Loading...
2003 01-02Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 2, 2003 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Thursday, January 2, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, David Zaremba, and Leslie Mathes. Members Absent: Michael Rohm. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Jill Holinka, Sharon Smith, Jessica Johnson, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance: ___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers ___X___ Leslie Mathes ___O___ Michael Rohm ___X__Chairman Keith Borup Borup: I'd like to thank everyone for their patience. We had a few things to take care of before we start, so we'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, January 2nd , and start with roll call of Commissioners. Item 4. Public Hearing: CUP 02-043 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for drive-thru facilities on pre-approved bank in a C- C zone on 0.89 acres for Albertsons Employees’ Federal Credit Union by Albertsons Employees’ Federal Credit Union – south of East Overland Road and east of South Eagle Road: Borup: The first item on the Agenda is CUP 02-043, a request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development drive-thru facility on -- for Albertson's Employees Federal Credit Union. This is south of Overland Road and east of Eagle Road. I'd like to open the Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The site is incorrectly identified on the vicinity map up there. It is the parcel just west of the one outlined in black. It's, actually, a portion of that lot. The reason for the confusion is there is a plat that's going -- that's in process right now for re-subdividing this area and it was unclear which parcel this was on. The noticing was done based on the perimeter that's shown there and it should have shifted west slightly to the adjacent lot. You do have a staff report dated December 23rd . This is for an Albertson's Federal Credit Union. It is a Conditional Use Permit request because of the drive-thru. The bank itself, as a use, is a permitted use in the subdivision. The drive-thru at the bank is the reason why it's coming back for a separate Conditional Use at this time. The site- specific requirements on Page 3 mention some minor modifications that need to be made to the Landscape Plan and submitting a revised copy of that 10 days prior to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 2 of 57 next Public Hearing. The other comments are fairly standard in nature and staff would recommend approval of this application with the conditions mentioned in the staff report. I do have a few other site photos to show you. This is the aerial photo. You can see it's at the intersection of Overland Road and Eagle Road. This is the Silverstone complex. This is the proposed Site Plan for the drive-thru. It does have two drive-thrus, an ATM machine, and an escape lane, so two banking lanes, an ATM lane, an escape lane like that heading west. Overland Road is north up here. These are the elevations of the proposed bank facility and the landscape plan. That's all I have at this time and I will stand for any question. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Steve, could you go back to the site -- well, right here is fine so the traffic is moving in this way and, actually, they will be along Overland Road - - or perpendicular to Overland Road? Siddoway: Yes Overland Road is at the top of the drawing here. Centers: Okay. Siddoway: Eagle Road is further over here. It doesn't quite touch. If we go back to the -- this vicinity map, that site sits on like a portion of this lot right in here. Centers: Right. Siddoway: So Eagle Road -- or Eagle Road is further over to the west. Overland Road runs along the north side of it. There is a driveway opening on Overland Road at this location. It would come in and circulate through this way. Borup: It would be facing the parcel to the west. Centers: Right. Mathes: Is this the same one TCBY and Moxie Java was one a couple months ago? Siddoway: The same site? Mathes: The same parcel yes. Siddoway: I don't believe so. Mathes: Or is that the one right over? Borup: They were southwest. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 3 of 57 Zaremba: Southwest south and west. The little pie shaped lot. Sharing a driveway with this one. Borup: Yes. They were re -- they were reconfiguring all those lots in there. Okay. Is the applicant's representative here and would like to come forward? Anything else you would like to add to the staff's presentation? Huse: My name is Casey Huse. I'm with Lombard-Conrad Architects, representing Albertson's Employees Federal Credit Union in this application. We have reviewed the application and the staff report and have no issues with it. Borup: Yes. I think probably the only thing we -- one additional comment we would need to make and that is concerning the parcel number that was misidentified. Huse: Yes. Borup: There could be some concern on the notification and if -- well, first of all, we'd like to get a new notification out to those possible three parcels that may not have been notified and just as long as the applicant realizes if there is an objection it could be remanded back or -- Huse: Yes we understand. Borup: Or something along that line. Huse: Yes. There is another posting for the City Council. Borup: Right. There would still be another full hearing at City Council and notification and everything any other questions? Any questions of any Commissioners? All right. Thank you. Do we have anyone here to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Centers: I would move that we close the Public Hearing, Mr. Chairman. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Centers: Mr. Chairman, I had noted on my notes here approval as a formality, especially with no objections and the traffic to the drive-up is along a major thoroughfare, no residential use hampered. I'd like to make a motion to approve CUP 02-043, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for drive- thru facilities on a pre-approved bank in a C-C zone on .89 acres for Albertson's Employees Federal Credit Union by Albertson's Employees Federal Credit Union. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 4 of 57 South of East Overland Road and east of South Eagle Road, with the applicant understanding that certain notices have to be made. And that if those notices, once received by the property owners, if there are objections, that there could -- you could see this hearing back at the Planning and Zoning in the future and the application is nodding their head that they understand that. Of course, that will be part of the conditions approval. End of motion. Zaremba: I will second it. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Our next item -- Zaremba: I would only comment for the general public that are here that may not attend very many of these meetings, you probably are aware that there is a requirement in the state law to notify any property owner within 300 feet of the applicant. Because this parcel was misidentified, somebody who is actually within 300 feet of where the property really is was not notified. We are not waiving any of the notification requirements, but since this one seems to be a slam dunk, we are moving it forward and if it -- if the person who eventually will be notified objects, it will come back to us again. Item 5. Public Hearing: PP 02-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 12.081 acres in an I-L zone for Gemtone Center Subdivision No. 4 by Thomas T. Wright – west of North Eagle Road and west of East Pine Avenue: Borup: Okay. I think we have received -- we received a letter in our packet concerning the next item and that is of a Commercial Subdivision, Gemstone Center. They have requested, because of some items they want to work out with ACHD, to have this item deferred to our January 16th Agenda. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: I have looked at that Agenda and it seems that we are fine on the items. Zaremba: I would move that we table the hearing on PP 02-028 until our meeting on January 16, 2003. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 5 of 57 Borup: Did we have anyone here from the audience on this item? I didn't think we probably would. Item 6. Public Hearing: CUP 02-042 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window for a coffee and ice cream shop in a C-N zone in the Linder Crossing retail center by Stubblefield Development Company – southeast corner of West Cherry Lane and North Linder Road: Borup: Next item is Public Hearing CUP 02-042, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window for a coffee and ice cream shop in a C-N zone on Linder Crossing Retail Center by Stubblefield Development Company. It's at the southeast corner of Cherry Lane and North Linder. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The Linder Crossing project is at the intersection of Cherry Lane and Linder Road on the southeast corner in this location. This is the site photo. There has been a new building recently under construction on that site. This is the east side of that building looking from Cherry Lane towards the southwest. The building was approved as a Certificate of Zoning Compliance as a permitted use. At the time that the plans were approved and the project came through Planning and Zoning, there was no drive-thru. During construction they added one and so they are before this Commission tonight to seek approval of that drive-thru. It's approximately -- you can see the existing residences in the rear. They are about 100 feet away to the south. You should have a staff report dated December 23rd . The basic issue that may need to be addressed is possible noise mitigation for those adjacent residential properties. The applicant points out that the speaker for the drive-thru will be directed due east and not south, so the speakers will be pointed away somewhat from those properties. They have also constructed the masonry wall, which you can see in the back of the photo. Ordinance does not specifically address noise levels, but in as much as this is a Conditional Use Permit, conditions can be added and have been added to at least one other project in the past, which was Sonic fast food, where the City Council limited their decibel level to 55 decibels at the property line. The only other issue -- the drive-thru is right here on the Site Plan on the east side. There is stacking depth for probably four cars as shown before getting into the drive aisle. One recommendation from Brad Hawkins-Clark, which did not make it into the written staff report, would be to eliminate this one parking stall right at the southeast corner of the property, extend the planter over, that would give some additional stacking space that wouldn't interfere with -- with parked cars. Under the site-specific requirements -- Zaremba: Steve? Siddoway: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 6 of 57 Zaremba: Before you move on, that looks to me like it might be a loading entrance for that business there. Would it be possible to mark it for -- leave it as configured, but mark it for no parking, loading zone only, or something? Siddoway: It's not needed as additional landscaping per se by the ordinance, so I guess that would be up to the Commission. Zaremba: It just looked to me like that's probably the loading entrance for the business. Siddoway: I'm sure there is an entrance here at this curb cut sidewalk. Whether it could be loaded without that or not, we can leave that to discussion with the applicant. Zaremba: Okay. Siddoway: Under the site-specific requirements, Item Number 2 was the only one I thought I should point out at this point, hours of operation. They are recommending that the drive-thru window be limited from 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday, and 6:00 A.M. until 11:00 P.M. on Fridays and Saturdays fairly generous hours of operation there for the drive-thru that may need to be addressed by the Commission. With those issues highlighted, I am ready to stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Steve, these are the houses in question correct? Borup: No. They are at the bottom. Centers: Here? Siddoway: Yes. Centers: And where is the speaker? Siddoway: The speaker will be around this location here, which is pointing east. Centers: Okay so they are not having an advance speaker, just a speaker at the window? Siddoway: I don't know that. Let's ask the applicant. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Do we have the applicant here? Stubblefield: Is it my turn? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 7 of 57 Borup: Yes. Stubblefield: My name is John Stubblefield for the record. We don't have the speaker set up yet and it's going to face completely to the east, so, essentially, we are in agreement with staff recommendations. I would stand for any questions that you have. Zaremba: I think the major issue that's going to be discussed -- I don't know whether there are any neighbors here -- they will an opportunity to speak -- is the bleed out of noise from the speaker. Stubblefield: Okay. Zaremba: I don't know much -- enough about electronics. I know there are such things as directional microphones that could pinpoint something. Are there directional speakers or a way to focus the speakers somehow? Maybe you don't know either. Stubblefield: It's a learning experience for me, too. I will say one thing, on the very back of the building you will notice there is a column there and that column is three-foot by three-foot, it's very solid, and we will have the speaker turned totally to the east and pointed out away from the homes. We built the six-foot block wall to help as a barrier and we went -- I will say we went above and beyond the call of duty in terms of building this building, in the fact that we put the six-foot block wall back there. Then, on top of the building itself, in the very back, we built a four-foot parapet wall that doesn't show here, but on the back of the wall a four-foot parapet that blocks all the heating and air- conditioning units. We have tried to do everything that we could to be conscientious and very concerned about our neighbors, because they are our neighbors, and we have been here for a long time. Actually, my father and I built those houses, you know, 30 years ago. I was still in college, and so, you know, we would just try to -- we are going to be here for a long time. We hope that what we have done is create a situation that the neighbors will appreciate, understand, and it's sensitive to the neighbors, I hope. Borup: Do you have a problem, John, with the decibel levels any problem with that requirement? Stubblefield: No. I support that totally. Borup: And I'm not sure on what's available. I know I have been in some drive-ins where you can hear it clear down the way. I have been in others where I couldn't hear the car in front of me, you know, the person speaking inside where -- you know, the car in front of me I couldn't hear with my window open. I do know there are different types and they must be directional or something. Zaremba: Well -- and I have mentioned before, there are even set-ups that are more like a telephone handset. The only issue I have with those is the possible cleanliness of the people that have it to their ear before you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 8 of 57 Borup: I think there is some technology where the noise doesn't go beyond much -- facing right at the car. Maybe it was real directional. I don't know. I don't remember what -- I don't remember what drive-thru that was, but I just remember I was surprised that I couldn't hear the car front of me and -- Zaremba: Because you were going to order the same thing they ordered right and you couldn't hear it? Stubblefield: We would support the 55-decibel level. Okay. It makes perfect sense to us, because we do want to be good neighbors. Zaremba: While we have the landscape drawing up, let me ask -- these trees in this area are they deciduous or evergreen? I'm thinking of the additional sound barrier they would provide. Stubblefield: I would have to ask the developer whether they are deciduous. I don't know. Zaremba: Can we specify that they be evergreens? Stubblefield: We could do that. Also one recommendation is down in that bottom corner on the lower right-hand side of this drawing right there, if it would be preferable to put an additional tree in there or evergreen, we would be agreeable to that. Zaremba: Be willing to such suggestion? Stubblefield: You bet. Zaremba: Okay. Centers: Mr. Stubblefield, when you built the building, did you build it with the drive-up with the thought that you would have a tenant for that space? Stubblefield: No, we did not. Centers: Well, you built it with the drive-up, though. Stubblefield: Well, what happened was we designed the building and we got the approval. Then, shortly after we got the approval and started construction, we had a tenant who came to us and said we would take this, the east end, if you would put a drive-up window in there. Actually, while we were right in the design of the whole thing, we went back to the architect, we went back to the engineer, we went back to Planning, actually -- Centers: Good. