development. At this time I think it was something that maybe we -- is something we could discuss a little bit further with staff as a Planned Development. We feel -- well, we kind of feel that on the design that we still have to take account of all the -- the internal traffic is still an issue that we have to take care of that. All of the buildings in there, like, for example, if they are a drive-in bank or a restaurant, we'd still have to go through a Conditional Use, which is asking all of the elevations and the same landscape design. The buildings that are not we still have to go through the certificate of zoning compliance, which takes into account a degree of the landscaping design. It's kind of a -- I know that's kind of a tough call, but I think at this time we don't -- I guess we are willing to discuss that, but at this time we don't quite understand the reason why on that. Zaremba: With you here let me ask a question of staff. I think the reasoning behind wanting this to be a PUD is that every lot would, then, need a CUP is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, if I understood your question, if they did a Planned Development every lot would a require CUP? That's -- no. The Planned Development would basically be a Conditional Use on the entire project if they came through with a detailed Conditional Use -- I mean detailed Planned Development. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 14 of 104 Zaremba: And with a -- with a C-G as it is now, except for a drive-thru window, they don't need to come back for a CUP? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: So -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. It would all be allowed -- Zaremba: -- let me have staff comment first and then applicant comment. Koga: Okay. Zaremba: To me, the buildings that would be -- need to be the transition for any nearby residential would be the ones that will be Lots 9, 10, and 11. Would it be a possibility, still leaving it as a C-G zone, to say on the plat that whatever is built there must either comply with an L-O or come for a CUP? Hawkins-Clark: We do not have that ability at this time. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: That cannot be made a requirement of the plat. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: That's usually done at annexation; is that right? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Koga: I think the developer might be interested to go through a PD if there was something that would not hinder the development or the schedule of the development. If you understand that as -- typically developers are under a schedule issue in regard to the development. If there is a way, like if the Preliminary Plat was passed and if we could go through a PD in conjunction and prior to the Final Plat that would not slow us down it might be a possibility: Borup: Well, the buildings you have conceptually here, four of them, I would imagine, are going to need Conditional Use. Koga: Yes. That would be -- yes. Yes. Borup: That's -- was that four out of the eight? Yes. Koga: Depending on -- yes. Of course -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 15 of 104 Borup: That could change. Koga: It could change. Borup: But -- I mean I'm making an assumption that the banks are going to have a drive-thru. Koga: Yes, sir. Borup: And the fast foods. Koga: Yes. Powell: Chairman Borup, may I add -- Borup: Yes. Please. Powell: -- a brief comment? Part of the discussion of the PD came out of the request by the applicant initially of me for the alternative compliance to waive some of the buffer requirements, so that they could increase the width of their buffer in back to comply with code regarding the screening along the pathway. At that time I stated that I was reluctant to consider an alternative compliance when there wasn't really a mechanism of -- well, I believe my question was, well, what am I getting out of it? What's the alternative compliance that I'm getting and perhaps I wasn't satisfied with the answer, so that was the original discussion of it? I do have concerns about the site layout. There are an awful lot of drive aisles that would close to the reduced buffer, so I wanted an opportunity to work with the applicant on a PD. There -- Mr. Koga's client has concerns, because they haven't pre-sold these, they don't know exactly the clients the clients' needs regarding the buildings and the parking. That's fine, so we went forward saying, well, we'd prefer a PD, but if you don't want to do the PD right now, we'd just go forward with the full buffer width as required and just meeting all the requirements for the plat. That's where we left our arrangement and if, as they are developing those and find clients, if they find that they can't meet those standards, then, I suspect they will be back in for a Planned Development. Borup: That makes sense. Is that kind of the direction -- Koga: Understood. Borup: -- you were thinking of going? Koga: Yes. Borup: Okay. Does that make sense to the Commission? Zaremba: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 16 of 104 Borup: Okay. Anything else before we move onto our public testimony? Koga: Not at this time. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone here that would like to testify on this application? Come on up whoever would like to. Jewell: My name is Richard Jewell. I reside at 1729 South Marsh Wood. It's located in Running Brook Subdivision just the east side of the creek there. I believe in individual property rights in which the owner has the right to do whatever he or she desires to do with their property, as long as it is law abiding and does not adversely impact the adjoining community. Meridian City enforces limits on non-compatible uses, obnoxious noises, lights, and structure appearance. Likewise, most residential developments have restrictive covenants of the same. Neither the city, nor homeowners, desires any obnoxious uses. However, Meridian City in its wisdom has allowed two non-compatible zones next to each other without any transitional zoning or significant buffer. We are not here tonight -- or I am not here tonight to reject the developer's opportunity to exercise their individual property rights in the way the city has determined to be lawful. Even though this is -- this project is non-compatible and it adversely impacts the adjoining residential community. We appreciate the developer's intent in minimizing the impacts on the residences. As previously submitted in a letter to the Commissioners, adverse impacts in addition to others, will mainly consist of excessive noises, pedestrian and vehicle traffic, loud speakers, intercom systems and equipment, yard lights and vehicle lights and non-compatible structures, being non-compatible to the residential. A screen of some type, preferably a landscape berm screen, would both minimize the adverse impacts and be an amenity to the commercial development. If it pleases the Commissioners, I would like to present a concept sketch that emphasizes these adverse impacts and the benefits of landscaped screening. Borup: If you will turn those into the Clerk first. Have you got enough for everybody? Jewell: Yes, I do. Borup: Okay. Well, the Clerk needs to enter one in on record and then -- Jewell: As you can see on the sketches that I provided to you, it indicates the residential subdivision on the left, which has -- with most of the buildings -- or a good share of them are butted up right next to the 50-foot easement. Oh, very good. If you go -- slide it to the left a little bit. No. The other direction. Okay. The easement line, especially on my home, runs right parallel to the house. The house is right up against the easement. The property line, as David mentioned, does -- or is on the centerline the creek and there is 50 feet. At the time that the development was platted, this was approved and the majority of the fences on the properties do go to the edge of the bank here. The flood plain for the creek lies within this area and there are no building structures allowed within that easement. To continue on here with the line of sight from Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 17 of 104 the housing -- and I'm basically showing the downstairs and the upstairs. As you can see, the visual impact, depending on how close to the buildings will be, are fairly significant and, therefore, the landscaping of trees -- having significant trees on it would be a tremendous advantage. However, if these trees are not evergreen trees, once they lose their leaves in the wintertime you lose last that. The benefit of a berm -- and I understand the problems associated with having one, but without one -- and like Dave mentioned, if you have bushes down here that are low. Then, the trees are cropped six or seven feet up, this enables the line of the headlights to go directly to these windows here, so they wouldn't -- it really wouldn't be providing the buffer as far as the headlights are concerned. The evergreen trees and bushes would provide -- minimize the impact of headlight, noises, and such. We request that the Commission reevaluate the proposal to redirect the pedestrian traffic onto a pathway here from Meridian Road. One alternative, as a suggestion, is I don't believe that the highway district can refuse the developer to put a sidewalk just right outside of the rate of way. However, it would have to meander within the landscaped area, which I guess the city would have to determine that. The trees as proposed will not diffuse nighttime headlights unless they are evergreen and they are placed fairly close together. Trees need to be -- oh, let me see. I have already stated that. I think that's about it. Do you have any questions? Borup: Questions from the Commission so, you're proposing eliminating the pathway is what you're saying? Jewell: That would be our desire. Zaremba: Thank you. The value of the berm would be that it would raise the height of the trees, is that -- Jewell: Of the bushes. Not necessarily the trees, but of the bushes, or have fairly substantial bushes that would -- whether they would be staggered or however to minimize the impact of the headlights. Right now as it is with Meridian Road and the streets coming out off the other side of Meridian Road, those headlights at nighttime come right into our bedroom and so you can imagine once this is developed what it's going to be like or could be. Borup: I'm saying once it's developed it's going to be a very good buffer with eleven buildings there blocking you. Jewell: I don't know if it would help or hurt. It's going to bring a tremendous amount of traffic within that development itself, which we do not have right at the moment. Right now we have cornfields that grow up during the summer that help block that. Zaremba: Do your or your neighbors have any kind of a back fence? I'm guessing by looking at your drawing, since your whole backyard is within the easement, you may not have a fence. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 18 of 104 Jewell: Some do. Most have a chain link, so that they can use the creek as a – yes, as an amenity. There was a question that came up regarding the zoning, the timing and so forth. I am also a land planner with Northwest Design and I just happened to be the one that did the preliminaries for Running Brook. If you would allow, I have a zoning map here with a date on it that indicates what the -- what it was at the time when we started the process for the Running Brook Subdivision. However, I don't have a date with me right offhand as to when the subdivision was actually platted. May I -- Borup: Well, it was submitted to -- Ada Planning Association date stamped it 1992. At that time it looks like the subdivision was zoned R-8. Jewell: And the commercial property was RT. Borup: Yes. It was still RT, which would have been in the county at that time. Okay. Anything else from the Commissioners? Thank you. Jewell: Thank you. G. Jewell: Thank you. My name is Ginger Jewell and I live at 1729 South Marsh Wood. Respectively close to the gentleman who just presented to you. I want to thank you for this opportunity for presenting my concerns. My thoughts would start with what does the city officials think about when there is an opportunity for growth for their community, things such as what does it benefit, what challenges does it create. Hopefully, the benefits outweigh the challenge. Here is a challenge that I'm concerned with pertaining to this development. I also support the fact that the property should be developed as it has been promised. However, I think there are some situations that I'm very concerned with here and I'd like to present those to you. Currently, I look out at a bare wheat field. I knew when I moved into this house that the farm would eventually be a commercial development and that's really -- it's okay with me. Or least I thought it was. At the time that was based on the fact that I was told that the commercial area would be a low impact -- doctor's offices, office spaces, perhaps some retail, Monday through Friday day-types businesses. Now, I'm hearing other plans and seeing drawings, possibly of businesses that will not mix well with the over 500 houses, as you saw on the plan, with Meridian Greens, Running Brook, and Elk Run Subdivision. This new commercial develop is going to affect everyone living in this area. It's negatively going to affect these people. It's going to increase traffic. There is already a problem concerning that issue. It's going to create unwanted noise, unwanted lights, and it's going to change the overall ambiance of this area. Currently there are strong family groups living here, all supporting Meridian city, living, shopping, and upholding the law in this community. The power that Planning and Zoning has concerning this request and the decision you all can make can possibly change the impact on this neighborhood and the quality of life these families have learned to live with and support. If these important factors are not taken into considerations, families will move, houses will lose value, and a different type of neighborhood will grow and the remains are lower income neighborhoods and all the problems associated with this type change could be the outcome. I don't want this to happen and I do support using this area for a commercial site, however, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 19 of 104 commercial site needs to blend with the already existing community. I want to emphasize, the already existing community of over 500 houses. Again, I say low impact businesses, office spaces, some retail, not fast food or restaurants or businesses that will be open all night or getting deliveries at all hours of the day. We are talking -- I sit in my backyard, it barely -- I could stone throw where the proposed businesses are going to be placed. The other issue is concerning a proposed greenbelt, I work for the city of Boise, and I know the greenbelt well. I can tell you it's a wonderful amenity, but this is talking about, I believe, 1,200 feet behind businesses, so who's going to use it, where is it starting from, where is the proposed outcome or going -- where is it going to go? My thought is if we did use that sidewalk -- and I do appreciate all of your comments on that. If we had similar Ridge to Rivers type idea where the sidewalk was visible for people who were on Meridian Road, they knew it was there -- if you were on Meridian Road right now and all of these eleven sites were there, you wouldn't see a greenbelt, so the only people that are going to use it are the ones that are having lunch from the businesses. Who is going to know it's there? Where is it going? Where are they going to park to use it? Where are they going to leave their cars? These are the questions I have. Borup: Isn't that the way the greenbelt in Boise is? You don't see it unless you're there, because it's covered up with trees -- it's hidden by the trees, buildings, and everything else? G. Jewell: But you do have access through public grounds, public properties, such as parks and recreation. It is advertised and cleanly marked. You would have -- if you were driving along the road say at Julie Davis Park, it would say entrance to greenbelt. Would we have that for this small pathway, would be one of my questions. I guess my question would be is do we have a proposed plan -- does Meridian have a proposed plan for an extended greenbelt and, currently, I can tell you -- Borup: Yes. That's why the developer is proposing this, because that's in the Comprehensive Plan to do that along the waterways. G. Jewell: Okay. Thank you. I haven't seen the total plan, so that was one of my questions. I will tell you now there are many pedestrians that use that pathway, running, bicycles, and those types of things. I do think a sidewalk pathway would be used more often and be safer for the general public than the pathway that's behind the businesses. I want to emphasize the need of your support for the existing long- standing Meridian neighborhood and I ask for your support and consideration in this matter and I, again, thank you for your time. Do you have any questions? Borup: Okay. Thank you. G. Jewell: Thank you. Tomlinson: Hi, I'm Darrell Tomlinson. I live at 1817 March Wood and I also -- my wife and I built our retirement home in Running Brook Subdivision and we will share Ten Mile Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 20 of 104 Creek, which borders the back of our property with the Land Group's proposed commercial development Southern Springs. We moved there four years ago with the understanding also that the property was zoned commercial. We were also led to believe that if the property were developed it would be most likely single level office- type spaces -- occupations. Borup: And who was it that told you that? Tomlinson: I think it was the develop -- not the developer, but the person that -- you know, that -- Borup: Was trying to sell the house to you? Tomlinson: Yes. No. Well, it wasn't -- no, it wasn't the real estate agent, it was the -- yes, the -- Borup: The developer of the subdivision. Tomlinson: Yes. Borup: Who was trying to sell lots? Tomlinson: Yes. Borup: Okay. Tomlinson: Nearly 30 residents of Running Brook Subdivision, plus the president of Meridian Greens Subdivision Homeowners Association, gathered at our home to discuss the concerns of the proposed development. We wrote a joint letter detailing our concerns and offered suggestions that would subdue the negative impact this venture would have on our residential community. This letter was mailed to the City of Meridian, Planning and Zoning, the County Clerk, and ACHD. Last week another large group of residents met with the developer and the land architect, David, provided them with a copy our detailed letter and discussed each item of concern. We came away from the meeting with a very clear message from the developers, the Land Group is only concerned in providing and insignificant barrier between the existing residential and proposed commercial development if it is released from an easement or other requirement of Planning and Zoning, the City Meridian, or ACHD. Basically, they are not willing to sacrifice anything to be a good neighbor to the existing residents. We have requested a berm, topped with a six-foot vinyl fence, to mitigate the lights and noise pollution and also possibly deter crime. As residents we are only asking you to project our property values and quality of life we currently enjoy by living here. The developer is not willing to consider this request. We explained that providing this barrier would reduce the impact of many of the concerns listed in our letter that was sent to you. Some of the other concerns that -- of this development, the number of commercial buildings proposed in such a small, tight, area, the traffic congestion. Right, now as I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 21 of 104 understand it, there is three entrances, two coming off of Meridian Road, one which is very close to the Calderwood intersection, and one that's coming off of Calderwood itself that -- Borup: This property does not go to Calderwood. Tomlinson: Okay. There will be no access point off of Calderwood in to the -- Borup: Not directly from this property. Tomlinson: Okay. Borup: If that other develops, there could be -- Tomlinson: Okay. Borup: -- through that property. Tomlinson: Okay. If it were to happen that way, our concern is that the high school students from the new high school would turn Meridian Green Subdivision into a raceway to get to the lunch access to those fast food restaurants that are being proposed. Some of the other concerns is -- as was described, a circulation pathway in our backyard. Forty foot high commercial buildings. Richard's already discussed the light pollution. The light, the air, the noise pollution from the development to the residential area, delivery hours and close times for these businesses. Construction hours. Those are some of the issues that we have discussed and I bring to you guys. Borup: Okay. Questions from the Commission? You made the statement that they were not willing to do -- I mean you make it sound like we are not willing to do any buffer at all. Were you familiar with what the city requirements are on a buffer? Tomlinson: Yes. Well, as he explained it, his original plan before tonight was strictly a few deciduous trees besides the ones that are already in existence. Borup: Well, that's not what their Landscaping Plan shows. Tomlinson: Yes. What we are -- all we are trying to do is if you only have deciduous trees, which we currently have in the backyard, six months of the year you have nothing. Borup: Okay. I see what you're saying. You'd rather see the evergreen? Tomlinson: Well, I'd rather see a berm and a fence. I'd like to be able to separate our homes from light and the traffic. I would just as soon, if we could avoid the walk path, I would prefer the sidewalk on the front myself. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 22 of 104 Borup: Anyone else? Thank you, sir. Tomlinson: Thank you. Zaremba: I was going to comment that we do have your letter in our packets and I appreciated it. It's very well thought out and very clear. Tomlinson: Thank you. Zaremba: And very effective. Borup: Anyone else like to come forward? Now is the time. Maybe while they are coming up -- come on up. Brad, on -- Bunch: I'm Raleigh Bunch, 1797 South Marsh Wood place. Borup: Last name again, sir. Bunch: Raleigh Bunch. I live in Lot 7. I'm concerned for, like you say, what Darrell has written and I just wanted to mention the sidewalk -- the pathway. I think the sidewalk would be better in the front if it could be proposed for the fact that there is many children and I have seen them walking down Meridian Road going to the -- across to the restaurants and everything. Just thinking when there is a hamburger place there, they are going to be there, and if there is a pathway in the back, they are going to go through that lot. They got just as much problem being hit by cars parking and anything else and that is my concern, too, because, like I say, I have eight grandchildren and five great grandchildren and I worry about them where they live. I just -- that's all I got to say. Just I hope that they -- that somebody make amends on the pathway, that greenbelt. I know when they bought -- I seen the little sign greenbelt proposed and -- but, like I say, like Jewell’s, they will mention the path -- the greenbelt is only the length of the project that they have. To my knowledge are they going to go through -- kind of stop at Overland and if they go through Meridian Greens they will have to -- the Meridian people got to deal with the Meridian Greens with a greenbelt, too, so that's all I have to say. Borup: Thank you, sir. Zaremba: I would comment that we also received your letter, sir. Thank you. Borup: Brad, I was just curious on -- to what extent could this property have been developed at present? Could be a single site, with a single building, without a -- Hawkins-Clark: That's correct, Chairman Borup. The property upon annexation, then, of course, has a certain amount of entitlement to development under the city ordinance. If -- the reason that it's coming here is because they are proposing to plat the property. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 23 of 104 Borup: Right. As it stands right now, a Wal-Mart store could have gone in with not Public Hearing at all. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. It is a single buildable lot that does not require any Public Hearings. Obviously, you have to come through the city and comply with our ordinances, but -- Borup: Right. You would have to have the 25-foot buffer and -- Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: -- all the other ordinances. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: I would be curious any other further staff comments on the pathway? I mean I think I have made it plain I'm a big advocate of that. I think we need to plan for the future, but sometimes a pathway that doesn't go anywhere maybe doesn't make sense either. Is there any -- is there any chance of that pathway continuing to the southwest -- southeast? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, the ultimate alignment of a public pathway is something that our Parks Department would be charged with. The design of that pathway regionally, you know, throughout our entire city impact area, has primarily been designed based on natural waterways. There has not been any kind of aggressive move on the parks department of the Planning Department to go out and actually walk these pathways. There has been some effort and Steve Siddoway and another planner has done some work with a committee that is doing more and more effort to try to identify where those would go. I guess to answer your question, there has not been any contact with other -- with the subdivisions to the south of this that -- that the Ten Mile Creek runs through. We have shown a pathway, because it is a natural waterway and there is an existing easement that the -- that the land is there, but there has not been any effort to actually secure the land, there is no conveyance that has gone to the city for the actual pathway itself. Borup: Through Meridian Greens you mean? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yes. Borup: I mean, obviously, the easiest time to do that is when the property is developed. That's why I was wondering, after the fact is it feasible. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I think, frankly, that -- you know, that question of feasibility is one that we need to -- you know, we need to work at. It is feasible if the city puts the resources to looking at acquisition and/or easements, you know, of that property. You know, providing some kind of pedestrian system throughout the city that is off of major Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 24 of 104 arterials, you know, is something that helps people get around in a safer manner, for the most part. You know, in this way to, as Commissioner Zaremba pointed out, some kind of future transit, you have the Gold's Gym up further north, there is an ACHD park and ride lot, you know, within walkable distance of this property. You know, having -- having ways for pedestrians and bicyclists to get to those kinds of destinations, you know, I think is important. To get across the intersection at this point it would -- the pathway, obviously, would stay on Overland Road for a certain distance when you're going north and you're going to the west, because there is already the JB's and the Texaco and other things that are already built out that, obviously, you're not going to have an off- street pathway system over there. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Leaving this property heading southeast, as I look at the display that's up now, would I interpret that -- that the creek leaves this property and, then, is piped the rest of the way southeast or is it open? Hawkins-Clark: It is open. It is certainly -- obviously, it's piped for under Calderwood, to go underneath there, but it's open right to the edge of Calderwood. Opens up again. Borup: And it's open through Meridian Greens. Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Well, I was not thinking of the pathway along the Ten Mile Creek and the sidewalk along Meridian as being either/or. I was assuming we were asking for both. One because of city ordinance and the other because of the Comprehensive Plan and it was not necessarily -- the discussion wasn't a trading one for the other. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission or staff? Zaremba: One of the people that were talking about the berm mentioned that he knew that there were difficulties with berms and we have run into those with other projects where we have talked about it. Does the staff have an opinion about some portion of that -- I would say in addition to the walkway or next to the walkway, having a little bit of a berm No opinion? It seems to me if we remove the safety -- the idea of having the gap where the trees have been trimmed up from the bottom and if you berm now, all of a sudden the bushes are up to the bottom of the trees again. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, the thought that comes to my mind is we have a 20 foot sewer easement through there. We have to maintain access through there. The Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District also is going to be trying to do their maintenance from that side. Any berms may be -- you know, kind of impede that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 25 of 104 access. That's just my first blush thought is that I think a berm would kind of get in the way. Powell: Commissioner Zaremba, Chairman Borup, were you asking about a berm inside the easement or outside the easement? If there is additional -- Zaremba: Well, it would have to end up being on this applicant's side and probably would be partially on the easement and partially taking more property away from the applicant. Powell: Yes. The Public Works concerns would if it was in the easement and, then, outside the easement you do get into the safety concerns that Brad mentioned earlier. Zaremba: Do we have any leeway -- and, again, I guess I focus on Lots 9, 10, and 11. I realize the C-G zone is pretty liberal in what can be put there, but do we have any leeway in established hours of operations for those three lots, even not know what's going there, so that headlights pulling into that parking lot is not an issue if we have -- Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, the ordinance prohibits glare, so, certainly, there would have to be a design that we would look at the time of Building Permit submittal, where any glare is dealt with through, you know, whatever means we had. They have to accommodate that. I mean that is ordinance. Hours of operation, the only ordinance we have is the noise ordinance that the Police Department enforces, which is an 11:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. They are -- obviously, you have to keep under a certain decibel level. Other than that, there is no mechanism for this Commission or the Council to require other hours of operation. Zaremba: In the C-G zone. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Zaremba: Okay. Well, you bring up a point that -- that the tentative suggested, I'll call them, drawings that would give some potential layouts for buildings after this is platted, shows some parking stalls that would face directly into these homes. You're saying that this so tentative that platting the lot lines would still leave the necessity of staff working with the applicant in perhaps turning those parking spaces other directions. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, in terms of the glare, is that your question? Zaremba: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I mean they are going to have to meet, you know, the minimum parking ratio on their lot. They are going to have to provide however many parking spaces the ordinance requires on that lot. Yes, in terms of how the lot -- the parking spaces are configured, they are going, through whatever mechanism, whether it's screening or otherwise, keep the headlights away from a direct glare into the residents. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 26 of 104 They would be dealt with on a lot-by-lot, permit-by-permit basis right now, since there is no Planned Development. Zaremba: So, to net it out, this is already a C-G zone, they could already build a building there without talking to us, but, really, the only question is should it be divided into 11 smaller lots or not. What eventually goes on those lots still has to go through some staff review. Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. As Mr. Koga pointed out, is there is a drive-thru or other uses that may require a Conditional Use, then, that would come back. Borup: Okay. That's as per our policy. Mr. Koga, have you got any final comments? Koga: I guess just in closing it was kind of -- just catching all these -- the column down there that -- I know that -- I talked to the developer earlier, but in regard to the pathway system, they could take it or leave, to be quite honest. I mean if there was not a pathway system they -- it wouldn't bother them, really. Then, they could maybe have a different alternative way to have a -- well, we could use evergreen possibly more, so that is one possibility to think about with the pathway system. At the same time, I personally -- and this is just my own opinion. I think -- I remember -- I'm old enough and been here my whole life, I remember when the Boise greenbelt started and it was nothing downtown, so -- when it comes to light pollution in the parking lot, we definitely - - I do a lot of projects in the city of Eagle and they are probably one of the most strict codes in regard to lights for parking and so we are very sensitive with that and we will definitely work with those type of issues on this project. Borup: Comments on the evergreen trees? Any problem with -- Koga: Any comments on the type? Borup: Yes. Using the evergreen -- Koga: Well, the only reason I didn't use, once again, is because on one side we do have an issue -- well, it's a safety issue. To a degree it's not even just on the pedestrian side, looking to the pedestrians, but also if there is going to be a public pathway there and if we started putting evergreens next to the pathway. Then, we have another 15 foot for the Nampa-Meridian easement access and also access for the sewer, I mean who knows what could happen on the other side with the evergreens also or the berms. I think the minute you became an area that becomes a public use, if you think about it the pathway systems, we have to really think on both sides of that pathway and what might happen. I have done projects in the city of Boise with the pathway systems and it is an issue. It's an issue about -- a safety issue on the greenbelt area there, so we have to take that into account on this also. Borup: Anything else from any of the Commissioners? Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 27 of 104 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 4. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: I have got a question for the staff and that's on definition of where a buffer is measured from? Twenty-five feet normally would be from property line to property line. What effect does a -- in this case a hundred foot easement have on that? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, the ordinance requires 25 feet from the property line. Borup: To -- Hawkins-Clark: Well, it's intended to buffer the uses. Borup: If the canal wasn't -- I mean if this waterway wasn't there, the 25 feet would be from one property line to the other property line. That would be correct? Hawkins-Clark: Well, it would start on their property line. The ordinance does allow the buffer to be a combination of both sides of the property line, so, for example, if there is already an existing ten feet of buffer on -- Borup: I mean I'm saying of there was no buffer there. If this waterway was not there and this property went right up to the other property line, that's where that buffer would normally be, then. It would be 25 feet from their property line to -- Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: -- to the applicant's side. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yes. I think the -- you know, the other key piece is that it's supposed to provide within three years a 60 percent -- Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: -- you know, solid -- Borup: But also on a 25 foot buffer like that, you normally wouldn't have a pathway and a sewer easement in there either to contend with. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 28 of 104 Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Right. They are dealing with the challenge of both the irrigation easement that they can't plant in and the sewer easement that they can't plant in. Borup: Well, they can still get the planting in there, other than it's the problem with the pathway. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: Okay. Do we have questions from the Commission? Item for discussion? Brad, was there any discussion as far as building height? Just -- nothing beyond just compliance with city ordinance? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Yes. There has been -- it's not an element of the plat application. They just have to comply with the maximum 40 feet. Borup: These footprints that are on here, was that calculated on -- on what type of building that would be? Did anybody look into that? Hawkins-Clark: I did look. Borup: It shows a footprint -- is that the footprint square footage? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Well, it would be the ultimate building square footage, yes. Borup: That's what I was -- Hawkins-Clark: Within that envelope, that building envelope. Borup: And what -- so what is the footprint square footage? Do we know? The 17,000 feet on the big one. Hawkins-Clark: Right. I believe -- I believe they have taken the maximum amount of gross floor area for that building that they can fit and still get their parking on there. That would be the square footage of the floor area of the building. Borup: Well, that's the square footage of the building, all floors. I'm just wondering how many floors that is calculating. Hawkins-Clark: Oh, that -- a single -- single level. Borup: Okay. That's showing a single level, then. To go to a two story or a three story would require a smaller building -- smaller footprint. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 29 of 104 Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: Than what's shown on the plat. Okay. The layout we have looks like it's showing all single story buildings, if it was done by this concept. I don't think we brought that out earlier. That's normally what I'm -- you're used to seeing in this type of project is usually single story buildings, sometimes maybe two story, but I think a lot of builders don't want to get into the elevators and everything else that goes along with that. Commission Rohm, you look like you're ready to say something. Rohm: Well, I think I am. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me from the discussion from the public that the issue is, number one, that the path that would parallel -- what is it, Ten Mile Creek? The potential light contamination and if, in fact, they build the path as proposed here, there is not any way that you can additionally build a berm everything else that the public would like to see and still have any property yet to be developed. Because the path has nowhere to go on either end, it seems to accommodate both the developer and the concerned public. The logical thing to do is maybe waive the path and increase the berm, so that you can eliminate some of the contamination, while at the same time not be taking additional property away from the developer for his project. Is that something that staff could support at all? Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Rohm, this is the beginning of what would be the pathway going south from the freeway and although this is a small portion of it, if you lose this portion, then, you lose the connection to the retail properties that this could potentially serve. Even if this only were to go half a mile, three-quarters of a mile, which is -- given the large acreages to the south of this, it's conceivable it would go at least that far and even if it only went that far, it would still serve to bring a lot of people -- I think the number 500 residents -- it gives them an opportunity to get to the commercial areas without going in their car and driving there. The Comprehensive Plan shows a pathway on this and I think staff is in support of that concept. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: Any other discussion? Rohm: I guess to continue, then, I don't know that I would be in support of both requiring the developer to have the pathway as the Comprehensive Plan states and give up some additional acreage to a berm to accommodate an additional request by the adjacent property. It seems like it's kind of a redundancy on the developer to address issues by the public and there is already 100 foot right of way for the Ten Mile Creek. That's quite a bit more than you see in a lot of developments that don't have waterways between them. It seems like, even though the perception may be that there is going to be contamination, there is going to be less contamination than you see in a lot of other places that don't have that hundred foot running along the property line itself and that's the way I see it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 30 of 104 Zaremba: I think I'm agreeing with Commissioner Rohm that a berm would take up quite a bit of space. It has to ramp up, it has to ramp back down again, and it would be, from the applicant's standpoint, a choice between having the path or the berm and I think the Comprehensive Plan is pretty clear that it needs to be the pathway, with the mitigating factors of trees that have to be 60 percent coverage within three years, and the applicant's willingness to at least put some low bushes along there and staff's assurance that whatever does get built there is going to have to comply not only with the requirements that that lighting on property itself be down shielded and so forth, but that staff would look at where headlights go in any parking plan. I would support having the pathway there and I would have to give up the berm. Rohm: Additionally, the commercial buildings that will be to the back will provide some extra buffer, if you will, and primarily the retail or the fast foods are all adjacent to Meridian Road. The parking that you see in the Preliminary Plat back against the property line would generally be used for the commercial development that would be presumed to be 8:00 to 5:00. You're not going to -- as I would envision it, in any case. Zaremba: Well, let's say we didn't agree to divide this into eleven lots and it remained a single lot and as Chairman Borup said, something like a K-Mart -- a Wal-Mart went in there, what would face the residences would be the loading docks, the truck traffic, the other things. In choosing the trade off between saying no to something which is actually legal for them to request, dividing this into 11 lots -- if it were no and they had to develop one building, I don't think the neighbors would have the protection that -- Rohm: That's being offered here. Zaremba: What's being offered here. Right. Rohm: Right. Right. Zaremba: This may be a better choice than -- Rohm: You mean be careful what you wish for? Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Okay. It sounds like, Commission, we are looking -- heading towards really agreeing with all the staff recommendations. The only one I have got a question on was recommending applying for a PD. Is staff still feeling that's something they'd like to see or after the previous discussion is that necessary at this point? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, you know, I think the -- there was two reasons, really, that the PD think came up, you know, and -- Borup: One is for the reduced -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 31 of 104 Hawkins-Clark: For the reduction. Right. Borup: I'm sorry. I guess that was answered and we are not talking about that, so -- Hawkins-Clark: You know, the other was largely the -- just the internal design, traffic circulation, orientation of the buildings that -- you know, we think with several heads being put together, the developer is there, their architects, you know, staff was that we might be able to come up with something that could be more set in stone for the public, for the city to know what's going to go there, rather than leaving such a broad open -- I mean, you know, I think we do believe that we could come up with a better product. Now, this is something that, as Anna pointed out earlier, it -- for the most part if not -- we can't condition a plat to say you have to submit for a PD, so, you know, I think we are prepared to let this plat move forward. I think the developer certainly has the options to come in and submit for a Planned Development at anytime. Borup: What I was just thinking of, some past history on other applications is probably something good for the applicant to remember. If they don't design this overall project with the traffic flow -- and there is likely to have four -- four of the lots needing Conditional Use, that could jeopardize those buildings and we have seen another project turned down twice because of traffic congestion within the project. Probably enough said there. I think it's to their best interest to design the overall and to make sure they are compatible with each other and -- I mean they are going to want a project that's going to do that. Otherwise, they could be stuck with something that's not marketable. I would assume that the owners would agree with that. Okay. Was someone leaning towards a motion? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would, but before I do I would make one further comment to those who took the time to put their thought into the letters that they wrote. One of the items we have not discussed is the traffic on the two streets that are totally outside of this project and, really, not the responsibility of this applicant. I think it's Calderwood and the street that's actually in the subdivision, which might be -- is that 3rd Street? ACHD, of course, is in control of what happens on those streets and neither this Commission or probably even our City Council or the applicant can do very much about those. ACHD is very sensitive to traffic calming issues and having cars racing through neighborhoods. I would just suggest to the neighbors who have already put some thought into this and regardless of this application are already seeing raceway traffic through those roads, to get a similar petition together and go to the ACHD and say, hey, something needs to be done about this and it's going to get worse. There are some ways they can help in response, but that's the proper agency for that. That being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 4 on our agenda, PP 03-016, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 building lots on 10.97 acres in a C-G zone for the proposed Southern Springs by the Land Group, Inc. Southeast corner of Meridian Road and Overland Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of August 7, 2003, received by the Clerk July 31, 2003, with the following exception. That on Page 6, Item 10, the minimum landscape buffer is 25 feet along Overland Road, so this reads all perimeter lots along Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 32 of 104 east Overland Road are subject to the minimum 25-foot landscape easement. The third sentence in the same Paragraph 10 on Page 6 should begin: The Southern Springs Business Association, not Silverstone. Borup: Item Number 9. Did you have a note on that? Zaremba: I'm sorry no, I did not make a note on nine. Did we resolve that? Borup: If I may add -- or have you got that, Commissioner? Rohm: I believe that they wanted it to be a recorded easement, as opposed to added to the plat. Borup: Okay. Yes. Permanent pedestrian easement in favor of the City of Meridian shall be created and recorded adjacent to the Ten Mile Creek. Rohm: Right. There you go. Borup: Or created adjacent to Ten Mile Creek and recorded is probably how I wrote in down. Zaremba: That is also included in my motion. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you all for coming. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: One thing I had intended to mention earlier and I don't know that that affected anyone here or not. Item Number 18 was a Public Hearing for Coffee Kiosk was -- has been asked to be moved to our hearing on the 21st and we are anticipating we will do that when we come to that on the agenda. The other thing I might mention, I don't know -- we are going to have to wait and see, I don't know that we are going to get to the last three items, just for information for anyone here. I guess we will see, but -- Rohm: We are moving pretty slow. Item 5. Public Hearing: AZ 03-016 Request for annexation and zoning of 80.51 acres from R-1 to C-G zones for proposed Silverstone Business Campus by Sundance Investments – southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: Item 6. Public Hearing: PP 03-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 49 building lots and 2 other lots on 80.51 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 33 of 104 proposed Silverstone Campus Subdivision by Sundance Investments – southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: Borup: Yes. We are going to have to speed things up if we are going to get through. Item Numbers 5 and 6, Public Hearing AZ 03-016, request for annexation and zoning of 80.51 acres from R-1 to C-G zones for the proposed Silverstone Business Campus by Sundance Investment. Accompanying that is PP 03-018, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 49 building lots and two other lots on the same 80.51 acres, again, by Silverstone -- Proposed Silverstone Campus by Sundance Investments. We'd like to open both these Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. There are -- I'm sorry, did you open both -- Borup: Yes, I did. Hawkins-Clark. Okay. Thank you. I'll address comments, then, on both Numbers 5 and 6. Number 5 is the request for annexation and zoning. The parcel is designated here on the south side of Overland Road about a quarter mile east of Eagle Road. There are three different existing parcels out there. One of them is approximately three acres in size owned by the highway district and this is intended collect -- serve as a regional storm water facility to collect Overland Road drainage. The others are owned by the -- by the proposed developer of this. The request is to zone all 80 acres to C-G. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as mixed-use regional and the C-G zoning does comply with the mixed-use regional designation. I have outlined a couple of findings in the staff report that talk about the mixed-use policies that are in the Comprehensive Plan and, as you will see, one of those does ask for residential to be next to major employment centers, it also talks about anything adjacent to a state highway. A couple other findings are in there that address the annexation, that, generally, staff thinks that they do comply primarily only if they submit a Planned Development in order to deal with their use exceptions. We have had a Planned Development application for this property submitted to our department as a result of our staff report, so that is in the loop now. Obviously, it's not a part of this Public Hearing tonight, but I did want to point that out, that I believe about eight different places in the report it talks about a Planned Development needing to be submitted to really comply with the findings and they did do that, a couple of highlights. On the topography around the area, there is Eight Mile -- Eight Mile Creek drain does -- is here on the north -- northern quarter of the property, kind bisects the property. They have been working with the highway district and the Corps of Engineers on mitigating some wetlands that were a part of Silverstone Corporate Center, which is an existing subdivision that has had numerous buildings underway and constructed. The property is, for the most part, pretty flat. In terms of the area of impact boundary, that is another eighth of a mile or so to the east and that's this line here, so there is, basically, just one large vacant parcel to be developed in the future city limits, so it's close to the edge. This is Boise City limits shown here in this platted subdivision near the Ridenbaugh canal. Sutherland Farms Subdivision was approved last year and that encompasses the majority of these large Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 34 of 104 properties here to the south. They have gotten approval on phase one and two of Sutherland Farms, which is taking access from Victory and coming north. The Ridenbaugh canal is here along the -- close to the south boundary of the Silverstone projects. On the annexation and zoning request, we -- staff is in support of their C-G request, now that we have received the Planned Development and some of our concerns about compatible uses can be addressed through that, as well as through the Development Agreement. On Item Number 6, the Preliminary Plat, the Preliminary Plat that they submitted in their application is shown here. They are proposing two new commercial streets that align with the existing residential streets that are on the north side of Overland and these new roads would extend a half mile down to the south, connect up with a street that's currently constructed -- just recently constructed in Silverstone that stubs to this east property boundary here. It would continue that and, then, stub one stub to the east, which is designated for future residential in our Comp Plan, so they have one stub there and, then, of course, the Eight Mile Lateral, which the Comprehensive Plan designates for a pathway, which we are now familiar with that discussion and what the Comp Plan says about those. They are proposing that pathway to be on the south side of the lateral and that is something that we are in agreement with in terms of location and the parks department has also submitted comment to you that says they are in agreement with that location as well. The last finding, second to the last bullet on Page 9 of our staff report, talks about the Comprehensive Plan asking for collectors at all of our mid mile locations. The mid mile here in this section is the east boundary of this parcel and we feel that the commercial street here meets the intent of that Comprehensive Plan policy to ask for collectors. That is a point of discussion for tonight is whether or not the Commission would prefer to see this constructed as a collector and the main different there is that there would be a bike lane on it. As they have proposed it there is no bike lane. You have received a recommendation from the highway district, which had a meeting yesterday on this same project. They did make a comment that the city Comprehensive Plan does show collectors at the mid mile and it shows bike lanes on those collectors. They did not condition that on the applicant, but they did point that out for the city. In order for it to be continuous, they would need to, obviously, connect this street down to their south boundary, so that there is connection all the way through this mile. There is a condition that we have put in our staff report that they construct a new road there that would connect to a future stub from Sutherland Farms and that would be on this southeast lot. Zaremba: Excuse me, Brad. You're not aligning it with what they are showing, you're moving it over to the property line, is that what you're saying? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Yes. The highway district staff report that was approved yesterday by the highway district commission said to extend Knapp Avenue. Knapp is the name of the street that's in Sutherland Farms and that would at this point in time be along the property line, right, so that would provide -- you know, help to ease the straightaway there. There is just two items to -- on the staff report to I think point out to you that are corrections. Item Number 5 deals with the easement on the pedestrian pathway and it's the same comment that I had on the last project, that -- because of the Ada County Surveyor. I just ask that that also be changed if you do Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 35 of 104 recommend approval of this, so that would be a permanent pedestrian easement in favor of the City of Meridian shall be created adjacent to the south side of Eight Mile Drain and strike added to the face of the plat. Then, that next sentence it starts with alternatively, a note shall be added, that could also be stricken, and I think we would cover ourselves with that. Then, we are also recommending a new Condition Number 14 be added that -- that requires them to submit a new Preliminary Plat -- a revised Preliminary Plat at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. That would be to address their Knapp Avenue extension, that would be to add lots on the east property line that conforms with their revised master plan and I will just point out what that deals with right now. With their application, they did show this Site Plan that is a conceptual layout of buildings. Like the last applicant, they are, of course, looking for the maximum amount of flexibility with the marketplace and they don't know who their users are going to be at this time, so -- but we did talk at some length about this eastern boundary of the subdivision. Since this is going to be residential in the future, we were concerned about some of the sizes of these lots, as well as the uses maybe being too impactful on the neighbors. Here is what they have submitted with the Planned Development application and you have not received this, so just to point that out to you, but they are proposing, basically, two different special use areas. This A, which would accommodate our concerns about having smaller users, you know, eliminating any kind of heavy industrial on that east side and, then, this section B would allow them to attract more industrial warehouse, you know, heavier uses and as a result of that they -- well, I guess I also wanted to show you some of these potential building elevations that are what they are considering for the project. Office buildings on the left, retail buildings on the right. Then, some flex and office buildings and warehouse buildings. Some built up construction, as well as steel frame, which would compliment what they have done on Silverstone that's being built now. Borup: I might just add. Did the Commissioners get notes on the proposed changes that staff had mentioned? Did somebody get that down or do we need that repeated? Zaremba: I got five and 14. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Did you get -- Rohm: I got five and 14. Borup: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we didn't need that repeated. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Borup: Does that conclude? Okay. Any other questions from any Commissioners? Zaremba: I do have one. Just going by any of the plats, which I think on this purpose will be similar, but on the one that we were shown, note four on the plat says that direct Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 36 of 104 access to Overland Road is prohibited, except for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 on Block 2. I would wonder if we shouldn't have some internal connectivity to have five driveways onto Overland between those two roads -- Borup: I'm not sure -- I don't think ACHD would approve that. Zaremba: Yes. Well, that's what -- Borup: Yes. Maybe an incorrect note. Is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I'm sorry. I forgot to mention that. Yes. The Highway District only allowed three accesses on Overland Road. Zaremba: The two roads and one driveway? Hawkins-Clark: And one drive. Correct. Zaremba: So, they need -- they need interaccess agreements between Lots 1 through 5 of Block 1? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Well, as I said, I'm not going by the latest version of the plat so, that's resolved, right? That leaves me with no questions. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Larsen: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Cornell Larsen, address is 210 Murray, and I’m here tonight representing Sundance Investments on the application in front of you tonight. We are in agreement with all of staff's conditions and findings. We have been working with them on trying to clarify some of the issues regarding the Preliminary Plat -- or, excuse me, regarding the PUD that's been submitted. There were several reasons for doing that. One is the use that we wanted to use on the project and also the buffering to the neighborhood that is potentially on the east side along here. We have proposed to shift the road over a little bit from being a straight line road, we have proposed to shift it over and we would be making a connection right there up into Copper Point from the Sutherland Farms project. We did -- in our meeting with the highway district yesterday, they have allowed that access point -- that one and one about right there on Overland Road and if Brad wouldn't mind putting up that special use map again. I would like to -- we have made an assumption that on this frontage part of the next piece that some of that may go commercial, so we left this C-G zone, just the general zone in this area, and did not designate that as a special use area. I wanted you to be beware of that and we assumed that the front of that may actually get some commercial development if it takes any exception or -- on the residential portion. I don't think I had anything else. I would happy to answer any questions that you might have. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 37 of 104 Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. It looks like you have worked things out. Larsen: We did want to tell you that we did have a neighborhood meeting. There were several neighbors that showed up. I have a sign-up sheet that we had. There may be some other neighbors here that did not come to the neighborhood meeting, but I do have copies of that sign-up sheet for you or Sharon, whoever would like to have that. Borup: Okay. All right. Thank you. That would be Sharon. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. Larsen: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone here that would like to testify on this application? If so, come foreword? Seeing none, that's why we like to have people have neighborhood meetings. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing on Items 5 and 6 both be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close Items 5 and 6. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Zaremba: I agree that they seem to have worked out all the issues. Are we ready for a motion? Borup: I think so. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 5 on our agenda, AZ 03-016. Request for annexation and zoning of 80.51 acres from R-1 to C-G zones for proposed Silverstone Business Campus by Sundance Investments, southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road. To include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of August 7, 2003, received by the Clerk July 31, 2003. The changes did not apply to the annexation. Rohm: I will second that motion. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 38 of 104 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Item Number 6. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 6 on an agenda, PP 03-018, request for Preliminary Plat approval of -- is it still 49 building lots? Do we know if the numbers changed or -- Hawkins-Clark: The number as we have recommended it, if you add the new condition that says that they submit a revised Preliminary Plat -- Zaremba: That will straighten that out. Hawkins-Clark: I think that will straighten that, yes. Zaremba: Thank you. In that case, let me continue. Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 49 buildings lots and two other lots on 80.51 acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Silverstone Campus Subdivision by Sundance Investments. Southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of August 7, 2003, received by the Clerk July 31, 2003, with the follow changes: On page eleven, paragraph five, a permanent -- the first sentence. A permanent pedestrian easement in favor of the City of Meridian shall be added to the face of the plat adjacent to the south side of the Eight Mile Drain and the easement shall be recorded. On Page 12, add a Paragraph 14 -- this is still under Preliminary Plat site-specific comments, Item 14 on Page 12 to read: A new Preliminary Plat drawing will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Department ten days prior to the next Public Hearing. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 7. Public Hearing: CUP 03-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a professional dental office in an L-O zone for Millennium Dental by Millennium Dental – south of East Overland Road on South Millennium Way: Borup: Next Item, Public Hearing CUP 03-033, request for Conditional Use Permit for professional dental office in an L-O zone for Millennium Dental by Millennium Dental. It's on -- south of Overland on South Millennium Way. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 39 of 104 Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Rohm: Could we take a short break? Borup: Do we want to do that now or can we get through this one page? Rohm: Okay. Borup: I was planning on that after this first page. Rohm: Good. Let's go through it. Borup: Okay. Hopefully, these two will be fairly short, then, I think, yes, we will be ready. I'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. This item is requesting a Conditional Use for new dental office. It's in the Resolution Subdivision, which you have seen several times over the last year. This lot is located just immediately north of the Mountain View High School lot on Millennium Way. The existing zoning is limited office, which is a zoning that accommodates professional dental offices. The reason that they have to do a Conditional Use Permit, is because the Resolution Planned Development did require all new uses in here to have that, so that's the reason it's a Conditional Use. They are proposing a 4,100 square foot building for the dental office itself that's located here on the northern side of the lot. When this came through as a Planned Development, this lot actually showed an LDS seminary at about a 6,000 square foot size, so the concept does vary in that way in terms of the square footage. If this second building is proposed, it would increase the square footage, excuse me, by about 1,000 square foot on the lot, if you combine the two buildings. The lot would have to take access through a shared cross-access easement here off Millennium Way. It does not have, itself, direct access onto South Millennium. There is already a recorded easement for these three lots here off of Millennium that is already recorded it gives them the ability to access to the south. The existing -- or the buffer, I should say, is existing. That was constructed by the developer, so, really, the scope of this Conditional Use Permit begins here on the inside of the landscape buffer. Parking is shown against that buffer. The building is oriented to Millennium. They do have this site for a future building, which we did not receive any building elevations for, so we still have the requirement in the report for a Conditional Use on that one as well. The Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision I wanted to also throw into this presentation just for your -- just to remind you of what was discussed here. This lot that we talking about tonight is on the south end of this project and there is a flag lot that comes off Millennium Way that comes down and is immediately east of the lot. The access for Gaudry Seegmiller is, as I pointed out earlier, shared off Millennium. That would come in. Seegmiller dental was approved by City Council a couple of weeks ago and that's on this Lot 1, which they did require a temporary emergency cross-access to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 40 of 104 be on the south side of that lot. They are going to be putting bollards there. So -- let's go back here. The question came up does this dental lot that you have before you tonight need to have some kind of vehicular access to the east to connect with this flag lot that is going to be abutting, you know, all these projects in here and staff's recommendation is that we -- that a vehicle cross-access is not necessary. There would be potentially four access points placed onto this Lot 3. One from Millennium Way, one from the north, they are going to be required to put one to the east, to have a fourth one on a parcel that's only about an acre and a half in size we felt was kind of excessive for them to have to accommodate their parking and their building orientation. That's the reason why going back to the Site Plan we are recommending that they not have to do a vehicular connection there. We are recommending a pedestrian connection and that they enter into an easement that gets recorded before they do Building Permits, so there would be that pedestrian connection that would go to the east. Other than that, I don't think we had any changes to the staff report. There are a number of modifications to the Landscape Plan that is there in Item Number 6, but I think the applicant can accommodate those pretty easily and that's all I have. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Does the applicant have a presentation they'd like to make? Zaremba: I think I saw in the notes and just confirm if you would, to build a second building on this one lot they would need to do a Planned Development, and they can do that later? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. You can have one building built and, then, apply for the Planned Development? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Is the applicant here? Knopp: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Larry Knopp, I'm the architect representing the owners here this evening. We have read through the conditions of approval, we are in agreement with all of them, we have modified the Site Plan on most of them at this point in time, and we will be submitting those for -- to the staff. There is one item 6-H where the staff is recommending us remove two of the car parks on the lower -- this car park and this car park for a backup, I'm assuming, or a turnaround. What we would like to request is maybe designating those as compacts or whatever, because we have the standard dimensional standards for the parking, 25 foot driveways and 19 foot depths on the stalls, so this shouldn't be a problem to negotiate any cars that are parking in this. This parking lot is mainly designated for the employees. The clients will be using all the front car parks out here and they just feel Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 41 of 104 like they would like to have as many car parks as possible on it to make sure that they meet their needs in that scenario. Other than that, we have -- we are in agreement with all of them. The future building, the reason it's there is because these lots are just bigger than what they need. I have designed it -- the parking and the way the lot is set up I have designed for this square footage and this square footage, the parking to meet those requirements. When and if they come back in, if they decide to do something with this, it's there and it meets all the standards of -- for the Planning and Zoning. Zaremba: If there was some decision in the future not to build, I guess that's an LDS seminary? Not to build it there, what would you do with that piece? Or whatever that building -- second building would be. What would you do there? Knopp: I think the confusion is in the original subdivision, Resolution -- and I wasn't involved in it and so staff can maybe -- Borup: I think the seminary moved. They are over there on the west end of the property. Zaremba: Okay. It's a potential building that could be anything. Knopp: This. Yes. It would have to meet, of course, whatever is -- you know. I think what he meant was this site was normally submitted by Resolution developers -- Resolution as being a possible seminary site and it didn't happen, along with the five acres to the east over here was supposed to be a skating rink and I don't know if that's going to happen, but those were uses that they proposed could happen and haven't, so -- Borup: Okay, any other questions from the Commissioners? Zaremba: Does the staff have an opinion on making the two stalls compact, instead of eliminating them for landscape? Hawkins-Clark: Oh. Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, yes, we feel that it needs to be there. I mean even if they are compacts, I mean it's going to be a real tight turning radius. I haven't seen the revised Site Plan that Mr. Knopp’s drawn up, but as far as we are concerned, it's really nonnegotiable. I mean you really need to have that turning area in there. Zaremba: They would still have enough parking spaces eliminating those two for the potential both buildings? Borup: Maybe you can answer that, Larry. Did you have some extra parking spaces there? Knopp: Yes, I do. I do have landscaping -- there is landscaping there, it's just that we don't have the backup that normally you would see, but the 25 foot driveway width still Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 42 of 104 accommodates back up and maneuvering room to negotiate, you know, the parking stalls. I have met the landscaping standards. I have well exceeded the landscaping standards, so it's -- I don't think that's an issue. Maybe I'm wrong, but I -- I don't know. I guess staff is -- Borup: So staff is saying -- staff wants those nine feet there for someone to back out into those other two stalls? Is that -- is that what we are gaining? Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, it's not necessarily nine feet. Generally, you see them at about five feet, but it's just so you can -- the person parked in that last stall can back out and go forward out of the parking lot, rather than having to back up against other cars. Then, maneuver around, so they can do it in one turn, rather than having to do a three point turn. Does that make sense? Borup: Yes. Powell: Okay. Borup: Unless it's a compact car. I think that's part of it, I'm assuming, just because it's designated compact, they don't always, -- other cars can still park there. Knopp: Right. Zaremba: If you move the wheel block down to the middle of the parking space. Hawkins-Clark: Just to answer your question on the parking, it appears that they would be still two over if they had the maximum square footage that they are showing on their Site Plan. They are right now showing 40 spaces. If they took those out they would have 38 on the site and the first building -- the dental building would require approximately 22, 23 spaces and the future building would require about, what, say ten or 12, so they would have about a 30 -- they would be two over still. They would meet that. The last thing I guess staff wanted to point out on the LDS Seminary, it was approved for this lot that's shown in yellow. It's being constructed now behind the church that was just completed. I'm sorry. I guess the building is not being constructed, but it was approved, so the seminary -- I believe they just chose to shift the location of that. Borup: Okay, anything else, Commissioners? Thank you, Larry. Knopp: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this? Seeing none -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 43 of 104 Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing on Item 7 be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close Item Number 7, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Zaremba: I would guess the only item for discussion is Item 6-H on Page 5. Borup: Has staff expressed how they felt? Zaremba: I think it's a clever idea to have it be compact spaces, but I'm more inclined to go with the staff request to just taking the two spaces out. Somebody who comes into this spot is not going to learn it's a compact space until they are already in it and they could be in it with a larger car. I just think it makes it -- as long as they have enough spaces anyhow, I think it makes it easier to get somebody out of there if we give them a backup space and that would be done by complying with it the way the staff asked for it. Borup: So, then, that would not be modifying any of the staff comments, then. Zaremba: That would be leaving the staff comment the way it is, as clever as I thought the compact idea was, any objection to that? Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 7 on our agenda, CUP 03-033, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a professional dental office in an L-O zone for Millennium Dental by Millennium Dental. South of east Overland Road on South Millennium Way, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date August 7, 2003, received by the City Clerk July 31, 2003. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second, all in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 8. Public Hearing: PP 03-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 6 other lots on 13.85 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek No. 8 by Bear Creek, LLC – north of West Victory Road and east of South Stoddard Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 44 of 104 Borup: Item Number 8, Public Hearing PP 03-021, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and six other lots on 13.85 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek No. 8 by Bear Creek, LLC. I'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. This request is for a Preliminary Plat on land that is already annexed and zoned R-4. The property is shown there in bold. It's on the very eastern edge of Bear Creek Subdivision. Stoddard Road runs north and south and serves Bear Creek here on the west. The Nazarene church has acquired this 35-acre parcel that abuts the property to the east and the remainder of the perimeter on this phase has been constructed. There is the city park located immediately to the north. The reason for the plat being submitted is they had a significant modification from what they were originally got approved on the Preliminary Plat, so their Final Plat would not have complied with the approved Preliminary Plat, so they basically had to start over. Obviously, in terms of phasing the project and naming of the project, will retain the Bear Creek and it will be subject to the CC&R’s that are already there, but they have proposed an additional nine lots that were originally -- they were originally shown at 31 lots with this same exact boundary and they have modified it to add nine, so there are 40 buildable lots shown there now. The main change is the configuration of the streets right here. The stub street was already there and they are continuing to show that, but they have added this cul-de-sac, which gave them room to add a few extra lots right there. This north-south street called Bear Claw was basically shown in the same alignment as the original one and this stub street here to the south is also in the same place, so the main difference is here to the north. I think the main item to point out is the special consideration on page three. They were just shy of the required five percent open space that all subdivisions over five acres have to have, so they are going to need to modify that to get another 1,033 or square feet of open space and I have been told by Steve Arnold, Briggs Engineering, that they can do that, so -- and that's all I have. Borup: Okay. Mr. Arnold, would you like to come forward? Arnold: Members of the Commission, for the record my name is Steve Arnold I'm with Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road. I'm here representing Bear Creek, LLC, for this project. Based on the staff report, we have no objections to the report. I'll try to keep my presentation simple and kind of go through and add some of the changes that -- what was presented previously. I'll hand out -- and I gave it to staff, a copy of the approved Preliminary Plat. Or, excuse me, final plat. Zaremba: This was the previously approved -- from which you are asking for this change? Arnold: Correct. We have -- back in 2001, I believe, we submitted a Final Plat, had the Final Plat approved by Council -- actually, the design plans. Then, the developer also required acquired that Kodiak parcel, which stubbed south to that 35 acre Nazarene parcel and, then, one of the additions to this plat is we are providing another stub to the east which also helps sewer the site -- sewer the Nazarene parcel, which is very difficult Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 45 of 104 at this time to sewer. That's one of the main changes also. If you will notice, we've added a -- kind of a traffic island in the center -- if you can go back to the color picture. We have added a traffic island to break up that block length a little bit. Also, by creating the stub street that we did to the east, we no longer require a block length Variance, so, previously, this site had the block length Variance. In consideration of the landscape, this plat we -- and I know it wasn't shown on the Preliminary Plat, but we are doing detached sidewalks. We are in the process of doing the design work right now. The developer has requested that we do the detached, so with that addition of the five feet from the back of curb to the sidewalk, we will have well over the five percent open space, so that's not an issue, so we can comply with that condition. Mainly, the -- where we added the nine lots is you can see around the cul-de-sac, we picked up lots on that cul-de-sac compared to the original curvilinear road in there. A lot of the lots along the north-south road, which is the Bear Claw Way, those are between 12 to 13,000. We stepped those down a little bit, they are at about ten and eleven thousand square feet. The smallest lots are in the cul-de-sac that are adjacent to the church parcel, which is assumed for high density residential. We are meeting the R-4 zoning, we are not asking for a Rezone. This parcel has already been Rezoned and annexed into the city. Overall net density still complies with our Comp Plan of less than three units per acre. The main reason the developer's modifying, obviously, is to pick up several lots. We think we have got a more efficient street layout. We don't have to ask for the Variance of the block length. We are asking for your approval tonight, based on the submitted plan, and we will comply with all the staff conditions. I'll stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Arnold. Do we have anyone here to testify on this application? Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, can we ask the applicant for a clarification? Borup: Yes. On the open space? Powell: Yes, sir. Is that open space to be included in the right of way? Are you asking us to include a landscape strip that would be in the public right of way? Arnold: The landscape strip -- portions of it would be in the right of way. If you don't -- I know on Bear Creek No. 7 we -- that's how we met our five percent and that's what the Council allowed us to use to meet the five percent. However, that was a private road. In this case, if we don't meet the five -- if that open space between the back of curb and sidewalk doesn't comply with your open space ordinance we can do the 1,300. I can add that to some of these common lots easily enough. However, the staff wants us to comply with the open space we will comply with that. Powell: Chairman Borup, the code does state it has to be located on a common lot, so anything within the right of way would not count and I think you're talking maybe about a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 46 of 104 two foot strip adjacent to the right of way that would be in a separate lot or would it be on the lot that the homeowner purchases? Borup: I think it's both. Isn't that like a -- what is that -- well, what is the width of that grass area? Arnold: It would be -- the stuff that -- the portion of the grassy area that's outside of the right of way is approximately a couple feet, but I will make it easy, we will just provide 1,300 square feet, not including that strip, in a common lot. Powell: You couldn't put it on a common lot, because, then, none of your -- none of your lots would have frontage, so that would be a problem. Arnold: For clarification, I won't use that open -- that in my consideration for open space. Borup: You're saying you're going to increase the size of those two lots, probably? Arnold: Actually, if you go up to Lot 2 up there at the north -- Borup: Oh, those there. Okay. Arnold: Those there and, then, keep going across to the west, I need some more space for seepage beds, so I will be creating more open space there. I'm not worried about meeting the five percent. Borup: Okay. Arnold: And we will have detached sidewalks regardless. Borup: Well, in my mind, I would be more concerned, other than the fact there is a 17- acre park in the middle of the subdivision, too. I mean even though it's not owned by the subdivision, but, you know, now I don't know if I'm quite as concerned about the open space in a subdivision like this, as opposed to one that didn't have anything, other than we still have the ordinance that needs to be complied with, so -- Arnold: On Beer Creek 6 you waived it, but on this one, since we can meet it, we will provide it. Borup: Okay. Anything else from staff? Okay. Thank you. Did I already ask if there is anybody here to testify in this? No one signed up. Okay. Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on Item 8 be closed. Mathes: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 47 of 104 Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing, all in favor? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our agenda, PP 03-021, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and six other lots on 13.85 acres in an R-4 our zone for Bear Creek No. 8 by Bear Creek, LLC. North of West Victory Road and east of South Stoddard Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date August 7, 2003, received by the city clerk July 31, 2003, with the following -- not change, but comment noted. On page three, special considerations, referring to open space, that wasn't under site-specific requirements, but the applicant has agreed to comply with that and part of their compliance will be adding some common space out of a portion of Lot 33, Block 12, and perhaps some other spaces up to the applicant. Rohm: I will second that motion. Borup: Motion and second, all in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: I think this would be an appropriate time to take a break. I did want to mention - - I don't know if we have anyone here for Item Number 17. Okay. Did I do that right? I just received a note here that the applicant has requested this be continued to the next meeting, which is August 22nd -- or 21st , I mean. I assume the applicant is not here? Is that correct? They have left? Okay. They have -- they have left, so that will be on the agenda for August 21st . I apologize for that. Now, if you would like to stay and present some testimony, we would -- so we would be glad to -- you're welcome to stay and do that when we come to that item. Or if you have some written testimony you'd like to present, that would also -- okay. (Recess.) Item 9. Public Hearing: AZ 03-014 Request for annexation and zoning of 33.25 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. – south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: Item 10. Public Hearing: PP 03-015 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 136 building lots and 10 other lots on 33.25 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. – south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 48 of 104 Item 11. Public Hearing: CUP 03-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development with reduced lot widths and setbacks for the proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. – south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting for this evening. The next project is Tuscany Village, Item Numbers 9, 10 and 11. Like to open all three Public Hearings at this time, AZ 03-014, request for annexation and zoning of 33.25 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. PP 03-015, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 136 building lots and ten other lots on the same project, and CUP 03-029, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development with reduced lot widths and setbacks for proposed Tuscany Village. Again, we'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, this is a continuation of the project that you saw of as Tuscany Lakes, which is over in this area around here. This - - I'm sorry. It's in the yellow. This project is located here at the intersection of Victory and Locust Grove. The purple on this map indicates some neighboring properties that were given special notice and I will get into that as we go through the project, an aerial of the site. This is prior to development of any of the final plats associated with Tuscany Lakes. The project -- they are requesting zoning it R-8 and the project provides 136 building lots and ten other lots. Those other lots include a 2.43-acre park in that location, a drainage lot, which is over here, and several micropaths, which don't show up very well on that drawing. They show up a little better on this one. You will see a pathway there, there, and there is a small open space here and, then, that drainage lot, again, is over here and there is the park. They are also proposing a pathway along Ten Mile Creek, which the eventual conclusion of that will be near Overland. The applicant also brought a colored map, as you see on the wall. We have an overhead that we can do with that also and I will bring that up. The gross density to the project is 4.16 dwelling units per acre. The net density is 5.35 dwelling units per acre. It's a little denser than what was, I believe, approved in Tuscany, but it is still within the limits of the zoning. They have asked, as part of the PUD, for reduced setbacks, reduced lot size, reduced frontages, reduced house sizes, and to allow blocks within the subdivision to exceed the maximum lengths of 1,000 feet. The only block that does that is Block 2 along here and there is a substantial break in that width of micropaths or pedestrian paths. Regarding the setbacks, the normal setback would be 15 feet for a living area in the R-8. They are asking for a setback of 12 feet. The normal lot size required 6,500 square feet. They are requesting 5,200 square feet. The normal frontage of 65 feet, they are requesting 50 feet. There are a total 5.3 acres of open space, which equates to about 13 percent of the gross land area, so they do exceed the ten percent, so they could use that as one of their amenities for the Planned Development. The other amenity is playground equipment within the neighborhood park located at the center and I believe the play equipment is right in that area there. They are also providing the ten-foot asphalt pathway along Ten Mile Creek. There are three items listed under special considerations -- four items. Excuse me. One is the stub street of Iona, which is in this location and at the Ada County Highway District meeting last night they did Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 49 of 104 require that to be a stub street, rather than -- there is kind of a snoopy right there. Or a hammerhead, I guess it's called. There was also a question about the park location in the relative -- the fact that it's relatively closed. There is an opening here, a small opening there, and, then, this opening here. You do kind of get a glimpse of it as you enter the property, but it narrows down. Since writing the staff report, the applicant has agreed to narrow these lots up a little bit to open up that area right there. The other possibility would be to decrease this lot a little bit and open up there. I think from staff's perspective this opening would have a lot more impact, because it's at the entrance to the subdivision. The third item noted is the block length and, as I said, there is a substantial break there with the pedestrian paths to break up that block. Then, the reduced dimensions of the lot, which staff does not object to. The applicant has provided a position statement on the conditions of approval. Regarding the annexation and zoning, general conditions, he's noted that the first of those doesn't apply, because there are no wells and septics on the site, so if the Commission wishes to remove that, then that would be fine. The second one, staff had asked for a Development Agreement regarding the pathway construction and fencing. Because this is a PD, we can move those requirements into the plat requirements and deal with it there, so staff doesn't have any problem not requiring a Development Agreement on this property. I mentioned earlier that several people had been given special notice of this hearing and the question -- the reason they were given notice is in regard to the public sewer construction within the area. When Tuscany Lakes went in, the proposal was to bring sewer down Victory to Locust Grove and, then, head south on Locust Grove and that was consistent with the city's approved sewer master plan and it was presented at that time, as that's where the sewer would go. The people shown in purple were -- are people that would be affected if that -- if that were to be rerouted, so we gave special notice saying that there would be discussion tonight on rerouting that, instead of coming down here and like that, the applicant is proposing to bring sewer through the property here. We did -- this issue -- the Public Works Department brought this question of the sewer rerouting to the City Council, the City Council said because it was discussed in a Public Hearing they wanted to reconsider it in a Public Hearing as well. This was the earliest opportunity to have that discussion, so it will go up to them for their consideration as part of -- as part of this plat, that relocation, and it made sense, because if we did it in regard to a Final Plat for the previously approved Tuscany, then, it's an off-site sewer issue. This is really an on-site sewer issue, so it seemed appropriate to talk about it now. You have people here that are going to testify about the location of the public sewer. There is no question that either location would adequately serve this project, so it's not really a planning issue as far as making your findings. Either will one provide adequate public sewer, but we do ask that you take that testimony, let those people talk. It really doesn't have bearing on the plat as it goes through it's more of a philosophical question that's before the City Council as to whether or not it's appropriate to deviate from the master plan. You're certainly -- I don't want to discourage you from making a recommendation if you feel that's appropriate, but I don't -- I just wanted you to know that you don't have to make a decision on it necessarily, that either one will serve from a planning standpoint, it's just the philosophical. If you feel strongly about it, you can certainly include it in your recommendation, but it's not Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 50 of 104 germane to whether or not you want to approve it or not. I'll conclude staff's comments with that. Borup: Questions from any of the Commission? Just a clarification. The master plan called for sewer to go down to the intersection of Locust Grove and, then, south? Powell: Correct. Borup: Is that correct? Zaremba: I do have a couple of questions if I may. If I understand the surrounding properties correctly, what qualifies this property for annexation is one single point of contact at the southeast corner. Is that -- is that correct and is that acceptable? Powell: I believe that is correct and, yes, it's acceptable. Zaremba: Okay. As long as it's contiguous, even in a point, it's okay. All right. That answers that one. On the setbacks -- and I'm looking at the staff memo, page two. City requirements in an R-8 are a front setback of 15 feet for living area, 20 feet for garage. Unless I hear otherwise, I wouldn't have any objection with the 12 foot setback for a living area, but if we state it the way that it is here, that the setback is 12 feet for any home with a recessed garage, then, we could have the living area setback 12 feet and as long as the garage was setback at six inches it would be recessed. Do we want to specify that the garage still needs to be 20 feet back? Powell: That would be a good idea. Yes. Borup: Yes, we definitely do want that to -- Zaremba: That alarmed me a little bit. Borup: No. I think that was the intention. Zaremba: Okay. Let me see if I had any others. No. My others were just the sewer discussion. Borup: Anything from the other Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Brown: For the record, my name is Kent Brown. My business address 1800 West Overland in Boise, Idaho. Due to the lateness of the hour, I can carry on for quite some time or I can just answer your questions. I can leave that up to you to talk about that project or I can just answer your questions. I would let you know that Dean Briggs is here to answer sewer questions and the applicant's attorney is also here from a legal standpoint to answer questions, too. We are all available to answer questions. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 51 of 104 Borup: Maybe one thing that might speed it, would you have any concern if the motion was to adopt all the staff comments as written? Any comments on any of those? Brown: Just as long as it goes -- I think I was pretty clear in my position statement speaking to the annexation conditions. The one condition that -- I guess the Preliminary Plat condition four, asking for a four foot fence, the applicant asked me if possible if we could have a five fence around the park area. It was something new -- I guess I hadn't heard that Meridian had something -- I knew that you had it on micropaths, but I didn't realize that you wanted to be visible from a park area and that was something kind of new to me and talking with the client he says we could put a five foot fence -- Borup: Have you talked about a -- what am I trying to say? Zaremba: I think in the past we have said you could do the first four feet obscuring, as long as anything above that, up to, but not exceeding six feet, is lattice work or something. Borup: That's what I was going to say. Zaremba: Visible -- Brown: And if that's what we need to do, then, we will do that, too. Borup: Is staff still agreement with that? I mean -- Powell: As far as I know. I think we have been continuing that to some of the parks as well. Borup: Okay. Brown: So, that's a policy -- I guess I didn't realize there was a policy. Borup: I don't know if that's written or an unwritten policy, but that has been approved as, yes, the top two feet of lattice work -- you know, lattice -- Brown: I knew you had it on micropaths, I just wasn't aware -- Borup: On a park. Brown: Two and a half acre park area that you were concerned about that, but -- Borup: I'm not sure on that either. Is there -- is that a policy on the parks -- on neighborhood parks? Powell: The fencing requirement? I believe that we have been -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 52 of 104 Borup: Case by case? Powell: -- trying to get -- it's not codified. We have been trying to get a similar standard that we have adopted for the micropaths, for the same reasons, the visibility and the kind of publicness of that space and trying to keep eyes on it. Borup: So, I guess a little bit, case by case. Zaremba: Well, we have by precedence asked for that in other cases and gotten cooperation at least for it, which that would be acceptable for you, the first four feet can be solid and above that it has to be non-sight-obscuring? Brown: I think we can live with that. I mean we would prefer five -- I mean just from a marketing standpoint, people having privacy in their backyard, but I think that the lattice can do that also. Zaremba: I think the issue that brings it up is visibility the other way, so that there can't be something strange going on outside your fence. Brown: I understand. Zaremba: The theory is that you would be able to see nefarious activities. Brown: That's the only issues that I would raise at this point. I'd stand for any of your questions. Borup: And you're okay with the sewer line going to the intersection? Brown: That's in my position statement, too. Borup: Okay. Brown: As I stated. Do you need clarification on that or -- Borup: Well, this is just saying you agreed to coordinate with the city. Brown: Right. Borup: Okay. Maybe we ought to wait for some public testimony and, then, see where it goes from there, any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'd like to open up to public testimony, whoever would like to come forward at this time. Howard: My name is Sue Howard and I live at 3420 South Locust Grove. That's the second acreage south of Victory. I am against the approval of this Preliminary Plat for the Tuscany Village. My concerns are strictly with the water and the sewer lines, not Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 53 of 104 the actual development itself. I believe if this is approved, this plat with the rerouting of the sewer lines, that it blatantly defies a previous ruling by our Public Works Department and it was also supported by our City Council. The city master plan has been in existence for five years showing the water and sewer lines going down to Victory and Locust Grove. The preliminary plan for Tuscany Lakes was approved a little over a year ago and it included this same route, going down to the corner of Victory and Locust Grove. In approximately March of this year the developer asked for -- to substantially change the alignment of the water and sewer lines through this new plat. Public Works was not in agreement with it and sent them a letter stating that they would not approve it. At that time two of the reasons given for wanting to reroute these lines were a cost saving of 70,000 dollars and some restrictions on the road construction placed by the Ada County Highway District. Okay. If they were only saving 70,000 dollars on a development the size of that and the original Tuscany Lakes, that's about 500 lots, that boils down to 140 dollars a lot and I don't think that's a significant cost savings on a per lot basis. I think if they did have restrictions on the road construction for the water and sewer, had they not stopped construction months ago, they may very well be finished putting the lines in by now. There were restrictions that they couldn't tear it up during the week, it can only be on weekends and evenings, I guess. Anyway, I believe that since the Public Works and the developer couldn't come to terms, Brad from Public Works brought the issue to City Council in July. At the City Council meeting they acknowledged -- City Council acknowledged that Public Works had made a ruling against changing the water and sewer line and that they were within their authority to do so and the Council supported that decision. The Council stated that if the developer wanted to change the water and sewer lines, they would need to bring issue to the Council and it would have to go through the Public Hearing process. Okay. I don't believe that has happened and I don't believe that's what's happening tonight. The Public Hearing message that I got tells me nothing about the rerouting of the water and sewer line. If my neighbors hadn't told me you better get in there, because the sewer lines are tucked in this Preliminary Plat, I wouldn't have been here, so -- Borup: Can you clarify -- did you say your lot was south of this project? Howard: We are right here. Borup: Okay. Howard: The sewer line was supposed to come right in front of our property. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Howard: Okay. I believe that the developer is trying to skirt around the process that was set forth by Public Works and the City Council. They have tried to tuck this sewer issue into the Preliminary Plat for this new project. I, actually, think this is similar to when my teenage son comes to me with a question and I tell him no and he goes to dad and when dad says no, he goes to grandpa. The Public Works said no and the City Council said no. I am requesting that this Preliminary Plat be denied until it Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 54 of 104 complies with the city's master plan and the approved Preliminary Plat for Tuscany Lakes. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Forrey: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Wayne Forrey, 1952 South Wild Creek Way in Boise and I'm an urban planner, a consulting urban planner, and I work with Quasar Development and they are in the process of purchasing property -- it would be the northeast corner of Locust Grove and Victory Road. Yes. Right there. In fact, there is a Preliminary Plat application that's on your next meeting agenda on this property. When Quasar Development -- and, by the way, let me state that Quasar Development is not opposed to the concept here that Kent Brown is presenting, it's a sewer issue that we want to comment on, not the land use or the design of this project. When they evaluated land in this area, they met with the city, the city staff said, well, here is the water and sewer master plan, much like the lady right before mentioned and they made some investment decisions based on that sewer and water master plan and, then, through meetings with neighbors and understanding the development situation out there, we understand that a deviation is now being proposed. There is a letter -- do you have a copy of a letter written by Quasar Development in your packet? Zaremba: Yes. Forrey: Okay. It very succinctly outlines -- Borup: One signed by -- Forrey: It's dated August 4. Zaremba: I have it. Forrey: Signed by Quasar Development to Mayor Corrie and Council Members. Zaremba: Signed by Amanda Alvaros? Is that the one you're -- Forrey: Correct. Yes. Would you like me to read that into the record? Borup: Oh, I think we have got it. We are okay. Forrey: Very succinct -- Borup: Unless there is -- Forrey: -- Quasar Development does not support a deviation from the master plan and, one other thing, as a consultant I have worked on sewer master plans. They require and often are funded by the state, the City of Meridian did receive state money, it was approved by DEQ, and DEQ tells me they have to approve any deviation from the plan. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 55 of 104 My question to the city is has DEQ been involved in this deviation from your master plan and were they noticed of this Public Hearing? This would take state -- Zaremba: Yes. Not that I'm aware of. Forrey: -- review and -- Zaremba: I don't see anybody jumping to say, yes, they were. Forrey: Okay. Well, you have got a state agency that needs to get involved, you have got a plan you need to stick by, you have property owners out here that have made investments decisions based on meetings with city staff that have presented the plan as public policy. Boy, I hope, in representing my client, we all feel that you will not support a change in the sewer and water master plan for this area. The development is great, it's a good addition to the neighborhood, but make them follow the sewer plan. Be happy to answer questions. Borup: Questions for Mr. Forrey? Mr. Forrey, is there going to be latecomer fees involved in this? Forrey: Yes. Yes. That was also discussed with the Public Works staff as well. The property owners out there -- Borup: So, those property owners tying onto this would be compensating -- Forrey: Yes. Yes. There is late -- Borup: -- the developer for putting the sewer line -- the trunk line -- Forrey: And I think -- I haven't read the staff report, but that's probably one of the standard conditions in the staff comments that -- it's usually a standard condition to work with Public Works to establish latecomer agreements. Borup: Yes. Thank you. Come on up. Liddell: Commissioners, my name is Russ Liddell, I own the property or -- the southeast corner of Locust Grove and Victory, just right there. I guess my main comment is, just as Mr. Forrey had said, it's in support of the general concept of that growth and that subdivision. The concept looks good. What doesn't look good is the tail waging the dog here. This comes in as a small 40 acre parcel that we have had considerable hearings with the county commissioners and the state and district health over a two year -- almost three year period during the Comprehensive Plan Development, which you certainly were integral in developing. This 30 plus, 40 acre parcel was -- a couple of years ago a sitting for the power -- Idaho Power substation. At that time the same people that are in the room now, plus about 500 or more neighbors that signed a petition, went to hearings, showed up at the Ada County petitions, and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 56 of 104 worked with Idaho Power, formed a community interest group. It stretched from Cloverdale down Overland, all the way passed Meridian Road and west to Ten Mile or Linder, where now the two alternate sites have been used by Idaho Power economically to provide expansion to accommodate the Meridian plan that you all have developed. These corners for the past -- we have owned it since '76. These corners were always commercial. We developed, much as Mr. Forrey said, on their parcel across the street from us as they come into you in a couple of weeks, we have made substantial plans, investment, equity, we went to the Public Hearings, we learned a lot about community interest, public safety. This was now changed to -- in the plan twice or three times to office buildings, to mixed-use and, then, back to R-4, I think, and it's still by county rural urban transition. If you put the sewer line per this subdivision request, I would only ask you what's the impact on the larger community? We know how the water flows and, you know, we know the restrictions in the whole area about flood plain and subterranean water and irrigation charging and we have got a lot of septics in there now. From Eagle Road there is a hill. Over at Meridian Road there is a hill as you go along Victory. All that area you have planned in the Comprehensive Plan to be developed. There is going to be some schools on a couple of corners, it's a great area for a park, there is wildlife on Ten Mile Creek, there are ducks, there are geese, there are bobcats, there are deer -- we see them all the time and as houses come in it would be nice to keep that that for the quality of life in Meridian. Running the sewer line down here might be economically real neat for this tail end of the whole Tuscany Lakes Subdivision -- as a matter of fact, they have already put it in. You know that. It's been in for several months -- weeks. It's already there, so -- Borup: What's already there, sir? Liddell: The sewer line. Borup: This sewer line right here? Liddell: It appears that they already stubbed that line in. Now, if they didn't lay it in, they at least laid the two entry points on Locust Grove and on Victory Road, so it's kind of a fete comply to come in and ask for your permission on this -- at least on the sewer portion, because, in reality, they have already done it. Borup: Well, I would like to clarify what you're saying here. You're saying there is a stub here and here? Liddell: That's right. Borup: Okay. That's what the master plan calls for, if I read it right. Liddell: Contrary to the plan that was approved and the intent to go down to the Locust Grove Victory intersection, which accommodates schools, parks -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 57 of 104 Borup: Are you also saying -- you're saying if they route it that other that would prevent anyone else from running a sewer line down here? Liddell: I don't think it prevents it. Borup: Okay. Liddell: It's just in addition to it. They seem to say in lieu of it. Borup: Right. Liddell: What they were approved for and what the Ada County, DEQ, the state and commercial and private folks in here, the school districts, were all planning on the sewer as it's been talked about for five years, as Sue mentioned. Now, the tail end of this Tuscany larger subdivision seems to be saying, okay, hurry up and approve me this 40 acres. Oh, by the way, there is a little sewer change we want to make. Borup: No. I understand -- I think I understand -- I mean the property owners here, they are -- they'd much rather have someone else pay for it, than you, and I don't blame you. Liddell: We weren't asked. We weren't asked and neither have you been, if I'm -- that's my assertion that it's already in. Borup: Well, I'd like to get a clarification of that before we go on, Mr. Freckleton. Could you clarify the status of that trunk line? Freckleton: Certainly. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the sewer trunk line started up on Ten Mile Creek and progressed out to Victory Road, down Victory Road, and it currently stops approximately right there. The Ada County Highway District, because of the Overland Road project being tore up, limited the time that they could have Victory Road closed for the installation of that sewer and they have through the Memorial weekend to get that completed -- or they had to have it buttoned back up and opened up to traffic. The point that they chose to stop happens to be the point where they would turn to run into this project, but -- I mean that may be convenient if this is approved, but there is no reason that it couldn't continue right on down as planned as well. They chose to stop there, it leaves their options open, but it also leaves our options open for it go down as the master plan shows. Borup: Okay. Does that clarify that? Liddell: That's a good clarification. In driving those roads -- Borup: Would you like a -- there is a microphone right here. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 58 of 104 Liddell: It appears that a lot of the construction is pretty much at this point. If you take the line of the canal -- it seems like the road asphalting – re-asphalting where the stubs are might be a little closer to the canal on this edge. It might not be either I'd have to look there again. It's a pretty short distance and it's pretty clear the intent is to -- on this request, if it's still a request -- and I'm in error on it already being in there -- certainly the intent is there, to spend fewer dollars for the small subdivision to accommodate the larger portion of Tuscany Lakes and take an alternate route. I believe that's the request that really is intended here by this sub-development and that's all that we oppose. Borup: Anything else? Any questions from any of the Commissioners? And maybe -- It's my understanding that this parcel was not owned by the developer when Tuscany Lakes was first developed, so this is -- this is property they acquired later, which -- so previously that was not an option, I don't think, or not much of an option, because they didn't own the property. Who else would like to come forward? Jerrems: I'm Cathy Jerrems I'm on 3245 South Locust Grove. I'm actual that triangle right on the corner that butts up against the proposed new sewer line there and I have to say that I am also in disagreement with the new proposal. I would just as soon have them continue on with what they had proposed five years ago as to running the sewer lines down Victory and South Locust Grove. I have made a lot of plans. I have out there 17 years on this piece of property and for the last five years there are some plans that I would like to consider in the future as well. I intend on living there until I die, but there are things that I'd like to do out there, too. Unfortunately, with the sewer line running down the back side here, instead of coming down Victory and Locust Grove as originally planned, I foresee that it's going to be some difficulties for us few out in the neighborhood there to able to hook up to the sewer, which is what we have all been contemplating for the last five years. I believe it will be, you know, a larger expense, which I hadn't planned in my budget for what I'd like to plan to do out there. In addition to what's already been said tonight, I would like them to consider still going down with the original plan of Victory and South Locust Grove. I do also have a concern -- and I don't know if it's a valid concern, of the sewer line being run down Ten Mile Creek there. I do know that when they just did that little piece down at the lower end here, I was unable to irrigate for over a week, because of the equipment and everything that they had put in there, it held up my being able to irrigate the pasture. I do run cattle and horses out there still and all the gravel and everything that they had done had been moved into my ditch and I had to go out there with a shovel and I'm just thinking, oh, gosh, here we go again with all this mess behind me. Like Russ said, there is still a lot of wildlife in that creek area. I have got all my geese and ducks, what have you down there as well, and I just hate to see all that being disturbed. Again, like I said, it was just that little short piece that they had done there and it was really very disruptive to my being able to farm that land out there. Anyway, I appreciate your consideration to keep it the way it was. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Mr. Brown, have you got any final comment -- you need to come forward. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 59 of 104 DeChambeau: Sorry. I was waiting for someone else. I'm Mary DeChambeau and I live on 2015 East Victory and live on that large parcel -- the biggest parcel of purple. You forgot my little pie shape there again, that doesn't matter tonight, but, anyway, I guess I was concerned that we were in here again because they had changed the sewer line. I'm not going to repeat what -- I agree with most of what my neighbors are saying. I'm here to support them. Also, I have never been really assured where -- if we ever decided to develop our property, where we are going to be able to stub in on sewer lines. I have never gotten an exact answer. Also, it had been pointed out to me out in the front before the meeting started that if they had moved this main line through that subdivision, it would actually save our neighborhood money. If that's the case, I would say that -- I'd like to see some numbers on that, personally, myself, how that would safe us money. Also, I understand that if that's a main trunk line, and, then, they are going to put in a smaller trunk line in, I'd like to see assurances that the master plan -- that the smaller trunk lines would accommodate our large parcel of land, which is about 72 acres, we have not decided yet quit what we are doing with it, so, you know, you're going to have to leave some lee room there and I don't want to be blocked out. I was kind of informed by Bruce tonight that we'd probably have to tap in from behind, but also I have been told through the last three years that we would be tapping in, in the front, you know, and there are two stubs in front of our property. You know, it's kind of like I'm not quite sure -- you know, I'm mean, obviously, when we develop we'd have to go down the line, too. That's all part of the neighborhood, there are just too many questions for me, and I'd like to see -- you know, if this is a matter of dollar and cents, let's see the figures, you know. Personally, I think it should -- if the master plan said the way it was, then, I think that's the way we should continue it, but it should benefit the whole community. That's -- I understand eventually we all pay for the sewer line, whether you buy a house in that subdivision or you bring it down the highway, it is -- I don't believe that it is a public utility and that we all own it, am I correct on that? Is that kind of -- Borup: Eventually you will. The developer will put it in and, then, he gives it to the city. DeChambeau: Right. Eventually, you know, it is owned by the public and by the citizens of Meridian. Borup: As a free gift from the developer, other than -- well, that may be a little strong statement. DeChambeau: Yes. I would think so. Yes. Hawkins-Clark: But that is true on the sewer line within the subdivision. DeChambeau: But, anyway, if that's a problem, then, we need to see some dollar and cents signs here and we need to understand why people would want to change it, because it's really not good for the neighborhood. It really isn't. Borup: You said someone stated to you that it would cost less to sewer your property -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 60 of 104 DeChambeau: No. Less for the whole neighborhood if they took it through their subdivision, rather than bringing it down to Locust Grove and down. Borup: Which whole neighborhood are you talking about? DeChambeau: Well, the corner of Locust Grove and Victory. Borup: Okay. That's what I'm saying. It would cost less for those neighbors -- DeChambeau: Yes. Borup: Okay. We'll see if we can get some clarification on that. DeChambeau: I think we need to. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Brown, do you want to clarify that? Oh. Okay. Briggs: My name is Dean Briggs, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road. I'm subbing for Kent on this particular issue. Borup: I think that's -- it sounds like that's really the only question, unless the Commissioners have some others, but -- Briggs: Yes. Kent can speak to the other ones. It sounds to me like there is a little bit of misinformation, some confusion as to what a master plan is and what area would be served by what. What we are proposing to do is move the trunk line, which really doesn't relate to how these properties get served ultimately, there would still be a line going down Victory, there still would be a line in the subdivision one way or the other, so we are just swapping where the big line is versus where the small line is. That's really the issue. Rohm: It depends on who you are. If you own this property right there and the trunk goes here and never makes it to that corner, you might have a differing opinion. Briggs: Right. What the 70,000 dollars is that they were talking about -- and that's a number that was given to the staff a few weeks ago -- if you calculate -- and just -- I got to do one other thing here. The sewer line was never contemplated to go along the creek it was contemplated to come down this area, down here, down this road, and out this road. It's always in a road it's not in the creek area. I wanted to spell that rumor right now. As part of this development, if we route it through the subdivision here, we would still bring a line up this street here and bring it over to the edge of the property. It -- that part of it would be part of this developer’s project. The savings of less pipe here and a crossing at this canal here -- or the Ten Mile here and the Ten Mile here, is where the 70,000 dollars comes from. That savings here means that that's 70,000 dollars less Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 61 of 104 that other people have to pay this developer back, so that's where they get benefit from that, because this -- the pipeline outside of their development gets reimbursed. Borup: That's the latecomer fee. Briggs: That's the latecomer fee. Borup: So, is there an accurate figure -- or an approximate figure on that? Because they are still -- so, you're saying it would be a savings of 70,000, less the cost of putting a smaller water or sewer line in. Briggs: Yes. There are a couple of different issues. Once the big line is through here, then, these people that are developing this corner and farther down here would be coming off a smaller line here, so they would not be extending a big line, it would be extending a smaller line. Borup: Right. Briggs: So, that would be less cost to them, plus the savings of the 70,000 dollars is 70,000 dollars they don't have to pay back to the city to pay the developer, because they would end up paying those latecomer fees. That's where the dollars come about. What I -- Borup: And that was the statement Ms. DeChambeau made that it would cost -- it would cost these properties less, because they would be putting in a smaller line. Briggs: Plus they wouldn't have to pay that additional 70,000 dollars in latecomer fees. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, just one point I'd like to interject. Somebody's going to be building that and whether it's this developer or somebody else -- let's just say, for instance, the DeChambeau parcel builds that line down Victory Road, as the other parcels connect onto it, I'm sure DeChambeau would like to have some reimbursement on their off-site expense. I don't know that the -- there is still going to be reimbursement. The 70,000 dollar number is going to be reduced because of the size of the pipe, it's not going to be the -- whatever size that is. I can't remember. It's a large diameter trunk line. Briggs: Twenty-seven. Freckleton: So, if it's dropped to say a ten inch or a 12 inch line, you still got the bore, you still got the line coming up Victory Road, so it's a difference in construction cost, material cost, but I'm going to assume that somebody is going to want reimbursement on it, so it might not be totally accurate to say that you're going to safe on the latecomer reimbursement, because somebody is going to want reimbursement. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 62 of 104 Borup: But you're being reimbursed for a 10 or 12-inch line, rather than a 27. Freckleton: True. True. Borup: Which is less money, isn't it? Freckleton: It's less money, but I'm just saying that to throw out the 70,000 dollar figure may not be totally accurate, because there is still going to be some latecomer that's going to nip -- you know, chew away at that. Zaremba: Clarify for me, if you would. Who is the latecomer fee paid to? The original developer who made the expense or is it paid to the city? Freckleton: It is money that is collected by the city and reimbursed to the developer that installed the line, the off-site line. Zaremba: Later when the city collects it or does the city offer it up front? Borup: The city doesn't offer anything up front. Zaremba: Okay. After the city has collected it, then, it goes and finds the original developer, maybe from ten years ago -- Freckleton: Well, the way that we do these now -- the old way used to be we would collect it with each Building Permit, which was a nightmare, accounting nightmare. The way we do it now is with each phase of the development that goes in, the developer has to pay that portion of the latecomer’s fees that covers that entire area. Rohm: Is that a one-to-one ratio? I mean do you do it on a lineal footage or -- Zaremba: How is it calculated? Rohm: Yes. Freckleton: Well, it's based on -- you take the cost of the line -- they can include easement costs -- you take their overall construction cost and you distribute that cost out over the service area for that -- for that main and so -- Rohm: So, on a square footage basis, as in the ratio of the square footage that will be served by that truck line? Freckleton: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 63 of 104 Borup: Well, Mr. Briggs, the -- but the line that would go from here to here is going to be the same size no matter where the other trunk line goes, isn't it? Briggs: That's correct. Borup: So these construction costs wouldn't change any. Briggs: No. Borup: So, the only real savings is just that 70,000 and, however, that would dilute out among everybody. Briggs: That's correct. Zaremba: And I guess I would ask you to run that by me again. In just attempting to -- okay. Let me say where I'm getting this from. Borup: Well -- okay. Zaremba: Tuscany Development letter of July 1, 2003, addressed to the City Council and the Mayor, has a couple attachments, one of which shows the original alignment as everybody expects it to be and another one that shows the new alignment. By using a string and following the new alignment, because it has a turn and a turn and a turn and a turn and, then, laying that same string along here, you only save 200 feet, roughly. Briggs: Two hundred feet -- Borup: Two hundred feet through undeveloped ground, rather than through a road that you have to dig up and repave. Zaremba: Right. Okay. Rohm: And you have to bore a 27-inch line under Ten Mile Creek, as opposed to a 12 inch. Zaremba: The two creek crossings. Briggs: Right. Exactly. Plus, you would never have to make this crossing down here, I don't believe. You could bring -- you could service these areas off this corner going this direction. Or you could service this property off of this direction. You'd, actually, safe one bore here, which, you know, we haven't really gone through the maintenance aspects of this whole thing, but that would be a risk factor that should be incorporated in there, not having another crossing under Ten Mile Creek. You would have none of your major trunk line under Ten Mile Creek. Those are some of the benefits that we see. Borup: But the developer would be a hundred percent reimbursed for that, eventually? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 64 of 104 Briggs: Yes. Borup: I assume that's not accounting for interest or anything, is that correct? Briggs: Oh, no. What do you get, four percent? Borup: Oh. Okay. There is an inflation factor or something. Freckleton: There is a ten percent administrative fee that comes out for the city and, then, we do adjust it to -- I don't know how Brad's writing them right now. They are either adjusted to the prime -- Borup: Okay. Anyway -- Briggs: There are some inflation factors on those. Borup: But not a lot. Isn't that, really, the main benefit to the developer, he's getting his money now, rather than -- or not spending now, rather than getting it ten years from now? Briggs: Yes. The real issue at the time was trying to get through Victory when ACHD would only allow -- they allowed one -- I think it was like a ten-day period and, then, they said, well, gee, you can work weekends. That's not very efficient when you're putting in a 30-foot deep, 27-inch sewer line, working two days. Then, we had a condition where -- Borup: And that changes -- that's up until -- when are they going to have Overland done that that policy would end? Briggs: I think they were slated for the end of August. Borup: That's this month. Briggs: I don't think they are schedule. Borup: Well, so it's not far off, then. Briggs: Yes. They need to get it done -- they were hoping to get it all done before the school starts. Borup: That's what I had understood. Okay. Well, then, that doesn't sound like that's a big hardship right now. Briggs: No. That's why we are saying, you know, we will work with the city, do whatever is necessary. This is the forum they wanted us to bring this to, so that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 65 of 104 everybody could have their say, so to speak. We are hoping that we can get to Council next month, we will probably have these same discussions again -- maybe in the meantime we can get the neighborhood together and show them the numbers that we came up with. They can do their own. We can sit down with the staff and maybe have a surfeit on sewer alignment. Borup: It sounds like there are quite a few property owners that would like that information. Briggs: Sure. Zaremba: Well, I would just say I agree with the process that this going through, but if the alignment through Victory Road and down Locust Grove was subject of Public Hearings at one time and this is what everybody knows has happened, that can't be changed behind closed doors or privately. It does need to be a Public Hearing. Briggs: Yes. I don't think anybody has a problem with that. It's not like we snuck in the door on this one, because this is the alignment that was shown on the Preliminary Plat for this project. Borup: Was it a -- I don't think there was a Public Hearing on the original plat. That's not the process, is it? Mr. Freckleton? Freckleton: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was reading when you were talking. Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Zaremba made a statement that the original sewer plan was subject to Public Hearing, but I said I don't believe that's the way that takes place, isn't it? We don't determine engineering process by public testimony. Freckleton: No, we do not. However, one of the elements with an application for a pre- plat is that they do conceptual engineering and that is one of the elements that's turned in and something that the Public Works Department reviews and it's part of the application. Borup: The pre-plat of the original Tuscany. Freckleton: Yes. Borup: Yes. If they had owned this property at that time, it probably would have been different. Freckleton: Yes. Briggs: We had, actually, shown it through this property, but we couldn't obtain the easement from a previous owner at the time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 66 of 104 Borup: So, it looks like you solved that. Briggs: We had Plan A and Plan B and at the last minute we had to use Plan B to get into the system, because we just couldn't get the easement. Borup: So, the public testimony part, Commissioner Zaremba, would have been the platting of the original Tuscany, would have showed the access at that point. Briggs: Yes. What I was -- Borup: It sounds like as far as the sewer layout, both of them accomplished servicing that area, but just the intersection route was the route that was shown when the subdivision was approved, is my understanding. Briggs: That's correct. Borup: Did I state that correctly? Briggs: That is correct. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Briggs? Thank you. Briggs: Thank you. Borup: Did you have any final comments, Mr. Brown, or did we cover everything? Any questions from the Commission? Really, all the -- I mean from what I could tell, all the public testimony had to do with that sewer alignment location, nothing on the rest of the project. Zaremba: I think my only question would be I don't remember confirming with you that the 20-foot garage setback is acceptable. Brown: That is definitely our intent. Ada county, Boise city, they have these as a standard part of their ordinance, to go to 15 feet, we are asking for 12. I did a project over in Eagle and we went to 10, had private roads -- what it does, from a selling standpoint, to maybe have you look at this in the future, is instead of what my wife calls the snout-nosed house that you see as you drive down the road. It gives the builder an opportunity to -- an incentive, if you will, to change the look of his house, to retool, if you will, what he's doing, because he can use that space and push the house forward and the garage back. I'm doing a couple of projects that are like this in Ada County, because of Ada County's standard rules of operation that if you set the garage back, it's an if statement, if the garage is 20 feet from the street, you can pull the house within 15 feet or ten feet or -- whichever jurisdiction that you're in. That's our intent. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 67 of 104 Butler: Commissioners, Joann Butler, 251 East Front Street. I just -- I'm not going to add to the expert testimony that was had here, but I just wanted to say -- use the microphone really to speak to our neighbors. Somebody asked in the audience what's in the best public interest and that's how this plan -- the original Plan A was in the best public interest. That particular property owner did not share the easement with the city. This property owner is. Again, it's a savings to the city, again, it's a savings to the people that have to do the reimbursements, it's a savings to the city also in long-term maintenance and I know that somebody said, yes, you can pass this cost onto each house and it's that type of thinking that sends all of our house prices up and 70,000 dollars is still 70,000 dollars. I'm using the microphone to say that -- to the neighbors, Mr. Briggs did say maybe we can get together -- you're skeptical, you don't -- you're not -- not knowing the numbers. We would be more than happy, between now and the City Council meeting, to meet with our neighbors and I'll use the microphone to say we will be in the back to just meet with you and take down a time and place -- set a time and place for that. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Commissioners, are we ready to move on? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 9, 10, and 11. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, with regard to removing the annexation conditions that the applicant has requested, to do that we need to add a new condition to take the place of the one for the fencing and the micropath -- or the pathway construction along Ten Mile Creek and I have written one for you. I can read it into the record now and, then, give you a copy of it or -- I have run it by Mr. Brown a couple different times. I can give it to you and just have you read it in. The second -- this one concerns the pathway along Ten Mile Creek. The second modification you would need to make is to the second Number 5 regarding the Preliminary Plat conditions. Zaremba: Tell me what page you're on, please. Powell: Page 8. Zaremba: Okay. Powell: Add a note to the face of the plat that restricts fencing adjacent to the pathways within the subdivision and, then, you would add and adjoining Ten Mile Creek to being no greater than four feet in height of solid, sight obscuring material. I believe that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 68 of 104 addresses both concerns. It gets him taller than four feet if he wants to go taller than four feet, but just sight obscuring. Zaremba: We don't need to specify and overall height restriction of six feet, because that's already in the ordinance; right? Powell: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. That makes sense. Powell: Would you like me to read this one or should I just bring it up to you? Borup: Why don't you go ahead and read it and, then, the public would have the information, too. Powell: A new condition Number 10 under Preliminary Plat. A permanent pedestrian easement in favor of the City of Meridian shall be recorded on the property adjacent to Ten Mile Creek. Such easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width and shall be constructed with a ten-foot hard surface pathway prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any building within the subdivision. The City of Meridian shall be responsible for the maintenance of the pathway within the easement. The homeowners association shall be responsible for landscaping maintenance within the easement. The instrument number of the recorded easement shall be noted on the Final Plat of the subdivision. Borup: Okay. I think that's good. Then, we don't have to repeat the whole thing. Zaremba: Okay. Discussion. I agree with most of the people that have spoken. The layout looks to me to be an attractive thing and an addition to the city and acceptable with the conditions that have been asked. The only question is whether we care to make a recommendation one way or another to the City Council about the sewer alignment. That's my only question, really. It will go through Public Hearing again at their point. I would be inclined to allow the applicant and the neighbors to have their meeting and, in the meantime, stick with the original plan. Then, the applicant and neighbors go together to the City Council to say what they have come up with. That would be my opinion, which I can make into a recommendation. Mathes: Sounds good to me. Borup: Any comments? Rohm: No. I think that's appropriate. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 69 of 104 Zaremba: So, should I make that part of my motion for the annexation and zoning or make it a separate motion? Maybe I'll ask our city attorney how I should phrase that portion of the recommendation and where should I put it? Wollen: I believe that it could be put properly into the recommendation on your annexation and zoning. I believe that that's -- Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 9 on our agenda, AZ 03-014, request for annexation and zoning of 33.25 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. South of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo dated August 7, 2003, received by the Clerk July 31, 2003, with the following exceptions. On Page 2, under setbacks, for proposed setbacks, single-family, we are accepting a front setback of 12 feet for a living area, retaining 20 feet for garage. On Page 6, annexation and zoning conditions of approval, Item 1 can be deleted, as the applicant stated there are no wells or septic systems. Item 2 can be deleted. It's been satisfied by an application for a Planned Development. I would add to that that this Commission recommends to the City Council that we maintain the alignment of the sewer through Victory Road to the intersection and down Locust Grove. With the notice that the applicant and the neighbors are going to hold a meeting between now and the City Council hearing to discuss that further and may present other options to the City Council. Borup: Do I hear a second? Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: I don't know that -- yes, that probably was -- I guess that covered it, because that was a redundant motion as far as the sewer line, because this next one covers it also. Zaremba: Oh, does it? Okay. All right. Borup: I was checking that while you were talking. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda PP 03-015, request for Preliminary Plat approval of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 70 of 104 136 building lots and ten other lots on 33.25 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. South of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of August 7, 2003, received by the Clerk July 31, 2003, with the following changes. Again on Page 2, the proposed setbacks are front 12 feet for living area and 20 feet for garage, and on Page 8, Paragraph 4, the third sentence shall be changed to read: Fencing adjacent to the proposed park shall be non-sight obscuring above four feet in height and the rest of the sentence continues as is. On Paragraph 5 -- actually, the second Paragraph 5, add or revise the following Preliminary Plat notes. I'll read what it says and, then, add what's added. Add a note to the face of the plat that restricts fencing adjacent to the pathways within the subdivision, add the words: And adjoining Ten Mile Creek to no greater than four feet, et cetera. On Page 9, we are going to add a paragraph ten about a pedestrian easement statement that was previously read into the record by Director Powell. End of motion. Do I need to reread that or -- it's in the record. Borup: It's in the record. I think we are covered there. Zaremba: Okay. As stated by Director Powell. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 11, CUP 03-029, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development with reduced lot widths and setbacks for the proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. South of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the hearing date August 7, 2003, received by the Clerk July 31, 2003, again, with a change on page two where proposed setbacks are front 12 feet for living area and 20 feet for garage. On Page 12, site-specific comments, paragraph three, is changed to read: The reductions to footage and minimum lot sizes, as well as the request to exceed block length maximums, are approved with one change in that the front setbacks for garages will be 20 feet. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: In case there is any question on any of those motions, the -- and Commissioner Zaremba clarified that also. The staff report and staff comment stated that the sewer Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 71 of 104 line was to remain as originally designed, going to the intersection of Locust Grove and Victory and so that was the way the motions are stated. That would be the recommendation that will go to City Council. Thank you, everyone, for being here. Item 12. Public Hearing: RZ 03-008 Request for a Rezone of 12.74 acres from I-L to R-15 zones for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC – 1125 East Pine Street: Item 13. Public Hearing: PP 03-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 45 building lots and 14 other lots on 12.74 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC – 1125 East Pine Street: Item 14. Public Hearing: CUP 03-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for multi-family residential subdivision requesting reduced setbacks, parking standards, and dimensional requirements for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC – 1125 East Pine Street: Borup: Item Numbers 12, 13, and 14. Public Hearing AZ 03-008, request for Rezone of 12.74 acres from I-L to R-15 zones for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC, at 1125 East Pine Street. Public Hearing PP 03-017, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 45 building lots and 14 other lots on the same property, and Public Hearing CUP 03-032, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for multi-family residential subdivision, requesting reduced setbacks, parking standards, and dimensional requirements for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision. I'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, this is a Planned Development project for -- a largely residential project. They are requesting a Rezone from I-L to R- 15. I want to go through some of the neighboring properties. This is the Santee Business Park zoned I-L. This is Danbury Subdivision, which are residential properties zoned R-4. The west is currently zoned R-1 in Ada County, and the Union Pacific Railroad track provides the boundary at the south. You can see some of the industrial property to the east and the homes. This is the -- Zaremba: That appears to be the original. Powell: Yes. This appears to be original, so -- that's the new one. Okay. I have got it. I'm sorry. I get confused on the orientation of this one sometimes. Forgive me. This is Commercial Street coming in here and, then, Pine Street is located up here. This is the -- this is the Site Plan that the staff report is based on and I'll go through another one in just a moment. There is a connection -- this is a parking lot drive aisle that connects Pine Avenue to Commercial Street and staff had, it's fair to say, overwhelming concerns with that. We were not able to make the findings to recommend approval because of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 72 of 104 that. There are parking spaces here that would be backing out into this drive aisle. It was single loaded, but with the industrial development in this location and the desire of most people to find a way to avoid the intersections and cut through where ever they can, there was a great concern that this would be -- act as a public street, even though it was just a 25 foot parking lot drive aisle. We had -- the staff report as it stands recommends denial of the project. Let me go into some more of the specifics. I'm sorry. I got hung up on that one. It is 12 acres in size. It's currently zoned I-L and they do want to want to go to R-15 and what they are proposing -- it's very difficult to see on this, but there are lots proposed and each of those would have an eight-plex or on the narrower ones it's basically two four-plexes that are attached and those units could be sold as investment properties, so each investor would be either buying four or eight units, depending on the configuration of the lot. Then, the density -- so there is a total of 45 building lots and 14 other lots and, then, each of those would have a four-plex or an eight-plex on them. Their overall density was 14.59 dwelling units per acre and the plat included 3.6 acres of open space or 28 percent of the gross land and they do have -- this is gross area. There is -- the File Mile Creek comes through this corner of the property, so there were flood issues associated with that. There is a park at the center of the property, and, then, there is smaller open spaces scattered throughout. They had -- as part of the PD request, they have requested a number of reductions in the dimensional standards. The front setback currently is 20 feet. They are asking for 14 feet for the buildings, the front stairs to project out as close as nine feet to the front of the property. Rear, instead of a 15 foot setback, they have requested a ten foot setback. On the sides for the multi-family units, it would stay at five feet, but they have some garage lots, which don't show up on this one. Let me go to another one. See these small lots here at the end of these parking aisles, those are, actually, two car garages that would be on separate lots that could be sold to various investors within the development, so you could have -- someone might buy this unit and that storage area or that garage or conceivably this one and that. It would just be sold separately. They were asking for zero setbacks on those lots. The proposed parking is 1.5 spaces per unit. We currently require two. The applicant on this revised Site Plan, which is what you see here, actually, achieved a 1.75 units -- or spaces per unit. For the amenities for the Planned Development they provide greater than ten percent open space and they are providing a sport court within the park space. This -- the applicant went to ACHD last night. ACHD has required a stub street, so that Commercial would come in and stub through to the property. There is -- as you saw Five Mile comes around and it kind of goes like this, so there is kind of a little half moon property that would be serviced by that stub street. Then, ACHD did not approve the connection going from Pine to Commercial. Their preference was for a public street in this location and, ideally, that's what staff would like to see also, but they recommended -- or they approved last night this configuration that has a disconnect, so that they do have to go around the park, basically, to get back out to Commercial, thereby at least you don't have that straight line of sight from one street to the other. Staff received this Site Plan this afternoon. We have not had time to look at it in detail. There are still a couple outstanding issues related to this. One is this parking aisle here. Joe Silva, the deputy chief, indicated that he had problems with -- they wanted another break through in there. He doesn't want it longer 150 feet. The applicant wants an opportunity to talk to him regarding if he pulls Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 73 of 104 in 150 feet, then, the backs of the buildings are within reach of the hose, so there may be a possibility that that configuration may work for Chief Silva or may not be, so that's an issue to be resolved there. Then, there is -- as part of the Planned Development application for multi-family, they are required to provide a hundred feet of usable open space for every multi-family unit and we have not received floor plans for the units that show where that hundred feet of usable open space will be. This is not entirely the fault of the applicant. The request was made to him late in the game for that information, so it's -- I don't want to make it seem like he's in error, but we have requested that and have not been able to get a hold of that yet. If the Commission chooses to -- what we would suggest is that you take testimony, if you decide that you want to recommend approval of the project as redesigned on this or on the other Site Plan, I suppose, then, you need to direct us to come back to you in two weeks with revised findings for approval, rather than denial. That's the end of staff's presentation. Borup: Questions from Commissioners? Zaremba: Thank you for describing to us the ACHD requirements, so we -- we don't have that report, so I appreciate that information. Is the extension of Commercial Street through this property a private road or a public road? Powell: Public road. Zaremba: Okay. Then, the others are private driveways that come off of it? Powell: Correct. I believe -- we tried to remove any reference to private road in there. I notice there is still two in there. These are not private roads in the sense that we can approve private streets within the City of Meridian. These are driving aisles for a parking lot. Zaremba: Right. Separate question. On page two you talked about setbacks and the proposed setbacks. We have in our packet a memo dated May 30th from CMG addressed to the City of Meridian, that has an Exhibit A and on that it appears to ask for a rear setback of 15, instead of ten, and a side setback of 7.5 feet, not just five feet. Is there another document that I'm missing? What I'm looking at is Exhibit A of the applicant's -- Powell: Commissioner Zaremba, regarding the side setback, I think Wendy probably left it at five feet, because that's what's allowed, even though they are proposing something that's larger than that, we generally leave -- Zaremba: We would allow five feet? Powell: We would allow five feet, so that just leaves the applicant a little more flexibility regarding that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 74 of 104 Zaremba: Okay. Rear setback 10 she said and I think they are asking for 15. Does that make a difference? Powell: I'll have to have the applicant come up and speak. There may have been a change later in the project. Zaremba: Okay. Yes. That letter was from some time ago. Those were my questions. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Would the applicant like to come forward? Beecham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Scott Beecham I'm with Conger Management Group, representing the applicant Wildwood Development. I'd like to, first of all, thank staff. Wendy is not here, but Anna has certainly done a lot to work with us on this application and I do apologize for the late change. We do feel that we have a better product for -- after working with staff and we appreciate that. As Anna stated, the applications include a Rezone of 12.74 acres of I- L to R-15, a Preliminary Plat request for 44 building lots on the revised Site Plan, and a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development allowing for reduced frontage and setback requirements. More specifically, it's a request for an approval of a 44 lot multi- family residential subdivision, consisting of a combination of attached and detached four-plex units. There are no -- a bit of a clarification on the staff report. There are no eight-plex units. However, there are attached four-plex units. Overall, the density on the project, as stated by staff, is 176 units. Borup: Just -- I'm just curious. You said -- what's an attached four-plex? Two four- plexes that are attached to each other? Beecham: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Borup: So, there are eight units in a building? Beecham: That's correct. Borup: What's the difference between that and an eight-plex? Beecham: Effectively build on a zero lot line and can be sold separately. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: The halves can be sold separately. Borup: Right. Okay. They are on separate lots. Beecham: If I could, with my apologies to staff, at the end of the day today, around 6:00 o'clock, I received a preliminary building plan that I'd like to put up on the board here. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 75 of 104 Borup: That's fine. I understand now. I was not following that. Beecham: Okay. In general, the design that's before you here allows for approximately three and a half acre -- in addition to the residential units, it allows for three and a half acres of open space or nearly 30 percent of the site. This is spread between perimeter buffering, some flood way area that has been maintained in open space in flood plain area, as well as open space at the center of the project that exceeds a half an acre. The staff recommendation is -- rather, the staff report is generally supportive of the project as it relates to the Rezone and Planned Development. However, as staff indicated, they have two significant areas of concern with this -- with the previous layout of the subdivision. First, being the potential for cut-through traffic between Pine and Commercial and, second, a fire turn around issue. As indicated by the staff report and the plan before you, we have reconfigured the site. The staff report anticipated this revision due to conversations with staff and we feel that this effectively addresses those concerns as it relates to the cut-through traffic. It is certainly a more circuitous route and should alleviate those safety concerns. We would commit to formalizing those changes as quickly as possible by having our engineer redraw the Site Plan, as well as the Preliminary Plat and we will get that back into the city as quickly as possible. As it relates to the second issue, the fire turn around, we are working with Meridian fire, it's really a question of interpretation of code. It can be read that a fire truck will back no further than 150 feet and, in addition to that 150, if you can reach all portions of the building within another 150, then, a turn around should not be required. Mr. Silva is out of town right now and I was not able to discuss that with him. I did meet with Chief Bowers, but he was not in a position to make a different requirement than what was done so by Mr. Silva. There are a couple of other clarifications I'd like to address in the staff. The first is -- number three on page five, it would require a Development Agreement because this is a Planned Development I'm curious if that's a necessity. The second is a Public Works issue and a question for Bruce, that number 11 page eight, requires the center line of road elevation three feet above highest groundwater of -- does that condition apply if you're intending to build flat on grade? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mr. Beecham, and the intent to the three-foot separation is to try and insure dry crawl space in a typical foundation. That's a good question. Because of that reasoning -- and if you're going to do slab on grade, I don't think that -- I don't believe that it would be a requirement for the three feet. What kind of separation can you achieve? Beecham: You know, we need to continue to monitor groundwater and I'm not in a position to answer that, but I can say that we -- our intention would be to meet the separation requirements. However, it is a low site and we'd like to minimize the amount of fill. If we do go to slab on grade, I would request that we be allowed to set the centerline lower to minimize that fill. Borup: So, how would that be handled? On a plat note, that all -- all buildings need to be slab on grade? Is that how -- Scott, was that how you anticipate -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 76 of 104 Beecham: Mr. Chairman, I guess my thought was that if the condition were to read that a minimum separation of lowest ground floor area of three feet, you could do that by -- with slab on grade with a lesser requirement for fill. Borup: Right. How would we insure that that would be followed? Beecham: A condition of approval requiring three feet, as opposed to dictating the centerline elevation. Borup: No. I mean on -- that that would be a slab on grade, rather than a crawl space. Would that be something -- be a note that the building requirement would -- Freckleton: I don't think that's something that you would want to put on the final plat. Borup: That's what I was realizing, but it would just be part of the PUD, part of the Planned Development Agreement? Freckleton: That would probably be a good place for it. I think that the applicant is doing ongoing monitoring of the groundwater situation out there. Their soil scientist ought to be able to give us a good number of what kind of separation they can attain. Borup: The last sentence of the staff report on Item 11 says the purpose for three foot is to insure that the bottom of the crawl space be one foot above groundwater. Freckleton: Exactly. Borup: But if there is no crawl space, I assume the bottom would be the bottom of your slab or -- Beecham: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I think by requiring that separation, then, it doesn't matter what the construction method, you still have that separation doing slab on grade, which is to allow you to set the units lower and, therefore, the street center line lower, if I'm -- I may not be communicating that properly, but -- Borup: You're going the wrong direction, aren't you? You're saying if you still have a three-foot separation that you can lower everything? Beecham: The crawl space is considered a floor area, so if you have to set the crawl space up, I think you're raising those units, if I understand it correctly. Freckleton: What we are trying to achieve is that the high groundwater, the highest normal groundwater elevation is one foot below the bottom of the footing. That's what we are trying to achieve, and by stating that we want three feet minimum from the highest established groundwater elevation to the center line of the roads, by taking normal construction practices on the slopping of the front yards and that sort of thing, we feel that we can achieve that separation. The question of slab on grade and what Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 77 of 104 kind of separation we would have to have there, quite frankly, this is the first time that's really came up, so I -- Borup: It sounds like Mr. Beecham is saying that rather than saying that the top needed to be three feet, if it's slab on grade, the top would need to be one foot. Is that what you're getting to? Beecham: Yes, sir. If I understand it correctly -- I guess what I would like to emphasize is that we want to meet staff's requirement, but we want to make sure of the effect of going from a crawl space foundation to slab on grade and make sure that we don't have a requirement that makes us push the road up higher than need be. Borup: It sounds like you're accomplishing the same thing. You could drop the grade two feet. Is that generally -- Freckleton: Well, there are a lot of other factors that come into play, too. When you have got that kind of a separation issue, handling storm water runoff is going to be a major, major problem. You're going to have to maintain a three-foot separation to groundwater from the bottom of any storm drain facility as well, so -- Borup: I guess you got bigger problems than just the crawl space. Freckleton: There are a lot of things that are playing in here, but the slab on grade questions, that's the first time that one's come up. Borup: So, that's something to be worked out with staff. Freckleton: Yes. I believe I also asked for some updated groundwater -- yes. The initial report that I had was dated in May of '03 and they were going to be doing ongoing monitoring of that groundwater elevation, so I guess what I would propose is that, you know, let's get that information and we can analyze the data and -- Borup: You're going to have a couple months before you get groundwater, don't you? Beecham: Yes. Mr. Chairman that would be our intent is to be able to work with staff and not dictate a specific elevation. There are, obviously, other factors at play and we need to balance all those and it's a delicate balancing game there. Our intent is to work with staff and we are not asking for any exceptions. Freckleton: That's acceptable to me. Borup: Okay. I interrupted you. Did you have some other things you were -- Beecham: No. Actually, with that, I guess I would respectfully request that the Commission approve the applications before you and do so with the findings as stated on pages five and six of the staff report, as well as the site-specific comments included Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 78 of 104 on page 11 of the staff report and in addition to the clarifications that I noted. I would point out that the staff report states that they did anticipate the revision, again, due to some conversations with staff. Our hope is to be able to move forward in a timely manner. We, however, don't want to put staff in an awkward position. I believe the findings in the staff report would support an approval of this revised plan. However, if staff is not comfortable with that, we certainly don't want to -- to force this on anybody and move faster than need be. However, I would reiterate that I think we have solved the issues. We continue -- we can continue to work with fire without materially changing the plan. I think if we did have to make a revision, it would not materially change the plan as far as density or open space. With that, I would stand for questions. Borup: Questions from Commission? Do you have any comment on the setback tables? Beecham: Oh, yes. I apologize. Borup: I'm assuming you would concur with what the staff report has. Beecham: I would. Borup: Since it was more liberal than what your chart had. Beecham: I would. It does bring up another issue and I would like to address the requirement for open space on the individual units. There is a requirement for 100 square feet of usable open space per unit. The lot areas allow for -- we have got lots that are about 5,500 square feet for the four-plex -- for the detached four-plex and about half that for the attached four-plex per lot. What that allows for is about 2,500 square feet of open space around the building footprint. In addition, we have got private deck and patio areas that would help to meet that requirement and if I could quickly, I'll put up this preliminary floor plan for the attached product to help demonstrate that. Zaremba: While he's doing that I would ask staff, you intend that usable open space to be a deck or a patio, right, not exterior open space. Powell: Correct. It's private usable open space. Borup: Okay. That's -- and that's a little far away. That has a private deck for each unit? Beecham: It does have a private deck for each unit. The ground floor meets the hundred square foot requirement, however, it does have a stairway passing over it. I would be -- reviewing it myself I guess I would be hard pressed to say that's a hundred feet, upstairs does not have the hundred feet. I would state, though, that we have been involved in a number of projects and I have yet to build or represent anybody building an apartment with a hundred square foot deck. I have got one under construction right now not a half a mile from here that was approved last year, Cooper Canyon, same Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 79 of 104 architecture, same process, and they do not have a hundred square foot deck. That's something that did not catch me off guard entirely, but the section of the code that required that also allows the Commission to review it on a case-by-case basis. Where we have got nearly 30 percent of the site, regardless of the lots, 30 percent of the site in open space, I would request flexibility in this. We exceed the requirement by nearly three times. If you -- further, if you would add the 2,500 square feet of yard area around the units, that number goes way up. We have done our best to -- Borup: The yard area around the front and the side of the building really isn't private space. I would say maybe the yard area in back would be, but -- Beecham: I understand. What we have done here is we have made a trade-off and we have provided for larger areas that are highly usable for active and passive recreation, as opposed to yarding off and putting fences around these units. We would prefer the open view. Borup: Okay. I haven't seen that come up before either. Staff, I don't know if -- you mentioned whether you concurred with the new site layout, the new -- did that address your concerns on the cut-through traffic? Powell: It's over -- it addressed my overwhelming concerns. I suppose I still have concerns regarding it, but I think kind of the same position that ACHD took, a public street would have been better, but this is okay. Then, can I comment on the annexation, the question about the Development Agreement? They are not requesting annexation, but they are requesting a Rezone and you do have a number of people here to speak to tonight, so I'd like to -- for you to -- if you want to condition the Rezone -- which you can't condition a Rezone. As you know, so -- the Development Agreement is an opportunity to set limits on the extent of that Rezone, so you may want to keep that option open. Would you like for me to read the code regarding the open space? I was looking for it in the staff report. I don't know if you have seen that code before. It says all residential Planned Developments -- Borup: No, because we don't have a codebook, I don't believe. Powell: Yes. I had asked Wendy to include it in your staff report. Borup: It is in there. Powell: Oh. Okay. Borup: 12.6.2. Powell: Should be 12.6.2A-4. All residential Planned Developments shall provide each dwelling unit with at least 100 square feet of usable private open space, such as patio or deck. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 80 of 104 Borup: Yes. She put that in the report. Powell: You have it. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Unlike the other, it's kind of a precursor for being able to request the Planned Development, so it's not one that's really open for a lot of negotiation to just waive it, because it's a Planned Development. There is a little wiggle room in there as that standard's written, if you think that the rest of the development provides that type of open space, then, you can waive that requirement, but it's not one that you can waive just because it's a PD. Borup: Okay. Well, if we do have some public testimony, we'd like to get to that. Let me ask one question that may answer some of that and that's the fact that this is an I-L zone, you have got existing businesses around, specifically we had one letter from Precision Craft concerned about residential neighborhood perhaps not being happy with their business operation. Have you decided how you would address that issue? Beecham: Mr. Chairman, I -- no, not specifically. There are some inherent possibilities of conflict between adjacent uses. We say that a multi-family residential use is more compatible with an industrial or a commercial use than -- Borup: Than a single-family? Beecham: Than a single-family, for sure. This does provide for a nice transition to some of the single-family areas adjacent to our property. Borup: Well, I mean what I was leading to is -- and, I don't know, maybe some staff could help on this. We have the right to farm notations on new subdivisions because of a preexisting operation going on. Is something like that applicable here where there needs to be a note that there are existing industrial properties and businesses around and that, you know, the tenants and the buyers need to be aware of that? How would you handle something like that? I don't think the city wants to have people calling up complaining about a -- you know, I can see there is a possibility of that happening, but the business has been there for 13 years and these people come in later. Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it might be applicable place to put that. I think the right to farm stuff -- I think that's usually on there -- as I recall, there is state code that requires some sort of mention on it and I don't know that it would be the same for industrial, but it might be -- Borup: Well, I don't think there is a state code, but I wonder if this Commission could probably do something along that line. Wollen: I think that it might possibly be something -- I can't think of any reason why it would be -- yes, why it wouldn't be advisable, why it wouldn't be allowed at this time, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 81 of 104 Borup: Well, we'd had some other experience with residential in the middle of industrial before. Beecham: Mr. Chairman, if I could address that. We are sensitive to that and would not necessarily be opposed to some sort of note, whether it be in the CC&R’s or on the plat. However, it's important to note that people buying properties will have the benefit of already knowing that these potentially incompatible uses are there. There is some zoning there that -- on vacant land, but, by and large, the incompatibility is present today and that would be known. Borup: Well, we have gone through that before where we have present zoning and that didn't stop a hundred people from filling up this room complaining about the same thing. I mean this is a little different, you know, some of the businesses are there and the size and everything is a lot different and this is -- we are at the reverse. Beecham: I would also note that you generally have alternating or opposite use, a residential is in use in the evenings, where these businesses operate during the day and -- just for the record. Borup: Okay. Well, probably not on the plat would be the place, but probably in the CC&R’s, at least, and maybe somewhere else. Right. That's -- thank you. Beecham: Thank you. Borup: Do we have someone else to testify on this? Come on up. Smith: Commissioners, my name is Mark Smith, I'm the general manager for Basolite Concrete Products, located at 1300 East Franklin Road, and I have prepared a letter on behalf of Basolite Concrete Products that I'd like to give to you and I have made copies, if you want to -- I'll just go through briefly the points made in that letter for the record. Basolite Concrete Products, formerly known as Builder's Masonry Products, is, as I said, located at 1300 East Franklin Road. We are a manufacturer of concrete block, brick, and landscape materials, that sort of thing. Our manufacturing facility -- the actual building that we do that manufacturing is located on the northern end of our 20- acre site. If you look at the drawing that I provided -- yes. We can use that -- with the letter you will see our site directly south of the proposed development. That's right there. I will walk over and point to the area where our plant building is located. Borup: About right in here? Smith: Exactly. Borup: Okay. Smith: If you look at the scale provided on the drawing, you will -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 82 of 104 Borup: And there is a -- Smith: Our building is -- okay. Powell: Sir, there should be a laser pointer at the podium -- Smith: Okay. Powell: -- that you can use. There you go. Smith: Yes. There is our building right there. Okay. We are approximately anywhere from probably 500 to 700 feet from the closest building that's proposed on this development. Okay. The machinery that we use to manufacture our products, block machines, are noisy and we also use, to facilitate the movement of the product after it comes out of the plant, we use forklifts and also we load trucks. Depending on the economic conditions that we are in from -- that vary from year to year, we will find ourselves operating anywhere from one shift, eight hours, to several shifts that could go late into the night. It's always a potential that we would need to operate on a 24-7 basis, some of the other Basolite plants in other areas do that, and when we have a residential development here, in our experience, we have found that when residential development is allowed around block plants, complaints are almost certain, because the machinery is relatively noisy. Borup: And that's residential that comes in after the existing plant is in operation? Smith: Correct. Correct. This has happened at several other facilities of Basolite Concrete Products in other states and, then, also through my contacts with my industry association, there have been other situations like that that have come to my attention where the residents move in and, then, they begin to complain and, then, ordinances change and there is restrictions placed on the business. When you have those kind of restrictions placed on the business, that can become very costly. The business loses efficiencies in their operation and cannot compete effectively. It can be a major impact for us. It is our position that the I-L zoning for this property as it is, is appropriate and should not be changed. We have one other concern and that is a potential safety issue, whenever you have residential development you have families with children and some children, not all, but some don't respect keep out, private property, things like that, so as much as we would try to secure a site and fence it, there is always going to be the potential for kids climbing the fences and coming over and playing on the major equipment and that sort of thing. There are potential injuries, fatality, and we are certainly concerned about that and that's all I have. Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Smith? All right. Wittlake: My name is Don Wittlake. My business address is 1433 East Commercial Avenue, which is right there, them two lots right there. We run a trucking company. We have cars brought in -- we haul cars. The trucks come in basically 24 hours a day, in Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 83 of 104 and out. We have a lot of truck traffic coming down commercial right and there is a warehouse right here that has trucks coming in all the time delivery freight. We have trucks coming in all the time delivering freight. With a subdivision in there, if they was coming out of this Commercial right here, little kids walking -- there is a school right over here somewhere -- they would be walking right down Commercial Avenue, all the truck traffic, all the car traffic -- Borup: Are there sidewalks on that street? Wittlake: What's that? Borup: Are there sidewalks on that street? Wittlake: There are sidewalks on -- not on my side of the street. The sidewalks over here and I think they are down that way. I don't believe there are any sidewalks here at all. There are sidewalks around this way. Our lot is them two lots right there. We are all fenced, big night-lights for safety and security. The one reason we moved to there is we were in another area where there was residential area and that's one reason we moved out here in the middle of the commercial and we spent a lot of money, but we built that building so we would be clear away from any residential, because we do have trucks that move all the time. That's our business. We just -- I don't know. We open our shop at 6:00 o'clock in the morning, so there is a lot of noise, trucks coming and going all night long. That's about all I can say about it. Borup: Any questions? Taylor: Good evening. A little late, but I will make this really short if I can. My name is Larry Taylor, I am an owner and represent the business association, the Santee complex located due east of the proposed project, address 749 North Ralston Street, Meridian. I do oppose this application that they do have. There are a lot of issues I do have involved in this. First would be the access. It looks like you have two main access routes into the property, one would be Pine Street, of which currently has no sidewalks, curbs, gutters, or anything on that street, so for a residential type of a project, you have no foot traffic going into it and I don't see where it's proposed in their project. The next would be Commercial Avenue via Ralston and/or when Commercial gets push onto the proposed Locust Grove extension. That will make Commercial probably one of the primary accesses into this residential/high density residential neighborhood. The access is a major concern. Pine Street at this time is overcrowded as it is. It's two lane, it's barely enough for two lanes as it goes, but, as everybody sees, it has no through -- thoroughfare through there, you either got to go onto Nola or turn north onto Locust Grove. We will get into the noise issue as far as traffic. That will be the same. It will increase substantially having 176 units. I'm not sure of the -- what you're looking at. It looks like two bedroom units -- two and one bedroom units. You have a parking of 1.75 per unit. I know myself I own two cars and I don't know where my third -- my three-quarter car would be parked, but it would have to be parked somewhere. Oh. I'm sorry. Again, the parking. That would be a major issue with 176 units and the amount of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 84 of 104 traffic that would incur with that and the number of people that would be involved in that project. This site -- the groundwater has been brought up a number of times. I know this is a great year to be measuring groundwater, since it's probably one of the drier years we have had in a long time, but the Snyder drain is located due east of this property. I know when we developed our site we had a groundwater problem issue with that and the corner of our property was located in the flood zone and we had to build our property according to that flood zone and do the setbacks. I know that if we are located in the flood zone and this piece of property is a minimum of four feet below us, there has got to be some flood issues involved in that and, concurrently, down below in the other flood zone. The other thing I do see is this is kind of like the Boise Home Depot situation that we had a few years back where you had the Home Depot was built in, the residential property that's located right behind Home Depot, they end up having some nighttime deliveries. There were a lot of complaints over that. We are going to have it here. There are businesses around, as well as the businesses in my complex, run 24 hours a day, we have deliveries all night, we have 18 wheel traffic, we have hyster traffic, we have Advanced Heating who is directly -- owns the five units directly to the west 40 feet from the immediate property line is the edge of their building and they do load their vans at nighttime at times for their next day installations. You do have -- is it Mr. Wittlake -- Wittlake. I see his trucks running all the time and they come right in front of my project and they are damn near 24-7. As long as -- with everything else -- and I'll make it really short, I just oppose it. The current zoning is I-L it is the best feasible proposal for the property. Thank you. Borup: Are you concerned that this project could affect operation of businesses around? Taylor: Will it affect -- the traffic will definitely affect it. The thing I see the most would be -- excuse me -- security. We do run video cameras on our property and we have had some break-ins in there. The more residential that you get around it, the higher probability for this type of a situation does occur. The more residential and pedestrian foot traffic you have around a commercial entity is definitely potentially hazardous. Do I see it as a deterrent? Yes, I do. Borup: Okay. Taylor: Any other questions? Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Another close neighbor here. Crane: Yes. Not very close. My name is Charles Crane. I live at 3600 West Ustick Road. Actually, I have come for a later item tonight, but I did want to ask a question about this. Did they say it was 176 units? Borup: Mr. Taylor did. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 85 of 104 Crane: Okay. Is that accurate? Okay. I just had a personal experience I'd like to add to this. On Karcher Road in Nampa I work right next to a new development that has four eight-plexes. For each two eight-plexes they have a quarter acre little yard to play in. It looked like a beautiful little place, I even considered moving there myself briefly, now that it's full there are people there, it's a family based place, but the kids don't play in the little park, they are next to the road, in the road, throwing rocks at cars, just because it's such a small area. If this was a retirement home or a motel or something where people never really left their rooms, I could see it, but 176 families in this little tiny area, I really hope that's not the future of Meridian. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Beecham, last comments. Beecham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Clearly, there have been concerns and there are some very legitimate concerns about incompatibility. Again, I think there are certain inevitabilities about incompatibility, you have to change zones at some point, and there is always that point where it does change. I guess I would like to go back to the staff report. We are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. We are in compliance with the zoning. We are introducing diversity in residential product to the city. We are doing it close to employment and we are doing a nice project with significant open space, a couple of the specific concerns regarding children and vandalism. That is not something I think we can address through land use planning. That is, unfortunately, a fact that it does occur. These units are not designed necessarily to be family oriented. They are a combination of two bedroom and one-bedroom units. I suspect that we will see a much lower number of families in these -- in this project. I would I guess like to use -- also like to use Home Depot as an example of -- obviously, that was big news, it got a lot of people uptight. I'd like the Commission to remember that what was determined in that is that the Home Depot was out of compliance. They were operating out of their approved times. I don't know what the requirements are on this development and, quite frankly, that's something I should, but I think being a good neighbor works both ways and tolerance works both ways. I won't deny that there is incompatibility -- or the potential for incompatibility here. I would reiterate that we need to provide for diversity of housing in the city of Meridian and this area designated as mixed-use -- again, as indicated by the staff report, is an appropriate location for that. The land was -- was found under that criteria and plans were prepared under the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. With that I -- Borup: Do you know how many one-bedroom units are planned? Or is that -- if this is going to be sold -- it's not one developer is it? Beecham: It is one developer. Borup: So, one developer is building everything. Okay. There will be one person controlling it all. Has that been determined at this point, the bedroom mix? Beecham: Yes, it has. Of the 44 lots, 20 of them are for the attached four-plex. Each of those attached four-plex buildings consists of four single bedroom units. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 86 of 104 Borup: So, what's the overall? One hundred seventy-six? Is that accurate? Beecham: One hundred seventy-six overall. Borup: And how many of those are one bedroom? Beecham: There are 80. Borup: Okay. Eighty-one bedroom. Okay. Questions from other Commissioners? Zaremba: I have a question that staff might be able to -- this is a challenge for an off- the-top-of-your-head answer. How far west does the I-L zone go? Borup: Well, it's either I-L -- Zaremba: One, two, three more properties? Borup: It's either I-L or commercial all the way to Eagle, isn't it? Zaremba: West I meant. Borup: Oh. West. I'm sorry. Excuse me. That's a good question. Do you know that, Scott? Beecham: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, the I-L zone stops at our west property line. Borup: So, this is the -- Beecham: It goes to R-1 Ada county residential zoning. Borup: So, right next to you is county R-1? Powell: Correct. Beecham: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: So, there was no buffer between the industrial and the residential. Beecham: No, sir. That's -- in my earlier comments I represented that we feel this is a good transition to a single-family use to the north of us and what's currently to the west Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 87 of 104 of us. If the I-L was to continue -- and, clearly, it can under the existing zoning, it could present a problem to the project to the north of us. That's my point, that at some point we've got to make a break and we have got to make a change, so while I do understand and appreciate the comments and concerns, the applicant, who I represent, is purchasing this property knowing what the land use is to the east and to the south. Borup: And that's my main thoughts is, you know, I think the existing businesses need to be able to operation under the agreement that they started with. Somebody coming in later would not have any right, in my mind, to alter of that. How do we assure that, that people aren't going to be calling into the city? I guess you can't assure they aren't going to be calling in. Zaremba: Buffers between uses. Do we have a wide enough buffer, landscape buffer around this one? I guess it's up to code. Beecham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, we actually exceed the requirement of the 20 foot landscape buffer. Zaremba: I thought that's what it looked like. I looked on the Landscape Plan and it looked like that. Borup: Question for staff -- and I don't know if you -- would that come in -- would complaint calls like this come into your department or would that go to the compliance officer? Powell: Yes, sir. It would either go to the Mayor and, then, get forwarded to our code enforcement officer or it would go directly there. Borup: Would a complaint of a residential tenant even be addressed in this situation? I mean in my mind that's something to be ignored. Powell: Well, there are provisions in the code that restrict any property from glare and noise in violation of those ones that were mentioned earlier. Borup: Right. I mean -- I meant anything that was in compliance with their existing conditions. Do we know what they are on the jointing -- the surrounding properties? Are they all conditioned for 24-hour operation, et cetera? Powell: We are not aware of any restrictions being placed on them, other than, again, the performance standards stated in the zoning ordinance and, then, the noise ordinance and the police code. Borup: Thank you. I have a tendency to feel, you know, if someone wants to go in with their eyes open, knowing what they are in for, and not expect -- you know, that's kind of up to them, but -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 88 of 104 Zaremba: Well, I agree with you. If there was a way to put right to industry, you know, note on the plat, the same as there is a Right To Farm Act that would help me a lot. Borup: I don't know if the plat's the place to do it, is it? I know other things staff has done to put things on the plat that don't really apply. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, prior to the state enacting the Right To Farm Act, I can think of a couple of projects that we specifically added a note to the plat to make people aware of a potential nuisance. The ones that come to mind are some that are out around out sewer treatment plant. We added notes to plats that talked about potential odors and that sort of thing. Borup: The situation we have here is the owner is the one that's going to see that. The tenants are not going to have any idea. Freckleton: Very true. Borup: And they are the ones that need to be notified and maybe that needs to -- I don't know. Can we require something in the apartment lease stating we understand there is industrial property around and we have no right to say anything? Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think that that might be a little bit beyond the power of the Council to enforce, for the -- basically, the landlord to put something in their lease regarding surrounding circumstances. I don't -- I have never heard of that before and I don't believe it's something that could be enforced. Borup: Again, I'm not -- if the landlord wants to build something like that, I don't have a concern, but I don't want them calling up and wasting the City's time complaining about something that shouldn't be. Okay. I have said enough. Any other comments? Have we had anything else -- we haven't had anything quite like this before. It's been the reverse. Siddoway: The closest to my mind is Cooper Canyon, which was a series of four- plexes that went in next to Hehr Manufacturing and Butte Fence, industrial uses. That would be the only -- the closest similar in terms of adjacent uses. Borup: Yes. What was that -- but that was -- that was a county RUT zone or something, wasn't it? Siddoway: No. Butte Fence and -- Borup: I mean the Cooper Canyon. Siddoway: It was -- yes. It was annexed in are R-15, I believe. Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 89 of 104 Siddoway: Yes. Borup: So, it wasn't a down zoning in an existing -- Siddoway: Correct. Zaremba: We did have a similar discussion -- I forget the name of the project, but it's on -- one side of it is Franklin and the side of it is Nola and we had people from Lanark that have industrial businesses come and want to make sure that the apartments that were going to be built in that project weren't going to generate complaints about their industrial -- preexisting industrial stuff. We did approve the project and I don't believe we said anything. That's true. I'm not -- I'm not -- well, they have moved some dirt around, but they haven't done anything more than that. Borup: Have you got any other ideas on how to handle this, Scott that might satisfy things? Beecham: Mr. Chairman, I'm a little bit hesitant to make any commitments on behalf of my clients that are not present tonight. I would state that in the past we have prepared what's -- what we call a facts you need to know and that's something that's delivered to the homeowner or the tenant that addresses traffic, in this situation the future of Locust Grove connection between Franklin and Pine would be something we would put on that. Maybe that's a possibility. That gets to the tenant. I guess I would agree with legal counsel that requiring that in the lease may go a little bit beyond and, quite frankly, I'm not sure what that would really do to -- to deter phone calls to the city. Borup: Maybe whoever answered the phone calls just need to say don't call us, call your landlord. Beecham: And I think that it's kind of a good point. These people are moving in -- conceivably moving into a project where they have got industrial neighbors and they need to be aware of that and I think it's a good idea to make them aware in writing, but driving to the project is the most telling thing. It's there. It's a known quantity. Borup: It looks like everything is developed on all the adjacent properties; is that correct? Or no? Is there something on this lot? Beecham: Yes. I think there is a warehouse there. I'm not sure what that -- the extent of that building is, but from the site -- generally everything is developed to the east. It's not a very intense development, although there are some large buildings. To the west, clearly, it's still the R-1 County. Borup: Okay. Commissioners, are we ready for some ideas so we can move on here? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 90 of 104 Zaremba: It's a quandary. It's an interesting project. We keep asking for higher densities here and there and certainly in this area. I'm also sensitive to the issue of several years down the road of how the businesses defend themselves against complaints and I think there will be complaints. They have already set a precedent of operating 24 hours a day with some noise and I would say they have a right to that. How would you protect them? I don't know the answer to that. Mathes: I might add to that, too. When they open Locust Grove you're going to have even more truck traffic in there. Borup: You mean in the businesses? Mathes: Yes. Yes. Borup: Well, why would there be more, unless there is new businesses come in? Mathes: Well, they'd come up Locust Grove and go in. Borup: As opposed to going off Pine? Mathes: Yes. Borup: Yes. It's not going to be more trucks unless the business expands. Zaremba: Just a shorter route. Rohm: The one thing that's for sure, though, the developer, obviously, already sees the industrial adjacent and if they want to take the risk of developing residential type dwellings in an industrial environment, I guess -- Borup: That's their risk to take. Rohm: It's theirs to take. Borup: Well, the other factor -- I guess I think -- is the buffering. I mean the other property to the west. Somewhere you make a transition, so -- so if a full-fledged industrial application came here, what kind of restriction would we put on them because of the property to the west? Zaremba: And the north. Borup: Are they going to need a 50-foot buffer with, you know, sound walls and everything else? Which wouldn't be fair to a property that's already got the zoning. This is a down zoning situation. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 91 of 104 Zaremba: Well, this isn't too helpful, but I could go either way, but let me explore the choices. Borup: Well, yes, we either move on tonight or table this for a while or whatever. Zaremba: If we decided that we didn't want to change the zone, then, that would pretty much be the end. If we decided that this was a project that was okay for that area, then, I would think we would need to continue the Public Hearing. There are still some open issues. Staff needs to take a good look at the new plat and have their opinion. There is still discussion with the Fire Department. Still discussion with Public Works about how deep the water is, so even if we were working towards saying let the buyer beware, let's go ahead with this, I would say, we still need to continue it to get some issues resolved and the new plat. Borup: Mr. Smith, did you have something you think might help? Zaremba: It's still open. Borup: Yes. The Public Hearing is open, but -- Smith: Yes. Thank you. The real issue here is that, you know, buyer beware for the currently developer does not necessarily mean that a future landlord, someone who may buy the property later, is going to comply with any agreement that might be made in some fashion where tenants are informed that they are moving into an industrial area. While the current developer and landlord may agree to do that, if he sells the property, is that going to transfer to the next owner? Probably not. The other problem that we have is that you're going to have -- you know, you're going to have a hundred or two hundred, however many people there potentially who are voters in Meridian who can have a major impact on business operations. Ordinances can change and we may restricted and not allowed to operate if we needed to 24-7. There really is -- Borup: Is that your present -- is that your understanding? You have -- presently you're allowed to operate 24 hours? Smith: As far as I know there is no restriction. Borup: There is no restriction at all? Smith: There are no restrictions. I guess my main point here is that there really is no way, as far as I know, to assure businesses in the area that the landlord and the tenants are going to always be informed and be asked to agree in some fashion that they are moving into an industrial area. Therefore, they may have to put up with noise. That's the main issue. I mean the safety issue with children is a concern as well, but the noise is the main issue. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 92 of 104 Borup: Well, I think the biggest notification is -- as Commissioner stated, is you got to just open your eyes just driving through -- or whoever stated it -- driving to the property tells you you're in an industrial area. Smith: Well, that's true, but until the resident moves in and finds out he can't sleep at 1:00 o'clock in the morning because our block plant is running, that's when we have problems and, really, that is our major concern. I really believe that the Commission and City Council needs to protect the existing businesses, so that we have the flexibility that we currently have to operate, as we need to. If that becomes restricted, then, that can be a major cost to our business. I can only speak for our business, but the efficiencies we would lose would be a tremendous impact. Borup: Thank you. Well, I, for one, would say that there wouldn't be any restriction coming from this Commission or from me. Did you have final comment, Scott? Beecham: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Just for the record, I would like to state that the applicant is not in the business of running off business. You know, what they are trying to do is meet the needs, the demand for housing and a diversity of housing in the City of Meridian. This area was recently considered in a Comp Plan amendment that encouraged exactly the type of development we are proposing. Again, while we are -- while we understand the concerns that the neighboring businesses, our guide for development is the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance and we feel -- you know, we have looked at this property, done an analysis on it, and determined that it is an area targeted for this type of growth. I guess, further, that issue has been heard. Whether you should Rezone or not, I think the Comprehensive Plan encouraging that type of development in this area would indicate that it is appropriate to Rezone. Borup: Maybe just one final question. We had touched on it, but I don't know if that got clarified. Did you have question on that hundred square foot private area? I'm assuming that you realize that's in the ordinance and needs to be complied with or, I guess, a Variance requested or -- Beecham: Mr. Chairman, I think I did address it. Hopefully, I addressed it adequately. Borup: Well, yes, you said you didn't have it, from what I understood. Beecham: If I could restate it. We are providing for private deck and patio areas on the lower floor. Borup: Right. Beecham: They come close to meeting that. However, I'm asking you to consider the second part of that code requirement that allows you the flexibility of making a trade off and where this project has -- is offering close to 30 percent open space, 30 percent of gross land area in open space, we feel that's a significant offering and would hope you would consider that. We have not eliminated private open space -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 93 of 104 Borup: Putting a park in the middle of the property you're talking about. Beecham: The park in the middle of the property, as well as an oversize buffer around the perimeter and respecting the floodway and flood plain and providing for recreational amenities there. Borup: Okay. Beecham: It's I think nearly 3.7 acres of open space on the project, on a 12 and a half acre site. Borup: Okay. Anything else from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Well, just on that subject, I -- the way I heard it, alternate compliance is acceptable. You can't just waive the requirement, but we can consider alternate compliance. Borup: Yes. That's more accurate. Okay. Mr. Zaremba, you were formulating some thoughts, I think. Powell: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Powell: May I follow up on Commissioner Zaremba's -- Borup: Please do. Powell: I'm fading. I don't know about you all. In light of the testimony that's been provided today, both in the form of a new Site Plan and the testimony regarding the industrial uses, I think it would be appropriate to reconsider not just the Site Plan, but also the Comprehensive Plan issues, given the testimony of the neighbors. If you wanted to table -- I think originally we had talked to the applicant about just going out two weeks, thinking that we would only be looking at the Site Plan, but if we are really re-evaluating the Comp Plan as well, I would ask to go out further than two weeks. Zaremba: Do we know at what point or how this got zoned I-L in the first place? Powell: It was not part of the Santee Park Subdivision. Zaremba: So, it got zoned I-L independently? Powell: We can -- would you like us to research that topic? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 94 of 104 Zaremba: Only if we continue it. I'm pretty sensitive to the neighbors and they have certainly made their point that they are not effective -- compatible with residential. I'm leaning towards thinking that as a buffer this needs to be a very soft I-L and, then, begin residential on the other side of it. I only say I'm leaning that direction. Borup: What's a soft I-L? Zaremba: Well, as the city said, what they want around the waste treatment plant is limited light industrial, but I'm thinking of things that wouldn't operate 24 hours a day or make a lot of noise as a transition. I think it would be attractive commercial property when they do put Locust Grove through and possibly commercial across and maybe even at some point Pine is going to go all the way to Eagle that could be valuable commercial property. Borup: Well, which way are we leaning here? Zaremba: I think I'm leaning towards denying the Rezone. I could be swayed. Borup: Well, someone mentioned earlier to continue it. Zaremba: I wouldn't -- I definitely would not be ready to approve it in its current form. It does -- if it's not going to be denied, it needs to be -- needs to be studied. Borup: If I remember, is that correct that if it -- if the Rezone was denied, the only way for this to go forward would be for the applicant to -- Zaremba: Appeal to the City Council. Borup: Appeal to City Council. It's not like going forward with a negative recommendation. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, point of clarification. I believe it's just the Preliminary Plat that would die here. The Rezone and the Conditional Use would go forward with a recommendation for denial. The plat would die and need to be appealed. Borup: Oh, the plat does. Okay. That's what I couldn't remember. That happened on Blooming -- Powell: Blooming Meadows. Yes. Borup: -- Meadows. Zaremba: Well, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing. Rohm: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 95 of 104 Borup: All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending denial of Item 12 on our agenda, RZ 03-008, request for a Rezone of 12.74 acres from I-L to R- 15 zones for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC, 1125 East Pine Street. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Anything discussion? Rohm: When you make a motion to deny, don't you have to site the specific reasons for that denial? Borup: We have been asked to do that. Yes. That is correct. Zaremba: My reasoning would be that I believe that is -- that piece of property and incompatibility with its neighbors, that property is appropriately I-L. Borup: Okay. Rohm: I mean that's -- that adds the clarity needed. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Do we need to act on the other two? They are kind of moot if it's -- if the zoning isn't changed. Borup: Well, I don't know. We have approved whole subdivisions in I-L zones before. Not we. No one here on this -- no one here on this Commission, but the city has. Wollen: I believe, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that the other two hearings are pretty obviated by your denial of the Rezone, so -- I don't know. Powell: Don't they -- I believe they have to take some action on it. Wollen: They have to take some action. Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 96 of 104 Zaremba: Okay. Well, I'll make a stab at it, then. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending denial of Item 13 on our agenda PP 03-017. Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 45 building lots and 14 other lots on 12.74 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC, 1125 East Pine Street, for the following reasons: One, we did not Rezone it from I-L -- Borup: That's probably enough. Rohm: That's sufficient. Zaremba: And, two, we believe residential is not appropriate next to the current neighboring uses. Borup: And a clarification. Do we do a recommendation to City Council or do we just make our own -- make our own findings? Powell: Findings. Borup: Okay. This one would not go to City Council. The motion would be to deny it. Zaremba: I revise my motion to say that we deny it on those grounds and ask the attorney to supply Findings of Fact for denial. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: This would be forwarded to the City Council, I believe. The CUP. Borup: I think so. Zaremba: Okay. In that case I recommend we forward to the City Council recommending denial of Item 14 on our agenda, CUP 03-032, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a multi-family residential subdivision, requesting reduced setbacks, parking standards, and dimensional requirements for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC, 1125 East Pine Street. Rohm: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 97 of 104 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 16. Public Hearing: CUP 03-035 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a material arts / self defense establishment for children in a C-N zone for Karate For Kids by Petra, Inc. – southeast corner of South Linder Road and West Franklin Road: Borup: That concludes those three hearings. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, we need to make a little -- is Karate for Kids still here? Okay. If the other Commissioners agree, I think we owe it to at least hear this -- this one and we will go from there. Are we okay with that? Okay. I'd like to open Public Hearing CUP 03-035, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a martial arts / self defense establishment for children in a C- N zone for Karate for Kids by Petra, Inc., on the southeast corner of South Linder and West Franklin and open this Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I go into that, let me just state before I forget that I believe that we need to formally open the Public Hearing on the Coffee Kiosk and continue that. Borup: Did I pass that? I'm sorry. I did. Well -- Siddoway: We can do that after this, if you want. Borup: Yes. Let's move that to the end of the agenda. Siddoway: That's fine. I just wanted to make sure we didn't forget to open it. Borup: No. That's what I planned to do was discuss that before we dismissed. Siddoway: Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The Karate for Kids project is proposed at the intersection of Franklin and Linder Roads in the site that's outlined on the screen. It is across Linder from Hark's Corner and surrounded on the south and the east by Crestwood Estates Subdivision, to the -- here, let me get this. To the immediate east of the property is an RV storage lot for the Crestwood residential subdivision and just south of it is the tennis courts for the Crestwood Subdivision and south of it in the white area is a storm water detention pond that belongs to ACHD. The Hark's Corner development across to the west is a gas station, Arctic Circle, car wash development and most of the property to the north remains undeveloped. This is the site photo from a few years back. Hark's Corner exists in this location now. It wasn't there when this photo was taken. You can see the existing residential subdivision wrapping around in this area. This is their proposed Site Plan. Overall, staff has no concerns with the project as proposed. You should have a staff report with a transmittal date of July 31st and today's hearing date August 7th. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 98 of 104 There are on pages four and five eight special considerations related to tree removal. A future expansion that's proposed, the rear setbacks, the parking row, the tree sizes, the lot size, the drainage ditch, and parking calculations. I only feel to bring up two specifically for any discussion, unless there are questions of the Commission. That would be the last two, seven and eight. The drainage ditch, which is shown on the Site Plan as running through the street buffers along Linder and Franklin. We ask that the applicant verify whether there was any easement associated with that piping that would preclude the landscaping that is being shown and proposed. I have heard back that there is no easement, but I'd like to get that on the record tonight. Secondly, the parking calculations, since there is no specific mention of karate studios, dance studios, and the like in our parking standards, this would fall under Ordinance 11-13-5B 8, which says that for uses not listed, parking spaces shall be provided on the same basis as required for the most similar listed use or as determined by the Commission. I would just ask the Commission to make the determination that this is adequate parking. I believe I have put in the following paragraphs staff's analysis and feel confident that this is adequate parking, but would ask the Commission to make that same finding. With that I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Anything you'd like to add? Nye: Members of the Council, just -- Borup: State your name and address for the record. Nye: I'm Michael Nye with Petra. Business address 9056 West Black Eagle Drive, Boise. Borup: You didn't catch that after being here for this many hours? Nye: You know this is the first time I have ever been here. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Nye: Usually, the architect does this or somebody. I don't know. Borup: Okay. I think the only question was on the ditch -- you were going to clarify on the ditch. Nye: Yes. A clarification on the landscaping. We will do -- there is not an easement on that and if there are issues regarding the trees of whatever as planted in that landscaping area, if we need to modify that, we are willing to do that. Whatever is necessary to accommodate the underground water piping of that irrigation. Borup: I think that was the only question, wanted to make sure there wasn't an existing easement through there and -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 99 of 104 Nye: Right. Borup: -- verify that it is not is that your testimony for the record? Nye: Yes. Borup: Okay. I am going by the staff calculations. There is probably no conceivable use of that that would require more parking than what you already have. Okay. Any questions for any of the Commission? Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify to this? Seeing none, Commission? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing for Item 16 be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 16 on our agenda CUP 03-035. Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a martial arts / self defense establishment for children in a C-N zone for Karate for Kids by Petra, Inc. Southeast corner of South Linder Road and West Franklin Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of August 7, 2003, received by the city clerk August 1, 2003, and noting that on Page 5, Item 7, and the applicant has stated that no easement exists and, therefore, the standard landscaping requirements are required. On Item 8, we agree with staff that under all configurations parking is adequate. Borup: That was your motion? Zaremba: That was my motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 15. Public Hearing: CUP 03-030 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru coffee kiosk in an L-O zone for Coffee Kiosk by Donn Reiswig – east of South Eagle Road and south of East Franklin Road: Borup: Mr. Wardle came back. I thought we would be able to do this with you gone. Okay. We do have some clean up to take care of, Commissioners. Back to Item Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 100 of 104 Number 15, the Coffee Kiosk. They have asked to be continued to the August 21st meeting. Zaremba: Open the hearing? Borup: Yes, I guess we need to. I'd like to open Public Hearing CUP 03-030, Conditional Use for a drive-thru Coffee Kiosk. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, at the request of the applicant, I move that we continue this Public Hearing to our meeting of August 21st. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 17. Public Hearing: CUP 03-037 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to move into older home used as office space, pave portion of adjacent lot, use as dealership for used automobiles in a C-G zone for O.P.M. Enterprises by O.P.M. Enterprises, Inc. – 1065 East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Okay. Next one is Item Number 17. I'd like to open CUP 03-037, request for a Conditional Use Permit to move into older home used as office space, pave portion of adjacent lot, use as auto dealership and office buildings in a C-G zone for O.P.M., Enterprises. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, at the request of the applicant, I move that we continue this Public Hearing until August 21st. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 18. Public Hearing: CPA 03-003 Request for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential uses within the mixed-use WWTP zoning designation for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 3680 West Ustick Road: Item 19. Public Hearing: RZ 03-009 Request for a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 3680 West Ustick Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 101 of 104 Item 20. Public Hearing: PP 03-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots on 5.93 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 3680 West Ustick Road: Item 21. Public Hearing: CUP 03-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a 41-lot subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes, minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 3680 West Ustick Road: Borup: I hope we are ready for a long meeting on the 21st. Okay. That leads us to our last project. I was originally hoping we would at least be able to get to Item 18 and perhaps continue the other three, but -- Mr. -- well, this -- actually -- and I hope that got communicated to you, John. I know when we were anticipating putting this on the agenda, staff didn't even want to put it on and I don't know if that was discussed with you. I did with Christie. Anyway, we decided that it would go on with the understanding that we may not make it and my understanding is that you want to proceed ahead on that basis, so -- Wardle: Commissioners and Chairman, we were informed of that, so whatever you want to do. We are at your mercy. Borup: Okay. Commissioners? I'm not sure how much time we anticipate for the Comp Plan amendment. Are we within the -- when was our last one? Within the six months? Zaremba: As a text change I don't believe this is -- Borup: Oh, this is just a text change. Okay. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Zaremba: We have not opened the Public Hearings, is that -- Borup: No, we have not. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we table Items 18, 19, 20, and 21 to our meeting of August 21st. Borup: Okay. I might make a suggestion maybe, to perhaps this could be first on the agenda. The other two asked to have theirs moved. I think they could go in where they fall. Would it be appropriate to maybe have this one first? Zaremba: I would be happy to lead the August 21st meeting with Item 18, followed by 19, 20, and 21 and, then, the other continued hearings after that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 102 of 104 Borup: Mr. Wardle is that what you would rather -- or would you rather have it at the end? Okay. So -- Zaremba: The motion is to table 18, 19, 20, and 21 to be the first items on our August 21st agenda. Borup: Okay. You would be first on the agenda. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor. Any opposed? Did we cover everything? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman -- I move we adjourn. Mathes: Second. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Siddoway: I believe that -- we can look to legal counsel, but I believe you should open those hearings to continue them. If you table them, we will have to re-notice them. Borup: Oh. Siddoway: Is my understanding. Borup: We don't want to do that. Because they have been noticed for this meeting and everyone is at this meeting -- Wollen: If they are simply continued, I think that's -- it may be a matter of -- Borup: Has Council done it that way? Wollen: It may be a matter of verbiage, but I believe that they received notice of this hearing. Siddoway: The City Council, I believe, does always open them on their agendas, if they are going -- if they have been noticed for that date and, then, continued to another date. It's kind of a semantic thing. Borup: Well, what's the difference between open and tabling -- I mean continuing and tabling it? Siddoway: Good question. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 103 of 104 Wollen: And I don't know -- I don't really know what -- Borup: Where are the parliamentarians here? Wollen: Yes. The Robert's Rules of Order. Borup: The meeting's over, so we are free to -- Wardle: I guess just for the sake of clarity and consistency with other applications, I just -- maybe change the motion to continue to the next hearing, just because of -- I know that this area has been contentious in terms of noticing issues, so -- Borup: So, let's not take any chances. Wardle: Let's not take any chances, let's just continue the Public Hearing to the 21st. Zaremba: I don't have a problem with that. We do have a motion on the floor, though, that needs to be voted down. Borup: No. We have already adjourned, so we need to reopen the meeting. Zaremba: We didn't vote on the adjournment. Wollen: Yes. The adjournment was never voted on. It was seconded, but it was never voted upon. Borup: Okay. We have a motion on the floor to adjourn the meeting. All in favor? All opposed. Okay. MOTION FAILED: THREE OPPOSED. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would like to withdraw a motion I previously made and substitute it with this motion. I'm sorry. You will need to open the Public Hearing before I make a motion. Borup: Yes. I'm sorry. I'd like to open Public Hearing CPA 03-033, and RZ 03-009, and PP 03-019 and CUP 03-034. I'd like to open all four Public Hearings at this time. Zaremba: I think we are learning why it's not advisable to conduct heavy thought after midnight. Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue those four Public Hearings to be the very first items on our agenda for August 21st, 2003. Rohm: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 104 of 104 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. chairman, I move we adjourn. Mathes: I second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: We have adjourned at 12:49. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:49 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: SHARON SMITH, DEPUTY CITY CLERK