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 9 of 57 Stubblefield: -- and had discussions with them, can this work, and, you know, we planned the whole thing out -- Centers: And Planning told you with a CUP? Stubblefield: Yes. Centers: Okay. Stubblefield: Actually, it's kind of scary to be standing up here in front of you, I must say. Centers: Relax. Relax. How do you feel about the thought -- and I'm in agreement, if this is going to be a business that does much business at all, there is only stacking for three cars. Stubblefield: There are. Centers: So, you know, I think my most important concern is a little more -- having enough room for a couple more cars around the bend. Stubblefield: As part of the design we have -- how many over -- Siddoway: I don't know exactly, but I know it's -- Stubblefield: We were required to have 75 or 76 and I think we have 102. Siddoway: Yes. You're at least 20 over. Centers: So if you lose this one, that's no big problem. Stubblefield: It's no problem at all. We would be happy to mark that as loading or employee parking or -- Centers: Just around the landscape. Stubblefield: Yes. Right. Centers: Block it out. Stubblefield: We would be happy with that. Zaremba: Does that still leave a loading area for you, though? Stubblefield: You bet. Sure. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 10 of 57 Zaremba: Okay. Stubblefield: This is over-designed. Zaremba: While you're there, let me ask a question that I probably would want staff and you both to respond to. Stubblefield: Okay. Zaremba: Late last year we had a request to add a drive-thru to an exiting building in the Fred Meyer Shopping Center for a coffee and yogurt shop or something. I forget what it was. Centers: Moxie Java. Zaremba: Moxie Java but, anyhow, not a full sandwich service restaurant and we put a limitation on that, that it had to continue to be that kind of business, so that the stacking lengths wouldn't go on. First, to the staff, am I correct that that went through that way if you remember? Borup: It got built. Siddoway: I know it was approved. It went through. I don't know if that limitation for the use remained as a similar use and not a restaurant or something. I don't know if that went through Council or not. I'd have to read the findings. Zaremba: Okay. Stubblefield: That has a shorter -- Zaremba: For you, would you accept a limitation like that, that if this business left, it would have to be replaced with a similar business, not something that's going to have long sandwich preparation and -- Stubblefield: Yes. Yes. Zaremba: -- 10 cars stacking up there. Stubblefield: You bet. Absolutely. This is -- it's only planned for like three to four cars to stack there and that's all we are planning on. Zaremba: Well, a coffee and ice cream shop would keep them moving fast, but if we got into full sandwich preparation, then, it wouldn't. Stubblefield: Yes. That's correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 11 of 57 Zaremba: Okay. Centers: If I could interject. I think you're being too agreeable here and limiting your use to an ice cream and coffee shop from now until 20 years from now -- what I would like, if you change businesses, then, you would have to come back for another CUP. I mean to put a condition on there that it's got to always be an ice cream coffee shop I think is real restrictive. Zaremba: I don't remember how the other one was worded. It may have been something similar to what you're suggesting. Borup: What Commissioner Centers said makes a lot more sense. I think the stacking distance was part of the problem with the other one. It was fairly short. Centers: It was traffic in the shopping center and the whole bit. Borup: Yes. Mathes: But isn't this the back of the building? Stubblefield: Yes, it is. Mathes: So pretty much all employees are going to be parking back there anyway right? Stubblefield: Yes. Mathes: Not customers from -- Stubblefield: That's correct. Mathes: Okay. Zaremba: Well, my concern is not necessarily about the other people parking, I'm just thinking if you end up having five or six cars here idling, then, you have a noise and pollution factor for the houses that are only a few feet away here, even though there is a nice wall and there is some landscaping, I am trying not to have idling cars up and down here. That was my thrust. Stubblefield: And I support that. I'm trying not to be too agreeable, but -- Zaremba: Those are my only questions. Borup: Okay anything else, Mr. Stubblefield? Stubblefield: No. Thanks very much for you time and attention. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 12 of 57 Borup: You will have an opportunity to come up at the end if there is anything else you would like to add after the rest of the testimony. Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Now is the time to come forward. Shurte: Hi. My name is Jan Shurte and I live at 1522 East 15th , which is about four houses down on the right-hand side there. One of the things I -- just from your talking, I think you had some really good points, but one of the things I would like to bring up is that the stacking of the cars as they go around behind -- the high school is just right down the street here. I kind of think that somehow during the lunch hour or whatever, that there would be some stacking more than just three or four cars at the coffee -- and so I'm concerned about the noise pollution and I'm also concerned about air pollution, too, because of the idling cars. Not only would the noise pollution be from the speaker, but I also think it would be from the stereos, you know, that -- as you have all been in traffic and heard the booming going on. I think that -- you know, that would kind of affect us in that neighborhood also and so I'd just like to have you take that into consideration, too. I -- you know, the only suggestion I would have would be another noise buffer. I know that you're talking about the trees and stuff and I just don't know if that would be enough of a noise buffer maybe another small wall above the hoods of the cars or something. I don't know but -- and I just think it is going to stack around the corner there. Actually, another thing I wanted to say is on the other side there isn't any real drive-thrus around this area, so it's not like it's been zoned in here before, so -- and I think there is good reason for that, is we get a lot of high school traffic there. Tons so, anyway, that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Come on up. Gathagan: Hi. My name is Michele Gathagan and I live at 1538 West 15th , the second house on the south side right hand and I do have a couple things. First, I'd like to thank Stubblefield for changing the plans and putting the five-foot walkway through. They sealed the wall, which we are very grateful for doing that. One thing I did notice with the wall, it is like two feet lower than the building itself. I noticed they raised the building up a little bit and the wall is down further. Does that make sense? With the wall starting at one point and the building starting higher up, about -- I didn't measure it, but -- Borup: Is it a six-foot wall? Gathagan: There is a six-foot eight-inch wall. Borup: That wall height is determined by City Ordinance. Gathagan: Yes. Borup: So that's why it's at that height. Gathagan: I noticed it was like -- then, the building was up higher -- was raised up a little higher than what the wall is from the side -- from the back -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 13 of 57 Zaremba: You're saying there is a ground slope, so that -- Gathagan: Yes. Zaremba: -- the base of the building is actually higher than the base of the wall. Gathagan: Exactly. Zaremba: Therefore, the top heights are exaggerated. Gathagan: Yes and I do have a few questions. Who is the applicant that wants the drive-thru window and have they been around before and had to move, like you said, Albertson's Credit Union had a Moxie Java, yogurt shop, and, then, closed, so I was kind of curious, if I can ask that, who that -- Borup: Who closed? Gathagan: Oh, they didn't close? Oh. Okay. I was just curious who it was. The second one is now understanding the way the traffic is going. I do have a high concern of radios and the stereos and the loud motors and the -- you know, the V-8's going with -- you know, where the back up stacking of the traffic is, if it got around to the back, because I am the second house in. Unfortunately, the first two houses on that side of the fence are rentals and, then, I own the property right after that. That's why some of the people aren't here for that. Centers: I was going to ask -- this is a rental home? Gathagan: That is a rental home. Centers: Okay. Gathagan: And I did also want to find out the hours of the operation and if they would change it for being a coffee shop. If they would say, oh, we are going to open at 4:00 the day after Thanksgiving, so you can get your coffees and go stand in line at ShopKo or whatever that's opening up. I did want to know, as well as the Moxie Java across the street in the other shopping center do not have a drive-thru window and they do just fine, they have doing great since they have been there. That's all I had. Zaremba: Let me -- comment one. We have in our packet that the hours of operation for the drive-thru window would be limited from 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. on Fridays and Saturdays, which is reasonable nighttime -- Borup: That's not saying that's what they have asked for, that's what the staff is recommending that we limit it to. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 14 of 57 Zaremba: So if we approve it that way, they can't open before 6:00 ever. Gathagan: Oh. Okay. Zaremba: And, then, most nights close at 10:00 and on Friday and Saturday close at 11:00. Gathagan: Okay. Zaremba: Let me ask you one other thing -- and this may be also for the lady who was here before. I am vaguely aware of a Taco Bell I think it is, on Chinden and Glenwood, which, of course, is in Boise. They have signage on their car stacking that says, you know, in consideration of our neighbors, please, don't rev your engines, don't play your radios, and I think that works. The times that I have been over there everybody has been cooperating with it. Would that be helpful? Gathagan: It depends on the crowd. If you get like obnoxious teenage guys, you know -- Borup: Who are going to ignore it anyway? Gathagan: Exactly. Zaremba: Yes. Thank you. Centers: Miss? One other question. The other house that would be right adjacent, is that a rental also? Gathagan: Across this street and -- Centers: There are two houses that are adjacent. Gathagan: Yes. That is also -- Centers: Both rentals? Gathagan: Both rentals and I don't know if the lady is rent to own or not. Centers: Okay. Gathagan: I do not know. Centers: Thank you. Driemeyer: Hi. My name is Karen Driemeyer and I live at 1418 Northgate. My house is the one -- go back to that other one the other -- no, the other one. Okay. What's to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 15 of 57 prevent them from coming in from Cherry Lane and going, oh, no, I came in the wrong way and, then, trying to make -- go around the back again or -- you know what I mean? If -- especially when it's first open. I live where there isn't a wall, I live -- not the first house, but the second house where all the car lights are going to be coming in my bedroom window so, you know, how are we going to say, yes, you go around the back and this is the way you go. What's to prevent them from coming in the front right there and going, oh, I screwed up and now I have got to go all the way around the back? Centers: Well, there is an access there. Driemeyer: Right. Centers: And that access is for a purpose and I guess other occupants of the building would be coming in there also. Driemeyer: Right. Right but I mean -- Centers: And I guess it's a matter of getting use to it and maybe a sign there -- they are going to have drive-up signs I'm sure, you know, so -- Driemeyer: But I know I can lie in bed at night and hear the traffic on Cherry Lane as it is and I'm not directly there. I'm, you know, a little farther, but I can still hear the noise so I just thought I'd bring that up, too. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify? Mr. Stubblefield, did you have any final comments, response to any of the testimony or anything? Stubblefield: With regards to the young lady's last comments, there will be, in the back of the shopping center, a right -- off of Linder is a right turn -- it's a right out, right in, okay? Yes, this is the main entrance to the shopping center right here, but going out the back side is right in, right out, so they have got one way to go. Make sense? Borup: Okay any other questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Of Mr. Stubblefield? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: You just want to mention something on the signs or -- Zaremba: Yes. I'm sticking to the idea that the signage might help a little bit. Would you be willing to put up signage along -- probably where we can't see it -- around here, around this corner -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 16 of 57 Stubblefield: On the backside? Zaremba: -- where any additional cars might stack, just saying in consideration of our neighbors, please, turn you radios down and don't rev your engines or something like that? Stubblefield: I think that would be an excellent idea. Zaremba: I forget how the Taco Bell sign is worded, but -- Stubblefield: As a matter of fact, I made a note of it. Absolutely. That's a good idea. Zaremba: Okay. I think it would help. Borup: Are you going to be installing the speaker system, will they be doing that themselves or do you know? Stubblefield: We are going to be working together on it, but we will end up doing it ourselves. Borup: Okay. Stubblefield: So I will have control over it. Okay? Borup: So, then, no problem with one of those directional -- a directional type -- Stubblefield: If you have to call maintenance, yes, I will come down and fix it. Borup: No. I mean a directional type speaker. I don't know the difference, but I -- you can sure tell a difference and I'm sure the salesman of whoever would be able to tell you that. Stubblefield: We will get it right. Borup: Okay. Commissioners? Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT. Borup: Any discussion? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 17 of 57 Centers: Well, it's really -- Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, it's an easy one, because the application is so agreeable. I think we have satisfied the neighbors that have come tonight with a little signage and I would also like to see a sign there as they enter from Cherry Lane that said something -- drive-in -- or drive-thru access, please, enter on Linder Road because I agree with you, ma'am -- Borup: Well, you can't come down Cherry Lane and enter from Linder, though. Centers: Right here. No but there should -- what we are talking about is a sign here, Mr. Chairman, that says improper access for drive-thru facility or something like that to let the people know that if you want to get to the drive-thru, you come back around this way. Borup: Yes. Centers: And, then, after a period of time, I think even less than a year, they will get used to it and the sign wouldn't even be read anymore, but -- then, I'd also like to see this parking space removed and extend the landscaping in front of it and the applicant has no problem with that. Then, the signage, as Commissioner Zaremba pointed out, out of courtesy to the neighbors, please, lower your radio and -- Borup: What do the Commissioners feel about another tree right in this area, maybe an evergreen or something? Centers: Yes. Zaremba: I think that's a good idea. On Commissioner Centers' suggestion, I like the idea of having directional signage on that Cherry Lane driveway. I'm not sure that I would steer them back out to Linder, but at least make sure they know that they need to go around the building this way. Centers: Yes something that -- Zaremba: Inside the property. Centers: Right. Exactly. Zaremba: Okay. Access to drive-thru or something like that, left here or whatever it -- Centers: Right. Zaremba: Some signage that directs them around the building. Those are in addition to the conditions that staff has already said. I see the issue being 55 decibels, a little signage, some evergreen trees and that one parking spot. Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 18 of 57 Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 6 on our Agenda, CUP 02-042, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window for a coffee and ice cream shop in a C-N zone in the Linder Crossing Retail Center by Stubblefield Development Company. Southeast corner of West Cherry Lane and North Linder Road, to include all staff comments, with the following additions. That the -- an attempt be made to find a directional speaker and that in all cases the sound level be limited to 55 decibels at the property line. That the applicant supply some signage at the Cherry Lane entrance directing users around the property in the right direction and some signage behind the building asking cooperation in keeping the sound down. That the trees in the landscape planter along the south and the east end of the south planter be evergreen, with one additional tree to the right of what looks like a trash enclosure -- to the east of what looks like a trash enclosure. That the one parking spot south of the unit that will have the drive-thru, that parking spot be removed and landscape replace it, and that this Conditional Use for the approval of the drive-thru will expire if a different business goes in there. Centers: I have a question on the 55 decibels. You mentioned at the wall or is that at the speaker? Siddoway: It's at the wall. Centers: It's at the wall? Zaremba: I think the previous one was at the property line. Centers: Okay. I second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 7. Public Hearing: CUP 02-044 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a sports bar and grill in a C-G zone for Muggsy’s Bar & Grill by Michael McGuinness – south of East Fairview Avenue, east of North Locust Grove Road on East Wilson Lane: Borup: The next item is Public Hearing CUP 02-044, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a sports bar and grill in a C-G zone for Muggsy's Bar & Grill by Michael McGuinness. This is south of Fairview Avenue and east of North Locust Grove on Wilson Lane. We will open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The proposed Muggsy's Bar and Grill is near the intersection of Locust Grove and Fairview. The other surrounding businesses include Hollywood Video, Wingers, D&B, and Eddie's Bakery. You should have a staff report dated December 19th . The Site Plan is in compliance with City Ordinances. Go through this just a little bit. You can see those existing Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 19 of 57 businesses on this aerial photo, with this being a -- currently a vacant lot, surrounded by the other existing businesses and their associated parking lots. Two site photos. One looking east from Locust Grove Road this would be Eddie's Bakery and Hollywood Video would be just off the screen to the left. The subject property is the vacant parcel where the red arrow is pointing. Then, standing at Fairview Avenue between Hollywood Video and Wingers, the subject property would be due south from there, as shown on the photo there as well. This is their proposed site and Landscape Plan. The building would sit on their western edge of the property with the parking spaces on the east side. The only thing that really generated some discussion among the planners was the proposed crushed rock or gravel area that is on the length of the west side of the building. Technically, that -- its not in violation of the Landscape Ordinance. This being a Conditional Use Permit, if the Commission sees fit to require landscaping there, it could be made part of the Conditional Use Permit, but as currently proposed it would be just a crushed rock surface around the building. Borup: Steve, what's on the adjacent property? Siddoway: The adjacent property on this side would be Eddie's Bakery. Borup: Yes I meant as far as landscaping that this would be abutting against or do we know? I can't see -- from the aerial photo it doesn't look like it has much. That's why I was wondering. Siddoway: I honestly don't know. It would be just on that side of the building. I didn't go specifically and look at it. The only other thing that I would like to bring to your attention is this site was the subject of another application recently for an off-premise sign. That application was denied. The applicant at that time was requesting that they be allowed to construct an off-premise sign out along the frontage of Fairview to direct people to the business back here, because it actually has no frontage along any of the major roads. It does have frontage along Wilson Lane back here. I just want to make sure -- and the applicant I know is aware of this, that signage would be restricted to the lot itself and that no off-premise signs would be allowed for the business. With that said, I will stand for any questions. Centers: So the rock is really on the west side correct, Steve in here? Siddoway: Correct. Centers: Next to Eddie's? Okay. Siddoway: The proposed rock is right along this side. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Does the applicant have a presentation they'd like to make? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 20 of 57 McGuinness: My name is Michael McGuinness and I'm representing Muggsy's. Your question to what was on the west side of the building, it's just an empty lot with brush. There is no landscaping there. Borup: On the west side of the building? Isn't that -- McGuinness: From Eddie's Bakery -- from the Eddie's Bakery side it would be the west side where the crushed rock is. Borup: Yes. You adjoin Eddie's Bakery. McGuinness: Yes and there is -- it's just grown up brush on that. Borup: Oh, on Eddie's property. McGuinness: On Eddie's property, yes. Borup: Okay. McGuinness: But, no, I don't really have anything to add. I think I fit the zoning and planning regulations with opening a bar. I'm not within 300 feet of a church or a school. I plan to put food in. I have changed the name. I submitted last summer for a different location and I think the name had something to do with it, so I changed the name of the bar and I have tried to do everything I possibly could to satisfy the city in order to open a sports bar. That being said, I don't have any more comments, unless you have some questions. Mathes: I have a question. Trash. They want your enclosure bigger. Do you have a problem with that? McGuinness: Pardon me? Mathes: Do you have a problem with making your trash enclosure bigger? McGuinness: I don't. Borup: That was one of the staff comments from Sanitary Services. That was one of their comments. McGuinness: I don't, no. It's just that's what the architect drew up and if it needs to be bigger, that's fine with me. As far as the crushed rock goes, I -- he did that without my knowing. I'd much rather have asphalt or I think -- unless I have to put landscape on that side, but I'd rather have asphalt, so -- Borup: Believe you do need landscaping. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 21 of 57 McGuinness: Oh, do you? Well, not on -- Borup: Steve, because it's like use you don't? Siddoway: That would certainly be our preference for landscaping. The way the -- the perimeter landscaping requirements by the ordinance state that they are required along internal lot lines adjacent to any vehicular use. There is vehicle use there, so by the Landscape Ordinance it's not a required perimeter landscape area. Borup: But you'd rather see crushed rock than asphalt? Siddoway: Yes. I'd rather see plants than crushed rock. Borup: Yes. I had a question on -- and I guess apparently there is enough -- parking is adequate? McGuinness: The parking? Borup: Yes. McGuinness: There are only 21 spots required and I have 31. Borup: Okay. Centers: Why would you want it to be asphalt so maybe employees could park parallel in the back? McGuinness: I could park back there and come in and out the extra door, just for -- and perhaps the delivery of the beer. Centers: Has staff been approached about that or what are their feelings about that? Siddoway: You'd have to add a five-foot landscape buffer, because there would be vehicle use. McGuinness: Let's leave it crushed rock. Zaremba: Is that a delivery entrance at the end of that crushed rock there? McGuinness: No, that -- no. They can come in the front entrance. Zaremba: Thank you. McGuinness: It's just the extra exit for a fire exit. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 22 of 57 Zaremba: I vaguely remember the earlier application for this little place across the street and there was some discussion, then, about appropriateness of dress of your staff. Is there anything in our ordinances that controls that or -- McGuinness: Absolutely Chapter 10 in the City Ordinance. Zaremba: Meridian City Ordinance? McGuinness: Absolutely. Zaremba: Okay so they need to be appropriately dressed? McGuinness: Yes. If not, I need a Conditional Use Permit and I need to be in an industrial area. Zaremba: So you understand all that? McGuinness: I certainly understand. Zaremba: We don't need to add anything? McGuinness: We don't need to bring that up again. Zaremba: I don't have any other questions. Borup: Thank you. McGuinness: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Centers: Well, I would move we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Centers: Mr. McGuinness gets an A for effort from me. He wants to come to Meridian and he's willing to pay to play. He's going in there with a lot more overhead, I have got to think, and he's wanting to be in the city. I think we should welcome him with open arms. He's in an area that's off the beaten path. He's going to have to draw traffic by word of mouth. He knows there is no signage on Fairview -- correct? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 23 of 57 McGuinness: I know that. Centers: He nods yes so I think we should approve it just as submitted. I would make that recommendation to approve CUP 02-044, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a sports bar and grill in a C-G zone for Muggsy's Bar and Grill by Michael McGuinness, south of East Fairview Avenue, east of North Locust Grove, on East Wilson Lane, including all staff comments and the fact that he will make the trash enclosure a little bigger to satisfy SSI. Zaremba: Second. Centers: End of motion. Zaremba: I second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 8. Public Hearing: AZ 02-026 Request for annexation and zoning of 35.94 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Burney Glen Subdivision by Properties West, Inc. – east of North Meridian Road and north of East Ustick Road: Item 9. Public Hearing: PP 02-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 117 building lots and 15 other lots on 35.94 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Burney Glen Subdivision by Properties West, Inc. – east of North Meridian Road and north of East Ustick Road: Borup: The next two items, Items 8 and 9, Public Hearing AZ 02-026, request for annexation and zoning of 35.94 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Burney Glen Subdivision by Properties West, east of North Meridian Road and north of Ustick. The adjoining application is PP 02-025, request for Preliminary Plat for 117 lots on the same property. We'd like to open both Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. You should have a staff report dated December 24, 2002, on this. Let me also state that there was a revised plat that you probably received that was dated December 30th . Some of the issues in the staff report were addressed in that revised plat, others were not. I'm going to try and walk you through that with as little confusion as possible. First of all, location wise, it's on the east side of Meridian Road between McMillan Road and Ustick, just north of the approved Sundance Place Subdivision. The site is just about 36 acres. They are proposing on that 36 acres 117 building lots and 15 other lots, and include several landscape and open space lots. This is the proposed Preliminary Plat. This is the original one, not the revised one. Let me just walk you through the staff report Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 24 of 57 briefly. I'd like to focus on the additional considerations that start on Page 5. The first one is an issue with some of the stub streets. That one has been addressed by the -- by the revised plat. This stub here has been removed, because it's adjacent to Havasu Creek and there is nothing for it to connect to. On Page 6, the traffic round about is in the center. We just had some issue with the design of the adjacent lots on the north side, which on this plat they were, Lot 2, Block 9, and Lot 17, Block 1, basically fronting on the round about so that cars pulling out of these driveways would be pulling out into the round about. In the revised plat, the landscape buffer extends up around the round about this way, so that access would be required to be taken off the stub street just north of the round about. That has not been addressed yet on the property to the east. Also, I'd point out that in the revised plat there is a change in the numbering of the lots, so the lot numbers don't exactly match up. I believe that this one, which is 17 on this plat, is 16 on the other plat, on the newer one. The next one is regarding a temporary turn around. We requested a temporary turn around be added to the north end of this stub street. In the revised plat that temporary turn around was added, so that has been addressed. What has not been addressed yet is that there would need to be a Non- Build Agreement on those two lots, probably a note on the plat, not on the Development Agreement, but until such time as the need for those turnarounds go away. Once there is a second point of access and the need for the emergency turnarounds goes away, then, those building lots would go back to being buildable. The next item on the street names has been taken care of. The street names were corrected, so that one is no longer an issue and the pedestrian pathways have not yet been addressed in the revised plat. Staff is recommending that along the blocks there are -- there is this nice linear open space in the center, but no connection to it from the adjacent streets. We recommended that in line with the -- their is some islands -- it's hard to see it at this scale, but there are a couple of islands mid block in the road and we are suggesting that at that point it makes sense to punch through a micro path between the lots to the open space. If you turn the page to Page 7, all of these changes and things that have been complied with would fall out in the following way on the site-specific comments. On Comment Number 6 with the 13 in parenthesis, that note can be deleted. Going down to Number 7 with the stub streets, that condition can be deleted. Number 9 is the one that's the blocks and the lots that are on the round about, we still need to address that one for Lot 2, Block 9. Number 10 is the temporary turn around. That turn around has been included, but we still need to talk about the building restriction on those lots as a condition and add that. Item Number 12 regarding the street names can be deleted. With that, upon resolution of the remaining issues, we would recommend approval with the conditions in the staff report and I will still stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I do have one. Hang on just one second. Mathes: Can you explain the building restrictions on those lots? Siddoway: Just to state that they are a non-buildable lot until the temporary turn around has been removed. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 25 of 57 Mathes: Okay. Zaremba: So when the stub street goes someplace. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: My question is, actually, a general question. On Page 8, Item 7, talking about the streetlights, it comes to mind on commercial properties we say any exterior lighting needs to be down shielded. Can we make that a requirement for streetlights as well? I see in some subdivisions where they have pretty looking retro lights, but most of the light goes up, instead of down, and I have seen other subdivisions that have very attractive lighting that only goes down. Can that requirement be added? Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, our standard shoebox fixtures, the 25-foot fixtures that are the square shoebox, those are a downcast light. Zaremba: Yes. I like those. Freckleton: The historical lighting that you're referring to, those are approved on a case-by-case basis. We currently don't have any standard for them to be downcast. Zaremba: Okay so if the applicant doesn't mention that they want that exception, then, it's automatic that they have to be the downcast kind? Freckleton: They have to be the standard shoebox. Correct. Zaremba: Okay so we don't need to add that. That answers my question. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Steve, back -- a comment on Lot 2 and access onto the round about. Can that be handled just with not allowing access to Burney Glen, access only to Donovan? Siddoway: It may be. They also may be able to add a landscape buffer around there, much the same way they have done with the other three sides. Why don't we have the applicant address that? I think they may have prepared something. Borup: Anything else from the Commission? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you very much. My name is Daren Fluke with JUB Engineers representing the applicant in this matter, that's at 250 South Beachwood in Boise. In general, we agree with the staff report, have no real problems. It's sound like they have explained the application pretty well and we are down to maybe just two issues I think we can dispatch pretty easily. With regard to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 26 of 57 access onto Burney Glen by these two lots right here, I'd just point out a couple things. We were thinking along the same lines as the Chairman, in that we could handle this with a restriction on access, rather redesigning the lot. The reason for that is we have two design issues with these. One is we have to keep the driveways 50 feet from the back of curb, 50 feet away from that intersection. We can do that with the redesign that we did that you have in front of you now. The other thing that we have to deal with is we have to have 65 feet of frontage per your ordinance and if we go in and put a new lot here that's a landscaped lot, we have a very hard time maintaining that 65 feet of frontage. I'd just point out a couple things for you. One is that we are going to have vertical curb and gutter along the entire length of this road through the round about so the vertical curb here will restrict access better than a rolled curb would. In addition, we'd certainly put a note on the plat restricting access, because we are going to have to have a note restricting the driveways to this north lot line anyway. We would prefer to handle it in that manner, rather than going in -- we will even put landscaping in if you want to put a condition of approval to that effect, we would be happy to do that. With regard to the temporary turn around, your drawing does show it on there, we just anticipated it would be a condition of approval that we provide one. We would like the flexibility to speak with this landowner to see if we could put that temporary turn around on his land right here. If we can get that, great, we have provided it. If we can't get that easement from him, then, we will go ahead and show it -- or we will go ahead and build it as shown on those two lots and at such time as the land develops to the north, then, we could develop those lots. I think that handles any issues -- oh, as far as the pathways into the park, we would have to -- we are going to have to squeeze this road over to the east a little bit and pick up some area off of these lots, but we think we can fit them in here and do that per the request. That's all I had. If you have any questions, I would be happy to take those. Borup: Questions from the Commission? You need to pick up 20 feet is that correct? Fluke: Yes. Centers: So you would be willing to put in two micro paths? I think they were wanting one here and one in this area. Fluke: I think they wanted one on the north and one on the south, both into this area. Centers: Okay just the larger area? Fluke: Right and it's likely that this area is going to even get a little bit shallower, as we mentioned, so that we can provide that 20 feet. Unless you would rather see 10 feet, we could do that, on the paths. Siddoway: Well, the micro path lots themselves would have to be 15 feet by ordinance, with five-foot pathway and five feet on each side. Borup: Okay so how about 15, instead of 20? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 27 of 57 Fluke: Okay. Sold. Borup: Nothing else from the Commission -- Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I have one question just for clarification for Daren. The application requested that they be approved for just five-foot side setbacks. The staff report says that that should be changed to be five-foot per story. I just wanted to make sure that that was not an issue that needed to be brought up. Fluke: It is not. We are planning five-foot per story. Siddoway: Okay. Centers: Well, which is the present code. Presently. Borup: Okay. Fluke: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify in this, come on forward? Riderman: My name is Bonnie Riderman and one question I have is, is there is only just one entry and exit to this entire property, or is there more entrances to that property? Borup: There is only one entrance from Meridian Road. There is an entrance here and here from this subdivision and an entrance here from this subdivision. Riderman: Okay. Borup: No, I'm sorry. That one -- so there will be two coming -- is that -- coming in from Cedar Springs -- or I mean Sundance. These two. Riderman: Now, what is that lane on the bottom there? What is that lane right on the bottom right there where -- Borup: On here? Riderman: On the bottom. Borup: Oh, that's the property line. Riderman: I know, but where does that property line -- where is that? Borup: That's Sundance Subdivision proposed so this is adjoining the other subdivision there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 28 of 57 Riderman: Another subdivision. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Zaremba: Well -- and to fully answer your question, what we call stub streets, streets that don't appear to go anywhere, do connect to similar stub streets in the other subdivisions. There are a lot of other accesses. Riderman: Okay. That's what I -- Zaremba: Only one onto Meridian Road, but other ways in and out. Borup: Anyone else? Seeing none, Daren, I don't know if you had anything else you wanted to add? Fluke: No, sir. Centers: Mr. Chairman, it flew right over my head, the solution you had for the -- Lot 2, traffic round about. Yes. Borup: Well, Daren had mentioned -- and I think the one that probably had the most influence you said that was going to have a vertical curb clear around the round about, but, then, there would also be a note restricting access to the north of that lot on Donovan, and not allow any access to the round about. Zaremba: And am I right that we are, at this point, only talking about Block 9, Lot 2? It appears that Block 1, Lot 16, has been solved by the new Landscape Plan. Borup: Yes so those would be two things. I mean one of them they would have to do a curb cut and ACHD Permit and the whole thing, if they wanted to have access. Plus, the plat would also restrict that anyway, so -- Zaremba: Well, it's acceptable to me just to make a restriction on that lot that the driveway has to be at the north property line. Borup: Well, I think that covers it. It sounds like you were already planning on doing a vertical curb anyway was the design. The vertical curb was part of the original design anyway, I believe. Now, are we -- are we comfortable sending this on to the City Council, in light that he's going to have a redesign? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'd like to bring one thing to your attention if I can direct you to the Fire Department's memo. This is something that might cause some problems here. I'm not sure exactly how many lots are proposed in the first phase of this development, but the requirement for two points -- minimum of two points of access prior to the 51st home being built. In other words, there is a restriction on access to 50 homes until the secondary access is provided so unless -- and I don't know what Sundance's time lines are for their development for that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 29 of 57 connection to the south, but just thought that was something that might be worth pointing out. Borup: Does the Fire Department have a -- is that 50 -- is that their standard -- Freckleton: It is now their standard. Borup: Now? Freckleton: It is now their standard. Borup: That's what I was wondering. It doesn't seem like it was very long ago it was 150. Centers: How long has that been, Bruce? Freckleton: The Fire Department and Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Department, got together on this issue, what, three months ago -- three weeks ago -- well, awhile back and tried to come up with a number. The new International Fire Code that is in the process of being approved, I believe, limits the secondary point of access on 20 or 25 homes. We all felt that that was way too restrictive. The number we landed on was 50 and I believe that the Fire Code does give the Fire Marshal or the Fire Chief that flexibility for the local jurisdiction. Fifty was the number that we have approved -- that we have adopted. Zaremba: Just making a wild estimate, that would mean if they built from the front, from Meridian back, they could go about this far. Centers: No, it wouldn't be that far. Freckleton: It wouldn't be that far. Zaremba: It's not that far. Borup: I show 53 in the first phase. Is that -- 51? Freckleton: The applicant is saying 51 in the first phase, so we are there. Centers: Do you recall a subdivision within the last year that was approved -- and I happened to have been the only dissenter. It looked just like that with no access from any other sub and there was no restriction put on it. I voted against the subdivision because of one access in and out, period, no stub streets, no subdivisions around it, period, and we had no restriction on that subdivision and it was passed by the City Council and I think it was Baldwin Park. Freckleton: I remember the one you're talking about and staff did recommend a restriction. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 30 of 57 Centers: I think it was Baldwin Park. Freckleton: Yes. It was. Centers: Was it? Okay and I guess that's what I like about this subdivision. We have another one right next to it, you're going to have other access from another subdivision in and out, and you only have one way in, one way out. The other sub didn't have the circular. You went in to a dead end and, then, you come back and it was -- anyway. Borup: Daren, have you had any discussion with Sundance? Do you know their time frame at all? Is this adjoining their -- it's adjoining their next one. Zaremba: Yes. This is Sundance Place. Borup: Sundance North or -- Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Daren Fluke with JUB. They are currently constructing that now, so they are well ahead of us. Borup: They are constructing this -- your adjoining property? Fluke: Correct. The roads are graded for the north portion of their subdivision in here, they have got all the fencing in along the Meridian Road frontage, and so they are way ahead of us. In any event, if it's 50, you know, we can easily adjust our phase line. I think we show 51 right now. Borup: Well, I think that's close enough. Is staff okay with one extra? Well, then, the question, then -- you have got no problem with restricting it to the first phase? Fluke: No. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I personally think that kind of requirement is certainly reasonable for safety considerations and I may have voted against Commissioner Centers on the one he's talking about, but I have since voted for such restrictions on other -- Borup: I thought we had talked about a temporary access on that other one. Zaremba: Well, on some of them we have, but, you know, a non-build on a lot, this one doesn't appear to be configured that way, but -- Freckleton: The one that you were talking about did get approved with a temporary. Zaremba: Another way out. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 31 of 57 Freckleton: Yes so it did have secondary access -- Centers: By the Council. Freckleton: -- through lots. Mathes: Right. Borup: That's what we discussed, too. Okay. Commissioners, we have not closed the hearing. Zaremba: I move that the Public Hearing be closed. Mathes: Second. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Zaremba: I think the only issue is whether the revisions that are going to be made, such as putting in the pathway and stuff, is that a significant enough change that we need to see the Preliminary Plat again or are those minor changes? Siddoway: If it's just the micro paths and the fact that it may be shifting a little, we could probably review that just at staff level right before Council. As along as it's not something that's going to alter the configuration of the road system, lotting pattern, things like that. If it's just a micro path, which it's sounding more and more like it is, then, I think we could review that at staff level prior to Council. Borup: Okay makes sense. Centers: I think the project, as the staff points out, meets the Comprehensive Plan. We don't have any neighbors here objecting to the project, which surprises me not that it's not a good project, but that's surprises me. Zaremba: You put up a sign you draw a crowd. Centers: Wanting a fence and the like, but, anyway, I'd like to see it go through and you kept good notes, Commissioner Zaremba? Zaremba: I probably can do it, yes. Centers: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 32 of 57 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 02-026, request for annexation and zoning of 35.94 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Burney Glen Subdivision by Properties West, Inc., east of North Meridian Road and north of East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PP 02-025, request for Preliminary Plat -- request for Preliminary Plat approval of 117 building lots and 15 other lots on 35.94 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Burney Glen Subdivision by Properties West, Inc. East of North Meridian Road and north of East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments, with the following exceptions. Under site-specific comments, Preliminary Plat, on Page 7, Paragraph 6, Subparagraph Parenthesis 13, can be deleted as satisfied. Paragraph 7 can be deleted as satisfied. Paragraph 9, Lot 17, Block 1, can be removed and this would be changed to state that an agreement would be on the plat that Lot 2, Block 9, will have access only to -- was it Donovan? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Item 10, as a temporary turn around is required, but may be satisfied in one of two ways, either by the hammerhead shown on the plat, in which case there will also be a Non-Build Agreement for Block 1, Lot 16, and Block 9, Lot 1. That those cannot be built until that street connects somewhere, or the applicant can provide an agreement with the adjoining property owner that the turnaround can be placed on the property to the north. Paragraph 12 -- we are still on Page 7, staff comments. Paragraph 12 is deleted as satisfied. I believe that's it. Centers: The Fire Department. Zaremba: And the ped paths were a requirement. Centers: Item Number 8. Zaremba: Yes. They are already stated as a requirement. I'm assuming that among staff -- when we say staff comments that include the Fire Department and Public Works and school district or anybody else that contributes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 33 of 57 Borup: Maybe one minor thing -- Zaremba: Unless we want to modify -- the applicant has asked for a Phase 1 of 51 building lots and I would modify the Fire Department requirement to say that 51 lots, the first phase, could be built until they are two accesses. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, the applicant is indicating that in the revised plat, when they modified the lotting pattern on the revised plat to conform with ACHD and other things, the number of lots changed from 117 to 119 lots, so we want to make sure that that is just clarified, that there are 119 building lots and not 117. Centers: Well, I was going to ask -- Zaremba: Are there still 15 other lots? Siddoway: Twelve other lots. Zaremba: Okay so the maker of the motion amends the motion to say that there are 119 building lots and 12 other lots. Centers: And it's based on the revised plat received by the city on December 20th . Zaremba: Dated December 20th . Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Centers: Which I never had. Zaremba: Have I missed anything? Siddoway: Just one point of clarification. On the discussion about the Non-Build Agreement for the temporary turn around, we'd just like to clarify that that's not a Non- Development Agreement, but it can be simply satisfied with a note on the plat, that that would be unbuildable if it is provided on those lots, until such time as it connects through. Zaremba: That's fine. Siddoway: As a note on the plat. Zaremba: And is it satisfactory if, before this gets to the City Council, the applicant has an agreement with the property owner to the north -- Siddoway: Yes. That part's fine. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 34 of 57 Siddoway: I just wanted to clarify that a note on the plat and not a -- Zaremba: If it's the hammerhead on this property, then, a note on the plat is satisfactory for that. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. I believe I have done it. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 02-028 Request for annexation and zoning of 81.54 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Cedar Springs North Subdivision by Howell-Murdoch Development Corporation – south of West McMillan Road and west of North Meridian Road: Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 02-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 197 building lots and 33 other lots on 81.54 acres in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Cedar Springs North Subdivision by Howell- Murdoch Development Corporation – south of West McMillan Road and west of North Meridian Road: Borup: The next two items, Public Hearing AZ 02-028, a request for annexation and zoning of 81.54 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Cedar Springs North Subdivision by Howell-Murdoch Development Corporation, south of West McMillan Road and west of North Meridian Road. Also, Public Hearing PP 02-027, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 197 building lots and 33 other lots on the same property by the same applicant. I'd like to open both of these Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The vicinity map before you shows the location of the proposed Cedar Springs North Subdivision near the intersections of McMillan Road and Meridian Road. The project that we were just talking about is southeast of here and across Meridian Road. The approved Cedar Springs project is to the south and the Baldwin Park project, which was also discussed during the last Public Hearing, is to the west of the proposed project. You have a request for annexation and zoning of 81 and a half acres, as well as a Preliminary Plat for 197 building lots and 33 other lots. This is the layout of the proposed Preliminary Plat. On this orientation north is to the right. This would be McMillan Road and the entrance -- the main entrance comes off of McMillan Road. Up in the northwest corner of the property they are proposing an office park and there is a large remnant parcel on the northeast corner of the property for a future single-family attached project for which Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 35 of 57 they are requesting conceptual approval for of the use without a proposed layout tonight. The remainder of it is a single-family detached project. You can see the open spaces patched in. Let's see. You should have a staff report dated December 31st and most of the issues for discussion are in the additional considerations. On the annexation there is only one and that is regarding a Non-Development Agreement on the large future single-family attached project out along McMillan Road. That project is going to have to come back for future approvals before it's built on. We would request that as part of the Development Agreement on the property there is, in this case, a Non- Development Agreement for that lot until such future approvals are granted. Specifically, the staff report asks that that approval go through the Planned Development process and the reason that was added was to try to insure that this project also has adequate open space and amenities that may not be granted if -- or provided if the project does not go through as a Planned Development. That said, I had a conversation with the applicant this afternoon and proposed if -- it is feasible for a single-family attached project to come through as a permitted use. If we can come to some kind of an agreement tonight as to what -- how much open space and what type of amenities should be provided on that future project, we could simply add that to the Development Agreement and strike the requirement for the Planned Development, unless it's otherwise required by ordinance, of course. It wouldn't necessarily be required if we can conceptually say that, you know, 10 percent open space and a tot lot will be required or something, you know, whatever that ends up being. That was the thinking behind the requirement for a Planned Development on that parcel in the future. Borup: Are you saying for annexation for the Preliminary Plat? Siddoway: That would be a condition of annexation. Borup: Okay. Centers: He'd still have to come back, though, Steve. Borup: With a Preliminary Plat. Siddoway: He still has to come back with a Preliminary Plat it may not necessarily have to come back with a Planned Development. Centers: Yes. Yes. Right. Siddoway: That's why I was thinking about the amenities that would provide -- be provided in that higher density area. They do have quite a bit of open space for the project as a whole. It's -- I think it's over 10 percent for the project as a whole with those three large park parcels and we'd just like to make sure that the higher density area received the same treatment -- it would actually be in more need of the open space. It's important for them. Okay. Moving on. On Page 6 at the bottom, the additional considerations for the plat itself. The first one just talks about lot dimensions and setbacks. This has not been submitted as a planned development today, it is just a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 36 of 57 straight plat, so I was just pointing out that we are not amending any of our standard ordinance requirements with this application. That said, on Number 2, one of the issues is the block length. On three of the blocks they -- it exceeds the 1,000 foot limitation and our recommendation for how to solve that is in Item Number 3 and 4 under micro paths and stub streets. Staff would support a Variance to the block length if the micro paths and stub streets, as described, are provided and I will point those out to you now. Block 9 is this long block that runs along the west and, then, turns to the east. We are recommending that a micro path be put in to connect somewhere in this location to break that block up. Lot 7 through here also exceeds 1,000-foot block length. It already has a proposed micro path and we would just simply support that as proposed under a Variance. We have also asked that a micro path be punched in at the end of this cul-de-sac to provide access for these homes around the cul-de-sac to the park behind them. It would currently have to come out, around, and in this way. We felt that it would be a good addition to punch in a micro path at that location. Block 13 is the other one that is beyond 1,000 and it's this block around here. This would be a future connection for the residence of this future higher density project to get to this open space. We have requested that a stub street be added somewhere along here to both get people to the park and cars to be able to go between the two phases of the project. It's also necessary to have two points of access, as we discussed in the last hearing. In a conversation with the applicant this afternoon, they were -- one request they have is to -- if they can get a second access onto McMillan Road from -- from the future project. They would like to have this connection be reduced to a micro path and not a stub street and if they cannot get a second access, then, it would have to be a full street, but I think it's enough said on that one. The next issue is on the Lemp Canal Easement. There is shown a 60-foot canal easement that runs along McMillan Road. In the Bridgetower Crossing East hearings that were recently held for that project, the Settler's Irrigation District changed their easement requirement for the Lemp Canal in that location from 60 feet to 40 feet. We have requested that that be clarified and corrected, if necessary, on the plat. They are also requesting not to tile the Lemp Canal and that will be -- have to be a waiver request that Council will grant. However, we would state that the Commission could at least consider that and make a recommendation as to whether that should be allowed to remain open. They also will be leaving the White Drain open on the south side of the project, which was allowed to remain open during the Cedar Springs hearings. For the right of way, the layout of this project was done by giving additional right of way to ACHD, which they have since determined that they do not need. They intend to -- on this south side of McMillan Road to leave the existing edge of pavement where it is and take the additional right of way from the north side of the street, so that the Lemp Canal does not have to be relocated. That was the agreement that they came to with Bridgetower Crossing East further west from this project as well. That said, there would have to be some revisions to the -- to the plat to revise that right of way and show the Commission how that area will be treated. Which brings -- goes hand in hand with the next one, which is the street buffer landscaping. That street buffer is, obviously, going to shift with those changes. The primary concern of mine, however, has to do with the -- the way that the Settler's Irrigation easement for the Lemp Canal and the street buffer are coincident with one another and those Settler's Irrigation easements typically preclude all trees. While there is a nice Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 37 of 57 Landscape Plan that's been submitted in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance, there is some serious doubt in my mind whether it could be built if those two are, in fact, coincident with one another. That's something that we need to resolve. Our recommendation would be to either have the applicant get a License agreement with the Settler's Irrigation District to allow the tree planting to take place as shown or to modify the landscape buffer as shown on the plat to have that street buffer extend beyond that easement to allow for the planting of trees along McMillan Road. Zaremba: Just a question, if I could interrupt at that point. I can certainly understand their hesitancy to have trees if it's tiled, but do they also prefer not to have trees if it's left open? Siddoway: They do. Zaremba: Okay. Siddoway: Item 9 is dealing with storm water integration and you're going to be seeing this more and more. We have had problems recently with storm water ponds that have been incorporated into required open space lots in that after they have been approved as such, DEQ or ACHD has a requirement to have that -- the surface of those detention ponds solidified, if you will, with Bentonite, usually, or some other subsurfacing that prevents the percolation of that storm water, because of the depth to groundwater being insufficient for it to receive proper treatment by their standards. In such instances, our open space areas have become swamps. They surface -- they hard surface the area to try to comply with their landscaping which, of course, dies when the water can't infiltrate. They end up graveling it or just leaving it as a bog and we our setting the policy in place and have for a while that if that happens in the future, that those areas will not be allowed to count towards the required open space and they will have to find somewhere else to do the required open space. I simply raise that issue tonight and I know they have had some preliminary groundwater studies. I would like to have the applicant talk about whether they anticipate that being an issue here. Zaremba: While you're there, let me ask about the mechanics of changing that sometime later. If a Preliminary Plat is approved and, then, this situation arises, what leverage is there to say the plat has to be revised to have more open space? Siddoway: A note like this that says that they would -- it would have to be revised -- basically, building lots would end up being turned into open space lots at that point, but -- Centers: If they weren't built on. Siddoway: Yes. Centers: That was my question, too. How are we going to go back -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 38 of 57 Zaremba: By the time we discover this is a problem -- Borup: Well, as soon as DEQ makes that a regulation we would know it's a potential problem, wouldn't we? Siddoway: It's usually discovered during final plat. Sometimes it comes afterwards, but before -- certainly before it's built out. Borup: It does come afterwards sometimes? You have said we have had -- has there been some recent problems on subdivisions we have approved? Siddoway: Oh, yes. Borup: The last couple years? Siddoway: Bruce has taken representatives from DEQ and ACHD on a little field trip and shown them some of our problems. I think he came up with more than half a dozen. Borup: I didn't realize they were packing that with Bentonite. Siddoway: Yes. Centers: Well -- and you mentioned, Steve, a recent test, and maybe the applicant can address it, but the only thing I saw was a letter to Marty Goldsmith from Associated Earth Sciences, dated September of 2000. It's over two years ago and if there isn't anything more recent than that, I guess I would be compelled to see something more recent than that. At a time -- this was done at the end of the irrigation season, the date of this letter. Freckleton: Commissioner Centers, I will address that. The monitoring was done for Mr. Goldsmith. Common practice is to install piezometer, which is a monitoring port that you can go and check the water level at intervals. Typically Glen -- for instance, Glen Logan, Associated Earth Sciences, will work with them on a schedule of monitoring, a report has to be generated, and that sort of thing. I did ask for that report in my comments. I asked for the updated data for that monitoring program. I'd like to see -- we would like to see a full year cycle, so that we can see the influence of the irrigation and that sort thing on the groundwater so we have asked for that information. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Centers: Well, just from Bruce. Where did you ask for it, Bruce? Page? Page 9, Number 11? Freckleton: Page 9, Number 11. I have got one of these drainage ponds in my own subdivision that we have been dealing with. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 39 of 57 Centers: So do I. Freckleton: They are great. Siddoway: Shall I move on? Borup: Yes. Siddoway: Moving on to Number 10, office park common areas. The way that the platting of some of the open space landscape islands was shown on here, so that they were split between the common area and the building lots so you can see a little sliver of building lot being shown coming out onto this one. We allowed this situation to happen on another project and have recently been out to do some inspections. We are running into issues where they are only landscaping half of an island, for example, because that's all that's technically theirs. It would just make a lot more sense in the long run to have those islands, if they are landscape islands, to just belong to the common area and that's what we would suggest. The parking lot layout, Number 11, as shown on the plat, had insufficient islands shown, but that is corrected on the landscape plan that was submitted. I would just like to point that out and would either like to have it corrected on the plat or just simply remove the striping from the plat, because it doesn't necessarily have to be there. The last one is Number 12, the irrigation easement. There is a note right in this area saying that the 10-foot irrigation easement ends -- the note says that it exists along the entire perimeter. We just wanted to have that clarified. Then, Site-Specific Comments 12 through 15 were just corrections or additions to the plat itself that need to be made regarding some notes, some lot dimensions, some labels, and missing phase lines. The recommendation on Page 11, we do support the project and its mix of uses, the density shown, et cetera. We do have these additional considerations that need to be addressed and some of these may affect the design and layout, especially along McMillan Road. Our recommendation is to continue the Public Hearing to get a revised plat back on this one and to address on that revised plat those items bulleted underneath at the bottom on Page 11 and the top of Page 12. With that, I would stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Centers: Yes. Steve, on the micro paths on Page 7, when you were referring to them, I think you referred to three and on Page 7, Number 3, and then Sub Number 1 you -- 1 and 2. You just mentioned 2. Siddoway: The third one is already in place. That's why it's not mentioned. Centers: Okay. Siddoway: The micro path to break up Block 7 is already shown on the proposed plat. Centers: Thanks. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 40 of 57 Zaremba: My only comment, I guess, is a question. You mentioned in calculating densities that the currently unplatted section of it, if considered by itself, would be over the density, but if considered as a part of the whole fits within the R-8 very nicely. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: If they are going to plat that separately, is there some way to say in the Development Agreement that that will still be -- the density will still be averaged into the whole? Because I'm in favor of the higher density, that portion, I like that idea, but we need to somehow establish that we agree that the whole density can be averaged over the whole thing. Siddoway: That certainly could be added into the Development Agreement and for that lot. We are in favor of that added density as well. At the same time, it may not be that large of an issue if -- I believe it's still valid -- their application states that the lot sizes for that area will be from 4,000 to 7,000 square feet. Based on the new single-family attached ordinance, those lot sizes can go down to 4,000 square feet and they are not proposing anything smaller than what our ordinance already allows for. That's a round about saying of, yes, I think it's fine and I think it also would be fine to add that language to the Development Agreement. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Does the applicant have any additional comments? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you, again. My name is Daren Fluke with JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise. Well, let's see, Steve described the project for you pretty well, so I'm not going to go through the gory details on what we'd like to build here. I will address the issues that are in the staff report and ask for your indulgence in sending this along to the City Council. On paper it looks worse than it is and I think I can probably set your mind at ease on a lot of these issues just by telling you what we intend to do or what we have already done. I will just go down the list. Starting with the Development Agreement, which we are in agreement with, that whatever we do with this parcel of ground would have to come back through the development process. We simply ask that you make the language more broad and state that something to the effect that development of that lot will be subject to the appropriate development application in Public Hearing prior to development. The reason being, that the zone on the property will be R-8, like it is for the rest of the property, and a Planned Development application may not be required for what goes in on the property. In other words, if the applicant wishes to develop that parcel with 4,000 square foot lots and attach only two dwellings at a time that would be allowed by right under the ordinance. All we would be required to do would be to do a plat, so you would see it again in that event. If they wanted to do something of higher density, they would either have to ask for a rezone to the next zone up, R-15, or they would have to ask for a Planned Development at that time and all of that would kick in when that application came in. We are in agreement that we have to come back in, it's just a matter of language, and we don't want to be tied down to that Planned Development. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 41 of 57 What we did, instead doing the Planned Development, was we provided almost 14 percent open space in here where we were required to provide five by the ordinance, thinking that we took the entire project as a whole and that because this was in the boundary of the project it could utilize open space within there. That was our thinking in doing it that way and we would just ask that that language is put down in a more broad manner. Centers: What page are you on? Excuse me. Fluke: Well, I'm dealing with -- Centers: Were you going to take it issue by issue or -- Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I can point it out. It's Annexation and Zoning Comment Number 2 at the bottom of Page 5 right at the end of that paragraph where it talks about a condition. Centers: Right. Fluke: Thanks, Steve. Centers: But in reference to -- let me address your open space. You said you had 15 percent and the requirement was -- Fluke: We have 13.9 percent. Centers: Yes. Are these low areas? Fluke: Are they low -- are they intended to accommodate drainage? Centers: There you go. Fluke: Gary, do we have drainage in those lots? They will have some drainage, but they will be sodded and usable for open space. Centers: How much lower than the grade of the lots are they? Fluke: Two to three feet. Centers: Two to three feet. Okay. Thanks. Fluke: Okay. Borup: Did we end up with some verbiage for that Development Agreement? It sounds like you're saying that it's in compliance with the present City Ordinance, that it does not require a CUP or a PUD? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 42 of 57 Fluke: Well, I would just say that development of the lot would be subject to the ordinance at the time of development or something to that effect. I would tell you this, there is nothing we can do on that lot that the applicant would do without an application to the city. I mean basically all we will be allowed by right, once this is approved and platted, would be one single-family dwelling on that -- on that 12 acre lot, 11 acre lot, or perhaps a duplex and I can guarantee you that you will not see a duplex on this 12 acre lot. Whatever they want to do with it, you will see another application we just don't know that it will have to be a PUD. Zaremba: Well, the part that I wanted to add to that, so that you didn't have to come back and make that one little thing an R-15 or something else, is the allowance of averaging the density over the whole project, even if we see that as a separate plat. Fluke: Okay and we are fine with that, Commissioner. We -- in our narrative we talked about that. If you calculated density for the entire property, subtract out what we have already got for detached single-families, we would be allowed up to I think 112 units on that parcel and we will not exceed that in any way, shape, or form with attached single- family. Zaremba: Well, what I was going for some kind of wording in the Development Agreement that would accomplish that without having to rezone it. Fluke: Sure but we would just ask that you put it at the upper end. I mean I don't think we are going to get -- with 4,000 square foot lots on there, we are probably not going to get more than 60 or 70 units, but we ask you to probably put it in that 100 range, just so we have got design room. Okay so, then, on Page 7, Number 2, of your staff report there on -- dealing with block lengths, we did realize that we had some longer block lengths. We are amenable to placing a micro path here and here to break those up. Sometimes we just have a really difficult time, based on what's going on around us, complying with that 1,000 foot. We did provide three stubs to the west where Baldwin Park is here and I think we connect with them at least here. I can't remember if we do here or not. Siddoway: You do. Fluke: So they do have two stubs. Okay so we connect with Baldwin Park at those two spots there. Borup: And, then, the other one is still undeveloped property? Fluke: Correct the one on the north there. With Issue Number 4, also on Page 7, the stub streets, that's dealing with the stub to this parcel here. We can fit a stub here. I would recommend that the location be here, because we can do that without losing any lots, I think. We played with that today. What we simply -- and we are amenable to that, if we cannot get a connection to McMillan Road and we would like to explore that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 43 of 57 option first. The reason being, that we don't necessarily want to dump a bunch of vehicle traffic from this into this, which is going to be a relatively tight neo-traditional type layout, is how we intended that to be. Probably it will have narrower streets and, obviously, much smaller lots. We would just -- we just don't see any benefit to putting cars in there. Now, it is a good idea to provide a pedestrian connection and we propose to do that right in between these two lots right here. On that, we'd simply ask that you write a condition saying that we provide a secondary access to that parcel, whether it be from McMillan Road or from a stub street provided here, to be determined at -- you know, later on when we go through the final platting process and the layout the design of this. Regarding Issue Number 5, the Lemp Canal Easement, we have shown it as 60 feet, which is what the Settler's Irrigation District indicated to us they'd want. If it can, go down to 40, so much the better we would fully approve of that, and we will work to make that happen, so we don't see that being a big issue. Although I don't think we can get it solved at the Preliminary Plat stage, that's typically something we would have, you know, finally figured out with the license agreement and the easement in place at the time of final platting, so we'd simply ask to do it at that point. We will begin working with Settler's right away, however, we just won't be able to have anything in place by the time you're done with this. As far as the tiling of ditches go, Settler's Irrigation District did request that the White Drain remain open during the platting of Cedar Springs, which is right here. We anticipate that will be the case here as well. We also anticipate that that -- that they would rather have this ditch open and that's why we have done that. We will get the necessary documentation from the district and we will ask for that waiver from the City Council. Regarding the right of way -- Borup: Could you expound on the landscaping on that area? Fluke: Yes. We -- in working with Settler's on Cedar Springs, we did have a License Agreement with them that allowed us to have some trees, as long as we stayed a certain distance away from the edge of the ditch. We don't anticipate that we will have a problem with them in this, particularly if the easement goes down to 40 feet, we will have plenty of room. If the easement goes down to 40 feet, you know, we have shown 60 we are also picking up 23 feet of right of way that we thought we had to give to the Highway District when we originally laid this out. We have 23 feet right in here that we are going to be able to play with as well. Borup: So you're saying your intention would be to leave the layout as it is and the additional 20 and 23 feet that you gain would go into landscaping, then? Fluke: However it lies out. It's possible that the lot could get a little bit deeper here, but whatever we need to do we will do. We have plenty of room to play in there right now. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Is there any pathway along that -- the Lemp canal that's going to be a feature? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 44 of 57 Fluke: There will be a sidewalk along McMillan. The Irrigation District right now is requiring that we build a road for them on the south side of that and so that's going to be a design challenge for us as well. We may have to have our landscaping, you know, begin right after the road that's next to the canal. Regarding the right of way, we sort of talked about that already. ACHD, because of the location of the ditch and the very large power lines that's along here, has decided that they are going to take all the right of way from the north. They are going to end up with 70 feet of right of way and within that, they will build a three-lane road section with two bike lanes and detached sidewalks. That does comply with what Steve's asking for a little bit later on here in the report and we will get to that in just a second, but we are able to work that out. It only works in our favor that we don't have to get a new right of way, because we have planned to do that, so -- Borup: ACHD made that decision awhile back, didn't they? Or did they? I mean back when the power line went in. Further to the east the power line was on the north side of the road and for some reason they jumped and came to the south side. Fluke: Yes. Borup: Maybe I'm wrong. I assumed that that had been worked out with ACHD back when they did it or maybe not. Fluke: It might have. I'm not sure when the requirement came in. I guess when we laid it out we went for the standard 96-foot arterial road there. We will be able to comply with the right of way requirement in Number 7 and as well as the street buffer landscaping. I mean I just -- we have to wait and see what Settler's wants and what ACHD wants, so that we can lay that in there and know how much ground we would be able to pick up. Going on to Page 8, the storm water integration. This has become a problem in areas with high groundwater dealing with DEQ and the Irrigation Districts on discharge. In Cedar Springs No. 1, our landscape architects, they will come up with a scheme that -- where they allowed us to infiltrate the water by filtering it, essentially, through a sand filter. What they did was cap the sand filter with a certain amount of loam or peat in there where plant material was able to grow, but it still drains and filters the water and that's likely what we will do here. I just point out that this is not something that we can have solved by the time the Preliminary Plat is approved. You know, obviously, we don't design these things. We don't do the hydraulic calculations until we have got a project and so this is really something that we just have to deal with at the final platting stage. Borup: Have you had any projects where they required the Bentonite? Fluke: I couldn't tell you which ones they were. Dealing with Item Number 10 there on the same page, the office park common areas. I apologize, this is -- this was a drafting error and we certainly didn't mean to split these islands. In fact, all of this should be hatched outside of those little building pads that are shown there. It's open space and landscaping that's provided for that office area and these landscape islands are -- all Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 45 of 57 should be hatched and that change has been made already. Same deal with the parking lot layout. We did correct it on the Landscape Plan, it just didn't make it over to the plat drawing yet, and so that change is in the process of being made as well. Then, on the irrigation easement on Item Number 12 there, what he's speaking of is a 10-foot irrigation easement that we would dimension to right here and what we needed to do was just make that a little bit more specific. That's for the McKinney Lateral, which serves, I believe, two properties to our west, including Baldwin Park. What we need to do is just to make that note a little bit more specific and it doesn't need to extend beyond there, because that ditch turns and goes west at that point. That's why the easement ends right there. It looks like a lot of stuff, but, really, there is nothing there that's too major, that's a project killer. We'd just simply ask that we work on language of the Development Agreement and on a condition for the -- for the street buffer and landscaping. We think we can get all those made and we'd request that you just have staff review that for you. If you're not comfortable with that, we can certainly bring the plat back for you to look at with those changes on there. Centers: Regarding that Page 9, Item 11, do you have that specific groundwater monitoring data to be able to submit that because, as Bruce stated, he'd like to see it from 9 of '00 to present? Fluke: Yes. Centers: Do you have that? Fluke: I don't have it in hand, no, but -- Centers: But you can get it? Fluke: Yes. Centers: And does it cover four or five periods of the year? Fluke: I would have to -- Centers: Or one specific period? Fluke: We will have to get in touch with Glen Logan and get that data. Centers: I guess I'd like to see that, too. Zaremba: I have a question about the unplatted area. I see by your Landscape Plan that you have at least thought out one possible scenario, which looks to me like it would be workable, except it only has one access. How likely do you think ACHD is to approve another McMillan access? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 46 of 57 Fluke: Well, at this point in time we don't have any conflicting driveways or intersections for offset and so we are going to have to offset from this road a particular distance, 125 feet perhaps. I'd have to check the number but we have plenty of area here to offset from our own drive and I'm not aware of any other conflicting drives or intersections. Zaremba: Would it work to make that a right in, right out, so that you steered most of your traffic to your entrance that's over here? Fluke: Well, I'd prefer to not be locked into that now until we knew what we were going to do. Zaremba: Yes. Fluke: But if we had to do that, obviously, we would. I just don't know that it would be necessary, because I think we are going to comply with all the minimums. That distance is a quarter mile -- a half mile across there? Zaremba: Probably. Yes. Fluke: It's a quarter mile across so, yes, we are probably, what, 650 feet or something from here to there. Zaremba: Well, we go back and forth almost every meeting on what is a significant change to a plat and what isn't a significant change to a plat. I think my feeling is I tend to agree with staff on this one, that we probably need to see a revised plat. That being said, my question would be how close would you be to including the unplatted section to plat it? Fluke: Well, technically, it's not unplatted it's a lot within the development. Zaremba: Yes. You said you could build one house on it. Fluke: We would have to re-plat it and I don't know. You know, as you're aware, there is a good number of lots that are in the pipeline in -- within a few square miles of here, so that's really my client's call on when it's time. Zaremba: Okay. Fluke: It could be soon or it could not be. I don't know. Zaremba: So you wouldn't want to hold up the rest of the plat for that decision? Fluke: Absolutely not. Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 47 of 57 Zaremba: Okay so a resolution to having the second access would be to have the two- point option, I guess. If you get approved for an access onto McMillan, then, a micro path on the south part of that is okay if you don't get an access onto McMillan, then, a roadway. Fluke: Yes. Centers: I think that's a decent request. I mean, yes, I can understand that. Zaremba: Those are my only questions. On the whole, I think it's a good project. Fluke: Thank you. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? I have a question, Daren. If you're unable to get a second access out onto McMillan and the stub road does end up connecting down here next to -- on Portage Avenue, it's not a very direct route for pedestrians to the open space. I was wondering if you thought it was asking too much to do the micro path in this location under either scenario, whether the road is there or not. Fluke: You said they are down to 15 feet now on the micro path? Siddoway: Yes. Fluke: I really need to just -- I didn't look at it in that close of detail to see if we had enough room for both, but, yes, potentially -- we are not opposed to it in theory, we just don't want to lose a lot to put a 15-foot pathway in. That's all. Siddoway: Yes. Maybe you could explore that with the revised plat. Fluke: Okay. Centers: Make a lot of people happy. Fluke: Well, we like to make people happy. Mathes: Steve, I have a question. If you put in the micro path, they still have a Variance to make those block lengths? Siddoway: They still require a Variance. That shouldn't hold anything up, though. If they got that Variance in right away, it would simply accompany this application to Council, because the Variance Apps don't have to come to P&Z, they go straight to Council. Mathes: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 48 of 57 Borup: Well, let's go ahead with -- do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Come forward. C. Riderman: I'm Carl Riderman and I live right across the street on the west corner. That little square lot. Steve knows and there is a driveway on the left side of our property, on the west side. We have a driveway that's more or less on -- the east side of our driveway and I don't know how that's going to interfere or work with the road to come in. Borup: Your question is how their main entrance is going to affect your -- C. Riderman: My driveways. Borup: -- your driveways? C. Riderman: We have heard that there needs to be X amount of feet between roads and driveways. I don't know if that's a concern or not, but that's -- Zaremba: I'm seeing their roadway as -- Borup: Can you pull, Steve, the plat that shows both properties? At least I'm looking at one that theirs isn't quite on -- Centers: I think yours is over here. C. Riderman: Right. Centers: Yes. Yours is right here. C. Riderman: I didn't know how much lineal feet that was in there. You said 600 on the bottom, so that's probably 500. Centers: You know, I -- C. Riderman: And we are probably 150 feet, I think, to their property line or something. Centers: And your driveway is on the -- C. Riderman: There is one on the top -- 50 feet off the -- and, then, there is the two into the driveway into the house that is probably closer to the 150 feet down. Centers: I don't recall any distances on entrances to a sub from someone's driveway. I really don't. We look at them if people are coming out and their headlights are going into -- we have had a number of those and we have required the entrances to be moved if their headlights would be shining right into the house. We have had that a number of times but in this instance, of course, they wouldn't be, which is nice. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 49 of 57 C. Riderman: That was a concern and I didn't know the answers. Another concern is about the road and the right of way. There is a large power line that Idaho Power has just approved to have something like 500 kw going down McMillan and it stops right about where our property is and from there on it's all wood poles, which is going to be moved up to large metal poles, the same metal poles that are there now. That's one thing that's there. If they take 70 feet off the other side of the road or if the road becomes 70 feet, we have a carport that will tear our completely. We have met -- we have walked 60 feet off from the center of the road towards our property and that would leave it three feet away from our house, tearing out the carport and the garage that -- there is a converted garage there, but it would leave the road and the right of way three feet from our house. Centers: Have they contacted you regarding this? Of course, that's a separate issue from this subdivision. C. Riderman: Well -- and I -- we always thought that -- we were always told by ACHD that was going to be a five-lane road, not a three-lane. Maybe that's changed I don't know. They have also said that that's not in the five-year plan that would be in the next five-year plan, what they do and how they handle that. That was -- we always wondered what they were going to do with that so that's another concern that I have and -- Centers: Well, maybe the staff can address that. I don't know. Siddoway: It did recently change with a -- from five lane to three lane. It was originally planned to be a five-lane road. There was a north Meridian area traffic study done recently and the result of which shows McMillan as a future three-lane road and not a five-lane road. You know, to address, you know, what's going to happen when they decide it's time to build that road and it's three feet from your house, according to these new calcs, I would just -- I would meet with the staff at ACHD and say, you know, have you thought about me but that -- Borup: What's the present right of way, 50 feet or 60? Siddoway: I don't know. It's a 50-foot prescriptive right of way so the property line – do they currently go to the centerline of the road out there? Yes. They probably technically go to the centerline. It's not a right of way by deeded property, but it's a right of way by prescriptive right, if you will, right of way, and it's 50 feet out there currently. Centers: Well -- and, sir, when you say three feet from your carport, inside your property line? C. Riderman: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 50 of 57 Centers: Well, you know, if they are in your property, they are going to have to talk to you about a purchase. C. Riderman: I would hope. Centers: Yes. Borup: It sounds like from what they are proposing, at least at this point, is they are talking about taking another 20 feet. C. Riderman: Of the property? Borup: Right 20 feet more right of way. C. Riderman: So how much from the center of the road because that's where I have marked it off? Sixty feet away leaves me about three feet from -- into my carport, three feet from the house itself. Borup: If the road is centered on the present right of way -- C. Riderman: It is at that -- Borup: It should be 45 feet from the center. C. Riderman: Okay. I was figuring -- Borup: Did I do that right? C. Riderman: Okay and I was figuring 60-foot, because they said five lanes and that's what we -- Borup: Right. Apparently that was a real recent change. C. Riderman: A change. Okay. Borup: But as all changes, it could change again. C. Riderman: It isn't in until it's in right? Zaremba: This is kind of anecdotal, but I do know that ACHD has to deal with things like that. If you picture the intersection of Locust Grove and Ustick, they were planning to enlarge that intersection to five lanes every direction, which, for the property owner that's on the northwest corner, would put the roadway right at his steps and he went to ACHD and said, well, you need to buy my whole property, because there is no way I can have a house where I step out onto a five lane road. C. Riderman: Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 51 of 57 Zaremba: Their current solution is not to widen the road yet, but they will eventually have to deal with it and I think you may end up having to say the same thing. You can't but just buy my front 20 feet you have got to buy my whole property. C. Riderman: My whole property. One of the other things that they were talking about is they want the developers to do that, so they are going to wait it out until the developers buy the whole property. Well, developers out there typically don't buy one- acre pieces of land with a house on it, because it's too much money so that's just a concern that we have. Centers: Yes. C. Riderman: Okay. Thank you. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, just reading from the ACHD report, the distance that they intend to take from north side is 45 feet from the centerline. Borup: I was close. Siddoway: And also, we did some quick calcs and came up with a distance from the east property line of their parcel to the centerline of the entry road as 367 feet. C. Riderman: Was that the whole easement, the 45 feet? Siddoway: Oh, for the road? Yes. That would be the full right of way from the centerline north. C. Riderman: And what would our offset -- Siddoway: We are going to need to get you on the microphone. C. Riderman: What would our offset be from the easement to the house? How much distance do we need to the house? Siddoway: Oh, for our ordinances? C. Riderman: Right. Borup: Twenty feet. It's different on an arterial? Siddoway: Yes 30 feet on an arterial for a house setback and if it were a subdivision, there would be a 25-foot landscape buffer and, then, setbacks off of that so it would even be more. C. Riderman: But being grandfathered in, since it basically would be -- you would have 45, plus 30, is where the building could -- should start? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 52 of 57 Siddoway: That would be where it should start if it were being -- a house were being built just right along McMillan Road today. Certainly, if they did come by and take the land, you would just become a -- what would be considered a legal nonconforming use at that point. C. Riderman: How much -- how much of the house could they leave and still be legal, if they took the 45 feet? How close to the road can the house stay, say if they cut off the carport and the garage? Siddoway: I don't know. It would be getting awfully close it sounds like. C. Riderman: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I would say we -- I'm sorry. Borup: Go ahead. C. Riderman: Steve, is that nonconforming use known as eminent domain? Siddoway: No. Eminent domain would be if they came and required the right of way take from your property without you being willing to sell it. A nonconforming use means that you're not in compliance with City Ordinances, but it wasn't created illegally, it was - - Zaremba: The layman's term is that it's grandfathered. It pre-existed the ordinance or the change or whatever. Borup: So you would still be able to keep your house and use it. C. Riderman: Okay but we have a shop behind the house. If the house is gone, we have no use for the shop. Is that -- what are we going to do there? Borup: You need to work that out with ACHD. Zaremba: These are legal questions that you would work out with ACHD, but there is a thing in Idaho law called a taking. If they take so much of your property that the rest of it isn't usable, you need to tell them you're taking the whole property. C. Riderman: Okay. Zaremba: And they need to pay you fair for the whole property. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 53 of 57 C. Riderman: One question I have is it's zoned R-T, which means they are supposed to be five acres. We only one acre, you know, but this was grandfathered way back when the house started in 1967, so it went back -- way back when, you know, and, then, they built on the house and changed it to a seven bedroom house in 1986, okay, or '85, I'm not sure. Anyhow, it's been that long that we have had, you know -- we didn't own it that long, but the people that lived there prior to us have, you know, lived there that long and so they were there 27 years. We have been there three and a half years, so -- Zaremba: Well, at point you're still in the county, so you're not subject to any of Meridian's laws at the moment. C. Riderman: Okay. Borup: Right. C. Riderman: Thank you. Zaremba: On the one hand, I agree with the applicant that it would be nice to move this along, but, as I said before, I think there are enough things that, to me, push this beyond the insignificant and significant change question, I would suggest that we continue this to another meeting. Centers: I have a question for the applicant, with just a nod of the head. Can you be ready by our next meeting this month? Borup: The 16th ? Centers: The 16th . Zaremba: You would have to submit everything by next Monday in order for staff to have the 10 days with it. Centers: He's been there and done that many times. Borup: Does staff need 10 days on this one? Siddoway: If we had a week, we could do it, I think, but I wouldn't want to go any less than that. Borup: The 16th is our next meeting. Centers: Today is the 2nd . Two weeks. Borup: So that would give you one week from today to have it to staff. Centers: I think that's reasonable. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 54 of 57 Borup: Right now we have three applications on the 16th and, plus, the one we continued so it's not a real heavy -- if things go as fast as they did tonight, that will -- Centers: First, I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: If we are going to continue it, we don't want to close it. Centers: Well, are we going to continue it? Zaremba: I think we are only deciding what date we are going to continue it. Borup: Maybe we need some discussion on that first, then. Centers: Why do we -- Zaremba: Well, if we close, then, we are making a recommendation to city one way or the other for it. Centers: Right and people have been noted. We have virtually no one here that's -- Zaremba: But don't we want to see the plat? Borup: You're comfortable without reviewing the plat, then, you're saying? Centers: No. I'd like to review the plat. Does it have to be a Public Hearing? Siddoway: Yes, it does. The Public Hearing has to remain open in order for us to receive additional information. Centers: Okay. Okay. Okay. Well, I think the applicant should kind of get a feel from where we are coming from and I agree with them, you know, the stub street or the access on McMillan, the Lemp Canal Easement, wants to do that with the Final Plat and he will work that out with staff. You know, I guess I tend to agree with that. Zaremba: Do we have an opinion about tiling them or leaving them open, the two of them? I would be happy with them open, if they are going to be amenities. Centers: Yes. Zaremba: I think the current Comprehensive Plan even asks us to go that direction. Siddoway: Also tonight was the first we heard about the road that the Irrigation District is going to require to be built. Zaremba: True. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 55 of 57 Siddoway: That certainly doesn't match the Landscape Plan, so we would need to have that amended to show that as well. Zaremba: Okay. Centers: And he mentioned that he was going to change the office park common areas on the Preliminary Plat and change the parking lot layout in the office area part of the subdivision. I guess regarding the Development Agreement, I agree with the applicant that if we were to leave it open, that -- or comply with ordinance at the time per the R-8 zone, you know, so -- anyway -- Zaremba: And the only thing I would add to the Development Agreement in protection, actually, of the applicant, is saying that the density is averaged over the whole project. Not -- I'm worried on behalf of the applicant that some day this will come back, we will just be looking at that one piece, and saying, hey, that's too much density. I'm willing to average it over the whole subdivision and I think that should be made as a note in the Development Agreement, so it doesn't get lost. Borup: Is that assuming minimum 4,000-foot lots? Zaremba: Well, yes, minimum for an R-8 zone. Centers: That would be in compliance. Zaremba: In compliance with an R-8. Borup: Okay. R-8 is 4,000 now? Siddoway: For single-family attached, yes. Centers: Yes. Siddoway: It's still 6,500 for single-family detached. Borup: Okay. That's what I was -- Centers: So, I guess I would move that we continue the Public Hearing, then, to our 16th meeting and if the applicant can't make it, then, they can't make it, but he says he can. Zaremba: Okay. What specific date do we want everything into P&Z by? Siddoway: January 9th . Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 56 of 57 Zaremba: Okay. I would second the continuing, as long as the applicant has the materials in by January 9th . Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I'm assuming we were talking about both subjects. We have two -- Centers: Yes. Borup: Unless we want it back on the one. Zaremba: No Siddoway: No. No. No. Borup: Okay. Daren, any question on what we are asking for? All right. Okay that -- actually, that was our last item, Commissioners. Zaremba: Happy New Year, everybody. Is a motion in order to adjourn the meeting? Do we have anything else to discuss? Borup: No. I was thinking there was, but -- Zaremba: I move we adjourn the meeting. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn the meeting. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:35 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 57 of 57 ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK